United States Department of Agriculture Trabuco Community
Defense Project
Preliminary
U.S. Forest Environmental Assessment Service
April • 2010
Interdisciplinary Team members discuss the Trabuco Community Defense Project.
Trabuco Ranger District • Cleveland National Forest 1147 East 6th St. • Corona, CA 92879 Orange and Riverside Counties, California T.6N., R.5W. and T.7S., R.6W., SBM
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
2 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Contents
Summary………………………………………….…………...…… 5
I Introduction………….………………….…………………………………………… 8
Background…………………………………………………………………. 8 Purpose and Need for Action………………………………………………… 11 Proposed Action…………………………………………………..………… 13 Decision Framework…………………………………………………………. 13 Public Involvement…………………………………………….…………….. 13 Issues……………………………………………………………………….. 14
II Alternatives……..…………………………………………………………………… 16
Alternative 1 – No Action……………………………………………………. 16 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ……………………………..………...…….. 16 Design Features (Resource Protection Measures) for Proposed Action……..……21 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed……………………………...……. 26 Comparison of Alternatives…………………………………….…………….. 27
III Environmental Consequences.………………………………………...…………… 28
1. Effects Relative to the 10 Significant Factors………….……………………. 28 2. Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire………………………….…..…………...….. 34 3. Air Quality…………………………………………………………...…… 42 4. Hydrology and Soils…………………………………………….…...……. 48 5. Fisheries…………………………………………………….…………….. 54 6. Wildlife………….………………………………………………..………. 56 7. Management Indicator Species………………………….….……..……….. 58 8. Sensitive Plants……………………………………………………...……. 60 9. Special Status Plants…………………………………………….…...……. 69 10. Scenery…………………………………………………….…………….. 74 11. Inventory Roadless Areas……………………………..…….…………….. 79 12. Wilderness………………………………………………….…………….. 81 13. Heritage…………………………………………………….…………….. 87
IV Interdisciplinary Team…………………………………………………..…………. 91
V References………………..…………………………………..…………..…………. 92
VI Appendices………..……………………………………….……………………….. 102
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 3
4 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Summary
The Trabuco District Ranger on the Cleveland National Forest has completed an environmental analysis with an Interdisciplinary Team for the Trabuco Community Defense Project. This project involves modifying fuels within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso.
The project is located in portions of T.6N., R.5W. and T.7S., R.6W., SBM within Orange and Riverside counties. Portions of the project area are within or adjacent to the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
The proposed action will include 13 treatment units totaling approximately 465 acres. It is expected that the units outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness can be mechanically treated. Units within this wilderness area will be treated with non-motorized equipment and non- mechanical transport.
No new road construction is proposed by this project. Because the majority of the proposed treatment units are already accessible by roads, the use of existing temporary roads would be minimal.
The overall need for this project is to treat portions of the Wildland-Urban Interface “Defense and Threat Zones” identified for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. The purpose of these treatments would be to:
• Reduce the threat of severe wildfires • Provide for firefighter safety by that could pose a risk to the people reducing flame lengths, radiant heat, and these communities by increasing wildfire intensities, and rate of fire defensible space. spread from wildland fires that might occur in the area.
Key Objectives A key objective (purpose) of this project is to build on the current proposed Elsinore Peak fuel break project and the existing North Main Divide Fuel Break Project to create a continuous band of managed fuels to meet the Wildland-Urban Interface objectives noted in the Cleveland National Forest’s Forest Plan. Other key objectives include:
• Managing the vegetation age-class in • Developing treatment methods the WUI to preserve the natural within the San Mateo Canyon diversity within fire-adapted habitat Wilderness that comply with the communities, and Wilderness Act.
This action is needed because this project’s target communities are surrounded by wildland vegetation that is currently at high risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 5
Vegetation Condition The vegetation on National Forest System (NFS) lands around the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso are predominantly chamise, ceanothus, manzanita, coastal sage scrub, coastal live oak, and scrub oak. This flammable wildland vegetation is highly prone to wildland fires. In addition, the fuel loading within the project area is medium to high—creating hazardous conditions with high potential to sustain large, high-intensity fires.
Past and current drought conditions have resulted in the die-off of older brush in many areas and below-average live fuel moistures. This resultant condition has further increased the volume of dead fuel and the potential fire behavior.
Unplanned fire ignitions started by the residents of these communities, recreationists, and those that occur along California State Highway 74 present a substantial risk to people and the environment. Much of this land is immediately adjacent to residential development on privately owned land—both outside the Forest boundary and within private in-holdings. This action is consistent with the existing Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service, 2005, pages 116-118).
Two Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed in this environmental assessment, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and a Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2).
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue to guide activities within the project area. No vegetation reduction treatments, mastication or prescribed burning would be implemented. Little to no community defense space around private property on National Forest System lands would be created. Therefore, the project’s target Wildland-Urban Interface communities would continue to be threatened by a high risk for catastrophic wildfire.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would include units with both mechanical and non-mechanical hand treatments—both of which could be followed by the burning of piles or “crushed” brush areas. The project design features and mitigation measures would assure that treatments meet other needs as defined in the Forest Plan—designed to minimize impact to resources. (A description of these measures is outlined in Chapter Three – Alternatives.)
Not a Decision Document This environmental assessment is not a decision document. This document discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the two alternatives analyzed in detail. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the Trabuco District Ranger will decide to: • Implement the proposed action, • Implement another action alternative that meets the purpose and need, or • Take no action at this time.
6 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Given the purpose and need of the proposed project, the deciding official, the Trabuco District Ranger, reviews the analysis of the 1. No Action and 2. Proposed Action alternatives, as well as all public comment on this proposal, to determine whether to authorize activities to treat vegetation using mechanical treatment (brush crushing, mastication, and/or chipping), handwork, non-mechanical handwork, and/or prescribed fire.
If vegetation treatment (under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action) were selected, the deciding official could determine:
• Where and how many acres • The time periods for of each treatment would implementing treatments, and occur, • If, when, and how each • Design features that would be treatment project would be included with the treatment, implemented.
The Proposed Action Alternative could impose impacts to:
• Plants, • Wilderness, and
• Wildlife, • Soils.
However, with the implementation of the “mitigation measures” described in this document, the impacts were determined to be non-significant.
The impacts of catastrophic wildfire—a greater risk under the No Action Alternative— were determined to be of greater concern than the potential impacts of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative—especially with the project design features and mitigations associated with this alternative.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 7
Chapter One – Introduction
Background The Trabuco Community Defense Project is located on the Trabuco Ranger District on the northern part of the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). Based on the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the Cleveland National Forest is divided into a series of geographical units called “Places”. The Trabuco Community Defense Project is located within the Elsinore and San Mateo Places. The vicinity map (figure 1) shows the location of the project area in relationship to the Forest boundary, wilderness areas, and nearby communities.
The Elsinore Place, which includes the east-facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains, is almost entirely surrounded by urban development. Wildland fires in Elsinore Place result in high levels of property and resource losses. The communities of El Cariso and Decker
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map.
8 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Canyon are in this Place, located off the Ortega Highway (California State Highway 74). Forest health in the southern part of the Elsinore Place has been maintained by wildland fire.
The San Mateo Place, bordered by large natural reserves with a primarily undeveloped landscape, includes the west-facing slope of the central and south Santa Ana Mountains. Two communities, Rancho Capistrano and Rancho Carrillo, are located in San Mateo Place.
Rancho Capistrano, located on the national forest boundary, is surrounded by the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness in its southwestern portion. Both the communities of Rancho Capistrano and Rancho Carrillo are currently at risk from wildland fire. Community protection projects are therefore needed.
While in a generally healthy condition, the lands in lower San Mateo Canyon have been degraded by human-caused fires that spread into the wilderness, as well as from fires ignited by military exercises from adjacent Camp Pendleton.
The San Mateo Canyon Wilderness is located within both the Elsinore Place and San Mateo Place. The Ortega Highway is the only route through the Santa Ana Mountains linking the coastal cities along Interstate 5 to the inland cities along Interstate 15. This highway also divides the federally designated wilderness segment in the south from the non-wilderness area to the north.
Year Round Fire Season The Trabuco Ranger District experiences a year round fire season. Wildland fires can occur here during every month of the year. Since 1991, 493 fires have been recorded on the Trabuco Ranger District. Since 1987, seven large fires have occurred on this District that burned in or near the Trabuco Community Defense Project’s areas. In 2010, the Tanaja Fire (currently under investigation) started on private lands and burned into the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This fire, that burned approximately three miles from Rancho Carilo, grew to 110 acres in size and cost tens of thousands of dollars to suppress.
Historically, there have been firefighter fatalities on wildland fires in the area. For instance, on August 8, 1959, the Decker Canyon Fire claimed the lives of five firefighters.
Existing Hazardous Fuel Treatment Projects Four hazardous fuel treatment projects are located near the proposed Trabuco Community Defense Project’s areas:
• Elsinore Peak, • The existing Trabuco Community Defense Fuel break and El Cariso • Old Dominion, Hotshot/Los Pinos Camp projects. • South Main Divide, and
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 9
Fire Year Communities Threatened
Name Unknown 1987 Rancho Capistrano
Riverside 1987 Decker Canyon
Rosa 1988 Rancho Capistrano
Mateo 1989 Rancho Carrillo
Ortega 1989 Rancho Capistrano, El Cariso
Ortega 1993 Rancho Carrillo
Short 1996 Rancho Capistrano
Table 1 – Large fires that have occurred in the vicinity of the Proposed Action Alternative’s areas.
The existing risk of catastrophic wildfire is due the presence of continuous chaparral vegetation and the area’s various potential ignition sources, including: recreational use, local residents, and a heavily used portion of California State Highway 74.
In addition, limited defensible space that exists around structures on private property combines with a lack of anchor points from which firefighters can safely and successfully stage and fight wildfires.
The proposed project would help create a major component of community defense area on National Forest System lands with the objective of reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire adjacent to the project’s communities.
The project would use mechanical treatment (brush crushing, mastication, and/or chipping), handwork, non-mechanical handwork, and prescribed fire. The proposed mechanical work would cause minimal ground disturbance. Proposed activities would take up to five years to complete and are expected to be effective for approximately 10 years.
10 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Purpose and Need for Action The overall need for this project is to treat portions of the Wildland-Urban Interface “Defense and Threat Zones” for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. These treatments would: • Reduce the threat of severe wildfires • Provide for firefighter safety by that could pose a risk to the people reducing flame lengths, radiant heat, and these communities by increasing wildfire intensities, and rate of fire defensible space. spread from wildland fires that might occur in the area.
A key purpose and objective of this project is to build on the current proposed Elsinore Peak fuel break project and the existing North Main Divide Fuel Break Project (see map in Appendix A) to create a continuous band of managed fuels to meet the Wildland-Urban Interface objectives noted in the Forest Plan. Other purposes are to manage the vegetation age-class in the Wildland- Urban Interface to preserve the natural diversity within fire-adapted habitat communities and develop treatment methods within the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness that comply with the Wilderness Act.
Management Direction (Management Direction is also addressed by resource area in Chapter Three – Alternatives.)
The National Fire Plan (Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A Report to the President; USDI and USDA 2000), Federal Wildland Fire Policy (USDI and others 1995 with updates in 2001-2006), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA 2003), all provide national direction for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, technology transfer. These efforts established the framework for a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy initiated in 2001 and revised in 2006.
Relevant goals of the National Fire Plan strategy: 1. Improve prevention and suppression, 3. Restore fire adapted ecosystems, and 2. Reduce hazardous fuels, 4. Promote community assistance.
Comprehensive strategies, implementation plans, and initiatives pertinent to the National Fire Plan are available at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/index.shtml.
On August 22, 2002, President Bush announced the Healthy Forest Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities. The Healthy Forests Initiative implements core components of the consensus 10-year Implementation Plan agreed to by states, tribes, and stakeholders.
The proposed treatments in the Trabuco Community Protection Project further the goals of the Healthy Forest Initiative. These treatments would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires and protect communities, firefighters, wildlife and forest health.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 11
Goals and Objectives The U.S. Forest Service Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012 provides the strategic direction that guides the Forest Service in delivering its mission. Forest Service programs and budgets are aligned with the goals and objectives in this strategic plan and focus areas. The strategic direction in this plan supplements the USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2005–2010.
Forest Service Strategic Plan FY 2007 - 2012, (page 9 and 10) identifies the following goals with the corresponding objective:
• Goal 1. Restore, Sustain, and Enhance the Nation’s Forests and Grasslands
• Objective 1.1 Reduce the risk to communities and natural resources from wildfire.
The Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides direction for the management of vegetation in the forest. The Forest Plan, Part 1 Southern California National Forests Vision, (pp. 20 and 21) identifies the following goals:
Community Protection Goal 1.1 Improve the ability of Southern California communities to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high-intensity wildland fires that are a natural part of this state's ecosystem. The desired condition is to have vegetation treated to enhance community protection and reduce the risk of loss of human life, structures, improvements, and natural resources from wildland fire and subsequent floods. Firefighters have improved opportunities for tactical operations and safety near structures, improvements, and high resource values. By providing for defensible space, public and firefighter safety is enhanced.
Restoration of Forest Health Goal: 1.2 Restore forest health where alterations of natural fire regimes have put human and natural resource values at risk. The long-term goal of vegetation management is to perpetuate plant communities by maintaining or reintroducing fire regimes appropriate to each type while simultaneously protecting human communities from destructive wildland fires.
Desired Condition The “desired condition” is to have vegetation treated to enhance community protection and reduce the risk of loss of human life, structures, improvements, and natural resources from wildland fire and subsequent floods. Firefighters have improved opportunities for tactical operations and safety near structures, improvements, and high resource values. By providing for defensible space, public and firefighter safety is enhanced. Local jurisdictional authorities, citizen groups, and the Forest Service act together to mitigate hazardous fuel conditions in areas surrounding urban interface, urban intermix, and/or outlying improvements (Forest Plan, Part 1 Southern California National Forests Vision, pp. 20).
12 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Proposed Action The Cleveland National Forest’s Trabuco Ranger District, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), is proposing a multi-phase hazardous fuel treatment project.
This project is located in mixed chaparral in the Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon and El Cariso areas in Orange and Riverside counties. The community of Rancho Capistrano is located on the national forest boundary. The community of Rancho Carrillo is surrounded by San Mateo Canyon Wilderness in the south. The communities of El Cariso and Decker Canyon are in-holdings within the national forest. In addition, Decker Canyon is located adjacent to the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness boundary.
The proposed treatment areas would total 465 acres.
Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the responsible official—the Trabuco District Ranger—reviews the analysis of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, as well as all public comment, to determine whether to authorize activities to treat vegetation using mechanical treatment (brush crushing, mastication, and/or chipping), handwork, and/or prescribed fire.
If vegetation treatments are selected, the deciding official would need to determine a finding of “no significant impact” to proceed with authorization based on this environmental assessment. If the vegetation treatments are authorized, the deciding official would also determine:
• Where and how many acres of each • Over what time period treatment treatment would occur, would occur, and
• The design features to be included • If, when, and how the project would with the treatment, be implemented.
Public Involvement The Cleveland National Forest listed the Trabuco Community Defense Project in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) starting in June of 2009—where this project is still listed. A Web link to the SOPA can be found on the Cleveland National Forest projects Web page.
On September 23, 2008, more than 400 letters were mailed to interested participants requesting public comment on the Trabuco Community Defense Project. The letter also described how to receive additional information on the project, outlined the comment period, and included a map of the proposed project area.
On September 1, 2009, a second scoping letter was mailed to an additional 360 people and organizations.
A legal notice for this project was published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise. The notice requested public comments from July 10, 2009 to August 20, 2009. Public comments received during the comment period were reviewed by the Trabuco Community Defense Project Interdisciplinary Team. Issues raised were evaluated for significance as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 13
The Forest received comment letters from the following individuals and groups:
Robert Jones, Christina Tietz, and Brett Nelson of Ron & Brett Construction; Wallace F. Nilson; Shasta D. Gaughen, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pala Band of Mission Indians; Martin and Linda Ridenour; Len Gardner of the Laguna Hills Chapter of the Audubon Society; Richard Halsey of The California Chaparral Institute; Celia Kutcher, Conservation Chair of the California Native Plant Society; Tim Webb; Clifton Geddis; Julie Gates; and Mark Lovich.
Public comments are summarized in Appendix B. Exact quotes from public comment letters are used wherever possible to most accurately capture public concerns.
The Trabuco District Ranger and the Trabuco Community Defense Project Interdisciplinary Team reviewed all public comments received, extracted comments relating to potential issues about the project, and developed responses.
Identified “Issues” are points of concern or debate over the environmental effects of a project. While not every comment appears in this summary, all information presented in public letters was considered during this project’s environmental assessment development. The original full-text comment letters are available in the project record.
The analysis in this environmental assessment is available for comment and review for 30 days starting with a legal notice in The Riverside Press Enterprise. Once the comment period ends, the Trabuco District Ranger will determine whether to cancel the project, complete a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, or choose to complete further documentation in an amended environmental analysis or environmental impact statement.
The decision regarding this analysis may be subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. If the decision is subject to appeal, individuals or non- Federal organizations that submit written comments during the 30-day comment period, provide comments, or otherwise express interest in this particular action prior to the close of the comment period, would have standing to appeal the decision.
Issues Key issues associated with this proposal were identified by the project’s Interdisciplinary Team through the scoping process and approved by the District Ranger. This process included a review and evaluation of information gathered through specialist input and public correspondence received. Through the public scoping process, issues important to this project were identified and tracked.
14 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-key issues were identified as:
1. Outside the scope of the proposed 3. Irrelevant to the decision to be made; action; 4. Conjectural and not supported by 2. Already decided by law, regulation, scientific or factual evidence; and Forest Plan, or other higher-level decisions; 5. Already addressed in the proposed action description.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7: “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”
The Trabuco District Ranger identified no significant issues that would require the consideration of an alternative other than the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 15
Chapter Two -- Alternatives
T his chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Trabuco Community Defense Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. (Maps of the action alternatives are available in Appendix A.)
During the Trabuco Community Defense Project Environmental Assessment process, reasonable alternatives were explored and objectively evaluated, including alternatives eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14). At the end of this chapter, the alternatives considered in detail are summarized in a table that includes the associated environmental impacts for each alternative—enabling the alternatives to be easily compared. Information used to compare the alternatives was based on the design of the alternative and potential effects.
Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative would result in none of the proposed management activities being implemented within the project area at this time. The analysis of the No Action Alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the Action Alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, no vegetation reduction treatments, mastication or prescribed burning, would be implemented. No defensible space around private property would be created. The communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso would continue to have a high risk for catastrophic wildfire.
In addition, under this alternative, there is a high probability that wildfire would return to this area with significant threat to life and property. These communities are at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to vegetation age type and density, fire history; extended periods of drought, and risk of unplanned ignition from the communities, highway corridor, and unauthorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) activities.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Background As demonstrated by the previous history of large fires in this area, the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso are at risk from catastrophic wildfire. These communities were identified as “Wildland-Urban Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk from Wildfire” (Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 160).
In addition, these areas are considered part of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) as described in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003:
“WUI (as defined by the Act) is a variable width up to 1½ miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. This forest plan further identifies a direct protection zone (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection zone (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader
16 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
definition of WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1¼ miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. Yet, actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans, and therefore could extend well beyond the 1¼ miles. The two zones together are designed to make most structures more defendable.
…Generally, a width of 100-300 feet will be sufficient in some conditions to provide community safety objectives in chaparral types. However, on steep slopes or areas of significant mortality, a greatly expanded width of defense zones may be necessary. These conditions may require defense zone widths over 300 feet. Defense Zone management activities take precedence over all other management activities within the Defense Zone and Standard 8 would apply. Some conditions may allow for less than the 100-foot width. Isolated plants can be left intact within this zone as long they are maintained in such a way as not to ignite during a wildland fire. In that portion of the Defense Zone greater than 100 feet from structures, chaparral vegetation should be reduced to 18 inches in height to promote low flame lengths and to minimize the potential for soil erosion.”
Trabuco District direction according to the Cleveland National Forest 2007 Fire Management Plan (page 27):
“This area is known for dangerous, fast moving wildland fires that require aggressive fire suppression tactics. …The construction and maintenance of fuel breaks is an important activity here. Recent drought has resulted in the mortality of chaparral species, which has increased fire suppression and community protection needs. There is a historic pattern of wildland fires burning large acreages in this Place. Construct and maintain fuel breaks. Strategically locate forest health and fuel reduction projects to interrupt the historic pattern of large wildland fires. Minimize wilderness fires related to immigration routes.”
Based on the Cleveland National Forest’s Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan, the creation of Defense Zones is a key issue that has driven the development of this assessment’s Action Alternative to meet Forest direction. Both the Forest’s Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan state: “All fire management activities will consider safety of personnel and the public as the highest priority.”
The vegetation reduction analyzed in this environmental assessment would create Defense Zones for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. Table 2 provides the treatment acres by community and the legal description of where the proposed treatment areas are located. Figure 2 provides a map of the treatment areas proposed within the project area.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 17
Community Legal Description Acres
Decker Canyon Township 6S., Range 5W., Sections 16, 17, 20, 21 161
El Cariso Township 6S., Range 5W., Sections 18, 19, 20 143
Rancho Capistrano Township 6S., Range 5W., Sections 25, 26, 35, 36 130
Rancho Carillo Township 7S, Range 6W., Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 23, 31
Table 2 – Trabuco Community Defense Project.
Figure 2 – Trabuco Community Defense Project “proposed action map” with treatment areas.
18 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The Defense Zone1, approximately 164 acres, will be treated primarily by mechanical means (crush, mastication, cut and pile) to achieve an 80 to 90 percent reduction of fuels. Such treatment actions will leave most existing trees and some widely spaced broadleaf chaparral to create a “shaded fuelbreak”. Cut material may be disposed of by chipping or by pile and burning. The desired long-term result for the Defense Zone is a vegetation fuel modification for the “understory” to lighter grasses and annuals.
