strategic community fuelbreak improvement...

Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project

Heritage Report

Prepared by:

Bob Strickland

North Zone Archaeologist

Los Padres National Forest

for:

Monterey Ranger District

Los Padres National Forest

DATE – July 15, 2015

Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project, Heritage Report

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ..................................................................................... 2

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................ 2 Federal and State Laws ............................................................................................................ 3 Other Guidance or Recommendations ..................................................................................... 5

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 5

Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 5 Desired Condition .................................................................................................................... 9

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 10 Alternative 3 – Traditional Tools in Wilderness ................................................................... 11 Alternative 4 – Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 11 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................... 11 Required Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 11

References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 12

Tables

Table 1: Prehistoric time frame for the California Central Coast .................................................... 6 Table 2: Previous Adequate Surveys covering parts of the Fuelbreak APE ................................... 8 Table 3: Cultural Resource sites located within the Fuelbreak APE. .............................................. 9


2

Introduction This report provides an overview of the methods used to identify the types and distribution of cultural

resources within the Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project Area of Potential Effects

(Fuelbreak APE). Cultural Resources are defined here as prehistoric and historic archaeological resources,

architectural and built-environment resources, places important to Native Americans and other ethnic

groups, and human remains. The report assesses potential effects of the action and no-action alternatives

on cultural resources and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate effects on those resources

in the Fuelbreak APE.

Also discussed are the methods utilized, the affected environment and a brief description of the

environmental setting as it relates to the cultural resources that have been identified in the Fuelbreak APE,

and the regulatory framework involved, including the anticipated effects of the various alternatives.

The Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project is an undertaking as defined by the National

Historic Protection Act (NHPA). The NHPA requires identification and protection of cultural resources

from adverse effects. Identification is achieved through pre-field background investigations and intensive

surveys in the field. Site recordation, including site location and description, is part of the identification

phase. Protection for cultural resource sites that are at risk is afforded by one or more of the following

approved standard protection measures: (1) avoidance of cultural resources during project activities,

possibly including buffer zones; (2) modification or redesign of the project area, including the possibility

of elimination of some activities or areas; and (3) monitoring inspections during and/or after project

activities. The current project area is larger than the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Sites within the APE

would be identified and protected; such protection would not apply to parts of the project area where

adverse effects are not anticipated.

The California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has delegated authority regarding the National

Historic Preservation Act for routine undertakings to the Forest Heritage Program Manager through the

Forest Supervisor and Regional Forester. Only extraordinary events would require consultation with

SHPO. This delegation is through programmatic agreements dating back to 1995 with the most recent one

being dated February 6, 2013, and entitled “Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State

Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the

Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of

Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA 2013).

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan

The Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) provides standards and guidelines for

cultural resources.

LMP Reference Policy Content

LPNF LMP Part 2 Program

Strategy, p. 126

Her 1 – Heritage Resource Protection: Protect heritage resources for

cultural and scientific value and public benefit.


3

LPNF LMP Part 3 Design Criteria – Cultural and Historic Standards, p. 13S60 – Until proper evaluation

occurs, known heritage resource sites shall be afforded the same consideration and protection as those

properties evaluated as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places LPNF LMP Part 3 Design

Criteria – Cultural and Historic Standards, p. 13

LPNF LMP Part 3 Design Criteria – Cultural and Historic Standards, p. 13

S61 – Leave human remains which are not under jurisdiction of the County Coroner undisturbed unless

there is an urgent reason for their disinterment. In case of accidental disturbance of human remains,

follow National Forest, Federal, and Tribal policies.

S62 – Protect the access to and the use of sensitive traditional tribal use areas.

Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM2360) provides the basis of specific Forest Service cultural resource

management practices.

