la brea restoration project

United States Department of Agriculture

La Brea Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Santa Lucia Ranger District August 2019

For More Information Contact: Kyle Kinports

6750 Navigator Way, Suite 150 Goleta, CA

805-961-5710

Cover Photo: Photo of North Fork La Brea Creek after flood damage following the 2009 La Brea Fire on La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) at a creek crossing. Photo taken by Melody Fountain.

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.

Environmental Assessment

Los Padres National Forest i

Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Location of the Project Area .....................................................................................................................1 Need for the Proposal ....................................................................................................................................2 What will be Decided? ..................................................................................................................................5 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................................................5

Alternative 1: Proposed Action .................................................................................................................6 Alternative 2: No Action ...........................................................................................................................9 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................................10 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................................12 Alternatives Summary Table...................................................................................................................14 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................15

Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................................16 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities ............................................................................16 Transportation System ............................................................................................................................17

Project Area Roads and Trails .............................................................................................................18 Road Maintenance Levels ...................................................................................................................19

Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................24 Existing Condition ...............................................................................................................................26 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................................34

Inventoried Roadless Areas.....................................................................................................................56 Direct and Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................................57

Scenery ....................................................................................................................................................60 Existing Condition ...............................................................................................................................60 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................................61 Summary of All Alternatives on Scenery ............................................................................................62

Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................64 Existing Condition ...............................................................................................................................64 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................................70

Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Species ................................................................................................77 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................................77

Management Indicator Species ...............................................................................................................82 Existing Condition ...............................................................................................................................83 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................................84

Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................................................96 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Plants ........................................................................98 Noxious Weeds .....................................................................................................................................100 Heritage Resources ...............................................................................................................................102

Existing Condition .............................................................................................................................102 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................103

Climate Change .....................................................................................................................................108 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...............................................................................................................110

Federal, State, and Local Agencies .......................................................................................................110 Tribes ....................................................................................................................................................110 Others ....................................................................................................................................................110

References .................................................................................................................................................111 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................115

La Brea Restoration Project

Los Padres National Forest ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Activities comparison for each road, trail, and recreation site by alternative ............................... 14 Table 2. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities considered for cumulative effects ............... 16 Table 3. National Forest System roads within the La Brea Restoration project area ................................. 18 Table 4. National Forest System trails within the La Brea Restoration project area .................................. 19 Table 5. Miles of roads and trails by maintenance level or trail type in the La Brea Restoration project

area ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Road maintenance activity frequency ........................................................................................... 20 Table 7. Existing road and trail annual maintenance costs in the La Brea Restoration project area .......... 22 Table 8. Resulting road maintenance levels and trail types by alternative ................................................. 23 Table 9. Projected annual road and trail costs in the La Brea Restoration project area by alternative ....... 24 Table 10. Recreation resource indicators and measures for assessing effects ............................................ 25 Table 11. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification definitions .......................................... 28 Table 12. Land use zones (LUZ) and associated ROS class ....................................................................... 29 Table 13. Land use zones within the project area ....................................................................................... 29 Table 14. System trails and roads within the project area ........................................................................... 33 Table 15. Buckhorn Ridge OHV Area trails ............................................................................................... 34 Table 16. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the purpose and need ............................ 48 Table 17. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues ........................................ 50 Table 18. Summary comparison of environmental effects to recreation resources .................................... 52 Table 19. Inventoried roadless areas with acres and percentages in project area ....................................... 56 Table 20. Summary comparison of environmental effects to scenic resources .......................................... 63 Table 21. Sixth field HUC watersheds within the La Brea Restoration project area .................................. 64 Table 22. Fire acres in project area analysis watersheds and projected existing condition WCAT ratings 65 Table 23. Intermittent and perennial stream miles located within the La Brea Restoration project area

watersheds ........................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 24. Wetlands located within the La Brea Restoration project area watersheds ................................ 69 Table 25. Summary comparison of direct and indirect environmental effects to hydrology-related

resources ............................................................................................................................................. 75

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map .................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. North Fork La Brea Creek in the project area ............................................................................. 67

List of Appendices* Appendix A- Maps Appendix B- Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance Appendix C- Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures *The appendices support the EA in separate documents


Los Padres National Forest 1

Introduction The La Brea Restoration Project proposes to repair and open 7.2 miles of Maintenance Level (ML) 2 road, close 7.3 miles of ML 2 roads and manage them as non-motorized trails, and convert 8.3 miles of motorcycle trail to non-motorized trail. In addition, the project would construct two trailhead parking areas, downgrade an existing developed campground to a primitive camping area, and decommission two developed and three primitive campgrounds. All project activities would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Santa Lucia Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest (the Forest or the Los Padres).

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, including the Travel Management Rule at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 212.5.

For more details on the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Location of the Project Area The La Brea Restoration project area is located about 26 miles east of Santa Maria, California, in the Santa Lucia Ranger District, and includes approximately 56,594 acres. For an orientation to the area, see figure 1.

Figure 1. Vicinity map


2

Need for the Proposal This project is needed to address road damage and safety impacts following the La Brea Fire, which started on August 8, 2009, and burned approximately 90,000 acres. The Forest had to close a portion of the area due to road damage and safety concerns (see alternative 2 for information on closed areas). A map of existing conditions prior to 2009 is shown in appendix A figure A1.

Subsequent to the La Brea Fire, during the winter of 2010–2011, Santa Barbara County experienced approximately 150 percent of normal precipitation. The intensity of the storms produced severe flooding and sediment deposition in North Fork La Brea Creek. NFS Roads 11N04.3 (La Brea Road), 11N043B (Lazy Camp Road), and 10N06.1 (La Brea Canyon Road); and NFS Trail 30W02 (Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail or Kerry Canyon Trail) were severely impacted with either complete loss of the road and/or trail template or complete burial of the road and/or trail template. These roads and trails have been under a temporary emergency Forest Closure Order since the La Brea Fire.

An Emergency Repair Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) assessment was conducted after the fire and storm event to evaluate damage and develop cost estimates for road repair (USDA Forest Service 2011a, 2011b). Engineering, hydrological, and biological (aquatic and wildlife) field evaluations were conducted (Bielecki 2014, Malengo 2014, and Maloney 2014). These evaluations resulted in five possible options for addressing the damaged and washed-out roads.

The field evaluations documented the extent of road damage, which served as the foundation for the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action for this project. The project was first published to the Forest's Schedule of Proposed Actions October 1, 2016, to notify the public about the project.

In 2016, we conducted a travel analysis of roads and trails within the project area and adjacent range allotment areas of Cuyama and Colson. We assessed each road and trail for risks and benefits in terms of natural resources, public safety, and access. Access was assessed for recreation, private land inholdings, traditional cultural sites, grazing, and general forest administration. The assessments were documented in the La Brea, Cuyama, and Colson Travel Analysis Process report (project record), which tiers to the Los Padres National Forest Travel Analysis Report (USDA Forest Service 2015). Findings from the travel analysis served as a foundation for the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action for this project.

The La Brea Restoration project area includes 56,594 acres. This large project area was delineated to provide potential options for planning alternatives and provide context to the character of the general area. The project area includes three places described in the Land Management Plan (LMP), Part 2 Los Padres National Forest Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This document will hereafter be referred to as LMP Part 2. These places include the Colson (36,194 acres), the Cuyama-HWY 166 Front (6,413 acres), and the San Rafael (13,817 acres) Places.

All of the proposed actions occur within Colson Place. The theme for Colson is a traditional, rustic, back-roaded area used for hunting, remote touring, and camping. It is identified by a mix of recreation and grazing activities, and threatened and endangered species habitat.

On the northeastern edge of the project area is the Cuyama-HWY 166 Front Place, which is a natural agricultural setting. On the southeastern edge of the project area is the San Rafael Place, which consists of a vast rugged wilderness setting. See the map of places in appendix A, figure A2.



There are five inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the project area including: Horseshoe Springs, La Brea, Spoor Canyon, Miranda Pine, and Tepusquet Peak. The San Rafael Wilderness is also located within the project area. See the inventoried roadless areas map in appendix A, figure A3. All existing NFS roads have been excluded from the inventoried roadless areas. All existing NFS motorized and non-motorized trails are allowed in inventoried roadless areas.

The purpose of this project is to evaluate portions of the La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads and the Kerry Canyon Trail, damaged during the floods of 2011, and determine whether to reclassify, relocate, reconstruct, or decommission them. There are 10 recreation sites in the project area. These sites include Colson, Barrel Springs, Miranda Pine, Brookshire, Horseshoe Springs, Wagon Flat, and Lazy Campgrounds, and Kerry, Bear and Alejandro primitive camps. All need to be evaluated for the correct classification, given current conditions and the proposed changes to roads and trails. The goal is to restore the area to provide sustainable recreation access to the public, while preserving the natural ecosystem, riparian habitat, and cultural resources.

1. There is a need to improve hydrological functioning and riparian habitat for the North Fork La Brea Creek as consistent with the Land Management Plan, Part 1 Southern California National Forests Vision, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005b) Forest Goals 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 6.2 (pp. 35, 39-40, 40, 44-45). This document will hereafter be referred to as LMP Part 1.

Portions of the La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads are located in the riparian zone of North Fork La Brea Creek and cross the creek at approximately 34 crossings. These road crossings and road segments within riparian areas occupy areas that would likely be occupied by riparian vegetation providing habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife species if the road segments were not present.

This area contains critical habitat for federally listed species including the threatened California red-legged frog and endangered Southern California coast steelhead. (See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog at 75 Federal Register 112816, March 17, 2010, p. 12851, and Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule 70 Federal Register 52488, September 2, 2005, p. 52580.) The area is also home to Forest Service sensitive species such as the two-striped garter snake and southwestern pond turtle (P. Lieske, personal communication, October 12, 2017). These species and habitat occurrences are documented in Los Padres National Forest wildlife occurrence data (USDA Forest Service, Natural Resource Manager, 2017).

The North Fork La Brea Creek watershed has a condition classification of functioning at risk with poor riparian and or wetland vegetation conditions (project record, watershed evaluation and files titled “WCATT_LPF_All_Values.xlsx”). The desired condition for the North Fork La Brea Creek watershed is: functioning properly, supports healthy populations of riparian-dependent species, and the riparian and aquatic ecosystems are resilient as specified in LMP Part 1, Forest Goals 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 6.2 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, pp. 35, 39–40).

The extensive road damage provides an opportunity to improve hydrological conditions and riparian habitat in the existing road corridor.

2. There is a need for roads and trails (La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads and Kerry Canyon Trail) to be safe and efficient to manage as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goals 3.1 and 7.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, pp. 33, 47).


4

The La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads and Kerry Canyon Trail have been damaged substantially and currently are unfit for use. Historically, both roads have required only moderate maintenance, primarily at the numerous stream crossings. Approximately 34 stream crossings need some level of maintenance. The cost for annual road maintenance has increased, requiring options for a viable and feasible transportation system that supports annual maintenance over the long-term. The desired conditions for the area include providing a transportation system that is safe and efficient to manage as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goals 3.1 and 7.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, pp. 33, 47).

3. There is a need to provide recreation facilities that are high-quality, well-maintained, safe, accessible, and consistent with visitor expectations. Abandoned and unneeded facilities need to be removed and sites returned to natural conditions as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 33). Seven recreation sites need repair, reclassification, or decommissioning because they are suffering from lack of maintenance. These sites include Colson, Wagon Flat, Barrel Springs, and Lazy Campgrounds, and Bear, Kerry and Alejandro primitive camps.

Colson Campground is an important cultural site and cannot be maintained with normal practices. Barrel Springs and Lazy Campgrounds, and Bear, Kerry and Alejandro primitive camps have slipped into disrepair because they are not easily accessible and resources are not available to maintain them. The desired condition is to maintain the dispersed rural character of the Colson Place (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 47).

4. There is a need to maintain and restore access in the North Fork La Brea area to provide a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 35).

La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads, and Kerry Canyon Trail to a lesser extent, provide dispersed recreation access to motorized and non-motorized trails, and primitive campgrounds. The public uses these areas for a variety of activities including hunting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel, hiking, equestrian uses, and camping. Presently, access for recreation and fire suppression in the North Fork La Brea Creek area is restricted and reduced by damage to the roads. The desired condition is to maintain function as a traditional back-country area with access to historic trails in Colson Place (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 47).

5. There is a need to provide “adequate and feasible access” to private land in the North Fork La Brea Creek area within the forest boundary as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 34).

La Brea Road and La Brea Canyon Road have provided ongoing motorized access to private land in the North Fork La Brea Creek area within the forest boundary prior to road damage. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) requires “adequate and feasible access” be provided to private property owners when their land is within or surrounded by forest land. The desired condition is to provide access to private lands in the area consistent with the ANILCA and the LMP Part 3, Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005c, p. 2).



What will be Decided? The need for the proposal outlined earlier sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed. Based on the analysis, the responsible official will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the responsible official will select an alternative deciding:

♦ whether to implement proposed or alternative road, trail and recreation site use designations;

♦ what specific design criteria or mitigation measures are needed; and

♦ what specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

The decision will be based on:

♦ how well the selected alternative achieves the need,

♦ how well the selected alternative protects the environment and addresses issues and concerns, and

♦ how well the selected alternative complies with relevant policies, laws, and regulations.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Four alternatives were developed in detail, including the proposed action (alternative 1), no action (alternative 2), alternative 3, and alternative 4. See appendix A, figures A4, A5, A6, and A7 for maps showing roads, trails, and camping areas for each alternative. The no-action alternative provides a baseline from which to compare the other action alternatives. This baseline is the status quo, which is the status the roads, trails, and campgrounds have been in since the fire and subsequent storm events of 2009–2011.

The proposed action was scoped with the public in April 2017, and has been refined as a result of comments and questions received. It has been further refined with additional information the interdisciplinary team became aware of since then. Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed to address public concerns regarding the loss of motorized access to the project area.

See the project record for a description of how comments received during scoping were considered.

See appendix B for road, trail, and recreation site classification, maintenance levels, and standards.

The following paragraphs describe the proposed action and alternatives, and table 1 summarizes the differences between the alternatives. Project design features and mitigation measures were identified to prevent or reduce adverse impacts to the natural, cultural, and or social and economic resources associated with the project area. They would be required regardless of alternative, unless otherwise noted, and are described in appendix C.


6

Alternative 1: Proposed Action The proposed action is described in the nine actions detailed below, and is essentially the same as the La Brea Restoration Project scoping documents shared with the public in April 2017, with a few minor modifications and clarifications (project record).

Under the proposed action, access to the La Brea Restoration project area would be restored through re-opening to public motorized use 7.2 miles of roads that have been closed since the fire and flooding that occurred in 2009–2011. The project would re-open but change 7.4 miles of roads and 8.3 miles of motorcycle trail from motorized to non-motorized use. The project would re-open 1 developed campground with services, change classification of 1 campground from developed to a primitive camp, and close 2 developed campgrounds and 3 primitive camps. See the alternative 1 (proposed action) map of roads, trails, and camping areas in Appendix A, figure A4.

Note that National Forest System roads are identified with NFS as a prefix, such as NFS Road 11N04.3.

Additional details for alternative 1 are included below and are summarized in table 1.

1. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground, restoring it to Maintenance Level 2.

This 3.7-mile road segment needs general maintenance to clear rock and small slumps on the roadbed. Drainage features including over side drains and a culvert would be replaced that were damaged and exposed by running water. The entire road would be graded and the drainage re-established. Work would be accomplished primarily with a bulldozer (dozer) and grader. A backhoe or loader would be needed for drainage repair, including replacing a failed downspout 0.3 mile south of the closure gate. The road would be bladed to remove rocks that have rolled down the hillside and stopped on the travel way. There are two crossings of North Fork La Brea Creek just north of Wagon Flat Campground that require minor bank work to make them passable for 4x4 high clearance and off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Material would be smoothed in the active riparian area and streambed.

2. Change the maintenance level of La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Wagon Flat to Rattlesnake Canyon at the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from Maintenance Level 2 to Maintenance Level 1, but manage it as a non-motorized trail. This road segment has 24 stream crossings that have been washed out, making much of the road impassable by passenger vehicles.

The section of road from Wagon Flat Campground south 4.7 miles to the intersection with 10N06.1 would be changed from ML 2 (4x4 high clearance and OHVs) to ML 1 (closed) and managed as a non-motorized trail. ML 1 roads are closed to the public for motorized use, but open to the Forest Service for occasional administrative use and to private entities under permit, with an all-terrain vehicle, such as a quad. Reasons for occasional motorized use would include the ability for more efficient monitoring or assessments by the forest and seasonal management of the grazing allotments by the permittees in the area.

This road or trail would be closed to administrative and permitted use seasonally when needed due to wet conditions or the presence of protected species. Administrative access via all-terrain or high clearance vehicles would be allowed when not under a seasonal closure.



Changing the maintenance level of this road and managing it as a non-motorized trail would be accomplished through travel management reclassification, installation of a gate or barrier at the south end of Wagon Flat Campground and signage.

Under normal conditions, Level 1 and Level 2 trail maintenance standards would apply to clear encroaching vegetation, repair tread, and smooth the approaches at crossings. See Appendix B Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance for details. This maintenance would only be performed with hand crews as needed, and is not expected to be needed every year.

3. Convert Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02) to a non-motorized trail. This 8.3-mile trail is adjacent to and crosses the creek approximately 30 times along steep side-slopes that make it difficult to ride and maintain. Converting this trail from motorized to non-motorized would be accomplished through travel management reclassification, on-the-ground maintenance, and signage. Parts of this trail would require reconstruction by hand, due to loss of the trail tread from slides and or washouts. The exact location of any reconstruction is unknown, but would be within 50 feet of either side of the existing trail location. The trail would continue to be called Kerry Canyon Trail and would be combined with the 0.8 mile converted Lazy Camp Road for a total of 9.1 miles of non-motorized trail.


4. Convert Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B), to a non-motorized trail that becomes the beginning of Kerry Canyon non-motorized Trail (NFS Trail 30W02). This 0.8-mile road segment crosses La Brea Creek four times, along with other smaller tributaries. These crossings would require reconstruction to return the road to ML 2 standards. Converting this road to a non-motorized trail would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage. No substantial ground-disturbing work would be needed.


5. Change the maintenance level of La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) to the private property in Section 3, South of Barrel Springs Camp, from Maintenance Level 2 to Maintenance Level 1, but manage it as a non-motorized trail. This road segment has 10 washed out stream crossings, making most of the road impassable. The section of road from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) at Rattlesnake Canyon south 1.89 miles to the intersection with 10N06.2 would be changed from ML 2 (4x4 high clearance and OHVs) to ML 1 (closed) and managed as a non-motorized trail. ML 1 roads are closed to the public for motorized use, but open to the Forest Service for occasional administrative use and to private entities under permit, with an all-terrain vehicle, such as a quad. Reasons for occasional motorized use would include the ability for more efficient monitoring or assessments by the forest and seasonal management of the grazing allotments by the permittees in the area. This road or trail would be closed to administrative and permitted use seasonally when needed, due to wet conditions or the presence of protected species. Administrative access via all-terrain or high clearance vehicles would be allowed when not under a seasonal closure.


8

Changing the classification of this road and managing it as a non-motorized trail would be accomplished through travel management reclassification, installation of a gate or barrier at the existing wire fence line at the private property boundary, and signage.


6. Construct trailhead parking and re-design Wagon Flat Campground at the current location of the campground on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3). The trailhead would be called Wagon Flat Trailhead and include parking for up to six vehicles, information boards, and a welded pipe barrier to define the area and limit motorized access in the creek and on the trail at the south end of Wagon Flat. Heavy equipment such as a dozer, grader, backhoe and/or loader would be used to complete this work. Posts for the welded pipe barrier would be pounded in or hand dug and cemented.

The re-design of Wagon Flat Campground would involve decommissioning the old pit toilet and building a new vaulted toilet in a new location (see Appendix A, Figure A15 Wagon Flat Campground / Trailhead) with heavy equipment; and establishing six campsites with fire rings, picnic tables and parking spurs with barriers. These six sites would be located in the same general area as the existing four sites.

7. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson Summit to just before the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1); and construct a trailhead near the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road just before crossing the North Fork La Brea Creek. This 3.5-mile section of NFS Road 11N04.3 would be restored to ML 2 standards (suitable for 4x4 high clearance and OHVs). The entire road would be graded and the drainage re-established. Work would be accomplished with a dozer and grader.

Development of a trailhead, which would be called Rattlesnake Trailhead, would involve establishment of a parking area, information boards, and installation of a welded pipe barrier to define the area and limit motorized access beyond the trailhead. See Appendix A Map, Figure A16 Rattlesnake Trailhead.

Heavy equipment such as a dozer, grader, backhoe and or loader would be used to create a designated parking area. Posts for the welded pipe barrier would be pounded in or hand dug and cemented. A portable toilet and trash collection would be provided during high use times of the year. Access to the Bear Canyon Trail (NFS Trail 31W05) would be improved by providing signs to lead hikers to and from the trailhead.

8. Reclassify Barrel Springs Campground as a primitive camp. This campground currently has 6 camp sites and 2 pit toilets. It has not been accessible by vehicle since 2010. Since access would now be via non-motorized trail, this campground would no longer be managed as developed. Primitive camps are not serviced, and therefore, require pack it in, pack it out practices.

Conversion from developed to primitive camp sites would require no ground-disturbing actions, except for removing the toilets and filling the holes with nearby soil. Existing improvements such as fire rings and tables would stay in place, but would not be replaced when they become unusable.



9. Decommission Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry Primitive Camps and Colson and Lazy Campgrounds. Decommissioning would involve removing picnic tables, fire rings, bulletin boards, and signs, and changing the classification. No ground-disturbing actions would be required except for removing the toilets and filling the holes with nearby soil at Lazy Campground. These camps would be removed from all forest maps. Dispersed camping would be allowed at these locations, unless closed by a forest order.

Alternative 2: No Action Under the no-action alternative, access to the La Brea Restoration project area would remain as it has since the fire of 2009, and flooding events of 2010. The temporary closure order for the roads, motorized trails, and recreation sites would become permanent. Any roads and trails that have been closed to motorized use would remain that way. Retaining the closures would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage; no dozer or excavation work would be needed.

The road templates would remain in place for fire suppression and other administrative access. The roads would be retained as NFS roads managed at ML 1 standards. ML 1 roads are closed to motorized use with a gate or barrier, but can be used as a non-motorized trail. Non-motorized access to the area and dispersed camping would be allowed. See the alternative 2 (no-action alternative) map of roads, trails and camping areas, in Appendix A, figure A5.

Additional details for alternative 2 are included below and summarized in table 1.

1. Retain the closure of La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.1) to Wagon Flat Campground. This 3.7-mile road segment would be maintained as an ML 1 (closed) road, for fire suppression and other administrative access.

2. Retain the closure of La Brea Road (NFS 11N04.3) from Wagon Flat to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1). This 4.7-mile segment of NFS Road 11N04.3 has 24 washed out stream crossings, making much of the road impassable by passenger vehicles. The road template would remain on the landscape, and the washed out stream crossings would not be replaced. This road segment would be maintained as an ML 1 (closed) road, for fire suppression and other administrative access.

3. Retain the closure of Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02). This 8.3-mile trail was adjacent to and crossed the creek approximately 30 times along steep side-slopes that made it difficult to ride and maintain. The trail route in most places has disappeared from the landscape due to slides and or washouts and fallen trees. It would no longer be identified as a motorized trail on future Los Padres National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Maps (USDA Forest Service 2011c) and the trail would be removed from the National Forest System Trails System.

4. Retain the Closure of Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B). This 0.8-mile segment of NFS Road 11N04B has four stream crossings and several tributary crossings, which have been washed out, making most of the road impassable for passenger vehicles. The road template would remain on the landscape. The washed-out stream and tributary crossings would not be replaced, as they have stabilized. This road segment would be maintained as an ML 1 (closed) road, for fire suppression and other administrative access.

5. Retain the closure of La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) to the private property in Section 3, south of Barrel


10

Springs Camp. This 1.9-mile road segment has 10 stream crossings, most of which have been washed out, making most of the road impassable by passenger vehicles. It would be maintained as an ML 1 (closed) road, for fire suppression and other administrative access.

6. Retain Wagon Flat Campground without services. This campground currently has four camp sites and two pit toilets. It has not been accessible by vehicle since 2010. This campground would no longer be managed as developed, but could be used as a primitive camp or dispersed site. Primitive campsites are not serviced, and therefore, require Leave No Trace™ (2012) and “Pack It In, Pack It Out” practices.

Conversion from developed to primitive would require no ground-disturbing actions, except for the eventual removal of the toilets and filling the holes with nearby soil. Existing improvements such as fire rings and tables would stay in place, but would not be replaced when they are lost or become unusable.

7. Retain the closure of La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1). A trailhead at the bottom of Rattlesnake Canyon would not be developed. This 3.5 mile-section of NFS Road 11N04.3 would be permanently closed and managed to ML 1 (closed) road standards. It would be available for fire suppression and other administrative access.

8. Retain Barrel Springs Campground without services. This campground currently has six camp sites and two pit toilets. It has not been accessible by vehicle since 2010. This campground would no longer be managed as developed, but could be used as a primitive camp or dispersed site. Primitive campsites are not serviced and therefore require Leave No Trace™ (2012) and Pack It In, Pack It Out practices.

Conversion from developed to primitive would require no ground-disturbing actions, except for the eventual removal of the toilets and filling the holes with nearby soil. Existing improvements such as fire rings and tables would stay in place, but would not be replaced when they become unusable.

9. Retain Alejandro, Bear, Kerry, Colson and Lazy Campgrounds without services. These camps would no longer be maintained. Existing improvements such as fire rings and tables would stay in place, but would not be replaced when they become unusable. Dispersed camping would still be allowed at these locations, unless closed by a forest order.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 responds to public concerns over loss of access and motorized use of the project area. It provides more motorized access and recreation opportunities than the proposed action. The roads and campgrounds re-opened under the proposed action would also be re-opened in alternative 3. Differences between alternative 3 and the proposed action include: The La Brea Road would be retained as an ML 2 road instead of non-motorized trail. The Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail would be retained, instead of being converted to a non-motorized trail. The La Brea Canyon Road would be retained as an ML 2 road, and opened seasonally rather than year-round. The Barrel Springs Campground would be restored as a developed site. See the alternative 3 map of roads, trails and camping areas, in appendix A, figure A6.

Additional details regarding alternative 3 are included below and summarized in table 1.



1. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground, restoring it to Maintenance Level 2. This 3.7-mile road segment needs general maintenance to clear rock and small slumps on the roadbed. Drainage features including over side drains and a culvert damaged and exposed by running water would be replaced. The entire road would be graded and the drainage re-established.

Work would primarily be accomplished with a bulldozer and grader. A backhoe or loader would be needed for drainage repair, including replacing a failed downspout 0.30 mile south of the closure gate. The road would be bladed to remove rocks that have rolled down the hillside and stopped on the travel way. There are two crossings of North Fork La Brea Creek just north of Wagon Flat Campground that may require minor bank work to make them suitable for 4x4 high clearance and OHVs. Material would be smoothed in the active riparian area and streambed.

Note: This action is the same as the proposed action (alternative 1).

2. Restore La Brea Road (NFS 11N04.3) from Wagon Flat to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) as a Maintenance Level 2 road. The road would be open for use by 4x4 high clearance vehicles, OHVs (greater and less than 50 inches in width), and motorcycles. This 4.7-mile road segment has 24 washed out stream crossings, making much of the road impassable by passenger vehicles. Managing this road as a motorized trail for high clearance vehicles would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage; some dozer or excavation work may be necessary if the road is needed for fire access. This road would be closed to use seasonally when needed due to wet conditions or the presence of protected species. Level 1 and Level 2 trail maintenance standards would apply.

3. Maintain Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02). This 8.3-mile trail is adjacent to and crosses the creek approximately 30 times along steep side-slopes that make it difficult to ride and maintain. Parts of this trail would require reconstruction, which is Level 3 trail maintenance, due to loss of the trail tread from slides and or washouts. The exact location of any reconstruction is unknown, but would be within 50 feet of either side of the existing trail location. Maintaining it as motorized would be accomplished with signage and hand tools, and would not involve using heavy equipment. It would be closed to use seasonally when needed due to wet conditions or the presence of protected species. When completed, Level 1 and Level 2 trail maintenance standards would apply. The trail would be combined with the 0.8 mile converted Lazy Camp Road for a total of 9.1 miles of motorcycle trail.

4. Convert Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B), to a motorized trail that connects with the Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02). This 0.8-mile road segment crosses La Brea Creek four times, along with other smaller tributaries. A 300-foot length of the travel-way that was located in the creek bottom, has essentially disappeared. Converting this road to a motorcycle trail would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage; no dozer or excavation work would be used. This trail would be closed to use seasonally when needed due to wet conditions or the presence of protected species. Level 1 and Level 2 trail maintenance standards would apply.

5. Reopen La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) to the private property in Section 3, south of Barrel Springs Camp, as a Maintenance Level 2 road. This 1.9-mile road segment has 10 washed out stream crossings. Some dozer or excavation work may be necessary if the road is needed for fire access. This road would be closed to use seasonally when needed due to wet conditions or the presence of protected


12

species. The road would be open to high clearance 4x4 vehicles, OHVs (all sizes), and motorcycles for recreation and fire access.

The gate and the fence area and access to Alejandro Trail (NFS Trail 31W15) would be reconfigured, so that the trail comes out on the north side of the gate.

6. Construct trailhead parking and re-design Wagon Flat Campground, at the current location of the campground on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3). The trailhead would be called Wagon Flat Trailhead and include parking for up to six vehicles, information boards, and a welded pipe barrier to define the area and limit motorized access in the creek and on the trail at the south end of Wagon Flat. Heavy equipment such as a dozer, grader, backhoe and or loader would be used to complete this work. Posts for the welded pipe barrier would be pounded in or hand dug and cemented.

The re-design of Wagon Flat Campground would involve decommissioning the old pit toilet and building a new vaulted toilet in a new location (see Appendix A, Figure A8 Wagon Flat Campground / Trailhead) with heavy equipment; and establishing six campsites with fire rings, picnic tables and parking spurs with barriers. These six sites would be located in the same general area as the existing four sites.

Note: This action is the same as the proposed action.

7. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson Summit to just before the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1). This 3.5-mile section of NFS Road 11N04.3 would be restored to ML 2 standards (suitable for 4x4 high clearance and OHVs). The entire road would be graded and the drainage re-established. Work would be accomplished with a bulldozer and grader.

Note: This is the same as the proposed action except there would be no trailhead created.

