http://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Nikkii&feedformat=atomCCoWS Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T11:54:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.2http://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_(CDFW)California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)2017-04-11T22:34:13Z<p>Nikkii: /* Law Enforcement Division */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:CDFW-Logo-228x300.jpg|300px|thumb|right|California Department of Fish and Wildlife logo. Retrieved from California Department of Fish and Wildlife.[http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a state agency under the [[California Natural Resources Agency]]. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats. CDFW divides the State of California into seven management regions and is responsible for managing recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses. It also works to prevent illegal poaching.<br />
<br />
== History in California==<br />
[[File:1915troutstocking.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1915- Commission employees unload trout fingerlings from a rail car to be stocked in California streams. Retrieved from the Website for Retired California Game Wardens [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
[[File:1958marinewardens.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1958- Two game wardens check nets to ensure they meet commercial fishing regulations. Retrieved from the Website for Retired California Game Wardens [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has a long history in California: <ref> [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0ahUKEwiL3Y7VpITTAhWHLmMKHU_WASMQFghXMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D23573&usg=AFQjCNGxlm6R1GVwY9cAB6JfkPUKvjEXhw&sig2=cGhSfRawia0fowH6hpbFzA&cad=rja Author unknown. 1999. Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California. Division of Fish and Game. [Cited April 2017]]</ref> <br />
<br />
*Pre 1851 - Spanish and Mexican game and fish laws applied<br />
<br />
*1850s - California's first official fish and game laws established to protect species such as oysters elk, deer, salmon and quail. Game laws are extended to all counties in California<br />
<br />
*1860s - First closed seasons for trout fishing established<br />
<br />
*1870s - Board of Fish Commissioners is established, two of the first full-time game wardens are appointed, and the Fish Commission authority is expanded to include game <br />
<br />
*1885 - First California fish and game laws published.<br />
<br />
*1901 - Authority is expanded and game bag limits are set.<br />
<br />
*1909 - Name changed to Fish and Game Commission following a greater emphasis placed on game laws.<br />
<br />
*1913 - First year that fishing licenses are required. New law prevents sea otter take.<br />
<br />
*1920s - Reorganization of the Commission creates 3 new departments: fish culture, commercial fisheries, and patrol. Duties of the Fish and Game Commission taken over by the Division of Fish and Game (DFG).<br />
<br />
*1945 - A state constitutional amendment gives the Commission authority to make regulations for sport fishing and hunting.<br />
<br />
*1950s - Five regional offices established. New branches include: Bureaus of Game, Conservation, Inland Fisheries, Patrol and Marine Research. The [[Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act]] is enacted requiring consideration of DFG resources by state agencies when planning federal projects. Creation of The Water Projects Branch to monitor impacts of land use and water development projects on water quality.<br />
<br />
*1960s - DFG becomes part of the Resources of California agency. The [[Davis-Dolwig Act]] enables DFG to be more influential to the State Water Project planning. A DFG water quality laboratory approved by legislature to work on projects affecting fish and wildlife. Anadromous fish hatchery established.<br />
<br />
*1970s - The [[Endangered Species Act|Endangered Species Act]] requires DFG to inventory the state's threatened or endangered species. Multiple species' populations are inventoried including sea otters and mountain lions. Drought in the late 1970s require DFG to rescue and relocate threatened fish species. DFG releases new deer management limits in response to state legislation enacted to manage deer herds.<br />
<br />
*1980s - CalTIP is created to enable citizens to report illegal taking of fish and game. DFGs wildlife education program begins to be taught in schools. An automated commercial fish tax system is started to monitor compliance. A randomized hunting tag system is started to divide up game tags distributed each year.<br />
<br />
*1990s - Aquaculture industry in California is placed first worldwide. First time a domesticated white sturgeon is spawned([[Endangered Species Act|federally listed]]). DFG becomes involved with oil spill response and prevention. Captive bred condors are released. DFG teams up with timber companies to restore fisheries and watershed resources. After the legislature passes the [[Marine Life Management Act]], the DFG is required to set new commercial fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
*2013 - The California Department of Fish and Game changes its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) January 1, 2013 in order to better encompass changes to their responsibilities. Game wardens are now called wildlife officers.<ref>[https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/department-name-change-effective-tomorrow/ Traverso J. 2012. Department name change effective tomorrow. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited on 08 April 2017]</ref><br />
<br />
==Management Responsibilities==<br />
===Regulations and Permitting===<br />
* Recreational Fishing<br />
* Commercial Fishing<br />
* Hunting<br />
* Game Breeding<br />
* Fur Dealing<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
* Education<br />
<br />
===Conservation===<br />
* Species Management<br />
* Habitat Conservation<br />
* Conservation Easements and Banks<br />
* Environmental Review<br />
**Cannabis Program<br />
* 286 Protected Areas statewide<br />
** 83 Wildlife Areas<br />
** 102 Ecological Reserves<br />
** 101 Marine Protected Areas<br />
<br />
==Recreational Fishing==<br />
[[File:flyfishingkernriver.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Fly fisherman fishing the Kern River, CA. Retrieved from Graham Owen Gallery [http://www.grahamowengallery.com/photography/Sierra_Kern_River.html]]]<br />
CDFW is responsible for setting catch limits and publishing annual recreational fishing regulations. Separate regulations are available for ocean sport fishing <ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Sport-Fishing 2017-2018. Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>, freshwater fishing <ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/2017-Regulations California Code of Regulation Title 14. 2017-2018. Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations. California Department of Fish and Wildlife]</ref>, and sport fishing in [[Marine Protected Areas]] <ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network California's Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>.<br />
<br />
California Recreational Fisheries Surveys (CRFS) and Recreational Fisheries Data (recFIN)<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/Groundfish/Recreational-Fishery-Data Recreational Fishery Data (RecFIN). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref> are programs created to collect data on recreational fishing catches. This information is used to estimate catch rates and effort on a year-to-year basis, and can be used to update or change fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Fishing==<br />
CDFW issues the state's commercial fisherman with the proper licensing and permits needed to harvest within state waters. The department partners with multiple agencies, universities, stakeholders and fisherman to help monitor and regulate California's commercial fishing industry. By partnering with these groups, the CDFW has created a list of management programs and projects to protect and enhance California's ocean fisheries <ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine#309771049-fishery-management-plans-and-related-projects Marine Life Management. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>. The CDFW enforcement division plays a key role in patrolling state waters and ensuring regulations are followed.<br />
<br />
==Hunting==<br />
[[File:Pheasant.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Ring-necked Pheasant (Upland game bird). Retrieved from California Department of Fish and Wildlife [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Upland-Game-Birds]]]<br />
<br />
Hunting regulations and laws are implemented and regulated by the CDFW. Each year a new list of regulations is created to keep hunters up to date with new hunting laws, restrictions and hunting seasons <ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regulations Fishing and Hunting Regulations. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>. Hunting opportunities in the state are separated into categories:<br />
*Small game - rabbit, coyote, squirrel, etc.<br />
*Large game - deer, elk, bear, bighorn sheep, etc.<br />
*Waterfowl - duck, geese and migratory game birds<br />
*Upland birds - quail, pheasant, ruffed grouse, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The agency also keeps track of all public and federal lands that are available to hunters, along with resources on all California game species <ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting Hunting in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>. CDFW manages multiple programs to help develop hunting opportunities and promote land management to enhance habitat for game species:<br />
*''Private Lands Management''- This program provides incentives for landowners to manage their property for the benefit of wildlife, creating healthier populations of game species <ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/PLM Private Lands Management. Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>.<br />
*''Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement''- CDFW partners with private landowners to provide access to private lands for hunters, incentivizing the landowners with payment and liability protection<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/SHARE Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE). Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Education==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Hunters Education Program===<br />
In 1954, California's first law requiring hunter safety courses was established <ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunter-education California Hunter Education. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>. Since then, CDFW requires all hunters to pass a hunter safety course that focuses on hunting regulations, firearm safety and responsible hunting.<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
''Classroom Aquarium Education Program''<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/CAEP Classroom Aquarium Education Program. California Department of Fish and Game. [Cited April 2017]]</ref> Also known as "Trout in the Classroom," this program introduces students to salmonids. Each classroom raises a batch of fish eggs while learning about salmonid ecology, aquatic habitats and fisheries management. The program ends with a field trip where the fingerlings are released.<br />
[[File:troutintheclassroom.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Trout in the Classroom program. Retrieved from the Escondido Creek Conservancy. [http://escondidocreek.org/current-projects/trout-classroom-program/]]]<br />
''California National Archery in the Schools Program''<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Learning/CALNASP California National Archery in the Schools Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref><br />
<br />
''Fishing in the City''<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing-in-the-City Fishing in the City. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref> Since 1993, CDFW has hosted fishing workshops in the metropolitan areas of Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The program was developed to get people interested in fishing who may otherwise lack the skills necessary to enjoy fishing or be unaware of fishing opportunities in their communities.<br />
<br />
''California Fishing Passport program''<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Passport California Fishing Passport. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>Participants in this program are given a "fishing passport" and stamps to catch and check off more than 150 sport fish species while exploring the states many fishing locations.<br />
<br />
''Invasive Species''<ref> [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives Invasive Species Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref> CDFW regularly updates lists of invasive species in the state and manages multiple online pages with information and resources on how to identify and stop the spread of invasive species.<br />
<br />
==Law Enforcement Division==<br />
[[File:licensecheck.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Warden checking fishing licenses. Retrieved from California Department of [https://californiaoutdoorsqas.com/2013/11/21/did-game-warden-have-the-right-to-search-my-car/]]]<br />
CDFW law enforcement officers (Wildlife Officers) are tasked with a wide range of responsibilities. These duties include <ref name='hiring'> [https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ Stoots C. 2016. CDFW NOW HIRING LAW ENFORCEMENT CADETS. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited April 2017]]</ref>:<br />
*Enforcement of hunting and fishing laws<br />
*Teaching and organizing hunter education programs<br />
*Protecting waterways and natural habitats from:<br />
**Pollution<br />
**Illegal dumping<br />
**Unregulated habitat destruction/alteration<br />
*Responding to natural disasters<br />
*Environmental Review and Permitting<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review Environmental Review and Permitting. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Cited on 11 April 2017]]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
CDFW officers have the authority to enforce all federal fish and game laws, as well as all California laws <ref name='hiring'/>. CDFW Wildlife Officers responsibilities are separated into four districts:<br />
*Northern Region<br />
*North Coast Region<br />
*[[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central Region]]<br />
*Southern Region<br />
<br />
==Regional Divisions==<br />
The Department of Fish and Wildlife divides the State of California into seven management regions. The Marine Region includes the entire coastline of California. The six terrestrial regions are delimited by county boundaries with the exception of the North Central Region and Bay Delta Region (Sacramento, Yolo, and San Joaquin counties are split between the two). <br />
<br />
* Northern Region: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties.<br />
<br />
* North Central Region: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.<br />
<br />
* Bay Delta Region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties.<br />
<br />
* [[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central Region]]: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties.<br />
<br />
* South Coast Region: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.<br />
<br />
* Inland Deserts Region: Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.<br />
<br />
==CEQA Project involvement==<br />
<br />