Federal and State Laws

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966 as amended). This act requires federal agencies such

as the Forest Service to work with the state Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) and the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), an independent federal agency, to deal with possible adverse

effects on historic properties. As such, this law provides the primary guidance for the preservation of

historic and prehistoric archaeological materials and standing historic buildings and structures. Section

106 of the Act requires that any project involving U.S. government actions, lands, funds, or permits

undergo a process that ensures that careful consideration will precede activities that might damage or

destroy cultural resources.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (1966, as amended) also requires Federal

agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. Historic properties are resources

listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A property may be listed

in the NRHP if it meets criteria provided in the NRHP regulations (36 DFR 60.4). The first step toward

potential listing is an evaluation to determine potential eligibility for the NRHP. As a matter of policy, all

prehistoric and historic properties are considered eligible until they are evaluated and determined not

eligible for the NRHP (LMP Part 3, p. 13).

Eligibility for the NRHP requires “significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,

engineering, and culture” in “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

our history; or

b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c) That employ the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that

represent the work of a master, or that possess artistic value, or that represent a significant and

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Federal Regulations for the NHPA can be found in 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties),

36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 36 CFR 296

(Protection of Archaeological Resources).


4

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990). This act establishes

procedures for the inadvertent discovery or planned excavation of Native American “cultural items” on

federal or tribal lands. It also makes it a criminal offence to traffic in Native American human remains

without right of possession or in Native American cultural items obtained in violation of the Act. Also

important is the requirement that federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding to return

“cultural items” to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian

organizations. “Cultural items” include “human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of

patrimony.”

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (1970) Section 15064.5(e). This section of the law

specifies rules that apply where human remains are encountered during project implementation. In the

event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains the following steps will be taken:

1. Activities will stop in the immediate area;

2. The county coroner will be contacted to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is

required;

3. If the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage

Commission with 24 hours;

4. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be

the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American; and

5. The most likely descendant may make recommendations regarding continuation of activities in

the area where the remains were found, treating or disposing with appropriate dignity the human

remains and any associated grave goods.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (1979, amended 1988). This law provides civil

and criminal penalties for damaging any archaeological resource more than 100 years of age found on

Federal or Indian lands. The criminal charge reaches the level of a felony if the damage assessment

exceeds $500. The law also sets the guidelines for legitimate archaeological investigations which require

an ARPA permit.

Executive Order 13007 (1996) requires Federal agencies to establish a process to ensure that affected

Indian tribes are provided reasonable notice of proposed Federal actions or policies that may affect Indian

sacred sites, including maintaining confidentiality of sacred sites and avoiding affects to the physical

integrity of such sites.

Executive Order 13175 (2000) directs Federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation

and collaboration with Tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have Tribal

implications, to strengthen relationships with Indian tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded

mandates upon Indian tribes.

These laws and regulations guide the Forest Service in identifying, evaluating and protecting cultural

resources on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service is required to consider the effects of

agency actions on cultural resources that are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP) or on cultural properties not yet evaluated for eligibility. Department of Interior

“Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation” are also an important element of federal

agencies’ management of cultural resources on public lands.


5

Other Guidance or Recommendations

Additional guidance and management recommendations come from the Programmatic Agreement among

the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation

Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for

Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional

PA) and the Region 5 Hazardous Fuels Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous

Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects.

Methodology The first task in Section 106 review is to define the Area of Potential Effect (APE), which is the area of

analysis for cultural resources. The Fuelbreak APE includes the Treatment Areas, access routes, and

possible assembly and staging areas. This identification process begins in the office, where specific

geographic areas are searched using the Heritage GIS and database systems to identify survey reports and

records of cultural resource sites within the APE. These reports and records are then analyzed to assess

adequacy of the previous surveys and reports and to determine if the site records meet current standards.

Paper copies of these reports and site records are located at both the Monterey Ranger District Heritage

office in King City and at the Los Padres National Forest Heritage office at the Los Prietos Ranger Station

near Santa Barbara.