The Threat Zone2, approximately 302 acres of this project, includes mechanical treatment and prescribed fire to achieve a 50 to 70 percent reduction in existing fuel. The continuity of fuels will be interrupted to create mosaic islands of untreated vegetation. Vegetation type conversion in the threat zone is not desired. To create and maintain a mosaic and spectrum of age classes within treatment units, there could be untreated areas left within the units. Thus, treatments will be rotated among various portions of the project units—with a range of treatment entries in various parts of the unit over time. This “age-class management” approach will allow younger brush time to mature, but will reduce the dead fuel build-up by targeting older and decadent stands.
This project does not call for any new road construction. Access will be limited to existing roads and trails.
Treatment prescriptions would differ in accordance with the overall management objectives of the land use allocation. Fuels treatments proposed include:
Crush Units (approximately 72 acres): A drum roller type “bush crusher” is proposed for use in areas where mastication cannot be accomplished due to steep slopes that limit access of the masticating equipment. Crushing occurs with a four- or ten-ton rolling cylinder lowered from ridgetops through the use of a cable system onto the slopes below—crushing the standing vegetation. The dozer operating the “crusher” will operate from ridgetop locations only. To eliminate the dead fuel from the project site, the crushed brush will be burned at a later date. Crushing creates a fuelbed from which a prescribed fire can be conducted when adjacent fuel conditions will not allow the fire to spread through uncrushed material. This treatment strategy reduces the risk of an escape from the burning activities while still allowing for the consumption of the crushed vegetation. Firelines to isolate the crushed material from the standing vegetation may be constructed but are not required. Fire backing into standing brush from the crushed areas is acceptable.
1 A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. 2 The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1.25 miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. The actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans. These zones can therefore extend well beyond the 1.25 mile boundary. The two zones together (Defense Zone and Threat Zone) are designed to make most structures more defendable.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 19
Mastication Units (approximately 222 acres): In these areas, the brush will be masticated to a depth not to exceed six inches. To eliminate the concentration of dead fuels, the masticated material may be burned at a later date. A maximum of 80 percent of the standing brush will be treated in the units. The presence of slopes in excess of 35 percent and rocks may decrease the overall treatment percentage below 80 percent within any single unit. All tree-form oaks within the units will be retained. Untreated pockets of vegetation—no smaller than ¼ acre in size—will be retained in the masticated units. A cleared area will surround the retained pockets to prevent loss during prescribe burning or should a wildland fire ignite. Where feasible, oaks, ceanothus, and manzanita will be favored in the retained pockets—with oaks or manzanita being the most preferred species for retention.
Cut and Pile (approximately 183 acres): In areas where mastication and crushing brush cannot accomplish the treatment objective, crews will cut standing brush with chainsaws and hand pile the cut brush. To eliminate the fuel from the treatment area, these piles will be burned at a later date. Tree-form oaks will not be removed from these hand treated areas, but will be limbed to a height not to exceed 10 feet or half of the live tree crown. A maximum of 80 percent of the standing brush will be treated in the units. Untreated pockets, no smaller than one-quarter of an acre in size, will be retained in hand-cut units.
Wilderness Treatment (approximately 60 acres): In designated wilderness areas, non-motorized equipment and non-mechanical transport will be used to accomplish the objective and comply with the Wilderness Act. Standing brush will be cut with non-mechanical tools and hand piled. To eliminate fuel from the unit, these piles will be burned or removed from the site at a later date. Tree-form oaks will not be cut or removed from these hand-treated areas but will be limbed to a height not to exceed 10 feet—or half of the live tree crown. A maximum of 80 percent of the standing brush will be treated in the units. Untreated pockets, no smaller than one-quarter of an acre in size, will be retained in hand cut units.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action calls for 465 acres of Wildland-Urban Interface lands to be treated to meet the purpose and need. Mechanical treatments, hand cutting and piling, and prescribed burning are proposed to reduce wildfire risk to the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. The acres by Wildland-Urban Interface class are shown in Table 3. (Alternative 2 maps are available in Appendix A of this document.)
20 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Wildland- Wildland-Urban Urban Interface Total Acres Unit Name Interface Threatened Treated Defense Acres Acres Decker Canyon 90 71 161
El Cariso 124 19 143
Rancho Capistrano 78 48 130
Rancho Carillo 7 24 31 Total Acres by Wildland-Urban 299 166 465 Interface
Table 3 – Wildland-Urban Interface Class Treatment acres in Alternative 2 - Proposed Action.
These communities are at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to:
• Wildfire history, • Risk of unplanned fire ignitions from the communities as well as the • Extended periods of drought, highway corridor. • Alignment of topography with prevailing southwest winds and east/northeast Santa Ana winds, and
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action would include units with mechanical and prescribed fire treatments and units with non-mechanical hand treatment units with hand removal or pile burning.
Design Features (Resource Protection Measures) for Alternative 2 – Proposed Action All Forest Service projects conducted on the Cleveland National Forest are conducted pursuant to the Revised Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) finalized in 2005. A part of those plans include Management Direction (Parts 1 and 2) and Design Criteria (Part 3) (USDA Forest Service 2005) which apply to all projects and are herein incorporated by reference into this environmental assessment.
In addition to this Forest Plan direction, the Trabuco Community Defense Project’s Interdisciplinary Team developed the following design features to reduce and avoid potential impacts of project implementation. These design features would be applied to the Alternative 2 – Proposed Action.
All activities associated with this proposed action will be in conformance with the following project design features. These features are designed to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects and assure that treatments met San Diego horned lizard Forest Plan conditions.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 21
1. In Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) perennial streams will have a 328-foot wide buffer and intermittent streams will have a 100-foot buffer. In these RCA buffers: A. No mechanized equipment would be allowed. B. There would be no cutting or taking of riparian species, i.e. willow, maple. C. Ground cover will be retained or re-established to cover 60-70 percent with litter, duff, slash, and/or grass.
2. In identified RCAs, there will be no treatment within stream inner gorge (from channel bottom to major break in slope).
3. Slash piles will be placed and burned at least 50 feet outside perennial or intermittent stream channel, springs, seeps, lakes, and ponds; and 10 feet outside ephemeral drainages. A. Slash piles will be kept small (less than 8 feet high) after initial ignition of piles. While still burning, each pile can be re-piled once (i.e., placement of large unburned pieces back into the burning pile). Additional re-piling will be allowed if necessary to achieve 80 percent consumption of the piled material.
4. Any treatment units that have greater than 20 percent detrimental soil disturbance (as identified by hydrologist/soils specialist) will require mitigations to rehabilitate the soil. This could include re-vegetating areas of displaced soil and detrimentally burned areas, and ripping compacted soil areas. A. Detrimental soil compaction is defined as an increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent or more over the undisturbed level. B. Detrimental puddling is when the depth of ruts is six inches or more. C. Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the “A” horizon from an area greater than 100 square feet. (Soils are considered to be detrimentally burned when the mineral soil surface has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and this applies to an area greater than 100 square feet.)
5. Masticators or other heavy equipment should not be used if a handful of soil, when squeezed in the hand, remains in a ball when the hand is opened.
6. Units that have not received archaeological survey coverage will be surveyed after initial project implementation. After the prescribed treatment is carried out the limiting factors for archaeological survey would be reduced. Post treatment survey will follow the Section Region 5 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects (2004).
22 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
7. Specified activities to protect cultural resources will be monitored and reviewed annually to ascertain their effectiveness and any changes that might be needed.
8. Protocol standards will be used in the washing of equipment to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. Documentation forms regarding this activity will be maintained by the project manager or contracting officer. These standards are located in the project file.
9. Any heavy equipment staging areas and access points will be rehabilitated and blocked after project completion. Rehabilitation would include returning the ground to natural contours, implementing de-compaction and erosion control measures as needed, and, as necessary, covering bare soil with slash, chips, pine needles, or cut brush.
10. A combination of natural barriers (rocks, logs, etc.), screening, and fencing may be used to prevent/discourage illegal vehicle activity during and after the project treatment. Fire Prevention Technicians and other staff would monitor the area, and if/when problem areas arise, remedial and preventative actions would be taken as appropriate. Coordination with adjacent landowners, public education, and signing would be used as appropriate.
11. If additional threatened, endangered, Forest Service sensitive species, invasive plants, and/or cultural resource sites are discovered within the assessment area during treatment, the appropriate protection actions will be taken.
12. To reduce the potential for spread of star thistle into the project area, access off South Main Divide Road into the most southern portion of the Rancho Capistrano project area will have a limited operational period between the months of December and March. Post- treatment monitoring of access road and treatment area will be conducted within two to three years.
13. To prevent the spread of Spanish broom, periwinkle, and arundo, occurrences of these species will be flagged and avoided with a 100-foot buffer from the treatment areas, and/or removed prior to project implementation with approved methods by the Cleveland National Forest botanist or Trabuco Ranger District biologist.
14. Machinery, pile burning, and scattering of cut vegetation will not be allowed in meadows. Hand cutting will be allowed.
15. Entry points and pathways with mechanized equipment will be minimized. Entry points will be preferentially located at sites with existing disturbed pathways. Where feasible, entry and exit points and pathways will be minimized to the same location.
16. All equipment staging areas and burn pile areas will be located away from areas known to have invasive species occurrences.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 23
17. All prescribed fire activity will occur only with approvals from the South Coast Air Quality Management District under conditions established as approved by a Prescribed Fire Burn Plan.
18. Where feasible, burning and the removal of trees and other vegetation will be conducted outside of the general nesting season for migratory birds (approximately April 1 to September 1).
19. To meet established Scenic Integrity Objectives the following mitigation items are required:
Unit Design and Layout: a. The fuelbreak is to be of varying widths on the ridgetop rather than of equal width on either side of the ridgetop. b. The lower edge of the treated fuelbreak will be scalloped and not be a continuous straight line. c. Randomly sized islands will be retained in the masticated areas. d. Compacted landings within the project area will be rehabilitated at the project’s conclusion. e. Roadside “eyebrows” of brush will be left to prevent illegal off-highway vehicle activity. f. Access to the fuelbreak by illegal off-highway vehicle use will be discouraged through a use of natural (rocks and logs) or human-made materials (fencing). g. Blend fuelbreaks and treatment areas with natural landscape features such as natural openings and rock outcrops. This will create free form vegetative shapes that mimic natural patterns. h. Scatter burned slash on control lines to reduce the color contrast of the exposed soil. i. A scenery specialist will be involved with initial layout strategy in concert with other resource specialists—including timber and fuels layout crews. A portion of the project area that is representative of the whole project area will be used to convey specific resource prescriptions and overall marking strategies. j. Unit boundary marking on trees will be done on the opposite side of the tree from where tree is seen from the road and other travel ways.
Immediate Foreground: a. Remove slash within 150 feet of sensitive areas (i.e. residences, trails, Oretga Highway (California State Highway 74). Inside the 150-200 foot zone, lop and scatter slash to 12 inches or less. Masticated slash should not exceed six inches in depth.
24 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
b. Where skid trails are readily visible to concentrations of recreational users, leave natural features (trees, shrubs, logs, rocks, etc.) that would aid in blocking/closing these trails to unauthorized motorized use. c. Where practicable, flush cut stumps within four inches of the uphill side of the stump. d. Tree prune heights will not exceed six feet—or half the tree height—which ever is shortest. e. To provide a natural appearance, leave shrub islands of various shapes and size in a random distribution—while meeting fuel reduction objectives around private dwellings or recreation areas.
Highway Corridor: The following mitigation measures will apply to areas in the immediate foreground (200 feet) of California State Highway 74 to meet the High Scenic Integrity Objectives (as outlined in the Forest Plan). Leave shrub islands of various shapes and size in a random distribution to provide a natural appearance, while simultaneously meeting fuel reduction objectives. a. Any heavy equipment staging areas and access points will be rehabilitated and blocked after project completion. Rehabilitation would include returning the ground to natural contours, implementing de-compaction and erosion control measures as needed, and covering bare soil with slash, chips, pine needles, or cut brush as necessary.
Wilderness Areas: a. Remove slash/burn piles from wilderness areas where feasible, or locate these piles outside of viewshed from trails and other sensitive viewing locations. b. Blend tree pruning and brush clearing to create free-form vegetative shapes that mimic natural patterns. c. Slash/burn piles are to be created in various sizes. d. Burn piles are to be laid out in irregular patterns (not in straight lines) to prevent burning sterilized area circle scars that would appear in unnatural patterns. e. After burn piles are completed, scatter brush to minimize appearance of burn scarring.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 25
Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed
During this environmental assessment analysis, two alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study
Continuous Fuel Break Alternative The original proposed project was a continuous 300-foot wide mechanically treated area that followed the entire length of national forest lands adjacent to the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso.
Based on field visits by the Interdisciplinary Team members, this alternative was revised. Wilderness management was taken into project design consideration and there was a discussion of potential wildfire defense strategies.
Some acres adjacent to private property were dropped from treatment consideration because:
1. There were no structures wide clearance to allow on the private property for the defense of that would define the structures, and
Wildland-Urban Interface 3. The national forest lands on national forest lands, within the Wildland- 2. The privately owned Urban Interface did not buildings in the area need further fuels already had a 300-foot reduction treatments.
As a result, this proposed project was altered and now appears as Alternative 2 – Proposed Action in this environmental assessment.
Broadcast Burn Alternative A broadcast burn alternative was considered to address the objective of fuel reduction within the project area. Although broadcast burning could meet desired results, the conditions under which broadcast burning would be successful could only occur under "fire season" type conditions (i.e. low live fuel moistures, low dead fuel moistures, high temps, low relative humidity). If the broadcast burns escaped control, such treatments would put communities at even greater risk.
Broadcast burning in more moderate conditions (i.e. higher fuel moistures, lower temps, higher relative humidity, or a combination of a few of these elements) would likely produce lower-intensity fire and not reduce the amount of fuel to meet objectives. In fact, such moderate condition burning would likely increase the amount of dead material not consumed—making this material more available to burn in the event of a wildfire.
As a result, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.
26 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Comparison of Alternatives
This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 4 (below) is focused on activities and effects in which different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among the proposed alternatives.
Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – No Action Proposed Action
Acres of Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Defense 0 77 Zone mechanically treated. Acres of Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone 35.08 in Threat Zone – 0 treated by non-mechanical methods (Wilderness). 60.2 in total project
Acres of Wildland-Urban Interface Threat Zone 0 160 acres mechanically treated.
222.44 (total WUI Acres of Wildland-Urban Interface with prescribed 0 outside of wilderness on burn treatment. 35% slope or less)
Vehicle and Exhaust Emissions. Wildfire Pile Burning
Number of known heritage resources affected in the 0 0 project area. Existing erosion rate (background levels). 0.9 yd3/acre Erosion rates for mechanical thinning. 1.0 yd3/acre Erosion rates for prescribed burning. 1.7 yd3/acre Erosion rates for wildfires. 18 yd3/acre Sediment savings of action with wildfire event. 0 15.3 yd3/acre Scenic Integrity impacts in the project area following a No change 3 years after Moderate to low wildfire. project implementation.
Affects to Cultural Resources or historic properties. none none
Table 4 – Alternative Comparison Table.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 27
Chapter Three – Environmental Consequences
This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to these environments due to implementation of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives (outlined in Chapter Two’s Table 4 – Alternative Comparison Table).
1. Effects Relative to the 10 Significant Factors The following is a summary of the project analysis for “significance” as defined by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40CFR 1508.27). “Significantly” as used in NEPA environmental analyses requires consideration of both “context” and “intensity” of the expected project effects.
Context “Context” means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e. local, regional, worldwide) as well as over both short and long time frames. For site-specific actions, “significance” usually depends upon the effects in the local rather than in the larger world as a whole. This project is limited in both scope and duration. The project would be implemented over five-year time period. The project could provide employment to a portion of the southern California region.
Intensity “Intensity” refers to the severity of the project’s expected impacts. The following Ten Significant Factors were considered to evaluate intensity:
1. Beneficial and Adverse Impacts [CFR 1508.27(b)(1)] Both beneficial and adverse impacts have been considered in the evaluation of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects. Singularly and collectively, the resources affected by the proposed activities in all alternatives are not expected to experience significant impacts. The adverse impacts associated with the project include localized soil disturbance, a potential short-term increase (5-10 years) in noxious weeds (see “Invasive Plants” section in this chapter). The beneficial effects of the Proposed Action Alternative reduces fuels that can increase the ability to decrease the impacts of catastrophic wildfire. The beneficial and adverse impacts of the alternatives are discussed in this chapter.
2. Public Health and Safety [CFR 1508.27(b)(2)] The Proposed Action Alternative will not pose a threat to public health and safety. Although wildland fires are and will continue to be part of the history of the project area, the implementation of the ProposedAction Alternative would aid suppression resources in controlling wildland fires during initial attack and in situations where it is necessary to take defensive actions perpetuated by high-intensity wildland fires. Firefighter safety will be improved by the reduction of large, dense fuels within the
28 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Wildland-Urban Interface. While the prescribed burning of treated areas will introduce fire into the project area, this treatment will be done under environmental conditions that would provide the best opportunities for effective control and containment. (Additional discussion on this subject can be found in this chapter’s “Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire” section.)
The potential effects on public health and safety during times of high-intensity wildland fire (i.e., multiple days of unhealthy levels of smoke, potential community and summer home evacuations with minimal evacuation routes, loss of personnel property, etc.) is far greater than during small, easier to control fires. The treatment of fuels in the Proposed Action Alternative reduces both the threat of high-intensity wildfire and the threat to firefighter and public safety. Therefore, the proposed action has the potential for long-term beneficial affects to public health and safety. (Additional discussion on the effects on air quality can be found in this chapter’s “Air Quality” section.)
There will be limited public access to the area during project activities. Residences adjacent to the project will be notified of the timing and location of equipment working in the area. In general, the public will not be in the vicinity of the equipment used to complete the proposed project.
3. Unique Characteristics of the Area [CFR 1508.27(b)(3)] The proposed action does not significantly affect the unique characteristics that include: historic and cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The project has been designed to avoid, protect, or enhance these features. Fuel treatments reduce the risk of any features being impacted by catastrophic wildfire. There are no unique geographic characteristics in the vicinity that would be adversely impacted. (Further information on historic and cultural resources, wetlands, and ecologically critical areas is presented later in this chapter.)
4. Degree of Controversy [CFR 1508.27(b)(4)] There is no indication that the effects of the proposed action or action alternatives on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Proposed fuel treatments are routine activities that are consistent with the Forest Plan.
5. Uncertain, Unique, or Unknown Risks [CFR 1508.27(b)(5)] The Trabuco Ranger District and other districts on the Cleveland National Forest have planned and completed several projects similar to the proposed action in the recent past. These projects have had results similar to what has been evaluated and predicted for the proposed action. Proposed fuels treatments are routine activities that have been conducted in the area over the past 60 years. Therefore, these treatments do not have highly uncertain effects on the human environment or involve unique or unknown risks.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 29
6. Setting a Precedent for Future Actions [CFR 1508.27(b)(6)] The proposed action consists of routine activities that are consistent with management direction in the Forest Plan. Implementation of the actions would not establish a precedent for future actions.
7. Cumulative Impacts [CFR 1508.27(b)(7)] According to the Council on Environmental Quality, the NEPA regulations regarding “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7).
To better understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this environmental analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This measurement is utilized because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.
Past Effects This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond). Thus, trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible.
Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions. This is substantiated because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions and one can not reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions.
Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects.
Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states: “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.”
30 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The cumulative effects analysis in this environmental assessment is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part:
“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”
For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.
Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Temporally, the cumulative effects will be mostly bound by 10 years. One decade is the projected time for adequate vegetative recovery from short-term effects of implementation of the action alternative on invasive plant abundance and distribution.
Foreseeable future projects in the nearby area include continuing vegetation management activities such as: mastication, pruning, slash disposal, brush removal, fuelbreak maintenance, hazard tree removal, maintenance of roads, and, possibly, prescribed burning.
There are six other foreseeable fuel reduction projects occurring within the cumulative effects analysis area, totaling almost 2,500 acres (see Table 5).
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 31
Project Estimated Implementation Type of Activity Remarks Name Acres Year(s)
Cutting, Hand pile/burning, None of the block burning, road blocks(75ac ea) are Elsinore Peak 750 acres 2010-2020 brushing 50’ per side reentered w/in 20- shaded fuel break. 30 years
Project overlaps with community defense project @ Old Mechanical and prescribed 250 acres 2010-2015 Junco meadow and Dominion fire. long canyon 18 & 19, T6, R5W., SBM
South Main Mechanical and prescribed To be completed Divide Fuel 293 acres 2010-2015 fire, reentry is hand over a 5 year break pile/burn period
North Main Mechanical and prescribed Divide Fuel 1000 acres 2010-2015 fire, reentry is hand About 2-miles break pile/burn.
Reduce fuel-loads Mechanical and prescribed around hotshot Los Pinos 80-100 acres 2010-2015 fire. camp and Pinos camp Elsinore, Santiago, Sierra, Area leased for Mainly hand and Pleasants and communication 100+ acres ongoing mechanical work, some Modjeska equipment and pile burning. Peaks facilities Electronics Site
Table 5 – Other projects near the proposed Trabuco Community Defense Project’s treatment areas.
The relevant boundaries and projects assessed for cumulative effects vary by resource. Each resource cumulative effect area can be different and possibly larger or smaller. Relevant cumulative effects are discussed for each resource in this chapter. Each cumulative effects analysis for each environmental component or resource area is guided by and is consistent with the June 24, 2005 Council on Environmental Quality letter “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” that is referenced in the sections that follow.
8. Heritage Resources [CFR 1508.27(b)(3) and (b) (8)] A heritage resources analysis (Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (ARR) 05-02-TR-58, 05- 02-TR-066-A3, 05-02-TR-83, 05-02-TR-152 and 05-02-TR-179 (Decker Canyon area), 05-02- TR-066-A3 and 05-02-TR-179 (El Cariso area), 05-02-TR-023 and 05-02-TR-083 (Rancho
32 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Capistrano and Rancho Carillo areas), identified historic properties within the proposed project “area of potential effect” (APE).