In response to the January 1, 1970 passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Assembly created the Assembly Select Committee on Environmental Quality to study the possibility of supplementing NEPA on a state level. The California State Assembly passed the [[California Environmental Quality Act]] (CEQA) in 1970. CDFW jurisdiction covers conservation, wildlife management, native plants management, and maintaining habitat for to keep populations sustainable. CDFW provides the necessary expertise for environmental reviews and makes comments on potential project impacts.<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Role Fish and Game Code Section 1802]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==[[Conservation Easement]]s==<br />
<br />
The CDFW regularly requires project permittees to supply compensatory mitigation when their work impacts or collects wildlife, plants and associated habitat.<ref name='DA'>[http://www.drecp.org/documents/docs/2015_Durability_Agreement_BLM_CAFW.pdf U.S. Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Agreement by and between the United States Bureau of Land Management and the California Department of Wildlife. [Cited on 11 April 2017]]</ref> One way for the permittees to provide permanent protection is to buy a conservation easement on someone's privately owned land or to purchase land themselves and place a conservation easement on it. They are then required to make sure their conservation easement meets all requirements outlined in California's SB 1094.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=60111&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. SB 1094 Mitigation Endowment Facts. [cited on 11 April 2017]].</ref> Permittees seeking to create compensatory mitigation are required to protect habitat of the highest quality available.<ref name='DA'/> Requested conservation easement deeds are then sent to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. <ref>[https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/toolbox/Bank_Conservation_Easement_Template--CA.doc California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Conservation easement deed application. [Cited on 11 April 2017]]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/ CDFW Logo]<br />
*[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110222_saltwaterangling.html Salwater Fisherman Picture]<br />
*[[Endangered Species Act]]<br />
*[[Endangered Species Act|federally listed]]<br />
* [[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife]]<br />
*[[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife]]<br />
*[[California Natural Resources Agency]]<br />
*[[Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act]]<br />
*[[Davis-Dolwig Act]]<br />
*[[Marine Life Management Act]]<br />
* [[Marine Protected Areas]]<br />
*[[CEQA projects on the Central Coast]]<br />
*[[Agencies that are lead applicants in CEQA]]<br />
*[[CEQA Overview]]<br />
*[[Conservation Easement]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T22:27:07Z<p>Nikkii: /* Tule Elkhttps://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_Point_Reyes_elk/pdfs/TuleElkBrochure.pdf */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
===Tule Elk<ref>https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_Point_Reyes_elk/pdfs/TuleElkBrochure.pdf</ref>===<br />
<br />
Tule Elk are a subspecies of elk endemic to California, and the smallest of all elk species in North America<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Elk/Tule-Elk#341091207-description--identification-aides</ref>. Tule elk are specialized to live in semi-desert environments unlike most other elk which occupy temperate ranges. Early explorer accounts document as many as 500,000 Tule elk in California. That number has dwindled due to settlement, hunting and habitat degradation. Relocation and conservation management projects have been enacted as early as 1914. The majority were unsuccessful. About 4,000 Tule elk remain in Central California, occupying ranges in a variety of land use designations.<br />
<br />
'''Known populations in the Central Coast:''' <br />
*CAPTIVE (FENCED) HERDS<br />
**Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior) 1<br />
**Tupman State Elk Reserve<br />
**San Luis Island – SLNWR<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS <br />
**POSSIBLE TO SEE ELK (PUBLIC LANDSAND/OR SEMI PRIVATE)<br />
**Coyote Valley Landscape & Diablo range, Anderson Reservoir and Jackson Ranch (Santa Clara County Parks) and CoyoteRidge (VTA) <br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Fremont State Park)<br />
**Pacheco State Park & San Luis Reservoir<br />
**Carrizo Plains National Monument, La Panza & Chimineas Ranch CDFW Ecological Reserve (Hwy 166)<br />
**Wind Wolves Preserve<br />
**Coe State Park<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS ON PRIVATE AND/OR NOT ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LANDS<br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Private Ranches)<br />
**San Antonio Valley and South Valley<br />
**Ecological Area, CDFW lands <br />
**San Felipe Ranch (Private Ranch)<br />
**Isabel Valley 19<br />
**Coyote Ridge (VTA Lands, UTC & O’Connell Ranch)<br />
*FENCED HERDS ON PUBLIC LANDS (NOT ACCESSIBLE)<br />
**Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS, NON-NATIVE HABITAT<br />
**Owens Valley herds<br />
**Jawbone Canyon<br />
<br />
<br />
'Management projects involving Tule Elk'<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T22:23:35Z<p>Nikkii: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
===Tule Elk<ref>https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_Point_Reyes_elk/pdfs/TuleElkBrochure.pdf</ref>===<br />
<br />
Tule Elk are a subspecies of elk endemic to California, and the smallest of all elk species in North America<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Elk/Tule-Elk#341091207-description--identification-aides</ref>. Tule elk are specialized to live in semi-desert environments unlike most other elk which occupy temperate ranges. Early explorer accounts document as many as 500,000 Tule elk in California. That number has dwindled due to settlement, hunting and habitat degradation. Relocation and conservation management projects have been enacted as early as 1914. The majority were unsuccessful. <br />
<br />
About 4,000 Tule elk remain in Central California, occupying ranges in a variety of land use designations:<br />
<br />
'''Known populations in the Central Coast:''' <br />
*CAPTIVE (FENCED) HERDS<br />
**Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior) 1<br />
**Tupman State Elk Reserve<br />
**San Luis Island – SLNWR<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS <br />
**POSSIBLE TO SEE ELK (PUBLIC LANDSAND/OR SEMI PRIVATE)<br />
**Coyote Valley Landscape & Diablo range, Anderson Reservoir and Jackson Ranch (Santa Clara County Parks) and CoyoteRidge (VTA) <br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Fremont State Park)<br />
**Pacheco State Park & San Luis Reservoir<br />
**Carrizo Plains National Monument, La Panza & Chimineas Ranch CDFW Ecological Reserve (Hwy 166)<br />
**Wind Wolves Preserve<br />
**Coe State Park<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS ON PRIVATE AND/OR NOT ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LANDS<br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Private Ranches)<br />
**San Antonio Valley and South Valley<br />
**Ecological Area, CDFW lands <br />
**San Felipe Ranch (Private Ranch)<br />
**Isabel Valley 19<br />
**Coyote Ridge (VTA Lands, UTC & O’Connell Ranch)<br />
*FENCED HERDS ON PUBLIC LANDS (NOT ACCESSIBLE)<br />
**Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS, NON-NATIVE HABITAT<br />
**Owens Valley herds<br />
**Jawbone Canyon<br />
<br />
<br />
'Management projects involving Tule Elk'<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Gabilan Range<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/CEQA_projects_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionCEQA projects in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T21:24:13Z<p>Nikkii: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Summary==<br />
Provided below is a list of central coast projects that have completed or are currently involved in the CEQA process.<br />
<br />
(Organized roughly north to south)<br />
<br />
* Salinas River projects:<br />
** [[Salinas River Diversion Facility]]<br />
**[[Salinas Valley Water Project (SVWP)]]<br />
** [[Salinas River Channel Maintenance Program]]<br />
**[[Salinas River Stream Maintenance Program (SMP)]]<br />
* Fort Ord projects:<br />
** [[Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan]]<br />
** Dunes on Monterey Bay / University Villages<br />
** [[Monterey Downs]] and [[Monterey Horse Park]]<br />
** [[East Garrison]]<br />
** [[Fort Ord Dunes State Park Campground Project]]<br />
** The Promontory<br />
** [[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)]]<br />
* Monterey Peninsula projects:<br />
**[[Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)]]<br />
** [[Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project]]<br />
** [[CEQA Summary of The Collection at Monterey Bay Resort]]<br />
** [[Ocean Harbor House Seawall]]<br />
** [[City of Monterey General Plan]]<br />
**[[Seaside Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)]]<br />
** Pacific Grove projects:<br />
*** [[Greenwood Park]] (2013)<br />
***[[Urban stormwater management in the City of Pacific Grove]]<br />
*** [[Monterey-Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project]] (2014)<br />
** [[Del Monte Forest Preservation and Development]]<br />
* [[Ferrini Ranch Subdivision]]<br />
* Carmel Valley projects:<br />
** [[San Clemente Dam Removal]]<br />
** [[Carmel River Floodplain Restoration and Environmental Enhancement (Carmel River FREE) Project]]<br />
<br />
<'''Could add to the above list by harvesting some projects from the the [[CNDDB]] page.'''><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[CEQA Overview]]<br />
* [[ Hydrology and Water Quality Components of Central Coast CEQA Documents]]<br />
*[[California Natural Diversity Database]]<br />
* [[Agencies that are lead applicants in CEQA]]<br />
* [[List of Environmental Consultants in the Central Coast Area]]<br />
* [[CEQA review and land use planning]]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Disclaimer===<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T21:22:59Z<p>Nikkii: /* Big Game Management Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
===Tule Elk===<br />
<br />
'''Known populations in the Central Coast:''' <br />
*CAPTIVE (FENCED) HERDS<br />
**Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior) 1<br />
**Tupman State Elk Reserve<br />
**San Luis Island – SLNWR<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS <br />
**POSSIBLE TO SEE ELK (PUBLIC LANDSAND/OR SEMI PRIVATE)<br />
**Coyote Valley Landscape & Diablo range, Anderson Reservoir and Jackson Ranch (Santa Clara County Parks) and CoyoteRidge (VTA) <br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Fremont State Park)<br />
**Pacheco State Park & San Luis Reservoir<br />
**Carrizo Plains National Monument, La Panza & Chimineas Ranch CDFW Ecological Reserve (Hwy 166)<br />
**Wind Wolves Preserve<br />
**Coe State Park<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS ON PRIVATE AND/OR NOT ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LANDS<br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Private Ranches)<br />
**San Antonio Valley and South Valley<br />
**Ecological Area, CDFW lands <br />
**San Felipe Ranch (Private Ranch)<br />
**Isabel Valley 19<br />
**Coyote Ridge (VTA Lands, UTC & O’Connell Ranch)<br />
*FENCED HERDS ON PUBLIC LANDS (NOT ACCESSIBLE)<br />
**Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS, NON-NATIVE HABITAT<br />
**Owens Valley herds<br />
**Jawbone Canyon<br />
<br />
<br />
'Management projects involving Tule Elk'<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Gabilan Range<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T21:20:54Z<p>Nikkii: /* Big Game Management Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
===Tule Elk===<br />
<br />
'''Known populations in the Central Coast:''' <br />
*CAPTIVE (FENCED) HERDS<br />
**Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior) 1<br />
**Tupman State Elk Reserve<br />
**San Luis Island – SLNWR<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS <br />
**POSSIBLE TO SEE ELK (PUBLIC LANDSAND/OR SEMI PRIVATE)<br />
**Coyote Valley Landscape & Diablo range, Anderson Reservoir and Jackson Ranch (Santa Clara County Parks) and CoyoteRidge (VTA) <br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Fremont State Park)<br />
**Pacheco State Park & San Luis Reservoir<br />
**Carrizo Plains National Monument, La Panza & Chimineas Ranch CDFW Ecological Reserve (Hwy 166)<br />
**Wind Wolves Preserve<br />
**Coe State Park<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS ON PRIVATE AND/OR NOT ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LANDS<br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Private Ranches)<br />
**San Antonio Valley and South Valley<br />
**Ecological Area, CDFW lands <br />
**San Felipe Ranch (Private Ranch)<br />
**Isabel Valley 19<br />
**Coyote Ridge (VTA Lands, UTC & O’Connell Ranch)<br />
*FENCED HERDS ON PUBLIC LANDS (NOT ACCESSIBLE)<br />
**Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS, NON-NATIVE HABITAT<br />
**Owens Valley herds<br />
**Jawbone Canyon<br />
<br />
<br />
''''Active management projects involving Tule Elk''''<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Gabilan Range<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T21:19:59Z<p>Nikkii: /* Tule Elk */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
===Tule Elk===<br />
<br />
'''Known populations in the Central Coast:''' <br />
*CAPTIVE (FENCED) HERDS<br />
**Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior) 1<br />
**Tupman State Elk Reserve<br />
**San Luis Island – SLNWR<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS <br />
**POSSIBLE TO SEE ELK (PUBLIC LANDSAND/OR SEMI PRIVATE)<br />
**Coyote Valley Landscape & Diablo range, Anderson Reservoir and Jackson Ranch (Santa Clara County Parks) and CoyoteRidge (VTA) <br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Fremont State Park)<br />
**Pacheco State Park & San Luis Reservoir<br />
**Carrizo Plains National Monument, La Panza & Chimineas Ranch CDFW Ecological Reserve (Hwy 166)<br />
**Wind Wolves Preserve<br />
**Coe State Park<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS ON PRIVATE AND/OR NOT ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LANDS<br />
**Gabilan Mountains (Private Ranches)<br />
**San Antonio Valley and South Valley<br />
**Ecological Area, CDFW lands <br />
**San Felipe Ranch (Private Ranch)<br />
**Isabel Valley 19<br />
**Coyote Ridge (VTA Lands, UTC & O’Connell Ranch)<br />
*FENCED HERDS ON PUBLIC LANDS (NOT ACCESSIBLE)<br />
**Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
*WILD, FREE-ROAMING HERDS, NON-NATIVE HABITAT<br />
**Owens Valley herds<br />
**Jawbone Canyon<br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Gabilan Range<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T20:52:58Z<p>Nikkii: /* Big Game Management Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
[[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
===Tule Elk===<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly isolated by man made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Other===<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Reuse_Authority_(FORA)Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)2017-04-11T20:37:23Z<p>Nikkii: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>== History ==<br />
