DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Los Padres National Forest Area, California (1988)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Los Padres National Forest Area, California (1988) How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is the small scale map preceding the detailed soil maps, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps follow the general soil map. These maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. I Kok( mo To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets, MAP SHEET which precedes the soil maps. Note the number of the map sheet, and turn to that sheet. INDEX TO MAP SHEETS Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Index to Map Units (see Con- AREA OF INTEREST NOTE: Map unit symbols in a soil tents), which lists the map survey may consist only of numbers or units by symbol and letters, or they may be a combination name and shows the of numbers and letters. page where each map MAP SHEET unit is described. The Summary of Tables shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. See Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. Los Padres National Forest Area, California This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other federal, state and local agencies. The Forest Service has had the leadership for this soil survey in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was performed during the period 1976 - 1980. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1980. Statements in this publication refer to conditions that existed in 1980. Soil maps in this soil survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could lead to misinterpretation. A larger-scaled map warrants more detail and these maps may not show the small areas of contrasting soils. Cover: Typical landscape and vegetation of the Santa Ynez Mountains on Millsholm and Millerton Family soils. ii Contents Map unit index .............. iii Watershed ................ 75 Taxonomic unit index ........... vi Range production ..... ....... 75 Summary of tables ............. v Wildlife habitat ...... ....... 75 Foreword ................. vi R ecreation ........ ....... 76 General nature of the survey area ..... 1 Woodland ........ ....... 76 History and development ......... 1 Physical and chemical analysis Vegetation ............... 2 of selected soils ....... ....... 77 Geomorphology ............. 2 Soil components in map units ....... 80 Water supply 4 .............. Classification of the soils ... ....... 81 Climate 5 ................ Formation of the soils .... ....... 85 How this survey was made ......... 6 Parent material ...... ....... 85 General soil map units ........... 8 86 Soil descriptions ............. 8 Climate ......... ....... General soil map ............ 13 Biological activity ..... ....... 86 Detailed soil map units .......... 14 T ime .......... ....... 86 Definitions and criteria .......... 14 Relief .......... ....... 86 Map unit descriptions and Taxonomic unit descriptions . ....... 88 management interpretations ....... 20 References .......... ...... 143 Use and management of the soils ...... 75 Glossary ........... ...... 144 Map Unit I ndex 1 A gua Dulce-Botella-Argonaut families association. 20 to 60 percent slopes ............. 20 2 A gua Dulce-Henneke-Cuesta families complex. 40 to 70 percent slopes ............... 21 3 A gua Dulce-Los Robles-Modeska families association. 10 to 60 percent slopes ............ 22 4 Cuesta-Henneke families complex. 15 to 60 percent slopes ..................... 23 5 Diablo-Altamont-Henneke families association. 10 to 60 percent slopes ............... 24 6 Hades-Ginser-Ola families association. 10 to 30 percent slopes ................... 25 7 Hades-Ginser-Ola families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ................... 26 8 Hohmann-Greenbluff-Konocti families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............. 27 9 Inks-L odo-Agua Dulce families complex. 30 to 80 percent slopes .................. 28 10 K ilburn-Wrentham-Supan families association. 10 to 30 percent slopes ............... 29 11 K ilburn-Wrentham-Supan families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 30 12 K ilmer-Nacimiento families association. 10 to 60 percent slopes .................. 31 13 Lithic Xerochrepts-Lithic Haploxeralfs-Rock Outcrop complex. 30 to 80 percent slopes ........ 32 14 Livermore-Agua Dulce-Hambright families association. 30 to 80 percent slopes ........... 33 15 L odo-Botella families-Rock Outcrop association. 30 to 60 percent slopes .............. 