Archaeological sites or buried cultural materials not evident on the surface may be discovered during project operations. If this occurs, all work must cease immediately and the appropriate unit archaeologist consulted before project activities resume.
Site locations would be provided to Forest Service project implementation and contract administration staffs to ensure sites are protected. Project activities would not be permitted within site boundaries except as allowed by the District or Forest Archaeologist in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). (Additional discussion is included in this chapter’s “Heritage” section.)
9. Threatened and Endangered Species [CFR 1508.27(b)(9)] At present, no plants in the Cleveland National Forest are listed federally as threatened or endangered. Therefore, there would be no effects to those species. There are federally listed wildlife species. A discussion on those species appears in this chapter’s “Wildlife” section.
Biological assessments for threatened and endangered plants and animals have been completed for this project. Because there are no endangered species in the project area, consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service was not completed. Additional information on threatened and endangered species is described below and is further documented in this project’s Biological Assessment.
10. Consistency with Federal, State, or Local Laws or Requirements [CFR 1508.27(b)(10)] The proposed action is consistent with all Federal, State and local laws or requirements imposed for protection of the environment. The proposed action and alternatives are consistent with the Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; USDA Forest Service 2005).
The proposed action and alternatives were specifically developed to comply with the following laws and regulations:
• The Endangered Species Act • National Historic Preservation Act (including • Migratory Bird Treaty Act the Region 5 Heritage
Programmatic Agreement) • Clean Water Act (including Best Management Practices • National Forest and Aquatic Conservation Management Act Strategy Objectives) • National Environmental • Clean Air Act Policy Act
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 33
2. Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire If the Trabuco Community Defense Project area is not treated to reduce vegetation, the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso are all at risk of catastrophic wildfire. This reality is considered a significant issue due to the high probability of wildfire based on fire history, extended periods of drought, and risk of ignition. This situation is also considered a significant issue based on the purpose and need for action.
Background The Trabuco Ranger District has a year round fire season with wildland fires occurring during all months of the year. Since 1991, 493 wildfires have been recorded on the Trabuco Ranger District. Additionally, seven large wildfires have burned in or near the project area since 1987.
An ongoing drought has affected many areas of the Cleveland National Forest. As a result of the prolonged drought and resulting lower live fuel moistures in the chaparral, there have been observations of substantially increased fire behavior characteristics— measured by increased flame lengths, fire intensities, and rates of spread in recent years.
The age of the vegetation in the proposed project area varies between treatment units. Areas along the southern perimeter of the Decker Canyon and El Cariso units were burned in the 1989 Ortega Fire, while most of the Decker Canyon and El Cariso units have not burned since 1920. The western arm of the El Cariso unit has not burned since 1925, while the Rancho Capistrano unit burned in 1980.
Given the past fire history, the average age of the vegetation within the project area ranges from 16 to 89 years, with the older age-class chaparral representing the largest percentage of the project. The general trend is for fuels to increase after fire and for the rate of biomass increase to begin to level out after 20 to 40 years (Conrad, Weise, 1998). This increased biomass then becomes available fuel to support wildland fire spread and intensity.
It is estimated that mature chaparral tends to have roughly one percent of dead twigs, branches, or plants for each year since the brush canopies closed. Twenty-year-old chaparral is likely to be 10 to 15 percent dead, while 40- or 50-year-old chaparral may be estimated to be 35 or 40 percent dead (Green 1982). However Payson and Cohen (1990) found no general age dependent relationship for accumulation of dead material in chamise chaparral, with typical values of 5 to 35 percent for both chamise and ceanothus- dominated sites.
Ether extractives, such as oils, fats, terpenes, and other chemicals, make up a substantial part of the dry weight of many flammable species of chaparral. The extractive content is highest during the fall and lowest during the spring (Philpot 1969). Extractives are volatized from flammable chaparral by heat from fire. These products then contribute to the intensity of a fire. An area that contains soft chaparral, such as big-berry manzanita
34 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
and chamise, can be expected to burn hotter than an area dominated by chaparral species such as toyon, laural sumac, ceanothus, scrub oak, and mountain mahogany (Green 1982).
Researchers have found that under natural conditions, periodic wildfires historically burned through the chaparral ecosystems, clearing out dead plant material and rejuvenating vegetation (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, Minnich 1995 and others). Lightning was the primary source of wildfires prior to the human alteration of the “natural” fire regime (Keeley and others, 1999).
Notable for its intense fire behavior, chaparral has been classified as an intermediate fire return interval system (fire return interval of 20-100 years), that typically burns as a stand replacing fire (Conrad, Weise, 1998). The proximity of chaparral areas to urban development and the tendency of chaparral fires to cause tremendous property damage and impacts on air quality, water quality, recreational opportunities, animal habitat and sedimentation is a concern of fire management (Spittler, 1995).
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
Under Alternative 1, there would be no modification or removal of vegetation within the wildland urban interface.
Direct Effects Because no vegetation is modified, fuel loading will increase as the volume and density of vegetation continues to increase over time. Increased fuel loading will lead to increased fire intensity as more fuel is available for consumption.
For this analysis, it is assumed that the entire project area will burn in a wildfire at some time in the future. There are several direct effects of wildfire; including possible evacuation of residents, loss of structures and facilities (power lines), public health issues caused by poor air quality, wildlife injury and death. A fire starting in or adjacent to the project area has a reasonable probability of crossing California State Highway 74 (the “Ortega” Highway) and spreading into adjacent areas with human occupancy.
A FlamMap analysis of fire behavior characteristics for the existing condition indicates that under 90th percentile weather conditions, flame lengths eight feet or greater would occur on 45 percent of the proposed treatment units. Flame lengths eight feet and greater are associated with problematic fire behavior—creating firefighting situations in which firefighters are generally less successful at controlling portions of the fire perimeter (see Table 6).
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 35
Flame Fireline Intensity Length Intensity Interpretation (Feet) (BTU/Ft/Sec) Persons using handtools can generally attack Low 0 - 4 0 - 100 fires at the head or flanks. Handline should hold the fire.
Fires too intense for direct attack at the head by persons using handtools. Handline cannot be Low - 4 - 8 100 - 500 relied upon to hold fire. Equipment such as Moderate dozers, engines, and retardant-dropping aircraft can be effective.
Fires may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and spotting. Control Moderate 8 - 11 500 – 1,000 efforts at the head of a fire will probably be ineffective. Crowning, spotting, and major runs are common; High 11+ 1,000+ control efforts at the head of the fire are ineffective. [Source: Fireline Handbook, Appendix B, page B-59]
Table 6 – Fireline Intensity Interpretations.
When a wildfire eventually occurs, no change in fire behavior characteristics would occur next to the communities at risk. As the vegetation surrounding the communities continues to add biomass, Alternative 1 would lead to increased fire intensity and flame length. Under Alternative 1, no new defensible space for firefighters or the public would be created around the communities. An evaluation by a Forest Service Fire Management Specialist indicates that the project area currently has limited or no safety zones.
Clearance of vegetation will only be required to meet the standards specified in California Public Resources Code 4291, which states: (a) Maintain around and adjacent to such building or structure a firebreak made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not less than 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line, whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth.
(b) Maintain around and adjacent to any such building or structure additional fire protection or firebreak made by removing all brush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth which is located from 30 feet to 100 feet from such building or structure or to the property line, whichever is nearer, as may be required by the director if he finds that, because of extra hazardous conditions, a firebreak of only 30 feet around such building or structure is not sufficient to provide reasonable fire safety. Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet from such building or
36 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
structure and less than 18 inches in height above the ground may be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
(c) Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe.
(d) Maintain any tree adjacent to or overhanging any building free of dead or dying wood.
(e) Maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead vegetative growth.
(f) Provide and maintain at all times a screen over the outlet of every chimney or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplace, stove, or other device that burns any solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of nonflammable material with openings of not more than one-half inch in size.
Surface fuel loads in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) will remain static or increase jeopardizing their long term integrity. Optimum course woody debris fuel loading for sustainable riparian areas are 5 to 20 tons/acre (Brown, Reinhardt, Kramer, 2003).
Indirect Effects As fuels accumulate over time, fire intensity will increase, increasing the risk of damage to improvements during wildfire events.
Fireline production rates will decrease for both aerial- and ground-based firefighting equipment (see tables 8, 9 and 11) (Fireline Handbook, 2004). Increased suppression costs are anticipated for future fires within the project area as fireline production rates decreases and fire behavior increases under this alternative.
Cumulative Effects Past actions considered in this section include four hazardous fuel treatment projects adjacent to the proposed project areas: Elsinore Peak, Old Dominion, South Main Divide, and the existing North Main Divide Fuelbreak projects.
Since 2002, the Trabuco Ranger District has been planning and implementing various fuel treatment projects to protect the local communities. Cumulatively, these actions have had a positive effect on reducing fuel loading and modifying fire behavior within the treatment areas. Alternative 1 would not contribute to enhancing community protection. At the landscape level, Alternative 1 does not support the integrated community protection strategy of the other projects.
Summary Alternative 1 is not consistent with the Program Strategies and Tactics of the Forest Plan. Fire-2, Direct Community Protection states: “Reduce the number of high and moderate risk acres by using both mechanical and prescribed fire. Identify and schedule for treatment the high risk acres near communities, including the installation of Wildland-Urban Interface
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 37
Defense and Threat Zone vegetation treatments”. Fire-3 states: “Improve wildland fire suppression capability when in proximity to communities or improvements” (Forest Plan, Part 2, pages 116, 117).
Therefore, Alternative 1 does not meet the intent of these Forest Plan Program Strategies and Tactics.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The proposed action would modify and remove vegetation in units identified within Wildland-Urban Interface Defense and Threat Zones to reduce the threat from wildfire to the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso.
Alternative 2 improves safety for firefighters and the public by reducing fire behavior characteristics adjacent to improvements. This alternative also reduces the threat to the general forest zone from fires that start in these communities.
The desired condition for Defense and Threat Zones is to create an environment within the treatment areas where, during a wildfire, fire suppression activities would have a greater probability of success. The probability of success can be quantified by demonstrating changes in fireline intensity/flame lengths and resistance to control from the existing condition.
Direct Effects Observed or expected fire behavior are important components of suppression strategies and tactics, especially in terms of the difficulty to control a wildfire and to the safety and effectiveness of various fire suppression resources. Fire intensity is influenced by the amount of fuel available for burning, local weather conditions before and at the time of the fire, and the topography of the burning site.
While there are several ways of expressing fire intensity, fireline intensity is the most widely used. A visual indicator of fire intensity (fireline intensity) is the flame length in feet (DeBano San Diego horned lizard 1998). A comparative summary of the potential flame lengths for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are displayed in Table 7.
Alternative 2 models a significant reduction in flame length based on the changes in fuel models that occur because of the treatments. FlamMap outputs indicate that over 93 percent of the treatment areas will have flame lengths of four feet or less. This is a 47 percent increase over Alternative 1 in the number of acres modeled with 4 foot or less flame lengths.
The Fireline Intensity Interpretation Chart (Fireline Handbook Appendix B, 2006) indicates that flame lengths less than 4 feSan Diego horned lizardlow “Persons using hand tools to generally attack fires at the head or flanks. Handline should hold the fire”.
38 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Flame Length (feet) Modeled Flame Length Modeled Flame Length 0-4 8% 93% 5-7 46% 0.5% 8-11 1% 3% 12-20 5% 3% 21+ 40% 0.5% Total Project Area 100% 100%
Table 7 – Flame Length.
Fireline production rates increase for Alternative 2 when compared with Alternative 1, (tables 8, 9, and 11). Production rates for suppression personnel and equipment are used to demonstrate enhanced suppression capabilities. In general, increased fireline production rates will lead to faster containment of wildfire—or allow fire mangers to use fewer firefighting resources to accomplish containment objectives. Production rates are published in the Fire Planning Analysis (FPA) at http://www.fpa.nifc.gov/Implementation/TechInfo/index.html.
The production rate of aerial resources is measured by changes in fire retardant coverage rates for different fuel models. As canopy closure and surface fuel loadings are decreased, an associated decrease in the retardant coverage level is required to achieve an effective coating of surface fuels to slow fire spread. Table 10 outlines coverage level standards. Table 11 displays the coverage level improvements associated with changing fuel models through vegetation treatment.
Under Alternative 2, landscape-level fire behavior characteristics would improve following the implementation of the proposed action. A measurable change in fire behavior occurs in the treatment as a result of implementing the proposed action. Fuel loading decreases as the volume and density of vegetation decreases with treatment. Decreased fuel loading leads to decreased fire intensity as less fuel is available for consumption.
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Resource Type Fuel Model Fuel Model Change Fuel Model Fuel Model Change 122 101 142 101
Handcrew 2.7 4 +1.3 0.83 4 +3.17 Type 3 Engine 22.5 30 +7.5 16.6 30 +13.4
Type I Dozer (26-40% slope) 76.5 85 +8.5 43.575 85 +41.425
Type II Dozer (26-40% slope) 65.25 72.5 +7.25 33.2 72.5 +39.3 Table 8 – Production Rates (Chains Per Hour)3.
3 A chain equals 66 feet.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 39
Alt. 1 Alt 2. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Resource Type Fuel Model Fuel Model Change Fuel Model Fuel Model Change 147 101 165 8
Hand crew 0.4 4 +3.6 1 10 +9
Type 3 Engine 20 30 +10 20 60 +40
Type I Dozer 27.5 85 +57.5 14.5 62.5 +48 (26-40% slope)
Type II Dozer 37.5 72.5 +35 8.5 72.5 +64 (26-40% slope)
Table 9 – Production Rates (Chains Per Hour).
NFDRS Model Fire Behavior Fuel Models Coverage Level Flow Rate Range (gal/sec)
A,L,S 1, 101 1 100-150
C 2, 102 H,R 8, 161, 181, 182, 183 2 151-200 E,P,U 9, 186, 188, 189
T 2, 103,104, 105, 106, 121, 122, 123 N 3, 107, 018 109, 124 F 5, 143 3 251-400 K 11, 201
G 10, 162, 163, 164, 165, 184 4 401-600 O 4, 145, 147, 148, 149 6 601-800 F,Q 6, 141, 142, 146, 164 B,O 4, 145, 147, 148, 149 J 12, 202 Greater than 6 Greater than 800 I 13, 185,187
Table 10 – Recommended Retardant Coverage Levels.
[Fuels modes are taken from: Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model, Joe H. Scott and Robert E. Burgan.]
40 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Change in Retardant Current Fuel Post-Treatment Fuel Coverage Levels Model Model 122 101 -1 142 101 -5 147 101 -5
165 8 -2
183 No change No change
187 No change No change
Table 11 – Recommended Retardant Coverage Levels.
Fuel loads in Riparian Conservation Areas will remain static or decrease to the recommended levels. This will reduce the threat to the long-term integrity of the riparian areas caused by intense burning characteristics that could result if fuel conditions were not changed.
Alternative 2 is consistent with the Forest Plan direction, Fire-2 and Fire-3 (Forest Plan, Part 2, pages 116, 117).
Indirect Effects Fireline production rates increase in treated areas when fuel loads are modified. Aerial application of fire retardant will require lower coverage levels to achieve effectiveness leading to a potential lower fire suppression costs
Resource damage from fire effects will be reduced as fire intensity is reduced within the treatment units.
Direct Effects Past fuel treatment activities dating back to 2002 have had a positive effect on the fuel structure of the treated areas. The additional treatments associated with Alternative 2 will support the ongoing and existing community protection activities along the California State Highway 74 (Ortega Highway). The combination of all existing and proposed actions builds toward an integrated system of fuel treatments that could lead to enhanced wildfire protection for the communities at risk.
Alternative 2 reduces flame lengths adjacent to communities and improvements, improves fireline production rates for ground-based firefighting equipment, reduces fire retardant coverage rates required for effectiveness, and reduces fuel loading in Riparian Conservation Buffers (RCA) to support the long-term viability of the features.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 41
Conclusions and Findings Alternative 1 is not consistent with the Program Strategies and Tactics as defined in Fire-2 and Fire-3 of the Forest Plan. In addition, Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need of the project to:
• Reduce the threat of severe wildfires • Provide for firefighter safety by that could pose a risk to the people reducing flame lengths, radiant heat, and these communities by increasing wildfire intensities, and rate of fire defensible space. spread from wildland fires that might occur in the area.
Alternative 2 meets both the Program Strategies and Tactics for Fire-2 and Fire-3 of the Forest Plan and meets the purpose and need for this proposed action.
3. Air Quality The General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates that the Federal government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting or approve any activity not conforming to an approved CAA implementation plan.
Both the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2) were analyzed using the General Conformity Rule to determine the effects on air quality within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) from the Trabuco Community Protection project.
The South Coast Air Basin is one of the most heavily polluted airsheds in the country (SCAQMD, 2009). This action could have a potential impact on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s attempts to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The current attainment status for both state and Federal standards is presented in Table 12.
State Status Federal Status
1-hr Ozone Serious Non-attainment Not designated
8-hr Ozone Non-attainment Non-attainment
PM10 Non-attainment Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment CO Attainment Attainment
NOx Attainment Attainment
[Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state] Table 12 – NAQQS Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants.
Background The project is located in the northern portion of the SCAQMD. The Air District has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the four-county South Coast
42 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Air Basin and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin. The SCAQMD is the local authority and primary agency for managing and regulating air pollution emitting activities. The Trabuco Community Protection Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin.
Sources of Air Pollution The largest producer of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gasses (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin is from on-road motor vehicles (California Air Resources Board, 2005). Particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) are emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, construction activities, automobiles, fires, and agricultural activities.
The Trabuco Community Protection Project will have both direct and indirect effects on short- term local air quality by producing emissions related to mobile sources (equipment) and prescribed burning.
Forest Plan Direction The Cleveland National Forest’s Forest Plan has two program strategies concerning air quality:
1. Control and reduce smoke and fugitive dust to protect human health, improve safety and/or reduce or eliminate environmental impacts.
2. Maintain and update inventory for wildland fire emissions and other forest resource emissions within the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP inventories and establishes levels of air pollution that meet the long-term Federal air quality goals for bringing the non-attainment areas to attainment of the NAAQS.
Smoke Sensitive Areas Table 13 lists areas that are considered potential “sensitive receptors” that could be impacted by emissions generated by the project. These areas were identified from maps and local sources.
Approximate Direction from Project Sensitive Receptors Receptor Distance (miles) to Receptor
Rancho Capistrano Community Directly adjacent south, east, north
Rancho Carrillo Community Directly adjacent north, west, east, south
El Cariso Community Directly adjacent south, west Decker Canyon Less than 1 mile north, west
San Mateo Wilderness Within within
Ortega Highway Public highway Directly adjacent north, south
Main Divide Truck Trail Forest road Directly adjacent north, south
Verdugo Truck Trail Forest road Directly adjacent north, south
Table 13 – Smoke Sensitive Areas.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 43
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – on Air Quality
Alternative 1 – No Action
Under Alternative 1, no fuel reduction treatments will be implemented. Existing air quality condition will not be affected. Wildfire will continue to present a risk to the public and may result in the short-term degradation of the air quality, potentially impacting public health.
Direct Effects There would be no direct effect to air quality within the South Coast Air Quality Management District as a result of not implementing the Trabuco Community Protection project.
Indirect Effects Emissions, in particular PM10, would be produced in the advent of an unwanted wildfire resulting in negative effects to air quality. Opportunities to decrease wildfire emissions would not occur as a result of prescribed burning of fuels under favorable meteorological conditions— or redistributing fuels into a more efficient combustible arrangement (masticating).
Fuel loads will increase over time in the proposed treatment areas, making more fuel available for consumption in a future unwanted wildfire. Due to increased fuel consumption and fire intensity, emissions from wildfire are typically twice those of a prescribed fire on the same acreage (Ottmar, 2001).
Cumulative Effects There is potential for degradation of air quality within the air basin from smoke produced by unwanted wildfires in combination with pollutants from other sources. On Sept. 2, 2009, the SCAQMD issued an air quality advisory, stating: “Although air quality conditions have improved from earlier this week, smoke from the Station Fire continues to cause unhealthy air quality in portions of the West San Gabriel Valley and San Gabriel Mountains. Unhealthy levels of fine particulates are occurring in areas directly impacted by smoke, especially in the foothill communities of Altadena, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta, Tujunga, Sunland, Montrose and Acton. The Oak Glen and Pendleton fires near Yucaipa also have caused areas of poor air quality”.
Future large fires in untreated fuels can be expected to produce similar emissions. Therefore, smoke from these fires, combined with other sources of pollution (such as vehicle exhaust, fugitive dust), will continue to further degrade air quality. While smoke from wildfires is considered an exceptional event and does not count against attainment standards, there is a measurable effect on visibility and public health from these events.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct Effects Emissions from the implementation of Alternative 2 would occur primarily from the burning of piled or crushed vegetative material inside the treatment areas. However, emissions from both mobile sources and prescribed burning are assessed for the potential to cause local and regional short-term air quality impacts.
44 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Pollutant Level of Significance – Pounds Per Day
Particulate Particulate Matter Matter 2.5 Volatile Reactive Nitrogen Carbon 10 microns in micros on Organic Organic Gases Oxides Monoxide diameter (PM-10) diameter (PM- Compounds 2.5)
55 55 150 55 550 55 Table 14 – Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Based on the proposed action, emissions are calculated and measured against a “Threshold of Significance” established by the SCAQMD (Table 14). To determine if an action complies with the State Implementation Plan for regulated emissions—and therefore also complies with the Clean Air Act—project emission must be less than threshold levels.
Threshold levels have been established by the air district. Therefore, projects below the threshold level (also known as “de minimus level”) are determined not to have significant impact on the air district’s attempt to achieve attainment with NAAQS.
Prescribed Fire Emissions from prescribed burning activities are determined based on the volume of material consumed and emission factors established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). These emissions factors are found in USEPA's AP-42 Chapter 13 “Wildfires and Prescribed Burning”.