Currently, the reuse planning and cleanup of the former [[Fort Ord]] lands is conducted by the [http://www.fora.org/index.htm Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)], an economic planning group created by legislation that represents the neighboring governments of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City and Seaside, as well as local and state ex-officio non-voting members. FORA is responsible for implementing the legislatively mandated mission that requires them to oversee replacement land use and compliance measures, enhance the economy through reuse and development of required infrastructure, and provide environmental reserve protection <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan] </ref>. The [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan (BRP)] was enacted in 1997, allocating 75% of the land to open space, habitat management and recreational uses, with the rest being developed for jobs and housing. Of this area, the BLM currently manages 8,000 acres and will acquire another 7,000 once the Army has declared it safe for civilian use. A reuse plan and environmental impact report must be completed prior to any transfer of land from military to civilian use.<br />
<br />
== Mission ==<br />
<br />
Under the state legislation, SB 899, FORA is authorized to "prepare, adopt, finance, and implement a plan for the future use and development of the territory occupied by the Fort Ord military base in Monterey County."<br />
<ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"> [http://www.fora.org/Reports/052896%20BRP%20Vol%20III%20Appendix%20B%20Comprehensive%20Business%20Plan.pdf Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Business and Operations Plan] </ref> This legislation was followed up by SB 1600, augmenting FORA's powers and increasing their revenue base to ensure the reuse plan had sufficient financial support for implementation. <ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"/><br />
<br />
According to the Fort Ord BRP <ref name= "Bus/Ops Plan"/>, FORA has defined their mission as follows:<br />
* Expeditiously and inexpensively facilitate the transfer of property from the Army to local governments, who will sell or lease parcels to private sector developers and users.<br />
* Develop a Reuse Plan that is both acceptable to local governments and feasible in terms of market acceptance and financial viability.<br />
* Develop and implement a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that will facilitate the Reuse plan through an appropriate financing mechanism.<br />
* Develop a process for monitoring conformance with the CIP and Reuse Plan that maintains the integrity of the Plan, while allowing local communities and the private sector to build out the Reuse Plan as quickly as the market will permit.<br />
* Take the lead in the marketing of Fort Ord and promote economic development.<br />
<br />
== Habitat Management Plan ==<br />
The initial process for environmental assessment began in 1993 by the U.S. Army. Details of these events can be found on the [[Habitat Management Plan]] page. [http://www.fora.org/HMP HMP]<br />
<br />
== Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan ==<br />
Adopted in 1997, the comprehensive plan includes development for habitat/open space, commercial, hospitality, residential and recreation uses. <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/ExecSum/ExecSum.htm Fort Ord Reuse Plan Executive Summary] </ref> <br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/b/b6/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_1.pdf Volume 1: Context and Framework]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/4a/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_2.pdf Volume 2: Reuse Plan Elements]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume3.htm Volume 3: Appendices]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume4.htm Volume 4: Final Environmental Impact Report]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the BRP<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_1/4_4_1.htm Oak Woodland Areas]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_2/4_4_2.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/3_2_2/3_2_2.htm Topographic Relief]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the EIR<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_1/4_3_1.htm Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/0/04/Drmp.pdf Development and Resource Management Plan]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_2/4_3_2.htm Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_3/4_3_3.htm Soil with Excavation and Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_4/4_3_4.htm Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_5/4_3_5.htm Soils with High Shrink Swell Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_6/4_3_6.htm Slope Map at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_6_1/4_6_1.htm Ground Water Contamination Plumes]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_10_1/4_10_1.htm Biological Communities at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_12_1/4_12_1.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
<br />
Capital Improvement Program<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/3/3d/FORA_Capital_Improvement_Program.pdf 2001/02 - 2020/21]<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/42/CIP_2012-13.pdf 2012/13 - 2020/21]<br />
*** Adopted by FORA June 8, 2012<br />
<br />
Major Land Use Jurisdictions<br />
* City of Seaside<br />
* City of Marina<br />
* CIty of Monterey<br />
* City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* County of Monterey<br />
* University of California (MBEST Center)<br />
* CSU Monterey Bay<br />
* Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA)<br />
<br />
==Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program==<br />
On March 31, 2007, the U.S. Army and FORA entered into an ESCA, enabling the Army to transfer approximately nine parcels of land (3,340 acres) contaminated with military munitions (also called unexploded ordnance [UXO] or munitions and explosives of concern [MEC]) to FORA <ref> [http://fora-esca-rp.com/index.html Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program]</ref> . All munition response actions for these nine parcels are the responsibility of FORA. The Army maintains responsibility for all other contamination issues, including groundwater, soil, and landfill concerns. Under the ESCA, the Army is allowed to provide FORA with dedicated funding for munitions remediation on these specifics parcels of land.<br />
<br />
ESCA provides the following:<br />
* Funds for the [[EPA]] and CA Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) oversight<br />
* FORA reused and remedial work coordination<br />
* Safe and effective munitions remediation<br />
<br />
[http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/oeprogram.asp Clean up Programs]<br />
*[[Ordnance and Explosives Program]]<br />
*[[Superfund Actions]]<br />
* [http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/othercleanup.asp Other Cleanup Programs]<br />
** Real Estate Screening (FOST)<br />
** Underground Storage Tank Program<br />
** Asbestos Management Program<br />
** Lead-Based Paint Management Program<br />
** Radon Reduction Program<br />
** Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Program<br />
<br />
== Development Projects ==<br />
Below is a list of current or proposed development projects for the former Fort Ord lands according to [http://www.fora.org/develoment1.htm FORA].<br />
<br />
City of Marina<br />
* [http://www.thedunesonmontereybay.com The Dunes on Monterey Bay] (formerly known as University Village) includes a 365,00 square foot shopping center featuring retails like Kohls, REI, Best Buy, Michael's Art & Crafts, Old Navy, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Target.<br />
* [http://www.marinaheightscommunity.com Marina Heights] is a residential project that will be developed on approximately 250 acres.<br />
City of Seaside<br />
* Seaside Resort Development, LLC (SRD) is a mixed use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on the existing 375-acre Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course parcel. In January 2009, SRD completed the upgrade of the Bayonet and Blackhorse gold courses to meet current PGA standards. The next phase of development includes a four-star hotel with approximately 275 rooms, 175 timeshares units and 1256 custom residential lots fronting the redesigned, award-winning courses. In July 2009, SRD released the frist 30 residential lots at the [http://www.cyrpressgroveliving.com The Enclave at Cypress Grove] for sale.<br />
* [http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 Main Gate Retail Center] is a new regional retail project that will be developed on approximately 53 acres of vacant coastal land at the main gate of the former Fort Ord Army Base and adjacent to California Sate University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus. The proposed mixed-use project will feature approximately 500,000 of open-air retail and entertainment space. The project will include other amenities such as a 250 room hotel/conference center and spa.<br />
County of Monterey<br />
* [http://eastgarrison.com East Garrison] is a new mixed-use project with residential, retail, and arts habitat uses on approximately 244 acres. <br />
* [[Monterey Downs and Horse Park]] is a new multi-discipline equestrian park project with competition and training, recreational, and administrative uses on approximately 390 acres. <br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.montereydowns.com Monterey Downs]<br />
***[http://www.montereyhorsepark.org/ Monterey Horse Park]<br />
***[http://www.http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
*[http://ccvcf.com/ Central Coast Veterans Cemetery] is a new project that is proposed to be developed on approximately 175 acres.<br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/va/adhoc.htm Monterey County Military & Veterans Affairs Office]<br />
***[http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
<br />
City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* [http://www.delreyoaksresort.com/ Resort at Del Rey Oaks, Inc.] is a mixed-use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on approximately 400 acres.<br />
<br />
[[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway]]<br />
* A proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space. <br />
<br />
Maps<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:FORA_Map.png FORA's Land Use Concept Map for Development]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:CSUMB%2BDowns_MasterPlansEtc_130318.png Map of CSUMB and proposed developments]<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[Fort Ord]]<br />
* [[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)]]<br />
* [http://www.fora.org/ FORA]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Reuse_Authority_(FORA)Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)2017-04-11T20:37:08Z<p>Nikkii: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>== History ==<br />
Currently, the reuse planning and cleanup of the former [[Fort Ord]] lands is conducted by the [http://www.fora.org/index.htm Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)], an economic planning group created by legislation that represents the neighboring governments of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City and Seaside, as well as local and state ex-officio non-voting members. FORA is responsible for implementing the legislatively mandated mission that requires them to oversee replacement land use and compliance measures, enhance the economy through reuse and development of required infrastructure, and provide environmental reserve protection <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan] </ref>. The [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan (BRP)] was enacted in 1997, allocating 75% of the land to open space, habitat management and recreational uses, with the rest being developed for jobs and housing. Of this area, the BLM currently manages 8,000 acres and will acquire another 7,000 once the Army has declared it safe for civilian use. A reuse plan and environmental impact report must be completed prior to any transfer of land from military to civilian use.<br />
<br />
== Mission ==<br />
<br />
Under the state legislation, SB 899, FORA is authorized to "prepare, adopt, finance, and implement a plan for the future use and development of the territory occupied by the Fort Ord military base in Monterey County."<br />
<ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"> [http://www.fora.org/Reports/052896%20BRP%20Vol%20III%20Appendix%20B%20Comprehensive%20Business%20Plan.pdf Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Business and Operations Plan] </ref> This legislation was followed up by SB 1600, augmenting FORA's powers and increasing their revenue base to ensure the reuse plan had sufficient financial support for implementation. <ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"/><br />
<br />
According to the Fort Ord BRP <ref name= "Bus/Ops Plan"/>, FORA has defined their mission as follows:<br />
* Expeditiously and inexpensively facilitate the transfer of property from the Army to local governments, who will sell or lease parcels to private sector developers and users.<br />
* Develop a Reuse Plan that is both acceptable to local governments and feasible in terms of market acceptance and financial viability.<br />
* Develop and implement a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that will facilitate the Reuse plan through an appropriate financing mechanism.<br />
* Develop a process for monitoring conformance with the CIP and Reuse Plan that maintains the integrity of the Plan, while allowing local communities and the private sector to build out the Reuse Plan as quickly as the market will permit.<br />
* Take the lead in the marketing of Fort Ord and promote economic development.<br />
<br />
== Habitat Management Plan ==<br />
The initial process for environmental assessment began in 1993 by the U.S. Army. Details of these events can be found on the [[Habitat Management Plan]] page. [http://www.fora.org/HMP HMP]<br />
<br />
== Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan ==<br />
Adopted in 1997, the comprehensive plan includes development for habitat/open space, commercial, hospitality, residential and recreation uses. <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/ExecSum/ExecSum.htm Fort Ord Reuse Plan Executive Summary] </ref> <br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/b/b6/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_1.pdf Volume 1: Context and Framework]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/4a/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_2.pdf Volume 2: Reuse Plan Elements]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume3.htm Volume 3: Appendices]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume4.htm Volume 4: Final Environmental Impact Report]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the BRP<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_1/4_4_1.htm Oak Woodland Areas]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_2/4_4_2.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/3_2_2/3_2_2.htm Topographic Relief]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the EIR<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_1/4_3_1.htm Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/0/04/Drmp.pdf Development and Resource Management Plan]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_2/4_3_2.htm Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_3/4_3_3.htm Soil with Excavation and Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_4/4_3_4.htm Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_5/4_3_5.htm Soils with High Shrink Swell Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_6/4_3_6.htm Slope Map at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_6_1/4_6_1.htm Ground Water Contamination Plumes]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_10_1/4_10_1.htm Biological Communities at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_12_1/4_12_1.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
<br />
Capital Improvement Program<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/3/3d/FORA_Capital_Improvement_Program.pdf 2001/02 - 2020/21]<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/42/CIP_2012-13.pdf 2012/13 - 2020/21]<br />