8. Restore the Barrel Spring Campground as a developed site and replace the pit toilets with vault toilets. Services would be restored to this campground. The old pit toilet would be decommissioned and replaced with a new vaulted toilet; and the six campsites, the parking area, and information boards would be restored. Heavy equipment such as a backhoe would be used for replacing the toilet.

9. Retain Alejandro, Bear, Kerry as Primitive Camps; reclassify Lazy developed campground as a primitive camp; and decommission Colson Developed Campground. Decommissioning would involve removal of picnic tables, fire rings, bulletin boards, signs, and changing the area classification. No ground-disturbing actions would be required. Dispersed camping would be allowed at Colson, unless closed by a forest order.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 responds to public concerns over loss of access and motorized use of the project area, and to concerns over damage to sensitive species habitat in La Brea Creek. It provides more motorized access and recreation opportunities than the proposed action, and a different mix of motorized access opportunities than alternative 3. A new motorized trail would be constructed on the ridge west of La Brea Creek between La Brea Road 11N04.3 and the Buckhorn Ridge Trail 31W14, and located outside of riparian areas. A forest plan (LMP) amendment would be needed to change the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) on either side of this new trail from semi-primitive non-



motorized to semi-primitive motorized; and the land use zone (LUZ) from back country non-motorized to back country. See the alternative 4 map of roads, trails, and camping areas, in appendix A, figure A7.

This alternative is identical to the proposed action with the exception of the addition of number 10 (a new motorized trail and the LMP amendment).

Refer to alternative 1 (proposed action) for the detailed descriptions for action items 1 through 9. Details for alternative 4, action item 10 follow; all items are summarized in table 1.

10. Construct a new motorized trail on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14). Approximately 5.9 miles of new NFS trail would be constructed on the ridge between Bear Canyon and Buckhorn Ridge that would bypass the North Fork La Brea Creek riparian area. This trail would be called Bear Ridge OHV and would provide motorized access between Rattlesnake Canyon and Buckhorn Ridge.

The proposed trail’s exact location is unknown, but it would be within 50 feet either side of the actual ridgeline. The trail would be constructed using a dozer and excavator. Signage marking the route would be installed. This trail would be open to all motorized trail users (4x4 vehicles, OHVs-all sizes, and motorcycles). Motorized trail development and maintenance standards would apply as described in Appendix H Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance.

10a. An LMP amendment would be needed to properly classify the new trail and change the existing ROS within 100 feet of either side of the trail from semi-primitive non-motorized to semi-primitive motorized, and the existing LUZ in this area from back country non-motorized to back country. This ROS and LUZ change would be needed for 113 acres.


14

Alternatives Summary Table

Table 1. Activities comparison for each road, trail, and recreation site by alternative Road, Trail, or Campground

Existing Condition/

Description

Alternative 1 Proposed

Action

Alternative 2 No Action

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Rd. to Wagon Flat CG

3.7 mi. ML 2

Closed*

3.7 mi. ML 2 Open

3.7 mi. ML 1

Closed

3.7 mi. ML 2 Open

3.7 mi. ML 2 Open

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Wagon Flat CG to 10N06.1

4.7 mi. ML 2

Closed*

4.7 mi. ML 1

Closed Road NM Trail

4.7 mi. ML 1


4.7 mi. ML 2

Open Road

4.7 mi. ML 1


La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Colson Summit to 10N06.1

3.5 mi. ML2

Closed*

3.5 mi. ML2

Open Road

3.5 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

3.5 mi. ML 2

Open Road

3.5 mi. ML 2

Open Road Lazy Camp Rd. (11N04B)

0.8 mi. ML 2

Closed*

0.8 mi.

Convert to NM Trail & add to Kerry Trail

0.8 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

0.8 mi.

Convert to MC Trail & add to Kerry Trail

0.8 mi.

Convert to NM Trail & add to Kerry Trail

La Brea Canyon Rd. (10N06.1) from La Brea Road to Pvt. Property in Sec. 3

1.9 mi. ML 2

Closed*

1.9 mi. ML 1


1.9 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

1.9 mi. ML 2

Open Road

1.9 mi. ML 1


Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (30W02)

8.3 mi. Closed*

9.1 mi. Open Trail

NM Trail w/ Lazy Camp Road

8.3 mi. Closed Trail

9.1 mi. Open Trail

MC Trail with Lazy Camp

Road

9.1 mi. Open Trail NM Trail w/ Lazy Camp

Road TH Parking at Wagon Flat CG

No Yes No Yes Yes

TH Parking at intersection of La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) and La Brea Canyon Rd. (10N06.1)

No Yes No No Yes

Barrel Springs CG Developed No services**

Primitive Primitive Developed Services

Primitive

Wagon Flat CG Developed No services**

Developed Services

Primitive Developed Services

Developed Services

Colson CG Developed No services **

Decommission Closed

Developed Closed

Decommission Closed

Decommission Closed

Lazy CG Developed No services**

Decommission Dispersed

Developed No services

Primitive Decommission Dispersed

Alejandro Camp Primitive Decommission Dispersed

Primitive No services


Bear Camp Primitive Decommission Dispersed





Road, Trail, or Campground

Existing Condition/

Description


Action



Kerry Camp Primitive Decommission Dispersed



New Motorized Trail on ridge between La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) & Buckhorn Ridge OHV (31W14)

No No No No Yes 5.9 mi.

Note. Rd. = Road; CG = Campground; ML = Maintenance Level; NM= Non-motorized; MC = Motorcycle; Pvt. = Private; TH = Trail Head. * These are the maintenance levels as listed in the Forest Service database and Los Padres National Forest Travel Analysis Report (2015), but have been closed by Forest Order since 2009. ** These campgrounds are listed in the Forest Service recreation database as Developed, but have not been serviced since 2009 due to Forest Orders closing the access roads.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures A number of resource protection measures have been incorporated into the La Brea Restoration Project to mitigate or reduce adverse impacts. These measures were guided by the direction in the Forest Plan (LMP) (USDA Forest Service 2005); other Federal and State laws, regulations, and policy; the programmatic biological opinions and assessments for threatened, endangered, and proposed species in the Los Padres National Forest; and concerns identified by the Forest Service and the public during scoping. They are all listed in appendix C of this EA.


16

Environmental Consequences Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities considered for cumulative effects analyses are listed in table 2. They are activities that may overlap in time and/or space with the La Brea Restoration Project activities. Each resource specialist determined which, if any, of these activities could have impacts that overlap with impacts resulting from the La Brea project to their particular resource.

Table 2. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities considered for cumulative effects Type of Activity

Past Activities/Events Present Activities Future Activities

Wildfire/Fire Suppression

• The Los Padres NF has historically been prone to wildfires. The largest fires in the past 20 years include the 1997 Logan Fire (49,489 acres), 1999 Spanish Fire (22,296 acres), 2006 Bald San Rafael (4,322 acres), and the 2009 La Brea Fire (97,815 acres).

La Brea Fire still recovering in some parts of project area watersheds.

Per the LMP, future wildfires will be suppressed. Controlled burns may occur where authorized to restore and maintain the natural fire regime of affected potential natural vegetation types

Livestock Grazing

• Livestock grazing utilization in the late 1800s and early 1900s was high, becoming moderate in the late 1900s, and has been at low levels for the last 10 to 20 years.

• Four allotments are all or partially within the project area: Porter, Pine Canyon and South Fork La Brea are all active allotments and the Buckhorn allotment is vacant.

Grazing allowed in accordance with current allotment management plans and road use permits.

• Maintaining structural range improvements: stock tanks, springs, wells and pipelines, fences, and stock trails

• Maintaining roads as needed and authorized for livestock grazing activities

Mining Activities

• In the 1930s to 1940s, the section of La Brea road (11N04.3) between Wagon Flat and Rattlesnake Summit, the road to Lazy Camp (11N04B), and trail 30W29 were built to access the White Elephant barium mine.

• The Colson Quarry flagstone mine was originally permitted in the 1950s to the Antolini Family who successfully patented it to become private land in the late 1990s.

• White Elephant mine, at the end of trail 30W29, is abandoned and Colson Quarry is still in operation but winding down as the saleable stone is nearly depleted.

No active analysis. As proposals are made the Los Padres National Forest will analyze each project to meet Federal and State Laws and the LMP.

Recreational Activities

• Hiking, biking, OHV and motorcycle use, camping, hunting, etc.

• Infrastructure maintenance activities

• Continuation of recreational activities

• Infrastructure maintenance

• Continuation of past and present with potential increased pressures from population increases.

• Infrastructure maintenance



Type of Activity

Past Activities/Events Present Activities Future Activities

Roads • Road building and maintenance Road maintenance Road maintenance

Transportation System The Cuyama, Colson, La Brea travel analysis process (TAP) was conducted on the Santa Lucia Ranger District in 2016–2017. The objective of the TAP was to provide scientific information for managing roads, motorized trails, and areas that are safe and responsive to public needs and desires; and to recommend a transportation system that conforms to the Los Padres LMP, is efficiently administered, has minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and is in balance with funding available for needed management actions. The planning area for the TAP was the combined 56,594-acre Porter, Pine Canyon, and La Brea Grazing Allotments. The La Brea Restoration Project is completely within the larger TAP analysis area. Road management activities, including reconstruction, maintenance, closure, conversion to trail use and decommissioning were considered, as well as the full range of public, commercial, and administrative access needs and issues. The analysis considered road management issues relevant to Native American Tribes and traditional uses within the planning area. The effects of the road system and road management activities on the surrounding ecosystem and resources were considered, including effects on watershed, wildlife, botanical resources, heritage resources, and recreation.

The analysis considered motorized and non-motorized trails. For the purposes of the analysis, the term “road” was defined as a motor vehicle travel-way over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1). The TAP is intended to be a broad-scale comprehensive look at the transportation network. The main objectives of the TAP are to make recommendations that:

• Balance the need for access while minimizing risks by examining important ecological, social, and economic issues related to roads and trails;

• Develop maps, tables, and narratives that display transportation management opportunities and strategies that address current and future access needs, and environmental concerns;

• Identify the need for changes by comparing the current road and motorized trail system and areas to the desired condition;

• Make recommendations to inform travel management decisions in subsequent NEPA documents; and

• Identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System (NFS) lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1)

The complete TAP report is available in the project record. The content of the report was generated through interdisciplinary analysis and the background information and recommendations were used in development of the La Brea Restoration Project purpose and need and proposed action, the alternatives, and by resource specialists for subsequent effects analysis.

This transportation system report is specific to the La Brea Restoration Project, and is tiered to the Cuyama, Colson, La Brea TAP. Most of the methodology and other background information supporting the findings and recommendations that lead to development of the project proposed action is included in the TAP, and is not repeated here.


18

Project Area Roads and Trails The roads and trails within the La Brea Restoration project area are displayed by name and number in table 3 and table 4, respectively. The entire list is provided for context, but only a few directly addressed in the La Brea Restoration Project NEPA analysis, due to the scope of the purpose and need.

Table 3. National Forest System roads within the La Brea Restoration project area Name Length

in Miles Description Maintenance

Level Status

Pine Canyon Rd. 11N04.1

0.10 From Hwy 166 through Private community of Pine Canyon about 4 miles to Forest Boundary.

ML 2 Open

1 Pine Canyon Rd. 11N04.2

4.3 From Forest boundary to Junction with 11N03 and 11N04.3

ML 3 Open

La Brea OHV 11N04.3

3.7 from Pine Canyon Rd.11N04.2 to Wagon Flat CG

ML 2 Closed*

La Brea OHV 11N04.3

4.7 from Wagon Flat CG to 10N06.1 ML 2 Closed*

La Brea OHV 11N04.3

3.5 from Colson Summit to 10N06.1 ML 2 Closed*

3 Colson Canyon Rd. 11N04.4

1.8 from Forest boundary to Colson Summit at 11N04.3

ML 3 Open

Brookshire Camp Rd. 11N04A

1.8 From 11N04.2 to Brookshire CG ML 2 Open

Lazy Camp Rd. 11N04B

0.8 From La Brea Canyon Rd to Kerry Canyon Trail

ML 2 Closed*

Colson Station Rd. 11N04C

0.2 Closed Road to old Colson Station site off of 11N04.4 (opposite Colson CG)

ML 2 Open

Colson CG Rd. 11N04D

0.3 From 11N04.4 to Colson CG ML 3 Open

La Brea Canyon Rd. 10N06.1

1.9 from La Brea Rd to Pvt. Property in Sec. 3 ML 2 Closed*

La Brea Canyon Rd. 10N06.2

2.5 from 10N06.1 to Forest boundary to the South

cML1 Closed

Barrel Spring CG Rd. 10N06A

0.2 from 10N06.1 to Barrel Spring CG ML 3 Closed*

Miranda Pine Rd. 11N03

10.0 from Sierra Madre Rd. 32S13.1 to 1 Pine Canyon Rd 11N04.2

ML 3 Open

Johnson Surprise Rd. 11N03A

0.5 from Miranda Pine Rd 11N03 to Spring Trough

ML 2 Open

Sierra Madre Rd. 32S13.1

7.6 from project boundary on North East to project boundary on South East

ML 3 Open

Miranda Pine Spring Rd. 32S13A

0.3 from Sierra Madre Rd. 32S13.1 to spring trough

ML 2 Open

Miranda Pine Camp Rd. 32S13B

0.3 from Sierra Madre Rd. 32S13.1 to Miranda Pine CG

ML 3 Open



Name Length in Miles

Description Maintenance Level

Status

Total 44.5

Table 4. National Forest System trails within the La Brea Restoration project area Name Length in

Miles Description Status

Buckhorn Ridge OHV Trail 31W14

6.3 4x4 trail, Motorcycles can use From 11N04.3 west to Forest boundary.(Goes on to Hwy 166 on private)

Open

Bear Cyn Loop OHV motorcycle Trail 31W13

6.2 Motorcycle Trail that starts from Buckhorn Ridge OHV Trail 31W14 and loops around and ends on Buckhorn Ridge OHV Trail 31W14

Open

Horseshoe Springs Spur OHV motorcycle Trail 31W12

0.8 Motorcycle Trail that starts on 1 Pine Canyon Rd near Horseshoe Spring Campground and goes up to Buckhorn Ridge OHV Trail 31W14

Open

Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail 30W02

8.3 Motorcycle Trail, most difficult, Black Diamond Crosses 11N03 at Pine Flat

Closed*

Buckhorn Ridge Trail 31W06

1.8 Foot Trail, starts just west of Colson CG and goes north to Bear Canyon Connector Trail 31W17

Open

Bear Canyon Trail 31W05

3.4 Foot Trail, starts at junction of La Brea OHV 11N04 and goes north to Bear Loop OHV 31W13

Open

Bear Canyon Connector Trail 31W17

1.7 Foot Trail, connects Bear Canyon Loop 31W13 and Buckhorn Ridge Trail 31W06

Open

Alejandro Trail 31W15

5.6 Foot Trail, starts at Colson Rd. 11N04.4 near Colson Summit and goes South to Alejandro CG and continues to connect with La Brea Canyon Rd. 10N06.

Open

Willow Spring Trail 31W01

1.1 Foot Trail starts at Brookshire Rd. 11N04A and goes West to the boundary of the project area. Part of longer trail that starts at Hwy 166.

Open

Indians Trail 31W02

1.3 Foot Trail, starts at Brookshire CG and goes North to private property and Kerry Canyon Trail 30W02

Open

Madre Trail 31W04

0.8 OHV Trail that parallels 12N03.1 Old Sierra Madre Open

Roque Trail 30W03

5.7 Wilderness Foot Trail Starts north of Lazy Camp from Kerry Canyon Trail 30W02 and goes east

Open

White Elephant Trail 30W29

2.5 Wilderness Foot Trail, was a road that went to White Elephant mine. Starts near Lazy Camp on Lazy Camp Rd 11N04B and goes east

Open

Total 45.5 *Currently closed by Forest Order

Road Maintenance Levels The Forest Service differentiates forest roads into five maintenance levels, which define the level of service, and maintenance required. Brief definitions of the five road maintenance levels follows.


20

More detailed descriptions are provided in appendix B of this EA and in the TAP appendix H (project record).

Road Maintenance Level 5 (ML 5) – roads are managed and maintained for a high degree of user comfort. These roads are generally paved and are suitable for passenger vehicles.

Road Maintenance Level 4 (ML 4) – roads are managed and maintained for a moderate degree of user comfort. These roads are generally surfaced with rock and are suitable for passenger vehicles.

Road Maintenance Level 3 (ML 3) – roads are managed and maintained for a moderate degree of user comfort. These roads are native surface roads and are suitable for passenger vehicles.

Road Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2) – roads are managed and maintained for use by high-clearance vehicles; passenger car traffic is not a consideration.

Road Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1) – roads that are closed to vehicular traffic intermittently for periods that exceed 1 year.

Existing Road Maintenance Levels and Trail Types The number of miles of roads and trails that are currently recognized in the La Brea Restoration project area are summarized by road maintenance level and trail type in table 5.

Table 5. Miles of roads and trails by maintenance level or trail type in the La Brea Restoration project area

Road Maintenance Level (ML) Road Miles Trail Type Trail Miles ML 5 Road (open NFS roads) 0 Motorized System Trails* 22.4 ML 4 Road (open NFS roads) 0 System hiking trails 23.1 ML 3 Road (open NFS roads) 24.5 ML 2 Road (open NFS roads) 17.5 ML 1 Road (closed NFS roads) 2.5 Total miles of roads analyzed 44.5 Total miles of trails analyzed 45.5

*Includes motorcycle and OHV trails

Road Maintenance Frequency The quantity and frequency of maintenance is subject to: availability of funding, obligations under agreements, and protecting the Forest Service’s investment. In accordance with the maintenance level described above, table 6 displays the cyclic activities required to maintain the roads.

Table 6. Road maintenance activity frequency Activity ML 1 * ML 2 * ML 3 * ML 4 ** ML 5 **

Maintain traveled way for protection of investment, resource values, and to provide some degree of user comfort

Low Moderate High

Maintain road prism to provide for passage of high clearance vehicles

x

Maintain shoulder x x x x



Activity ML 1 * ML 2 * ML 3 * ML 4 ** ML 5 ** Keep drainage structures/features functional and prevent unacceptable resource damage

x x x x x

Vegetation removal to provide for sight distance x x x Vegetation removal for access and to control resource damage

x

Alleviate erosion or sedimentation on or from roadway x Remove roadside hazard trees x x x Maintain structures to provide for passage of planned traffic and preserve structure

x x x x

Install/maintain route markers; warning, regulatory, and guide signs and other traffic devices to provide for planned traffic

x x x x

* Maintenance activities are conducted as needed. ** Maintenance activities are conducted annually.

Road and Trail Maintenance Costs Federally appropriated funds for road operation and maintenance funding in the Los Padres National Forest have allowed maintenance to be performed on approximately 2 percent of the transportation system for the past 3 years.

In addition to the on-the-ground performance of maintenance-related work, all road systems have fixed costs associated with operational management of the systems, which include:

• Oversight of the transportation system;

• Establishing and maintaining transportation management systems required by law (e.g., pavement management, bridge management, safety management, and congestion management);

• Collecting and maintaining data about the transportation system (e.g., conducting road condition surveys, gathering traffic count and vehicle accident information, etc.);

• Providing information services (e.g., maps, transportation condition reporting, etc.);

• Out-year project planning (e.g., specialist surveys and reports, etc.);

• Office support (contracting officers, utilities, equipment, etc.);

Over the last 4 years, fixed costs account for nearly 75 percent of the appropriated funds.

The Forest Service has conducted annual road condition surveys since 1999 to determine the maintenance and associated funding needed to maintain roads to the required safety standards and assigned maintenance levels. These surveys describe the features of the roads (e.g., surfacing, ditches, drainage dips, and culverts) and their condition. The maintenance costs of those roads and features are calculated from those surveys using a standard cost guide. Regional surveys indicate that the annual maintenance funding needed for all of the existing Los Padres National Forest transportation system to be maintained averages about $4.8 million.

Table 7 lists the annual maintenance cost per mile per maintenance level in the La Brea Restoration project area.


22

Table 7. Existing road and trail annual maintenance costs in the La Brea Restoration project area Maintenance Level Cost per Mile Miles Annual Cost

5 $30,000 0 $0 4 $20,000 0 $0 3 $6,500 24.5 $159,250 2 $1,000 17.5 $17,500 1 $400 2.5 $1,000

Motorized Trails $200 22.4 $4,480 Non-motorized Trails $100 23.1 $2,310

Totals 90.0 $184,540

The current and foreseeable Los Padres National Forest road and trail maintenance budget can support only 2 percent of the required road maintenance, including fixed costs. Annual road maintenance costs can be curtailed by reducing road and trail mileage or road and trail maintenance levels. Other options include increasing or augmenting the road and trail maintenance budget or a combination of all. The failure to fully fund road and trail maintenance results in incremental loss of roadway and trail-way infrastructure (surfacing, drainage, structure) further increasing future annual and deferred maintenance costs, or most commonly, not fully maintaining the road or trail to its assigned road or trail maintenance level.

The Forest Service currently uses three sources for performing maintenance on system roads and trails; they include a Forest Service road maintenance crew (FS crew), cooperative agreements, and contracts to the public sector.

Each of the resources has its benefits. The FS crew is ideal for projects requiring more engineering oversight due to the complex nature of terrain, resource protection requirements, and remote areas in which a contractor’s charges would not be cost effective. Contracts have been used on roads and trails that require routine maintenance, but have proven to be more costly for the government than the FS crew.

Cooperative agreements with counties are ideal for roads that serve private properties or access public areas. Counties often choose to maintain these roads to serve the residents and ranchers, and will maintain them more than once a year. These agreements between the counties and the Forest Service help to address our combined road maintenance needs.

The road maintenance levels and trail types proposed for each road or trail under each alternative appear in table 8. Road and trail maintenance costs for each road and trail in the project area are displayed in table 9. Alternative 4 includes the additional cost to construct a new motorized trail. Only roads and trails where maintenance level or trail type would vary by alternative are included in table 8 and table 9. The costs for all other roads and trails were lumped, because they would be the same for all alternatives. Individual road and trail maintenance costs are available in the Cuyama, Colson, La Brea Transportation Analysis Process report (project record).



Table 8. Resulting road maintenance levels and trail types by alternative Road, Trail, or Campground

Existing Condition/

Description


Action


Alternative 3

Alternative 4

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Rd. to Wagon Flat CG

3.7 mi. ML 2

Closed*

3.7 mi. ML2 Open

3.7 mi. ML 1

Closed

3.7 mi. ML 2 Open

3.7 mi. ML 2 Open

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Wagon Flat CG to 10N06.1

4.7 mi. ML 2

Closed*

4.7 mi. ML 1


4.7 mi. ML 1


4.7 mi. ML 2

Open Road

4.7 mi. ML 1


La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) from Colson Summit to 10N06.1

3.5 mi. ML 2

Closed*

3.5 mi. ML 2

Open Road

3.5 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

3.5 mi. ML 2

Open Road

3.5 mi. ML 2

Open Road

Lazy Camp Rd. (11N04B)

0.8 mi. ML 2

Closed*

0.8 mi.

Convert to NM Trail and add to

Kerry Trail

0.8 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

0.8 mi.

Convert to MC Trail

and add to Kerry Trail

0.8 mi.

Convert to NM Trail and add to Kerry Trail

La Brea Canyon Rd. (10N06.1) from La Brea Road to Pvt. Property in Sec. 3

1.9 mi. ML 2

Closed*

1.9 mi. ML 1


1.9 mi. ML 1

Closed Road

1.9 mi. ML 2

Open Road

1.9 mi. ML 1



8.3 mi. Closed*

9.1 mi. Open Trail NM Trail w/ Lazy Camp

Road

8.3 mi. Closed Trail

9.1 mi. Open Trail MC Trail with Lazy

Camp Road

9.1 mi. Open Trail

NM Trail with Lazy Camp

Road Proposed Motorized Trail on ridge between La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) and Buckhorn Ridge OHV (31W14)

No No No No Yes 5.9 mi.

Note. Rd. = Road; ML = Maintenance Level; NM= Non-motorized; MC = Motorcycle; *These are the maintenance levels as listed in the Forest Service database and Los Padres National Forest Travel Analysis Report (2015), but have been closed by Forest Order since 2009.


24

Table 9. Projected annual road and trail costs in the La Brea Restoration project area by alternative Road or Trail Existing* Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2 No Action**


10N06.1 (La Brea Canyon Road)

$1,900 $1,900 $760 $3,700 $760

11N04.3 (La Brea OHV) segment 1

$3,700 $3,700 $1,480 $3,700 $3,700

11N04.3 segment 2 $4,700 $1,880 $1,880 $4,700 $1,880 11N04.3 segment 3 $3,500 $3,500 $1,400 $3,500 $3,500 11N04B (Lazy Camp Road)

$800 $80 $320 $160 $80

30W02 (Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail)

$1,660 $830 $0 $1,660 $830

Proposed Bear Ridge OHV trail (Alternative 4)

0 0 0 0 $29,500*** $1,180

All other roads and trails in the project area combined ****

$168,280 $168,280 $168,280 $168,280 $168,280

Totals $184,540 $180,170 $174,120 $185,700 $180,210 + $29,500 =

$209,710 ***** * Existing as per current road and trail classification levels in the Forest Service database and Los Padres National Forest Travel Analysis Report (2015), but have been closed by Forest Order since 2009. Calculations are based on the classification level in the database. ** No-action cost calculations are based on roads staying closed and classified as ML 1, and trail closed and not maintained. ***One time new trail construction cost (estimated) **** No changes are proposed to the other roads and trails within the project area in any of the alternatives, so the total existing annual cost for maintenance is provided rather than itemized. Individual road and trail annual costs are available in the Cuyama, Colson, La Brea TAP analysis report (project record). ***** The total includes the one time cost for construction of the proposed Bear Ridge trail. After initial construction of the new trail the annual maintenance cost for all roads and trails in the project area under alternative 4 is estimated to be $180,210.

Recreation Recreation opportunities and access are a component of the purpose and need for the project, and issues regarding recreation resources were identified during public scoping. The recreation report describes the existing condition of the recreation setting, opportunities, and access within the project area and discloses the potential environmental consequences to recreation-related resources, related to the implementation of the proposed alternatives for the La Brea Restoration Project. The report also includes the regulatory framework that would guide implementation of this project, including the applicable Forest Service Manuel (FSM 2300) guidance, and forest plan (LMP) standards and guidelines. This section of the EA is a summary of the complete recreation report that is available in the project record.

During public scoping, the following recreation-related issue components were raised. Additional information about how the public comments received during the scoping and the 30-day comment periods were addressed is available in the project record.

1. More motorized access and trails within the project area should be restored: Commenters were disappointed with the amount of roads and trails historically open to motorized use that would be re-classified as non-motorized. They were concerned that much of the project area would no longer be accessible for recreation use if they weren’t able to



access it via some form of motorized transportation. This issue is captured by recreation opportunity resource elements 7 and 8 in table 10 below. Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed to respond to the issue.

2. The Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail should be re-opened to motorcycles: Commenters said the rationale provided in the proposed action for closing the trail to motorcycles was unfounded because it is supposed to be very challenging and difficult (rated black diamond for experienced riders); it can be maintained with hand-tools and/or limited heavy equipment in ways that wouldn’t impact the environment; maintenance could be implemented by volunteers and/or funding provided by the user-groups; and it is a popular trail with traditional use that isn’t replaceable (there aren’t other opportunities for this type of recreational use nearby or on public lands). This issue is captured by recreation opportunity resource elements 7 and 8 in table 10 below. Alternative 3 was developed to respond to the issue.

3. Consider a different mix of options concerning the campsite and campground proposals: Commenters concerned about the loss of camping opportunities that would result under the proposed action would rather see the level of development change rather than complete decommissioning. They also asked for additional sites to be made available at some campgrounds to offset losses at others; and for new trailheads and day use sites to be established. This issue is captured by recreation opportunity resource elements 3, 4 and 5 in table 10 below. The proposed action was modified and alternative 3 developed in response to requests for a different mix of recreational access and camping opportunities than was proposed in Alternative 1.

4. Consider suggestions for alternate routes and changes in road classification to allow for motorized access that is less impactive on the environment and requiring less maintenance and restoration costs to offset the loss of opportunities that would occur under the proposed action: Commenters provided suggestions for alternate OHV trail locations and for changing the type of road use from passenger vehicles to 4-wheel drive high-clearance vehicles. This issue is captured by recreation opportunity resource elements 1, 2, 7 and 8 in table 10 below. Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed to respond to these requests.

5. Maintain roads and trails in the project area as non-motorized trails: Some commenters felt the roads and trails should remain closed to motorized use for protection of water quality, riparian habitat, and San Rafael wilderness character, but made available for non-motorized use. This issue is captured by recreation opportunity resource elements 7, 8, and 9 in table 10 below. Alternatives 1 (Proposed Action) and 2 (No Action) respond to this issue.

The purpose and need objectives and the issues drove the development of resource indicators and measures for assessing the effects of the alternatives on recreation. They are displayed in table 10.

Table 10. Recreation resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Resource Element

Resource Indicator Measure (Quantify if possible)

Used to address:

P/N, or key issue?

Source (LRMP S/G; law or policy,

BMPs, etc.)?

1. Recreation opportunities

Recreation setting - Does the alternative meet or fail to meet ROS allocations?

Meets or fails to meet

No LMP Part 2, page 128, REC 1.


26

Resource Element

Resource Indicator Measure (Quantify if possible)

Used to address:

P/N, or key issue?

Source (LRMP S/G; law or policy,

BMPs, etc.)?


Recreation setting – Land Use Zones & IRA

Meets or fails to meet land use zone suitability

No LMP Part 2, page 2 and 12, Land Use Zones & Inventoried Roadless Areas. Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, 2001 (36 CFR Part 294).


Recreation Setting - New facility upgrades improving public health

Number of improved or additional facilities

Yes LMP: Colson place: Program emphasis, improve developed CG facilities and access to historic trails. Desired condition; Back road area for recreation, maintain dispersed rural character. Public issue 3.


Recreation access – Changing classification of CGs

Number and type of campground amenities

Yes LMP Part 2, page 129, REC 3 Recreation Participation. LMP p. 133, Fac. 1-Facilities Maintenance Backlog. Public issue 3.


Recreation access – Loss of recreation facilities

Number of campgrounds decommissioned

Yes Goal 3.1 (LMP p. 34); LMP Part 2, page 129, REC 3 Recreation Participation LMP p. 133, Fac. 1-Facilities Maintenance Backlog. Public issue 3.