Under this alternative, pile burning is planned to occur at a rate of 15 acres per day and will consume 90 percent of the ignited material. Broadcast burning is planned to occur at a rate of 50 acres per day and is also assumed to consume 90 percent of the available fuel in the treatment area. Estimates of the total daily emissions associated with all prescribed fire activities in Alternative 2 are indicated in Table 15 and Table 16.
Mobile Sources Emission from mobile sources also occur under this alternative. The emissions from mobile sources are calculated using emission factors from South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the USEPA. Table 14 summarizes the emissions associated with mobile sources under Alternative 2. Emissions generated from mobile sources represent the absolute maximum from the project and assumes that all possible sources are operating on a single day.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 45
Estimated Emissions – Pounds Per Day Emission Source NOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5
Prescribed Burning 0.32 6.54 1.58 1.28 1.12
Table 15 – Estimated Daily Emissions from Burning.
Emissions – Pounds Per Day
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (exhaust only)
Mobile Sources 478.444 4427.552 124.564 44.86 42.901
Table 16 – Mobile Source Emissions.
Fugitive Dust Emissions from roadway traffic can be a major component of atmospheric particulate matter. Some of the project roadways are native surface and are sources of fugitive dust. Because dust from the unpaved roads will not travel beyond the property line of project (the administrative boundary of the Cleveland National Forest), Rule 403 is not applicable to this project and fugitive dust was not analyzed.
SCAQMD State Implementation Plan Conformity Determination Emission estimates derived from mobile sources and prescribed burning are compared to the applicable de minimis emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD to determine if a “significant deterioration of air quality” will occur due to activities associated with Alternative 2. Emissions below de minimus thresholds are determined not to impede the progress of the air district towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; therefore, they are determined to conform to both the SIP and the Clean Air Act. The results of the Conformity Determination are presented in Table 17.
46 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Emissions – Tons
VOC PM10 CO NOx PM2.5
Estimated Project Emissions (ton/yr) 0.623 0.222 22.138 2.392 0.215 Applicability Threshold as per 51.853 25 70 1001 25 100 (b)(1) Project greater than Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO
SIP Emission Budgets 80.3 153.3 1,200 343 N/A
Project more than SIP? NO NO NO NO N/A
10% Regional Daily (tons)2 16 8 80 16 N/A
Daily Project Emissions (tons)3 0.0623 0.0222 0.654 0.2392 0.0215
Project less than Regional Significance Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
Project Determined to Conform? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 17 – Conformity Test of Project Emissions. 1) Mobile source emissions, pile burns, and prescribed fire emissions could be assumed to primarily occur at different stages of the project, greatly reducing the annual totals during the project’s duration. Table totals are theoretical maximums. CO is micro-scale pollutant and relative reactive gas and is not expected to contribute the non-attainment condition of the area south of down town Los Angeles which is in non- attainment for CO. 2) Thresholds established as 10 percent of regional daily emissions for SCAQMD, 2000. 3) Based on 4-10 operational days/year using theoretical maximum - 10 days
Indirect Effects The removal or redistribution of biomass by prescribed fire and mastication will reduce emissions during wildfires as less material is available for combustion or fuels have been redistributed into an arrangement which produces more efficient combustion. Emissions would be reduced in this alternative when compared to a wildfire event, or Alternative 1—which does not include the reduction or redistribution of fuel.
Removing fuel from treatment units reduces emissions proportionately to the amount of fuel removed (Ottmar et. al. 2001). Emissions of PM10 and other particulates are reduced in the advent of future wildfires that occur within treatment areas as a result of pile burning. The effects of smoke on air quality in the air basin are reduced during wildfires and future prescribed fires for the short term. In the absence of maintenance treatments, fuel loading within the treated areas will begin to increase, as will particulate output in the advent of wildfire or prescribed burning.
Cumulative Effects Emissions from activities associated with this project and others on the Cleveland National Forest and private lands within the air basin will have a short term effect on air quality.
The air district permits and regulates prescribed burning—which is the major contributor of emission from the Trabuco Community Protection Project—in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board.
Regulation by the air district allows for the management of impacts on air quality from all projects within the air district’s jurisdictional area. It is through the regulation process that
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 47
cumulative effects will be managed to assure that a significant deterioration of air quality does not occur. Through regulation, the air district can reduce the cumulative effects of criteria pollutants and potential impacts to public health.
Conclusions and Findings Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 both conform to the Clean Air Act and are applicable to the State Implementation Plan. They both meet the conformity requirements as specified in 40 CFR, Part 51-subpart W and part 93-subpart B.
Because Alternative 1 does not provide measures to reduce smoke or provide for improved safety, is not compliant with Forest Plan Direction, Air-1, which states: “Control and reduce smoke and fugitive dust to protect human health, improve safety and/or reduce or eliminate environmental impacts”.
The application of design features will reduce the emissions and prevent adverse impacts to the fullest extent possible. The application of mitigation and best management practices will be monitored to assure effective utilization of these measures.
4. Hydrology and Soils There is a concern that vegetation treatments could affect soil productivity, hydrologic action, and sedimentation within Trabuco Community Defense Project area.
Background The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) divides soils into map units consisting of soils with similar parent rock material and soil temperatures. Individual soil map units are grouped into families and complexes based on other similar characteristics. These families are named for the major soil types within the unit. Soils named in one unit, however, can occur in other units.
The Cineba-Blasingame-Rock outcrop complex map unit covers approximately 60 percent of the proposed treatment area. This strongly sloping to moderately steep map unit is about 35 percent Cineba sandy loam, 30 percent Blasingame loam, 25 percent Rock outcrop and large boulders, and approximately 10 percent Vista coarse sandy loam (USDA, NRCS). Soil types within the treatment area are outlined in Table 18.
The Cineba series consists of very shallow and shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils, formed in material weathered from granitic rock. Cineba soils have a typical texture of gravelly loam and chaparral vegetative cover. The Blasingame series consists of moderately deep, well- drained soils formed in material weathered from basic igneous rocks. The Vista series consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils formed in material weathered from decomposed granite rocks. Vista soils have a typical texture of coarse sandy loam and annual grass range cover.
48 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Soil Family Name Soil Characteristic Blasingame Cineba Capistrano Vista
Surface texture Loam Gravelly loam Sandy loam Sandy loam
Slope (percent) 2 - 75 9 - 85 2 - 9 9 - 15
Parent Material Igneous rock Granitic rock Alluvium Grantic rock Moderately Very shallow to Moderately Depth Very deep deep shallow deep Slight to Moderate to Very Erosion Hazard Rating Slight Moderate Moderate Severe Moderate to Fire Damage Potential Moderate Low Moderate High Soil Rutting Hazard Severe Moderate to Severe Moderate Severe Moderately Moderately Moderately Runoff Potential Moderately High High Low High Soil Order Alfisol Entisol Mollisol Inceptisol Acres of soil within project 199 99 58 32 area
Table 18 – Soil Types Within the Trabuco Community Defense Project.
Acreage of Treatment Percent Subwatershed Subwatershed Subwatershed Area within covered by Treatment Acreage Subwatershed Area Lucas Canyon 3107 20 1 Long Canyon 2404 208 9 Decker Canyon 1685 95 6 Wildhorse Canyon 1200 63 5 Verdugo Canyon 1072 7 1 Nickel Canyon 954 4 <1 Morrell Canyon 736 53 7 Lake Elsinore 618 8 1
Table 19 – Areas of Subwatersheds Covered Within the Trabuco Community Defense Project Area.
Inceptisols and Entisols are very young soils with little or no subsurface horizon development. Mollisols are characterized by a thick, fertile surface horizon. Alfisols are moderately leached soils with a subsurface zone of clay accumulation.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 49
Most of the chaparral in the project area is mature with a high percentage of dead material. Wildfires in chaparral are capable of reaching extreme temperatures of 700 degrees Centigrade (C) and above, and 200 degrees C below the ground surface (Debano 1982). Chaparral plants contain flammable compounds (i.e. terpenes, monoterpenes, saponins, etc.) which make them highly ignitable and combustible during fire—with the potential to create hydrophobic (water repellant) soils. Moderate fire intensity is expected during 90th percentile weather conditions on at least 45 percent of the project area.
Twenty-four percent of project area soils have a severe rutting hazard. Only three acres consisting of the Cineba-Rock outcrop complex have a severe Erosion Hazard Potential. The runoff potential is moderately high for most soils.
Eight subwatersheds, which are within the San Juan Creek watershed, have been identified covering the Trabuco project area (Table 19). Lucas Canyon is a seventh-level subwatershed; the others are eighth-level subwatersheds. These basins are discrete land areas that collect precipitation and evaporate water and yield the difference as streamflow or groundwater recharge.
The San Juan Creek watershed has a channel condition rating of III. This rating (obtained from USDA FS GIS database) suggests that areas within the watershed exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to its natural potential. This rating also indicates that the majority of drainage networks within the watershed are unstable.
There are no perennial streams within the subwatersheds. Streams within these subwatersheds are intermittent and only flow during the wet season. Intermittent streams within the Lake Elsinore subwatershed flow east into Lake Elsinore. The seven other subwatersheds drain into San Juan Creek or San Mateo Canyon Creek, which flow to the ocean.
There are no documented springs or seeps within the proposed treatment areas.
The two intermittent streams flowing through Long Canyon into San Juan Creek are moderately entrenched in a small valley with channel gradients of two to four percent. These are the only streams which flow through proposed treatment units.
The channel material within the treatment area is dominated by cobbles and characterized by a series of rapids with irregularly spaced scour pools. Other intermittent streams were not observed because they are outside of treatment units and vegetation buffers between streams and treatment units are adequate to slow runoff and decrease accelerated erosion.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Hydrology and Soils
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative will likely increase brush mortality. This could create a situation where a future fire could spread rapidly and at high intensity. Removal of large amounts of
50 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
vegetative cover could increase erosion rates to approximately 17 yd3/ac (Rowe 1949) in the first year after a wildfire. It is likely an intense wildfire would have a significant effect on soil productivity and cause a significant increase in erosion and sediment transport.
Cumulative Effects Except for ten acres where native vegetation has been slow to return, soil and water resources have recovered from impacts by previous wildfires within proposed treatment units. No further acres will be treated under Alternative 1. A future high-intensity, large-scale, uncontrolled wildfire in the area could have adverse impacts to soil erosion rates and future projects listed in or near the activity area.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Prescribed Burning Burning piles and prescribed burning will remove cover, increase the risk of erosion, and will result in more rapid nutrient cycling in the burned areas. Summer fires between June and August will usually produce high fire intensity in which combustion of plant material will be fairly complete, and upper soil temperatures can be high.
Burning brush piles will result in some soil damage, especially to microorganisms. Soil damage from burning will be reduced by design features that will keep brush piles less than 8 feet high.
It is anticipated that prescribed burning would be conducted during the winter and spring when burning will be less severe, soil heating will be minimized, and fuel consumption may not be complete. Depending on rainfall intensity in the first year after burning, nutrients from burned material could be lost due to the increased erosion, thereby decreasing soil productivity.
Accelerated Erosion Puddling from water repellency may contribute to slightly higher post-fire sediment yields during the first two years following prescribed burning treatments. The bare soil percentage is the dominant control on post-fire sediment yields, followed by rainfall intensity (Pietraszek, 2006). It is expected an average of 30 percent vegetation and ash will remain following prescribed burning. This will help to minimize soil particle detachment and accelerated erosion.
On pile-burned areas, soil erosion will be reduced by the design feature that will cover these areas with brush. The 50-foot buffer of shrubs and untreated areas between burned areas and intermittent stream channels should slow erosion and filter sediment before rill erosion occurs and sediment reaches stream channels. It is expected that vegetation will return to treatment areas within two years and accelerated erosion will decrease after two years.
Based on measurements of sediment volumes in debris basins at the mouths of the canyons, background erosion rates are 0.7 cubic yards per acre (yd3/ac) in the San Juan River watershed and 1.0 yd3/ac in the San Mateo Creek watershed (Rowe, 1949).
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 51
Removal of large areas of vegetative cover by an intense burn could increase the erosion rate to approximately 19 yd3/ac in the first year after treatment. Erosion would be expected to significantly decrease after four years and return to normal levels after 10 years (Figure 4). Ash will temporarily prevent soil sealing and reduce post-fire runoff and sediment yields.
Amounts of ground cover and ash will vary depending on prescribe fire intensity. If amounts of ash and groundcover are less than 60 percent, it is likely accelerated erosion will occur. Sediment volumes should decrease after the first year due to vegetation re-growth. Volumes of sediment were calculated for the entire watersheds and likely overestimate the potential volumes transported from the relatively small treatment areas within the subwatersheds included in this analysis.
Figure 4 – Annual Erosion Rates Following Burning within the San Mateo and San Juan Watershed.
Within proposed treatment units, hillslope lengths are generally less than 500 feet and contain areas of rock outcrop which decrease the potential for significant levels of accelerated erosion. Additionally, thick vegetation within the buffer provides a buffer between most hillslopes and intermittent stream channels. The highest potential for accelerated erosion exists within 300 acres on the western portion of the El Cariso treatment unit. Here, a steep hillslope of approximately 1,500 feet could increase erosion by 0.6 yd3/ac following a low-intensity
52 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment prescribed burn or erosion could increase by 24 yd3/ac following an intense prescribed burn or wildfire. The slope decreases as it approaches the stream in long canyon and it is unlikely sediment would reach the channel. Overall, a very minimal increase in sediment is expected to enter channels within the subwatersheds.
Compaction and Soil Rutting Project area soils have a moderate to severe soil rutting hazard. Dozers operating crushers have metal tracks that will directly cause some soil disturbance and compaction as they move through treatment areas. As an indirect effect, these compacted areas will result in accelerated erosion. Depending on amounts of compacted and disturbed soil, erosion control and compaction remediation measures are recommended. This could include ripping compacted soil and placing chips or slash over the disturbed soil. Masticators will have tires with low surface pressure rating. By following the design feature limiting the use of heavy machinery on wet soils, detrimental compaction will be minor.
Cumulative Impacts Beginning in 2010, approximately 2,500 acres have been proposed for hazardous fuels reduction treatments to be accomplished through six projects. These future projects are either adjacent to the Trabuco Community Defense Project or within a few miles of the treatment areas.
Treatments would include hand and mechanical cutting, hand piling and burning, brush removal from road shoulders, and prescribed fire. In addition, hand and mechanical treatment, and some pile burning, has been ongoing at several electronic communication tower sites in the area. Nearly 50 acres of the Elsinore Peak project are within the Wildhorse Canyon subwatershed. Approximately 200 acres of the North Main Divide Fuel Break are within the Decker Canyon subwatershed and San Juan Creek watershed. Because these projects cover small percentages of subwatersheds and will be conducted over 5 to 10 years, the incremental effects on watersheds will be minimal.
The use of proposed design features and extending treatments over five years—to be effective for up to ten years—would keep incremental effects to soils and streams due to erosion, sediment transport and soil compaction within the natural range of variability for the area. Conducting these projects could decrease the severity, extent and frequency of wildfires and thereby decrease erosion and sediment transport.
Except for ten acres where native vegetation has been slow to return, soil and water resources have recovered from impacts by previous wildfires within proposed treatment units. It is unlikely that areas where native vegetation has been slow to return will be treated under the proposed action.
Conclusions and Findings The proposed treatments will result in the removal of varying amounts of cover and localized compaction and soil disturbance. The greatest removal of cover would take place after prescribed burning in areas where crushing treatments occurred. These areas have the highest potential for erosion and sediment transport, although the tracks of the crusher and the remaining vegetation
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 53
on the lower slopes would act to slow runoff and reduce sediment transport. Also, vegetation on the lower slopes would remain, providing a buffer to runoff and sediments.
Crushed material is relatively thin and is likely to burn at relatively low intensity, reducing potential soil damage due to fire. Leaving at least 20 to 30 percent cover would reduce erosion and sediment transport. Burning the brush piles would result in localized soil damage due to fire. Keeping brush piles small would reduce these effects.
Mastication treatments would likely result in the greatest amount of compaction.
Mitigation measures limiting the use of heavy machinery to periods of low soil moisture, and driving over slash will limit amounts of detrimental compaction. Mastication residue provides cover for the soil and reduces the potential for erosion. Hand clearing and piling would result in the least soil compaction and disturbance and leave sufficient cover to reduce the potential for erosion to negligible amounts.
Erosion and sediment transport would also depend on rainfall quantity and intensity in the first years following treatment. Heavy or prolonged rainfall in the first year after treatment could result in a greater increase in erosion, while drier winters could result in little change. Dry ravel will also transport more sediment in the first few years after treatment until the vegetation becomes reestablished. The net result is that erosion and sediment transport are likely to be within the normal range of erosion rates for the area.
The following would keep effects to soils and streams due to erosion and sediment transport and soil compaction within the natural range of variability: implementing small treatment areas, extending treatments in Alternative 2 over ten years, and application of the design features described in this assessment’s Alternatives section.
Alternative 1 would increase the likelihood of an intense wildfire, potentially causing significant effects to water quality and soil productivity.
5. Fisheries There is a concern that vegetation treatments could affect sensitive steelhead populations in the Southern California area.
Background Southern steelhead was listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1997. Evolutionarily significant units (ESU) were designated in 2000, withdrawn and redrawn in 2002, and re-designated in 2005 by the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA).
The project area is not located within the ESU, however there is a documented occurrence of steelhead in 2008 in lower San Juan Creek off of National Forest System lands. From 1999 through 2000, the Forest Service conducted snorkel surveys on selected steelhead streams. Of the 13 reaches that were surveyed both years, there was not a significant increase in fish numbers for each site, nor was there a significant difference across the Cleveland National Forest between the
54 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
two years. This indicates that large pulses of recruitment or migration did not occur in the winter of 1999.
There was a difference in the production of small fish (< 40 mm) between the nine watersheds, with the Arroyo Seco and Sisar watersheds having much higher numbers of fry observed.
The extensive decline of steelhead in central and southern California is due primarily to instream water management facilities that have resulted in inadequate flow, flow fluctuation, water diversion and extraction, blockage of passage, and desiccation of portions of rivers and streams (NMFS 1997). Suitable spawning and rearing habitat on National Forest System lands are frequently located in upper-elevation areas above currently impassable barriers (such as dams).
Efforts are underway by the Forest Service to maintain and restore steelhead habitat on National Forest Lands, including actions such as: invasive, nonnative species eradication, riparian vegetation restoration, abandoned mine land restoration, removing or mitigating recreation use impacts, and planning fuel treatment projects (prescribe burns) in steelhead watersheds.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Fisheries
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative has no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on steelhead because vegetation management would not occur within the proposed project. A wildfire would eventually occur in the area. The resulting loss of vegetation and potential sedimentation of streams would not be beneficial to potential steelhead habitat.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Because the steelhead species is not known to occur in the portion of the San Juan Creek drainage encompassed by the proposed project, it will not directly affect steelhead.
Indirect effects will be minimal. Sediment resulting from the project will not impact occupied steelhead habitat. It is likely that sediment will settle before it reaches those areas. The project will follow design features discussed in Chapter 2 to minimize erosion. It is not expected to degrade the San Juan Creek drainage. In addition, no mechanical treatment will occur in the Riparian Conservation Areas. Ground cover in the Riparian Conservation Area will be maintained at 60-70 percent—minimizing risk of sediments entering this stream.
Cumulative Effects San Juan Creek starts within the Cleveland National Forest boundary. Currently, no known activities are planned for San Juan headwaters by the private land owners. The proposed project will not impact southern steelhead or its habitat. Other Forest Service activities that may affect the watershed include prescribed burning, invasive species removal (such as bullfrogs, crayfish, catfish and other non-native species). The prescribed burning activities have been scheduled and executed in a manner designed to lessen the amount of sediment released into the watershed. The
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 55
invasive species removal has worked to improve the habitat for steelhead and other native species by removing non native predators.
These activities are scheduled to continue at intervals into the future. These activities and the proposed action will not directly affect steelhead. Habitat for steelhead will be maintained and will not be adversely affected as a result of all of these activities.
Conclusions and Findings The Trabuco Community Protection Project will not affect the southern steelhead or its proposed designated critical habitat.
6. Wildlife Special Status Species There is a concern that the proposed project could have potential affects on Threatened Endangered or Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species in the project area.
Background The finding of the Biological Evaluation/Assessment(s) conducted for this project indicated that no Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate wildlife species are known to occur in the project location or immediately adjacent to the project area. No critical habitat for any known threatened or endangered species exists in or adjacent to the project location.
There is a potential for occurrence of two Forest Service Sensitive species, the San Diego horned lizard, and the pallid bat.
The San Diego horned lizard was previously observed in the Decker Canyon portion of the project area. The project contains areas with loose, fine soils, low, dense shrubs for refuge and open areas nearby for basking which is suitable habitat for the San Diego horned lizard. The known distribution for the San Diego horned lizard includes occurrences from Ventura County south into Baja California, Mexico. However, the San Diego horned lizard is thought to intergrade with the California horned lizard (P. c. frontale) in extreme southern Kern County and northern Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties (CDFG 1994).
There is a potential for the occurrence of pallid bat within the project area. Areas adjacent to the project site contain structures that may provide suitable roosting habitat for this species. In addition, the project site provides foraging habitat for this species. Little is known about the distribution and abundance of this species. There are historical detections of the pallid bat on the Cleveland National Forest. No detections, however, have been recorded near the project area.
56 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Wildlife
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative has no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on known Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Sensitive wildlife species because vegetation management would not occur within the project area.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects No known Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed wildlife species have habitat in the project locations or immediately adjacent to the project areas. Because the area does not support habitat for any known Threatened and Endangered species in or adjacent to the project location, there will be no effect to any Threatened and Endangered species.
Direct impacts would include displacement and crushing of San Diego horned lizards during treatment activities. Direct mortality or injury resulting from crushing during mastication treatment, or in crushing units, could occur as a result of the proposed project. Members of this species could also be temporarily displaced due to disturbance during implementation by personnel walking or working in the area where individuals are present. Harassment could also occur due to increased noise and human presence.