*** Adopted by FORA June 8, 2012<br />
<br />
Major Land Use Jurisdictions<br />
* City of Seaside<br />
* City of Marina<br />
* CIty of Monterey<br />
* City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* County of Monterey<br />
* University of California (MBEST Center)<br />
* CSU Monterey Bay<br />
* Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA)<br />
<br />
==Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program==<br />
On March 31, 2007, the U.S. Army and FORA entered into an ESCA, enabling the Army to transfer approximately nine parcels of land (3,340 acres) contaminated with military munitions (also called unexploded ordnance [UXO] or munitions and explosives of concern [MEC]) to FORA <ref> [http://fora-esca-rp.com/index.html Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program]</ref> . All munition response actions for these nine parcels are the responsibility of FORA. The Army maintains responsibility for all other contamination issues, including groundwater, soil, and landfill concerns. Under the ESCA, the Army is allowed to provide FORA with dedicated funding for munitions remediation on these specifics parcels of land.<br />
<br />
ESCA provides the following:<br />
* Funds for the [[EPA]] and CA Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) oversight<br />
* FORA reused and remedial work coordination<br />
* Safe and effective munitions remediation<br />
<br />
[http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/oeprogram.asp Clean up Programs]<br />
*[[Ordnance and Explosives Program]]<br />
*[[Superfund Actions]]<br />
* [http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/othercleanup.asp Other Cleanup Programs]<br />
** Real Estate Screening (FOST)<br />
** Underground Storage Tank Program<br />
** Asbestos Management Program<br />
** Lead-Based Paint Management Program<br />
** Radon Reduction Program<br />
** Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Program<br />
<br />
== Development Projects ==<br />
Below is a list of current or proposed development projects for the former Fort Ord lands according to [http://www.fora.org/develoment1.htm FORA].<br />
<br />
City of Marina<br />
* [http://www.thedunesonmontereybay.com The Dunes on Monterey Bay] (formerly known as University Village) includes a 365,00 square foot shopping center featuring retails like Kohls, REI, Best Buy, Michael's Art & Crafts, Old Navy, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Target.<br />
* [http://www.marinaheightscommunity.com Marina Heights] is a residential project that will be developed on approximately 250 acres.<br />
City of Seaside<br />
* Seaside Resort Development, LLC (SRD) is a mixed use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on the existing 375-acre Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course parcel. In January 2009, SRD completed the upgrade of the Bayonet and Blackhorse gold courses to meet current PGA standards. The next phase of development includes a four-star hotel with approximately 275 rooms, 175 timeshares units and 1256 custom residential lots fronting the redesigned, award-winning courses. In July 2009, SRD released the frist 30 residential lots at the [http://www.cyrpressgroveliving.com The Enclave at Cypress Grove] for sale.<br />
* [http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 Main Gate Retail Center] is a new regional retail project that will be developed on approximately 53 acres of vacant coastal land at the main gate of the former Fort Ord Army Base and adjacent to California Sate University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus. The proposed mixed-use project will feature approximately 500,000 of open-air retail and entertainment space. The project will include other amenities such as a 250 room hotel/conference center and spa.<br />
County of Monterey<br />
* [http://eastgarrison.com East Garrison] is a new mixed-use project with residential, retail, and arts habitat uses on approximately 244 acres. <br />
* [[Monterey Downs and Horse Park]] is a new multi-discipline equestrian park project with competition and training, recreational, and administrative uses on approximately 390 acres. <br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.montereydowns.com Monterey Downs]<br />
***[http://www.montereyhorsepark.org/ Monterey Horse Park]<br />
***[http://www.http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
*[http://ccvcf.com/ Central Coast Veterans Cemetery] is a new project that is proposed to be developed on approximately 175 acres.<br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/va/adhoc.htm Monterey County Military & Veterans Affairs Office]<br />
***[http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
<br />
City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* [http://www.delreyoaksresort.com/ Resort at Del Rey Oaks, Inc.] is a mixed-use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on approximately 400 acres.<br />
<br />
[[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway]]<br />
* A proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space. <br />
<br />
Maps<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:FORA_Map.png FORA's Land Use Concept Map for Development]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:CSUMB%2BDowns_MasterPlansEtc_130318.png Map of CSUMB and proposed developments]<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[Fort Ord]]<br />
* [[Ford Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)]]<br />
* [http://www.fora.org/ FORA]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Coastal_Trail_(CCT)California Coastal Trail (CCT)2017-04-11T20:19:57Z<p>Nikkii: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Links==<br />
*[[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Recreational_Habitat_Area_(FORHA)Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA)2017-04-11T20:19:06Z<p>Nikkii: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORHA Trail.png|350px|thumb|Oak trees in and trail in the [[Fort Ord National Monument]]. Photo from [[Monterey County Resource Management Agency (RMA)]]<ref>[http://www.fortag.org/docs/FORHA_TrailMasterPlan_Version150421_WatsonComments150507b_Summarized.pdf Monterey County Resource Management Agency]</ref>]]<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
* [[Fort Ord Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)]]<br />
* [[Editing Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA)]]<br />
* [[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Reuse_Authority_(FORA)Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)2017-04-11T20:16:32Z<p>Nikkii: /* Development Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>== History ==<br />
Currently, the reuse planning and cleanup of the former [[Fort Ord]] lands is conducted by the [http://www.fora.org/index.htm Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)], an economic planning group created by legislation that represents the neighboring governments of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City and Seaside, as well as local and state ex-officio non-voting members. FORA is responsible for implementing the legislatively mandated mission that requires them to oversee replacement land use and compliance measures, enhance the economy through reuse and development of required infrastructure, and provide environmental reserve protection <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan] </ref>. The [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan (BRP)] was enacted in 1997, allocating 75% of the land to open space, habitat management and recreational uses, with the rest being developed for jobs and housing. Of this area, the BLM currently manages 8,000 acres and will acquire another 7,000 once the Army has declared it safe for civilian use. A reuse plan and environmental impact report must be completed prior to any transfer of land from military to civilian use.<br />
<br />
== Mission ==<br />
<br />
Under the state legislation, SB 899, FORA is authorized to "prepare, adopt, finance, and implement a plan for the future use and development of the territory occupied by the Fort Ord military base in Monterey County."<br />
<ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"> [http://www.fora.org/Reports/052896%20BRP%20Vol%20III%20Appendix%20B%20Comprehensive%20Business%20Plan.pdf Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Business and Operations Plan] </ref> This legislation was followed up by SB 1600, augmenting FORA's powers and increasing their revenue base to ensure the reuse plan had sufficient financial support for implementation. <ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"/><br />
<br />
According to the Fort Ord BRP <ref name= "Bus/Ops Plan"/>, FORA has defined their mission as follows:<br />
* Expeditiously and inexpensively facilitate the transfer of property from the Army to local governments, who will sell or lease parcels to private sector developers and users.<br />
* Develop a Reuse Plan that is both acceptable to local governments and feasible in terms of market acceptance and financial viability.<br />
* Develop and implement a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that will facilitate the Reuse plan through an appropriate financing mechanism.<br />
* Develop a process for monitoring conformance with the CIP and Reuse Plan that maintains the integrity of the Plan, while allowing local communities and the private sector to build out the Reuse Plan as quickly as the market will permit.<br />
* Take the lead in the marketing of Fort Ord and promote economic development.<br />
<br />
== Habitat Management Plan ==<br />
The initial process for environmental assessment began in 1993 by the U.S. Army. Details of these events can be found on the [[Habitat Management Plan]] page. [http://www.fora.org/HMP HMP]<br />
<br />
== Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan ==<br />
Adopted in 1997, the comprehensive plan includes development for habitat/open space, commercial, hospitality, residential and recreation uses. <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/ExecSum/ExecSum.htm Fort Ord Reuse Plan Executive Summary] </ref> <br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/b/b6/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_1.pdf Volume 1: Context and Framework]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/4a/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_2.pdf Volume 2: Reuse Plan Elements]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume3.htm Volume 3: Appendices]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume4.htm Volume 4: Final Environmental Impact Report]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the BRP<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_1/4_4_1.htm Oak Woodland Areas]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_2/4_4_2.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/3_2_2/3_2_2.htm Topographic Relief]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the EIR<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_1/4_3_1.htm Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/0/04/Drmp.pdf Development and Resource Management Plan]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_2/4_3_2.htm Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_3/4_3_3.htm Soil with Excavation and Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_4/4_3_4.htm Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_5/4_3_5.htm Soils with High Shrink Swell Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_6/4_3_6.htm Slope Map at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_6_1/4_6_1.htm Ground Water Contamination Plumes]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_10_1/4_10_1.htm Biological Communities at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_12_1/4_12_1.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
<br />
Capital Improvement Program<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/3/3d/FORA_Capital_Improvement_Program.pdf 2001/02 - 2020/21]<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/42/CIP_2012-13.pdf 2012/13 - 2020/21]<br />
*** Adopted by FORA June 8, 2012<br />
<br />
Major Land Use Jurisdictions<br />
* City of Seaside<br />
* City of Marina<br />
* CIty of Monterey<br />
* City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* County of Monterey<br />
* University of California (MBEST Center)<br />
* CSU Monterey Bay<br />
* Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA)<br />
<br />
==Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program==<br />
On March 31, 2007, the U.S. Army and FORA entered into an ESCA, enabling the Army to transfer approximately nine parcels of land (3,340 acres) contaminated with military munitions (also called unexploded ordnance [UXO] or munitions and explosives of concern [MEC]) to FORA <ref> [http://fora-esca-rp.com/index.html Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program]</ref> . All munition response actions for these nine parcels are the responsibility of FORA. The Army maintains responsibility for all other contamination issues, including groundwater, soil, and landfill concerns. Under the ESCA, the Army is allowed to provide FORA with dedicated funding for munitions remediation on these specifics parcels of land.<br />
<br />
ESCA provides the following:<br />
* Funds for the [[EPA]] and CA Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) oversight<br />
* FORA reused and remedial work coordination<br />
* Safe and effective munitions remediation<br />
<br />
[http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/oeprogram.asp Clean up Programs]<br />
*[[Ordnance and Explosives Program]]<br />
*[[Superfund Actions]]<br />
* [http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/othercleanup.asp Other Cleanup Programs]<br />
** Real Estate Screening (FOST)<br />
** Underground Storage Tank Program<br />
** Asbestos Management Program<br />
** Lead-Based Paint Management Program<br />
** Radon Reduction Program<br />
** Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Program<br />
<br />
== Development Projects ==<br />
Below is a list of current or proposed development projects for the former Fort Ord lands according to [http://www.fora.org/develoment1.htm FORA].<br />
<br />
City of Marina<br />
* [http://www.thedunesonmontereybay.com The Dunes on Monterey Bay] (formerly known as University Village) includes a 365,00 square foot shopping center featuring retails like Kohls, REI, Best Buy, Michael's Art & Crafts, Old Navy, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Target.<br />
* [http://www.marinaheightscommunity.com Marina Heights] is a residential project that will be developed on approximately 250 acres.<br />
City of Seaside<br />
* Seaside Resort Development, LLC (SRD) is a mixed use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on the existing 375-acre Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course parcel. In January 2009, SRD completed the upgrade of the Bayonet and Blackhorse gold courses to meet current PGA standards. The next phase of development includes a four-star hotel with approximately 275 rooms, 175 timeshares units and 1256 custom residential lots fronting the redesigned, award-winning courses. In July 2009, SRD released the frist 30 residential lots at the [http://www.cyrpressgroveliving.com The Enclave at Cypress Grove] for sale.<br />
* [http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 Main Gate Retail Center] is a new regional retail project that will be developed on approximately 53 acres of vacant coastal land at the main gate of the former Fort Ord Army Base and adjacent to California Sate University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus. The proposed mixed-use project will feature approximately 500,000 of open-air retail and entertainment space. The project will include other amenities such as a 250 room hotel/conference center and spa.<br />
County of Monterey<br />