34 16 Lodo-Hambright-Millsholm families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes .............. 35 17 L odo-Livermore-Chualar families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ................ 36 18 L odo-Modjeska-Botella families association. 10 to 70 percent slopes ................ 37 19 L opez-Santa Lucia families association. 10 to 70 percent slopes .................. 38 20 L OS Gatos-K ilburn-Panamint families association. 10 to 30 percent slopes .............. 39 21 Los Gatos-K ilburn-Panamint families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes .............. 40 22 Los Osos-Modesto-Chualar families association. 20 to 70 percent slopes ............... 41 23 Los Osos-Nacimiento families association. 15 to 45 percent slopes ................. 42 24 Los Robles-Trigo families-Orthents association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 43 25 Millertion-Millsholm-Agua Dulce families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............ 44 iii 45 26 Millerton-Millosholm families-Rock Outcrop complex. 30 to 80 percent slopes ............ 27 Millerton-Modjeska families association. 30 to 80 percent slopes .................. 46 28 Millerton-Reliz-Modjeska families association. 40 to 70 percent slopes ............... 47 29 Millosholm-Exchequer-Stonyford families complex. 30 to 75 percent slopes .............. 48 30 Millsholm-Reliz families-Rock Outcrop association. 40 to 65 percent slopes ............. 49 31 Modesto-Rincon-Millsholm families association. 20 to 50 percent slopes ............... 50 32 Modesto-Yorba-Agua Dulce families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes .............. 51 33 Modjeska-Lodo families association. 40 to 80 percent slopes .................... 52 34 Modjeska-Modesto families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes .................. 53 35 Morical-Supan-Green Bluff families association. 10 to 60 percent slopes ............... 54 36 Oak Glen-Supan-Hagen families complex. 0 to 10 percent slopes .................. 55 37 Oak Glen-Wrentham-Kilburn families complex. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 56 38 Orthents-Fluvents complex. dry. 0 to 15 percent slopes ...................... 57 39 Orthents-Fluvents complex. 0 to 15 percent slopes ........................ 58 40 Reliz-Trigo families-Badlands association. 40 to 90 percent slopes ................. 59 41 Rincon-Livermore-Modesto families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 60 42 Rincon-Modesto-Los Osos families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 61 43 Rock Outcrop-Lithic Xerorthents-Lithic Haploxeralfs complex. 30 to 90 percent slopes ........ 62 44 Skalan-Huntmount families association. 30 to 70 percent slopes .................. 63 45 Stonyford-Romona families association. 30 to 65 percent slopes .................. 64 46 Trigo-Modesto families-Badlands association. 45 to 90 percent slopes ................ 65 47 Trigo-San Andreas-Chualar families association. 10 to 50 percent slopes .............. 66 48 Vertic Xerochrepts-Los Robles family association. 10 to 60 percent slopes .............. 67 49 Witzel-Skalan families complex. 30 to 70 percent slopes ...................... 68 50 Xerofluvents-Xerorthents-Riverwash complex. 0 to 15 percent slopes ................ 69 51 Yorba-Millsholm-Stonyford families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ............... 70 52 Yorba-Modjeska-Morical families association. 30 to 60 percent slopes ................ 71 Taxonomic Unit Index Agua Dulce family ..............89 Livermore family . ............. 112 Altamont family ...............90 Lodo family ... ............. 113 Argonaut family ...............91 Lopez family ................ 114 Botella family ................92 Los Gatos family . ............. 115 Chualar family ................93 Los Osos family . ............. 116 Cuestafamily ................94 Los Robles family ............. 117 Diablo family ................95 Millerton family . ............. 118 Exchequer family ...............96 Millsholm family . ............. 119 Fluvents ..................97 Modesto family . ............. 120 Ginser family ................98 Modjeska family . ............. 121 Green Bluff family ..............99 Morical family . ............. 122 Hades family ............... 100 Nacimiento family ............. 123 Hagen family ................ 101 Oak Glen family . ............. 124 Hambright family ............. 102 Ola family ................. 125 Henneke family .............. 103 Orthents ................. 126 Hohmann family .............. 104 Panamint family . ............. 127 Huntmount family ............