Indirect impacts to the San Diego horned lizard could include habitat modification from soil compaction with treatment activities and pedestrian traffic. Habitat modification resulting from thinning and brush removal could create additional openings or reduce canopy closure which can benefit horned lizards that often use these areas for hunting their preferred prey, native ants.
Direct and indirect impacts to pallid bats could include displacement of individuals during treatment activities due to noise and human presence. If trees in the project area are occupied by roosting bats, the proposed project would have the potential for short-term displacement of bats in the area.
Cumulative Effects Only activities that have occurred within the past five years (activity known to still be affecting the creek) and actions that are scheduled to occur within the next five years will be considered in the cumulative effects analysis.
The majority of the other projects that are occurring in Wildland-Urban Interface Defense and Threat Zones are designed and executed in a manner to prevent impacts to species in the area. Other Forest Service activities that may affect the area include invasive species removal (such as bullfrogs, crayfish, catfish and other non-native species0. These activities are scheduled to occur at intervals into the future.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 57
The proposed project and other activities that may occur in the project area may impact individual San Diego horned lizards and pallid bats, but are not expected to increase impacts to a level that may be detrimental to the population.
Currently, no known activities are planned in the project area by private land owners. Some land owners may do annual brush clearance around their property to protect against the threat of wildfires, but there are no large-scale vegetation removal activities planned. Activities that do occur in or near the area include recreation such as camping, hiking, and fishing.
These activities will continue to occur and may impact San Diego horned lizards due to disturbance. These activities, along with the proposed action, may impact individual horned lizards, but they are not expected to affect the population trend. Because the majority of recreation activities occur when bats are roosting, recreation activities are not likely to affect the pallid bat. The proposed action and other activities may impact individual roosting bats if activities occur near a roost site, but they are not expected affect the population of bats as a whole.
Conclusions and Findings Because no suitable habitat for any Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive wildlife species is located in the project area, implementing either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action Alternative will not affect any Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive species or critical habitat for any of these species.
7. Wildlife Management Indicator Species There is a concern that Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Land Management Plan for the Cleveland National Forest would be affected by vegetation treatment in the Trabuco Community Projection Project area.
Background Management Indicator Species are animal or plant species identified in the Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2005, Part 1, page 45), which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding Management Indicator Species set forth in this plan directs Forest Service resource managers to:
1. At project scale, analyze the effects 2. At the national forest scale, monitor of proposed projects on the habitats populations and/or habitat trends of of each Management Indicator national forest Management Species affected by such projects, Indicator Species, as identified by and the plan.
Mountain lion and mule deer are the Management Indicator Species whose habitat could be either directly or indirectly affected by the Trabuco Community Defense Project.
The project area is adjacent to areas that fragment mountain lion habitat. These areas consist of private in-holdings with residences. There is potential that mountain lions will pass through these
58 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
areas to access other areas. However, if frequent activity occurs, this is unlikely. In addition, because they are surrounded by habitat and do not pose a barrier to access lands beyond the private property, these areas do not affect landscape habitat linkages.
The project area is habitat for mountain lions and their primary prey species, mule deer. It consists mainly of chaparral shrub species, but also has a small dry meadow and some riparian areas within it. There are some areas where mountain lions are not able to pass through due to the density and age of the brush. The project area composes less than 0.1 percent (one-tenth of one-percent) of available habitat for mountain lions in the Cleveland National Forest.
The project area is suitable habitat for mule deer. The amount of acres to be treated under the proposed action is less than 0.1 percent of the total amount of habitat available for mule deer. The project area consists mainly of chaparral shrub species and has dry meadows and riparian areas scattered within it. Some of the areas with dense vegetation are difficult for mule deer to access and may not be used as habitat.
The area is also adjacent to private in-holdings with residences which mule deer may pass through to access other areas. If the conditions exist, they may use some of these residences’ lands close to the project area for forage.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Wildlife Management Indicator Species
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative has no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Management Indicator Species. This alternative would leave vegetation in the project area untreated. Habitat in the area for mountain lion and mule deer would remain unchanged. Over time, areas that consist of dense patches of decadent brush would become thicker with brush and would remain inaccessible to lions and deer. In addition, the area would remain susceptible to wildfire which could result in a fire that destroys existing habitat.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed project will improve both lion and deer habitat conditions, especially in areas that are currently dense with vegetation. Areas consisting of decadent stands of mature shrubs will be cut in small areas to create a mosaic of vegetation age classes. This will improve habitat for the mountain lion’s primary prey species, mule deer.
The proposed project will create openings for lions to pass through while still maintaining cover when hunting. It will improve overall habitat conditions. In areas that are in close proximity to private residences, the project is expected to decrease heavy fuels in the area by 70 to 80 percent. This would result in a landscape consisting of existing trees and some widely spaced broadleaf chaparral. This will degrade habitat quality, but will not remove habitat for mountain lions. It will result in areas with less cover for hunting, while improving habitat conditions for mule deer. The proposed project will not increase habitat fragmentation and it will not result in any changes to habitat linkages for lions.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 59
The proposed project will also improve mule deer habitat conditions, especially in areas that are currently dense with vegetation. In addition, Alternative 2 would improve forage conditions for the mule deer. The proposed project would create openings for deer to access areas that are currently inaccessible due to the density of brush.
In areas that are in close proximity to private residences, the project is expected to decrease heavy fuels in the area by 70 to 80 percent—resulting in a landscape consisting of existing trees and some widely spaced broadleaf chaparral. This would result in areas with less cover, which would improve sight distance of approaching predators while improving habitat conditions for mule deer.
Cumulative Effects The majority of actions that have occurred, or are scheduled to occur in or near the proposed project area, are Forest Service fuels reduction treatments. All of the projects proposed to occur are 1,000 acres or less in size located areas that consist of chaparral brush species and hardwood trees. In areas where brush is treated, brush will re-sprout over time, improving forage for mountain lion prey species.
Activities occurring on adjacent private lands will likely include vegetation reduction activities around private properties to protect homes from wildfire. These activities, along with the fuels reduction projects, may alter the quality of habitat for mountain lions, but they are not expected to result in a decrease of available habitat or increase fragmentation.
Habitat is currently fragmented on private lands due to the presence of residential structures. However, due to the size and nature of these properties, it has not affected links to habitat beyond these areas.
All of the private lands are in-holdings within the Cleveland National Forest. Therefore, these private lands are surrounded by Forest land.
Other activities that may occur near the project area are recreation activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. These activities have been occurring for several years and do not affect habitat for lions or mule deer.
At the Forest level, wildfires in October 2007 affected mountain lion habitat. A large amount of hiding and stalking cover was destroyed by the fires. The affected lion habitat is not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, a single lion has a large territory and the project area and area affected by the wildfire may be within the territory of one lion.
The wildfires combined with the project should not permanently affect lion habitat. The projects should improve this species’ habitat because of the improvement to water sources (such as streams, guzzlers, wet meadows) for both the mountain lion and its prey.
The fires that occurred in January 2006 and October 2007 had the effect of temporarily removing some of the habitat that is commonly used as a food source by deer. These fires also changed the hiding cover and the sight distance for deer. While these fires did not affect the project area,
60 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
because deer herds cover large distances, the project area is part of the habitat that they use. The proposed project will continue to provide forage opportunities for deer herds in the area.
Conclusions and Findings It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in the modification of the quality of habitat on approximately 465 acres for mountain lions within the analysis area. Because many brush species will re-sprout within one year that would provide forage for deer, this acreage amount is less than .1 percent of the total acreage of the Cleveland National Forest.
8. Sensitive Plants There are concerns that the proposed project could:
1. Further vegetation type conversions,
2. Increase in abundance and distribution of invasive species known from project area, and
3. Introduce invasive species into the project area from nearby infestations of invasive species.
Background Field surveys were conducted in March, May, and June of 2009 for the project “footprint”. The field reconnaissance found four “high ranking”, ten “moderate ranking”, and eight “limited ranking” invasive plant species in the project footprint (see Table 20).
A complete list of invasive plant species is included in the Invasive Plants Specialist Report. Three populations of bigleaf periwinkle (Vinca major), three populations of Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), and two populations of giant reedgrass (Arundo donax) were documented and mapped in the project footprint.
These species were mapped based on the following criteria:
1. Cal-IPC moderate and high ranked 3. Were found in populations discreet species, enough to map and control with project implementation. 2. Listed as priority species by local weed management groups and/or
While the high-ranked cheatgrass and red brome were not mapped due to their ubiquitous distribution, they are addressed in the suite of species common in type conversion. As explained in this section, these species are common after disturbance events.
Because none of these species of limited ranking are known to be locally problematic—with the exception of soft brome and redstem filaree—these limited ranking species were dropped from further analysis. These species will be considered in the suite of more ubiquitous species that are
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 61
common after disturbance, though are not thought to be self-perpetuating as to dramatic ecosystem alteration.
Cheatgrass, red brome, ripgut brome, wild oats, shortpod mustard, tocalote and redstem filaree were ubiquitous throughout the project area, although all these species were found in highest concentrations localized in meadow settings.
62 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name Comments
High Ranking
Arundo donax* Giant reedgrass Known from two sites in project area. Bromus madritensis Red brome Occasional throughout project area. ssp. rubens Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Throughout project area. Spartium junceum* Spanish broom Known from three sites in the project area.
Moderate Ranking
Avena sp. oat Occasional throughout project area. Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Occasional throughout project area.
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Uncommon, in riparian areas.
Carduus Italian thistle Rare, known from one location. pycnocephalus Centaurea melitensis tocolote Occasional throughout project area.
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Occasional in meadows.
Piptatherum smilograss Rare, known from single occurrence on road cut. miliaceum Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard Occasional throughout project area.
Vinca major* Big periwinkle Uncommon.
Vulpia myuros Rattail fescue Occasional throughout project area.
Limited Ranking
Bromus hordeaceous Soft brome Occasional throughout project area. Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree Locally abundant, though known from throughout the project area. Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus Rare. Hypocharis glabra Smooth cat’s ear Rare. Marrubium vulgare White horehound Uncommon Impacts thought to be relatively minor. Polypogon Rabbitfoot Occasional in riparian areas. monspeliensis polypogon Robinia Black locust Rare. psuedoacacia Rumex crispus Curly dock Occasional in riparian areas. *Populations for these species were documented and mapped.
Table 20 – Invasive nonnative plant species found in project footprint for Trabuco Community Defense Project. Ranking according to Cal-IPC 2009.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 63
Scientific Name Common Name Comments
High Ranking
Known from multiple locations near project Centaurea solstialis Yellow star-thistle area, including South Main Divide Road. Tamarisk sp. tamarisk Known from Hwy 74.
Moderate Ranking
Known from small population along South Asphodelus fistulosus. Onionweed Main Divide Road
Table 21 – Nearby Populations of Invasive Nonnative Plant Species.
In the project vicinity, three other high and moderate invasive species were observed during field visits (Table 21).
Onionweed has been a growing concern in California, with observed populations doubling in size over the course of a few years. It appears to spread readily along roadways and into areas with low canopy cover (Fox 2004).
Tamarisk is also a major concern in southern California; its known distribution is expanding. Tamarisk spreads by seed that are dispersed by wind. This species is capable of becoming established in undisturbed riparian habitats.
Yellow star-thistle abundance and distribution has be growing exponentially since the 1950s (Cal-IPC 2009). This species is capable of producing up to 75,000 seeds per plant that are primarily transported by humans and animals.
Project-area wide, the vegetation is dominated by dense stands of chaparral which have inherent low risk to nonnative invasion. However, much of this vegetation type has—though often scant—a nonnative annual grass component and was adjacent to private properties where there are high levels of disturbance.
Oak woodlands vulnerability to invasion is dependent on the canopy closure—the higher the canopy closure, the lower the vulnerability. In the project area, much of the oak woodland understory is already colonized by nonnative annual grasses.
Meadows and riparian areas are inherently highly vulnerable due to usual lack of canopy cover and abundance of water resources (USDA 2005, Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement). In the project area, these were the locations with the highest diversity and abundance of nonnative species, and where the high-priority invasive species were documented and mapped.
64 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Sensitive Plants
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is not anticipated to directly impact invasive nonnative species distribution and abundance. This alternative is anticipated to allow for the recovery of the vegetation that has experienced past disturbances. This is likely to result in a reduction in the distribution and abundance of invasive nonnative species.
A passive result of the No Action Alternative is that a wildfire could burn through the project area. This would likely allow the project area’s lands to burn at higher severities, which have been shown to be positively correlated with the decrease in a post-fire invasive response (Keeley San Diego horned lizard. 2008). However, whether this mechanism is a result of lower pre-fire presence of invasive species or is a result of the increased temperatures is not clear (Keeley, personal communications).
There will be no cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative, as cumulative effects are the result of action, combined with other foreseeable actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8).
Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone The proposed action alternative has the objective of reducing the vegetation in the Wildland- Urban Interface Defense Zone by 80 to 90 percent with the desired condition of scattered trees, pockets of widely spaced chaparral species, and the remaining area reduced to lighter grasses and annuals.
Merriam and others (2006) found that the most significant factors correlated with nonnative cover and abundance was overstory canopy, litter cover, duff cover, and duff depth. In the areas that are cleared of vegetation with little to no overstory remaining, the risk for invasions by nonnative invasive plant species is moderate though localized, and, with maintenance, is long- term.
Reducing canopy cover allows light to penetrate to the soil layer. This process, combined with reduced water and nutrient competition from the shrub layer, can allow for invasive nonnatives to increase in distribution and abundance.
Because a presence of invasive nonnative annual grasses already exists—such as ripgut brome and wild oats, and nonnative herbs such as filaree and tocalote—it is likely that these species will colonize the areas in which vegetation is removed.
In the approximately 162 acres (Table 22) where this treatment will occur, there is the potential for 130-146 acres to be type converted to nonnative annual grassland, which is the intent of the proposed action.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 65
Wildland- Wildland- Wildland- Acres Urban Urban Urban Potentially Community Total Acres Interface Interface Interface Type Defense Threat Environment Converted Decker 70 90 0 160 56-63 Canyon
El Cariso 19 124 0 143 15-17 Rancho 48 78 0 126 39-43 Capistrano Rancho 24 2 5 31 20-23 Carillo Total 162 295 5 462 130-146
Table 22 – Acres Treated by Wildland-Urban Interface Designations and Potential Type Conversion Acres.
There is the potential for vegetation modification in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone to impact adjacent wildlands. Research conducted on fuel breaks (Merriam San Diego horned lizard. 2006, Keeley 2007) found the highest concentrations of nonnative invasive species in the footprint of the fuelbreak. They also found a gradient of invasives spreading into the wildlands adjacent to these fuelbreaks.
This impact is likely to be long term, but minor when compared to existing conditions in which the interface between private properties and adjacent wildlands already function as pathways for invasives.
Many of the private landowners in the communities of Rancho Carrillo and Rancho Capistrano have already cleared vegetation on National Forest System lands. This has resulted in type conversion throughout a portion of the project area. In the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone treatment area, there is a single population of bigleaf periwinkle near Rancho Carrillo. There are no anticipated effects from this population, as it will be flagged and avoided with an adequate buffer to reduce the potential for spread to a negligible risk.
The presence of yellow star thistle in the vicinity of the project area near the Rancho Capistrano community poses a potential risk for spread into the project area. This is especially certain to occur within the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone where there will be the largest levels of disturbance. However, this risk has been greatly reduced by design features that prevent vehicles and personnel from accessing the treatment unit through the yellow star-thistle populations while in fruit—which is the time this species is most likely to be spread.
If mud or dirt of contaminated soil were to adhere to machinery, vehicles or the shoes during implementation of Alternative 2, there is the risk of infestation to the treatment area. This potential has been further mitigated by the design feature that requires post-treatment monitoring
66 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
of the Rancho Capistrano treatment unit within three years to monitor and treat any new infestations.
Direct and Indirect Effects in the Wildland-Urban Interface Threat Zone The Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone proposes to treat up to 70 percent of existing fuels. These fuels do not equate to vegetation as there has been some damage to the coast live oaks, resulting in high levels of coarse woody debris in those vegetation types (J. Gipson, pers. comm. 2009). Most chaparral species have resilience with fire return intervals of 25-100 years (Keeley 1986). Greater frequencies (fire return intervals less than 15 years) can result in shifts in the vegetation composition toward an annual grassland (Zedler San Diego horned lizard. 1983).
These areas will be treated multiple times during the life of the project, but never in the same footprint. This will reduce the potential for type conversion from project implementation to negligible, as many of the species currently present in the project area (such as chamise and scrub oak) vigorously sprout from regenerative structures.
The design feature to retain no less than one-half acre islands of vegetation also allows for recruitment into the disturbed areas for shrub species. However, this could be limited in some areas due to high densities of species such as Ceanothus and bigberry manzanita that require fire for germination (FEIS 2009 ).
The project’s design features prevent treatment or disturbance in the project area within 100 feet of the two giant reedgrass, three Spanish broom, and the remaining two bigleaf periwinkle populations. Because of these design features, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts from project implementation that would affect the abundance and distribution of these species.
The crusher and mastication treatments create high levels of soil disturbance. Use of bulldozers has been found to significantly increase nonnative abundance and cover (Merriam et. al 2006). These treatments eliminate non-sprouting native vegetation, creating swathes of bare soil. The resulting habitat is at high risk of being invaded by invasive nonnative plants. This treatment type is not anticipated to be utilized much in project implementation (J. Gipson, pers. comm.. 2009) as the bulldozer must be utilized on a ridgeline and the project area has numerous outcrops that would limit, if not eliminate, this possibility.
Vegetative material debris after mastication is spread out by machinery, leaving some areas of bare soil that have a moderate to high potential of being colonized by nonnative invasive plants. Recent studies (Potts and Stephens, 2009) have concluded that mastication may provide fuels management with an effective means of reducing fuel loading over a longer period of time, but with an increase in nonnative invasive plants. Mastication showed much higher plant richness and abundance for both native and nonnative species, including the highest proportion of nonnative plants (Potts and Stephens, 2009).
Hand piling in the threat zone will be done by hand clearing and piling (J. Gipson, pers. comm. 2009). The actual soil disturbance from hand thinning is greatly reduced from that of crushing and is a minor reduction from that of mastication. While soil disturbance is only a single factor,
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 67
as mentioned in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone section, the factors most correlated with increases and persistence in invasives are canopy, litter, and duff cover.
The greater soil disturbance occurring with the hand clearing and piling action will be the pile burning. Studies have found that the footprints where slash pile burning has occurred have the greatest distribution and abundance of invasives (Keeley 2006), inherently giving these areas a high risk for invasion.
All of the burn piles in the project area will be hand piled without machinery, reducing the additional effect of intense soil disturbance. Depending on the size of the pile and its residence time, the soils below may become sterile, reducing native seedbanks. This could reduce competition for invasive nonnative plant species. Another potential factor that could increase risk with this action is the release of nutrients through the burning of organic materials. This process could encourage invasive nonnative species’ growth. Conversely, this process could also provide nutrient resources for native species. Because pile sizes are likely to be greatly reduced when conducted by hand, this action is anticipated to be minor, and its effects short-term.
Studies (Bradley San Diego horned lizard. 2006, Stephens San Diego horned lizard, 2002) have found that broadcast prescribed fire has the lowest nonnative response when compared to mastication and hand treatment areas.
In the proposed action, there will be a combination of broadcast prescribed fire and mastication. In order to prevent the detrimental effects of prescribed burning in masticated material, burning when soils are moist (>20 percent volumetric moisture) should inhibit damaging temperatures below one to two inches in the mineral soil (Busse San Diego horned lizard, 2006). This may be critical to the viability of the native shrubs’ survival during a prescribed fire—for a healthy return post-fire.
Minor increases in vectors are anticipated as a result of project implementation, including increased vehicular traffic, increased foot traffic, and machinery into the project area. The greatest vector impact will be from the disturbance created by the vectors (especially machinery) in areas that already have populations of nonnative invasive species.
This is likely to increase the populations of the annual grasses and herbs such as redstem filaree and tocalote. This potential risk is greatest at the entrance to the southeast corner of Rancho Capistrano, off South Main Divide, where—as discussed earlier—a yellow star-thistle population exists.
The following design features will greatly reduce—to a minor impact—the potential for introducing additional species to the project area: washing equipment, rehabilitating access points, infrastructure to prevent illegal off-highway vehicle access, limiting usage of passageways with known infestations, minimization of entry points, and post treatment monitoring.
68 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects There are several non-project depended vectors that could contribute to invasive nonnative distribution. These include: roads, trails, illegal off-highway vehicle activity, and illegal pasturing of horses.
California State Highway 74 (Ortega Highway) is a busy commute route that bisects the project area between Decker Canyon and El Cariso. Other roads in and adjacent to the project area such as Long Canyon Road., Decker Canyon Road. and South Main Divide Road., serve as transportation routes for residents in the communities and recreationists.
Roads, often the point of introduction for invasive nonnatives into wildlands, present an inherently high-vector risk. Roads are also the locations in which most human-caused ignitions take place. When these ignitions occur repeatedly, this situation can lead to type conversion.
Alternative 2 is not expected to enhance this cumulative effect, as the design feature to leave an “eyebrow” of vegetation along roads leaves a barrier of dense vegetation that will minimize the potential for increased invasions.
There are numerous user-created trails that are accessed from the communities adjacent to the project area. This was most commonly observed during field surveys in the areas adjacent to Rancho Carrillo and Rancho Capistrano, leading out into the wilderness areas. These trails appeared to be mainly utilized by horse and foot traffic.
Seeds or propagules of invasive nonnative plant species can be spread on shoes, or the fur of animals, or manure from horses (Gower 2007). However, this risk is likely to be minor. Implementation of Alternative 2 could contribute to this risk, as reducing standing brush could allow for increased usage of a greater area and create openings for more user created trails.
Reducing shrub cover enhances the opportunities for illegal off-highway vehicle activity. While Alternative 2 will reduce shrub cover, it has integrated design features (such as leaving brush “eyebrow” and minimizing entry and exit points) that greatly reduce the risk of the implementation contributing to this cumulative effect.