If the project area is completely covered by adequate previous surveys, further identification research may

not be necessary (Regional PA 2013); and the analysis and recommendations could be handled without

field work. In the case of widespread or complex undertakings such as the current project, this is not

usually the case; and field work is required. Field work would cover areas not previously surveyed with

the exception of steep slopes, which have low sensitivity for cultural resources, and areas covered with

dense vegetation, which limits the visibility of or completely obscures cultural resources. On the other

hand, previously surveyed areas with high sensitivity for cultural resources may be resurveyed. Newly

discovered cultural resources are recorded, and previously recorded sites are verified and their site records

brought up to date, as appropriate.

The project is permitted to proceed when there are no identified cultural resources in the subject areas. If

cultural resources are present, procedures must be in place to prevent adverse effects to the resources. In

addition, there is the stipulation that if cultural resources are discovered during implementation, then the

activities in the immediate area must cease until the appropriate Forest archaeologist is notified and has

addressed the situation.

Tribal Consultation Tribal consultation was conducted for this project by Pete Crowheart, Los Padres National Forest Tribal

Relations Liaison.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Cultural resources include both prehistoric and historic archaeological materials, the built environment

(such as standing structures and buildings over 50 years of age), Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs),

and Sacred Sites and Places. The most likely prehistoric cultural resources within the Fuelbreak APE are

milling stations with bedrock mortars and sparse lithic scatters, along with isolated finished stone tools


6

such as projectile points, pestles, and hammerstones. Old roads and trails, stock ponds, fence lines, and

cabin remains associated with homesteads and livestock grazing are the most likely historic cultural

resources that would be found within the Fuelbreak APE. Evidence of hunting and fire suppression

activities are likely present; however, these are more recent in age.

Prehistoric Setting

The Fuelbreak project area falls within the Central Coast, defined by Jones et al. (2007), as “the region

south of San Francisco Bay and north of the Southern California Bight, encompassing the South or

Central Coast Ranges west of the Great Valley.”

Jones et al. (2007), following earlier precedents, suggest a cultural-historical framework based on the

presence of distinctive shell bead types, projectile points, and other durable tool technologies for the

Central Coast (Table 1).

Table 1: Prehistoric time frame for the California Central Coast

Period Time Frame Associated Artifacts / Subsistence Base

Paleo-Indian pre-8000 cal. B.C. Basally thinned and fluted projectile points, known as Clovis, found as widely distributed isolates throughout the continental U.S. and in California but rare in the Central Coast Region. Diet includes big game.

Millingstone 8000 to 3500 cal. B.C.

Milling slabs (metates) and large well-made handstones (manos); crude core and cobble-core tools; and large side-notched projectile points but otherwise few flake tools. Earlier sites are near the coast with marine food sources predominating; deer and rabbit dominate at later sites in the interior.

Early 3500 to 600 cal. B.C A greater emphasis on hunting game of all sizes, as evidenced by faunal remains and a proliferation of well-made projectile points. Beginning of a “Hunting Culture.”

Middle 600 cal B.C.

to cal. A.D. 1000 Continuation of the Hunting Culture and ending as hunting appears to be less prominent.

Middle/Late Transition

cal. A.D. 1000 to 1250

Transition. Bow and arrow makes appearance but in minor way.

Late cal1. A.D. 1250

to 1769

Desert side-notched and Cottonwood arrow points. Mortar & pestle, especially bedrock mortars. Acorns are a major part of diet. It is inferred that the leaching process that makes acorn meal less bitter has been discovered.

1.cal. indicates that the radiocarbon date has been corrected using standard calibration tables developed over the past 15-20 years. The correction is necessary to compensate for the fact that the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 is not constant, as originally believed when the technique was developed in 1949,

The periods following Paleo-Indian times coincide with three major cultural divisions, marked by highly

distinctive tool assemblages, suggested by Greenwood (1972) at Diablo Canyon. These are referred to as

the Millingstone, Hunting Culture, and Late Period cultural divisions.