* [http://eastgarrison.com East Garrison] is a new mixed-use project with residential, retail, and arts habitat uses on approximately 244 acres. <br />
* [[Monterey Downs and Horse Park]] is a new multi-discipline equestrian park project with competition and training, recreational, and administrative uses on approximately 390 acres. <br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.montereydowns.com Monterey Downs]<br />
***[http://www.montereyhorsepark.org/ Monterey Horse Park]<br />
***[http://www.http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
*[http://ccvcf.com/ Central Coast Veterans Cemetery] is a new project that is proposed to be developed on approximately 175 acres.<br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/va/adhoc.htm Monterey County Military & Veterans Affairs Office]<br />
***[http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
<br />
City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* [http://www.delreyoaksresort.com/ Resort at Del Rey Oaks, Inc.] is a mixed-use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on approximately 400 acres.<br />
<br />
[[Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway]]<br />
* A proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space. <br />
<br />
Maps<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:FORA_Map.png FORA's Land Use Concept Map for Development]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:CSUMB%2BDowns_MasterPlansEtc_130318.png Map of CSUMB and proposed developments]<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[Fort Ord]]<br />
* [[Ford Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (Fortag)]]<br />
* [http://www.fora.org/ FORA]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T20:15:44Z<p>Nikkii: /* Protected Areas */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological Reserves<br />
*Wildlife Areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T20:15:21Z<p>Nikkii: /* Overview */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Reuse_Authority_(FORA)Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)2017-04-11T20:12:45Z<p>Nikkii: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>== History ==<br />
Currently, the reuse planning and cleanup of the former [[Fort Ord]] lands is conducted by the [http://www.fora.org/index.htm Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)], an economic planning group created by legislation that represents the neighboring governments of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City and Seaside, as well as local and state ex-officio non-voting members. FORA is responsible for implementing the legislatively mandated mission that requires them to oversee replacement land use and compliance measures, enhance the economy through reuse and development of required infrastructure, and provide environmental reserve protection <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan] </ref>. The [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/HomePage.htm FORA Base Reuse Plan (BRP)] was enacted in 1997, allocating 75% of the land to open space, habitat management and recreational uses, with the rest being developed for jobs and housing. Of this area, the BLM currently manages 8,000 acres and will acquire another 7,000 once the Army has declared it safe for civilian use. A reuse plan and environmental impact report must be completed prior to any transfer of land from military to civilian use.<br />
<br />
== Mission ==<br />
<br />
Under the state legislation, SB 899, FORA is authorized to "prepare, adopt, finance, and implement a plan for the future use and development of the territory occupied by the Fort Ord military base in Monterey County."<br />
<ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"> [http://www.fora.org/Reports/052896%20BRP%20Vol%20III%20Appendix%20B%20Comprehensive%20Business%20Plan.pdf Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Business and Operations Plan] </ref> This legislation was followed up by SB 1600, augmenting FORA's powers and increasing their revenue base to ensure the reuse plan had sufficient financial support for implementation. <ref name="Bus/Ops Plan"/><br />
<br />
According to the Fort Ord BRP <ref name= "Bus/Ops Plan"/>, FORA has defined their mission as follows:<br />
* Expeditiously and inexpensively facilitate the transfer of property from the Army to local governments, who will sell or lease parcels to private sector developers and users.<br />
* Develop a Reuse Plan that is both acceptable to local governments and feasible in terms of market acceptance and financial viability.<br />
* Develop and implement a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that will facilitate the Reuse plan through an appropriate financing mechanism.<br />
* Develop a process for monitoring conformance with the CIP and Reuse Plan that maintains the integrity of the Plan, while allowing local communities and the private sector to build out the Reuse Plan as quickly as the market will permit.<br />
* Take the lead in the marketing of Fort Ord and promote economic development.<br />
<br />
== Habitat Management Plan ==<br />
The initial process for environmental assessment began in 1993 by the U.S. Army. Details of these events can be found on the [[Habitat Management Plan]] page. [http://www.fora.org/HMP HMP]<br />
<br />
== Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan ==<br />
Adopted in 1997, the comprehensive plan includes development for habitat/open space, commercial, hospitality, residential and recreation uses. <ref> [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/HomePage/ExecSum/ExecSum.htm Fort Ord Reuse Plan Executive Summary] </ref> <br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/b/b6/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_1.pdf Volume 1: Context and Framework]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/4a/FORA_Base_Reuse_Plan_Vol_2.pdf Volume 2: Reuse Plan Elements]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume3.htm Volume 3: Appendices]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/ReusePln/Volume4.htm Volume 4: Final Environmental Impact Report]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the BRP<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_1/4_4_1.htm Oak Woodland Areas]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/4_4_2/4_4_2.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/RUPlan/3_2_2/3_2_2.htm Topographic Relief]<br />
<br />
Selected maps from the EIR<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_1/4_3_1.htm Major Soil Series and Types at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/0/04/Drmp.pdf Development and Resource Management Plan]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_2/4_3_2.htm Water and Coastal Erosion Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_3/4_3_3.htm Soil with Excavation and Caving and Piping Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_4/4_3_4.htm Soils with Low Strength at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_5/4_3_5.htm Soils with High Shrink Swell Potential at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_3_6/4_3_6.htm Slope Map at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_6_1/4_6_1.htm Ground Water Contamination Plumes]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_10_1/4_10_1.htm Biological Communities at Fort Ord]<br />
* [http://www.basereuse.org/reuseplan/Maps/EIR/4_12_1/4_12_1.htm Archaeological Resource Sensitivity]<br />
<br />
Capital Improvement Program<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/3/3d/FORA_Capital_Improvement_Program.pdf 2001/02 - 2020/21]<br />
** [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/42/CIP_2012-13.pdf 2012/13 - 2020/21]<br />
*** Adopted by FORA June 8, 2012<br />
<br />
Major Land Use Jurisdictions<br />
* City of Seaside<br />
* City of Marina<br />
* CIty of Monterey<br />
* City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* County of Monterey<br />
* University of California (MBEST Center)<br />
* CSU Monterey Bay<br />
* Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA)<br />
<br />
==Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program==<br />
On March 31, 2007, the U.S. Army and FORA entered into an ESCA, enabling the Army to transfer approximately nine parcels of land (3,340 acres) contaminated with military munitions (also called unexploded ordnance [UXO] or munitions and explosives of concern [MEC]) to FORA <ref> [http://fora-esca-rp.com/index.html Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Remediation Program]</ref> . All munition response actions for these nine parcels are the responsibility of FORA. The Army maintains responsibility for all other contamination issues, including groundwater, soil, and landfill concerns. Under the ESCA, the Army is allowed to provide FORA with dedicated funding for munitions remediation on these specifics parcels of land.<br />
<br />
ESCA provides the following:<br />
* Funds for the [[EPA]] and CA Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) oversight<br />
* FORA reused and remedial work coordination<br />
* Safe and effective munitions remediation<br />
<br />
[http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/oeprogram.asp Clean up Programs]<br />
*[[Ordnance and Explosives Program]]<br />
*[[Superfund Actions]]<br />
* [http://www.fortordcleanup.com/cleanupprgrm/othercleanup.asp Other Cleanup Programs]<br />
** Real Estate Screening (FOST)<br />
** Underground Storage Tank Program<br />
** Asbestos Management Program<br />
** Lead-Based Paint Management Program<br />
** Radon Reduction Program<br />
** Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Program<br />
<br />
== Development Projects ==<br />
Below is a list of current or proposed development projects for the former Fort Ord lands according to [http://www.fora.org/develoment1.htm FORA].<br />
<br />
City of Marina<br />
* [http://www.thedunesonmontereybay.com The Dunes on Monterey Bay] (formerly known as University Village) includes a 365,00 square foot shopping center featuring retails like Kohls, REI, Best Buy, Michael's Art & Crafts, Old Navy, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Target.<br />
* [http://www.marinaheightscommunity.com Marina Heights] is a residential project that will be developed on approximately 250 acres.<br />
City of Seaside<br />
* Seaside Resort Development, LLC (SRD) is a mixed use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on the existing 375-acre Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course parcel. In January 2009, SRD completed the upgrade of the Bayonet and Blackhorse gold courses to meet current PGA standards. The next phase of development includes a four-star hotel with approximately 275 rooms, 175 timeshares units and 1256 custom residential lots fronting the redesigned, award-winning courses. In July 2009, SRD released the frist 30 residential lots at the [http://www.cyrpressgroveliving.com The Enclave at Cypress Grove] for sale.<br />
* [http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 Main Gate Retail Center] is a new regional retail project that will be developed on approximately 53 acres of vacant coastal land at the main gate of the former Fort Ord Army Base and adjacent to California Sate University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus. The proposed mixed-use project will feature approximately 500,000 of open-air retail and entertainment space. The project will include other amenities such as a 250 room hotel/conference center and spa.<br />
County of Monterey<br />
* [http://eastgarrison.com East Garrison] is a new mixed-use project with residential, retail, and arts habitat uses on approximately 244 acres. <br />
* [[Monterey Downs and Horse Park]] is a new multi-discipline equestrian park project with competition and training, recreational, and administrative uses on approximately 390 acres. <br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.montereydowns.com Monterey Downs]<br />
***[http://www.montereyhorsepark.org/ Monterey Horse Park]<br />
***[http://www.http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
*[http://ccvcf.com/ Central Coast Veterans Cemetery] is a new project that is proposed to be developed on approximately 175 acres.<br />
**More information about this development can be found at:<br />
***[http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/va/adhoc.htm Monterey County Military & Veterans Affairs Office]<br />
***[http://seasidemontereydownsandveteranscemeteryspecificplan.com/ City of Seaside]<br />
<br />
City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
* [http://www.delreyoaksresort.com/ Resort at Del Rey Oaks, Inc.] is a mixed-use project with golf course, residential, and visitor-serving uses on approximately 400 acres.<br />
<br />
Maps<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:FORA_Map.png FORA's Land Use Concept Map for Development]<br />
* [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Image:CSUMB%2BDowns_MasterPlansEtc_130318.png Map of CSUMB and proposed developments]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [[Fort Ord]]<br />
* [[Ford Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (Fortag)]]<br />
* [http://www.fora.org/ FORA]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T20:11:00Z<p>Nikkii: /* Outreach */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Due to the influx of nonnative invasive species, CDFW maintains a presence in weed control efforts as well as promotes programs to encourage the awareness and appreciation of native plants like wildflowers. <br />
<br />
CDFW promotes wildflower viewing by providing information to the public, including the following: <br />
<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central Coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T19:46:32Z<p>Nikkii: /* =Wildflower Viewing */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
===Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T19:45:16Z<p>Nikkii: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==Outreach==<br />
====Wildflower Viewing===<br />
Central California wildflowers appear in the spring following winter rains. There are many locations throughout the Central Region providing access to several varieties wildflower. <br />
<br />
*Central coast<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Fort_Ord_NM.html Fort Ord]<br />
**[http://www.pointlobos.org/nature/plant-communities Point Lobos]<br />
<br />
*Coast Range<br />
**[https://www.blm.gov/nlcs_web/sites/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM/plants.html Carrizo Plain]<br />
**[https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/Pacific_Southwest/CuestaRidge/index.shtml Cuesta Ridge Botanical Area]<br />
**[https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/plants.htm Pinnacles National Monument]<br />
**[http://coepark.net/pineridgeassociation/plants-animals-geology/wildflowers?catid=6 Henry Coe State Park]<br />
**[http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=558 San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T18:03:56Z<p>Nikkii: /* Protected Areas */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T17:48:58Z<p>Nikkii: /* Protected Areas */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
||<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| Kern<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T17:46:49Z<p>Nikkii: /* Protected Areas */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
||<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| <br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T17:41:23Z<p>Nikkii: /* Protected Areas */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
! '''County'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
||<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Madera<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve<br />
|| <br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kern<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Fresno<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