In portions of Rancho Capistrano and Rancho Carrillo, it appears that adjacent private property owners have conducted clearing on National Forest System lands. These areas, totaling approximately 10-15 acres (W. Boes, pers. observation, 2009), have been type converted to annual grasslands. There is also evidence that livestock are being used to maintain some of these areas.
The private properties in the cumulative effects analysis area have largely altered the native vegetation. Fuels reduction clearing, pasturing of horses and other livestock, planting of ornamental plants, and general disturbance associated with daily human interactions on the landscape in these areas have resulted largely in an urban landscape. The action alternative contributes to this action by increasing the area, especially in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone, that is highly disturbed and vulnerable to invasion.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 69
Conclusions and Findings A total of 22 invasive nonnative plant species were identified in the Trabuco Community Defense Project area. Three of these species were identified as priority species that need to be prevented from spreading and require design features to mitigate impacts from the action alternative. Three additional invasive nonnative plant species were identified in the vicinity of the project area, one with the potential to spread due to implementation of the action alternative.
Design features have been included in the proposed action to minimize potential for spread. The No Action Alternative 1, will not directly impact the distribution and abundance of invasive species. However, it will allow the native vegetation, where disturbed, to reestablish. This will result in the reduction of habitat and abundance of invasive species. In the event of a wildfire, Alternative 1 is also likely to result in a lower invasive species response, when compared with Alternative 2 .
Alternative 2, the Action Alternative, is anticipated to have adverse, minor to moderate, long- term impacts to invasive nonnative plant species’ spread and establishment in the Wildland- Urban Interface Defense Zone.
Adverse, short term, minor impacts are anticipated in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone where vegetation management will have a single-event impact on the landscape, where regeneration is anticipated.
The general impacts are likely to be caused by the spread of the ever ubiquitous annual grasses (Bromus spp., Avena spp.), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis).
This project is anticipated to contribute to cumulative effects for invasive nonnative plant species in two ways:
1. It will increase the acreage in the 2. The disturbance created will provide cumulative effects analysis area that an environment that can increase the is maintained at an early seral abundance and distribution of vegetation composition, which will invasive nonnative plant species likely have nonnative annual grasses across the general landscape. and forbs as a large component of this composition, and
9. Special Status Plants Because vegetation management would occur within the proposed project area, a concern exists that the proposed project could potentially affect Forest Service Sensitive plant species.
70 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Background No occurrences were identified for any Threatened and Endangered species. The following are accounts of the Forest Service Sensitive species determined to have suitable habitat in the project area based upon criteria described in the specialist report:
Calochortus plummerae (Plummer’s mariposa lily) This species occurs in the Santa Monica, San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Ana Mountains, as well as within the alluvial fans at the bases of these ranges. There are 1034 known occurrences, 26 of which occur on national forest lands (California Natural Diversity Database 2008).
Horkelia cuneata ssp. Puberla The range for this species extends from the Outer South Coast Ranges to the foothill edge of the Los Angeles Basin. This species is mainly distributed on private land. There are no known occurrences on National Forest lands.
Lepechinia cardiophylla (heart-leaved pitcher sage) A heart-leaved pitcher sage is known from 23 occurrences and is found primarily in the Santa Ana Mountains of Orange and Riverside counties (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). It has also been reported from Iron Mountain in San Diego County and from Baja California, Mexico (California Native Plant Society 2001, California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB] 2004).
Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana (Southern skullcap) This species is known from 18 occurrences and occurs in Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties (CNDDB 2009). In the Santa Ana Mountains, it has been documented from the Santa Rosa Plateau (Roberts et. al. 2004). Scutellaria bolanderi spp. astromontana occurs on the Cleveland and San Bernardino national forests. Occurrences are also known from private lands.
Symphyotrichum defoliatum (San Bernardino aster) This species is known from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains, as well as from the Peninsular Ranges in southern California. CNDDB (2008) lists 46 occurrences, although many may have since been removed.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Special Status Plants
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Because vegetation management would not occur within the proposed project, Alternative 1 will have no direct or indirect effects, and therefore, no cumulative effects to the following species: Plummer’s mariposa lily, mesa horkelia, heart-leaf pitcher sage, southern skullcap or San Bernardino aster.
4 This number of occurrence is likely low, as the author has noted six additional occurrences on the Angeles and San Bernardino national forests that are not listed in California Natural Diversity Database.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 70
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct Effects Alternative 2 will have no direct impacts for any threatened and endangered plant species because none occur within the project area. No indirect impacts are anticipated for southern skullcap or San Bernardino aster, as the suitable habitat identified in the project is protected by the Riparian Conservation Area design feature that prohibits treatment in the inner gorge of the stream channel.
Indirect Effects In terms of disturbance to potential habitat, there is the potential for indirect impacts to Plummer’s mariposa lily, mesa horkelia, and heart-leaf pitcher sage. The greatest indirect impact to habitat is the potential for an increase in the abundance of invasive nonnative plant species. (Refer to the invasive nonnative plant species section in this document). The disturbance created by fuels reduction activities could adversely impact these three Forest Service Sensitive plant species indirectly by creating habitat and by providing vectors for nonnative plant invasion. These exotic plants could out-compete the Forest Service Sensitive plant species for habitat.
Because most habitat alteration will occur in the 161 acres identified as the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone, this is where these impacts will be greatest. Because the project’s actions aim to reduce chaparral habitat, this will impact the habitat for Plummer’s mariposa lily, mesa horkelia, and heart-leaf pitcher sage.
This indirect impact would be localized to areas where fuels management activities would impact habitat. Depending on whether invasive nonnative plant species are successful in populating the habitat, it could have adverse, negligible, or minor long-term impacts.
Soil compaction and erosion is an indirect effect to suitable habitat that could occur by repeat passes with vehicles, foot traffic, and machinery. This can result in decreases in soil moisture absorption, decreasing habitat suitability. The portions of the project area where the bulldozer for the crushing treatment is to operate are the most vulnerable to these impacts from soil compaction.
Dozers operating crushers have metal tracks that will directly cause some soil disturbance and compaction as they move through treatment areas. As an indirect effect, these compacted areas will result in accelerated erosion. This impact could be adverse and long-term, but localized. As this project aims to reduce standing vegetation, some of the treatment will result—post treatment—in bare areas of soil. Although bare soil patches occur in the untreated, undisturbed landscape, the soil disturbances associated with these treatments leave these areas vulnerable to nonnative invasion. (For a full discussion, see Invasive Nonnative Plant Specialist report, hereby incorporated by reference. This specialist report is part of the Trabuco Community Defense Project Environmental Assessment project record available at the Trabuco Ranger District.) Conversely, disturbance-adapted natives like California deerbrush, yerba santa, or California buckwheat may also colonize these exposed areas.
The reduction of vegetation can also alter microhabitats by increasing exposure to sun, wind, and other environmental elements, which—depending on the species—has the potential to create or reduce suitable habitat. This could beneficially impact heart-leaf pitcher sage and Plummer’s
71 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
mariposa lily (Boes pers. Observation 2008 and 2009) which generally occur in greater abundance in open habitats where shrub overstory is scant, and often where there has been recent disturbance (Stephenson and Calcerone, 1999).
Mastication treatment is aimed at reducing the shrub cover. Of the dominant shrub species present, chamise, birchleaf mountain-mahogany, yucca, black sage, California buckwheat, and all the oaks have the capacity to regenerate by sprouting from regenerative tissues at the base of the stems. Species such as bigberry manzinita and buckbrush do not re-sprout and their seeds germinate after cues from fire. This is likely to result in long-term changes to species composition, which could alter habitat suitability for Forest Service Sensitive species.
There is very little known about the response in the herbaceous layer to mastication. One study in chamise in northern California found greater species richness in sites that were masticated versus prescribed burned. However, there was also a greater percentage of non-native cover as well (Potts and Stephens 2009).
Another study in northern California in whiteleaf manzinita dominated shrublands found that in mastication and hand treatments—compared with mastication combined with prescribed fire and prescribed fire treatments—there was an increased herbaceous layer colonization, although a high percentage were non-native (Bradley et. al, 2006).
If the results in the project area are similar to these studies, there is the potential for the creation of suitable habitat for Plummers’ mariposa lily and heart-leaf pitcher sage once the shrub cover is removed. This potential beneficial impact is weighted by the probability of invasive non- natives establishing and increased competition for resources.
Indirect impacts in the portions of the project area to be “crushed” are likely to be similar to the mastication treatment areas. Up to three inches of topsoil disturbance would promote the invasion of non-native species. In areas where the bulldozer travels, there is little topsoil remaining and major soil compaction. The disturbance created along the ridgelines by crushing creates a pathway of disturbance that can indirectly act as a corridor for nonnative invasion (Merriam et. al 2006).
The most important indirect impact of the crushing treatment would be the creation of habitat and potential introduction of invasive nonnative plants. This would result from increased solar radiation from removal of overstory, soil compaction, and invasive nonnative plant seeds being inadvertently introduced to the site by person and/or machinery, and soil disturbance. This indirect impact will be localized, adverse, and long-term for Forest Service Sensitive species.
Cumulative Effects The proposed project area in Alternative 2 is only a portion of the range for most of the Forest Service Sensitive plant species. Therefore, events in neighboring areas could impact other populations, potentially affecting the habitat for the species. Populations outside the areas directly impacted by this alternative can act as reservoirs for initializing new populations, and when close enough, can contribute to genetic diversity.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 72
By altering further suitable habitat, the implementation of Alternative 2 contributes cumulatively to the other fuel reduction projects taking place within the cumulative effects analysis area. As discussed in the previous “Indirect Effects” section, this could either create or reduce suitable habitat for the species being analyzed.
The 161 acres of Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone treatment have the greatest negative, long-term cumulative contribution. This is due to the multiple disturbances and the goal for alteration of these areas to 80 to 90 percent early seral habitat—which will likely consist of nonnative annual grasses and forbs.
The cumulative impacts in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone where one time treatments are to occur in any one given place are likely to be short-term, localized and minor.
The treatments occurring around the electronic sites and both the North and South Main Divide treatments are likely to result in early seral habitat due to the multiple treatments and the historical disturbances in these areas. This is likely to result in long-term, negative effects to Plummer’s mariposa lily, mesa horkelia, and heart-leaf pitcher sage. However, due to the absence of known occurrences and the cumulative effects area being only a small portion of the distributional range for these species, this potential effect is likely to be minor.
Many of the fires that have occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area have been isolated temporally, which has allowed for the natural successional pathway to occur. Where treatment occurs in areas that have been impacted within the last 30 years by fire, this project will contribute to this effect cumulatively. This is because the chaparral vegetation type is thought to require a disturbance regime no less than 30 years to reestablish.
Hence, in the portions of Decker Canyon and Rancho Carrillo that have been impacted by fire, there is the potential for an altered successional pathway where the regeneration will likely be scrub species and herbaceous perennials and annuals. This has the potential to negatively impact habitat for all species being considered. As discussed earlier, the increased potential for invasive nonnative species will be enhanced by this cumulative effect.
In addition, the project is anticipated to contribute cumulatively to activities on the adjacent private properties, resulting in further alterations to habitat for all the species being analyzed.
Conclusions and Findings Implementation of Alternative 2 – the Action Alternative will not result in direct or indirect— thus, nor cumulative impacts—to southern skullcap or San Bernardino aster. However, by alterations to potentially suitable habitat, this alternative could result in indirect impacts to Plummer’s mariposa lily, mesa horkelia, and heart-leaf pitcher sage.
The indirect and cumulative impacts to habitat have both the potential to create and eliminate suitable habitat for the disturbance-adapted Plummer’s mariposa lily and heart-leaf pitcher sage. However, the likeliness of nonnative invasion will likely result in negative impacts to habitat suitability.
73 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The impacts are likely to be long term in the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone, where there is potential for 161 acres to be highly modified. Impacts are likely to be short term in the remaining Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone, where the impacts to the vegetation will likely recover within 10 years to negligible levels.
Plummer’s mariposa lily has numerous extant occurrences and has an elevational and distribution range that extends well beyond the Cleveland National Forest. This species, therefore, is unlikely to be more than negligibly affected by project implementation.
The project area overlaps with only a small portion of the distributional and elevational range for mesa horkelia. Though suitable habitat exists in the project area, there is a low probability for this species to occur. Negligible impacts to mesa horkelia habitat are anticipated.
Heart-leaf pitcher sage is endemic to the Santa Ana Mountains. However, because the project area only impacts a very small portion of potentially suitable habitat for this species, any adverse effects are likely to be minor/negligibly affected by implementation.
10. Scenery There is a concern that the Trabuco Community Protection Project would negatively impact the visual quality of the area.
Background Existing scenic integrity represents the current status of a landscape. This is determined on the basis of visual changes that detract from the scenic quality of the area. Through ground surveys of the study area, the existing conditions were analyzed to determine the level of scenic integrity of the study area and land surrounding the study area.
Viewed from the use areas and travelways documented earlier, the forest lands for the different treatment areas appears to have low to high scenic integrity in relation to their respective settings. Most of the treatment areas are largely intact and would have a high existing scenic integrity. Exceptions are portions along the Rancho Carillo treatment areas where the existing vegetation removal within and adjacent to the proposed project have lowered the scenic integrity drastically.
Additionally, portions of the Decker Canyon and the El Cariso treatment areas have exposed roadways cut and fill that are highly visible with high-contrasting color of soil. These contrasts are a notable deviation from the natural landscape.
Scenic Class Scenic Classes combine the visibility and scenic attractiveness maps to identify areas of public scenic value and are used as a planning tool for land management planners. All of the treatment areas are Class 1, which represent the highest value.
Scenic Integrity Objectives Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) establish the overall importance of scenic resources and set minimum acceptable levels of natural landscape character for Cleveland National Forest lands.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 74
The Scenic Integrity Objectives for all of the treatment areas outside of the wilderness is “High” (see Appendix A. Scenic Integrity Objective Map). A High Scenic Integrity Objective indicates that the landscape changes should not be visually evident to the average person—unless pointed out. In other words, they are not noticeable.
The treatment proposed within the wilderness is designated as “Very High”. This is referred to as landscape where the landscape character “is” intact with only minute, if any, deviations.
Scenic Absorption Capability Scenic Absorption Capability (SAC) refers to the ability of forest lands to withstand various types of use without the loss of their natural character. Scenic Absorption Capability assessments provide the basis for predicting future scenic conditions that will result from project proposals. Slope, vegetation screening, and vegetation diversity are primary factors incorporated into Scenic Absorption Capability determinations.
Scenic Absorption Capability for the majority of projects areas would be moderate to low because of the chemise/chaparral vegetation and contrasting soils.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Scenery The proposed project areas were analyzed as a Proposed Action and as a No Action Alternative. Analysis for assessing potential change resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative impacts to scenery resources were measured through assessment of representational viewpoints at various locations (middleground, foreground, and immediate foreground views) toward the proposed treatment areas.
Additionally, the Proposed Action was analyzed for potential effect after 3 years. These viewpoints were documented and included as part of the analysis because they represent critical views from use areas and travelways with representational concern levels for the project area.
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects If there is no action taken and the proposed fuel reduction project does not take place, there would be no direct effect to landscape character associated with the project areas. In addition, there would be no foreseeable change to the future landscape character. Therefore, no change in future scenic integrity of the project areas from current conditions would occur.
If the No Action Alternative is selected and no fuels reduction occurs, potential indirect effects to the landscape character of the Elsinore and San Mateo Places would be the potential loss of vegetation and land scarring associated with catastrophic wildfire—which would be beyond expected disturbance levels for this ecological system.
This alternative could potentially be more damaging to the scenic integrity of the project areas because of the risk associated within the natural ecosystem fire regime. Because of the unnatural fuel buildup, an unmanaged wildfire could potentially burn hotter and destroy native plants, modifying the vegetation composition of the forest and resulting in scenery with negative appearance for 2 to 10 years—with a different type of scenic expression thereafter.
75 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative cumulative effects analysis for the scenery resources of the fuels reduction and vegetation treatments projects include analysis of the project areas and the land area encompassing the Elsinore and San Mateo Places.
The area of cumulative effects analysis was bounded in this manner because of the regional place description identified in the Forest Plan. Reasonably foreseeable future actions if the No Action Alternative is selected would be the potential for a catastrophic wildfire spreading over a larger area within the respective proposed treatment area locations. This could have a major negative effect on scenic resources on forest lands at a regional level.
If the No Action Alternative is selected, there would be no immediate effect to the scenery resources of the project areas. However, there is potential for the loss of scenic integrity levels associated with a catastrophic wildfire, which would have an increased risk of occurring.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects In the areas outside of designated wilderness, the proposed fuel treatment for the El Cariso, Decker Canyon, and portions of the Ranch Capistrano would include treatment of a maximum of 80 percent of the standing brush. In these areas, the brush will be primarily masticated to a depth not to exceed six inches.
The mastication treatment and burns would be prescribed in blocks (or units) of land within the project area. These block treatments would occur over a five-year period. All tree-form oaks within the units will be retained. Untreated pockets (no smaller than ¼ acre in size) will be retained in the masticated units.
Where feasible, oaks, ceanothus and manzanita will be favored species in the retained pockets. The end result will be various age class fuels throughout the project areas. To minimize scenery impacts to recreation users, a buffer of standing vegetation will be maintained along the road system and recreation sites.
The reduction in vegetation, masticated vegetation, slash piles, and scorched soil and vegetation associated with burn piles are treatment features that most effect scenery. The proposed fuel and vegetation management would temporarily adversely impact recreation user views from the nearby trails and trailhead, primarily impacting views from some El Cariso and Rancho Capistrano residences and views from California State Highway 74 (the “Ortega” Highway) and from the South Main Divide Road.
However, a buffer of standing vegetation will be maintained along roadway and recreation areas, helping to mitigate short-term adverse impacts to scenery. These short-term adverse effects would be minor to moderate.
During implementation, smoke from the burns could be highly visible, creating shorter adverse visual impacts from several miles away—depending on weather conditions—that would cause minor to negligible effects.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 76
Additional direct effects include the mosaic of blackened vegetation and earth associated with the burning that would contrast with the undisturbed setting. Slash piles near the roadways and trails would be highly visible because of the low-lying chaparral/chemise vegetation and low visual absorption capability of the soil. These adverse impacts would have a short-term moderate effect on scenery and would decrease the scenic integrity of project area as viewed from nearby residences, roadways, and recreational sites.
However, these impacts would be temporary. Within one to two growing seasons these impacts would no longer be evident and the landscape character would closely resemble the natural desired landscape condition.
According to research in Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuel Management (2000), vegetation management can actually improve scenic integrity of an area as an indirect effect. The proposed fuel treatments would therefore have a long-term neutral to beneficial impact to the landscape character if the scenery mitigation measures—especially regarding the removal of slash from highly sensitive views—are implemented to help blend the management activities into the characteristic landscape.
Under Alternative 2, in designated wilderness areas, the proposed fuel reduction for the Ranch Carillo and eastern portions of the Ranch Capistrano treatment areas would include non- mechanical treatments that would be used to accomplish the treatment objective and comply with the Wilderness Act.
Standing brush will be cut with non-mechanical tools and hand piled. These piles will be burned at a later date to eliminate the fuel from the treatment area. Tree-form oaks will not be removed from these hand treated areas, but will be limbed to a height not to exceed 10 feet, or half of the live tree crown.
The reduction in vegetation, downed vegetation and slash piles, and scorched soil and vegetation associated with burn piles are the treatment features most effecting scenery. The proposed fuel and vegetation management would temporarily impact recreation user views from the nearby trails and trailheads. Some limited views from a few of the residences will be impacted from the Rancho Capistrano and Rancho Carillo communities. However, the majority of views have existing vegetation modification adjacent or within the Cleveland National Forest boundary. The northeastern proposed treatment areas of Rancho Carillo—as well as other areas—have had extensive vegetation removed. Any thinning of vegetation would improve the visual quality by creating more of a transition of vegetation density.
The prescribed treatments for the wilderness would have less impact on the vegetation, helping to mitigate negative effects to scenery. During implementation, smoke from the burn piles would potentially be highly visible, creating short-term, minor visual impacts from several miles away—depending on weather conditions.
Additional direct effects include slash piles and disturbed soil near the roadways and trails. These piles would be highly visible because of the low lying chaparral/chemise vegetation and low visual absorption capability of the soil. Therefore, these impacts would have a short-term, minor negative effect on scenery and would decrease the scenic integrity of the project area as viewed from nearby residences, roadways, and recreational sites.
77 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
However, these impacts would be temporary. Within one to two growing seasons, the landscape character would closely resemble the natural desired landscape condition. The proposed fuel treatments would therefore have a minor effect to the landscape character if the scenery mitigation measures—especially regarding the removal of slash—are implemented to help blend the management activities into the characteristic landscape.
Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action Alternative’s cumulative affects analysis for the scenery resources of the fuels reduction and vegetation treatments projects include analysis of the project areas and the land area encompassing and the Elsinore and San Mateo Places.
The area of cumulative effects analysis was bounded in this manner because of the regional place description identified in the Cleveland National Forest’s Forest Plan. The proposed treatment areas are located near the proposed Old Dominion, Western Divide Fuels break project and Penny Pines Plantation fuels reduction project (located to the north and west) and the Elsinore Peak and Wildomar (also called Hixon) fuel reduction project areas (located to the northeast).
The nearby projects are proposed to be implemented within the next 5 to 10 years and would potentially have similar impacts. Due to their close proximities, the projects could magnify the initial impact to the scenic integrity of Elsinore Place. However, within a couple of years, the vegetation would also be restored to the natural desired landscape condition and would have a negligible effect, if similar mitigation measures are implemented.
Additionally, with the threat of wild- or human-caused fire starts, the cumulative effect of fire prevention treatments—in conjunction with other treatments currently taking place within Elsinore Place—would reduce the risk of potential catastrophic wildfire. These treatments would potentially benefit the scenic resources of the surrounding community and produce a beneficial impact.