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Resources Study
    CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY CARMEL RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AT RANCHO SAN CARLOS ROAD CARMEL, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Confidential - Not for Public Distribution This report contains confidential cultural resources location information; report distribution should be restricted to those with a need to know. Cultural resources are nonrenewable and their scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values can be significantly impaired by disturbance. To deter vandalism, artifact hunting, and other activities that can damage cultural resources, the locations of cultural resources should be kept confidential. The legal authority to restrict cultural resources information is in Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and California Government Section Code 6254.10 exempts archaeological sites from the California Public Records Act requiring that public records be open to public inspection. June 2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY CARMEL RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AT RANCHO SAN CARLOS ROAD CARMEL, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Larry Hampson, District Engineer Monterey Peninsula Water District P.O. Box 85 Monterey, California 93942 Prepared by: Lora Holland, M.A., RPA 989173 E. Timothy Jones, M.A., RPA 15531 LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 LSA Project No. MPW1701 June 2018 C ULTURAL R ESOURCES S TUDY C ARMEL R IVER B ANK S TABILIZATION AT R ANCHO S AN C ARLOS R OAD J UNE 2018 C ARMEL, M ONTEREY C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LSA conducted this cultural resources study for the proposed Carmel River Bank Stabilization at Rancho San Carlos Road Project (project) in Carmel, Monterey County, California. Because the Monterey Peninsula Water District (Water District) is applying for a Nationwide Permit with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the Central and Southern Coast Ranges of California
    OVERVIEW Late Cenozoic tectonics of the central and southern Coast Ranges of California Benjamin M. Page* Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 George A. Thompson† Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2215 Robert G. Coleman Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 ABSTRACT within the Coast Ranges is ascribed in large Taliaferro (e.g., 1943). A prodigious amount of part to the well-established change in plate mo- geologic mapping by T. W. Dibblee, Jr., pre- The central and southern Coast Ranges tions at about 3.5 Ma. sented the areal geology in a form that made gen- of California coincide with the broad Pa- eral interpretations possible. E. H. Bailey, W. P. cific–North American plate boundary. The INTRODUCTION Irwin, D. L. Jones, M. C. Blake, and R. J. ranges formed during the transform regime, McLaughlin of the U.S. Geological Survey and but show little direct mechanical relation to The California Coast Ranges province encom- W. R. Dickinson are among many who have con- strike-slip faulting. After late Miocene defor- passes a system of elongate mountains and inter- tributed enormously to the present understanding mation, two recent generations of range build- vening valleys collectively extending southeast- of the Coast Ranges. Representative references ing occurred: (1) folding and thrusting, begin- ward from the latitude of Cape Mendocino (or by these and many other individuals were cited in ning ca. 3.5 Ma and increasing at 0.4 Ma, and beyond) to the Transverse Ranges. This paper Page (1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Garrapata Brochure Layout
    © 2003 California State Parks Paper State Recycled California on 2003 © Printed Cover Photo by Tom Moss Tom by Photo Cover 831-649-2866 Monterey, CA 93940 CA Monterey, 2211 Garden Road Garden 2211 Monterey Sector Monterey Garrapata State Park State Garrapata www.parks.ca.gov 94296-0001 711, TTY relay service relay TTY 711, Sacramento, CA Sacramento, 916-653-6995, outside the U.S. the outside 916-653-6995, O. Box 942896 Box O. P. 800-777-0369 STATE PARKS STATE ion call: ion informat For CALIFORNIA Office at the following address. following the at Office alternate format, write to the Communications the to write format, alternate number below. To receive this publication in an in publication this receive To below. number assistance should contact the park at the phone the at park the contact should assistance arrival, visitors with disabilities who need who disabilities with visitors arrival, against individuals with disabilities. Prior to Prior disabilities. with individuals against California State Parks does not discriminate not does Parks State California canyons. redwood d deep d an ins mounta steep Acting Director, California State Parks State California Director, Acting RUTH COLEMAN RUTH beautiful inland area of area inland beautiful Secretary for Resources for Secretary ine and a and ine orel sh rocky MARY D. NICHOLS D. MARY Governor ectacular sp a compass en GRAY DAVIS GRAY s 3,000 acres 3,000 s a’ at ap rr Ga r high-quality outdoor recreation. outdoor high-quality r fo cultural resources, and creating opportunities creating and
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany
    Geologic and Geophysical Maps of the Eastern Three- Fourths of the Cambria 30´ x 60´ Quadrangle, Central California Coast Ranges Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3287 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey This page is intentionally left blank Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Interactive PDF ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Basement Complexes ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Salinian Complex ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Great Valley Complex ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Franciscan Complex .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Northwestern Caliente Range, San Luis Obispo County, California
    USGS L BRARY RESTON 1111 111 1 11 11 II I I II 1 1 111 II 11 3 1818 0001k616 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic map of the northwestern Caliente Range, San Luis Obispo County, California by J. Alan Bartowl Open-File Report 88-691 This map is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by USGS 'Menlo Park, CA 1988 it nedelitil Sow( diSti) DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION The map area lies in the southern Coast Ranges of California, north of the Transverse Ranges and west of the southern San Joaquin Valley. This region is part of the Salinia-Tujunga composite terrane that is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas fault (fig. 1) and on the southwest by the Nacimiento fault zone (Vedder and others, 1983). The Chimineas fault of this map is inferred to be the boundary between the Salinia and the Tujunga terranes (Ross, 1972; Vedder and others, 1983). Geologic mapping in the region of the California Coast Ranges that includes the area of this map has been largely the work of T.W. Dibblee, Jr. Compilations of geologic mapping at a scale of 1:125,000 (Dibblee, 1962, 1973a) provide the regional setting for this map, the northeast border of which lies about 6 to 7 km southwest of the San Andreas fault. Ross (1972) mapped the crystalline basement rocks in the vicinity of Barrett Creek, along the northeast side of the Chimineas fault ("Barrett Ridge" of Ross, 1972).