Millingstone Culture (8000 to 3500/3000 cal B.C.) “is consistently marked by large numbers of well-

made handstones and/or millingslabs, crude core and cobble-core tools, and less abundant flake tools and

large side-notched projectile points” (p. 135). It was a broad spectrum hunting and gathering economy

that exploited shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals; seed collection and milling using the manos and

grinding slicks were especially important.

Hunting Culture (3500/3000 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1000/1250) is marked by large stemmed and notched

projectile points and other large bifaces (a flaked stone tool worked on both sides). Many new settlements

are established. Portable mortars and pestles appear for the first time but in low numbers. Circular shell


7

fishhooks appear, but bone gorges (straight “fishhooks” with a hafting groove in the center) persist. The

bow and arrow eventually appears as evidenced by the appearance of small leaf-shaped projectile points.

Late Period (cal A.D. 1250 to 1769), in which the bow and arrow is a dominant hunting weapon, as

evidenced by profusions of Desert side-notched and Cottonwood arrow points. Also common are small

bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, distinctive Olivella beads and steatite disk beads.

Interior sites proliferate; and so do coastal sites but in much fewer numbers.

Ethnographic Setting

Although occupied by a variety of groups with different linguistic roots, the Central Coast region appears

to have been occupied by peoples who shared common economic, technological, and sociopolitical

characteristics. Two ethnographic native peoples occupied the project area prior to the Spanish conquest

beginning in the late eighteenth century. The Esselen occupied most of the area and the Sargentaruc

Ohlone (Costanoan) inhabited the north near Bottchers Gap. Current evidence indicates that the Ohlone

were “newcomers,” having arrived in the Monterey Bay region over 2,000 years ago but still at least

5,000 years after the Esselen arrival. By the time the Spanish arrived in the 18th century, the Esselen were

relatively few in numbers, occupying a shrinking territory; and, it has been erroneously reported, the

Esselen were the first California tribe to become extinct (Breschini and Haversat 2004).

Historic Era Setting

Many of the prominent historical events that occurred in the Central Coast region, including European

maritime exploration, the establishment of Spanish missions, and the Californian gold rush, appear to

have happened with little direct impact on the Fuelbreak APE.

History avoided the Fuelbreak APE during the years of European exploration, including the maritime

expeditions along the California coast led by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo (1542-1543), Sir Francis Drake

(1578), and Sebastian Vizcaino (1602) and the voyages of the Manilla Galleons (1565-1815) that brought

exotic goods from China to Mexico (Acapulco) in exchange for New World silver (Fink, p. 17-22).

The later land routes of Don Gaspar de Portola (1769) came to the Salinas River and its mouth on

Monterey Bay and, later, to Monterey, but were still many miles from the Fuelbreak APE. It is probable

that indirect influence from European exploration had been felt long before direct people-to-people

contact in the form of stories, trade goods, and communicable diseases.

The Spanish missions, presidios, and pueblos were established soon after the 1769 Portola expedition;

and eventually a chain of 21 missions were established between San Diego and Sonoma, connected by the

Camino Real. Mission San Carlos del Borromeo was established in Carmel and led to the first substantial

contact between Esselen and Ohlone natives and the Spanish.

When Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1822, the missions in Alta California were closed,

and the church property was converted to the state. During the early 1840s, the Mexican government

issued numerous large “land grants,” mainly to prominent citizens of Alta California. None of these land

grants were located within the Fuelbreak APE, but one, Rancho El Sur, granted on July 30, 1834, is

nearby on the Big Sur coast.

Aside from the development of the missions and their subsequent closure, the events of the 16th, 17th,18th

, and early 19th centuries had no direct effect on the Fuelbreak area. Similarly, many of the historically

notable developments of the mid 19th century, including the California gold rush, California statehood, the

early land rush, the floods of 1861, and the severe drought of 1862-1865, also had little effect on the

Fuelbreak area (Blakley and Barnette 1985).