||<br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|| San Luis Obispo<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|| Monterey<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Tulare<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|| <br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|| Merced<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_-_Central_RegionCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife - Central Region2017-04-11T17:32:20Z<p>Nikkii: /* Wildflower Viewing */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:unnamed.png|300px|thumb|right|CDFW jurisdictional regions. Retrieved from: Mountain Lion Foundation[http://mountainlion.org/us/ca/-ca-portal.asp]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats for Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties. The main office is located at 1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710<br />
<br />
==Protected Areas==<br />
[[File:ElkhornSlough.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Elkhorn Slough Ecological Preserve [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER]]]<br />
[[File:MossLandingSign2.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Center| Moss Landing Wildlife Area [https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/]]]<br />
<br />
The Central Region of California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 31 protected areas.<br />
The protected areas are broadly categorized as:<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands </ref><br />
<br />
*Ecological reserves<br />
*Wildlife areas<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! '''Ecological Reserves'''<br />
! '''Wildlife Areas'''<br />
|--<br />
|| Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Big Sandy Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Allensworth Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Buttonwillow Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Kinsman Flat Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Canebrake Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Little Panoche Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| [[Elkhorn Slough|Elkhorn Slough Ecological Reserve]]<br />
|| Los Banos Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Fremont Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| Mendota Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Kaweah Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Monache Meadows Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Lokern Ecological Reserve<br />
|| North Grasslands Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Panoche Hills Ecological Reserve<br />
|| O'Neill Forebay Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Pleasant Valley Ecological Reserve<br />
|| San Luis Obispo Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve<br />
|| San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Springville Ecological Reserve <br />
|| Morro Bay Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
|| Stone Corral Ecological Reserve<br />
|| [[Moss Landing Harbor|Moss Landing Wildlife Area]]<br />
|--<br />
|| Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve<br />
|| South Fork Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
|| Volta Wildlife Area<br />
|--<br />
||<br />
|| West Hilmar Wildlife Area<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Fishing==<br />
CDFW is responsible for stocking 111 different waters throughout the region. All waters are stocked year round with trout. Current fish planting schedules can be found [https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FishPlants/Default.aspx?county=Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,San+Benito,San+Luis+Obispo,Stanislaus,Tulare,Tuolumne&time=All here].<br />
[[File:Stocking_trout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Stocking trout in Merced County [http://swfishingnews.com/cdfw-release-10000-pounds-trout-merced-county-waters/]]]<br />
<br />
'''''Wild Trout Program''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region </ref> <br />
[[File:CoastRBTrout.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Wild Trout Program. Retrieved from: CDFW [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Inland-Fisheries/Wild-Trout#382561302-central-region]]]<br />
<br />
The mission of this program is to protect and enhance California’s heritage and wild trout resources, while providing opportunities for high-quality wild trout angling. Each year new waters are designated as wild trout fisheries to protect and restore their habitats. <br />
<br />
'''''Central Region designated Wild Trout waters'''''<br />
*Clavey River<br />
*Golden Trout Creek drainage<br />
*Kings River <br />
*Little Kern River drainage<br />
*Lower Honeymoon Lake <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109596&inline 2012 Management Plan]<br />
*Maggie Lake <br />
*Middle Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Middle Fork Stanislaus River <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=122049&inline 2016 Management Plan]<br />
*Royce Lake # 2 <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109595&inline 2013 Management Plan]<br />
*Sallie Keys Lakes <br />
*South Fork Kern River drainage <br />
*South Fork Kings River <br />
*South Fork Merced River <br />
*South Fork San Joaquin River <br />
*Upper Kern River<br />
<br />
==Big Game Management Projects==<br />
<br />
'''''Active''''' <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big-Game/Projects </ref><br />
<br />
*Carrizo Tule Elk<br />
**Over the past four years, there have been significant changes in land use patterns in and around the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County) which currently has an estimated population of 500 tule elk. Land use changes include construction of almost 7,000 acres of solar plants and the conversion of another 6,000 acres of dryland barley to mitigation lands to be managed for endangered species. The proposed project will be to capture and place GPS collars on up to 20 elk from the three separate sub herds in the study area to determine habitat use patterns in light of the recent landscape level changes in the study area.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117123&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*Habitat Connectivity of Tule Elk<br />
**Tule elk are a recovering native species with metapopulations increasingly being isolated by man-made structures (e.g., highways, reservoirs, canals, etc). As specified in the California Wildlife Action Plan, research should be conducted to address habitat fragmentation and avoid loss of key wildlife movement corridors. As the human population of California continues to increase, man-made barriers to movement will become more widespread. The Department requires data necessary to guide the design and/or placement of new structures that facilitate habitat and metapopualtion linkages.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117094&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
*San Joaquin Watershed Telemetry<br />
**The San Joaquin deer herd is in decline and much of the winter range is underutilized. In addition, based on location and timing of harvest, a large percentage of bucks harvested within the range appear to be resident deer causing concern that the migratory population may be even more suppressed. Increased resident population at low elevation and underutilized winter range may indicate that the limiting factor for migratory deer in this watershed is summer or fawning habitat condition. To gain understanding of the deer population on this range we are proposing a telemetry project. Telemetry data will help us locate, protect, and enhance key summer and winter range areas and the migration corridors throughout the range.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117116&inline Recent Report]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''''Completed'''''<br />
<br />
*La Panza Fixed Wing Flights<br />
**Tule elk populations have been increasing in the La Panza hunt zone since their reintroduction in the 1980’s. In order to determine habitat use patterns and home range sizes, radio telemetry collars were placed on elk from 2005-2010. Ultimately, all of this information will be used to determine the carrying capacity for tule elk in the study area. This information will directly affect management strategies (CDFW owns ~60,000 acres and holds conservation easements on another 15,000 acres), will be used to determine if new elk hunting opportunities are available/feasible, and will be used to help determine harvest rates on the PLM lands.<br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70307&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
*San Luis Elk Relocation<br />
**The San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) tule elk herd was established in 1974. The herd currently contains more than 70 animals and is well above the desired maximum level of 50. Capturing and translocating tule elk from the SLNWR is proposed at this time (prior to 2012 calving season) to maintain habitat quality and keep elk from suffering nutritionally. The objective is to remove excess animals from the tule elk enclosure to lower the number of elk to below the carrying capacity in an effort keep the habitat in good condition and the elk in excellent physical condition. <br />
**[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70303&inline Completed Report]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/Elkhorn-Slough-ER| Elkhorn Slough Picture]<br />
*[https://environmentfortheamericas.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/snowy-plover-mud-stomp/|Moss Landing Wildlife Area Sign]<br />
*[http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-protected-areas/|Marine Protected Areas Picture]<br />
<br />
==Disclaimer==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Regional_Trail_and_Greenway_(FORTAG)Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)2017-04-11T17:28:48Z<p>Nikkii: /* Current progress */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORTAG_FFO_Simple_160902_450dpi.png|350px|thumb|The proposed Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/</ref>]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) is a proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>.The proposed route connects the existing Coastal Rec Trail to the communities of [[City of Marina|Marina]], [[City of Seaside|Seaside]] and [[City of Monterey|Monterey]], creating a streamlined, accessible trail network connecting existing public lands and parks, residential communities, [[California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)]], Fort Ord National Monument and existing transportation corridors. FORTAG was a grassroots, community conception spearheaded by CSUMB faculty Scott Waltz and Fred Watson. The total cost of the project is estimated at $40 million. In November 2016, Monterey County voters approved $20 million in funding for FORTAG as part of the transportation bill Measure X.<br />
<br />
==Route and details==<br />
FORTAG is composed of two main loops:<br />
*'''Northern loop''': The northern loop of FORTAG follows a 13-mile route around the City of Marina and includes three miles of the existing Coastal Rec Trail. <br />
*'''Southern loop''': The southern loop of FORTAG following a 15-mile route around Seaside and through Del Ray Oaks, and includes four miles of the existing trail system<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref><br />
<br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=0px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop Simple 161212 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Simple 161001 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Southern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
As proposed, FORTAG will be a continuous 12-ft wide paved trail with an open space buffer on both sides extending to 150-ft on each side of the trail for most of its length. Habitat, parks, playing fields, developed outdoor recreation sites, associated amenities, unpaved trails, and agriculture will be incorporated into the buffer regions. The trail will connect with existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and plans. Several sections of the paved trail will loosely parallel to existing unpaved trails. In its current proposed form, FORTAG involves about three road underpasses and one overpass.<br />
<br />
===Vision===<br />
[[File:IMG_8389c_resize.JPG|left|340px|thumb|The proposed FORTAG route incorporates segments of the existing Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. Photo courtesy Fred Watson<ref>http://www.fortag.org/gallery.htm</ref>.]]<br />
<br />
FORTAG proponents primarily see the trail network as a facilitator of active transportation that expands opportunities for utilizing biking, walking, running or wheelchairs to commute among home, work, public lands and commercial areas. Unpaved portions of the trail may be suitable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian travel. <br />
<br />
The trail is intended to be "a pleasant and visually obvious route that invites safe use by families with young children on bikes, and that can be jointly used by walkers, joggers, children in strollers, wheelchairs (in key segments), commuter cyclists, and recreational cyclists (including those with narrow tires)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>."<br />
<br />
FORTAG's website lists the following values:<br />
*Connect people to open space<br />
*Be a pleasant experience<br />
*Be useable by anyone<br />
*Have room for everyone<br />
*Be complementary to the built environment<br />
*Have loops, of different sizes<br />
*Be 100% connected all the way around each loop<br />
*Have no 'red flags' from land owners and/or jurisdictions<br />
*Function as a habitat corridor for dispersal of native plants and movement of wildlife (with the exception of certain constrained segments where this is impractical)<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
According to Scott Waltz, one of the project's founding volunteers, the concept for the project came from the [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]]'s call for access to public trails and wildlife corridors as a part of the area's new uses. Along with trail access advocates Fred Watson, Marina City Councilwoman Gail Morton and Marina Planning Commissioner Margaret Davis, FORTAG was conceived of in 2013<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20160813/NEWS/160819910</ref>. <br />
<br />
===Timeline===<br />
*'''1994''' Fort Ord military base closure<br />
*'''1997''' [[Fort Ord]] Base Reuse Plan adopted<br />
*'''April 20, 2012''' [[Fort Ord National Monument]] designated under the Antiquities Act. <br />
*'''Early 2013''' Davis, Morton, Watson and Waltz conceive FORTAG precursor ideas<br />
*'''Jan 29, 2014''' Marina City Council adopts a motion to examine feasibility of a trails/greenways project from EIghth Street to Inter-Garrison. <br />
*'''2014''' Comprehensive mapping of FORTAG trail concepts<br />
*'''2014''' Proponents meet and conduct tours with key stakeholders, present FORTAG to community groups including the [[Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District]], FORT Friends, Sierra Club<br />
*'''November 20, 2014''' Morton and Watson present to Marina City Council and Planning Commission. Council adopts a motion to support the concept of FORTAG.<br />
*'''2015''' Continued meetings, tours and presentations to groups including Sustainable Seaside, Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse, and Citizens of Sustainable Marina<br />
*'''August 26, 2015''' Presentation to Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC unanimously passes motion to work toward FORTAG.<br />
*'''December 17, 2015''' FORTAG presented to Seaside City Council<br />
*'''Feb. 24. 2016''' TAMC Board approves FORTAG to be included included on final list of regional projects to be funded (at $20 million) by TAMC's Transportation Safety and Investment Plan (Measure X), a sales tax to go before voters in November 2016.<br />