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Evolution of the Russell Ranch Oil Field and Vicinity, Southern Coast Ranges, California
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Barbara B. Nevins for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on December 14, 1982 Title: STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE RUSSELL RANCH OIL FIELD AND VICINITY, SOUTHERN COAST RANCES-(ALIFORN Abstract approved: Signature redacted for privacy. ' D. Robert(SA Yeats The Russell Ranch oil field is located in the southern Coast Rangeswest ofBakersfield, California. Detailed subsurface mapping shows that a northwest-oriented right-lateral wrench-fault system was active from possibly latest Oligocene to Pliocene time. The effects of Quaternary thrusting were superimposed on, and in- fluenced by, structures associated with the older wrench tectonic regime. The right-lateral shear system produced a complex pattern of right-stepping en echelon folds, dip-slip faults with normal separation, and strike-slip faults with both normal and reverse separation. Deformation along the wrench system began during de- position of the late Oligocene-earlv Miocene Soda Lake Shale and Painted Rock Sandstone members of the Vaqueros Formation, pro- duciu elongate en echelon submarine troughs and highs. Northerly trending growth faults of early Miocene age caused thickening of the late Saucesian-early Relizian Saltos Shale Member of the MontereyFormation and mayhave initiated growth of the Russell Ranch anticline. Northeast- to northwest-trending normal faults and northwest-trending strike-slipfaults ofthe Russell fault system were active during deposition of a sequence tentatively correlated with the Branch Canyon Sandstone and Santa Margarita Formation of middle and late Miocene age. Strike-slip faulting produced a complex interleaving of fault slices and juxtaposed slices of contrasting lithologies and orientations. Subsequent minor movement along the wrench system folded the base of the Morales Formation, of PJ.iocene-Pleistocene age, into elongate en echelon folds.
    [Show full text]
  • October 3, 2018
    Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Draft Prepared by: October 2018 Table of Contents Chapter 2 Basin Setting .......................................................................................................2-2 Acronyms 2-3 2.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ..........................................................................2-4 2.1.1 Useful Terminology ................................................................................................2-4 2.1.2 Regional Geologic and Structural Setting ..............................................................2-5 2.1.3 Geologic History ....................................................................................................2-5 2.1.4 Geologic Formations/Stratigraphy .........................................................................2-8 2.1.5 Faults and Structural Features ............................................................................. 2-17 2.1.6 Basin Boundaries ................................................................................................ 2-26 2.1.7 Principal Aquifers and Aquitards .......................................................................... 2-26 2.1.8 Natural Water Quality Characterization ................................................................ 2-32 2.1.9 Topography, Surface Water and Recharge .......................................................... 2-36 2.1.10 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Data Gaps .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Summary Report Volume I of II – Findings and Recommendations
    Attachment 1 - 2016-2018 RSR Public Review Draft (Strikethrough Version) 2016 -2018 Resource Summary Report Volume I of II – Findings and Recommendations San Luis Obispo County General Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Board of Supervisors John Peschong, District 1 Bruce S. Gibson, District 2 Adam Hill, District 3 Lynn Compton, District 4 Debbie Arnold, District 5 Staff Trevor Keith, Planning and Building Director Matt Janssen, Division Manager Brian Pedrotti, Senior Planner Ben Schuster, Project Manager Adopted by the Board of Supervisors ________ Page 1 of 274 Attachment 1 - 2016-2018 RSR Public Review Draft (Strikethrough Version) 2016-2018 Resource Summary Report PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Volume I – Findings and Recommendations Contents Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 Levels of Severity ............................................................................................................... 6 Recommended Levels of Severity and Recommended Actions ...................14 Water Supply and Water Systems ....................................................................................... 18 Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 24 Roads and Interchanges .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abies Bracteata Revised 2011 1 Abies Bracteata (D. Don) Poit