8

The 1862 Homestead Act had little impact until the early 1880s, when the quest for land brought

homesteaders, resulting in the many square miles of privately owned inholdings within the Forest.

The Forest Reserve Act, passed in March 1891, gave the President of the United States the power to

create forest reserves from the land still in the public domain. Through this Act, the Monterey Forest

Reserve, which included the current project area, was created on June 25, 1906. The Reserve was

converted to the Monterey National Forest on March 4, 1907, and was transferred to the Santa Barbara

National Forest on August 18, 1919. On December 3, 1936, Santa Barbara National Forest was renamed

Los Padres National Forest. Fire suppression and watershed preservation were important from the very

birth of Los Padres National Forest (Brown 1942:33-34).

Current Setting

Wildfire is endemic in the chaparral environment that makes up much of the project area. Since the

withdrawal of public lands to create the Monterey Forest Reserve in 1906, a number of local wildfires

have spread relatively rapidly to eventually cover large areas within and adjacent to the Fuelbreak APE.

Recent large fires include the Basin Complex (2008 – 163,600 acres), Kirk Complex (1999 – 85,800

acres), and Marble Cone (1977 – 155,700 acres). Smaller fires have also burned over parts of the project

area: Devil (1954 – 13,094 acres), Molera (1972 – 3,931 acres), Bottcher (1986 - 2,557 acres), Molera II

(1989 – 3,931 acres), and Sur (1996 – 4,407 acres). Firelines have been constructed along strategic

ridgetops, commonly with the use of heavy equipment in attempts to quickly head off potential wildfire

spread. Most of the ridgetops included in the current project have already been subjected to repeated

dozer activities, resulting in churned soils. Previous and post fire cultural resource surveys have covered a

large percentage of the currently proposed fuelbreaks resulting in the discovery of a limited number of

archaeological sites, most of these being prehistoric milling stations consisting of bedrock mortars.

Ridgetops are most likely to have been used as travel routes and temporary camps (especially in saddles),

evidence of which could remain as sparse lithic scatters and isolated stone tools such as projectile points.

A records search at Los Prietos and King City ranger stations identified five intensive cultural resource

surveys within the Area of Potential Effect (Table 2). Three other surveys were conducted in connection

with the Fuelbreak project.

Table 2: Previous Adequate Surveys covering parts of the Fuelbreak APE

SURVEY REPORT NUMBER

PROJECT NAME YEAR REPORTER

Molera II Incident 1989 Dan Segotta

Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy Facility, Chews Ridge, MRD

1990 Stephen Horne

Sur Fire Suppression and Rehabilitation 1997 Andrea Maliarik

Kirk Complex Suppression and Rehabilitation 1999 Andrea Maliarik

Turner Creek Trail – VWA 2010 Maintenance 2010 Bob Strickland

Mt Manuel Trail – Maintenance and Continuing Use 2014 Bob Strickland

De Angulo Trail – Maintenance and Continuing Use 2014 Bob Strickland

Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project 2015 Bob Strickland

The most recent survey was conducted specifically for this project (HRR 0507-51:1213, Strategic

Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project) intermittently between 2012 and 2015. Four previously

recorded prehistoric bedrock mortar sites and the historic Chews Ridge Lookout Tower are present within

the Area of Potential Effect. The bedrock mortar sites are generally situated as follows: (1) immediately


9

adjacent to the tread of an access trail, (2) 10 meters off the tread of an access trail, (3) 25 to 40 meters off

the center of an old dozer line/4-wheel drive road but within a treatment area, and (4) on the far edge of a

treatment area but about 25 meters downslope of the ridgetop.

The specific known sites found within the Area of Potential Effect are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Cultural Resource sites located within the Fuelbreak APE.