*'''November 8, 2016''' General election in which Measure X passes.<br />
*'''November 30, 2016''' FORTAG secures its $20 million in funding from the plan passed by Measure X.<br />
*'''2017''' FORTAG proponents continue meetings, tours and presentations with stakeholders, as well as working to include FORTAG in relevant general plan updates<br />
*'''March 22, 2017''' TAMC Board approves conditional use of additional $900k of TAMC funds as match toward an upcoming application for additional funds through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Measure X funding==<br />
On November 8, 2016, voters passed "Measure X: Monterey County Transportation Agency Sales Tax" with 67.7 percent of the vote. This measure enacts an 0.375 percent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transportation infrastructure projects. The funding is designated for a variety of transportation infrastructure projects that will:<br />
*Repair potholes and maintain roads<br />
*Improve safety on local roads, highways, and intersections<br />
*Reduce traffic and reduce commute times<br />
*Make walking and biking safer and more accessible<br />
*Protect and enhance public transportation for youth, seniors, and people with disabilities<br />
*Support alternatives to driving and protect our environment<br />
*Improve safety and traffic flow on highways 68, 101, and 1<br />
*Support safe routes to school and crosswalks <ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Transportation_Agency_for_Monterey_County,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_X_(November_2016)#Support Transportation Agency for Monterey County, California, Sales Tax, Measure X, Ballotpedia ]</ref><br />
<br />
FORTAG will receive an estimated $20 million in funding from Measure X<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Fordord.jpg|right|350px|thumb|FORTAG aims to connect communities to open space including municipal, county, regional and federal public lands. Photo courtesy Bureau of Land Management.<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmcalifornia/6990204572/in/album-72157629585939752/</ref>.]]<br />
===Ballot language===<br />
<blockquote>''"Shall the Transportation Agency for Monterey County fund a transportation safety and investment plan to: improve safety on local roads and highways; repair potholes; maintain streets and roads; reduce traffic congestion; improve transportation for seniors, young people, and people with disabilities; and make walking and biking safer, by enacting a three-eighths percent sales tax, raising approximately twenty million dollars annually over 30 years, plus state and federal matching funds, with citizen oversight and annual independent audits?"''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Measure X received endorsements from three major media outlets in Monterey County: the Monterey Herald<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20161024/LOCAL1/161029854</ref>, the Salinas Californian<ref>http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2016/10/06/transit-measures-yes/91706662/</ref> and the Monterey County Weekly<ref>http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/weekly-endorsement-measure-x-is-a-vote-for-a-thriving/article_a927a978-f139-11e5-a3e0-b3d4a3c06ff0.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Key stakeholders==<br />
FORTAG proponents include a core team of volunteers:<br />
*Fred Watson: FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - [[CSUMB]]<br />
*Scott Waltz:FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - CSUMB & [[Sierra Club]]<br />
*Margaret Davis:Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse & Marina Planning Commissioner<br />
*Gail Morton:Marina City Councilor & [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]] Boardmember<br />
<br />
The following organizations are involved in or relevant to FORTAG planning and funding:<br />
*TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey County)<br />
*[[City of Seaside]]<br />
*[[City of Marina]]<br />
*[[City of Monterey]]<br />
*[[CSUMB]]<br />
*[[Bureau of Land Management]]<br />
*[[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
*[[Monterey County]]<br />
<br />
==Current progress==<br />
Since the passage of Measure X, FORTAG construction is pending incorporation of FORTAG into various jurisdictional planning documents, prioritization of Measure X projects and grant funding<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>. Within the next two years, proponents of the FORTAG project aim to:<br />
*Obtain easements for trail segments as necessary<br />
*Memoranda of Agreement among agencies in relation to specific FORTAG segments<br />
*Environmental Impact Report<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The project aims for completion within 10 years<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Map gallery==<br />
<br />
Below are additional maps associated with FORTAG. Click on each thumbnail to reveal a larger image. Full resolution images and additional maps are available on the FORTAG website in the [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm maps] section.<br />
<br />
<br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO 150130 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop 150130.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop 150423 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Vert 161027 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|FORTAG map, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Southern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Seaside vertical layout map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG CSUMB 160923 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p6-3 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORP HikerBikerTrails 150420 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p3-1 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Segments near CSUMB<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Trail/Open Space Link<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Hiker/Biker trails<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Overlay with FORA Land Use map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORHA 150206 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO HCP 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO NPR 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Lengths 160524 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Comparison to Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA) Trail Master Plan<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to Fort Ord habitat and management conservation plans<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to native plant reserves<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Length of FORTAG trail segments<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Slopes Portrait 160510 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Elevs 150328 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Simple Population 160513 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG Hotels 160429 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments slopes<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments elevations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to population density<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Relationship to select hotel locations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm FORTAG Maps]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Regional_Trail_and_Greenway_(FORTAG)Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)2017-04-11T17:28:05Z<p>Nikkii: /* Measure X funding */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORTAG_FFO_Simple_160902_450dpi.png|350px|thumb|The proposed Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/</ref>]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) is a proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>.The proposed route connects the existing Coastal Rec Trail to the communities of [[City of Marina|Marina]], [[City of Seaside|Seaside]] and [[City of Monterey|Monterey]], creating a streamlined, accessible trail network connecting existing public lands and parks, residential communities, [[California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)]], Fort Ord National Monument and existing transportation corridors. FORTAG was a grassroots, community conception spearheaded by CSUMB faculty Scott Waltz and Fred Watson. The total cost of the project is estimated at $40 million. In November 2016, Monterey County voters approved $20 million in funding for FORTAG as part of the transportation bill Measure X.<br />
<br />
==Route and details==<br />
FORTAG is composed of two main loops:<br />
*'''Northern loop''': The northern loop of FORTAG follows a 13-mile route around the City of Marina and includes three miles of the existing Coastal Rec Trail. <br />
*'''Southern loop''': The southern loop of FORTAG following a 15-mile route around Seaside and through Del Ray Oaks, and includes four miles of the existing trail system<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref><br />
<br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=0px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop Simple 161212 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Simple 161001 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Southern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
As proposed, FORTAG will be a continuous 12-ft wide paved trail with an open space buffer on both sides extending to 150-ft on each side of the trail for most of its length. Habitat, parks, playing fields, developed outdoor recreation sites, associated amenities, unpaved trails, and agriculture will be incorporated into the buffer regions. The trail will connect with existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and plans. Several sections of the paved trail will loosely parallel to existing unpaved trails. In its current proposed form, FORTAG involves about three road underpasses and one overpass.<br />
<br />
===Vision===<br />
[[File:IMG_8389c_resize.JPG|left|340px|thumb|The proposed FORTAG route incorporates segments of the existing Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. Photo courtesy Fred Watson<ref>http://www.fortag.org/gallery.htm</ref>.]]<br />
<br />
FORTAG proponents primarily see the trail network as a facilitator of active transportation that expands opportunities for utilizing biking, walking, running or wheelchairs to commute among home, work, public lands and commercial areas. Unpaved portions of the trail may be suitable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian travel. <br />
<br />
The trail is intended to be "a pleasant and visually obvious route that invites safe use by families with young children on bikes, and that can be jointly used by walkers, joggers, children in strollers, wheelchairs (in key segments), commuter cyclists, and recreational cyclists (including those with narrow tires)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>."<br />
<br />
FORTAG's website lists the following values:<br />
*Connect people to open space<br />
*Be a pleasant experience<br />
*Be useable by anyone<br />
*Have room for everyone<br />
*Be complementary to the built environment<br />
*Have loops, of different sizes<br />
*Be 100% connected all the way around each loop<br />
*Have no 'red flags' from land owners and/or jurisdictions<br />
*Function as a habitat corridor for dispersal of native plants and movement of wildlife (with the exception of certain constrained segments where this is impractical)<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
According to Scott Waltz, one of the project's founding volunteers, the concept for the project came from the [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]]'s call for access to public trails and wildlife corridors as a part of the area's new uses. Along with trail access advocates Fred Watson, Marina City Councilwoman Gail Morton and Marina Planning Commissioner Margaret Davis, FORTAG was conceived of in 2013<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20160813/NEWS/160819910</ref>. <br />
<br />
===Timeline===<br />
*'''1994''' Fort Ord military base closure<br />
*'''1997''' [[Fort Ord]] Base Reuse Plan adopted<br />
*'''April 20, 2012''' [[Fort Ord National Monument]] designated under the Antiquities Act. <br />
*'''Early 2013''' Davis, Morton, Watson and Waltz conceive FORTAG precursor ideas<br />
*'''Jan 29, 2014''' Marina City Council adopts a motion to examine feasibility of a trails/greenways project from EIghth Street to Inter-Garrison. <br />
*'''2014''' Comprehensive mapping of FORTAG trail concepts<br />
*'''2014''' Proponents meet and conduct tours with key stakeholders, present FORTAG to community groups including the [[Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District]], FORT Friends, Sierra Club<br />
*'''November 20, 2014''' Morton and Watson present to Marina City Council and Planning Commission. Council adopts a motion to support the concept of FORTAG.<br />
*'''2015''' Continued meetings, tours and presentations to groups including Sustainable Seaside, Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse, and Citizens of Sustainable Marina<br />
*'''August 26, 2015''' Presentation to Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC unanimously passes motion to work toward FORTAG.<br />
*'''December 17, 2015''' FORTAG presented to Seaside City Council<br />
*'''Feb. 24. 2016''' TAMC Board approves FORTAG to be included included on final list of regional projects to be funded (at $20 million) by TAMC's Transportation Safety and Investment Plan (Measure X), a sales tax to go before voters in November 2016.<br />
*'''November 8, 2016''' General election in which Measure X passes.<br />
*'''November 30, 2016''' FORTAG secures its $20 million in funding from the plan passed by Measure X.<br />
*'''2017''' FORTAG proponents continue meetings, tours and presentations with stakeholders, as well as working to include FORTAG in relevant general plan updates<br />
*'''March 22, 2017''' TAMC Board approves conditional use of additional $900k of TAMC funds as match toward an upcoming application for additional funds through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Measure X funding==<br />
On November 8, 2016, voters passed "Measure X: Monterey County Transportation Agency Sales Tax" with 67.7 percent of the vote. This measure enacts an 0.375 percent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transportation infrastructure projects. The funding is designated for a variety of transportation infrastructure projects that will:<br />
*Repair potholes and maintain roads<br />
*Improve safety on local roads, highways, and intersections<br />
*Reduce traffic and reduce commute times<br />
*Make walking and biking safer and more accessible<br />
*Protect and enhance public transportation for youth, seniors, and people with disabilities<br />
*Support alternatives to driving and protect our environment<br />
*Improve safety and traffic flow on highways 68, 101, and 1<br />
*Support safe routes to school and crosswalks <ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Transportation_Agency_for_Monterey_County,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_X_(November_2016)#Support Transportation Agency for Monterey County, California, Sales Tax, Measure X, Ballotpedia ]</ref><br />
<br />
FORTAG will receive an estimated $20 million in funding from Measure X<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Fordord.jpg|right|350px|thumb|FORTAG aims to connect communities to open space including municipal, county, regional and federal public lands. Photo courtesy Bureau of Land Management.<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmcalifornia/6990204572/in/album-72157629585939752/</ref>.]]<br />
===Ballot language===<br />
