DOCSLIB.ORG

Abbott Lakes Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abbott Lakes Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Chapter 2 – Alternatives Abbott Lakes United States Department of Restoration Project Agriculture Forest Environmental Service September 2015 Assessment Monterey Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest Monterey County, California Township 19S, Range 4E, Section 36 of Monterey County For Information Contact: Monterey Ranger District 406 South Mildred Avenue King City, CA 93930 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 Abbott Lake Restoration EA TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY…………………..…………………………………………………………..………5 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 8 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 8 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................. 9 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................................ 9 PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................................................................... 10 DECISION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 11 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................... 11 ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Non-key Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 12 Key Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................... 12 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 12 Alternative 1 - No Action.................................................................................................................................... 12 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 13 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................... 15 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 27 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................ 27 RISK OF DAMAGE FROM CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE ................................................................... 27 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Direct/Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Conclusion/Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 32 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 32 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Direct/Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Conclusion/Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 35 HERITAGE .................................................................................................................................. 35 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Direct/Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Conclusion/Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 37 HYDROLOGY/SOILS ................................................................................................................... 37 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Direct/Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 41 Conclusion/Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 41 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ..................................................... 42 Background and Species Accounts ..................................................................................................................... 42 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 48 Effects Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 50 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, SENSITIVE BOTANICAL SPECIES ................................................. 56 Background and Species Accounts ..................................................................................................................... 56 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 60 3 Direct/Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 60 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Determinations ................................................................................................................................................... 61 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS(NOXIOUS WEEDS) ................................................................... 62 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carmel Pine Cone, June 17, 2011 (Main News)
    InYour A CELEBRATION OF THE C ARMEL LIFESTYLE… D A SPECIAL SECTIONreams… INSIDE THIS WEEK! Volume 97 No. 24 On the Internet: www.carmelpinecone.com June 17-23, 2011 Y OUR S OURCE F OR L OCAL N EWS, ARTS AND O PINION S INCE 1915 BIG SUR MEN PLEAD Monterey activist sues over C.V. senior housing GUILTY IN 2009 DUI ■ Wants occupancy curtailed to save amount which wasn’t allocated and which the Peninsula does not have, Leeper said. By MARY BROWNFIELD water; developer says limits will be met Leeper is a well known local activist and protester on numerous subjects. A May 8, 2008, commentary by fellow IN A deal struck with prosecutors that would keep them By PAUL MILLER from getting maximum sentences, Big Sur residents Mark activist Gordon Smith in Monterey County Weekly accused Hudson, 51, and Christopher Tindall, 30, pleaded guilty to CITING THE danger to the availability of water for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run other developments in the Monterey Peninsula and potential See LAWSUIT page 28A resulting in death Monday in environmental damage to the Monterey County Superior Carmel River if a senior housing Court. project at the mouth of Carmel Deputy district attorney Valley is allowed to open at full Doug Matheson said Hudson capacity, Monterey activist Ed will receive a five-year Leeper is asking a judge to issue an prison sentence, while emergency order that the facility, Tindall’s sentence could be Cottages of Carmel, be limited to probation, or up to four years 56 beds.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 ONE Official Record of Adoption................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000............................................................ 1-1 1.2 Adoption By Local Governing Bodies and Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 TWO Plan Description...................................................................................................................2-1 Section 3 THREE Community Description......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Location, Geography, and History ........................................................ 3-1 3.2 Demographics ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Land Use and Development Trends ...................................................... 3-2 3.4 Incorporated Communities.................................................................... 3-2 Section 4 FOUR Planning Process.................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Overview of Planning Process .............................................................. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team........................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Formation of the Planning Team............................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Planning Team
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 1 Effects of Fire on Fauna January 2000 Abstract _____________________________________ Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Fires affect animals mainly through effects on their habitat. Fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals. These increases are moderated by the animals’ ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the postfire environment. The extent of fire effects on animal communities generally depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused by fire. Stand-replacement fires usually cause greater changes in the faunal communities of forests than in those of grasslands. Within forests, stand- replacement fires usually alter the animal community more dramatically than understory fires. Animal species are adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that characterized their habitat in presettlement times. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines. Keywords: fire effects, fire management, fire regime, habitat, succession, wildlife The volumes in “The Rainbow Series” will be published during the year 2000. To order, check the box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Final Environmental United States Department of Impact Statement Agriculture Forest Service Strategic Community Fuelbreak May 2018 Improvement Project Monterey Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, Monterey County, California In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Santiago Fire
    Basin-Indians Fire Basin Complex CA-LPF-001691 Indians Fire CA-LPF-001491 State Emergency Assessment Team (SEAT) Report DRAFT Affecting Watersheds in Monterey County California Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………… Team Members ………………………………………………………………………… Contacts ………………………………………………………..…………………….… Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….. Summary of Technical Reports ……………………………………..………………. Draft Technical Reports ……………………………………………………..…………..…… Geology ……………………………………………………………………...……….… Hydrology ………………………………………………………………………………. Soils …………………………………………………………………………………….. Wildlife ………………………………………………………………….………………. Botany …………………………………………………………………………………... Marine Resources/Fisheries ………………………………………………………….. Cultural Resources ………………………………………………………..…………… List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………… Hazard Location Summary Sheet ……………………………………………………. Burn Soil Severity Map ………………………………………………………………… Land Ownership Map ……………………………………………………..…………... Contact List …………………………………………………………………………….. Risk to Lives and Property Maps ……………………………………….…………….. STATE EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT TEAM (SEAT) REPORT The scope of the assessment and the information contained in this report should not be construed to be either comprehensive or conclusive, or to address all possible impacts that might be ascribed to the fire effect. Post fire effects in each area are unique and subject to a variety of physical and climatic factors which cannot be accurately predicted. The information in this report was developed from cursory field
    [Show full text]
  • January 1979
    25c • BIG SUR, CALIFORNIA 93920 1979 Leavy Asks Highlanders Seek CAC for'CZ' Prescriptive Rights • Rezoning Coastal Co:mllUSEllOfler who also sits as a Solutions of the Citizen An"""",.." lJOlmUUUee, asked GARY KOEPPEL For the fifth time in as many month!!, residents of the • Carmel Highlands and Coastal Zone turned out in numbers to question the Coastal Commissioners about the origin, seope, problems created by the controversial prescriptive rights investigations being condllded in the name of the Coastal Commission the State Attorney General's Office. Carmel resident Robert the for clarification as to whether or not • had been for a '''-''''''Tntl.l Drl~sente,d a letter dated November 6 from General Ken Williams to Leo Woods Association which names Imlestigation. Carbon of letter • General Charles Getz '. THE GREENING of Big Sur.· Begiaming revered by residents. With fewer Vijllitnr·,1. with the rains and eetinuing \lotil 'and little enjoy. the Big "quiet period" is Sur. and that the Commissioners is being seriously wasted. Reselttment against the Commission • Carter grows. Trespass is increasing, titles remain cloufled, property values are threatened, and owners are being treated like squatters on their own land," be concluded. INCORPORATION Approves Another Highlands resident, Clare Willard, e.x- on controversial pressed disapproval of the "duplicity which my political outside ~ the USFS's queries have been answered" and because "many of my of their jurisdictions. questions. have been answered with lies.". argued that the COMMITTEE "Behind Back" • committee 'should write a Rare II She said on November 20 she and other residents had letter to the supervisors The Carter administration been assured by Chairperson Hendersen, Deputy recommendipg 1m­ announced last week its Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications
    Communications Ecological Applications, 21(2), 2011, pp. 313–320 Ó 2011 by the Ecological Society of America Interacting disturbances: wildfire severity affected by stage of forest disease invasion 1,3 1 2 1 MARGARET R. METZ, KERRI M. FRANGIOSO, ROSS K. MEENTEMEYER, AND DAVID M. RIZZO 1Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, California 95616 USA 2Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223 USA Abstract. Sudden oak death (SOD) is an emerging forest disease causing extensive tree mortality in coastal California forests. Recent California wildfires provided an opportunity to test a major assumption underlying discussions of SOD and land management: SOD mortality will increase fire severity. We examined prefire fuels from host species in a forest monitoring plot network in Big Sur, California (USA), to understand the interactions between disease- caused mortality and wildfire severity during the 2008 Basin Complex wildfire. Detailed measurements of standing dead woody stems and downed woody debris 1–2 years prior to the Basin fire provided a rare picture of the increased fuels attributable to SOD mortality. Despite great differences in host fuel abundance, we found no significant difference in burn severity between infested and uninfested plots. Instead, the relationship between SOD and fire reflected the changing nature of the disease impacts over time. Increased SOD mortality contributed to overstory burn severity only in areas where the pathogen had recently invaded. Where longer- term disease establishment allowed dead material to fall and accumulate, increasing log volumes led to increased substrate burn severity. These patterns help inform forest management decisions regarding fire, both in Big Sur and in other areas of California as the pathogen continues to expand throughout coastal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Patterns of Burn Severity in the Soberanes Fire of 2016 Christopher Potter* NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA
    hy & rap Na g tu o r e a Potter, J Geogr Nat Disast 2016, S6 l G f D o i s l a Journal of DOI: 10.4172/2167-0587.S6-005 a s n t r e u r s o J ISSN: 2167-0587 Geography & Natural Disasters ResearchResearch Article Article OpenOpen Access Access Landscape Patterns of Burn Severity in the Soberanes Fire of 2016 Christopher Potter* NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA Abstract The Soberanes Fire started on July 22, 2016 in Monterey County on the California Central Coast from an illegal campfire. This disastrous fire burned for 10 weeks at a record cost of more than $208 million for protection and control. A progressive analysis of the normalized burn ratio from the Landsat satellite showed that the final high burn severity (HBS) area for the Soberanes Fire comprised 22% of the total area burned, whereas final moderate burn severity (MBS) area comprised about 10% of the total area burned of approximately 53,470 ha (132,130 acres). The resulting landscape pattern of burn severity classes from the 2016 Soberanes Fire revealed that the majority of HBS area was located in the elevation zone between 500 and 1000 m, in the slope zone between 15% and 30%, or on south-facing aspects. The total edge length of HBS areas nearly doubled over the course of the event, indicating a gradually increasing landscape complexity pattern for this fire. The perimeter-to-area ratio for HBS patches decreased by just 3% over the course of the fire, while the HBS clumpiness metric remained nearly constant at a relatively high aggregation value.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE the Role of Wildfire In
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE The Role of Wildfire in the Fine Suspended Sediment Yield of the Ventura River, CA A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Sciences by Nathan I. Jumps June 2020 Thesis Committee: Dr. Andrew B. Gray, Chairperson Dr. Hoori Ajami Dr. Laosheng Wu Copyright by Nathan I. Jumps 2020 The Thesis of Nathan I. Jumps is approved: _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Andrew B. Gray for providing valuable guidance, knowledge, comments, suggestions, and invaluable direction throughout the various steps in my research. I would specially thank Andy for continually motivating me to work hard and focus on my contributions to the field of watershed hydrology. I would also like to express my thanks to my collaborators and contributors’ students Win Cowger, Jimmy Guilinger, Julianna McDonnell for technical guidance, valuable input, and suggestions and students Brandon Fong, Michelle Gutierrez, and Kristian Saenz for their help with fieldwork and lab sample analysis. iv Dedication To my loving parents and grandparents For their never-ending support and guidance To Tori v ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS The Role of Wildfire in The Long-Term Suspended Sediment Yield of the Ventura River, CA by Nathan I. Jumps Master of Science, Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences University of California, Riverside, June 2020 Dr. Andrew B. Gray, Chairperson Post-wildfire hydrological regimes can result in a dramatic increase in watershed sediment yield, particularly fine sediments (diameter < 62.5 µm) from small mountainous watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Basin Complex1
    Sudden Oak Death Mortality and Fire: Lessons from the Basin Complex1 Chris Lee,2 Yana Valachovic,2 Susan Frankel,3 and Katie Palmieri4 Abstract Land managers, fire suppression professionals, and research scientists have speculated about the relationship between increased Phytophthora ramorum-caused hardwood mortality and wildfire incidence, severity, and behavior in coastal California. Little quantitative data has emerged to measure the nature of any such relationship. The Basin Complex and Chalk fires in the summer and fall of 2008 along the Big Sur Coast provided the first opportunity for observers to confirm or disconfirm speculations about fire and P. ramorum. In an effort to focus research, outreach, and technical assistance, we conducted an information-gathering survey targeted at select personnel who worked on the Basin Complex and Chalk fires, and followed the survey with a series of meetings with land management professionals and scientists to obtain recommendations for how these firefighters’ experiences should inform future research and outreach efforts. Recommendations included more effective provision of needed maps and safety information; future research into the best methods for sanitizing water or ensuring that infested stream water is not used to fight fire; investigation into characteristics of live fuels in areas of increased hardwood mortality to aid fire behavior analysts with predictions; and increased coordination with firefighting agencies for information distribution and standardization of demobilization procedures. Introduction Concern about potential interactions between fire and large numbers of dead hardwood trees killed by Phytophthora ramorum, the cause of sudden oak death (SOD), has been present for some time among scientists, land managers, and residents of the coastal California wildland-urban interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Carmel Valley Forum
    She’s always got Festival saves New generation her mind on the best makes a good show December for 23rd — INSIDE THIS WEEK BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID CARMEL, CA Permit No. 149 Volume 94 No. 26 On the Internet: www.carmelpinecone.com June 27-July 3, 2008 Y OUR S OURCE F OR L OCAL N EWS, ARTS AND O PINION S INCE 1915 Big Sur hillside community devastated by wildfires ■ Governor declares state of emergency as 23,000 acres, 14 homes burn — lightning is cause BY CHRIS COUNTS THE PRIVILEGE of living high atop a ridge can come at a very steep price, Big Sur residents were remind- ed this week as a wildfire swept through Partington Ridge. At least 14 houses — including three historic buildings and a recently constructed trophy home — were destroyed late Sunday and early Monday after a lightning strike near Coast Gallery touched off what firefighters call the Basin Complex Fire. By midweek, the blaze had consumed about 23,000 acres. The lightning strike was just one of more than 8,000 observed throughout California Saturday when a dry thunderstorm swept through the state, igniting Historic more than 800 wildfires. Evacuating residents estate lost watched helplessly as columns of fire and smoke but inns and snaked their way up and library are down steep coastal canyons, threatening pock- spared ets of homes. “It looked like a scene from ‘Apocalypse Now,’” described longtime Partington Ridge resident Magnus Toren as he recalled watching the fire approach his prop- erty late Sunday. More than 690 firefighters, along with 46 engines, two air tankers and six helicopters have been deployed to fight the fire, according to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Caplin for LHC January 27, 2017 Hearing on Forest Management Page 1 of 8
    January 23, 2017 Honorable Pedro Nava, Chairman Little Hoover Commission 925 L Street, Suite 805 Sacramento, CA 95814 Via email attachment to: [email protected], Re: Public comment for inclusion in the record of the Little Hoover Commission’s Public Hearing on Forest Management, Thursday, January 26, 2017. Dear Chairman Nava and members of the Commission: I greatly appreciate that the Little Hoover Commission has decided to research problems with forest management in California and prepare a report recommending changes to law to help address the problems. However, after reading Chairman Nava’s letter of December 5, 2016 to Mr. Nick Goulette, I am concerned that the commission’s report on this subject may be too narrow, as it appears the focus may be limited to the 10 counties participating in the Tree Mortality Task Force, of which Monterey County is not a participant. I am writing to propose that in addition to problems in the southern and central Sierra region, the commission also consider and report on the need for comprehensive amendment of all laws needed to clearly allow and facilitate wildfire fuel reduction management of all forests, woodlands and rangelands in California. Myriad layers of local, state and federal laws add regulatory costs, delays and other roadblocks that act to discourage, hinder, and stop private and public landowners from maintaining forests, woodlands and rangelands in California. Government should be allowing and facilitating this important work, not leaving laws in place that act to hinder and block it. The federal government has acknowledged for almost 20 years that the beneficial policy of working to suppress wildfires that has been in place for over 100 years has resulted in vast areas in the western states, including much of California, being unnaturally and hazardously overgrown, presenting increased threat of high-heat-intensity wildfires to lives, property, and resources.
    [Show full text]