Number FS/Trinomial Description Comments – Mitigation

Milling station with 5 bedrock mortars (formed on sandstone)

Flag and avoid (Regional PA 2013)

Milling station with 1 bedrock mortar (formed on sandstone)


Milling station with 6 bedrock mortars (formed on granitic rocks)


Milling station with 3 bedrock mortars (formed on granitic rocks)


Chews Ridge Lookout Flag and avoid (Regional PA 2013)

The substantial ground disturbance due to fire suppression and contingency operations throughout the

Fuelbreak area makes the discovery of additional significant cultural resource sites unlikely.

Desired Condition

The desired condition of the cultural resource sites is the current condition. Prehistoric archaeological

sites have been subjected to natural and artificial (man-made) events over hundreds of years. These events

have resulted in data loss and data scrambling to varying degrees over time. Changes that have occurred

since the initial recording by an archaeologist are referred to as adverse effects when they result in data

loss and increased difficulty in interpretation. The Desired Condition would be one without adverse

effects, usually meaning no change.

The condition of the immediate area surrounding the cultural resources could also have consequences,

such as clearing vegetation and exposing the bedrock mortars or creating bare ground that could make

lithic artifacts more obvious.

On the other hand, the desired condition of the surrounding environment is one that would ensure that

changes to the cultural resources do not occur. Examples of the environmental conditions that could result

in adverse effects on cultural resources are the presence of heavy fuel loads that could result in high

intensity fires (conditions that would result in low intensity fires would be preferred), and the absence of

ground cover or light vegetation that would make the archaeological constituents less obvious to potential

looters.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects

Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no potential for direct effects to cultural resources, because

there would be no project activities in the Fuelbreak APE.


10

Indirect Effects

Failure to create and improve the fuelbreaks would maintain the current heavy fuel loads and risk high

intensity wildfires that could affect cultural resources in the Fuelbreak APE. The lack of strategic

fuelbreaks could result in more widespread wildfires, potentially affecting currently unknown cultural

resources and exposing them to the risks of looting and vandalism. Effects could extend beyond the

Fuelbreak APE onto the adjacent slopes and drainages.

Cumulative Effects

Failure to create and improve the fuelbreaks would maintain the current heavy fuel loads and risk high

intensity and more widespread wildfires that could affect cultural resources. Cultural resources could be

affected by the actions of both wildfire and suppression activities. Activities conducted during

emergencies have greater risk for cultural resource damage than those carried out in a less hurried, more

routine fashion.

Compliance with Forest Plan and other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

Cultural resource management is regulated by federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in

identifying, evaluating, and protecting cultural resources and addressing tribal concerns. Both of the

alternatives would comply with federal laws. The Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan

tiers to these laws; therefore, the proposed action alternatives will meet Forest Plan standards.

Summary of Effects

Failure to improve the fuelbreaks would increase the risk of cultural resource loss to looters or damage by

fire and suppression activities in the treatment areas and in adjacent areas not protected from wildfire

spread. The fuelbreak improvements would serve to restrict the spread of wildfire, resulting in smaller

fires than might otherwise occur.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action is to re-establish and maintain 24 miles of historically used fuelbreaks that are

situated within wilderness and non-wilderness areas.

Direct Effects

The undertaking would have no potential for direct effects to known cultural resources, which would be

protected by the “flag and avoid” provision within the Regional PA (2013). It is possible that unknown

cultural resources exist within the Fuelbreak APE. If discovered during implementation, all newly

discovered cultural resources would be verified, recorded, and protected.

Indirect Effects

Improvement of the fuelbreaks would reduce the current heavy fuel loads and create conditions for low

intensity fires. The strategic fuelbreaks are intended to curtail the spread of wildfires, potentially affecting

currently unknown cultural resources and exposing them to the risks of looting and vandalism. Dispersed

camping by hikers already occurs on the fuelbreak ridgetops, and even more hiking and camping can be

expected when the fuelbreaks are more open to pedestrian travel, which could lead to an increase in

casual artifact collection by the public.