    Lead Forest: Los Padres National Forest Forest Service Endemic: No Abies bracteata (D. Don) Poit. (bristlecone fir) Known Potential Synonym: Abies venusta (Douglas ex Hook.) K. Koch; Pinus bracteata D. Don; Pinus venusta Douglas ex Hook (Tropicos 2011). Table 1. Legal or Protection Status (CNDDB 2011, CNPS 2011, and Other Sources). Federal Listing Status; State Heritage Rank California Rare Other Lists Listing Status Plant Rank None; None G2/S2.3 1B.3 USFS Sensitive Plant description: Abies bracteata (Pinaceae) (Fig. 1) is a perennial monoecious plant with trunks longer than 55 m and less than 1.3 m wide. The branches are more-or-less drooping, and the bark is thin. The twigs are glabrous, and the buds are 1-2.5 cm long, sharp-pointed, and non- resinous. The leaves are less than 6 cm long, are dark green, faintly grooved on their upper surfaces, and have tips that are sharply spiny. Seed cones are less than 9 cm long with stalks that are under15 mm long. The cones have bracts that are spreading, exserted, and that are 1.5–4.5 cm long with a slender spine at the apex. Taxonomy: Abies bracteata is a fir species and a member of the pine family (Pinaceae). Out of the fir species growing in North America (Griffin and Critchfield 1976), Abies bracteata has the smallest range and is the least abundant. Identification: Many features of A. bracteata can be used to distinguish this species from other conifers, including the sharp-tipped needles, thin bark, club-shaped crown, non-resinous buds, and exserted spine tipped bracts (Gymnosperms Database 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Obispo County, California and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARROYO GRANDE, CITY OF 060305 ATASCADERO, CITY OF 060700 EL PASO DE ROBLES, CITY OF 060308 GROVER BEACH, CITY OF 060306 MORRO BAY, CITY OF 060307 PISMO BEACH, CITY OF 060309 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CITY OF 060310 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 060304 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) REVISED: November 16, 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06079CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 28, 2008 Revised Countywide FIS Date: November 16, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 1 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1 1.3 Coordination 4 2.0 AREA STUDIED 5 2.1 Scope of Study 5 2.2 Community Description 6 2.3 Principal Flood Problems
    [Show full text]
  • Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex 2493 Portola Road, Suite A Ventura, CA 93003 http://www.fws.gov/refuge/guadalupe-nipomo_dunes/ Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes California Telecommunications Relay Service Voice/TTY: 711 National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Willdife Service 1 800/344-WILD http://www.fws.gov Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan August 2016 and Environmental Assessment August 2016 Photo: Ian Shive Vision Statement Propelled by relentless ocean waves and strong onshore winds, small grains of sand scour and accumulate to form the impressive migrating dunes of the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Harsh, but dynamic processes create unique habitats among the dunes for imperiled plants and animals such as La Graciosa thistle, marsh sandwort, California red- legged frog, and western snowy plover. The Refuge lies within the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Complex (Dunes Complex), an 18-mile- long stretch of coastal dunes located north of Point Sal and south of Pismo Beach. To conserve the dynamic landscape and imperiled natural resources of the Refuge and the Dunes Complex, the Service works cooperatively with other agencies, non-profit organizations, local businesses, private landowners, and private citizens. Working together, we instill stewardship through activities that include habitat restoration, protection of cultural resources, recovery of threatened and endangered species, and opportunities for high-quality visitor experiences in this unique and spectacular dunes landscape. Such cooperative efforts enable all partners to share limited resources to meet common goals, thereby achieving much more together than we could alone.
    [Show full text]