Recreation access - days affected by proposed rehabilitation of campgrounds

Days affected by proposed activities

Yes Identified by Forest staff


Recreation access - Miles of trail proposed and type and consistency with LMP direction

Miles and type of trail proposed

Yes LMP pp. 134-135, Trans 1-Transportation System; Trans 2 -Unnecessary Roads; Trans 3- Improve Trails; Trans 4, OHV opportunities. Public issues 1, 2, 4, and 5.


Recreation Access - Miles of proposed decommissioned road or road closure reducing motorized recreation access

Miles of road decommissioned Miles of road closed Miles of road re-opened

Yes Public issues 1, 2, 4, and 5.

9. Wilderness opportunities

Does the alternative protect, maintain or enhance wilderness character?

Impacts to solitude from noise

Yes Wilderness Act, LMP Part 2, p. 124 SD-1, and Public issue 5.

Existing Condition The project area provides a range of recreation opportunities for the public. The La Brea Restoration project area includes 56,594 acres on the Santa Lucia Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest. Although no towns or organized communities are located in the analysis area, many ranches



and cattle grazing exist. Santa Maria is the closest town, but San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara are also located to the north and south.

The project area contains three places as described in the LMP Part 2 (p. 75); however, all of the proposed actions would occur in Colson Place. This area is characterized by steep mountainous terrain east of Tepusquet Canyon. The theme for Colson is a traditional, rustic, back-roaded area used for hunting, remote touring, and camping. It is identified by a mix of recreation and grazing activities, and threatened and endangered species habitat. Local ranches border the Colson Place on the west, north, and south, with the San Rafael Wilderness on the eastern border. The landscape character is natural appearing with little development.

The primary recreation activities are dispersed recreation activities including hunting, equestrian use, hiking, and camping. Visitor use, participation, and satisfaction are measured by the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) system. Across the Forest, primary recreation activities include hiking and walking, viewing natural features, relaxing, viewing wildlife, and driving for pleasure (USDA Forest Service 2014). Although actual numbers are not available at the project area scale, data show that the Los Padres National Forest receives approximately 767,000 visits to the general forest area (this includes trails and dispersed camping opportunities forestwide) each year, and over 50 percent of total estimated national forest visits (938,000) come from the local area (within 25 miles).

Following the La Brea Fire, the winter of 2010 and 2011 brought above average rainfall in the area. The intensity of the storms produced severe flooding and sediment deposits into the North Fork La Brea Creek. NFS Roads 11N04.3 (La Brea Road), 11N043B (Lazy Camp Road, and 10N06.1 (La Brea Canyon Road); and NFS Trail 30W02 (Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail) were severely impacted with either complete loss of the road or trail, or buried under sediment. These roads and trails have been under a temporary emergency Forest Closure Order since the La Brea Fire.

Recreation Opportunities

Recreation Settings-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Land Use Zones (Resource Indicator and Measures 1 and 2) The Forest Service uses the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) to provide a variety of recreation opportunities that can be enjoyed in diverse settings. A recreation opportunity is defined as “the opportunity to participate in a specific recreation activity in a particular recreation setting to enjoy the desired recreation experiences and other benefits that accrue” (36 CFR 219.19). Recreation opportunities include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation on land, water and in the air. The social, managerial, and physical attributes of a place, when combined, provide a distinct set of recreation opportunities.

The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given national forest might be able to provide (USDA Forest Service 1982). The physical setting is defined by the absence or presence of human sights and sounds, size, and the amount of environmental modification caused by human activity. The social setting reflects the amount and type of contact between individuals or groups. The managerial setting reflects the amount and kind of restrictions placed on people’s actions by the respective administering agency or private landowner (USDA Forest Service 1986). The ROS class characterizations within the project area are shown in table 11 and displayed in figure A8 (see appendix A). A good portion of the project area acreage, 46 percent, falls within the semi-primitive


28

non-motorized ROS class and 29 percent in semi-primitive motorized. Currently, these ROS characterizations are met within the project area.

Table 11. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classification definitions ROS Class Characterization Acres in project area

(% of NFS lands in project area)

Primitive Essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

13,816 (24%)

Semi-primitive motorized

A predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but would be subtle. Use of local, primitive, or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motorbikes is permitted.

16,488 (29%)

Semi-primitive non-motorized

A predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted.

26,116 (46%)

In conjunction with the ROS, the Forest uses a system of land use zones (LUZs) to help manage the types of uses appropriate in certain areas (see table 12).



Table 12. Land use zones (LUZ) and associated ROS class Land Use Zone Acreage in

Project Area Associated ROS Class

Developed Area Interface (DAI) 0 Rural and roaded natural Back Country (BC) 13,409 Semi-primitive motorized, limited roaded

natural Back Country Motorized Use Restricted (BCMUR)

18,577 Semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized

Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) 10,621 Semi-primitive non-motorized Critical Biological (CB) 0 Varies Wilderness (W) (Existing and Recommended)

13,817 Primitive with limited semi-primitive non-motorized

LUZs (CFR 219.11(c)) were used to map the Los Padres National Forest to identify appropriate management types of ‘uses’ consistent with achieving the desired conditions. These LUZs help demonstrate management’s intent and to indicate the anticipated level of public land use in any area (Place) of the national forest. The activities allowed in each zone are expected to result in progress toward realizing the desired conditions. The suitability of specific uses by LUZ within the project area are displayed in table 13 and in figure A9 (see appendix A).

Table 13. Land use zones within the project area Activity or use Back Country Back Country

Motorized Use Restricted

Back Country Non-motorized

Wilderness

Hunting and Fishing Regulated by State (California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G))

Regulated by State (CDF&G)



Target Shooting Areas

Designated Areas Designated Areas Designated Areas Not Suitable

Public Motorized Use on Forest System Roads

Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable

Authorized Motorized Use

Suitable Suitable *By Exception *By Exception

OHV Use on Forest System Roads and Trails

Designated Roads and Trails

Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable

Public Motorized Use off Forest System Roads and Trails

Suitable in Designated Open Areas

Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable

Mountain Biking Forest System Roads and Trails

Unless Otherwise Restricted



Not Suitable

Dispersed Area Camping

Suitable Unless Otherwise Restricted




Livestock Grazing Designated Areas Designated Areas Designated Areas Designated Areas


30

Activity or use Back Country Back Country Motorized Use

Restricted

Back Country Non-motorized

Wilderness

Road construction or re-construction

Suitable Suitable for authorized use

Not Suitable Not Suitable

Developed Facilities Suitable *By Exception Not Suitable Not Suitable Wood Products, including fuelwood harvesting

Suitable Suitable Suitable Not Suitable

* By exception = Conditions that are not generally compatible with the land use zone, but may be appropriate under certain circumstances.

Back Country. This zone includes areas of the national forest that are generally undeveloped with few roads. The characteristic ROS objectives are semi-primitive motorized with limited areas of roaded natural. Most of the national forest’s remote recreation and administrative facilities are found in this zone. The level of human use and infrastructure is generally low to moderate.

The zone is managed for motorized public access on designated roads and trails. Some roads within this zone may be closed to public access. The majority of NFS roads and other road systems that interconnect areas of concentrated development are found in this zone. A network of low-standard remote roads provide access for a wide variety of dispersed recreation opportunities in remote areas such as camping and access to trailhead facilities for hiking or biking. Some new trails may be constructed to improve opportunities between trails on the existing system. The majority of the designated OHV system is found here.

Wildland-urban Interface Threat Zones (see appendix K in part 3 of the LMP) are characteristic in this zone. Managers anticipate locating community protection vegetation treatments that require permanent roaded access (such as fuel breaks) within the back country zone.

Although this zone generally allows a broad range of uses, the management intent is to retain the natural character inherent in this zone and limit the level and type of development. National forest staff expect to manage the zone for no increase or a very low level of increase in NFS roads. Managers expect to limit development to a slow increase of carefully designed facilities to help direct use into the most suitable areas and remove temporary facilities when they are no longer needed.

Back Country (Motorized Use Restricted). This zone includes areas of the national forest that are generally undeveloped with few roads. Few facilities are found in this zone, but some may occur in remote locations. The characteristic ROS objectives are semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized. The level of human use and infrastructure is low to moderate.

The zone is managed for non-motorized (mechanized, equestrian, and pedestrian) public access. Motorized use is restricted to administrative purposes only that include Forest Service, other agency, or tribal government needs, as well as access needed to private land or authorized special uses. Administrative access is intermittent and generally limited to existing roads or to temporary roads needed for resource management purposes. The intent is to use temporary roads or gated permanent roads while management is occurring and then gate the permanent roads or remove the temporary route when done.



A limited number of NFS roads and other road systems that access administrative and authorized facilities and private land are found here. A network of low-standard remote roads provides access for a wide variety of non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities including camping, hiking, biking, hunting, and fishing. Designated OHV use is not suitable in this zone.

Wildland-urban Interface Threat Zones (see appendix K in part 3 of the LMP) are characteristic in this zone. Managers anticipate locating community protection vegetation treatments that require permanent road access (such as fuel breaks) within the back country motorized use restricted zone.

Although this zone allows a range of low-intensity land uses, the management intent is to retain the natural character of the zone and limit the level and type of development. Some roads will be constructed and maintained, but the intent is to manage the zone for no increase or a very low level of increase in system development. Managers will consider expanding the ability of existing facilities to meet demand before proposing new facilities and removing temporary facilities when they are no longer needed.

Back Country Non-motorized. This zone generally includes areas of the national forest that are undeveloped with few, if any roads. The characteristic ROS objective is semi-primitive non-motorized. Developed facilities supporting dispersed recreation activities are minimal and generally limited to trails and signage. The level of human use and infrastructure is low.

The zone is managed for a range of non-motorized uses that include mechanized, equestrian, and pedestrian public access. Administrative access (usually for community protection) is allowed by exception for emergency situations and for short-duration management purposes (such as fuel treatment). The intent is to use temporary routes while management is occurring and then close or remove the route. Access to authorized facilities and to private land is not anticipated, but may occur by exception when there are existing rights to such access.

A network of low-standard back country trails provide public access for a wide variety of non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities including remote area camping, hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing. Designated OHV use is not suitable in this zone, and no designated OHV routes are located in this zone.

Wildland-urban Interface Threat Zones (see appendix K in part 3 of the LMP) may occur in this zone. Managers anticipate locating community protection vegetation treatments that require only temporary road access (such as mechanical thinning of trees or prescribed burning) within the back country non-motorized zone.

While a range of non-motorized public uses is generally allowed, the management intent is to typically retain the undeveloped character and natural appearance (fuel breaks that contrast with the natural character may be present) of this zone and to limit the level of development to a low level of increase. Facility construction (except trails) is generally not allowed, but may occur in remote locations where road access is not needed for maintenance. Managers are expected to remove temporary facilities when they are no longer needed.

Existing Wilderness. This zone includes congressionally designated wildernesses. Only uses consistent with all applicable wilderness legislation and with the primitive character are allowed in existing and recommended wildernesses. The characteristic ROS objective is primitive with limited areas of semi-primitive non-motorized.


32

The management intent is to administer this zone for the use and enjoyment of people while preserving its wilderness character and natural conditions. Non-conforming uses are to be removed to preserve wilderness character. The San Rafael Wilderness is within the project area, although no alternative proposes activities within it.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites (Resource Indicator and Measures 3 through 6) There are several developed and dispersed recreation sites located within the project area. Developed campgrounds within the project area include: Miranda Pines, Brookshire, Horseshoe, Lazy, Wagon Flat, Colson, and Barrel Springs. Alejandro, Bear and Kerry are all designated as primitive camps.

Dispersed camping occurs outside of developed campgrounds in a rustic forest environment where there may be natural hazards and few, if any, amenities. It can occur in both wilderness and non-wilderness areas, with or without a vehicle; however, most dispersed camping use occurs by vehicle. Most dispersed camping use is in forested areas along roads and trails, with heavy use seen during the hunting season.

Within the project area, camping is a recreation activity that occurs; however, low use occurs relative to other areas of the Forest in both dispersed areas and developed sites, which require an Adventure Pass. The project area has primitive camping in designated sites (such as Bear, Lazy, and Alejandro, but again, at low use). The project area also has numerous free-use dispersed camping sites in undesignated areas and many user-developed campsites that can be found along road intersections and near creeks.

Of the 10 campground facilities in the project area, only 7 facilities have proposed actions associated with them. There is a need to provide recreation facilities that are high quality, well-maintained, safe, accessible, and consistent with visitor expectations. Abandoned and unneeded facilities need to be removed and sites returned to natural conditions as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 34). Seven recreation sites are in need of repair, reclassification, or decommissioning because they are suffering from lack of maintenance. These sites include Colson, Wagon Flat, Barrel Springs, and Lazy Campgrounds, and Bear, Kerry, and Alejandro primitive camps.

Colson Campground is an important cultural site and cannot be maintained with normal practices. Barrel Springs and Lazy Campgrounds, and Bear, Kerry and Alejandro primitive camps have slipped into disrepair because they are not easily accessible and resources are not available to maintain them. The desired condition is to maintain the dispersed rural character of the Colson Place (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005a, page 47).

Recreation Access – Roads and Trails (Resource Indicator and Measures 7 and 8) Driving for pleasure is a popular activity on scenic routes and designated routes throughout the project area. The area is primarily accessed by Highway 166, which lies just north of the project area. Highway 166 is heavily traveled, provides the main recreation access to the area, and is a main thoroughfare for residents in the area.

The La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads and Kerry Canyon Trail have been damaged substantially and currently are unfit for use. Historically, both roads have required only moderate maintenance, primarily at the numerous stream crossings. Approximately 34 stream crossings need some level of maintenance. The cost for annual road maintenance has increased, requiring options for a viable and feasible transportation system that supports annual maintenance over the long term. The desired



conditions for the area include providing a transportation system that is safe and efficient to manage as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goals 3.1 and 7.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 34, 47).

La Brea and La Brea Canyon Roads, and Kerry Canyon Trail to a lesser extent, provide dispersed recreation access to motorized and non-motorized trails, and primitive campgrounds. The public uses these areas for a variety of activities including hunting, OHV travel, hiking, equestrian uses, and camping. Presently, access for recreation and fire suppression in the North Fork La Brea Creek area is restricted and reduced by the damage to the roads. The desired condition is to maintain function as a traditional back-country area with access to historic trails in Colson Place (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005a, page 47).

There is a need to provide “adequate and feasible access” to private land in the North Fork La Brea Creek area within the forest boundary as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 34).

La Brea Road and La Brea Canyon Road provided ongoing motorized access to private land in the North Fork La Brea Creek area within the forest boundary prior to road damage. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) requires “adequate and feasible access” be provided to private property owners when their land is within or surrounded by forest land. The desired condition is to provide access to private lands in the area consistent with the ANILCA and the LMP, Part 3, Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005c, page 2).

The current maintenance level and status of all the NFS roads and trails within the project area are provided in the transportation section of this chapter. The maintenance level and status of only those roads and trails proposed for changes in one or more alternative are displayed in table 14.

Table 14. System trails and roads within the project area Name Length in

Miles Description Maintenance

Level Status

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) 3.7 From Pine Canyon Rd. to Wagon Flat CG

ML 2 Closed

La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) 4.7 From Wagon Flat CG to 10N06.1 ML 2 Closed La Brea Rd. (11N04.3) 3.5 From Colson Summit to 10N06.1 ML 2 Closed Lazy Camp Rd. (11N04B)

0.8 From La Brea Canyon Rd to Kerry Canyon Trail

ML 2 Closed

La Brea Canyon Rd. (10N06.1)

1.9 From La Brea Road to Pvt. Property in Sec. 3

ML 2 Closed


8.3 Black Diamond – most difficult, motorcycle use only.

Trail Closed

Total 22.9 *See Appendix B Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance for a description of maintenance levels

Off-Highway Vehicle Opportunities There is one designated OHV area within the project area. The Buckhorn Ridge OHV Area has several trails available in the area for OHV use. Trail names within this area are provided in table 15.


34

Table 15. Buckhorn Ridge OHV Area trails Trail Name and Number Length in Miles Difficulty level Status

Kerry Canyon (30W02) 8.3 Most Difficult Closed Madre (31W04) 1.0 More Difficult Open Horseshoe Spring Spur (31W12) 0.8 More Difficult Open Bear Canyon Loop (31W13) 6.2 Most Difficult Open Buckhorn Ridge (31W14) 6.0 More Difficult Open Total 22.3

Other OHV areas on the Santa Lucia District include the Figueroa Recreation Area (approximately 6.1 total trail miles), Pozo – La Panza OHV Area (approximately 46.9 total trail miles), and Rock Front OHV Area (approximately 27.2 miles).

Several other roads on the district, totaling 230 miles, are open to OHVs. The trail types and difficulty levels vary, adding many opportunities for district and forest visitors.

Wilderness Opportunities

Wilderness Character (Resource Indicator and Measure 9) In 1968, the San Rafael Wilderness became the first primitive area in the Nation reclassified as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964; with additional acreage added in 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act. Of the 197,380-acre San Rafael Wilderness, only 13,876 acres lie within the project area boundary. There are a wide variety of plant and animal species throughout the wilderness. Other points of interest include the Manzana Schoolhouse and the standing ruins of homesteads along the Sisquoc River. These sites are all that remain of a vigorous farming community that settled the flats along the river around the turn of the century. The South Fork Cabin is a historic Forest Service line shack that has sheltered generations of backcountry rangers. The Dabney Cabin, nestled on a small terrace above Manzana Creek, was built in 1914, as a retreat for the family of Charles Dabney.

Currently, the wilderness has high use for the Los Padres National Forest as a whole, but in relation to other wilderness areas on national forests nearby, it is low use. There are limited impacts to solitude and only occasional motor vehicle and bicycle incursions. There are 17 trails currently available in the San Rafael Wilderness, totaling 151.6 miles of trail. The desired condition of this area is being met.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to recreation are NFS lands within the project area boundary because the proposed activities only occur on NFS lands.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects are 2 to 5 years as the proposed project activities are implemented and the area moves toward the desired conditions.

Short-term for this analysis refers to a 2- to 5-year period after all road restoration and improvements and or decommissioning in an area is complete.



Long-term effects, which for this analysis is considered beyond 5 years, and may differ by funding, access, staffing, and public need.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to recreation are all lands, including other ownerships within the La Brea Road Restoration project area boundary as well as into the San Rafael Wilderness.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects is 5 to 10 years. This is the estimated timeframe to complete reconstruction of recreation facilities and trail construction, as well as when vegetation regrows and the area no longer appears altered.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 proposes nine road-related and trailhead construction and reclassification actions. Subcategories of the proposed actions include road repair; road, trail, and campground reclassification; and trailhead construction. The effects to recreation that would result from each action are described below.

Road Repair Action 1. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground, restoring it to ML 2.

Action 7. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson Summit to just before the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1); and construct a trailhead near the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road just before crossing the North Fork La Brea Creek.

Alternative 1 proposes to repair two segments of La Brea Road, restoring it to ML 2, suitable for 4x4 high clearance vehicles and OHVs. The direct effects related to the repair of this road would be temporary in nature. The road is currently closed, therefore, any work done in the area to re-open the road would not impact recreation visitors any more than what is currently affected by the closure. Recreationists in the area may hear noise from equipment or see dust if they happen to be in the area, however, the impact would be low. Since a large portion of the project area is closed and inaccessible, the direct impact to recreation would be very minimal.

Direct impacts may occur more to the recreation setting. Temporarily, during and after road construction activities, the area would look manipulated and there may be signs of human activity. Vegetation may take up to one year to grow back and look natural after the equipment is gone and soils look undisturbed. Direct impacts to recreation as a result of the implementation of the proposed action would all be short-term, and provide long-term benefits to the public once access has been restored.

Indirect effects to recreation may be short-term. With a large portion of the project area being closed, recreationists may seek opportunities in areas that have not been heavily used in the past. This effect would be short-term as the proposed action would reopen large portions of the area and allow recreation use in the future.

No direct or indirect effects to recreation settings or overall recreation opportunities are expected from the proposed road activities in the long term.


36

Road, Trail, and Campground Reclassification Action 2. Change the maintenance level of La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Wagon Flat to Rattlesnake Canyon at the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from ML 2 to ML 1, but manage it as a non-motorized trail

Action 3. Convert Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02) to a non-motorized trail.

Action 4. Convert Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B), to a non-motorized trail that becomes the beginning of Kerry Canyon non-motorized Trail (NFS Trail 30W02).

Action 5. Change the maintenance level of La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) to the private property in Section 3, South of Barrel Springs Camp, from ML 2 to ML 1, but manage it as a non-motorized trail.

Action 8. Reclassify Barrel Springs Campground as a primitive camp.

Action 9. Decommission Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry Primitive Camps and Colson and Lazy Campgrounds.

The proposed reclassification or conversion of roads and campgrounds has the potential to directly and indirectly affect recreation settings, opportunities, and access in the short term, while proposed activities are being implemented and in the long term for activities that convert roads to non-motorized trails, or decommission sites or roads accessing them.

A direct effect of converting roads from ML 2 to ML 1 and managing as a non-motorized trail is the loss of motorized access to the Los Padres National Forest. Indirect effects of the reclassification of this road is that the use may continue to occur in and around the area as well as in other places not traditionally used for OHVs. The displaced users may seek other roads in the area or just outside the area. The direct effects of reclassifying Barrel Springs campground to a primitive camp is the loss of a developed camp site. Indirect effects may be displacement of user groups to other areas around the project area where visitors might be seeking facilities rather than primitive camping opportunities. The direct effect of decommissioning five campgrounds is the loss of developed access to camping in the project area. Indirect effects would be similar to the first two actions, the displacement of these recreation users to other areas in and around the project area in search of camping facilities rather than a primitive experience. This could result in increased use at these other facilities where use may not have been as high previously.

Trailhead construction Action 6. Construct trailhead parking and redesign Wagon Flat Campground at the current location of the campground on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3)

Action 7. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson Summit to just before the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1); and construct a trailhead near the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road just before crossing the North Fork La Brea Creek.

The proposed construction of a trailhead in two locations has the potential to directly and indirectly affect recreation settings, opportunities, and access in the short term while proposed activities are being implemented. A direct effect of building a trailhead would be temporary restricted access while the construction is being implemented. Roads and areas would likely be closed to the public



while equipment is in the area, but would re-open once the project is complete. Indirectly, this could affect areas around the project site by potentially receiving more use while the area is closed.


Recreation Settings-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Land Use Zones (Resource Indicator and Measure 1 and 2) Proposed recreation site rehabilitation and enhancement, and proposed trail and road construction, is consistent with the ROS classifications in the project area, as the ROS classifications provide for both non-motorized and motorized uses and varying recreation developments. In inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), all roads are buffered to be outside of the IRA and trails (routine maintenance and trail construction) are allowed in all IRAs.

In semi-primitive (motorized and non-motorized) ROS classification, a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size would continue to characterize that area. Concentration of use would continue to be low, but evidence of other users would remain present.

The effects of proposed activities would directly affect recreation settings during implementation. Effects to recreation settings would be to the physical setting (evidence of the sights and sounds of humans and naturalness) of ROS classifications and would occur for the duration of construction and up to one year after operations, until vegetation growth would soften the effects of equipment and road maintenance. In the long term, the physical, social, and managerial settings of the ROS classifications would be met.

Proposed activities for alternative 1 are aligned with the land use zone suitability outlined in the LMP. The public use as described would be maintained.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites (Resource Indicator and Measures 3 through 6) Alternative 1 proposes to reclassify several campgrounds, as well as upgrade one facility and add two trailhead parking areas. One trailhead would be called Wagon Flat Trailhead and include parking for up to six vehicles, information boards, and a welded pipe barrier to define the area and limit motorized access in the creek and on the trail at the south end of Wagon Flat. Heavy equipment such as a dozer, grader, backhoe, and or loader would be used to complete this work. Posts for the welded pipe barrier would be pounded in or hand dug and cemented.

The redesign of Wagon Flat Campground would involve decommissioning the old pit toilet and building a new vaulted toilet in a new location with heavy equipment; and establishing six campsites with fire rings, picnic tables and parking spurs with barriers. These six sites would be located in the same general area as the four existing sites.

Development of a trailhead, near the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road just before crossing the North Fork La Brea Creek, which would be called Rattlesnake Trailhead, would involve establishing a parking area, information boards, and installing a welded pipe barrier to define the area and limit motorized access beyond the trailhead.

Barrel Springs Campground would be reclassified as a primitive camp and Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry Primitive Camps and Colson and Lazy Campgrounds would all be decommissioned.

Colson Campground is an important cultural site and cannot be maintained with normal practices. Barrel Springs and Lazy Campgrounds, and Bear, Kerry and Alejandro primitive camps have slipped


38

into disrepair because they are not easily accessible and resources are not available to maintain them. The desired condition is to maintain the dispersed rural character of the Colson Place (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 47).

As mentioned in LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1, providing a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities is important for the Los Padres National Forest. With the need to provide recreation facilities that are high-quality, well-maintained, safe, accessible, and consistent with visitor expectations, this alternative would meet both of those goals. Abandoned and unneeded facilities need to be removed and sites returned to natural conditions. Because so many of the primitive camps have gone into disrepair, decommissioning them would still allow dispersed use, but remove the unneeded facilities.

Comments were submitted with concerns over the loss of camping opportunities, and the public would rather see the level of development change rather than complete decommissioning. In response to this public concern, the sites proposed for decommissioning do not actually have designated sites or facilities. These primitive sites are very small, and more conducive to a dispersed camping experience, which they would still be open for.

Decommissioning would involve removing picnic tables, fire rings, bulletin boards, and signs, and changing the classification. No ground-disturbing actions would be required except for removing the toilets and filling the holes with nearby soil at Lazy Campground. These camps would be removed from all forest maps. Dispersed camping would be allowed at these locations, unless closed by a forest order.

Since dispersed use of these areas would still be allowed, there is no real loss of recreation opportunity at these sites. And, the public can continue to enjoy the area.

Recreation Access – Roads and Trails (Resource Indicator and Measures 7 and 8) There is a need to maintain and restore access in the North Fork La Brea area to provide a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities as consistent with LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005b, page 35). Unnecessary and unsustainable roads need to be decommissioned or converted to trails as consistent with the transportation strategies outlined in the LMP Part 2 (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2005a, Trans. 1-3 page 134-135).

Recreation access and opportunities may be directly affected in the short term for road maintenance, road reconstruction, culvert replacement, or culvert removal if roads are closed to accomplish these proposed activities. Some delays and recreation opportunities may be decreased in the short term. The public would be given as much advanced notice as possible as to when these closures would take place.

Concerns were raised that re-opening the area to motorized use would set back the restoration that has occurred, would result in additional damage to the area and intrusion into the adjacent wilderness, because there is inadequate Forest Service staff and funding to monitor use, enforce rules, and maintain the roads and trails to support the use. Other public comments were requesting more motorized access into the area or to go back to the way it was before the fire. This alternative does not provide additional motorized access into the area; however, it does restore motorized public access on a portion of La Brea Road (11N04.3), and non-motorized public access on another portion of La Brea Road and on La Brea Canyon Road (10N06.1). With this alternative, there would be less motorized use and a lower level of impacts to other resources compared to the other alternatives.



Public access would be restored to the area without the need for road reconstruction and maintenance and additional sedimentation into the riparian areas. Fewer intrusions into wilderness areas are also expected.


Wilderness Character (Resource Indicator and Measure 9) The San Rafael Wilderness offers numerous trails for recreationists. There is a great opportunity for solitude, and hiking is a very popular activity on the Los Padres National Forest. With alternative 1, there are no actions proposed in wilderness and the motorized trail along the border of the wilderness would be changed to a non-motorized trail. This would help enhance the solitude found in the wilderness and lessen noise impacts.

Alternative 1 meets the purpose and need of this project by restoring access to the North Fork La Brea area for all recreation uses, including enhancing wilderness values.

Concerns were raised that potential intrusion to the adjacent wilderness would be likely, because there is inadequate Forest Service staff and funding to monitor use, enforce rules, and maintain the roads and trails to support the use. Alternative 1 proposes the conversion of many roads to non-motorized trails. This would help alleviate concerns of wilderness trespass and provide plenty of non-motorized access for the public.

Since there are no proposed actions in wilderness, all values and LMP guidelines are being met.

The direct effects would be very minimal and short-term for wilderness values. There may be some sights and sounds occurring in and around the area while construction and reconstruction activities are ongoing, but overall long-term effects are minimal to nonexistent.

Indirect effects may be motorized trespass into the wilderness, however, some of these incursions already happen.

Cumulative Effects

Past Activities Indigenous peoples used the La Brea Restoration project area before pioneers settled in the area in the 1860s to 1900s. Since the creation of the Forest Service in 1905, the area has been a rural and remote setting with relatively light use for rustic recreation such as hunting and camping and permitted livestock grazing.

In the past, the parcels of private property within the project area were mostly undeveloped and were used in much the same way as the NFS land. Livestock grazing use in the late 1800s and early 1900s was high, becoming moderate in the late 1900s.

In the 1930s to 1940s, the section of La Brea road (11N04.3) between Wagon Flat and Rattlesnake Summit, the road to Lazy Camp (11N04B) and trail 30W29 were built to access the White Elephant barium mine. The Colson Quarry flagstone mine was originally permitted in the 1950s to the Antolini Family who successfully patented it to become private land in the late 1990s. White Elephant mine, at the end of Trail 30W29, is abandoned, and Colson Quarry is still in operation, but winding down as the saleable stone is nearly depleted.


40

Colson Campground, within the project area, was a popular family campground and was used by Boy Scout Clubs from the Santa Maria area. In the last 20 years, however, Colson Campground began to deteriorate and receive heavy abuse as a local hangout spot, and has suffered extensive soil damage from illegal off-road vehicle use. The campground infrastructure and natural resources have been severely damaged and cultural resources exposed. Due to the ongoing nature of the damage, the district has been unable to complete adequate repairs.

These past activities have formed the current settings, opportunities, and access to the area for recreation.

Present Activities The project area has four livestock grazing allotments, three active and one vacant. Cattle numbers are currently down because of extended drought conditions on all of the active allotments. In the North Fork La Brea Creek area, light to moderate cattle grazing is authorized when the creeks are running so that livestock access to water is spread out and not concentrated into riparian habitats. As the water becomes scarce, the cattle are moved to other areas in and out of the project area that have developed water sources. Recently, some parcels of private property within the project area were sold and the property is being used primarily for recreation or marijuana cultivation.