Conclusions and Findings The proposed treatment areas, with design features/protection measures implemented, would meet the Forest Plan direction for scenery resources. The activities would modify the existing condition of the vegetation but would have a natural appearing landscape character in the long term.
If the Proposed Action is selected, the temporary changes in the landscape character would modify the Existing Scenic Integrity levels of the project area down one or two levels. Within three years or sooner, however, the proposed treatment areas would help meet the Scenic Integrity Objective identified in the Forest Plan (CNF LMP). This would be constant with Forest direction including S9 and S10 of the The Aesthetic Management Standards from the 2005 Land Management Plan Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests. S10 states:
“Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) will be met with the following exceptions: Minor adjustments not to exceed a drop of one SIO level is allowable with the Forest Supervisors approval.” and “Temporary drops of more than one SIO level may be made during and immediately following project implementation providing they do not exceed three years in duration.”
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 78
Because the proposed projects would potentially not take longer than thee years to be restored after implementation, they will meet Land Management Plan Aesthetic Management Standards and the proposed treatments would not impact the scenic values.
If a catastrophic wildfire were to occur because of continued build-up of vegetation fuels, the scenic effect would be that of a high-intensity, stand-replacing fire. Fire damage to the residences and recreation sites and other surrounding developments would be devastating and take over a decade to recover the scenic integrity of the landscape.
Therefore, the Proposed Action would comply with the 2005 Land Management Plan Part 2 Cleveland National Forest Strategy, LM 1 - Landscape Aesthetics: “Manage landscapes and built elements in order to achieve scenic integrity objectives: Use the best environmental design practices to harmonize changes in the landscape and to advance environmentally sustainable design solutions.”
11. Inventoried Roadless Areas There is a concern that the Trabuco Community Defense Project activities are inconsistent with the regulated management of the Inventoried Roadless Areas within the project area.
Background The proposed action intersects with 71.2 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), including the Trabuco IRA and Wildhorse IRA. Both areas were evaluated in the 2005 Forest Plan revision process, but neither was recommended as wilderness to Congress. A historical background is necessary to understand the current status of roadless areas. Also, a brief discussion of two distinct court rulings is necessary, as well as a discussion of Forest Service policy that applies to the Trabuco IRA and the Wildhorse IRA.
The Land Management Plan Part 2 - Cleveland National Forest Strategy provides background on the IRAs, stating: “Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were originally mapped as a result of the second Roadless Area Review (RARE II), which was documented in a final environmental impact statement dated January of 1979, and refined during development of the national forest land management plans. These maps were identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000. A final Roadless Area Conservation Rule was published in May of 2005, allowing optional State government involvement through a petition process. Alternatively the 1982 NFMA planning rule allows for the analysis and evaluation of roadless areas, including boundary adjustments, in the forest plan revision process.” Two court decisions further constrain the management of IRAs. A February 6, 2007 decision (State of California v. USDA, 3:05-cv-03508-EDL) invalidated the “State Petitions Rule” (70 Fed. Reg. 25,654 – May 13, 2005) and ordered that the Forest Service is “enjoined from taking any further action contrary to the Roadless Rule.” This ruling reinstated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. However, a Wyoming ruling (Wyoming v. USDA, 2.07-cv-00017-CAB – Aug. 8, 2008) declared that the “roadless rule must be set aside” and issued an injunction to stop the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These conflicting rulings both apply to California national forests.
79 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Though this makes it difficult to effectively manage IRAs, some activities are still necessary in the management of IRAs. Essentially, for proposed action to proceed in an IRA, the action must conform with both rulings. In other words, the proposed action must do something that could be carried forth if the Roadless Area Conservation Rule were in effect. Furthermore, the action would also have to be of the nature that it would be carried forth were the Roadless Area Conservation Rule not in effect. In the case of the Trabuco Community Defense Project, it should be possible to comply with both court rulings.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Inventoried Roadless Areas
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects on the Wildhorse IRA or the Trabuco IRA. However, indirect negative effects may be possible due to fire suppression techniques used in the event of a wildfire around the communities of Rancho Capistrano and El Cariso.
The event of a future wildfire in the area is very likely. And, in the event of a wildfire, suppression would be the response. According to the individual Scenery, Soils and Hydrology, Air Quality, and Heritage reports for this environmental assessment, these negative effects could be greater than the proposed action regarding some of the nine values of Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The proposed action would involve 71.6 acres in Inventoried Roadless Areas. Of the 71.6 total acres, 60.4 acres are within the Wildhorse IRA, and 11.2 acres are located within the Trabuco IRA (Table 23).
Because no timber harvest, road construction, or road reconstruction would occur under the proposed action, the prohibitions set forth in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would not occur under this alternative. Though there would be some direct and cumulative negative effects to the nine roadless area values, there would be indirect, beneficial effects. Cumulative effects include an additional 4.7 acres treated in the Los Pinos project, bringing the total acreage effected in the Trabuco IRA to 15.9 acres.
Inventory Roadless Treatment Unit Community Acres Area Number
Decker Canyon Trabuco IRA 3 11.2
Rancho Wildhorse IRA 6 14.4 Capistrano Rancho Wildhorse IRA 8 46 Capistrano
Table 23 – Proposed Treatment Unit Acreages within Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 80
Design features to protect the nine IRA values can be found in the Scenery, Air Quality, Heritage, Soils and Hydrology, Invasive Plants, and Sensitive Species specialist reports. These design features will reduce the effects of the impacts to the nine IRA values and, in some cases, eliminate these impacts.
None of the recognized Inventoried Roadless Area values will be changed with the proposed action. These values are:
• High quality or undisturbed soil, • Primitive, semi-primitive, non- water, and air; motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed • Sources of public drinking water; recreation; • Diversity of plant and animal • Reference landscapes; communities; • Naturally appearing landscapes with • Habitat for threatened, endangered, high scenic quality; proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, as well as for those species • Traditional cultural properties and dependent on large, undisturbed sacred sites; and areas of land; • Other locally identified unique characteristics.
Conclusions and Findings The proposed action would comply with current roadless policy with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. Though policy is complicated by dueling court injunctions, nothing in the proposed action would be done contrary to either court opinion. No actions being proposed would involve prohibited actions from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
12. Wilderness There is a concern that vegetation treatments within the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness would affect the “wilderness” character and be inconsistent with the Wilderness Act.
Background The San Mateo Canyon Wilderness was designated by Congress with the passage of The California Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-425 - 9/28/1984). The California Wilderness Act of 1984, the enabling legislation for the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, contained no language that differs from the Wilderness Act of 1964 with regards to subsection 4(d)(1).
In other words, there is nothing in the enabling legislation that specifically allows for pre- suppression activities. It is important to clarify this, as some subsequent legislation designating “wilderness” has contained such language for certain National Wilderness Preservation System areas.
The San Mateo Canyon Wilderness consists primarily of mountains covered with chaparral and coastal sage. This wilderness’s borders are coincident with the Wildland-Urban Interface of Southern California. Rancho Carillo is a community virtually surrounded by the San Mateo
81 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Canyon Wilderness. The road leading into Rancho Carillo is “cherry-stemmed” into the wilderness—with no buffer between private residences and the wilderness. Likewise, no buffer lies between Rancho Capistrano and the wilderness on the northeast corner of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. In both instances, homes and other residential structures have been constructed within feet of the wilderness boundary.
For residents of both communities, allowing fire to perform its natural ecological role in the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness would jeopardize public safety and private property. As a result of the risk of wildfire escaping from wilderness, “no southern California national forest wilderness has a wildland fire management plan that would allow wildfire to play its natural role” (Forest Plan FEIS Vol.1 p.266).
Figure 2 shows the proximity of these communities to the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. Multiple residential structures have been constructed within 20 feet of the wilderness boundary, leaving no option to implement the Trabuco Community Defense Project outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness area.
While the Forest Service has ‘suppression’ as a response to fires in the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, historical data indicates that large wildfires have occurred at the same frequency over the last several hundred years (USDA Forest Service SCFP FEIS vol.1).
Essentially, the large fires are burning here at a historically average rate, but the Forest Service is unable to reduce the consequences of these wildfires when they escape the wilderness. The evidence of this is seen on an annual basis in Southern California, as billions of dollars in property loss and loss of life is a common result of wildfires in the vegetation type of the project area.
Typically “control of fire” has been applied to actively burning fires, but other sections of FSM 2320 leave the issue open for further interpretation. Wilderness fire management objective #2 is to: “Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire…escaping from wilderness”. Typically, this is done with the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire, however, is not an option around Rancho Carillo and Rancho Capistrano. FSM 2323.52 contains the next relevant policy: “Only allow vegetation to be cut…when necessary for wilderness purposes…or when… emergency conditions control of fire, or protecting public safety make it necessary”.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Wilderness There are four qualities of wilderness which are used to evaluate the impacts to “wilderness character”:
1. Untrammeled, 4. Outstanding opportunities for
2. Natural, solicitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 3. Undeveloped, and
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 82
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects As a direct effect, the No Action Alternative would support the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. However, an indirect effect of not taking action now could be that bulldozers and other techniques are used as suppression tactics in future fire events within the project area. This would represent a greater trammeling to the wilderness resource than using hand tools, and it would also require the use of motorized equipment. Motorized equipment such as bulldozers would likely trammel a greater area of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness as well.
The No Action Alternative would support the undeveloped quality of wilderness character. No structures would be constructed under this alternative.
A direct effect of the No Action Alternative would be the support the “Natural” quality of wilderness character on 60.8 acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. Lightning-caused wildfire is a natural event in the project area’s fire-dependent ecosystem. Naturally occurring wildfire and the effects from these wildfires would be naturally occurring processes. Therefore, allowing fire to occur naturally would benefit the wilderness resource.
Furthermore, no ground disturbance would occur, thus, opportunities for increases in non-native plants would not be a direct effect of the No Action Alternative.
However, allowing wildfire to burn naturally is not the current management response in the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. The consequences of wildfire escaping the wilderness are too high to allow the natural force of lightning-caused fire to burn freely. Conditions are complicated in that the majority of fires are now human-caused, not natural.
The frequency of small fires in the project area is greater due to improved suppression techniques and equipment, but the frequency of large fires (>50,000 acres) is within the historical average (USDA Forest Service SCFP FEIS vol.1). Therefore, even though more small fires burn now, more fires are human-caused, and the Forest Service response is suppression.
Large fires occur at the same frequency as they did long before the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness was designated. The consequences of these large fires burning in such a densely populated area are dramatic. The Forest Service is currently unable to adequately reduce the risk of wildfire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
Consequently, the No Action Alternative would have an indirect negative effect on the Forest Service’s ability to administer the “Natural” quality of wilderness character because the agency is unable to administer the fire-adaptive ecosystem of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness while reducing the consequences of wildfire from escaping the wilderness.
Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation: The No Action Alternative would have no effect on opportunities for solitude or a primitive or unconfined type of recreation.
Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would increase the risks and consequences of fire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This hinders the Forest Service’s ability to achieve Wilderness
83 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Fire Management Objective 2: Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire…escaping from wilderness.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Approximately 60 acres under the Proposed Action Alternative would be located inside the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, having the aforementioned direct, adverse effects on the “Natural” and “Untrammeled” qualities of wilderness character.
Community Treatment Unit Number Acres Rancho Capistrano 7 29.4 Rancho Carillo 9 2.1 Rancho Carillo 10 2.3 Rancho Carillo 11 3.0 Rancho Carillo 12 15.5 Rancho Carillo 13 6.6 Rancho Carillo 14 1.9
Table 24 – Proposed Treatment Unit Acreages within San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
The San Mateo Canyon Wilderness consists of 38,484 acres. The Proposed Action Alternative would therefore directly impair 0.16 percent of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. These impairments would be long term. Table 24 contains detailed acreages of each proposed treatment area within the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
Direct and Indirect Effects The direct and indirect effects to wilderness are analyzed using the four qualities of wilderness character (Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, and Outstanding opportunities for solicitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation).
Approximately sixty acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness would be directly impaired with regards to the “n “Natural” and “Untrammeled” qualities of wilderness character, though indirect effects could be beneficial to wilderness character.
The need for the Trabuco Community Defense Project is due to unacceptable risks resulting from wildfire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness to developed lands outside wilderness. Because the community defense project would be constructed in a fire-dependent ecosystem, lightning-caused wildfire is a natural event. The manipulation of the chaparral into a vegetation type in which fire would be easier to control represents a “trammeling” or a manipulation of the natural processes of wilderness. Such an action would impair rather than preserve the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. Therefore, the untrammeled character of wilderness would be directly and adversely impaired on approximately 60.8 acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 84
The community defense project would not have the additional indirect adverse effect of fire suppression on additional acreage. Because the entire San Mateo Canyon Wilderness is already a fire suppression zone, those adverse effects to the untrammeled character of wilderness will continue with or without the Trabuco Community Defense Project. This project would merely reduce the consequences of wildfire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
Though speculative, the Proposed Action does have the potential to indirectly reduce trammeling of the wilderness during future fire events. The Proposed Action would be implemented with hand tools over a very limited area, while wildfire suppression techniques would likely use bulldozers to clear chaparral over a greater area with greater impacts to the wilderness resource.
No structures would be constructed in implementing the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 would therefore have no effect on the undeveloped quality of wilderness character.
Wildfire is a naturally occurring event within the project area’s fire-dependent ecosystem. Naturally occurring wildfire and the effects from these wildfires would be naturally occurring processes. Therefore, managing lightning-caused fire by allowing it to burn uninhibited would benefit the wilderness resource.
The Proposed Action would directly impair the natural quality of wilderness character of approximately 60.8 acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness by altering the natural vegetation and changing the fire regime and burn intensity.
Another direct impact to 60.8 acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness would be the change in natural vegetation from chaparral to grass, as well as the probable introduction of non-native vegetation into the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
The Proposed Action would potentially create minor to moderate long-term effects on the natural vegetation on a small portion of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This impairs the natural quality of wilderness character. (Further analysis regarding native and non-native vegetation in the project area is available in this document’s botany and invasive plant sections.)
On a larger scale, the entire San Mateo Canyon Wilderness is a within a fire suppression zone. Thus, the ongoing practice of suppressing lightning-caused fire within the wilderness has a greater negative impact on the natural fire regime over thousands of acres. However, this is complicated by the fact that the majority of these fires are human-caused, not natural.
The consequences of wildfire escaping the wilderness are too high to allow the natural force of lightning-caused fire to burn freely. The frequency of human-caused fires, however, levels out historical averages for large fires.
The frequency of small fires in the project area is greater due to improved suppression techniques and equipment. The frequency of large fires (>50,000 acres) is within the historical average (USDA Forest Service Forest Plan FEIS vol.1). Therefore, even though more small fires burn now, more fires are human-caused and the Forest Service response is suppression. Large fires occur at the same frequency as they did long before the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness was designated.
85 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The consequences of these large fires burning in such a densely populated area are dramatic and the Forest Service is currently unable to adequately reduce the risk of wildfire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
Consequently, the Proposed Action would have an indirect beneficial effect on the Forest Service’s ability to administer the “Natural” quality of wilderness character because the agency would be better equipped to administer the fire-adaptive ecosystem of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness while reducing the consequences of wildfire from escaping the wilderness.
Alternative 2 would not affect the opportunities for solitude or a primitive or unconfined type of recreation. The Proposed Action would occur on the fringes of the wilderness near the Wildland- Urban Interface—within sight and sound of residences. Solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, are not desirable in the existing condition. Changing the vegetative cover in the Wildland-Urban Interface would therefore achieve little to add or detract from recreation opportunities. Furthermore, Rancho Carillo and Rancho Capistrano do not represent good public access points to the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.
A direct effect of the Proposed Action would be the reduced risks and consequences of fire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, which enables the Forest Service to better manage the fire-adaptive ecosystem of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This would be a beneficial effect in support of Wilderness Fire Management Objective 2: “Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire…escaping from wilderness”. (The Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire section in this document contains a more detailed analysis of the technical aspects of reducing the risk and consequences of wildfire escaping from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness.)
The Proposed Action would increase the capacity of the Forest Service to achieve Wilderness Fire Management Objective 2. The Forest’s Service’s capacity to manage a fire-adaptive ecosystem in an urban setting would also be increased by implementing the Proposed Action, providing a beneficial, indirect effect to the natural quality of wilderness character.
Furthermore, the Proposed Action could have an indirect effect of reducing future impacts to the untrammeled quality of wilderness character. It is probable that there will be a wildfire in the project area. It is likely that the response would be suppression, with motorized and mechanized equipment such as bulldozers being used to clear chaparral over a larger area, creating greater disturbance over that area.
Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action would not have cumulative effects on the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This alternative is the only fuel treatment proposed within the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. To date, none have previously occurred.
Large wildfires have occurred throughout the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. In 2010, the Tanaja Fire started on private lands (and is under investigation) and burned into the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. This fire, located approximately three miles from Rancho Carilo, grew to 110 acres in size and cost nearly $200 thousand dollars to suppress.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 86
Conclusions and Findings The Proposed Action is complicated regarding wilderness law and policy. The Wilderness Act mandates that the Forest Service manage wilderness to preserve wilderness character, except as otherwise provided by the Wilderness Act.
This proposed project would directly impact wilderness character on 60.8 acres of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. Specifically, the Proposed Action would impair the natural and untrammeled qualities of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness on 60.8 acres.
However, indirectly, the Proposed Action would likely benefit a larger land mass of the wilderness by reducing impacts of future fire suppression. This would likely be done with mechanized and motorized equipment such as bulldozers and chainsaws. Furthermore, the Proposed Action would indirectly benefit the natural character of wilderness by reducing the consequences of wildfire escaping from the wilderness—therefore improving the Forest Service’s ability to manage the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness for wilderness purposes.
It is also necessary to examine the special provisions of the Wilderness Act and Forest Service policy related to those provisions. For instance, in the case of fire management, the Wilderness Act states: “Such measures may be taken in the control of fire…subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems necessary.” This statement leads to Forest Service policy, particularly FSM 2320 – Wilderness Management.
13. Heritage There is a concern that vegetation treatments could affect unknown heritage resources in the Trabuco Community Defense Project area.
Background Accessible portions of the proposed project area have been previously surveyed for cultural resources in support of previously proposed vegetation treatment projects, as documented in: Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (ARR) 05-02-TR-58, 05-02-TR-066-A3, 05-02-TR-83 05-02-TR-152 and 05-02-TR-179 (Decker Canyon area); 05-02-TR-066-A3 and 05-02-TR-179 (El Cariso area); 05-02-TR-023 and 05-02-TR-083 (Rancho Capistrano and Rancho Carillo areas). In addition, historic properties have been identified within the proposed project’s “area of potential effect” (APE).
The presence of steep slopes, impenetrable vegetation, and/or low ground surface visibility within the proposed project area is based on a review and analysis of available data (such as CNF Land Management Plan analyses, pre-field research, the results of previously conducted cultural resources survey in the vicinity, and available Geographic Information System and aerially mapped vegetation density data) and has been verified with sample field inspections.
No “at risk” cultural resources are known to exist in the vicinity of the proposed project area. In addition, pre-field research has not identified any “at risk” historic properties that have the potential to be adversely affected by the use of prescribed fire, mastication, or other treatments utilized to reduce vegetation within the proposed project area.
87 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Predicted cultural resource density and/or sensitivity has been determined to be relatively low (<1 identified cultural resource per acre) within the proposed project are. This finding is based on available data from previously conducted cultural resources surveys within and in the vicinity of the proposed project area.
None of the previously identified cultural resources within the proposed project area have been evaluated for their potential eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Hence, unevaluated properties within the proposed project area would be treated as if they were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and would be managed and maintained as historic properties.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects – On Heritage Alternative 1 – No Action Vegetation management would not occur within the proposed project area as a result of the implementation of the No Action Alternative. Vegetation fuel loads would remain high and the potential for intense wildfire would remain high for the surrounding area.
Cultural resources would be affected to some degree during an intense wildfire episode within the proposed project and surrounding area. Whether or not the effect of a wildfire would represent an adverse effect that could destroy the integrity—and therefore the eligibility—of archaeological sites for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places depends on two primary factors: temperature and the duration of the wildfire event.
Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration of exposure to heat increases the potential for damage to cultural resources. Variables that affect temperature and duration include type of vegetation, vegetation load, distribution (density), moisture content; as well as soil type and moisture content, weather, and terrain.
Direct Effects As a general rule, typical wildfires do not have a significant effect on buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (10 cm) are sufficient to protect most cultural materials from the effects of wildfire. However, there are times when conditions do carry heat below the surface, potentially having an effect on buried cultural materials (Winthrop 2004).
These conditions include subsurface tree stumps that smolder and burn that have the potential of affecting buried materials in the immediate vicinity. Heavy duff and/or surface deadwood and roots that smolder and burn also have the potential to expose subsurface materials to heat over an extended period of time, and, thus, have the potential to affect buried cultural materials.
Wildfire effects to cultural resources are context dependent. In other words, the effects of wildfire on cultural resources depend upon factors which vary from place to place, including physical factors such as vegetation type/density and terrain, and cultural resource factors including site type and type of cultural materials within subsurface site deposits.
Managing for wildfire effects also depends on the value of the cultural materials at risk. In areas where surface materials have little integrity, for example—due to collecting, erosion, past wildfires, or other factors—surface effects from wildfire may be of minimal consideration. However, because wildfire typically involves uncontrolled, high temperature, long duration fire
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 88
effects as well as ground disturbance that may occur during the process of wildfire suppression, wildfire is generally more destructive to cultural resources than prescribed fire.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Indirect and cumulative effects to cultural resources associated with the implementation of the No Action alternative include those presented in the previous Direct Effects section. Although repeated occurrence of wildfire within the proposed project and the surrounding area may not compound the quantity or severity of effects to cultural resources, repeated wildfire suppression efforts may result in a cumulative increase in adverse effects to cultural resources. Most significantly, repeated wildfire within the proposed project and the surrounding area may result in increased levels of ground disturbance that may be associated with repeated wildfire suppression efforts.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Vegetation management would occur within the proposed project area as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Action. Vegetation fuel loads would be reduced and the potential for intense wildfire would be reduced for the surrounding area, which would reduce the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources during an intense wildfire episode within the proposed project and the surrounding area.