Cumulative Effects

Substantial ground disturbance exists throughout the APE as a result of previous fire suppression

activities, including dozer line and road construction. Expected prehistoric cultural resource sites in the

Fuelbreak APE would be small and fragile and few in number. There is no way of knowing whether such


11

sites have already been destroyed by fires or fire suppression. Improving the fuelbreaks would reduce the

current heavy fuel loads and decrease the risk of high intensity and more widespread wildfires that could

affect cultural resources. Cultural resources could be affected by the actions of both wildfire and

suppression activities. Activities conducted during emergencies have greater risk for cultural resource

damage than those carried out in a more deliberative fashion. Six cultural resource sites are known to

exist within the Fuelbreak APE. The presence of additional sites is possible and could be discovered

during the implementation phase of the fuelbreaks improvement project.

Compliance with Forest Plan and other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

Cultural resource management is regulated by federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in

identifying, evaluating, and protecting cultural resources and addressing tribal concerns. Both of the

alternatives would comply with federal laws. The Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan

tiers to these laws; therefore, the proposed action alternatives will meet Forest Plan standards. By

incorporating the above mitigation measures, the proposed action alternatives will meet Forest LMP

standards and comply with the legal mandate to protect cultural resources.

Alternative 3 – Traditional Tools in Wilderness

Alternative 3 proposes the same treatments and locations of proposed fuelbreaks outside of wilderness as

in Alternative 2. Fuelbreaks in wilderness will be in the same locations as in Alternative 2; however they

will be constructed and maintained using only traditional tools.

The same effects noted for Alternative 2 would apply to this alternative.

Alternative 4 – Preferred Alternative

Alternative 4 proposes the same treatments and locations of proposed fuelbreaks in and outside of

wilderness as in Alternative 2 with the addition of herbicide application on freshly cut stumps and staubs

to fuelbreaks outside of wilderness.

The same effects noted for Alternative 2 would apply to this alternative.

Summary of Effects

Improving the fuelbreaks could result in slightly increased risk of cultural resource loss to looters but

decrease the possibility damage by fire and suppression activities in the treatment areas and in adjacent

areas that would have greater protection from wildfire spread.

Required Monitoring

The cultural resource sites identified in this report will be monitored by qualified archaeologists

immediately before and following project implementation according to the schedule of project activities.


12

References Cited Blakley, E.R. and K. Barnette. 1985. Historical Overview of Los Padres National Forest. Unpublished

report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Los Padres National Forest. On file at:

Los Padres National Forest, Monterey Ranger District, King City, California.

Breschini, G.S., T. Haversat, C. King, and R. Milliken. 2004. Ethnographic Overview of the Los Padres

National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta,

California.

Brown, W.S. 1945. History of Los Padres National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Region, Los Padres National Forest. On file at: Los Padres National Forest,

Monterey Ranger District, King City, California.

Fagan, B., 2003. Before California – An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. Walnut Creek,

California: Bowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Fink, A., 1972. Monterey County – The Dramatic Story of Its Past. Santa Cruz, California: Western

Tanager Press / Valley Publishers.

Greenwood, R. S., 1972. 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California.

San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers no. 7.

Jones, T. L., N. E. Stevens, D. A. Jones, R. T. Fitzgerald, and M. G. Hylkema. 2007. “The Central Coast:

A Midlatitude Milieu.” In: Jones and Klar eds.: California Prehistory – Colonization, Culture, and

Complexity (Lanham, Maryland: Alta Mira Press), 125–146.

Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), the

California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Processes for Compliance with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the

National Forest of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA 2013).

Rodgers, David, 1989. “A History of the Monterey Ranger District of Los Padres National Forest, Santa

Lucia Mountains, Monterey County, California” Double Cone Quarterly, Summer Solstice 2002.

Available online at: http://www.ventanawild.org/news/ss02/mrd.html (accessed August 8, 2012)

West, T.L., 1992. Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service. Washington, D.C.: United States

Department of Agriculture

strategic community fuelbreak improvement...

Documents