Pleasure driving and OHV use has been popular in areas outside of designated wilderness; however, most of the southwestern portion of the project area has been closed to motorized vehicle traffic by closure order because of damage caused by the 2009 La Brea Fire and the subsequent flood event in late 2010. Hunting and other recreation, such as hiking and camping are still available, but because the area has to be accessed by foot, use has been light.

Reasonably Foreseeable Activities In the future, the current uses are expected to continue. Livestock grazing is expected to continue at about the same low to moderate intensity. Hunting and other recreation, such as hiking and camping are expected to continue and possibly increase with population growth. Pressure for motorized access and to use OHV and motorcycles in the area is also expected to continue. The possible designation of the “Condor Trail” from Lake Piru along the border of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties to Botchers Gap Campground in Monterey County, could bring more general use to the area. (See http://www.condortrail.com/maps.html for more information.)

Large, high burn severity fires endanger forest visitors and modify the quality of the recreation setting. Fire suppression would likely affect recreation opportunities while the activity was being implemented. Other activities would continue to provide recreation opportunities and access for recreation.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Alternative 1 Recreation activities would continue in the project area and access to recreation opportunities would be provided, although access routes may be different with changes in road maintenance levels. The activities associated with the construction and enhancement of roads and trails along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities would result in some short-term effects of noise and traffic associated with these activities. Some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during the time when construction activities take place is anticipated. The activities proposed in alternative 1 would not dramatically affect or alter recreation settings or opportunities in the area. Motorized recreation opportunities may be decreased, as some existing roads would be closed to motorized use or converted to non-motorized designation. Seasonal opportunities may be

http://www.condortrail.com/maps.html



affected in the short term due to public safety concerns such as temporary road or trail closures during wet weather in the spring and winter.

The San Rafael Wilderness Area is outside, but immediately adjacent to, the analysis area. During project implementation, the sights and sounds of people and equipment may be heard within portions of the wilderness area. The increased sights and sounds of people may affect opportunities for solitude along the western portion of the wilderness.

Resource protection measures are in place to minimize the effects of the project on recreation resources. Maintenance level conversions of roads, and road maintenance and reconstruction activities associated with this alternative, along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities would have no cumulative effects to recreation resources including recreation settings and overall recreation opportunities beyond what is described for alternative 1. This is because past activities form the existing recreation settings and opportunities, and this project and foreseeable future projects are designed to meet LMP recreation settings. Beneficial effects to recreation opportunities such as non-motorized trail-based recreation opportunities and dispersed camping opportunities are expected in the long term.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under the no-action alternative, access to the La Brea Restoration project area would remain as it has since the fire of 2009 and flooding events of 2010. The temporary closure order for the roads, motorized trails, and recreation sites would become permanent, and roads and trails closed to motorized use would remain that way. Retaining the closures would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage; no dozer or excavation work would be needed.

The road templates would remain in place for fire suppression and other administrative access. The roads would be retained as NFS roads managed at ML 1 standards. ML 1 roads are closed to motorized use with a gate or barrier, but can be used as a non-motorized trail. Non-motorized access to the area and dispersed camping would be allowed.

Alternative 2 proposes no action and initiates no human-caused changes to the recreation settings, opportunities, or ROS classification within the project area. Existing conditions in the project area would continue for all recreation resources. Under alternative 2, recreation activities and opportunities would continue as they have since 2009. There would be limited motorized access and a loss of OHV opportunity in most of the area.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 responds to public concerns over loss of access and motorized use of the project area. It provides more motorized access and recreation opportunities than the proposed action. The roads and campgrounds re-opened under the proposed action would also be re-opened in alternative 3. Differences between alternative 3 and the proposed action include: The La Brea road would be converted to a multi-use motorized trail instead of a non-motorized trail. The Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail would be retained, instead of being converted to a non-motorized trail. The La Brea Canyon Road would be retained, as an ML 2 road, and opened seasonally rather than year round. The Barrel Springs campground would be restored as a developed site; Lazy campground would be converted from developed to primitive; and Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry would be retained as primitive camps.


42

Direct and Indirect Effects Subcategories of the alternative 3 actions include road repair; road, trail and campground reclassification; and trailhead construction. The effects to recreation that would result from the actions are described below.

Road / Trail Repair Action 1. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground, restoring it to ML 2.

Note: This action is the same as the proposed action.

Action 7. Repair La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson Summit to just before the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1), restoring it to ML 2.

Note: This is the same as the proposed action except there would be no trailhead created.

Action 3. Maintain Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02).

Parts of this trail would require reconstruction, which is Level 3 trail maintenance, due to loss of the trail tread from slides and or washouts. The exact location of any reconstruction is unknown, but would be within 50 feet of either side of the existing trail location. Maintaining it as motorized would be accomplished with signage and hand tools, and would not involve the use of heavy equipment. It would be closed to use seasonally during wet conditions or when protected species are present. When completed, Level 1 and Level 2 trail maintenance standards would apply. The trail would be combined with the 0.8 mile of the converted Lazy Camp Road for a total of 9.1 miles of motorcycle trail.

Alternative 3 proposes repairing two segments of La Brea Road, restoring it to maintenance level 2, suitable for 4x4 high clearance and off-road vehicles. It also proposes maintaining Kerry Canyon as a Motorized Trail, requiring reconstruction. The effects are the same as alternative 1 except there would be fewer impacts to recreationists, because there would be no construction of a trailhead and the reconstruction of the Kerry Canyon Trail would not involve heavy equipment, therefore, no added impacts from construction-type activities.

Road, Trail and Campground Reclassification Action 4. Convert Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B) to a motorized trail that connects with the Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02).

Action 9. Decommission Colson campground; convert Lazy campground from developed to primitive; and retain Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry as primitive camps.

Trailhead / Campground construction Action 6. Construct trailhead parking and redesign Wagon Flat Campground at the current location of the campground on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3).

Note: This action is the same as the proposed action, therefore, the same effects apply.

Action 8. Restore the Barrel Spring Campground as a developed site and replace the pit toilets with vault toilets.



The proposed construction of a trailhead as well as replacing toilets at Barrel Springs has the potential to directly and indirectly affect recreation settings, opportunities, and access in the short term while proposed activities are being implemented. A direct effect of building a trailhead would be temporary restricted access during construction. Roads and areas would likely be closed to the public while equipment is in the area, but would re-open once the project is complete. Indirectly, this could affect areas around the project site by receiving more use while the area is closed.


Recreation Settings-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Land Use Zones (Resource Indicator and Measures 1 and 2) Alternative 3 addresses public concerns for a loss of access and motorized use. This alternative would allow for more recreation opportunities and still meet the purpose and need of the project.

Proposed recreation site rehabilitation and enhancement and proposed trail and road construction is consistent with the ROS classifications in the project area, as the ROS classifications provide for both non-motorized and motorized uses and varying recreation developments. In IRAs, all roads are buffered to be outside of the IRA and trails (routine maintenance and trail construction) is allowed in all IRAs.

The effects of proposed activities would directly affect recreation settings during implementation. Effects to recreation settings would be to the physical setting (evidence of the sights and sounds of humans and naturalness) of ROS classifications, and would occur for the duration of construction and up to one year after operations until vegetation growth would soften the effects of equipment and road maintenance. In the long term, the physical, social, and managerial settings of the ROS classifications would be met, and the original access and designation before the flood would be continued.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites (Resource Indicator and Measures 3 through 6) Alternative 3 proposes actions similar to alternative 1, however, some differences exist. The La Brea Road would be converted to a multi-use motorized trail instead of a non-motorized trail. The Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail would be retained, instead of being converted to a non-motorized trail. The La Brea Canyon Road would be retained, as an ML 2 road, and opened seasonally rather than year-round. Barrel Springs Campground would be restored as a developed site; Lazy would be downgraded from a developed campground to a primitive camp; and Alejandro, Bear, and Kerry would be retained as primitive camps.

As with alternative 1, alternative 3 also addresses LMP Part 1 Forest Goal 3.1, providing a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities. All of the proposed use is still consistent with LMP direction, and this alternative addresses public concern for the loss of access to public lands and facilities.

Recreation Access – Roads and Trails (Resource Indicator and Measures 7 and 8) The need to maintain and restore access in the North Fork La Brea area to provide a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities still exists and this alternative meets the purpose and need for this project while maintaining LMP and transportation goals.

Recreation access and opportunities may be directly affected in the short term for road maintenance, road and trailhead reconstruction, culvert and bathroom replacement or culvert removal if roads are


44

closed to accomplish these proposed activities. Motorized access would be restored to the area and trail opportunities would exist for the public. Changing or retaining the maintenance levels of certain roads still allows access, but it is somewhat restricted in that ML 2 roads are not suitable for passenger cars, and ML 1 is for non-motorized use; therefore, this would limit the availability of the motorized use, while maintaining the access for those who have OHVs or can hike.

This alternative addresses many public comments regarding access and intrusions. It allows for the restoration of more motorized access than the other alternatives.


Wilderness Character (Resource Indicator and Measure 9) Similar to alternative 1, there are no proposed actions in wilderness, all values and Land Management Plan guidelines are being met with this alternative. While concerns over wilderness trespass were raised by some commenters, this hasn’t been a problem in the past and therefore isn’t expected to be in the future. Maintaining signs and updating maps would help educate the public on the roads and trails they are allowed on and with what type of vehicles.

Direct effects would be very minimal for wilderness values. There may be some sights and sounds occurring in and around the area while construction and reconstruction activities are ongoing, but overall long-term effects are minimal. On any border of wilderness, there would be noise and sights of humans. This is unavoidable and solitude can be found by hiking farther away from the edge of the wilderness. This alternative would not harm wilderness values as solitude can still be found in the area and no proposed activities would be occurring inside wilderness.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3 Resource protection measures are in place to minimize the effects of the project on recreation resources. Maintenance level conversions of road, and road maintenance and reconstruction activities associated with this alternative, along with the projects and activities listed above would have no cumulative effects to recreation resources including recreation settings and overall recreation opportunities beyond what is described for alternative 3 because past activities form the existing recreation settings and opportunities, and this project and foreseeable future projects are designed to meet LMP recreation settings. Beneficial effects to recreation opportunities such as access to motorized trails; developed, primitive, and dispersed camping opportunities; added trail access; and improved facilities are expected in the long term.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 4 responds to public concerns over loss of access and motorized use of the project area, and to concerns about damage to sensitive species habitat in La Brea Creek. It provides more motorized access and recreation opportunities than the proposed action, and a different mix of motorized access opportunities than alternative 3. A new motorized trail would be constructed on the ridge west of La Brea Creek between La Brea Road 11N04.3 and the Buckhorn Ridge Trail 31W14, and located outside of riparian areas.

This alternative is identical to the proposed action with the exception of the addition of number 10, a new motorized trail. See the effects descriptions under Alternative 1- Proposed Action for action numbers 1 through 9.



10. Construct a new motorized trail on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14).

Approximately 5.9 miles of new NFS trail would be constructed on the ridge between Bear Canyon and Buckhorn Ridge that would bypass the North Fork La Brea Creek riparian area. This trail would be called Bear Ridge OHV and would provide motorized access between Rattlesnake Canyon and Buckhorn Ridge.

The exact location is unknown, but it would be within 50 feet either side of the actual ridgeline. Construction would require a dozer and excavator. Signage marking the route would be installed. This trail would be open to all motorized trail users (4x4 vehicles, OHVs-all sizes, and motorcycles). Motorized trail development and maintenance standards would apply as described in Appendix H Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance.

Direct effects to recreation would be the addition of a new trail in the project area.

Indirect effects of this added trail would be the potential for motorized incursions in the surrounding semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class and the trail’s proximity to the area.


Recreation Settings-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Land Use Zones (Resource Indicator and Measures 1 and 2) The proposed trail construction is currently not consistent with the ROS classifications in the project area, as the ROS classification in the area is semi-primitive non-motorized (see figure A10 - Alternative 4 ROS map, in appendix A).

Semi-primitive non-motorized ROS classification is characterized as a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. No motorized use is allowed in this class. The LUZ assigned to this area is back country non-motorized. OHV use, public motorized use on and off NFS roads and trails is not suitable for this land use zone. See figure A11 - Alternative 4 LUZ map, in appendix A.

Proposed activities for alternative 4 do not align with the LUZs or ROS classification currently outlined in the LMP. The effects of proposed activities would directly affect recreation settings during implementation as well as into the future. If alternative 4 were selected using the proposed route for the Bear Ridge OHV trail, an LMP amendment would be needed to properly classify the new trail and a 100-foot buffer on either side for a total of 200 feet along the route within the back country non-motorized LUZ, which is the exact same line as the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class. According to the map below, approximately 113 acres would need LUZ and ROS class change. The trail goes outside the semi-primitive non-motorized and back country non-motorized areas, but is mostly inside those two classifications, (113 acres of the total 144-acre trail footprint or 78 percent). There may be negative implications of adding a motorized trail to a non-motorized area for the recreating public. Areas are set aside in management plans to have limited motorized access and provide a different recreation setting for the public. There are wilderness areas and non-motorized areas that offer the opportunity for solitude and to get away from areas with heavy motorized use or traffic. If motorized use encroaches into these areas, they will lose their appeal to those users seeking solitude. With this alternative, 16.5 miles of roads and motorized trails would be converted to non-motorized trails, which would alleviate some of those concerns and implications. However, the ROS and LUZ setting for those non-motorized trails would remain in the semi-


46

primitive motorized and back country motorized classes. A change in the current ROS and LUZ classes would need to occur if this alternative is selected.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites (Resource Indicator and Measures 3 through 6) Same as alternative 1.

Recreation Access – Roads and Trails (Resource Indicator and Measures 7 and 8) Same as alternative 1, with the added construction of a new OHV trail.

This alternative would effectively address public comments requesting more motorized access into the area. Construction of the trail would follow all Forest Service trail construction and maintenance regulations as outlined in appendix B.

Because this trail is new and would close no current roads or trails while being constructed, the effects to recreation users is limited to some noise and dust caused by the dozer and excavator during implementation. Indirectly, new illegal “social” roads and trails could be created off this new trail.


Wilderness Character (Resource Indicator and Measure 9) Same as alternative 1, with the added construction of a new OHV trail.

The additional noise from the OHV trail would not affect wilderness values. Construction activities may temporarily impact the wilderness solitude if recreationists are in sight of the proposed activities during construction. No trail construction is proposed in wilderness, so impacts are minimal to this resource.

Alternative 4 Cumulative Effects Summary Recreation activities would continue in the project area and access to recreation opportunities would be provided, although access routes may be different due to changes in road maintenance levels. Activities associated with construction of the Bear Ridge Trail along with the projects listed above would result in some short-term effects of noise and traffic. Some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during construction is anticipated. Activities proposed in alternative 4 would affect or alter recreation settings or opportunities in the area. Motorized recreation opportunities would be increased, and therefore, indirectly impact a large area. Changing ROS and LUZ classification to add the motorized use may indirectly lead to new social trails in the semi-primitive non-motorized area. The recreation setting and overall character of the area could be changed.

Increased fire activity in the area could lead to erosion and washout issues associated with newly constructed and existing trails. Seasonal opportunities may be affected in the short term due to public safety concerns such as temporary road or trail closures during wet weather in the spring and winter.

Beneficial effects to recreation opportunities such as non-motorized trail-based recreation opportunities, added motorized activities, and dispersed camping opportunities are expected in the long term. There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments related to recreation resources from this project.



Summary of Effects to Recreation Alternative 1 provides the most non-motorized trail-based opportunities, and therefore, the fewest opportunities for motorized vehicles. Alternative 1 proposes to decommission five campgrounds and convert four of them to dispersed use areas, which would continue to be open for camping opportunities or day-use activities. One campground would be retained as developed; and one developed campground would be converted to a primitive camp. Two trailhead parking areas would be added with this alternative, providing access to the newly converted trails. Alternative 1 addresses health and safety concerns by providing safe parking and a new sanitation facility at Wagon Flat.

Alternative 2, the no-action alternative provides the least amount of recreation access and facilities. This alternative would maintain all the current closures and no services would be provided to any of the primitive campsites. No new trailheads would be developed and access into the North Fork La Brea area would be limited to backcountry travel or non-motorized use. Alternative 2 has the least amount of recreation opportunities for the public.

Alternative 3 provides the most motorized access and recreation opportunities into the area. The most miles of roads and trails would be re-opened for motorized use and the highest number of campgrounds would be available for use with this alternative. Only one campground would be decommissioned and the others would be opened up and available for use.

Alternative 4 responds to public concerns over loss of access and motorized use of the project area, and to concerns about damage to sensitive species habitat in La Brea Creek. It provides more motorized access and recreation opportunities than the proposed action, and a different mix of motorized access opportunities than alternative 3. A new motorized trail (Bear Ridge Trail) would be constructed on the ridge west of La Brea Creek between La Brea Road 11N04.3 and the Buckhorn Ridge Trail 31W14, and located outside of riparian areas. An LMP amendment would be needed to address ROS and Land Use Zones.

See table 16 and table 17 to compare how the alternatives address the purpose and need and the issues from the recreation perspective. A summary of effects on recreation by resource elements and indicators is displayed in table 18.


48

Table 16. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the purpose and need

Purpose and Need Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Provide a variety of recreational facilities, settings, and opportunities

There is a need to maintain and restore access in the North Fork La Brea area to provide a range of sustainable motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities.


Meets Meets Meets Fails to meet (without an LMP amendment for action 10)

Recreation opportunities Recreation setting – Land Use Zones

Meets Meets Meets Fails to meet (without an LMP amendment for action 10)

Provide recreation facilities that are high quality, well-maintained, safe, accessible, and consistent with visitor expectations.

Recreation setting - New facility upgrades improving public health

- Construct TH at Wagon Flat –Re-Design / Improve Wagon Flat CG - Construct Rattlesnake TH

0 - TH parking at Wagon Flat and upgrade /improve CG - Restore Barrel Springs CG and replace toilets

- Construct TH at Wagon Flat –Re-Design / Improve Wagon Flat CG - Construct Rattlesnake TH

Provide a variety of recreational facilities, settings, and opportunities

Restore resource conditions in developed and dispersed recreation and user-developed locations.

Seven recreation sites are in need of repair, reclassification or decommissioning because they are suffering from lack of maintenance.


- 1 (Barrel Springs) CG would be reclassified as Primitive. - 5 CGs would be Decommissioned (Colson, Lazy, Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).

- 2 (Barrel Springs and Lazy) developed sites would become primitive due to lack of access. - 1 CG would be closed (Colson).

- 1 (Lazy) CG would be reclassified as Primitive. - 1 (Colson) CG would be decommissioned.

- 1 (Barrel Springs) CG would be reclassified as Primitive. - 5 CGs would be Decommissioned (Colson, Lazy, Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).




Seven recreation sites are in need of repair, reclassification or decommissioning because they are suffering from lack of maintenance.


- 1 developed CG converted to primitive (Barrel Springs). - 2 developed CGs decommissioned (Colson, Lazy). - 3 primitive camps decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).

Eventual loss of 2 toilet buildings at Barrel Springs and Wagon Flat CGs.

- 1 developed CG reclassified as primitive (Lazy) - 1 developed CG decommissioned (Colson)

- 1 developed CG converted to primitive (Barrel Springs). - 2 developed CGs decommissioned (Colson, Lazy). - 3 primitive camps decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).



With sites currently closed, the public is already being affected due to limited access. The days would vary depending on the time needed to rehab the roads and trails and update the facilities; weeks to months potentially.

0 – no proposed rehab. However, the area is currently closed, the public has very limited access to recreate in the area.





- 4.7 mi. ML 2 road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry. - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 to total 9.1 mi. NM trail-Open. -1.9 mi. ML 3 closed road, convert to NM trail.

Total NM trail = 15.7 mi. Total Motorized trail = 0 mi.

Roads being converted to ML 1 would then be open to non-motorized travel. 14.50 miles of road changed to ML1 – Closed road-open to NM use. Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (8.35 mi.) would remain closed, but open to non-motorized use.

Total NM trail available = 8.35 mi. Total closed rds. available for NM use = 14.5 mi.

9.1 miles open to motorcycles. - 7.4 miles open to 4x4 OHVs and motorcycles.

- 4.7 mi. ML 2 road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry. - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 to total 9.1 NM trail-Open. - 1.9 mi. ML 3 closed road, convert to NM trail. - 5.9 mi. trail constructed, open to all OHV use.

Total NM trail= 15.7 Total Motorized trail= 5.9


50


Abandoned and unneeded facilities need to be removed and sites returned to natural conditions

Recreation Access - Miles of proposed decommissioned road or road closure reducing motorized recreation access

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 1 - Closed(managed as NM trail) - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - convert to NM trail, add to Kerry - 1.9 mi. ML 1 - Closed rd. (manage as NM trail)

Total roads closed- 7.3 mi.– convert to NM trail

Roads being converted to ML 1 would then be open to non-motorized travel. 14.5 miles of roads changed to ML1.

Total closed rds. available for NM use = 14.5 mi.

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - Open - 13.7 total mi. - Open

Total roads closed = - 0.8 mi / convert to MC trail

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 1 - Closed (managed as NM trail) - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - convert to NM trail, add to Kerry - 1.9 mi. ML 1 - Closed road (manage as NM trail)

Total roads closed - 7.3 mi.– convert to NM trail

The purpose and need for the project states that there is a need to provide recreation facilities that are high quality, well-maintained, safe, accessible, and consistent with visitor expectations

Does the alternative protect, maintain or enhance wilderness character?

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Converting road to trail can improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise.

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Road closures would limit vehicle use in the area, and therefore, improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise.

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Road ML would limit vehicle type in the area Some noise would be heard near the boundary of the wilderness - could still find solitude

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Converting road to trail can improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise. Adding a motorized trail to a roadless area may have an impact on solitude.

Table 17. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues Issue Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

More motorized Access and trails

Add more roads/trails Roads: - 3.7 mi. ML 2 - open - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - open

Total 15.7 mi. roads/trails closed, covert to NM trail

No new motorized trails or re-opening of old trails.

- 9.1 miles motorcycle trail open Roads: - 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - Open - 13.7 total mi. - Open

Roads: - 3.7 mi ML 2 - open 3.5 mi. ML 2 - open

Total 15.7 mi roads/trails closed, covert to NM trail

- New - 5.9 mi trail open to all OHV use



Issue Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Concerns about actions at individual sites

Close certain sites Re-Open certain sites

- Decommission Kerry, Alejandro, Bear, Lazy, and Colson CGs. - Re-open/ improve Wagon Flat CG. - Open and reclassify Barrel Springs as Primitive.

- 2 developed sites would become primitive due to lack of access. - 1 campground would be closed (Colson). - 0 sites decommissioned

- Re-open and improve 2 developed sites with services (Barrel Springs, Wagon Flat) Decommission 1 CG (Colson). - Reclassify 1 CG as primitive (Lazy) - Retain 3 sites as primitive (Kerry, Alejandro, and Bear).

- Decommission Kerry, Alejandro, Bear, Lazy, and Colson CGs. - Re-open/ improve Wagon Flat CG. - Open and reclassify Barrel Springs as Primitive.

Maintain roads and trails in the project areas as non-motorized

Converting motorized roads/trails to non-motorized

- 4.7 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 to total 9.1 NM trail-Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM trail

Total NM trail= 15.7 mi. Total Motorized trail = 0 mi.

- 14.5 mi. road closed and open to non-motorized use. - 8.3 mi. motorcycle trail closed, open to NM use.

No new non-motorized trails

- 4.7 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 mi. to total 9.1 mi. NM trail-Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM trail - New- 5.9 mi trail open to all OHV use

Total NM trail = 15.7 mi. Total Motorized trail = 5.9 mi

New recreation sites and day-use sites

New recreation sites and trailheads

- Wagon Flat CG upgrade/ improvement - Wagon Flat TH - Rattlesnake TH

0 - Wagon Flat CG upgrade/ improvement - Wagon Flat TH - Restore Barrel Springs CG and replace toilets

- Wagon Flat CG upgrade/ improvement - Wagon Flat TH - Rattlesnake TH


52

Table 18. Summary comparison of environmental effects to recreation resources Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4



All proposed activities meet ROS characterizations within the project area.



The ROS classifications assigned to the SPNM are not met by action number 10 in this alternative, without a project-specific LMP amendment.


Recreation setting – Land Use Zones (LUZ)

Meets all LUZ suitability Meets all LUZ suitability Meets all LUZ suitability The LUZ suitability standards are not met by action number 10 in this alternative without a project-specific LMP amendment.


Recreation Setting - New facility upgrades improving public health

- Wagon Flat CG upgrade - Wagon Flat TH - Rattlesnake TH

0 - TH parking at Wagon Flat and upgrade CG - Restore Barrel Springs CG and replace toilets

- Wagon Flat CG upgrade - Wagon Flat TH - Rattlesnake TH



- 1 (Barrel Springs) CG would be re-classified as Primitive. - 2 CGs (Colson, Lazy) would be decommissioned. - 3 camps would be decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).

- 2 developed sites (Wagon Flat & Barrel Springs) would become primitive (no services) due to lack of access. - Retain Alejandro, Bear, Kerry and Lazy with no services. (dispersed use allowed) - 1 campground would be closed (Colson).

- Re-open and improve 2 developed sites with services (Barrel Springs, Wagon Flat) - 1 campground would be decommissioned (Colson). - 1 campground (Lazy) would be reclassified as primitive

- 1 (Barrel Springs) CG would be re-classified as Primitive. - 2 CGs (Colson, Lazy) would be decommissioned. - 3 camps would be Decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).



Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 5. Recreation opportunities


- 1 developed CG converted to primitive (Barrel Springs). - 2 developed CGs would be decommissioned (Colson, Lazy). - 3 primitive camps decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).

0 - 1 CG decommissioned (Colson).

- 1 developed CG converted to primitive (Barrel Springs). - 2 developed CGs would be decommissioned (Colson, Lazy). - 3 primitive camps decommissioned (Alejandro, Bear and Kerry).




0 – no proposed rehab. However, the area is currently closed, the public has very limited access to recreate in the area.

With sites currently closed, the public is already being affected due to limited access. The days would vary depending on the time needed to rehab the roads and trails and update the facilities; weeks to months potentially

With sites being closed, the public is already being affected due to limited access. The days would vary depending on the time needed to rehab the roads and trails and update the facilities; weeks to months potentially.


54

Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 7. Recreation opportunities


- 4.7 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 mi. to total 9.1 mi. NM trail-Open - 1.9 mi. ML 3 - road closed, convert to NM trail

Total NM trail = 15.7 mi. Total Motorized trail = 0 mi.

Roads being converted to ML 1 would then be open to non-motorized travel. 14.5 miles of road changed to ML1 – Closed road-open to NM use. Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (8.3 mi.) would remain closed, but open to non-motorized use. Total NM trail available = 8.3 mi. Total closed roads available for NM use = 14.5 mi.

9.1 mi. open to motorcycle.

- 4.7 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM Trail. - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - road convert to NM Trail, add to Kerry - 8.3 mi. OHV trail closed, convert to NM trail and add 0.8 to total 9.1 NM trail - Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - road closed, convert to NM trail - 5.9 mi trail constructed, open to all OHV use

Total NM trail = 15.7 mi. Total Motorized trail = 5.9 mi.


Recreation access - Miles of proposed decommissioned road or road closure reducing motorized recreation access

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 1 - Closed (managed as NM trail) - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 0.8 mi. ML2 - convert to NM trail, add to Kerry - 1.9 mi. ML 1 - Closed (manage as NM trail)


Roads being converted to ML 1 would then be open to non-motorized travel. 14.5 mi. of roads changed to ML1.

Total closed roads available for NM use = 14.5 mi.

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 1.9 mi. ML 2 - Open - 13.7 total mi. - Open Total roads closed = -0.8 mi. convert to MC trail

- 3.7 mi. ML 2 - Open - 4.7 mi. ML 1 - Closed (managed as NM trail) - 3.5 mi. ML 2 - Open - 0.8 mi. ML 2 - convert to NM trail, add to Kerry - 1.9 mi. ML 1 - Closed rd. (manage as NM trail)




Resource Element Indicator/Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 9. Wilderness opportunities

Does the alternative protect, maintain, or enhance wilderness character?

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Converting road to trail can improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise.

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Road closures would limit vehicle use in the area, and therefore, improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise.

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Road ML would limit vehicle type in the area. Some noise would be heard near the boundary of the wilderness - could still find solitude

Wilderness character is maintained, no additional impacts. Converting road to trail can improve opportunities for solitude and impacts caused by noise. Adding a motorized trail to a roadless area may have an impact on solitude.

Note. Rd. = Road; CG = Campground; ML = Maintenance Level; NM= Non-motorized; MC = Motorcycle; Pvt. = Private; TH = Trail Head.


56

Inventoried Roadless Areas The inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) report (and appendix) for the La Brea Restoration Project is filed in the project record (Specialist Reports, IRA folder). It includes background information, LMP direction, applicable laws and regulations, existing condition, analysis methodology, and more detailed information about the roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes evaluation. This section of the EA includes a summary of the findings described in the IRA report regarding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the roadless area characteristics and wilderness attributes of the IRAs. This includes effects on the unroaded lands contiguous to them. The existing condition of the portions of the IRAs that are within the project area is incorporated by reference, as it provides a baseline for which the alternatives were compared.

There are five IRAs within the project area including: Horseshoe Springs, La Brea, Spoor Canyon, Miranda Pine, and Tepusquet Peak (table 19 and EA appendix A, figure A3). All existing Forest Service System Roads have been excluded from the IRAs. All existing NFS motorized and non-motorized trails are allowed in IRAs (LMP Part 2, p. 12).

Table 19. Inventoried roadless areas with acres and percentages in project area Inventoried Roadless Area Total Acres Acres within project

area Percent IRA in

Project area Horseshoe Springs 14,097 14,104 100% La Brea 13,974 4,678 33% Spoor Canyon 13,741 5,881 43% Miranda Pine 13,308 7,449 56% Tepusquet Peak 5,823 5,647 97%

In 1968, the San Rafael Wilderness became the first primitive area in the Nation to be reclassified as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Additional acreage was added in 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act. Of the 197,380-acre San Rafael Wilderness, only 13,876 acres lie within the La Brea Restoration project area boundary. The wilderness currently has high use for the Los Padres National Forest as a whole, but in relation to other wilderness areas on nearby national forests, it is low use. There are limited impacts to solitude and only occasional motor vehicle and bicycle incursions. There are 17 trails currently available in the San Rafael Wilderness, totaling 151.6 miles of trail. The desired condition of this area is currently being met.