Direct Effects Provided that the design measures are implemented, there would be no adverse effect to historic properties associated with the implementation of any of the vegetation management or treatment activities associated with the Proposed Action, as proposed.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Vegetation fuel loads would be reduced and the potential for intense wildfire would be reduced for the surrounding area. This would reduce the potential for effects to cultural resources during an intense wildfire episode within the proposed project and the surrounding area.
There would be no indirect or cumulative effects associated with the proposed project. Implementation of the vegetation management activities associated with the proposed project would not result in an increased potential for indirect effects to cultural resources due to increased access, as the proposed project areas are primarily located along existing Forest System roads or are in direct proximity to private landholding within the Forest boundary— already relatively accessible to the public.
Most significantly, a reduced potential for wildfire within the proposed project area and the surrounding area would result in decreased levels of ground disturbance associated with repeated wildfire suppression efforts.
Conclusions and Findings There would be no adverse effect to historic properties resulting from the implementation of the Trabuco Community Protection Project’s Proposed Action—provided that the design measures are implemented.
89 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
To assist in the identification and avoidance of any previously unrecorded cultural resources within the proposed project area, archaeological monitoring of mechanical treatment may be performed and post-fire implementation survey and monitoring would be performed within the accessible portions of the proposed project.
The results of the post-implementation survey and site monitoring would be used to assess the effectiveness of the project design measures and the recommended deferred inventory approach.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 90
Chapter Four – Interdisciplinary Team Members
The Trabuco Community Defense Project Interdisciplinary Team
Natural Resource Planner, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service Cindy Whelan 30 years with the Forest Service, 2 years with AMSET* Bachelor of Science, Forestry Management, Humboldt State University
Botanist, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service Wendy Boes 6 Years with the Forest Service Bachelor of Science, Botany, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
GIS Technician, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service Chris Clervi 9 years with the Forest Service BA Geography, University of California, Santa Barbra Fuels Specialist, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service Carol Henson 29 Years with the Forest Service
Fuels Specialist, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service David Kerr Many Years with the Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service 10 Years with the Forest Service, 4 years private consulting Teresa Sue Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Science, California State University, Fresno Soil Scientist, AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service 3 years with SECOR International Inc. Consultants, 4 years with Nikos Hunner AMSET*, U.S. Forest Service Bachelor of Science, Soil Sciences, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, CA Landscape Architect, RSET**, U.S. Forest Service Byron Stringham 10 years, part consulting and part Forest Service Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture, Utah St. University
Natural Resource (Recreation) Specialist, RSET**, U.S. Forest Service, 2 years with the Forest Service, 4 years with BLM & NPS. Aaron Drendel Bachelor of Science, Geography and Recreation, University of Wyoming. Master of Science, Environmental Studies, University of Montana.
Steve Harvey Archaeologist, Cleveland National Forest Fuels/Prevention Management, Battalion Chief 23, Jacob Gipson Cleveland National Forest 18 Years with the Forest Service
* Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, U.S. Forest Service
** Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team, U.S. Forest Service
91 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Chapter Five – References
Fire and Fuels Conrad, Susan G. and David R. Weise. 1998. Management of fire regime, fuels and fire effects in southern California chaparral, page 345.
Forest Service Strategic Plan FY2007 – 20012. Fire Program Analysis (FPA) System provided fire suppression/equipment production rates. Available at http://www.fpa.nifc.gov/ . FireFamily Plus 3.0.1 http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/planning/nist/distribu.htm. FlamMap ver. 3.0 http://www.fire.org. Green, Lisle R. Burning by prescription in chaparral. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Forest Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.: 1981; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-51. 36 p. Keeley, J. E, C.J. Fotheringham, and M. Morais. 1999. Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science 284: 1829-1832. Keeley, J. E. and Fotheringham, C. J. 2001. Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands. Conservation Biology No 6. 1536-1548. Minnich, R.A., M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and R.F. Fernau. 1995. Sixty years of change in California conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology 9:902- 914 Keeley, J. E, C.J. Fotheringham, and M. Morais. 1999. Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science 284: 1829-1832. Keeley, J. E. and Fotheringham, C. J. 2001. Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands. Conservation Biology No 6. 1536-1548. Landfire, the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project, accessed 2009. Available at: http://www.landfire.gov/ . Minnich R.A. and R.G. Everett. 2001. Conifer Tree Distribution in Southern California. Madrono, Vol. 48: 177-197. Minnich, R.A., M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and R.F. Fernau. 1995. Sixty years of change in California conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology 9:902- 914. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2003. Fireline handbook, NWCG handbook #3. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2004. Glossary of wildland fire terminology: http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/pmo/products/wfglossary/w.htm. Paysen, TE and J.D. Cohen. 1990. Chamise chaparral dead fuel fraction is not reliably predicted by age. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 5: 127-131.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 92
Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires, Gen Tech Rep. INT-143, USDA, FS, Intermountain Range and Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, 161 p. Spittler, T.E. 1995. Fire and the debris flow potential of winter storms. Pages 113-120 in J.E. Keeley and T Scott (eds.). Brushfires in California wildlands; ecology and resource management. International Association of Wildland Fire.
Stephenson, J. R and Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-PSW- 172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 62 p.; 342 p. Suter, Ann 2003. Aerial delivery systems user information, coverage levels. USDA Forest Service Wildland Fire Chemical Systems. Missoula Technology Development Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/retardants/current/gen/userinfo6.htm. USDA Forest Service 2006. San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Pacific Southwest Region, San Bernardino, CA.
Air Quality California Fire Alliance. Communities at risk. 2009. Accessed website www.cafirealliance.org/communities_at_risk in September 2009. Green, Lisle R. 1981. Burning by Prescription in Chaparral. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Mark D. Schaaf, Marc A. Wiitala, Maarten D. Schreuder, David R. Weise. 2004. An Evaluation of the Economic Tradeoffs of Fuel Treatment and Fire Suppression on the Angeles National Forest using the Fire Effects Tradeoff Model (FETM). Minnich, Richard A. 1988. The Biogeography of Fire in the San Bernardino Mountains of California: A Historical Study. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Publications in Geography No. 28. Schoenherr, Allan A. 1992. A natural history of California. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. California Natural History Guides No. 56. South Coast Air Pollution Control District, Rule 444, Wildland vegetation burning. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04_tofc.htmlhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/av/cur.htm . South Coast Air Pollution Control District, 2001. Preliminary Staff Report for: Proposed Amended Rule 444 – Open Burning and Proposed Amended Rule 208 – Permits and Burn Authorization for Open Burning. http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/district/sc.pdf . South Coast Air Pollution Control District. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/index.html .
93 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. AP 42, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Chapter 13. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ . South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1997. 1997 Air Quality Management Plan: Appendix I-D, Best Available Control Measures - PM10 SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1997. 1997 Air Quality Management Plan: Appendix III-B, Current and Future Planning Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, CA. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2006. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds. Appendix A - updated CEIDARS Table with PM2.5 Fractions. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/PM2_5/PM2_5.html. Accessed in September 2009. Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Shaffer, K.E.; Fites-Kaufman, J.; Thode, A.E., editors. 2006. Fire in California Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Air Quality Conformity Handbook, A handbook for Land Managers. US Forest Service, Air Resources/Fire Management Pacific Southwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cleveland National Forest: Land Management Plan, Part 1. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. U.S. EPA. 1992. Prescribed Burning Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff Work Project, Washington D.C. U.S. EPA. 1998. AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Supplement D. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html Accessed in August 2009. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), Desert Research Institute (DRI), and NOAA. 2008. Talega and Case Springs RAWS station data summary. General information is available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html site specific info at: http://www.raws.dri.edu/cgi- bin/rawMAIN.pl?caCMIL Accessed August 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule, 40 CFR Part 51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. AIR Data. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and Wilderness Areas. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/parks/sago_p.html. Accessed August 2009.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 94
Hydrology and Soils California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention. 2003. RED SHEET Fire Safety Briefing San Bernardino National Forest, CDF San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Units. California Southern Region. July 15. Debano, L. F. 1982. Assessing the Effects of Management Actions on Soils and Mineral Cycling in Mediterranean Ecosystems, Pacific Southwest Forest Service Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA. Elliot, William J., “Rock: Clime, Rocky Mountain Research Station Stochastic Weather Generator,” U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, December 1999, http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. GIS Clearinghouse, Pacific Southwest Region, bedrock geology layer. Accessed May 4, 2009: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/clearinghouse/data.shtml . Larsen, I. J., MacDonald, L. H., Brown, E., Rough, D., Welsh, M. J., Causes of Post-Fire Runoff and Erosion: Water Repellency, Cover, or Soil Sealing?, Soil Science Society of America 73:1393-1407, 2009. Pietraszek, J.H. 2006. Controls on post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. M.S. thesis. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. Reiner, A., Decker, T. Fuel Loadings in Masticated areas on the San Jacinto District of the San Bernardino National Forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2009. Rowe, P.B., Countryman, C.M., Storey, H.C. Probable Peak Discharges & Erosion Rates from Southern California Watersheds as Influenced by Fire, 1949. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO 2.1), http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/. USDAFS (a). 2000. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). USDAFS-FS-682. 73 pp. USDAFS (b), “Title 2500: Watershed and Air Management”, Forest Service Manual Amendment No. 2500-90-2, 1990. USDAFS (c), “Revised Land Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest,” R5-MB-086-CD, September 2005. USDAFS, (d) “Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices”, handbook, Pacific Southwest region, 2000. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Atlas of the United States, map of Stephenson Peak area showing landslide susceptibility data from United States Geological Survey data, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp, accessed May 1, 2009. U.S. Geological Survey (a), “Alberhill, California,” 7.5-minute quadrangle map, 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey (b), “Sitton peak, California,” 7.5-minute quadrangle map, 1:24,000.
95 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
U.S. Geological Survey (b), “Wildomar, California,” 7.5-minute quadrangle map, 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey (e), National Hydrography Database, available online at http://nhdgeo.usgs.gov/viewer.htm, accessed September 25, 2007.
Wildlife Borror, D. J. and White, R. E. 1970. A Field Guide to the Insects of America North of Mexico. Boston. California Natural Diversity Database, V3.1.0. 2007. Updated 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Emmel, Thomas C. and Emmel, John F. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Gallagher, Sylvia R. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA. 264 pp. Grinnell, J., and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608p. Holland, R.F.1986. Preliminary description of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Non-game Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Contract 38023, report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA. 255 pp. Murphy, D. D. 1990. A report on the California butterflies listed as candidates for endangered status by the USFWS. Draft report for the California Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. c-1755. 60pp. Ramirez, Ruben. 2003 Result of Arroyo Toad studies on the Cleveland National Forest. Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system. Riparian ecosystems and their management- First North American Conference Proceedings. Tucson, Arizona. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 120, p. 91-95. Scott, J. 1986. The Butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press. Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Company. Vista, CA. 342 pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 536 pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 279 pp. USDA. Forest Service. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States Natural History and Habitat Use. Agriculture Handbook 688.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 96
USDA. Forest Service. 1994. Neotropical Migratory Bird Reference Book. San Francisco, Ca. Pacific Southwest Region: Fisheries, Wildlife, and Rare Plant Staff. pp 277-284, pp 479- 488. USDA Forest Service. 1998 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive & Proposed (TESP) Animals of the Cleveland National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1999: Southern California Mountain and Foothill Assessment. Cleveland National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Biological Assessment for Forest Plans. 3 notebooks. Cleveland National Forest files. USDA Forest Service 2000. Habitat Suitability Criteria for Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Letter to file. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Cleveland National Forest (revised). USDA Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. 149 p. plus maps. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Survey, Orange and Western Riverside County USDA Soil Conservation Service and USDA Forest Service. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Federal Register/Volume 57, No.170/39664 - 39668. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Federal Register/Volume 58, No.147/41231 - 41237. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Federal Register/Volume 58, No.140/39495 - 39522. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Mayer. 1990. California’s Wildlife. California Dept. Of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 3 volumes.
Management Indicator Species USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Land Management Plan. Parts 1, 2, 3 plus appendices and FEIS. R5-MB-074, R5-MB-075, R5MB-077, and R5MB-080. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Land Management Plan. R5-MB-074A. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Cleveland National Forest MIS Report. Cleveland National Forest files.
Sensitive Plants California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Tue, Mar. 10, 2009 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
97 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09d). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Wed, Oct. 21, 2009 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
Invasive Plants Bradley, Tim, Gibson, Jennifer, and Bunn, Wendy. 2006. Fuels management and non-native plant species: and evaluation of fire and fire surrogate treatments in a chaparral plant community. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project number: JFSP 01B-3- 3-27. National Park Service Wiskeytown, CA. Busse, M.D., Fiddler, G., Hubbert, K., Knapp, E., and Shestak, C., 2006 Lethal soil heating during burning of masticated fuels: effects of soil moisture and texture. Proceedings of the Third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress, Nov 13-17, San Diego, CA. Cal-IPC 2009. California Invasive Plant Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council. Plant Profiles. Berkeley, CA. Available at http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/index.php. Fox, J. C. 2004. California invasive plant inventory assessment form for Asphodelus fistulosus. IN California Invasive Plant Council. Plant Profiles. Berkeley, CA. Available at http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/index.php. Gower, S. H. 2007. Are horses responsible for introducing non-native plants along forest trails in the eastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management. 256:997-1003. Howard, Janet L. 1993. Arctostaphylos glauca. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, October 8]. Keeley, Jon E. 2006. Fire Management Impacts. Publication Brief for Resource Managers. Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Three Rivers CA. Keeley, Jon E. 2007. The role of fuel breaks in the invasion of nonnative plants. Publication Brief for Resource Managers. Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Three Rivers, CA. Keeley, J.E. and Davis, F.W. 2006 “Chaparral”. IN Fire in California Ecosystems, edited by N.G. Sugihara, J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A.E. Thode. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Merriam, K.E., J.E. Keeley, and J.L. Beyers. 2006. Fuel breaks affect nonnative species abundance in California plant communities. Ecological Applications 16:515-527.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 98
Potts, Jennifer and Stephens, Scott. 2009 Invasive and native plant responses to shrubland fuel reduction: comparing prescribed fire, mastication, and treatment season. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1657-1664, Elsevier Ltd. Stephens, Scott, Dawson, James, McBride, Joe, and Potts, Jennifer. 2006. Fire hazard reduction in chaparral using diverse treatments. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program. University of California, Berkeley. Zedler, Paul H., Gautier, Clayton R., and McMaster, Gregory S. 1983. Vegetation change in response to extreme events: the effect of a short interval between fires in California chaparral and coastal scrub. Ecology 64(4):809-818. [USDA] USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. [USDA] USDA Forest Service. 2005. Land Management Plan, Part 1: Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2: Angeles National Forest Strategy (R5-MB- 076) and Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National forests (R5-MB- 080). Pacific Southwest Region.
Personal Communications Gipson, Jacob. Fuels/Prevention Management. Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest. 1147 East Sixth Street, Corona, CA 92879. Keeley, Jon. Research Ecologist, USGS Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, 47050 Generals Highway #4, Three Rivers, CA.
Scenery USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cleveland NF Land Management Plan (CNF LMP). Cleveland NF Cleveland, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics; A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington D.C. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, CA. Sarah McCaffery, Dave Petterson, Morris Johnson, Elaine Kennedy- Sutherland, Anne Black, Jamie Barbour, Roger Fight, Paula Jakes, Susan Barro, John Szmoniak, Russell T. Graham.
99 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Inventoried Roadless Areas USDA, Office of the Secretary. 2009. Secretary’s Memorandum 1042-154. May 28, 2009. On File at: Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, Corona, CA.
Wilderness Landres et. al. 2008. Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 77 p. Landres et. al. 2009. Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character. General Technical Report. Report WO-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 258 p. USDA Forest Service. 1982. The 1982 NFMA Planning Regulations. USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. On File at: Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest, Kernville, CA. USDA, Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 - Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. September, 2005. On File at: Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, Corona, CA. USDA, Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 (Appendices) - Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. September, 2005. On File at: Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, Corona, CA. USDA, Forest Service. 2005. Land Management Plan – Part 2 Cleveland National Forest Strategy. September, 2005. On File at: Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, Corona, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300. Recreation, Wilderness and related resource management. Effective Date: December 24, 1992
Heritage United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento. 2001. First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 100
USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Interim Protocol for Non-intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects, Annex to Stipulation IX in the Regional PA. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2005. Revised Land Management Plan, Cleveland National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Forest Service Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Forest Service Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, National Headquarters (WO), Washington, DC.
Winthrop, Kate. 2004. Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources For Cultural Resource Specialists. Bureau of Land Management, National Headquarters, Washington, DC.
101 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Chapter Six – Appendices
Appendix A.
Response to Comments Trabuco Community Defense Project Cleveland National Forest ______
In accordance with 36 CFR 215.6, the Trabuco Community Protection Project Environmental Assessment was released for a 30-day public comment period beginning on April 16, 2010 and ending May 16, 2010. One comment letter was received. The ID team and district ranger reviewed the comments. The response to the comments contained in the letter is found later in this Appendix.
Although not required in a decision notice, in order to give document reviewers full disclosure on how the comments were addressed, this appendix was added. The letter is included first, with individual comments denoted by numbering, followed by the Cleveland National Forest response to each comment.
Some comments in the letter are outside the scope of this project because they relate to points already decided by law, regulation, the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, or higher-level decision. The ID team did not respond to the points outside the scope of the project.
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 102
103 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 104
Comment 1. Design features have been incorporated into the project to assist in mitigating some of the potential for spread of nonnative species within the project area. These design features differ between the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Defense Zone, where type conversion is authorized as part of the decisions made during the development for the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP), and the WUI threat Zone.
The design features include: • Protocol standards will be used in the washing of equipment to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. Documentation forms regarding this activity will be maintained by the project manager or contracting officer. These standards are located in the project file. (EA pg. 23) • To reduce the potential for spread of star thistle into the project area, access off South Main Divide Road into the most southern portion of the Rancho Capistrano project area will have a limited operating period between the months of December and March. Post-treatment monitoring of access the road and treatment areas will be conducted within two to three years (EA pg. 23). • To prevent the spread of Spanish broom, periwinkle, and arundo, occurrences of these species will be flagged and avoided with a 100-foot buffer from the treatment areas, and/or removed prior to project implementation utilizing methods approved by the Cleveland National Forest botanist or Trabuco Ranger District biologist (EA pg. 23). These populations were discreet enough to map and control with project implementation (EA pg. 61). • All equipment staging areas and burn pile areas will be located away from areas known to have invasive species occurrences (EA pg. 23).
The LMP states in Standard 8 - Part 3, page 5 that “Community Protection within the WUI Defense Zone” takes precedence over the requirements of other forest plan direction, including other standards identified in Part 3 of the forest plan. Appendix K of Part 3, "Guidelines for WUI Defense and Threat Zones” - defines a WUI Defense Zone as an area that is converted to a less flammable state".
Additionally, Part 2, page 5, Table 2.2.4, “Suitable Uses Fire and Fuels Management, CNF, indicates that type conversion is an authorized land use for all land use zones within WUI Defense zones.
Within the WUI Threat Zone design features to reduce the potential for the spread of nonnative species include limiting the removal of the canopy to no more than 70% of the existing vegetation. Merriam and others (2006) found that one factor that correlated with recruitment of nonnative species was the percent of overstory cover. Cover removal in the WUI Threat Zone is 10 to 30 percent less than cover removal in the Defense Zone.
105 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Additional design features to assist in mitigating the potential spread of nonnative species include never treating the same area within the footprint of the Threat Zone more than once during implementation of the project; retaining ½ acre or large islands of native vegetation within treatment areas; limiting disturbance within 100 feet of giant reedgrass, Spanish broom and periwinkle populations and hand piling cut fuels in many areas to reduce soil disturbance (EA pg 67).
Design features will greatly reduce the potential for introducing additional nonnative species to the project area. Washing equipment, rehabilitating access points, infrastructure to prevent illegal off-highway vehicle access, limiting usage of passageways with known infestations, minimization of entry points, and post treatment monitoring are all action which will mitigate to an non-significant level the potential for spreading nonnative species in the WUI Threat Zone treatment areas.
Comment 2. The exclusive use of prescribed fire as a method of treatment was considered as one of the alternatives within the EA. However, this method of treatment was eliminated from consideration due to the conclusion of the ID Team that “broadcast burning” in untreated fuel would be successful only under "fire season" type conditions (i.e. low live fuel moistures, low dead fuel moistures, high temps, low relative humidity). If the broadcast burns escaped control, such a treatment would put the adjacent communities and wilderness values at great risk (EA pg 26).
Use of limited prescribed burning is planned as part of project implementation, (222 acres outside of wilderness on slopes less than 35%). Use of prescribed burning is an action directed towards the accomplishment of community protection, the primary purpose of the project. As stated in the EA, LMP and Cleveland National Forest Fire Management Plan, 2007: “All fire management activities will consider safety of personnel and the public as the highest priority.” The selected alternative models a significant reduction in flame length based on the changes in fuel characteristics that occur because of the treatments. FlamMap, a fire behavior modeling software, indicates that over 93 percent of the treatment areas will have flame lengths of four feet or less. This represents a significant reduction in potential fire behavior, which leads to increased firefighter and public safety within the treatment units.
A design feature established in order to prevent the detrimental effects of prescribed burning in masticated material requires that prescribed burning be conducted when the soils are moist (>20 percent volumetric moisture). This requirement should inhibit damaging temperatures below one to two inches in the mineral soil (Busse, 2006). Limited soil heating may be critical to the viability of the native shrubs’ survival during a prescribed fire and for a healthy return post-fire.
As stated in the EA, “Where feasible, burning and the removal of trees and other vegetation will be conducted outside of the general nesting season for migratory birds; approximately April 1 to September 1(EA pg.24). The prescribed burning window between September 1 and the end of active fire season due to wetting rains, represents
Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 106
an “optimum season” for breaking seed dormancy, as it aligns with the historic fire season in southern California.
107 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment