Final Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of Agriculture Forest Strategic Community Fuelbreak Service Improvement Project May 2018 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. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Kevin B. Elliott, Forest Supervisor Los Padres National Forest 6750 Navigator Way, Suite 150, Goleta, CA 93117 For Information Contact: Nic Elmquist, Prescribed Fire & Fuels Specialist at 805-968-6640 or Kyle Kinports, NEPA Coordinator at 805-961-5710 Los Padres National Forest 6750 Navigator Way, Suite 150, Goleta, CA 93117 Abstract: The Los Padres National Forest proposes to re-establish and maintain approximately 24 miles of historically used fuelbreaks – all of which originated as firelines – on strategic ridgelines within the wildland interface on the periphery of the Monterey District; approximately 10.4 miles within the Ventana Wilderness and 13.6 miles outside of wilderness. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative: No change from current management practices. Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action: Re-establish and maintain approximately 24 miles of historically used firebreaks. Wilderness fuelbreaks would be re-established manually with handheld motorized tools, then maintained with traditional tools. Non-wilderness lands would be re-established and maintained with a combination of handheld motorized tools and machine equipment such as excavators. Alternative 3 would use traditional tools only in wilderness, both for re-establishment and maintenance. Treatments outside of wilderness would be the same as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is the Agency’s preferred alternative. This alternative was developed in response to public comments. Wilderness fuelbreaks would be re-established and maintained manually with a combination of traditional tools and handheld motorized tools. Non-wilderness lands would be re-established and maintained with a combination of handheld motorized tools, machine equipment such as excavators, and use of herbicide. Executive Summary i Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Executive Summary The Monterey Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest proposes to re-establish and maintain a series of fuelbreaks1 on ridgelines that extend in and out of the Ventana Wilderness, all of which are historically-used strategic firelines2 within the wildland urban interface. The fuelbreaks would facilitate wildfire suppression actions and reinforce defensible locations by providing areas of lower fire intensities, improve firefighter access and enhance fireline production rates. The ridgeline locations (Figure 2 Vicinity Map) are the only strategically located geographic ridges that effectively parallel communities at- risk from wildfire originating on the national forest. Each time these locations have been used in fire suppression operations over the past four decades, they were successful in preventing wildfire spread from the national forest into the urban interface. During the summer of 2016, firelines were again constructed on most of these same ridgelines to help contain the Soberanes Fire within the national forest. Studies3 indicate the risk of fires approaching these ridgelines again is high. The Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project is an outcome of Firescape Monterey as a way to design and establish fuelbreaks in a non-emergency environment to both enhance protection for at-risk communities and preserve wilderness character. Firescape Monterey is a local collaborative effort that has brought together local community members, a diversity of environmental organizations, federal, state and local governments, and others to help focus and prioritize our fire management practices. The primary communities shielded by the proposed fuelbreaks are Big Sur, Palo Colorado, Cachagua, and Jamesburg. All of these communities are at-risk from wildfire based on fire probability (fire history) and hazard or expected fire behavior (fuels, weather, topography, and on-the-ground firefighter experience), and meet the definition of “communities at-risk” pursuant to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. In wilderness, wilderness character is diminished when firelines are re-opened by bulldozers during emergency suppression of wildfires. Bulldozers scrape firelines down to mineral soil removing all vegetation and combustible material. By proactively designing and establishing strategic fuelbreaks during a non-emergency environment, the Forest Service can reduce the reliance on mechanized equipment and subsequently reduce the adverse fire suppression impacts on the wilderness landscape. 1 Fuelbreaks are strategically placed strips or blocks of land on which a cover of dense, heavy, or flammable vegetation has been changed to one of lower fuel volume or reduced flammability while maintaining the existing overstory. 