The indicators chosen for analysis were: (1) impacts to the roadless area characteristics as described in 36 CFR 294 Subpart B 294.11 – Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule, and (2) wilderness attributes of roadless areas as described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1) –Wilderness Evaluation. The measures were acres and duration.

The roadless characteristics that were evaluated include:

• High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air • Sources of public drinking water • Diversity of plants and animal communities • Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land



• Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

• Reference landscapes • Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality • Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites • Other locally identified unique characteristics

The wilderness attributes evaluated include:

• Natural • Undeveloped • Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation • Special Features • Manageability

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to roadless areas are the NFS lands within the five IRAs identified within the project area boundary.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects are 2 to 5 years as the proposed project activities are implemented and the area moves toward the desired conditions.

Short-term for this analysis refers to a 6-month to 1-year period after all road restoration and improvements and/or campground decommissioning in an area is complete.

Long-term effects would be related to ecosystem restoration, changes in visual and noise qualities, and other items within the project area that would influence several of the areas’ roadless characteristics.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to roadless areas are all lands, including other ownerships within the La Brea Road Restoration project area boundary as well as into the San Rafael Wilderness.

The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis is 5 to 10 years. This is the estimated timeframe to complete reconstruction of recreation facilities and trail construction as well as when the regrowth of vegetation begins and the area no longer appears altered.

Direct and Indirect Effects All alternatives comply with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). All action alternatives are within the exceptions identified in 36 CFR §294.13(b) (1) and/or in paragraphs (b) (2) through (b) (4). Proposed activities focus on restoring access to the La Brea area as well as responding to public comments. Road and trail damage and safety were considered in the development of each alternative and various opportunities were considered. The project area encompasses five IRAs, many of which currently have several roads and trails within them, roads being buffered outside of the boundaries. None of the action alternatives propose the addition of new roads within the IRA boundaries and only one alternative proposes a new motorized trail, which is allowed under the Roadless Rule.

The action alternatives would have short-term indirect impacts to roadless resources during project implementation, such as increased presence of people and noise within the project area. The long-term indirect effects from the action alternatives to roadless resources would be generally beneficial


58

and help to maintain the existing recreation settings and scenic qualities within the project area. Reducing the classification level of some roads to non-motorized (primarily) and decommissioning some campgrounds would enhance opportunities for solitude and benefit the undeveloped attribute in the roadless expanse.

Impacts would be stable or improving for a majority of roadless area characteristics and wilderness attributes with short-term impacts to the undeveloped attribute from the road maintenance activities, and campground or trailhead construction and short-term impacts to solitude during project implementation.

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action The effects from the proposed actions (alternative 1) are expected to be minor and short term. Few characteristics, such as plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species; and recreation opportunities would expect slightly degrading effects in the short term and then improving in the long term (IRA worksheet, project record).

Temporary effects to solitude and recreation could occur along IRA boundaries from the greater La Brea Restoration Project activities, including sights and sounds of people working, chainsaws, and dust; however, long-term impacts to recreation and opportunities for solitude are not expected to occur.

Overall, the effects to wilderness character within the IRAs would be minor and short-term. The proposed action would not affect the suitability of the area for designation as Wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Alternative 2 – No Action Under the no-action alternative, access to the La Brea Restoration project area would remain as it has since the fire of 2009 and flooding events of 2010. The temporary closure order for the roads, motorized trails, and recreation sites would become permanent. Retaining the closures would be accomplished through travel management reclassification and signage; no dozer or excavation work would be needed, therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to any of the five named IRAs.

Alternative 3 The effects from alternative 3 are expected to be minor, however may impact the suitability for recommended wilderness of the area in the future. Few characteristics, such as plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; and recreation opportunities would expect slightly degrading effects in the short term and then improving in the long term.

Temporary effects to solitude and recreation could occur along IRA boundaries from the greater La Brea Restoration Project activities, including sights and sounds of people working, chainsaws, dust, and smoke. Some long-term impacts to roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes may be present with this alternative.

Overall, the effects to wilderness character within the IRAs would be minor and short-term.



Alternative 4 Indirect effects of the trail addition would be the potential for motorized incursions in the surrounding semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class due to the new trail and the proximity to the area.

The effects of activities proposed in alternative 4 would directly affect recreation settings during implementation, as well as into the future. If alternative 4 were selected using the proposed route for the Bear Ridge OHV trail, an LMP amendment would be needed to properly classify the new trail and a 100-foot buffer on either side for a total of 200 feet along the route within the back country non-motorized LUZ, which is the exact same line as the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class and lies within the Horseshoe Springs IRA. Approximately 113 acres would be in need of a land use zone and ROS class change. The trail goes outside the SPNM and BCNM areas but is mostly inside those two classifications, (113 of the total 144 acre trail footprint - 78%). See Alternative 4 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Land Use Zone maps in Appendix A. There may be negative implications of adding a motorized trail to a non-motorized area and IRA for the recreating public. Areas are set aside in management plans to have limited motorized access and provide a different recreation setting for the public. Wilderness areas and non-motorized areas offer the opportunity for solitude and to get away from areas with heavy motorized use or traffic, and encroaching on these areas with motorized use may result in loss of their appeal to those users. With this alternative, some trails would be converted to non-motorized trails, which would help alleviate some of those concerns and implications. However, the ROS and LUZ settings for those non-motorized trails would remain in the same class, and a change in the current ROS and LUZ would be required if this alternative were selected. The addition of the motorized trail does not violate the Roadless Rule.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Current activities would continue in the project area and access to recreation opportunities would be provided, although access routes may be different due to road decommissioning or storage. The activities associated with the construction and enhancement of roads and trails along with the projects listed above would result in some short-term effects of noise and traffic associated with these activities. Some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during the time when construction activities take place is anticipated.

Past cattle grazing and road or trail construction contributed to the existing condition of the project area, creating an area where human activity is evident. The activities proposed in alternatives 1 and 3 would not dramatically affect or alter roadless characteristics or wilderness attributes in the roadless areas within the project area. There would be some effects to the roadless character if alternative 4 were selected; however, no major cumulative effects would occur since the area has already been set aside with motorized use, and the human activity in the area is quite evident already. No past or future actions would result in a cumulative effect.


60

Scenery The scenic resource report for the La Brea Restoration Project is filed in the project record. It includes the analysis methodology, applicable regulations, LMP direction, and other background information. The findings described in the scenic resource report regarding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from each alternative are summarized in this section of the EA.

The Los Padres National Forest LMP provides vision, strategy and design criteria for managing landscapes and visual quality. The LMP uses the scenery management system. The scenery management system is a tool for integrating public benefits, values, desires, and preferences regarding aesthetics and scenery for all levels of land management planning. Specific scenery objectives have been designated for all areas of the national forest. At the project level, all national forest activities are subject to review of the scenic integrity objectives.

Scenic integrity objectives (SIO) are part of the scenery management system and range from very high to very low. They are defined and described in Forest Service HB 701 Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, pages 2-4. SIOs for the Los Padres are discussed in the LMP, Part 2 Los Padres National Forest Strategy Appendix B Program Strategies and tactics in LM 1 – Landscape Aesthetics (page 131) and shown on the Scenic Integrity Objectives Map, Appendix C. Maps (page 145). The SIOs in the La Brea project area are very high, high, and moderate (see figure A12 in appendix A). The highest scenic integrity ratings are assigned to those landscapes where the valued landscape attributes appear complete, with little or no visible deviations evident.

Four resource indicators were identified for measuring the effects of the project activities on scenery. The first measures whether the alternative would meet the SIOs found in the LMP. This requires using the SMS and making judgements about the effects.

The second resource indicator measures the number of miles of road that vehicles have available from which to view the scenery in the analysis area for each alternative. This measure was chosen because most people driving for pleasure would need ML 2 or higher roads for looking at the scenery. The analysis area is rather remote, and is mostly bounded by ridges that require the viewer to be inside the analysis area to see most improvements like roads or campgrounds.

The third resource indicator measures the miles of motorized road or trail that would be taken away. This number would indicate, in a relative way, if the scenery was headed toward the desired condition in the LMP to be natural in appearance and function for each alternative. It was assumed that moving from motorized use to non-motorized use on a road or trail, with less maintenance, would result in more natural scenery.

The fourth measures the number of recreation sites. It assumes that a new addition would have the effect of making the scenery less natural and decommissioning would result in making the scenery more natural.

Existing Condition Through site visits, the existing conditions were analyzed to determine the level of scenic quality within the project area and the surrounding landscape. The Natural Resource Manager database, which displays information for forest assets such as recreation sites and roads was also used. Current conditions include views of wilderness and natural-appearing landscapes that are recovering from a wildfire that occurred in 2009, followed by flooding events in 2010 and 2011 that damaged roads



and trails through erosion and/or sediment deposition. Vegetation is recovering and the fire is not as noticeable, because the plants are getting bigger and covering exposed ground.

Forest personnel visited the project area in 2017, and they determined that the scenic character does look natural and no changes would be evident to most people viewing the area. The portion of the San Rafael Wilderness that is within the analysis area has an SIO of very high. The rest of the analysis area has an SIO of high or moderate. All of the current improvements such as roads, trails, and campgrounds existed when the LMP was completed. The SIOs currently meet the LMP.

Environmental Consequences A summary comparison of effects between alternatives for the four resource indicators is provided at the end of this section in table 20.

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects The direct effect of opening roads that have been closed to the public since the 2009 fire would be for passenger cars to have access to 7.2 miles for viewing scenery at different locations and distances. Closing 22.8 miles of roads and motorcycle trails would have a minimal direct effect because the roads and trails already exist and are part of the scenery now. However, the indirect effect of the routes becoming non-motorized, as hiking trails, and occasional administrative or permitted use, would result in less impact, and would allow the vegetation to grow more and become more natural-looking in the future. The direct effect of closing or decommissioning campgrounds and primitive camps would also be minimal, as the developments are already part of the landscape or in some cases, are not present, and would take a short period of time to disappear depending on how much dispersed use they receive, resulting in a more natural landscape condition. Adding trailhead parking areas at the bottom of Rattlesnake Canyon and Wagon Flat Campground and upgrading Wagon Flat Campground with more campsites and a new toilet would have a direct effect on the near view at the campground and trailhead locations, but would have little effect on mid and long range views due to their locations in the bottom of the drainage. Over time, these improvements would become less visible with vegetation growth and would not alter the landscape.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this alternative are the same as the direct and indirect effects discussed above. The SIOs would continue to be met and there should be a more natural look to the scenery over time.


Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative is essentially the same as the existing condition described above, except for changing two campgrounds from developed to primitive. The effects on scenery would be the same.

Cumulative Effects Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects.


62

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects The direct effect of opening roads that have been closed to the public since the 2009 fire would be for passenger cars to have access to 7.2 miles for viewing scenery at different locations and distances. The direct effects of heavy road and trail maintenance would be short-term negative visual effects when viewers are close to the work sites. Adding trailhead parking and upgrading Wagon Flat Campground with more campsites and a new toilet would have a direct effect on the near view at the campground and trailhead locations, but would have little effect on mid and long range views due to their locations in the bottom of the drainage. Over time, these improvements would become less visible with vegetation growth and not alter the landscape.


Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would have the same direct effects as alternative 1, except for effects related to the addition of a new motorized trail on the ridge between La Brea Road (11N04.3) and Buckhorn Ridge OHV (31W14). The direct effect of adding a new 5.9-mile linear feature on the ridge would be a noticeable human-made feature on the landscape when viewed from the southwestern end of the analysis area. The general public has little opportunity to be in this area due to the lack of access through private property. This trail would be visible from the Alejandro Trail (31W15). The effects of the actions on SIOs would be minimal. For the most part, all features already exist on the landscape except for the trailhead parking areas at the bottom of Rattlesnake Canyon and Wagon Flat Campground and changes at Wagon Flat Campground. Closing roads and using them only occasionally for administrative or permitted uses and for non-motorized uses should move them toward a more natural look. The addition of the motorized trail on the ridgetop would be noticeable and reduce the natural look of that part of the landscape, but would not reduce the scenic integrity enough to move the area down a level. The SIOs would be met.


Summary of All Alternatives on Scenery All of the alternatives would meet the scenic integrity objective stated in the LMP. The alternative with the highest number of vehicle miles for viewing scenery, if kept maintained, is alternative 3 (31.6 miles) followed by alternatives 1 and 4 (26.9 miles), and finally, alternative 2 (19.7 miles). The alternative with the most miles closed, which in time would result in a more natural-looking landscape is alternative 2 (22.9 miles), followed by alternatives 1 and 4 (16.5 miles), and 0 miles for alternative 3. The alternative with the fewest recreation sites to detract from the natural scenery is alternative 2 with nothing added, followed by alternative 3 with one trailhead added, followed by alternative 1 with improvements to Wagon Flat Campground and two new trailheads, and finally,



alternative 4, which is the same as alternative 1 with a 5.9-mile motorized trail added to a ridgeline. See table 20 for a comparison of environmental effects to scenic resources by alternative.

Table 20. Summary comparison of environmental effects to scenic resources Resource Element

Indicator/ Measure

Existing Condition


Action (miles)

Alternative 2

No Action (miles)

Alternative 3

(miles)

Alternative 4

(miles)

1. Scenic Integrity Objective

Does the alternative meet the SIO assigned by the Forest?

Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets

2. Scenery Viewing Opportunities

Miles of ML 2 road available to view scenery

19.7 miles open 13.7 miles (closed under closure order) 33.5 (in NRM database)

26.9 19.7 31.6 26.9

3. Opportunities to make views of scenery more natural (by lessening motorized use)

Miles of road, motorized trails and motorcycle trails closed

Miles of new road or trail

22.9 mi. (closed under closure order) 0 (in NRM database)

0

16.5

0

22.9

0

0

0

16.5

5.9

4. Recreation Sites

Number of recreation sites

10 camps 10 camps Improvements added at Wagon Flat 2 Trailheads added

10 camps 10 camps Improvements added at Wagon Flat 1 Trailhead added

10 camps Improvements added at Wagon Flat 2 Trailheads added


64

Hydrology To ensure compliance with LMP and State and Federal requirements, an evaluation was conducted of the potential project-related effects on watershed and hydrologic resources, including wetlands, stream channels, and associated riparian areas. Sediment yield changes from soil disturbance and ground cover removal were also assessed. The core assumption for the hydrology analysis was that all hydrology-related standards and guidelines listed in the Los Padres LMP would be implemented. This includes following direction in the USDA National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2012). We believe that adherence to LMP standards and guidelines and Forest Service best management practices would ensure that all Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to hydrology-related resources would be met.

The complete hydrology resource report is filed in the project record. It includes the description of the analysis methodology, applicable regulations and LMP direction, and other background information. The findings described in the hydrology report regarding existing condition and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from each of the alternatives are summarized in this section of the EA. The applicable LMP standards and guidelines and best management practices are provided in appendix C.

Existing Condition

Watersheds The terms “6th field HUC” or “6th field watershed” are used throughout the hydrology resource report. These interchangeable terms refer to watersheds of a specific size, which, on average, are generally 40 square miles or approximately 25,600 acres. They generally contain one or more smaller drainages. The project area lies within portions of ten 6th field HUC watersheds, listed in table 21 and displayed in figure A13 in appendix A.

Table 21. Sixth field HUC watersheds within the La Brea Restoration project area 6th Field HUC Watershed (HUC Code) 6th Field HUC

Total Acres Project Area Acres in 6th Field HUC

Project % of 6th Field HUC

Cuyama River/ Aliso Creek (180600070603) 20,116 705 3.5 Cuyama River/ Brown Canyon (180600070602) 21,993 500 2.3 Cuyama River/ Buckhorn Canyon (180600070604) 16,782 8,819 52.6 Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon (180600070307) 17,824 5,570 31.2 Cuyama River/ Powell Canyon (180600070305) 16,647 5 0.0 Cuyama River/ Twitchell Reservoir (180600070605) 27,501 3,515 12.8 Lower La Brea Creek (180600080203) 9,648 3,073 31.9 North Fork La Brea Creek (180600080202) 30,711 30,706 100.0 South Fork La Brea Creek (180600080201) 20,265 28 0.1 Tepusquet Creek (180600080301) 18,601 3,673 19.7

Watershed condition assessment is the process of describing watershed condition in terms of three discrete classes that reflect the level of watershed health. Primary emphasis is placed on indicators that directly or indirectly impact soil and hydrologic functions and riparian and aquatic ecosystems.



Forest Service Manual 2521.1 directs forests to establish watershed condition and assign a designated watershed condition class (WCC) rating. In 2011, the Los Padres National Forest used the watershed classification and assessment tracking (WCAT) protocol (USDA Forest Service 2011) to determine the health of its 6th field HUCs (see resource report for additional details on how these ratings were developed). All project area analysis watersheds are “functioning at risk” except the Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon, Cuyama River/ Twitchell Reservoir, and Lower La Brea Creek watersheds, which are “functioning properly.”

Since the 2011 WCAT ratings were compiled, there have been two documented fires within the La Brea Restoration project area watersheds. They include the 2012 Rock Fire (18 acres) and the 2014 Twitchell Fire (19 acres).

Table 22 displays the acres of fire by project area analysis watershed since 2011, and the projected WCC caused by this additional disturbance. It is assumed that no other major disturbance has happened in project area watersheds to impact the 2011 ratings.

It is believed the 2011 ratings are accurate, or slightly improved due to improvements to watershed function since the La Brea Fire in 2009. Therefore, we believe that the original 2011 ratings are currently accurate for the La Brea Restoration Project analysis.

Table 22. Fire acres in project area analysis watersheds and projected existing condition WCAT ratings 6th Field HUC Watershed Fire acres since

2011 2011 Watershed Condition Class

Projected 2018 Watershed

Condition Class Cuyama River/ Aliso Creek 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Cuyama River/ Brown Canyon 18 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Cuyama River/ Buckhorn Canyon 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon 0 Functioning Properly Functioning Properly

Cuyama River/ Powell Canyon 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Cuyama River/ Twitchell Reservoir 19 Functioning Properly Functioning Properly

Lower La Brea Creek 0 Functioning Properly Functioning Properly

North Fork La Brea Creek 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

South Fork La Brea Creek 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Tepusquet Creek 0 Functioning at Risk Functioning at Risk

Water Quality Within the project area, water quality is regulated by the Central Coast Water Quality Control Board. Designated beneficial uses, water quality objectives (standards), and a policy statement regarding maintaining high-quality waters in California are in the Board’s Water Quality Control Plans (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 2017).

The 2005 Los Padres LMP directs water quality to be maintained and improved through the use of State-certified and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved best management practices. This direction conforms and complies with Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) and the guidelines established by the Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 2017).


66

Water quality plans define beneficial uses for waters within their area. A beneficial use is one of the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife (California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast 2017). Beneficial uses are designated by a regional board and may vary depending on the stream. When a water body is not meeting its beneficial use, it is placed on the State of California list of impaired waters. These lists are to be developed every 2 years; however the most current approved list is from 2012.

Within the La Brea Restoration project area, all of the streams are meeting their designated beneficial uses. Therefore, no streams are listed on the current State of California 303(d) list.

Stream Channels Intermittent and perennial stream miles located within the La Brea Restoration project area analysis watersheds are shown in table 23 and displayed in figure 2.

Table 23. Intermittent and perennial stream miles located within the La Brea Restoration project area watersheds

6th Field HUC Watershed (HUC Code) Perennial Intermittent Cuyama River/ Aliso Creek (180600070603) 0 103.0

Cuyama River/ Brown Canyon (180600070602) 0.6 100.4

Cuyama River/ Buckhorn Canyon (180600070604) 0 75.5

Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon (180600070307) 5.6 52.4

Cuyama River/ Powell Canyon (180600070305) 4.2 56.6

Cuyama River/ Twitchell Reservoir (180600070605) 0 107.5

Lower La Brea Creek (180600080203) 0 45.1

North Fork La Brea Creek (180600080202) 0 155.3

South Fork La Brea Creek (180600080201) 0 109.6

Tepusquet Creek (180600080301) 0 79.9

For the purposes of this analysis, perennial streams are defined as permanent flowing drainage features and intermittent streams are defined as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. Streams within the project area are as varied as the geographic landscape. Streams encompass steep entrenched headwater channels as well as wider alluvial intermittent washes like that found in the North Fork La Brea Creek (figure 2).



Figure 2. North Fork La Brea Creek in the project area

As shown in table 23, the Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon 6th level watershed has the most total perennial stream miles in the project area at 5.6 miles (all associated with the Cuyama River), while the North Fork La Brea Creek 6th level watershed has the most intermittent stream channels at 155.3 miles.

The main watercourse involved with the project is the North Fork La Brea Creek. The North Fork is a tributary to the Sisquoc River, which, in turn, flows into the Santa Maria River. All of these stream systems tend to be high sediment load, low flow regime systems. North Fork La Brea Creek is itself classified as an intermittent stream channel. While many pools in the main channel of North Fork La Brea Creek will have water throughout the summer, stream flow is typically restricted to the winter, spring, and early summer months in response to winter precipitation and the resulting seasonal groundwater base flow.

The intermittent flow regime creates a “stream flow poor-sediment rich” situation where the channels are continuously overloaded with sediment inputs without the necessary flow to remove the sediment bedload from the system. Therefore, higher order streams in the area are often characterized as plane bed or braided due to the volumes of entrained sediment in the channel bottoms. Source area headwater channels tend to go through cycles of head ward expansion through channel scour and base level reduction in response to low frequency winter storms or low/moderate frequency storms after wildfires. These erosional processes are usually followed by sediment deposition and channel infilling as over-steepened stream banks erode to approximate adjacent hillslopes.

Project area watersheds are still on a slow recovery trend following the 2009 La Brea Fire and the flood events of 2010, 2011, and 2016. Ground cover is a major factor in that it indicates the extent of hydrologic recovery (Neary 2002). In this respect, the effects of the La Brea Fire have generally ameliorated to the extent that hydrologic function is at or near pre-fire conditions. Grasses, forbes, and brush species have regrown to the point where ground cover is approximately equal to pre-fire


68

conditions. Robichaud et al. (2010) note that ground cover equal to or exceeding 60 percent is usually enough to impede accelerated surface erosion. The one element that is likely still deficit in the watershed compared to pre-fire conditions is decaying woody materials in the form of coarse woody debris and large woody debris. Both of these surface fuel components are important for long-term soil productivity and soil surface roughness, which slows runoff and aids in eroded soil slope storage. These fuels also aid in micro site soil water retention as the decaying organic materials act as a short-term sponges that slowly release water to the underlying soils.

The effects of the 2010, 2011, and 2016 flood events are not so short-lived. During the flood events, precipitation amounts exceeded infiltration capacity and shallow groundwater storage to the extent that large volumes of runoff occurred. The wildfire-denuded hillslopes did not have enough ground cover and organic surface roughness to slow overland flow. The bare soils, coupled with steep slopes, provided for both a large runoff and erosional event.

Currently, all of the major tributary canyons (upper La Brea Canyon, Smith Canyon, Kerry Canyon, Flores Canyon, Bear Canyon, Rattlesnake Canyon) and all the smaller unnamed tributaries that have low stream segments with low gradients, now have plane bed, or near plane bed channel morphologies along low gradient stream segments due to the massive inputs of sediment from the steeper upstream hillslope erosion and channel scour. It has been well over 5 years since the initial flood events, and there still seems to be little change in the plane bed morphologies of the tributary channels that are affecting NFS roads 11N04.3 11N04.3B, and 10N06.1. The La Brea Creek stream reaches immediately adjacent to these affected road segments do show some minor redistribution and re-scouring of pools –probably as a result of accumulating sufficient flows to mobilize in-channel sediments in the middle watershed reaches. But the upstream channels are still overloaded with bedload sediments, which will continue to inhibit pool formation.

Sediment inputs to the lower gradient stream segments will be prolonged due to the scouring action of the flood event on the smaller tributary source area streams. During the flood event, flood flows in the upper watersheds were sufficient to scour stream bed materials creating stream gullies and undercut canyon side slopes. These features will likely be adding eroded materials to the stream system until canyon slopes and gully banks can approach some sort of stream channel/hillslope quasi-equilibrium in conjunction with vegetation regrowth.

The most likely prognosis for the North Fork of La Brea Creek is that for the next few decades (if not longer), sediment inputs to the stream will be substantial and bedload materials will move in response to infrequent, high-intensity/long-duration storm events. In other words, large volumes of bedload materials will be moving downstream in response to the very same flood flows that would normally clean out and maintain scour pools. Shallow pools may develop in the lower reaches of the North Fork of La Brea Creek (from approximately Rattlesnake Canyon and downstream) in response to the accumulation of flows from moderate frequency rainfall events. But those pools will be subject to re-deposition during infrequent flood flow events.

In terms of impacts to Forest Service facilities, the main impacts in La Brea Canyon were to NFS roads 11N04.3, 11N04.3B, and 10N06.1 where much of the road template (road tread and fill) was either washed away or sufficiently scoured to make the road impassable. Alternatively, the flooding also produced substantial erosion within the watershed such that on the flatter road sections where the valley gradient is gentler, the road template or road crossings have been buried in eroded materials from upstream. In these situations, the stream bottoms appear almost flat and littered with cobble and boulder-sized materials.



Riparian Areas and Wetlands Riparian systems represent the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. They enhance water quality, attenuate floods, and reduce erosion and sediment transport. Riparian areas generally consist of intermittent or perennial streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands and adjacent lands with soils, vegetation, and landform indicative of high soil moisture or frequent flooding (USDA Forest Service 2006). Within the La Brea Restoration project area watersheds, riparian and wetland areas are located in valley bottoms associated with the larger drainage systems such as the Cuyama River and the North Fork La Brea Creek.

Although no formal riparian surveys have been conducted within the project area, the WCC rating exercise indicates that riparian areas in the 10 main watersheds of the La Brea Restoration Project show 4 watersheds with poor riparian conditions, 4 with fair riparian conditions, and 2 with good conditions.

There is no formally mapped riparian coverage within the Los Padres National Forest GIS corporate dataset. However, a 98-foot buffer for intermittent and 328-foot buffer for perennial streams was used on project area watershed streams to determine the riparian conservation areas (RCAs) for the project. This direction comes from Appendix E of Part 3, Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests in the LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005). These acres were used to determine project effects to riparian areas from proposed project activities.

The National Wetlands Inventory developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was used to get a coarse idea of wetland acres within the project area, which appear in table 24. These acres were used to determine project effects to wetland areas from proposed project activities.

Table 24. Wetlands located within the La Brea Restoration project area watersheds 6th Field HUC Watershed (HUC Code) Wetland Acres

Cuyama River/ Aliso Creek (180600070603) 99.1 Cuyama River/ Brown Canyon (180600070602) 22.4 Cuyama River/ Buckhorn Canyon (180600070604) 79.1 Cuyama River/ Mustang Canyon (180600070307) 0 Cuyama River/ Powell Canyon (180600070305) 0 Cuyama River/ Twitchell Reservoir (180600070605) 1.6 Lower La Brea Creek (180600080203) 0 North Fork La Brea Creek (180600080202) 1.0 South Fork La Brea Creek (180600080201) 0.1 Tepusquet Creek (180600080301) 0.6 Total 203.9

The majority of the wetland acres found within the La Brea Restoration Project occur along the Cuyama River (approximately 202 acres) while the remaining acreage (approximately 1.0 acre) occurs in the North Fork La Brea Creek watershed.


70


Direct and Indirect Effects Boundaries The spatial context was limited to those areas being proposed for treatment and any associated streams, riparian areas, wetlands, and areas immediately downstream of proposed treatments or road or trail management activity. The basis for this is that direct and indirect effects are typically more localized when they occur.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries The spatial boundaries for analyzing cumulative effects to surface waters are the ten 6th hydrologic unit watershed analysis watersheds listed in table 21 and displayed in figure 2. We selected this level of analysis (6th level) for cumulative effects for two reasons: (1) it provides a good scale for determining potential effects. If a larger scale is used, the amount of area tends to be overwhelming, and when smaller scales are used, the amount of area is too limited in scope; and (2) interpretation of “watershed” effects at the 6th hydrologic unit watershed scale is appropriate because they represent the smallest drainage areas that the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has formally mapped.

The temporal scale for this project is approximately 10 years into the future. This is the estimated time it would take to implement the project.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of each of the alternatives were addressed for each of the resource elements described under the existing condition. A narrative description of the effects are provided below. An alternative comparison summary for each element is provided in table 25.

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Sediment Delivery – Motorized Road and Trail Stream Crossings To address effects to sediment delivery from roads and trails, we analyzed the number of proposed motorized stream crossings for each of the action alternatives. We believe motorized travel in the form of cars, trucks, off highway vehicles (OHVs), and motorcycles has greater impacts to water quality at stream crossings than human foot traffic from hiking, horses, or mountain bikes (Marion 2006). Research has shown that stream macroinvertebrate habitat can be degraded downstream of motorized stream crossings (Neal et al 2007), that motorized trails typically have more ruts and erosion (as well as greater soil disturbance) compared to non-motorized trails, (Wilkerson, E. and A.A. Whitman. 2010) and higher levels of trail erosion result from all-terrain vehicle use compared to horse riding (Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009). These and other studies indicate that generally, motorized roads and trails pose a greater risk to hydrological functioning and water quality than non-motorized trails.

Alternative 3 would have the most motorized stream crossings (74): 6 crossings on the La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground; 24 crossings from the La Brea Road (NFS 11N04.3) from Wagon Flat to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1); 30 crossings on the Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02); 4 crossings where Lazy Camp Road (NFS Road 11N04B) would be converted to a motorized trail that connects with the Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02); and 10



crossings on La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1) from the intersection with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) to the private property in Section 3, south of Barrel Springs Camp.

Alternative 4 would have the next most motorized stream crossings (8): 6 crossings on the La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground; and 2 crossings from a new motorized trail located primarily on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14).

Alternative 1, the proposed action, would have the least number of motorized trails at 6; all associated with La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground.

Currently, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board lists no stream in the project area on the current State of California 303(d) list, meaning none of the streams are impaired for water quality. The WCC rating for water quality for the North Fork La Brea Creek, which is the only watershed associated with the project area where motorized stream crossings are proposed, lists water quality in the North Fork as fair.

Provided that Forest Service National BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized Trails), BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design), BMP Road-3 (Road Construction and Reconstruction), BMP Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance), and BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) are implemented, we believe that acceptable water quality conditions, as they relate to sediment, in the project area would continue under any of the action alternatives.

However, the proposed action (alternative 1), would provide the best option for the water quality resources as it relates to sediment, because the only road proposed for motorized travel (La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground) would be reopened to provide road prism stability and new engineered stream crossings. We believe this would reduce the risk of road prism failure into the unnamed tributary to the North Fork La Brea Creek. Currently, the road prism has numerous failures from lack of maintenance, and it is anticipated this would continue if the no-action alternative (alternative 2) is implemented.

Further, the North Fork La Brea Creek would be crossed by motorized traffic two times to access the Wagon Flat Campground and trailhead. It is anticipated these crossings would produce localized sedimentation effects, but would not impact the overall acceptable water quality of the entire North Fork La Brea system.

Alternative 4 would have effects similar to alternative 1, as it also includes the La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.2) to Wagon Flat Campground. This includes the six stream crossings, including two that cross the North Fork La Brea Creek that accesses the Wagon Flat Campground area. It also includes the construction of a 5.9-mile motorized trail on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14). This motorized trail would cross streams twice at the unnamed tributary to the North Fork La Brea Creek. Implementation of Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized Trails) and Road-7 (Stream Crossings) would ensure proper location of this trail away from sensitive watershed resources and reduce impacts to water quality from sedimentation to below acceptable levels.


72

Alternative 3 would produce the most sediment from roads and trails. There would be 74 motorized stream crossings associated with this alternative. Motorized trails, in terms of sediment, causes greater impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat at stream crossings than non-motorized trail use does (Marion 2006), (Neal et al 2007) (Wilkerson, E. and A.A. Whitman. 2010) (Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009). Therefore, it is anticipated that due to the greater number of motorized stream crossings proposed in this alternative, that there is a greater risk to water quality from sedimentation. Implementation of BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized Trails) and BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) would reduce impacts to water quality from sedimentation to below acceptable levels. However, the amount of motorized stream crossings in this alternative would produce more localized sedimentation effects.

Sediment Delivery – Roads and Trails within 300 feet of streams To further address effects to sediment delivery from roads and trails within the project area, the miles of roads and trails within 300 feet of streams were analyzed for each of the action alternatives. Burroughs and King (1989) indicate that the highest potential for sediment introduction to a stream is when a road is 100 feet or less from a stream, while from 100 to 300 feet there is a steady decline in the potential for sediment influence. Because of this, a 300-foot disturbance value (either road or trail) was used for this measure.

All alternatives would have similar miles of roads and trails within 300 feet of streams. The only alternative where additional construction of a motorized trail would occur is alternative 3, which includes the construction of a 5.9-mile motorized trail on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14). Approximately 0.5 additional miles of this 5.9-mile trail would be within 300 feet of an unnamed intermittent tributary to the North Fork La Brea Creek. This is a small increase as compared to the other alternatives.

While essentially all alternatives would have similar miles of roads and trails within 300 feet of streams, whether these roads and trails are motorized would have a bigger impact on the effects of sedimentation to streams over time. Alternatives 2 and 4 would have the lowest motorized traffic in the project area, while alternative 3 would have the highest.

Provided that Forest Service National BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized Trails), BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design), BMP Road-3 (Road Construction and Reconstruction), BMP Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance), and BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) are implemented, it is anticipated that acceptable water quality conditions, as they relate to sediment, in the project area would continue under any of the action alternatives.

Riparian Function – Number of Recreation Sites within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and Roads and Trails within RCAs To address effects to riparian function, the number of recreation sites within RCAs and new roads and trails within RCAs were analyzed for each of the action alternatives. These measures provide a hard look at the potential impacts to riparian function from the action alternatives.

In terms of recreation sites (trailheads and/or primitive campgrounds, and/or developed campgrounds) within RCAs, alternatives 1 and 3 would have two each, alternative 4 would have one in the North Fork La Brea Creek watershed, and alternatives 3 and 4 would have one each in the Cuyama River/Buckhorn Canyon watershed



The activities with ground-disturbing activities within RCAs in alternative 1 would be trailhead construction at Wagon Flat and campground reconstruction at Wagon Flat. For alternative 3, the activities with ground-disturbing activities within RCAs would be trailhead construction at Wagon Flat and campground reconstruction at Brookshire and Wagon Springs Campgrounds. The activities with ground-disturbing activities within RCAs in alternative 4 would be a trailhead construction at Wagon Flat and campground reconstruction at Wagon Flat and Brookshire Campgrounds.

In terms of new road or trail construction within RCAs, alternative 4 has 0.2 mile planned where it crosses the unnamed tributary to the North Fork La Brea Creek with construction of a 5.9-mile motorized trail on the ridgetop west of La Brea Creek, connecting La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) with the Buckhorn Ridge Trail (NFS Trail 31W14).

LMP standard 47 would be used during planning and design of these recreation sites. It states that, “When designing new projects in riparian areas, apply the five-step project screening process for riparian conservation areas as described in FSH 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2005) – Five-Step Screening Process.”

Further, principles in standard 50 would be implemented. It states that negative long-term impacts from recreation use to soil, watershed, riparian, or heritage resources would be mitigated by following LMP Appendix D - Adaptive Mitigation for Recreation Uses.

Additionally, use of National BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone Planning), BMP Rec-1 (Recreation Planning), BMP Rec-1 (Recreation Planning), BMP Rec-2 (Developed Recreation Sites), BMP Rec-3 (Dispersed Use Recreation), and BMP Rec-4 (Motorized and Non-motorized Trails) would be used to limit impacts to riparian resources.

Quantitatively, at most, approximately 1 acre of RCA could be impacted in the North Fork La Brea and Cuyama River/Buckhorn Canyon watersheds. This is a negligible amount and does not impact the function of the riparian resource in the watershed.

Wetlands – Acres of roads and trails with wetlands To address effects on wetlands, the amount of new road and trail or recreation site activities in wetlands were analyzed.

GIS data show that nothing proposed in any of the action alternatives would negatively impact wetlands in project area watersheds.


Direct and Indirect Effects The existing condition description serves as the baseline from which the alternatives are compared. The effects of taking no action are described under existing condition, with the following additions.

Under the no-action alternative, no motorized use would occur on those roads and trails that have been closed since the 2009 La Brea Fire and subsequent floods. All closed developed campgrounds would be available for primitive use in the future. This means that Forest users would need to use non-motorized methods to access them.

Permanent elimination of motorized travel in these areas would reduce potential impacts to stream channels in the North Fork La Brea Creek. Motorized vehicles would not drive through streams,


74

riparian areas, or wetlands. It is anticipated this would reduce impacts to these resources, and the potential for water quality impacts from oil and gas spills would be eliminated.

Without maintenance, there is the potential that closed roads and trails could impact water quality through increased sedimentation should slumps and failures occur. The highest potential exists on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1), Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02), and La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.1) to Wagon Flat Campground. Road prism stability would not be implemented and there would be no new engineered stream crossings. The risk of road prism failure into the unnamed tributary to the North Fork La Brea Creek would not be reduced. Currently, the prism has numerous failures from lack of maintenance. It is anticipated this would continue if the no-action alternative is implemented.

See table 25, for a comparison of the effects of taking no action to the other alternatives for each of the resource elements described under the existing condition.

Cumulative Effects As discussed under the Watershed Condition section, ten 6th level HUCs were rated for functionality by the Los Padres National Forest, using the Watershed Condition Report protocol (USDA Forest Service 2011). Seven watersheds were functioning at risk (WCC II), including the North Forth La Brea Creek watershed, while the Cuyama River/Mustang Canyon, Cuyama River/Twitchell Reservoir, and Lower La Brea Creek was properly functioning (WCC I). None of the project area watersheds were rated as impaired.

The cumulative effects analysis looked at whether the action alternatives (alternatives 1, 3, and 4) would impact the resource indicators used to determine the current watershed function ratings, when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. The past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects considered are listed at the end of chapter 2 and those specific to hydrology are identified in the hydrology specialist report (project record).

The analysis of the direct and indirect effects for all resource indicators for the La Brea Restoration Project action alternatives shows that minor effects would occur to water quality and riparian resources, and no effects to wetland resources. It is anticipated the effects would be localized in nature, and monitoring before and after implementation would be unlikely to show a discernable change in the resource conditions of these indicators (potential sedimentation and impacts to stream morphology, and riparian and wetlands resources) should appropriate LMP standards and guidelines and best management practices be implemented.

Evaluating the proposed projects that are ongoing or will be implemented in project area watersheds in the coming years, those projects that could impact surface water resources include road-related maintenance, livestock grazing, and mining. It is anticipated that resource protection measures and best management practices specific to those projects would protect water quality, aquatic habitat, riparian and wetland resources, and road conditions.

The biggest impact to the watersheds was the La Brea Fire and subsequent floods. Provided that no other major disturbance occurs, hydrologic effects from the fire will continue to improve. And, the current watershed condition class for the ten project area watersheds would remain stable or improve over the planning cycle of the La Brea Restoration Project.



Table 25. Summary comparison of direct and indirect environmental effects to hydrology-related resources Resource Element Indicator/ Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Water Quality, Channel and Watershed Function

Indicator: Sediment delivery Measure: Number of additional motorized trail or road stream crossings.

There would be 6 motorized stream crossings. Localized, short-term effects to water quality and stream channel morphology are anticipated. Implementation of LMP standards and guidelines and best management practices expected to keep water quality at acceptable levels.




Water Quality, Channel and Watershed Function

Indicator: Sediment delivery Measure: Total miles of trail and/or roads within 300 feet of a stream.

No additional miles within 300 feet of streams.


Approximately 0.5 additional mile within 300 feet of streams. Localized, short-term effects to water quality and stream channel morphology are anticipated. Implementation of LMP standards and guidelines and best management practices expected to keep water quality at acceptable levels.



76

Resource Element Indicator/ Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Riparian Function Indicator: Ground

Disturbance Measure: Number of trailheads or campgrounds and road and trail construction within riparian conservation areas (RCAs).

Minor disturbance to riparian areas expected. Implementation of LMP standards and guidelines and best management practices expected to keep disturbance within acceptable levels.

No new disturbance would occur



Wetlands Indicator: Potential disturbance Measure: Potential disturbance to wetlands from proposed project activities.







Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Species Current policy as directed in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.31) is to use the biological assessment process to review actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing. It is Forest Service policy (FSM 2670.32) to review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species.

The following federally listed species and critical habitats and Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species have potential to be affected by the La Brea Restoration Project: California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and California red-legged frog critical habitat; least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus); southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); steelhead trout, Southern California Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and critical habitat; western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata); two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii); and California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra).

The wildlife specialist report for the La Brea Restoration Project is filed in the project record. It includes the list of all species considered, the analysis methodology, existing condition descriptions, applicable regulations and LMP direction, and other background information. The findings described in the report regarding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from each of the alternatives is summarized in this section. Components of the biological assessment and evaluation are captured in the wildlife specialist report. The biological assessment will be finalized once an alternative is selected.

Environmental Consequences Direct and indirect effects can occur to individual species from disturbance and modification to its habitat. Disturbance effects include those activities that may impact species and individuals during critical times of their life cycles, including breeding seasons, typically during the spring. Activities conducted at these times can impact all species of concern. Activities that create elevated sound levels or result in close visual proximity of human activities at sensitive locations (e.g., nest trees) can disrupt normal behavior patterns. Habitat effects include removal of habitats for all species, including removal of vegetation and disturbance to soils or substrates in aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. Such disturbance can cause direct mortality to individuals and impacts to populations by affecting the breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitats for species. Habitat modification includes habitat loss, fragmentation, edge effects, snag and down log reduction, routes for competitors, and movement barriers.

The project area boundary serves as the analysis boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Effects to habitat availability or suitability would be expected to have occurred or become evident within one or two years of disturbance, and this constitutes the short term. Effects that linger beyond two years are considered long-term effects, and may extend to decades or centuries. Such long-term effects beyond 20 years become increasingly difficult to predict due to unknown interactions and the many environmental variables with numerous possible outcomes.

The effects described below are based on the assumption that all applicable LMP standards and guidelines, best management practices, project design criteria developed by local unit biologists, and mitigation measures required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would be implemented. The complete list is provided in appendix C.


78

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action


California red-legged frog, steelhead trout, and their critical habitat Road reconstruction and maintenance of the La Brea Road were not addressed in existing Los Padres National Forest ongoing activities consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service for transportation facility maintenance (USDA Forest Service 2012d, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013c). Therefore, road reconstruction under alternative 1 would require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service for California red-legged frog, California red-legged frog critical habitat, steelhead trout, and steelhead trout critical habitat. This work would include 3.7 miles and two stream crossings.

A 3.5-mile section of NFS Road 11N04.3 would be restored to ML 2 standards (suitable for 4-wheel drive vehicles). This activity is covered in the programmatic biological opinions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013d and National Marine Fisheries Service 2013) addressing road maintenance in the Los Padres National Forest, and as noted in those documents, has the potential to impact aquatic species.

Based on information contained in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2002), USDA Forest Service (2012), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013 a-c), and National Marine Fisheries Service (2013), the maintenance of 6.6 miles with 34 stream crossings from ML 2 to ML 1, has the potential for direct and indirect effects to California red-legged frog/critical habitat and Southern California Coast steelhead trout/critical habitat.

Direct effects from road reconstruction and maintenance to aquatic species would be in the form of changes in water quality and temperature and the possibility for contamination. Short-term indirect impacts to aquatic species could occur from runoff during construction; however, implementation of the best management practices and mitigation measures that have been identified (see appendix C) should alleviate such impacts. Short term, there is a potential for direct mortality during reconstruction of the stream crossings. Although the road would be managed as a non-motorized trail, it would be open for occasional administrative use, causing the potential for mortality from motorized stream crossings.

The proposed action would convert 9.1 miles of motorized trail to non-motorized hiking trails. Road segments proposed for conversion would not be covered under the existing ongoing activities programmatic biological assessments (USDA Forest Service 2012c and 2012f) for hiking trails use and maintenance or programmatic biological opinions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a and National Marine Fisheries Service 2013) addressing hiking trails use and maintenance in the Los Padres National Forest, therefore, consultation would be required. This section of road is steep-banked for 8.1 miles, and converting it to a hiking trail would reduce erosion to adjacent aquatic habitat.

Stream-crossing impacts would be reduced from converting motorized trails into non-motorized trails. The proposed action removes 44 stream crossings from motorized access. Changing these trails to non-motorized would likely have a beneficial impact on aquatic species by reducing the potential for direct effects from injury or mortality from motorized activities. It would likely reduce the amount of sedimentation and runoff that may contain hazardous materials such as oil and gas into



riparian and aquatic systems. Long-term localized sedimentation impacts to aquatic systems from stream crossings would persist (Hermandorfer 2018).

Aquatic habitats can be impacted by camping and trailhead use from human-caused impacts including: disturbance of near-stream vegetation, physical/chemical/biological contaminant introduction, sediment impacts from stream access and in-stream modifications (e.g., rock dams). Although there is usually less visitation at walk-in and primitive sites, the potential for impact is still present. These activities are covered under the existing ongoing activities programmatic biological assessment (USDA Forest Service 2012g).

Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher There is potential for disturbance of nesting and/or breeding activities from all proposed activities. Maintenance of motorized and non-motorized trails, including any vegetation treatment, could directly impact individual least Bell’s vireos and southwestern willow flycatcher or their nests if activities were to occur during the breeding season. Short-term disturbance could occur from instream work including water crossing improvement. Outside the breeding season, reconstruction and maintenance activities could remove or reduce potential nesting habitat. Noise disturbances from non-motorized recreation would be less than that from motorized recreation; however, depending on the proximity, hikers could still cause birds to flush. Depending on the proximity, campers and hikers accessing aquatic habitat could also disturb birds.

Western pond turtle Effects to western pond turtle from the proposed action would be similar to those noted for red-legged frog and steelhead trout (see above). However, changes in campground designation specifically at Barrel Springs and Wagon Flat Campgrounds could affect western pond turtle. Both sites have had numerous observations. Creating services at Wagon Flat could increase visitation, and thus, impacts from that use.

Two-striped garter snake Impacts from the proposed action on aquatic species mentioned above can also impact this primarily aquatic species. This is a fast-moving snake, however there is a possibility of direct mortality from project implementation and motorized recreation on snakes, especially during the early morning or evening when snakes are basking.

California legless lizard Short-term direct effects from implementation could occur, including direct mortality from equipment. Since this species and its burrows are under the leaf litter, they may unintentionally be impacted from work vehicles. Similar effects could occur in the long term from motorized recreation that leaves the trail.

Both motorized and non-motorized traffic creates noise and disturbance that could impact species found along roads and trails. Wildlife are affected by noise, lights, and other disturbances associated with road and trail use. In addition, road and trail use can impact foraging, hunting, and reproductive activities/success or affect wildlife movement as a result of road avoidance.


80



All Species It is assumed that impacts from the no-action alternative would be the same for all species analyzed and will not be repeated. Under the no-action alternative, there would be no effect from Forest Service actions; however, impacts from runoff and erosion would continue to occur.

Under the no-action alternative, no motorized use would occur on those roads and trails that have been closed since the 2009 La Brea Fire and subsequent floods. All closed developed campgrounds would be available for primitive use in the future, and Forest users would need to use non-motorized methods to access them.

Permanently eliminating motorized travel in these areas would reduce possible impacts to aquatic species and habitat in the North Fork La Brea Creek. Motorized vehicles would not drive through streams, riparian areas, or wetlands, which could reduce impacts to aquatic species and habitats and improve water quality by reducing the potential for oil and gas spills.

It is possible that closed roads and trails, without maintenance, could impact aquatic species and habitat through increased sedimentation should slumps and failures occur. The highest potential exists on La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Colson to the intersection with La Brea Canyon Road (NFS Road 10N06.1), Kerry Canyon Motorcycle Trail (NFS Trail 30W02), and La Brea Road (NFS Road 11N04.3) from Pine Canyon Road (NFS Road 11N04.1) to Wagon Flat Campground.

Alternative 3


Red-legged frog, steelhead trout, and their critical habitat This alternative includes the reconstruction of portions of La Brea Creek Road and some of the changes to the campgrounds included in the proposed action; however, the majority of the currently closed roads in this alternative would be reopened as motorcycle trails. A majority of the roads are currently accessible to motorcycles. All the effects described for the proposed action would apply to this alternative. However, impacts are likely to be greater and/or more frequent. Under this alternative, there would be 69 additional stream crossings from motorized recreation and an additional 13 miles of roads. Both motorized and non-motorized traffic creates noise and disturbance that could impact species found along roads and trails. Wildlife are affected by noise, lights, and other disturbances associated with road and trail use. In addition, road and trail use can impact foraging, hunting, and reproductive activities/success or affect wildlife movement as a result of road avoidance.

Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher The effects would be the same as described under the proposed action

Western pond turtle Effects to western pond turtle from alternative 3 would be similar to those noted for red-legged frog and steelhead trout (see above). However, changes in campground designation specifically at Barrel Springs and Wagon Flat Campgrounds could affect western pond turtle. Both sites have had



numerous observations. Creating services at both Barrel Springs and Wagon Flat could increase visitation, and thus, impacts from that use. In addition, the increase in motorized routes could impact wintering western pond turtle from haphazard parking along routes if not controlled.

Two-striped garter snake Effects to two-striped garter snake from alternative 3 would be similar to those noted for red-legged frog and steelhead trout (see above). However, there is an increase in potential mortality for basking snakes with increased motorized use.

California legless lizard Impacts from alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed action. However, the increase in motorized routes could impact burrowing California legless lizards from haphazard parking along routes if not controlled.

Alternative 4


All Species Alternative 4 is same as the proposed action with the addition of 5.9 miles of new motorized trail that would be constructed. All effects described for each of the species and habitats in the proposed action would apply. Additionally, there would be limited direct impacts to aquatic species due to the placement of the trail up on a ridge away from aquatic habitat. There would be limited direct impacts to western pond turtle and two-striped garter snakes that are using aquatic habitats due to the placement of the trail up on a ridge away from the riparian zone. Construction of the trail could impact wintering western pond turtles if they are not found beforehand, and California legless lizards, if burrows are not identified beforehand.

All Alternatives

Biological Evaluation Determinations

California red-legged frog and steelhead trout Many of the proposed activities are covered under programmatic consultation. By implementing the identified mitigation measures and limited operating periods the proposed action and alternative 4 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog or its designated critical habitat or steelhead trout or its designated critical habitat. Under the no-action alternative, there will be no effect from Forest Service actions; however, impacts from runoff and erosion will continue to occur. Alternative 3, may affect and is likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog or its designated critical habitat or steelhead trout or its designated critical habitat due to the potential for continuation of effects from multiple motorized stream crossings.

Western pond turtle Although limited mortality could occur to western pond turtle, the determination under the proposed action, alternative 3, and alternative 4 is “may affect individuals but is not likely to lead to the listing of the species or result in a trend toward Federal listing for the species.” Under the no-action alternative, there would be no effect from Forest Service actions.


82

Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher Due to the quality of existing habitat and the lack of presence of both species at this time, the proposed action, alternative 2, alternative 3, and alternative 4 are unlikely to impact either bird species. If the birds are present, mitigation measures and limited operating periods would alleviate impacts to nesting birds.

Two-striped garter snake Although limited mortality could occur to basking snakes under the proposed action, alternative 3, and alternative 4, the determination is “may affect individuals but is not likely to lead to the listing of the species or result in a trend toward Federal listing for the species.” Under the no-action alternative, there would be no effect from Forest Service actions.

California legless lizard If California legless lizard were present, it is possible that limited mortality could occur to burrowing individuals under the proposed action, alternative 3, and alternative 4. Therefore, the determination is “may affect individuals but is not likely to lead to the listing of the species or result in a trend toward Federal listing for the species.” Under the no-action alternative, there would be no effect from Forest Service actions.

Cumulative Effects for all Alternatives The majority of the past, present, and ongoing projects that were considered during the cumulative effects analysis for this project include: grazing, recreation, and transportation. More information about these projects is provided in the table on page 16 and in the wildlife specialist report (project record).

As with the proposed action, cumulative impacts could directly affect species during the time of implementation or indirectly affect species habitat. The current conditions in the project area were shaped by natural processes and past human activities. The effects of past activities are reflected in the description of existing conditions for each species as appropriate, and were captured under the direct and indirect effects analysis.

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities has resulted in development of reasonable and prudent measures to mitigate for adverse impacts to federally listed species. These measures indirectly benefit Forest Service sensitive species.

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) for the Los Padres National Forest are identified in the LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 45). The MIS analyzed for the La Brea Restoration Project were selected from this list of MIS identified in the LMP. Detailed background and trend information on the 12 MIS for the Forest is documented in the Los Padres National Forest MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2007), hereby incorporated by reference. Three MIS were analyzed in detail: mountain lion, mule deer, and song sparrow. The other 9 MIS species were not analyzed because they do not occur within the project area. The La Brea project area (approximately 56,594 acres) serves as the analysis area for all three species for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Given the response time of vegetation, short term is herein defined as 2 years or less for vegetation effects. Long-term vegetation effects would be longer than a decade, or for the life of the project for activities that are ongoing.



The complete MIS report is filed in the project record. It includes the background behind project-level MIS analysis and Forest-scale monitoring requirements, as well as the analysis methodology, existing condition information, habitat trends, etc. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of project activities on MIS that are anticipated in response to each of the alternatives is disclosed in this section of the EA.

Existing Condition

Mountain Lion The mountain lion was selected as an MIS to detect the effects of activities and uses on landscape-level habitat fragmentation and habitat linkages. The LMP objective for this MIS is maintaining functional landscape linkages and populations well distributed on the national forest. The LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005b) considers all habitat types as potentially suitable for the mountain lion. Given the vegetative response that has occurred since the La Brea Fire, the La Brea project area currently provides a variety of habitats with cover including shrub-dominated areas and stream courses as possible travel areas, and habitat for their primary prey (discussed later). Mountain lions have the potential to occur across the Los Padres National Forest. Therefore, the entire La Brea Restoration project area is considered suitable habitat, and could be impacted by the proposed action.

Mule Deer The mule deer was selected as an MIS to serve as an indicator of forest health related to vegetation management, roads, and associated recreation management. The objective for mule deer is that there are stable or increasing well-distributed populations. Trends in abundance and/or habitat condition are to be used for measuring populations. Availability of suitable vegetation for fawning, forage, and cover near water is the most limiting factor for mule deer. Populations are to be monitored in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife or by habitat condition (USDA Forest Service 2005b, LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

The Los Padres National Forest LMP FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005b) considers all habitat types as potentially suitable for the mule deer. Given the time elapsed since the La Brea Fire and the associated vegetative response, current fawning, foraging, cover, and winter range habitat conditions appear to be adequate for mule deer populations in the project area. Therefore, the entire project area is considered suitable habitat, and could be impacted by the proposed action. As mentioned previously, a large proportion of the project area consists of remote, non-motorized areas.

Song Sparrow The song sparrow was selected as an MIS for riparian areas because its abundance is expected to be responsive to management actions and to indicate trends in the status of the riparian biological community, particularly for birds. Within the project area, riparian areas located along perennial streams are habitat for song sparrows, and have the potential to be impacted by project activities. Existing riparian habitat in the project area is assumed to support song sparrows. The purpose and need of the project recognizes the need to preserve and improve riparian habitat. The North Fork La Brea Creek watershed has a condition classification of Functioning at Risk with poor riparian and or wetland vegetation conditions.

Blue Oak Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) is an MIS for oak woodlands and savanna habitat types in Los Padres and Angeles National Forests. Blue oak is a California endemic with a north-south range of about


84

740 kilometers (460 miles). Its distribution forms a ring around California's Central Valley. Northern limits are Montgomery Creek in Shasta County, and southern limits are in the Liebre Mountains of Los Angeles County and the Santa Ynez Valley of Santa Barbara County. A number of studies have been conducted regarding a possible blue oak regeneration problem. The latest conclusion is that if there is indeed a shortage of oak saplings on Los Padres National Forest, it does not appear to be the result of any single factor, but rather the result of the combined effects of competition from nonnative grass species, livestock grazing, wildlife herbivory, and perhaps excessive numbers of acorn and seedling-eating animals such as gophers and ground squirrels (Tyler et al. 2006, Zavaleta et al. 2007). Natural variations in precipitation and mast years are other factors that can strongly influence recruitment.

The central issue on Los Padres National Forest is whether management, especially cattle grazing, contributes significantly to the low numbers of sapling oaks, and if, over time the extent and density of blue oaks will decrease on the Forest.




Mountain Lion The roads and trails proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, minimizing potential impacts to habitat, and movement linkages. Dirt roads do not impede movement, and trails would not be expected to either. Given the road maintenance guidelines described in the Transportation System section, annual activities associated with road maintenance and use would be expected to affect a minimal amount of habitat along approximately 7.2 miles of ML 2 road that would be maintained as open to motorized use in this alternative.

Regular motorized use has the potential to cause disturbance and temporarily disrupt movements of mountain lions, especially when in important movement areas. Under this alternative, the amount of motorized use in riparian corridors is minimal. Of the action alternatives (alternatives 1, 3, and 4), the proposed action would authorize the fewest miles of overall motorized activity. Project-specific design features limiting road maintenance and use at stream crossings during late winter through early summer (for federally listed species) would limit the actual window of motorized use to a much narrower period for any roads that cross riparian corridors important for travel.

Disturbance and vegetation removal associated with maintenance needs along 6.6 miles of ML 1 road (administrative use only) and 9.9 miles of non-motorized trail proposed under alternative 1 are expected to be minimal. Given that these ML 1 roads and non-motorized trails form the majority of proposed activity within important riparian corridors, this would minimize potential impacts on mountain lion habitat and landscape linkages.

Recreation site activities would degrade a minimal amount of habitat and would not be expected to directly contribute to fragmentation or disruption of habitat linkages. Associated recreational activity (hiking, camping, driving, target shooting, and streamside recreation activities, etc.) may indirectly cause localized habitat degradation around these sites or in the project area, but this would be localized. Disturbance associated with recreation could cause short-term displacement from habitat



or disruption of movement patterns, but would not be expected to compromise the effectiveness of existing linkage zones or corridors.

Mule Deer The general effects of this alternative on mule deer habitat and the potential for disturbance associated with human activities would be similar to the description provided for the mountain lion, above. The roads and trails proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, and road or trail maintenance activities would result in minimal potential impacts to mule deer habitat. Recreation site developments also largely occur within existing footprints.

Under this alternative, the amount of motorized use in riparian areas is minimal. Limiting operating periods for road maintenance work at riparian crossings would also limit disturbance to habitat and deer using riparian areas, especially during spring and early summer fawning periods when access to water is critical. Of the action alternatives (alternatives 1, 3, and 4), alternative 1 would authorize the fewest miles of overall motorized activity. Given that ML 1 roads and non-motorized trails form the majority of proposed activity within important riparian areas, potential impacts to mule deer use of this important habitat would be limited under this alternative. The hydrology report (project record) estimated that, at most, 1 acre of RCA could be impacted in the project area from the combination of proposed activities, which minimizes impacts on riparian habitat. Overall, proposed activities would remove less than 1 percent of mule deer habitat in the project area.

Associated recreational activity (hiking, camping, driving, target shooting, and streamside recreation activities, etc.) may indirectly cause localized habitat degradation around these sites or in the project area, but this would be localized. Disturbance associated with recreation could cause short-term displacement from habitat, but would not be expected to compromise the suitability of deer habitat in the project area.

Song Sparrow The roads and trails proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, minimizing potential impacts to riparian habitat. However, the proposed action would impact song sparrow habitat that has grown back (and debris that has accumulated) since road and trail segments intersecting riparian areas were last maintained or originally constructed. Road maintenance guidelines and conservation measures previously described would minimize the impacts of road maintenance and use on riparian habitat intersected along the 7.2 miles of ML 2 road open to motorized use in this alternative. Given that song sparrows nest on or close to the ground, and often forage on the ground, ground-disturbing activities associated with road and trail maintenance and recreation site development, could directly impact nesting attempts and song sparrow use of riparian habitat. Nonetheless, the proposed action has the fewest motorized stream crossings of any of the action alternatives, which would reduce these effects related to riparian activities. Limiting operating periods for road maintenance work at riparian crossings would also limit disturbance of this habitat during the breeding season.

Given that ML 1 roads (6.6 miles) and other non-motorized trails (9.9 miles) comprise the majority of proposed activity within riparian habitat under this alternative, potential impacts to song sparrow occupancy of riparian habitat would be limited. Non-motorized trails could still require clearing within riparian areas, but the footprint of impacts would be narrower. The hydrology report (project record) estimated that, at most, 1 acre of RCA could be directly impacted in the project area from the combination of proposed activities, which minimizes impacts on riparian habitat for the song sparrow.