2 Firelines are a strategically placed strip or block of land scraped by bulldozers down to mineral soil to remove all vegetation and combustible material. 3 Drury 2014, Metzger 2015 Executive Summary ii Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Public involvement has identified impacts on wilderness character (compliance with Wilderness Act) as a signficant issue if fuelbreaks are maintained in wilderness. Impacts include noise, visuals, use of motorized equipment, and manipulation of vegetation. To mitigate impacts on wilderenss character, an interdisciplinary team of relevant specialists developed additional alternatives and project design standards. The alternatives studied in detail are summarized below:  Under the No Action (Alternative 1) no fuelbreaks would be re-established or maintained to accomplish the purpose and need. During wildfire emergency response, fireline construction would likely continue with heavy equipment along the strategic ridglines.  The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would re-establish and maintain 24 miles (approximately 542 acres) of historically used fuelbreaks – all of which originated as firelines - extending inside and outside of designated wilderness. Non-wilderness treatments include a combination of handheld motorized tools, mastication, machine or hand piling, and prescribed fire. Wilderness treatments include a combinaiton of handheld motorized tools and traditional tools: handheld motorized tools for initial re-establishment, then traditional tools only for maintenance.This alternative includes a monitoring plan that will assess the project over time and identify any necessary management adjustments.  Alternative 3 is a non-motorized wilderness treatment alternative. It is the same as the Proposed Action with the exception that all wilderness treatments would utilize traditional handtools only.  The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) is the same as the Proposed Action, with exceptions: herbicide treatment would be allowed on non-wilderness fuelbreaks, and traditional handtools will be emphasized in wilderness with the option to use handheld motorized tools for both re-establishment and maintenance. Three other alternatives were considered but were eliminated from detailed study because they were determined to be have been outside the scope of the need to develop effective and efficient wildland fire suppression strategies near the wildland interface or reduce fire suppression impacts on the landscape, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, would cause unnecessary environmental harm, not feasible, or not consistent with law or policy. Major conclusions from the four alternatives studied in detail include:  The No Action Alternative may not result in any immediate impacts to wilderness character, but when bulldozers are needed to suppress wildfire, moderate to severe site-specific impacts will occur and persist.  In wilderness, the action alternatives will result in short-term minor to moderate impacts during treatments but result in long-term benefits relative to the No Action Alternative from reduced bulldozer use. Executive Summary iii Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS  Alternative 3 would eliminate impacts on solitude from the sound of handheld motorized tools, but increase the impact on primitive and unconfined recreation by increasing the number of day’s workers would be in the wilderness. Cost would also rise proportionally.  Implementation of the action alternatives, with careful adherence to the scenery design standards, would either maintain or improve scenic integrity levels. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement this project, which of the action alternatives, or modify the project based on public input and interdisciplinary analysis. Executive Summary iv Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….…. ii Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action…………………………………………... 1 Document Structure………………………………………………………………... 1 Background………………………………………………………………………… 2 Existing and Desired Conditions…………………………………………………... 5 Purpose and Need………………………………………………………………….. 8 Proposed Action Summary………………………………………………………… 10 Decision Framework……………………………………………………………….. 10 Public Involvement………………………………………………………………… 10 Issues………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action……………………………13 Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 13 Alternatives Considered in Detail………………………………………………….. 13 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study…………………….. 25 Comparison of Alternatives………………………………………………………... 26 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences…………….. 31 Ventana Wilderness…………………………………………………………………31 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 32 Ventana Wilderness Legislative Special Provisions…………………………….. 34 Wilderness Character…………………………………………………………….. 36 Wilderness – Environmental Consequences……………………………………... 43 Fire/Fuels…………………………………………………………………………... 57 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 57 Fire/Fuels – Environmental Consequences………………………………………. 65 Climate Trends…………………………………………………………………….. 68 Local Trends in Climate Over the Past Decade………………………………….. 68 Future Predictions for Trends Over the Next Century…………………………… 70 Scenery Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 72 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 75 Scenery Analysis – Environmental Consequences………………………………. 85 Socioeconomics…………………………………………………………………… 96 Affected Environment…………………………………………………………… 98 Socioeconomics – Environmental Consequences………………………………... 108 Wildlife…………………………………………………………………………….. 122 Species Analyzed in Detail………………………………………………………. 123 TEP Species and Their Critical Habitat………………………………………….. 124 Affected Environment………………………………………………………….. 125 TEP - Environmental Consequences…………………………………………… 131 Forest Service Sensitive Species…………………………………………………. 144 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequnces………………………... 145 Widlife Management Indicator Species………………………………………….. 156 Table of Contents v Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Migratory Bird Treaty Act……………………………………………………….. 160 Fisheries……………………………………………………………………………. 161 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 162 Species Accounts…………………………………………………………………. 163 Fisheries – Environmental Consequences………………………………………... 164 Botany……………………………………………………………………………… 174 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 176 Botany – Environmental Consequences………………………………………….. 179 Botanical Management Indicator Species………………………………………... 187 Noxious Weeds…………………………………………………………………….. 192 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 193 Weeds – Environmental Consequences………………………………………….. 196 Hydrology………………………………………………………………………….. 200 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 202 Hydrology – Environmental Consequences……………………………………… 208 Herbicide…………………………………………………………………………... 212 Risk Assessment Methodology…………………………………………………... 213 Human Health Risk………………………………………………………………. 213 Ecological Risk……………………………………………………………………222 Heritage Resources………………………………………………………………… 229 Affected Environment……………………………………………………………. 229 Heritage Resources – Environmental Consequences…………………………….. 230 Short-term Uses and long-term Productivity………………………………………. 231 Unavoidable Adverse Effects……………………………………………………… 231 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources………………………… 233 Other Required Disclosures………………………………………………………... 234 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination………………………………………… 235 Prepares and Contributors…………………………………………………………. 235 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….. 237 Appendices………………………………………………………………………… 252 Appendix A – Project Design Standards and Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives………………………………………………………………………… 252 Appendix B – Project Area Recreation Trails……………………………………... 262 Appendix C – Notable Fires on the Monterey District…………………………….. 263 Appendix D – Fire History………………………………………………………… 264 Appendix E – Simulated Fire Frequency………………………………………….. 265 Appendix F – Flame Lengths Across Monterey District………………………….. 266 Appendix G – Best Management Practices………………………………………... 267 Appendix H – Methodology for Scenery Analysis………………………………... 269 Appendix I – Vegetation Types Used in Analyzing Key Viewpoints…………….. 277 Appendix J – Key Viewpoint Photos……………………………………………… 280 Appendix K – LPNF Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Used in Anadromous Table of Contents v Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Watersheds………………………………………………………………………… 286 Appendix L – Summary of Hazard Quotients for Mammals……………………… 288 Appendix M – Summary of Hazard Quotients for Birds………………………….. 290 Appendix N – Summary of Hazard Quotients for Terrestrial Animals…………… 291 Appendix O – Pesticide Safety and Spill Plan…………………………………….. 293 Appendix P – Past, Present and Foreseeable Future Projects……………………… 295 Appendix Q – Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols……………………………. 297 Appendix R – Agency Response to Comments on the Draft EIS………………..... 298 List of Tables Table 1. Historic use of strategic firelines…………………………………………. 6 Table 2. Proposed fuelbreak segments common to all action alternatives………… 18 Table 3. Comparison by alternative of environmental consequences on Untrammeled Wilderness Quality………………………………………………………………… 27 Table 4. Comparison by alternative of environmental consequences on Natural Wilderness Quality………………………………………………………………… 27 Table 5. Comparison by alternative of environmental consequences on Undeveloped Wilderness Quality………………………………………………………………….28 Table 6. Comparison by alternative of environmental consequences on Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Wilderness Quality…………………………………….. 28 Table 7. Comparison by alternative of potential change to Scenic Integrity………. 29 Table 8. Comparison of alternatives in meeting the Purpose and Need…………… 30 Table 9. Resource indicators and measures for wilderness qualities………………. 39 Table 10. Wilderness fuelbreaks…………………………………………………… 40 Table 11. Wilderness fuelbreak vegetation alliance type………………………….. 41 Table 12. Acres and percentage of each vegetation alliance in wilderness………... 42 Table 13. Summary of wilderness direct and indirect effects for Alternative 1…… 47 Table 14. Past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities relevant to wilderness cumulative effects………………………………………………………………….. 48 Table 15. Summary of direct and indirect effects for re-establishing fuelbreaks with Handheld motorized tools under Alternative 2…………………………………….. 53 Table 16. Summary of direct and indirect effects for maintenance of fuelbreaks with traditional tools under Alternative 2………………………………………………. 54 Table 17. Fire Class C (>10 acres) and greater, acres burned by decade and size… 58 Table 18. Wildfire ignitions within/adjacent to the Monterey District, 1911-2013.. 58 Table 19. Fire hazard and resistance to control by acres for the treatment areas….. 63 Table 20. Fuel model category, description, and acres of proposed fuelbreaks…… 64 Table 21. Comparison of alternatives for fireline intensity and flame length……... 66 Table 22. LMP Scenic Integrity Levels……………………………………………. 74 Table 23. Key viewpoint locations……………………………………………….... 80 Table 24. Existing Scenic Integrity and Scenic Integrity Objectives……………… 84 Table 25. Summary of direct and indirect effects on scenery for Alternative 1-No Action………………………………………………………………………. ………87 Table of Contents vii Los Padres National Forest – Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project FEIS Table 26. Summary of direct and indirect effects on scenery for Alternative 2…… 91 Table 27. Scenery resource indicators and measures for Alternative 2 – cumulative effects………………………………………………………………………………. 93 Table 28. Socioeconomic resource indicators and measures for assessing effects… 96 Table 29. Estimated cost of maintenance on a per acre basis in non-wilderness….. 97 Table 30. Forest Service firefighting suppression costs, average US……………… 100 Table 31. Employment change 2001-2013………………………………………… 102 Table 32. Racial and Hispanic composition of 2013 population for analysis area… 107 Table 33. Poverty rates in the analysis area……………………………………….. 108 Table 34. Treatments and associated unit costs……………………………………. 112 Table 35. Treatment costs per alternative and Total Present Value……………….. 113 Table 36. Wildlife species analyzed in detail……………………………………… 123 Table 37. Species whose potential or modeled habitat occurs within an individual Treatment segment, or who may be otherwise affected by the proposed action…... 132 Table 38. Treatment types identified as pertinent to the analysis of effects for each species due to the potential for effects to their habitat…………………………….. 133 Table 39. Treatment types identified as pertinent to the analysis of effects for each species due to the potential for disturbance……………………………………….. 133 Table 40. Treatment types with ‘H’ potential effects to habitat and ‘D’ potential direct effects……………………………………………………………………….. 145 Table 41. Sub-watersheds with proposed treatments………………………………. 163 Table 42. Modeled project ERA values……………………………………………. 171 Table 43. Fuelbreak treatment unit descriptions…………………………………… 176 Table 44. LPNF botanical Management Indicator Species…………………………187 Table 45. Cal-IPC and CDFA ranking and rating systems explained……………... 192 Table 46. Moderate or high impact weed species on the Monterey District………. 194 Table 47. Land ownership and designation for the analysis 6th-field watersheds…. 202 Table 48. Basin Complex soil burn severity………………………………………. 204 Table 49. Soberanes Fire soil burn severity……………………………………….. 204 Table 50. Baseline ERA results for analysis 6th-field watersheds…………………. 206 Table 51. Riparian Conservation Areas in the analysis 6th-field watersheds……… 206 Table 52. Roads, other routes including trails, and fire suppression lines in RCA... 207 Table 53. Wildfire, fuels reduction, and thinning projects in the RCA……………. 208 Table 54. Alternative 2 activity acres, ERA acres, and resulting % ERA…………. 209 Table 55. Summary of exposure assessment for the general public………………. 217 Table 56. Overview of exposure scenarios for the general worker………………... 218 Table 57. Hazard Quotient for the general public…………………………………. 220 Table 58. Hazard Quotients for workers…………………………………………… 221 Table 59. Protocol for determining operability of soils based on soil moisture…… 255 Table 60. Scenic Integrity Objectives……………………………………………… 271 Table 61. Distance and visibility from travelways and use areas: Bottchers Gap Vicinity…………………………………………………………………………….. 273 Table 62. Distance and visibility from travelways and use areas: Coast Ridge Table of Contents vii