86

Recreation site developments also largely occur within existing footprints. This would minimize direct impacts to riparian habitat, especially where recreation sites are located adjacent to riparian habitat. However, indirectly, the recreational activities (hiking, camping, driving, target shooting, and streamside recreation activities, etc.) associated with site and access improvements could affect riparian habitats. Concentrated recreation use in some riparian areas has caused de-vegetation, bank trampling, littering, and pollution (USDA Forest Service 2005b; LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 100), all of which can degrade song sparrow habitat quality. These effects would likely be localized around recreation sites and access points. Disturbance associated with recreation could cause short-term displacement from habitat, but would not be expected to compromise the long-term suitability of riparian habitat for song sparrows in the project area.

Blue Oak The roads and trails proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, minimizing potential impacts to habitat. Alternative 1 would authorize the fewest miles of overall motorized activity. Given the road maintenance guidelines described in the Transportation System section, annual activities associated with road maintenance and use would be expected to affect a minimal amount of habitat along approximately 7.2 miles of ML 2 road that would be maintained as open to motorized use in this alternative. Disturbance and vegetation removal associated with maintenance needs along 6.6 miles of ML 1 road (administrative use only) and 9.9 miles of non-motorized trail proposed under alternative 1 are expected to be minimal. This would reduce any potential impacts to blue oak reproduction.

Recreation site activities would degrade a minimal amount of habitat and would not be expected to directly affect blue oak reproduction significantly. Associated recreational activity (hiking, camping, driving, target shooting, and streamside recreation activities, etc.) may indirectly cause localized effects around these sites or in the project area, but this would be localized. Disturbance associated with recreation could cause short-term seedling damage, but would not be expected to compromise the effectiveness of blue oak reproduction.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 1 The current conditions in the project area were shaped by natural processes and past human activities. Effects of past activities are reflected in existing conditions. The past, present, and ongoing projects that are considered during the cumulative effects analysis for this project are provided in table 2.

Mountain Lion Wildfires have influenced the existing condition and will likely continue to influence the availability and condition of habitat on the landscape in the future. Wildfires have the potential to remove cover, and affect prey habitat and availability across large portions of the landscape. Large-scale wildfires that remove vegetative cover have the potential to fragment habitat and disrupt connectivity and landscape linkages, at least in the short term until vegetation begins to recover, especially if frequency increases due to climate-induced variables. However, under normal fire regimes, wildfire in these systems can also play a role in rejuvenating forage and maintaining habitat for primary prey.

The presence of livestock can lead to potential direct conflicts (depredation), but their effect on mountain lion habitat factors is more limited under current grazing regimes. Livestock grazing can affect the quality of riparian habitat available to prey species, although management generally seeks



to minimize impacts in these areas. Livestock grazing is unlikely to influence overall habitat fragmentation and landscape connectivity for the mountain lion.

As stated in the recreation resource report (project record), recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and camping along with the proposed “Condor Trail” and pressure for motorized access are expected to continue and possibly increase over time. This could increase effects on habitat and use of these habitats by mountain lions, as previously discussed under Direct and Indirect Effects. These activities are not likely to cause extensive fragmentation or substantially reduce the effectiveness of landscape linkages. Mining activities, also have the potential to cause localized habitat loss and disturbance that could contribute to fragmentation, but current activity levels are minimal.

A large proportion of the project area would remain in relative remote, non-motorized status, which would provide large blocks of habitat and landscape linkages for the mountain lion. We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not change the trend in mountain lion habitat in the project area or in the Los Padres National Forest.

Mule Deer As discussed previously, wildfires have influenced the existing habitat condition for mule deer in terms of the availability and quality of forage and cover, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Wildfires have the potential to remove cover and forage in the short term across large portions of the landscape, but also play a role in rejuvenating forage palatability for mule deer in shrub habitat. Increased frequency of fire due to climate-induced variables could mean that larger proportions of the landscape are devoid of cover and available forage at any given time.

Livestock grazing can reduce the availability of forage for mule deer, especially in important riparian habitat, although management generally seeks to minimize grazing impacts in these areas. Livestock grazing is unlikely to influence overall habitat suitability for the mule deer.

As stated in the recreation resource report (project record), recreational activities are expected to continue and possibly increase over time. This could increase short-term disturbance-related effects on habitat use. As discussed under Direct and Indirect Effects, recreation activities (dispersed camping, recreational shooting, hiking, etc.) also have the potential to affect mule deer habitat on a small, localized scale. These activities are not likely to affect overall deer habitat effectiveness or populations. Mining activities, also have the potential to cause localized habitat loss and disturbance, but current activity levels are minimal.

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not change the trend in mule deer habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Song Sparrow Wildfires have influenced the existing riparian habitat condition in the project area, and would likely continue to do so in the future. Flood events, such as those that occurred after the La Brea fire, can cause short-term impacts on riparian vegetation, but also can create longer term conditions favorable to the regeneration of riparian habitat. Climate change may also be affecting riparian habitat for species such as song sparrows. Severe droughts and exceptionally large wildfires since the mid-1990s have led to temporary or long-term degradation or loss of riparian habitat and may have


88

affected population size and habitat occupancy. This trend will likely continue in the future. These natural events have the potential to affect riparian habitat across a larger scale in the analysis area.

Livestock grazing in riparian habitat can result in degradation or complete loss of riparian vegetation necessary for song sparrow breeding, foraging, and cover. Marshall (1948) and Ballard and Geupel (1998) noted the negative effects that livestock grazing can have on the ability of riparian habitat to support song sparrows. However, current livestock management strategies generally seek to minimize grazing impacts in these areas. Livestock grazing is unlikely to influence overall habitat riparian habitat availability in the project area for the song sparrow.

As stated in the recreation report (project record), recreational activities are expected to continue and possibly increase over time. Increased recreational use could lead to additional riparian habitat degradation and disturbance-related effects to habitat in the project area. These activities are not likely to affect overall riparian habitat effectiveness or populations in the project area. Mining activities, also have the potential to cause localized habitat loss and disturbance, but current activity levels are minimal.

Overall the scale of project-related impacts to riparian habitat is very small in comparison to these other potential events or activities, and would not be expected to add substantive cumulative effects on song sparrow riparian habitat. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in riparian habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Blue Oak The current conditions in the project area were shaped by natural processes and past human activities. Effects of past activities are reflected in existing conditions. The past, present, and ongoing projects that were considered during the cumulative effects analysis for this project are provided in table 2.

Wildfires have influenced the existing condition and will likely continue to influence the availability and condition of habitat on the landscape in the future. Wildfires have the potential to impact adult and juvenile trees across large portions of the landscape. The presence of livestock can lead to potential direct effects from trampling and consumption of blue oak seedlings, but is more limited under current grazing regimes.

As stated in the recreation resource report (project record), recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and camping, along with the proposed “Condor Trail” and pressure for motorized access are expected to continue and possibly increase over time. This could increase effects on blue oak regeneration at the sites of these activities, but this is a very small portion of the landscape populated by blue oak in the project area. Mining activities, also have the potential to cause localized effects and disturbance that could contribute to regeneration loss, but current activity levels are minimal.

A large proportion of the project area would remain in relative remote, non-motorized status, which would provide large blocks of relatively undisturbed blue oak stands. It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not change the trend in blue oak regeneration in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.





Mountain Lion No additional habitat removal, fragmentation, or disruption of landscape linkages for the mountain lion would be expected with the no-action alternative. Under existing conditions, approximately 14.6 miles of road would be re-classified as ML 1 roads closed to motorized use, except for authorized administrative uses, as described previously for alternative 1. The campgrounds would continue to be managed as primitive campsites. Minor localized impacts on habitat and disturbance-related impacts would continue as under existing conditions, but appear to be minimal due to access-related constraints.

Mule Deer No additional removal of mule deer habitat would be expected with the no-action alternative. Approximately 14.6 miles of road would be re-classified as ML 1 roads closed to motorized use, except for authorized administrative uses, as described previously for alternative 1. This would limit impacts in important riparian habitat areas. The campgrounds would continue to be managed as primitive campsites. Minor localized impacts on mule deer habitat and disturbance-related impacts would continue as under existing conditions, but appear to be minimal due to access-related constraints.

Song Sparrow No additional removal of riparian habitat would be expected with the no-action alternative. Approximately 14.6 miles of road would be re-classified as ML 1 roads closed to motorized use, except for authorized administrative uses, as described previously for alternative 1. Riparian vegetation in these areas would continue to recover. The campgrounds would continue to be managed as primitive campsites. Minor localized impacts on riparian habitat and disturbance-related impacts would continue as under existing conditions, but appear to be minimal due to access-related constraints.

Blue Oak No additional negative effects on oak regeneration would be expected with the no-action alternative. Under existing conditions, approximately 14.6 miles of road would be re-classified as ML 1 roads closed to motorized use, except for authorized administrative uses, as described previously for alternative 1. The campgrounds would continue to be managed as primitive campsites. Minor localized impacts to blue oak stands and disturbance-related impacts would continue as under existing conditions, but appear to be minimal due to access-related constraints.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 2 Under the no-action alternative, the activities considered for cumulative effects would still occur (table 2). Potential impacts of these activities on mountain lion, mule deer, and song sparrow habitat were described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1, above.

Under the no-action alternative, the La Brea Project would not contribute additional effects to habitat fragmentation or landscape linkages of the mountain lion in the project area in the Los Padres National Forest. Nor would it contribute additional negative effects on deer habitat or on riparian habitat for the song sparrow.


90

Blue Oak Under the no-action alternative, the activities considered for cumulative effects would still occur. Potential impacts of these activities on blue oak regeneration were described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1, above. Under the no-action alternative, the La Brea Project would not contribute additional effects to blue oak regeneration in the project area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Alternative 3


Mountain Lion The greatest amount of ML 2 roads open for motorized use (approximately 13.8 miles) would occur under this alternative. The roads proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, minimizing potential impacts to habitat and landscape linkages. In addition, approximately 9.9 miles of motorcycle trail would be re-opened. Small portions of the trail may need to be relocated, which would involve habitat removal. Given the narrow footprint of the trail system, and typical trail-clearing limits, it is unlikely that more than 1 acre of habitat would be removed during trail relocation and reconstruction. This small scale of habitat removal would not contribute to habitat fragmentation or negatively affect landscape linkages. The potential for habitat removal and disturbance associated with regular road and trail maintenance would be minimal and was previously described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1.

However, the number of miles open to motorized use and the location of these routes relative to potential riparian linkage areas would be greatest under this alternative. Alternative 3 has the greatest number of motorized stream crossings (74). However, as described for alternative 1, project-specific design features limiting road maintenance and use at stream crossings during late winter through early summer would limit the actual window of motorized use to a much narrower period for any roads that cross riparian corridors important for travel. In addition, the Kerry motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening is currently rated as “most difficult” (recreation report, project record) and may not receive extensive use. These factors may serve to reduce the potential impacts on landscape linkages of mountain lions related to disturbance.

For proposed recreation sites, habitat and disturbance-related effects on fragmentation and use of landscape linkages for the mountain lion would be similar to what was described under Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 1. Services would be restored to an additional campground (Barrel Springs) under this alternative, which could result in a minor increase in indirect effects on habitat and disturbance to riparian linkages from associated recreational activities, as described under alternative 1.

Mule Deer The general effects of this alternative on mule deer habitat and the potential for disturbance associated with human activities would be similar to those described for the mountain lion. The designation and maintenance of approximately 13.8 miles of ML 2 road would result in minimal impacts to mule deer habitat from use and maintenance, as previously discussed, because these roads would use the existing footprints. Relocating small portions of the 9.9-mile motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening would involve habitat removal. Given the narrow footprint of the trail system, it is unlikely that more than 1 acre of habitat would be removed. The potential for habitat removal associated with regular road and trail maintenance would be minimal, and was previously described



under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. Overall, proposed activities would remove less than 1 percent of mule deer habitat in the project area.

However, the number of miles open to motorized use and the impacts of the location of these routes relative to riparian and other mule deer habitat areas would be greatest under this alternative. However, as described for alternative 1, limiting operating periods for road maintenance work at riparian crossings would limit disturbance to habitat and deer using riparian areas, especially during spring and early summer fawning periods, when access to water is critical. In addition, as previously discussed for the mountain lion, the difficulty level of the Kerry motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening (recreation report, project record) may preclude extensive use. These factors may serve to reduce the potential disturbance-related impacts on mule deer habitat in the project area.

For proposed recreation sites, habitat and disturbance-related effects on mule deer habitat would be similar to those described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. Services would be restored to an additional campground (Barrel Springs) under this alternative, which could result in a minor increase in indirect effects on habitat and disturbance to riparian linkages from associated recreational activities, as described under alternative 1.

Song Sparrow The general effects of this alternative on riparian habitat for the song sparrow and the potential for disturbance associated with human activities to impact use of this habitat would be the greatest of all the action alternatives. The designation and maintenance of approximately 13.8 miles of ML 2 road would result in impacts to riparian habitat from road use and maintenance where these roads cross riparian areas. Alternative 3 has the greatest number of motorized crossings (74) to be used and maintained, including a relatively large proportion of those crossings along the Kerry motorcycle trail (approximately 30). Relocating small portions of the 9.9-mile motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening provides the opportunity to reduce riparian impacts. A small amount of riparian habitat (less than 1 acre) could be removed during trail relocation, but that would be minimal, given the relatively narrow clearing limits of the trail system.

The number of miles open to motorized use and the location of these routes relative to riparian habitat areas would be greatest under this alternative. Therefore, the potential for activities to affect song sparrow occupancy of this habitat, as described previously, would be greater under alternative 3. However, as described for alternative 1, limiting operating periods for road use and road maintenance work at riparian crossings would limit disturbance to riparian habitat, especially during the breeding season. The difficulty level of the Kerry motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening (recreation report, project record) may preclude extensive use and reduce use-related impacts to riparian habitat along this trail. These factors may serve to reduce the potential disturbance-related impacts on riparian habitat in the project area from alternative 3.

For proposed recreation sites, habitat and disturbance-related effects on riparian habitat would be similar to what was described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. Services would be restored to an additional campground (Barrel Springs) under this alternative, which could result in a minor increase in indirect effects on riparian habitat, as described under alternative 1.

Blue Oak The greatest amount of ML 2 roads open for motorized use (approximately 13.8 miles) would occur under this alternative. The roads proposed for use would occur within existing footprints, minimizing potential impacts to blue oak habitat, and therefore, regeneration. In addition, approximately 9 miles


92

of motorcycle trail would be re-opened under this alternative. Small portions of the trail may need to be relocated, which would involve direct impacts to blue oak habitat. Given the narrow footprint of the trail system, and typical trail-clearing limits, it is unlikely that more than 1 acre of habitat would be removed during trail relocation and reconstruction. This small scale of habitat removal would not contribute significantly to blue oak regeneration in the project area. The potential for habitat removal and disturbance associated with regular road and trail maintenance would be minimal and was previously described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. In addition, the Kerry motorcycle trail proposed for re-opening is currently rated as “most difficult” (recreation report, project record) and may not receive extensive use. These factors may serve to reduce the potential impacts on blue oak habitat.

For proposed recreation sites, habitat and disturbance-related effects on blue oak habitat and regeneration would be similar to those described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. Services would be restored to an additional campground (Barrel Springs) under this alternative, which could result in a minor increase in indirect effects on habitat and regeneration from associated recreational activities, as described under alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 3 The activities considered for cumulative effects and the potential impacts of those activities on mountain lion habitat fragmentation and landscape linkages, mule deer habitat, and riparian habitat for song sparrows, would be similar to what was described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1.

Mountain Lion Alternative 3 would have a greater potential to affect use of landscape linkage areas compared to alternative 1, due to increased disturbance-related effects to habitat under this alternative. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. A large proportion of the project area would remain in relative remote, non-motorized status, which would provide large blocks of habitat and landscape linkages for the mountain lion. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 3, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in mountain lion habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Mule Deer Alternative 3 would have a greater potential to affect mule deer habitat use compared to alternative 1, due to increased disturbance-related effects under this alternative and a greater amount of motorized use through riparian habitats. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 3, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in mule deer habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Song Sparrow Alternative 3 would have a greater potential to affect song sparrow riparian habitat use compared to the other action alternatives, due to increased riparian activities and disturbance-related effects to riparian habitat under this alternative. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above, and the small proportion of riparian habitat in the project area that would be affected. Therefore, the



implementation of alternative 3, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in riparian habitat for the song sparrow in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Blue Oak The activities considered for cumulative effects, and the potential impacts of those activities on blue oak habitat and regeneration, would be similar to those described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1, above.

Alternative 3 would have a greater potential to affect blue oak regeneration than alternative 1, due to increased disturbance-related effects to habitat under this alternative. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. A large proportion of the project area would remain in relative remote, non-motorized status, which would leave large areas of blue oak woodland undisturbed. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 3, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in blue oak regeneration in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Alternative 4


Mountain Lion The amount of ML 2 road open to motorized use, along with potential habitat and disturbance-related effects on mountain lion habitat and use of landscape linkages, would be the same as described under Direct and Indirect effect for alternative 1. The potential effects of non-motorized trails and recreation sites would also be the same as described for alternative 1. None of those activities would be expected to increase habitat fragmentation or reduce the effectiveness of landscape linkages for the mountain lion.

This alternative proposes the construction of approximately 5.9 miles of new motorized trail, which would be open to a variety of motorized vehicle types. The amount of motorized trail proposed under this alternative is less than alternative 3, with fewer motorized miles in potential riparian linkage areas. Given typical clearing limits, the construction of the new trail would remove less than 10 acres of habitat, and less than 1 acre of habitat removal would occur within riparian corridors. Therefore, the actual scale of habitat removal would not likely contribute to habitat fragmentation.

However, the proposed new trail would cross a riparian corridor, and would also travel along a ridgeline for part of its length. As described in the recreation section, portions of the proposed trail would pass through an area that is characterized by non-motorized use (EA Appendix A, Figures A10 and A11). Given that dirt roads and trails are not generally barriers to movement, the trail itself would not likely limit movements or create habitat fragmentation. Riparian areas and vegetated ridges are important travel ways for mountain lions (Spotwart and Samson 1986, Beier and Barrett 1993), and the trail would allow for increased human activities in an area that was previously more remote. The disturbance associated with the new trail could represent impacts to mountain lion movements in this area, but they would likely be limited in scope and extent, given the overall amount of roadless area available and size of the project area. Regardless, because of the new development of the trail and where it would be located, qualitative impacts may be greater than under alternative 3.


94

Mule Deer The amount of ML 2 road open to motorized use, along with potential habitat and disturbance-related effects on mule deer habitat, would be the same as described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. The potential effects of non-motorized trails and recreation sites on mule deer habitat would also be the same as described for alternative 1.

The amount of motorized trail proposed under this alternative is less than alternative 3, with fewer motorized miles in potential riparian habitat areas. The construction of the new motorized trail would remove less than 10 acres of mule deer habitat overall, and less than 1 acre of habitat removal would occur within riparian areas. As described in the recreation section, portions of the proposed trail would pass through an area that is characterized by non-motorized use (EA Appendix A, figures A10 and A11). The trail would allow for increased human activities, which could include hunting, in an area that previously was more remote. The disturbance associated with the new trail could represent impacts to deer habitat in this area. Overall, the proposed activities associated with this alternative would remove less than 1 percent of mule deer habitat in the project area.

Song Sparrow The amount of ML 2 road open to motorized use and associated maintenance, along with potential habitat and disturbance-related effects on riparian habitat for the song sparrow, would be the same as described under Direct and Indirect Effects for alternative 1. The potential effects of non-motorized trails and recreation sites on riparian habitat would also be the same as described for alternative 1

The amount of motorized trail proposed under this alternative is less than alternative 3, with fewer motorized miles in potential riparian habitat areas. This would reduce impacts to riparian habitat compared to alternative 3. Construction of the new motorized trail would occur primarily in upland habitat and would remove less than 1 acre of riparian habitat, based on typical clearing limits. Implementation of conservation measures during the location of those two stream crossings would minimize impacts to riparian resources (hydrology report, project record). The disturbance associated with the new trail would represent potential impacts to song sparrow use of the riparian habitat in this areas, but the small number of crossings (2) would limit effects.

Blue Oak The amount of ML 2 road open to motorized use, along with potential habitat and disturbance-related effects on blue oak habitat and regeneration, would be the same as described under Direct and Indirect effect for alternative 1. The potential effects of non-motorized trails and recreation sites would also be the same as described for alternative 1. None of those activities would be expected to significantly affect blue oak regeneration.

This alternative proposes the construction of approximately 5.9 miles of new motorized trail, which would be open to a variety of motorized vehicle types. The amount of motorized trail proposed under this alternative is less than alternative 3. Given typical clearing limits, the construction of the new trail would remove less than 10 acres of habitat. However, it is unknown how much blue oak habitat is located along this proposed route because it has never been surveyed.

As described in the recreation report (project record), portions of the proposed trail would pass through an area that is currently roadless and characterized by non-motorized use. The trail would allow for increased human activities in an area that was previously more remote. The disturbance associated with the new trail could represent impacts to any blue oak habitat that may be in this area, but they would likely be limited in scope and extent, given the overall amount of roadless area



available and size of the project area. Regardless, because of the new development of the trail and where it would be located, qualitative impacts may be greater than under alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative 4 The activities considered for cumulative effects and the potential impacts of those activities on mountain lion habitat fragmentation and landscape linkages, mule deer habitat, and riparian habitat for song sparrows, would be similar to those described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1.

Mountain Lion Alternative 4 would have a slightly greater potential to affect use of landscape linkage areas compared to alternative 1, and perhaps even alternative 3, given the location of the proposed new motorized trail in a more remote area. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. The project area would still contain a large proportion of remote, non-motorized area. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 4, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in mountain lion habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Mule Deer Alternative 4 would have a slightly greater direct removal of mule deer habitat compared to the other action alternatives, given the small additional amount of habitat removal associated with the proposed new motorized trail. Alternative 4 would construct new motorized trails in a block of previously remote and non-motorized habitat. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. The majority of the project area would remain as remote and non-motorized habitat for mule deer. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 4, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in mule deer habitat in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Song Sparrow Alternative 4 would have less impact on riparian habitat compared to alternative 3, given the smaller number of road crossings maintained for motorized use under this alternative. Nonetheless, these impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 3, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not be expected to change the trend in riparian habitat for the song sparrow in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Blue Oak The activities considered for cumulative effects, and the potential impacts of those activities on blue oak habitat and regeneration, would be similar to those described under Cumulative Effects for alternative 1, above.

Alternative 4 would have a slightly greater potential to affect any present blue oak habitat compared to alternative 1, and perhaps even alternative 3, given the location of the proposed new motorized trail in a more remote area. Nonetheless, these additional impacts are not expected to be substantive for the reasons described under Direct and Indirect Effects, above. The project area would still contain a large proportion of remote, non-motorized area. Therefore, the implementation of alternative 4, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,


96

would not be expected to change the trend in blue oak regeneration in the analysis area in the Los Padres National Forest.

Relationship of Project-level Impacts to Forest-scale Habitat and Population Trends for Management Indicator Species The Los Padres LMP requires forest-scale habitat and/or population monitoring for all MIS, so effects analysis for the La Brea Restoration Project must be informed by habitat and population monitoring data. The habitat status and trend data, and population trend data for the three MIS evaluated in detail is included in the complete MIS report in the project record. The relationship of project-level impacts to forest-scale habitat and population trends is summarized below.

Mountain lions are found throughout the Los Padres National Forest (875,000 acres). The total area impacted by alternatives 1, 3, and 4 is minimal at the project area scale and Forest scale. The project area and surrounding forest would continue to have a large proportion of remote, non-motorized area under all alternatives. Therefore, implementation of any of the action alternatives would not be expected to change the Forest-level habitat and population trends for the mountain lion.

Mule deer are found throughout the Los Padres National Forest. The total amount of mule deer habitat removed by alternatives 1, 3, and 4 is less than 1 percent at the project area scale and less than 1 percent of the Forest. Therefore, implementation of any of the action alternatives would not be expected to change the Forest-level habitat and population trends for the mule deer.

Song sparrows are found throughout the Los Padres National Forest. The total riparian habitat area that could be impacted by action alternatives is minimal at the scale of the project area and is less than 1 percent of the riparian habitat in the Forest. Therefore, implementation of any of the action alternatives would not be expected to change the Forest-level habitat and population trends for the song sparrow.

Blue oak woodland covers a large portion of the Los Padres National Forest. The total area impacted by alternatives 1, 3, and 4 is minimal and at the project area scale and Forest scale. The project area and surrounding Forest would continue to have a large proportion of remote, non-motorized area under all alternatives. Therefore, implementation of any of the action alternatives would not be expected to change the Forest-level habitat and population trends for blue oak.

Migratory Birds Under the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)).

Bird species reviewed because of their potential for being affected by this project include all birds currently on the Los Padres National Forest list of priority bird species relating to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (67 species); bird species that could occur within the project area that are on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008); and focal species that are on the Birds of Management Concern list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). The Fish and Wildlife Service identified focal species from the Birds of Management Concern list that need investment because they: (1) have high conservation need; (2) represent a broader group of species sharing the same or similar conservation needs; (3) act as a potential unifier for



partnerships; and/or (4) have a high likelihood that factors affecting status can be realistically addressed.

Project activities could affect 25 out of the 67 priority species. Birds that could be affected are allocated in the ground-nesting, ground-leaning, and shrub-nesting resource-use guilds (Ehrlich et at. 1998). A detailed effects analysis for threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed bird species is outlined in the biological assessment and biological evaluation for this project. Similarly, detailed effects analysis for management indicator and/or focal species can be found in the MIS report for this project.

The terrestrial wildlife biological evaluation, MIS, and migratory bird reports for the La Brea Restoration Project are filed in the project record. The migratory bird report includes the list of all 67 species considered, the analysis methodology, applicable Forest Service and other Federal agency regulations and LMP direction, and other background information. The findings described in the migratory bird report regarding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from each of the alternatives is summarized in this section of the EA.

All Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects can occur to individual species from disturbance and modification to habitat. Disturbance effects include those activities that may impact species and individuals during critical times of their life cycles, including breeding seasons, typically during the spring. Activities conducted at these times can impact all species of concern. Activities that create elevated sound levels or result in close visual proximity of human activities at sensitive locations (e.g., nest trees) have the potential to disrupt normal behavior patterns. Habitat effects include removal of habitats for all species, including removal of vegetation and disturbance to soils or substrates in aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. Such disturbance can cause direct mortality to individuals and impacts to populations by affecting the breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitats for species. Habitat modification includes habitat loss, fragmentation, edge effects, snag and down log reduction, routes for competitors, and movement barriers.

The primary risk to migratory birds resulting from project activities occurs to incubating or brooding adults, eggs, and nestlings during the reproductive process. Adult birds may be flushed off the nest during the incubation or brooding stages of reproduction, which could result in decreased reproductive success. Disturbed or damaged nests may result in mortality to either eggs or nestlings. Additionally, project activities may indirectly affect reproductive success through increased depredation resulting from scent trails or from loss of cover and concealment at the nest site, due to vegetation removal.

Overall, the relative risk of individuals being injured or damaged or killed is considered low. The probability of nests being disturbed within the project area is feasible, but in most cases, the incubating or brooding adult will flush off the nest and return after the source of disturbance is gone. In such cases where a flushing adult is observed, work crews should quickly complete project activities in the area and move on. The event of a nest actually being damaged or destroyed, resulting in direct mortality is unlikely, and impacts to migratory birds at a population level is not considered a statistical possibility due to a series of unlikely events that would need to occur.

Foraging adult birds and fledglings (ground-gleaning birds) would typically move away from work crews. Their response would be to either seek cover in nearby vegetation or to seek other available


98

foraging habitat. The possibility of individuals suffering injury or mortality as a result of project activities is considered low, and the probability of birds being affected at a population level is considered extremely low.

Cumulative Effects There would be no measurable cumulative effects due to the low to extremely low risk of direct or indirect effects.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Plants Current policy as directed in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.31) is to use the biological assessment process to review actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing. There are no threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species in or near the project area; nor are there critical habitat or areas proposed as critical habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species. Therefore, none of the alternatives would affect threatened, endangered, or proposed plants or critical habitat.

It is Forest Service policy (FSM 2670.32) to review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. Three sensitive plant species were considered in detail in the biological evaluation, because they are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the Santa Lucia Ranger District. They are: Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis, Calochortus simulans, and Delphinium umbraculorum. The biological evaluation for the La Brea Restoration Project is filed in the project record. It includes the list of all species considered, the analysis methodology, applicable regulations and LMP direction, and other background information. The findings described in the biological evaluation regarding the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from each of the alternatives is summarized in this section of the EA.


Direct and Indirect Effects A population of Delphinium umbraculorum is located along both sides of NFS Road 11N04.3. It would be directly affected by the road restoration and maintenance activities proposed. Individuals could be damaged, removed, or buried by these actions. Indirect effects could result from increased visitor use of the road by producing excessive dust and dirt. Rain runoff could also affect the portion of the population that occurs on the downhill side of the road. Another population of this species near NFS Road 11N04.B, could be affected by the handwork proposed, but the conversion from a road to non-motorized trail would reduce the long-term impacts on the population.

Potential habitat for Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis, Delphinium umbraculorum, and Calochortus simulans exists in the project area where project activities are proposed. If individuals are present, there is a chance they could be directly affected by trail and road construction or restoration. Known occurrences of Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis and Calochortus simulans are well away from any of the actions proposed by this project, so they aren’t likely to be affected.



Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis, Delphinium umbraculorum, or Calochortus simulans could be affected by the construction of parking areas and trailheads. However, none of these species have been detected in the areas proposed for this work.

Cumulative Effects The project area overlaps the entire Pine Canyon grazing allotment as well as small portions of the Porter and South Fork La Brea grazing allotments. The cattle use roads and trails to traverse the allotments and could potentially affect individuals of sensitive plant populations that occur along roads and trails in the project area. Re-opening the area to the public and off-road vehicles could increase the chances for impacts on individuals of sensitive plant populations.

The biological evaluation determination for the 41 species not present in the project area or with no potential habitat is no effect. The determination for the three species that are present or could be present due to habitat (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis, Delphinium umbraculorum, or Calochortus simulans) is may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability.


Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would result in fewer impacts to the three above-named Forest Service sensitive species because roads and trails that are now closed would remain closed and campgrounds would be less accessible. No construction of trails would occur, so there would be no direct effects to Forest Service sensitive plants that might be located there.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for this alternative are limited to the effects of grazing, any road and trail maintenance activities, and the continued risk of wildfire and firefighting activities.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative has the greatest amount of construction and long-term disturbance of any alternative. More of the trails would be converted to motorized trails and both the construction and maintenance for these roads and trails would be more extensive. The Barrel Springs Campground would also be restored as a developed site. This would result in the greatest potential direct effects on any of the above-named Forest Service sensitive species present in the activity locations. Direct effects happen when individuals or groups of plants are damaged or killed. Substantial indirect effects would result from the increased visitor use of roads trails and campgrounds leading to a greater extent and timeframe for disturbance. Individual plants could be eliminated from the population or reproduction could be affected negatively.

Cumulative Effects The project area overlaps the entire Pine Canyon grazing allotment, as well as small portions of the Porter and South Fork La Brea grazing allotments. The cattle use roads and trails to traverse the allotments and could affect individuals of sensitive plant populations that occur along roads and trails in the project area. Re-opening the area to the public and off-road vehicles to a greater degree


100

than the proposed alternative could increase the chances for impacts on individuals of sensitive plant populations.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects under this alternative are the same as the proposed action except for the construction of the new motorized trail connecting Road 11N04.3 and Trail 31W14. The ridgeline where this trail is proposed to be located has never been surveyed, so it is unknown if any Forest Service sensitive species are present. If any sensitive species are present, the same types of direct and indirect effects as described in the proposed action would occur in this area, in addition to the other locations in the project area.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for this alternative are the same as those for the proposed action, with the exception of unknown effects of adding the new motorized trail.

Noxious Weeds A noxious weed risk assessment was conducted to identify vectors for weed spread and changes in habitat that might favor the introduction of new weed species into the proposed project area, or might further spread weeds that already exist within the project are boundary. The complete assessment, which includes analysis methodology, species habitat descriptions, and other background information is available in the La Brea Restoration Project record. The existing condition and environmental effects that would result from implementation of each of the alternatives are summarized in this section of the EA. The applicable forest plan standards and guidelines and best management practices are provided in appendix B.

Risk factors considered in the analysis include vulnerability of vegetation to invasion, soil disturbance, travel routes to the project (equipment in and out), and new infestations transport.

There are known infestations of noxious weeds in the project area, and they are known to exist both in open areas and along the roads and trails. Species include: tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and Tamarisk (Tamarisk spp.) blessed milkthistle (Silybum marianum), Siberian melicgrass (Melica altissima), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Texas bluegrass (Poa arachnifera).

Infestations of Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) exist along roads leading to the project area. They could be introduced to the project area by vehicles traveling along the road.


Direct and Indirect Effects Changing roads to non-motorized and decommissioning other roads and campgrounds would reduce vehicle traffic from past levels (prior to the fire and flooding) in some areas. It would also decrease the footprint of roads and trails, which would result in less ground disturbance, and therefore, reduce the amount of habitat conducive to noxious weed invasion.



The road and trail reclassifications and campground decommissioning proposed in the La Brea Restoration Project would reduce the risk of invasion by noxious weeds by reducing ground disturbance and reducing the amount of area disturbed.

The proposed action was determined to be a low risk for noxious weed introduction or spread within the project area. Once native vegetation begins to reestablish, the risk for noxious weed infestations would be reduced. Mitigation measures were also identified to further reduce the risk:

• Treat and remove existing infestations at the project site

• Monitor the site for new infestations.

• Treat and remove any new infestations.

Cumulative Effects The project area overlaps the entire Pine Canyon grazing allotment, as well as small portions of the Porter and South Fork La Brea grazing allotments. About 60 percent of the La Brea Restoration project area is also within the 2009 La Brea Fire perimeter. Plant surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2013 on the grazing allotments that cover most of the La Brea Restoration project area. All the species listed above were found during surveys conducted for other projects that overlap the La Brea Restoration project area and during the Burned Area Emergency Response surveys during the past few years. The resulting effects are the same as described for direct and indirect effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects The risk of noxious weed infestation would be lowest with this alternative, as native vegetation would eventually cover much of the previously disturbed area, thus removing area previously susceptible to invasion.

Cumulative Effects Same as described for alternative 1.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would result in the highest risk of noxious weed infestation. Opening closed roads and trails and maintaining them would result in a larger continuously disturbed area open for weed infestation.


Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects Adding the new motorized trail connecting Road 11N04.3 and Trail 31W14 would increase the risk of invasive noxious weeds from entering an area with potentially no current infestations. However, the location of the new proposed motorized trail has never been surveyed, so its current state is unknown.


102


Heritage Resources A summary of the analysis that was conducted for Heritage Resources within the La Brea Restoration project area is provided in this section of the EA. The complete report, which includes additional background information and analysis methodology is filed in the project record. For heritage resources, identifying the area of potential effect (APE) for undertakings is a regulatory process, per the 2018 USFS Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) Amended Programmatic Agreement with the California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, (ARPA 2018) Stipulation 7.3). This process involves an initial review of the activities included in the proposed undertaking and identification of the geographic area that likely encompasses both the immediate and long-term effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) of proposed undertakings on the types of resources known to be present in the study area. For this project, the APE includes the La Brea, Colson, and Bear Canyon drainages of the Santa Lucia Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest in addition to the northwestern boundary of the San Rafael Wilderness Area, which forms the southeastern boundary of the proposed undertaking along the North Fork of La Brea Creek and Kerry Canyon.

Existing Condition Heritage resources in the La Brea APE comprise 49 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and paleontological resources. This includes 44 previously documented archaeological sites, and 5 additional heritage resources documented as a result of this analysis.

Twenty-four of these archaeological sites are located on or adjacent to the currently closed travel routes and recreation areas in the La Brea Restoration Project proposed action and alternatives. Twenty-two of the 24 are known historic properties (prehistoric or historic resources that are deemed significant, or eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places), and 2 are resources found to be ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. These sites are currently managed through avoidance and monitoring. The remaining twenty-five known heritage resources are located in the vicinity of the proposed action and alternatives, within the heritage resource APE. These resources include twenty-three additional historic properties and two resources that are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

In order to reach a finding of no adverse effect, all historic properties with the potential to be affected by the proposed undertaking would need to be managed through the implementation of approved standard protection measures, per the 2018 Amended USFS Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) Programmatic Agreement (ARPA 2018 Appendix E).

Under the current road closure (i.e., current condition), the heritage resources in the La Brea Restoration project area have been afforded some protection with respect to the direct effects of road, trail and campground repair, maintenance and use. However, closures in areas with roads and motorized trails where people frequently operate off-road vehicles such as motorcycles and ATVs have additional risks for adverse effects on heritage resources. This is particularly true in areas popular among individuals with off-road vehicles and access to back roads and Forest inholdings. In these areas, archaeological sites must be monitored and their proximity to known travel routes scrutinized, as individuals with off-road motorized vehicles may cause significant damage to



archaeological resources through inadvertent effect, and unfortunately sometimes also through intentional vandalism and unauthorized collection or looting. These types of illegal and damaging activities are more likely to occur in situations where Forest oversight and management of heritage resources are limited, and without the public examination and inquiry that occurs in open recreation areas.

Desired Condition The desired condition of heritage resources on the Forest is to “protect heritage resources for cultural and scientific value and public benefit” (USDA 2005a:126). These goals are tiered to the National Strategic Plan for USFS resources. The Forest will manage local heritage resources such that they protect the values that make them significant for the use and benefit of the American people (USDA 2005c:5). The Los Padres National Forest’s plan for managing these valuable resources includes the following components (USDA 2005a:126-127):

“…document all known significant cultural properties to identify any activity that does or has the potential to adversely affect, or (which) does not complement the site. Develop measures to mitigate the adverse effects or impacts;”

“Use partnerships to implement site management plans for heritage resource sites, focusing on those sites with recognized significance or are at-risk from public or land use effects;” and

“Evaluate historic sites for appropriate management. Develop site management plans for noteworthy heritage resources wherever they occur.”


Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 1, the proposed action, appears to have the greatest potential to protect historic properties in the La Brea watershed, and to contribute to the management of heritage resources in a manner desirable and consistent with the USDA Pacific Southwest Region LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005c) and the Los Padres Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005a) for managing Forest heritage resources: to “protect heritage resources for cultural and scientific value and public benefit” (USDA Forest Service 2005a:126), manage local heritage resources such that they protect the values that make them significant for the use and benefit of the American people (USDA Forest Service 2005c:5). Historic properties would be managed through the Forest Service “Standard Protection Measures” of buffering, avoidance, and monitoring (ARPA 2018, Stip. 7.8 (2) (a) (b) Appendix E), and the Forest finds that the proposed action of the La Brea Restoration Project would not have adverse effects on heritage resources.

Direct and Indirect Effects To avoid adverse effects to historic properties associated with this undertaking, eight of the nine elements of the proposed action (alternative 1) would require coordination of project activities with the Los Padres North Zone Archaeologist to implement standard protection measures for 23 historic properties located adjacent to the roads, trails, travel routes and recreation areas in the proposed action. Required standard protection measures include buffering, avoiding, and monitoring archaeological sites, with buffering and monitoring specifics managed case-by-case and coordinated by the Heritage Program Archaeologist designated for the North Zone of the Los Padres National Forest (ARPA 2018 Appendix E). Required standard protection measures or mitigations for heritage resources are listed by alternative in the table in appendix C. In some cases, avoidance may be


104

accomplished by flagging an appropriate buffer. In others, a qualified archaeologist would be required on site during project activities. Additional documentation may be needed to avoid historic properties at two locations with proposed improvements, including evaluation and testing at archaeological sites. The design features of the proposed improvement would be modified, if necessary, to avoid adverse effects to historic properties.

The proposed action would not directly affect the remaining twenty-five (25) archaeological sites in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), but reopening trails, roads, and travel routes, and closing and decommissioning campgrounds associated with the recreation area would likely increase the use of adjacent trails and roads, as well as public use of the entire APE, and, this would result in increased potential for use, encounters, and potential effects on historic properties. Monitoring would aid the Forest in managing these resources consistent with the Los Padres National Forest LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005a), as well as increase the effectiveness of the site protection measures used to avoid direct effects associated with the proposed action and subsequent renewed and additional use of Forest resources (ARPA 2018 Appendix E 1.0 Class I: Avoidance (1.5)).

Although specific avoidances and site protections are not required for the additional twenty-three known historic properties within the APE, some of these sites may also be monitored after implementation of the undertaking described in the Proposed Action in order to identify and evaluate possible indirect effects associated with the La Brea Restoration Project Proposed Action (per ARPA 2018, Appendix E).

Overall, the condition and management practices of heritage resources is expected to improve with implementation of the proposed action, with an outcome consistent with the Los Padres National Forest LMP goals for protecting, documenting, and managing significant heritage resources (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on heritage resources include all anticipated direct, indirect and long-term effects associated with the proposed undertaking over time, in addition to the effects of connected actions and other anticipated actions or undertakings within the heritage resource APE in the reasonably foreseeable future. The cumulative effects of an undertaking on the quality of the human environment over time may be greater than the sum of each individual or immediate effect, and must also be considered when analyzing the likely effects of proposed undertakings on Forest heritage resources.

There are no connected actions associated with the La Brea Restoration Project that are not part of and already considered in the analyses for this Environmental Assessment. Other anticipated actions within the APE in the reasonably foreseeable future are limited to grazing, possible wildfires and fire-related prescriptions such as fuel breaks in the project area, as occurred within the project area during the Alamo fire in 2017 (also during the NEPA analysis for this project). These types of activities include the use of roads, trails and travel routes, and the re-opening of previously used fuel breaks, sometimes using bulldozers, and/or prescribed burning of hazardous fuels. These actions are ongoing and constitute continuing potential effects, whereas the La Brea Restoration Project represents a change in the current state of the APE, and potential additional effects on heritage resources.

For heritage resources, the effects of each of these actions/undertakings must be mitigated, per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act,



the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Sacred Sites Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and other applicable laws and USFS regulations, in addition to the evaluation of effects mandated in the National Environmental Policy Act.

In general, grazing, fires, suppression, and fuel reduction projects affect heritage resources differently than recreational activities, and may affect resources in different portions of the APE. The direct and indirect effects of grazing, fires, and fuel reduction projects on heritage resources will need to be considered in a separate analysis.

However, the likely cumulative effects associated with the proposed La Brea Restoration Project, continued/ongoing grazing within the APE, and possible future fires, suppression activities, fuel breaks, and hazardous fuels reduction projects in the APE, could include additional inadvertent effects to archaeological sites adjacent to roads, trails and recreation sites when these features are used (i.e. for fuel breaks, staging areas, cattle lanes or livestock transportation corridors, or livestock congregation areas), unless historic properties along these routes are protected/avoided and monitored to identify unanticipated and inadvertent effects (per the existing, amended USFS Region 5 Programmatic Agreement with the California State SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.)

The Proposed Action of the La Brea Restoration Project would thus likely benefit the condition of Heritage Resources in the APE, both immediately as a direct result of increased monitoring and protection of the heritage resources, and cumulatively, in the long run, as roads, trails and recreation areas would be managed for activities and public use in Colson Place that are more consistent with the Forest goal to “protect heritage resources for cultural and scientific value and public benefit” (USDA Forest Service 2005a:126) than the existing condition.

The cumulative effects would also include better protection and public enjoyment, with monitoring of historic properties throughout the APE, including those that may be directly or indirectly affected by recreational use of the La Brea watershed. In addition, the implementation of protection measures and increased monitoring of historic properties in popular areas in the heart of the Colson Place travel corridor, would likely have a cumulative positive effect on the quality of heritage resources. In conclusion, per implementation of the prescribed protection measures, there would likely be no adverse effect to historic properties associated with the Proposed Action.


Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative for the La Brea Restoration Project would require the implementation of standard protection measures to protect historic properties. For the most part, prescribed protection measures to avoid adverse effects to historic properties associated with this undertaking are identical to those in the proposed action (see appendix C) and include buffering, avoidance and monitoring to remain in compliance with the USDA Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) Programmatic Agreement (ARPA 2018), and consequently, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

However, under the no-action alternative, additional protection measures would be required to protect Forest historic properties 0507-53-046 and 0507-53-641, as additional cultural materials have recently been identified on or adjacent to currently used roads, parking areas, and travel routes within the boundaries of these archaeological sites. Each site includes the recent exposure of artifacts and cultural features due to erosion, likely exacerbated by damage to the vegetation and environment in


106

the project area associated with the fire and flooding in 2009 and 2010 that resulted in the original closure.

Under this alternative, these sites would need to be protected with off-site protection measures. All activities on or in the vicinity of the sites would be performed in consultation with the Heritage Program Archaeologist designated for the North Zone of the Los Padres National Forest, and a qualified archaeologist would need to be on site to monitor Forest activities.

Cumulative Effects Under the “No-Action Alternative” for the La Brea Restoration Project, historic properties would likely be afforded less protection than under the Proposed Action, particularly on the La Brea Road and the Kerry Trail, and at Colson Campground. The likely cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 include continued public use of roads and trails closed to motorized traffic (no change to the current state of resources in the APE); continued/ongoing grazing within the La Brea APE (no change to the current state); and possible future fires, suppression activities, fuel breaks, and hazardous fuels reduction projects within the APE (no change to the future, expected state), would be no adverse effect.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects In addition to the standard protection measures prescribed for the proposed action (alternative 1), additional protection measures would be required to avoid adverse effects for the activities described in alternative 3 (see Appendix C). These activities include the repair, restoration and re-opening of roads, off-road motorized trails, and campgrounds in the La Brea watershed that are currently closed to the public. This alternative would require additional coordination with road and trail engineers to avoid known archaeological sites and additional identification (i.e., heritage resource inventories) to identify alternative routes of avoidance on trails and roads.

At-risk historic properties would include prehistoric and historic sites located along La Brea Road and Kerry Trail, as well as Wagon Flat and Barrel Springs. In several cases, roads and trails would need to be routed around site buffers to avoid significant heritage sites that were impacted by erosion resulting from the fire and succeeding flooding events that preceded the road and trail closures at La Brea. In addition, historic properties located adjacent to motorized trails, and in the vicinity of adjacent trails accessible to motorcycles and OHVs, would have increased risk of vandalism and illegal excavation, or looting, and would require additional monitoring by qualified Heritage Program Staff, in coordination with the North Zone Archaeologist.

To avoid adverse effects to historic properties associated with this undertaking, all nine proposed elements of alternative 3 would require coordination of project activities with the Los Padres North Zone Archaeologist to implement standard protection measures for archeological sites. Required standard protection measures include buffering, avoiding, and monitoring archaeological sites, with buffering and monitoring specifics managed case-by-case and coordinated by the Heritage Program Archaeologist designated for the North Zone of the Los Padres National Forest (ARPA 2018 Appendix E). All sites along motorized roads, trails, and travel routes would minimally require buffering adequate for motorized traffic, avoidance, and monitoring. In some cases, avoidance may be accomplished by flagging an appropriate buffer. In others, a qualified archaeologist would be required on site during project activities.



Alternative 3 would also require implementing heritage resource inventory and site identification by qualified archaeologists in two areas, and the design and implementation of off-site protection measures (i.e., the use of barriers and screening such as natural vegetation and large fluvial boulders consistent with those within the La Brea channel) to protect historic properties from adverse effects associated with additional vehicle traffic and OHV vehicles, possibly with pipe fences in a few locations.

Overall, careful management of the historic properties within the APE would be required to avoid adverse effects to prehistoric and historic sites under this alternative. However, even if all direct effects could be prevented by implementing protection measures, the condition and quality of heritage resources are expected to diminish with increased motorized traffic in the APE, on the Kerry Trail and the La Brea Road in particular, with an outcome that is likely not consistent with the Los Padres National Forest LMP goals for protecting and managing heritage resources (USDA Forest Service 2005a, 2005c).

Cumulative Effects Alternative 3 of the La Brea Restoration Project would likely not benefit the condition or quality of heritage resources in the APE, or the interests of the public with respect to preservation of federally managed heritage resources. Although adverse effects may be prevented during the implementation of the improvements of trails, roads, and facilities associated with this alternative, the probability of inadvertent damage or adverse effects would increase at historic properties. This alternative is not the best to meet the Forest goal to “protect heritage resources for cultural and scientific value and public benefit” (USDA Forest Service 2005a:126), as the cumulative effects would include less protection of historic properties throughout the APE, including those directly or indirectly affected by recreational use of the La Brea watershed.

The anticipated direct, indirect and long-term, cumulative effects on known historic properties located adjacent to public roads, motorized trails and campgrounds over time, in addition to the effects of ongoing grazing, expected future wildfires, and expected fire suppression and fuel reduction activities in the APE in the reasonably foreseeable future would be increased erosion of resources, increased exposure of and encounters with fragile, significant sites with midden deposits, and increased degradation of the quality of historic properties throughout the APE. In this case, the cumulative effects of this undertaking on the quality of the human environment over time is expected to be greater than the sum of each individual or immediate effect.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects The actions proposed in alternative 4 are identical to those in elements 1 through 9 of the proposed action (alternative 1), with the addition of a new motorized trail (10). To avoid adverse effects to historic properties associated with this undertaking, eight of the ten elements of Alternative 4 would require coordination of project activities with the Los Padres North Zone Archaeologist to implement standard protection measures for twenty-three historic properties. Required standard protection measures include buffering, avoiding and monitoring archaeological sites, with buffering and monitoring specifics managed case-by-case and coordinated by the Heritage Program Archaeologist designated for the North Zone of the Los Padres National Forest (ARPA 2018 Appendix E). In some cases, avoidance may be accomplished by flagging an appropriate buffer. In others, a qualified archaeologist would be required on site during project activities


108

Additional documentation may be needed to avoid historic properties at two locations with proposed improvements, including evaluation and testing at archaeological sites. The design features of the proposed improvement would be modified, if necessary, to avoid adverse effects to historic properties.

An additional heritage resource inventory would be required of the proposed trail corridor and adjacent areas that may be affected by construction, maintenance, and use of the trail. Identified historic properties would need to be appropriately buffered for motorized off-road vehicle use and avoided, and protected with off-site protection measures (e.g., pipe fence) if warranted. The proximity of the proposed new trail and new trailhead to known historic properties may also warrant additional buffering and avoidance measures, with increased monitoring to identify potential effects. Additional design features and/or off-site protection measures, such as routing the new trail away from sites and/or screening sites with natural vegetation mosaics, would be considered to provide site protection, if needed.

In summary, additional heritage resource inventory, identification, and avoidance of historic properties would be required to mitigate the potential effects associated with a new OHV trail in the La Brea watershed, in addition to buffering, avoidance and possible off-site protection measures, and additional site monitoring.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects associated with the activities proposed in alternative 4 are likely to be similar to those in the proposed action (alternative 1), but because it includes an additional motorized trail, the probability of additional long-term indirect and cumulative effects on historic properties on adjacent trails throughout the APE is increased.

Additional heritage resource inventory, identification, and avoidance of historic properties would be required to mitigate the potential effects associated with a new OHV trail in the La Brea watershed, in addition to buffering, avoidance and possible off-site protection measures, and additional site monitoring.

Climate Change The Forest Service considers climate change in management and planning due to the link with forest vegetation, carbon sequestration, and production of greenhouse gasses. Climate change is a global phenomenon because the greenhouse gases causing warming mix throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere. Consequently, the effects of a proposed action on climate change and the effects of climate change on a proposed action should be considered.

In California, during the last 100 plus years, temperatures have increased and drought conditions have become more prevalent. The recent 2012 to 2014 drought was record-setting and severe, with the state experiencing the hottest and driest period since recorded climate history began in 1895.

A report completed for the Los Padres National Forest [“A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Los Padres National Forest and neighboring lands” (Molinari et al. n.d)] summarizes the local trends in climate over the past century and its effects on hydrology, fire, vegetation, and wildlife for management and planning. It also projects future trends in climate and climate-affected resources.



Climate trends appear to show that temperatures will continue to increase and summers will be drier in the future. Fire frequency and area burned is predicted to increase. Vegetation will shift woody plants to higher elevations, and there will be an increase in grasslands. Wildlife will be affected by all of the changes and will be vulnerable to declines in population if they cannot adapt or move.

A vulnerability assessment for habitats in Southern California, with a specific focus on four national forests (Angeles, San Bernardino, Cleveland, and Los Padres) was completed by EcoAdapt (2017). Two-page vulnerability assessment-adaptation strategy briefings were created for 12 habitats, including Chaparral, Oak Woodland, River and Stream Habitats and Riparian Habitats, which are found in the La Brea Restoration project area.

Projected climate and climate-driven changes include:

• Changes in precipitation and drought

• Increased temperatures

• Altered stream flows

• Altered fire regimes

Due to the small scale of the La Brea Restoration Project, the proposed action and alternatives would have very little, if any, effect on climate change. The changes to vegetation as a result of the proposed action and the alternatives would be very minor and impossible to measure. Motorized use of the area is expected to decrease from what it was before the fire of 2009, and flooding of 2010, in all of the alternatives.


110

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment. Consultation included in-person meetings, an open house, telephone conversations, and/or sharing the scoping package through direct mailings or by posting to the Forest’s Internet site.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies Natural Resources Conservation Service Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board California Fish and Wildlife Planning Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries State Historic Preservation Office

Tribes Santa Ynez Elders Council, Antonia Flores Salinan Tribe, Gary Pierce, Chairman Northern Chumash Council, Yak-Tityu

Others La Brea Ranch Justy Garcin Rancho Sisquoc Dustin Smith Jason Smith Paul Antolini John Haggerty Helios Dayspring Cynthia Parker Daniel Schiefelbien George Pratt Paul Mann Len Knight David Hogan, Center for Biological Diversity Jeff Kuyper, Los Padres Forest Watch Michael J. Conner, PhD, Western Watersheds Project Los Padres Chapter, Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra Club Santa Barbara County Trails Council Brian McMillan



References 2018 Amended USFS Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) Programmatic Agreement (ARPA 2018

Appendix E). heritage resources section

Ballard, G. and G.R. Geupel. 1998. Songbird monitoring on the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge 1995-1997. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Point Reyes Bird Observatory.

Beier, P. and R. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final Report for the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study.

Bielecki, C. 2014. La Brea Creek road repair project, engineering options. Unpublished report, on file with the Santa Lucia Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, resource specialist, 616 Carlotti Drive, Santa Maria, California 93454.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT 264, USDA Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Basin Plan. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/docs2017/2017_basin_plan_r3_complete.pdfEcoAdapt. 2017. Southern California Climate Adaptation Project. Climate change vulnerability assessment. Available online at: http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation-consultations/socal.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Shuster Inc., New York, New York.

Maloney, P.C. 2014. La Brea roads project watershed report. Unpublished report, on file with the Santa Lucia Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, resource specialist, 616 Carlotti Drive, Santa Maria, California 93454.

Malengo, K. 2014. La Brea Creek road repair project, fish and wildlife report. Unpublished report, on file with the Santa Lucia Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, resource specialist, 616 Carlotti Drive, Santa Maria, California 93454.

Marion 2006. Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Virginia Tech, Dept. of Forestry.

Marshall, J.T. 1948. Ecological races of song sparrows in the San Francisco Bay region. Part 1. Habitat and abundance. Condor 50:193–215.

Molinari, N., S. Sawyer, and H. Safford. n. d. A summary of current trends and probably future trends in climate and climate-driven processes in the Los Padres National Forest and neighboring lands. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 27 pp. Available online at: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/92563_FSPLT3_3949476.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Biological opinion for the U.S. Forest Service’s Los Padres National Forest ongoing activities in accordance with the Forest Service Land Management Plan,

http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation-consultations/socal

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/92563_FSPLT3_3949476.pdf

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/92563_FSPLT3_3949476.pdf


112

in portions of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Kern, California. August 2, 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, California. 116 pages + Appendices.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. National Marine Fisheries Service. West Coast Region. California Coastal Office. Long Beach, California.

Neal J.W., N.J. Harris, S. Kumaran, D.A. Behler, T.J. Lang, P.R. Port, M. Melandri, and B.G. Batten. 2007. Comparison of aquatic-insect habitat and diversity above and below road crossings in low-order streams. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 61:78-83.

Neary, D.G. 2002. Post-fire flood generation processes. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 32:71-76.

Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009. The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3):1483-1493.

Robichaud, P., L. Ashmun, and B. Sims. 2010. Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 pp.

Spowart, R.A. and F.B. Samson 1986. Carnivores. Pp. 475-496 In: A.Y. Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. Denver, Colorado.

Tyler, C.M., B. Kuhn, and F.W. Davis. 2006. Demography and recruitment limitations of three oak species in California. The Quarterly Review of Biology 81: 127–152.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1982. 1982 ROS Users Guide. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf (accessed November 8, 2017).

USDA Forest Service. 1986. 1986 ROS Book. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region, Goleta, California. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lpnf/landmanagement/planning/.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 2005a. Land management plan, part 2, Los Padres National Forest strategy. R5-MB-078. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337817.pdf

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 2005b. Land management plan, part 1 southern California national forests vision, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. R5-MB-078. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337816.pdf

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 2005c. Land management plan, part 3, design criteria for the southern California national forests, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. R5-MB-080. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337818.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lpnf/landmanagement/planning/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337817.pdf





USDA Forest Service. 2007. Los Padres National Forest MIS Report. Internal agency document. Goleta, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed condition classification technical guide. Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest. 2011a. Damage survey report of 11N04.4-3.1 Colson. Unpublished report, on file with the Los Padres National Forest, Supervisor's Office, forest engineer, 6750 Navigator Way, Suite 150, Goleta, California 93117.

USDA Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest. 2011b. Damage survey report of 11N04.4-5.7 Colson. Unpublished report, on file with the Los Padres National Forest, Supervisor's Office, forest engineer, 6750 Navigator Way, Suite 150, Goleta, California 93117.

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Motor Use Vehicle Map – Los Padres National Forest (Santa Lucia Ranger District). Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5291369.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on Forest Service System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a.

USDA Forest Service 2012a. Programmatic biological assessment of federally-listed species for the off-highway vehicle program, Los Padres National Forest. August 6, 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 38 pp. + Appendices

U.S. Forest Service. 2012b. Programmatic biological assessment of federally listed steelhead for the off-highway vehicle program, Los Padres National Forest. August 24, 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 20 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Programmatic biological assessment of federally listed wildlife species for the hiking trails program. September 1, 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 26 pp. + Appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Programmatic biological assessment of federally listed wildlife species that may be affected by transportation facility maintenance and use (2012 – 2022) on the Los Padres National Forest. August 15, 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 94 pp + Appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 2012e. Programmatic biological assessment for threatened, endangered, proposed and petitioned fish species that may be affected by transportation facilities maintenance, Los Padres National Forest. October 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 31 pp + Appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 2012f. Programmatic biological assessment of the hiking trails program on federally listed steelhead, Los Padres National Forest. September 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 9 pp + Appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 2012G. Programmatic biological assessment on-going forest activities associated with trailheads and campgrounds on federally listed steelhead, Los Padres National Forest. December 2012. Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 9 pp + Appendices.



114

USDA Forest Service. 2014. National Visitor Use Monitoring. Round 3. Los Padres National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region. Available online at: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/nvum/results/ReportCache/2014_A05007_Master_Report.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Los Padres National Forest Travel Analysis Report 2015. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd525492.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 97 pp. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf (accessed July 11, 2012).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds. Federal Register 75(39): 9282–9714.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 16 pp. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC%20Focal%20Species%20November%202011.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Biological opinion for ongoing activities associated with hiking trail use and maintenance, Los Padres National Forest, California (8-8-12-F-57). Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California. 26 pp. + Appendices.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Biological opinion for ongoing activities associated with the off-highway vehicle program, Los Padres National Forest, California (8-8-12-F-42). Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California. 33 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013c. Biological opinion for ongoing activities related to transportation facility maintenance and use, Los Padres National Forest, California (8-8-12-F-43). Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California. 47 pp + Appendix.

Wilkerson, E. and A.A. Whitman. 2010. Recreation trails in Maine and New Hampshire: A comparison of motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized trails. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, GTR-NRS-P-66.

Zavaleta, E.S., K.B. Hulvey and B. Fulfrost. 2007. Regional patterns of recruitment success and failure in two endemic California oaks. Diversity and Distributions 13: 735–745.

https://apps.fs.usda.gov/nvum/results/ReportCache/2014_A05007_Master_Report.pdf

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd525492.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC%20Focal%20Species%20November%202011.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC%20Focal%20Species%20November%202011.pdf



Appendices The following appendices support the EA in separate documents:

Appendix A- Maps

Appendix B- Road and Trail Classification and Maintenance

Appendix C- Project Design Features

la brea restoration project

Documents