<blockquote>''"Shall the Transportation Agency for Monterey County fund a transportation safety and investment plan to: improve safety on local roads and highways; repair potholes; maintain streets and roads; reduce traffic congestion; improve transportation for seniors, young people, and people with disabilities; and make walking and biking safer, by enacting a three-eighths percent sales tax, raising approximately twenty million dollars annually over 30 years, plus state and federal matching funds, with citizen oversight and annual independent audits?"''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Measure X received endorsements from three major media outlets in Monterey County: the Monterey Herald<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20161024/LOCAL1/161029854</ref>, the Salinas Californian<ref>http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2016/10/06/transit-measures-yes/91706662/</ref> and the Monterey County Weekly<ref>http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/weekly-endorsement-measure-x-is-a-vote-for-a-thriving/article_a927a978-f139-11e5-a3e0-b3d4a3c06ff0.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Key stakeholders==<br />
FORTAG proponents include a core team of volunteers:<br />
*Fred Watson: FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - [[CSUMB]]<br />
*Scott Waltz:FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - CSUMB & [[Sierra Club]]<br />
*Margaret Davis:Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse & Marina Planning Commissioner<br />
*Gail Morton:Marina City Councilor & [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]] Boardmember<br />
<br />
The following organizations are involved in or relevant to FORTAG planning and funding:<br />
*TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey County)<br />
*[[City of Seaside]]<br />
*[[City of Marina]]<br />
*[[City of Monterey]]<br />
*[[CSUMB]]<br />
*[[Bureau of Land Management]]<br />
*[[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
*[[Monterey County]]<br />
<br />
==Current progress==<br />
Since the passage of Measure X, FORTAG construction is pending incorporation of FORTAG into various jurisdictional planning documents, prioritization of Measure X projects and grant funding<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>. Within the next two years, proponents of the FORTAG project aim to:<br />
*Obtain easements for trail segments as necessary<br />
*Memoranda of Agreement between agencies in relation to specific FORTAG segments<br />
*Environmental Impact Report<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The project aims for completion within 10 years<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Map gallery==<br />
<br />
Below are additional maps associated with FORTAG. Click on each thumbnail to reveal a larger image. Full resolution images and additional maps are available on the FORTAG website in the [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm maps] section.<br />
<br />
<br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO 150130 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop 150130.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop 150423 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Vert 161027 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|FORTAG map, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Southern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Seaside vertical layout map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG CSUMB 160923 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p6-3 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORP HikerBikerTrails 150420 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p3-1 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Segments near CSUMB<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Trail/Open Space Link<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Hiker/Biker trails<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Overlay with FORA Land Use map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORHA 150206 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO HCP 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO NPR 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Lengths 160524 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Comparison to Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA) Trail Master Plan<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to Fort Ord habitat and management conservation plans<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to native plant reserves<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Length of FORTAG trail segments<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Slopes Portrait 160510 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Elevs 150328 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Simple Population 160513 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG Hotels 160429 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments slopes<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments elevations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to population density<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Relationship to select hotel locations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm FORTAG Maps]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Regional_Trail_and_Greenway_(FORTAG)Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)2017-04-11T17:27:07Z<p>Nikkii: /* History */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORTAG_FFO_Simple_160902_450dpi.png|350px|thumb|The proposed Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/</ref>]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) is a proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>.The proposed route connects the existing Coastal Rec Trail to the communities of [[City of Marina|Marina]], [[City of Seaside|Seaside]] and [[City of Monterey|Monterey]], creating a streamlined, accessible trail network connecting existing public lands and parks, residential communities, [[California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)]], Fort Ord National Monument and existing transportation corridors. FORTAG was a grassroots, community conception spearheaded by CSUMB faculty Scott Waltz and Fred Watson. The total cost of the project is estimated at $40 million. In November 2016, Monterey County voters approved $20 million in funding for FORTAG as part of the transportation bill Measure X.<br />
<br />
==Route and details==<br />
FORTAG is composed of two main loops:<br />
*'''Northern loop''': The northern loop of FORTAG follows a 13-mile route around the City of Marina and includes three miles of the existing Coastal Rec Trail. <br />
*'''Southern loop''': The southern loop of FORTAG following a 15-mile route around Seaside and through Del Ray Oaks, and includes four miles of the existing trail system<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref><br />
<br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=0px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop Simple 161212 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Simple 161001 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Southern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
As proposed, FORTAG will be a continuous 12-ft wide paved trail with an open space buffer on both sides extending to 150-ft on each side of the trail for most of its length. Habitat, parks, playing fields, developed outdoor recreation sites, associated amenities, unpaved trails, and agriculture will be incorporated into the buffer regions. The trail will connect with existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and plans. Several sections of the paved trail will loosely parallel to existing unpaved trails. In its current proposed form, FORTAG involves about three road underpasses and one overpass.<br />
<br />
===Vision===<br />
[[File:IMG_8389c_resize.JPG|left|340px|thumb|The proposed FORTAG route incorporates segments of the existing Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. Photo courtesy Fred Watson<ref>http://www.fortag.org/gallery.htm</ref>.]]<br />
<br />
FORTAG proponents primarily see the trail network as a facilitator of active transportation that expands opportunities for utilizing biking, walking, running or wheelchairs to commute among home, work, public lands and commercial areas. Unpaved portions of the trail may be suitable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian travel. <br />
<br />
The trail is intended to be "a pleasant and visually obvious route that invites safe use by families with young children on bikes, and that can be jointly used by walkers, joggers, children in strollers, wheelchairs (in key segments), commuter cyclists, and recreational cyclists (including those with narrow tires)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>."<br />
<br />
FORTAG's website lists the following values:<br />
*Connect people to open space<br />
*Be a pleasant experience<br />
*Be useable by anyone<br />
*Have room for everyone<br />
*Be complementary to the built environment<br />
*Have loops, of different sizes<br />
*Be 100% connected all the way around each loop<br />
*Have no 'red flags' from land owners and/or jurisdictions<br />
*Function as a habitat corridor for dispersal of native plants and movement of wildlife (with the exception of certain constrained segments where this is impractical)<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
According to Scott Waltz, one of the project's founding volunteers, the concept for the project came from the [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]]'s call for access to public trails and wildlife corridors as a part of the area's new uses. Along with trail access advocates Fred Watson, Marina City Councilwoman Gail Morton and Marina Planning Commissioner Margaret Davis, FORTAG was conceived of in 2013<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20160813/NEWS/160819910</ref>. <br />
<br />
===Timeline===<br />
*'''1994''' Fort Ord military base closure<br />
*'''1997''' [[Fort Ord]] Base Reuse Plan adopted<br />
*'''April 20, 2012''' [[Fort Ord National Monument]] designated under the Antiquities Act. <br />
*'''Early 2013''' Davis, Morton, Watson and Waltz conceive FORTAG precursor ideas<br />
*'''Jan 29, 2014''' Marina City Council adopts a motion to examine feasibility of a trails/greenways project from EIghth Street to Inter-Garrison. <br />
*'''2014''' Comprehensive mapping of FORTAG trail concepts<br />
*'''2014''' Proponents meet and conduct tours with key stakeholders, present FORTAG to community groups including the [[Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District]], FORT Friends, Sierra Club<br />
*'''November 20, 2014''' Morton and Watson present to Marina City Council and Planning Commission. Council adopts a motion to support the concept of FORTAG.<br />
*'''2015''' Continued meetings, tours and presentations to groups including Sustainable Seaside, Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse, and Citizens of Sustainable Marina<br />
*'''August 26, 2015''' Presentation to Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC unanimously passes motion to work toward FORTAG.<br />
*'''December 17, 2015''' FORTAG presented to Seaside City Council<br />
*'''Feb. 24. 2016''' TAMC Board approves FORTAG to be included included on final list of regional projects to be funded (at $20 million) by TAMC's Transportation Safety and Investment Plan (Measure X), a sales tax to go before voters in November 2016.<br />
*'''November 8, 2016''' General election in which Measure X passes.<br />
*'''November 30, 2016''' FORTAG secures its $20 million in funding from the plan passed by Measure X.<br />
*'''2017''' FORTAG proponents continue meetings, tours and presentations with stakeholders, as well as working to include FORTAG in relevant general plan updates<br />
*'''March 22, 2017''' TAMC Board approves conditional use of additional $900k of TAMC funds as match toward an upcoming application for additional funds through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Measure X funding==<br />
On November 8, 2016, voters passed "Measure X: Monterey County Transportation Agency Sales Tax" with 67.7 percent of the vote. This measure enacts an 0.375 percent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transportation infrastructure projects. The funding is designated for a variety of transportation infrastructure projects that will:<br />
*Repair potholes and maintain our roads<br />
*Improve safety on our local roads, highways, and intersections<br />
*Reduce traffic and reduce commute times<br />
*Make walking and biking safer and more accessible<br />
*Protect and enhance public transportation, especially for those who need it most: youth, seniors, and people with disabilities<br />
*Support alternatives to driving and protect our environment<br />
*Improve safety and traffic flow on Highways 68, 101, and 1<br />
*Support safe routes to school and crosswalks <ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Transportation_Agency_for_Monterey_County,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_X_(November_2016)#Support Transportation Agency for Monterey County, California, Sales Tax, Measure X, Ballotpedia ]</ref><br />
<br />
FORTAG will receive an estimated $20 million in funding from Measure X<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Fordord.jpg|right|350px|thumb|FORTAG aims to connect communities to open space including municipal, county, regional and federal public lands. Photo courtesy Bureau of Land Management.<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmcalifornia/6990204572/in/album-72157629585939752/</ref>.]]<br />
===Ballot language===<br />
<blockquote>''"Shall the Transportation Agency for Monterey County fund a transportation safety and investment plan to: improve safety on local roads and highways; repair potholes; maintain streets and roads; reduce traffic congestion; improve transportation for seniors, young people, and people with disabilities; and make walking and biking safer, by enacting a three-eighths percent sales tax, raising approximately twenty million dollars annually over 30 years, plus state and federal matching funds, with citizen oversight and annual independent audits?"''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Measure X received endorsements from three major media outlets in Monterey County: the Monterey Herald<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20161024/LOCAL1/161029854</ref>, the Salinas Californian<ref>http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2016/10/06/transit-measures-yes/91706662/</ref> and the Monterey County Weekly<ref>http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/weekly-endorsement-measure-x-is-a-vote-for-a-thriving/article_a927a978-f139-11e5-a3e0-b3d4a3c06ff0.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Key stakeholders==<br />
FORTAG proponents include a core team of volunteers:<br />
*Fred Watson: FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - [[CSUMB]]<br />
*Scott Waltz:FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - CSUMB & [[Sierra Club]]<br />
*Margaret Davis:Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse & Marina Planning Commissioner<br />
*Gail Morton:Marina City Councilor & [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]] Boardmember<br />
<br />
The following organizations are involved in or relevant to FORTAG planning and funding:<br />
*TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey County)<br />
*[[City of Seaside]]<br />
*[[City of Marina]]<br />
*[[City of Monterey]]<br />
*[[CSUMB]]<br />
*[[Bureau of Land Management]]<br />
*[[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
*[[Monterey County]]<br />
<br />
==Current progress==<br />
Since the passage of Measure X, FORTAG construction is pending incorporation of FORTAG into various jurisdictional planning documents, prioritization of Measure X projects and grant funding<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>. Within the next two years, proponents of the FORTAG project aim to:<br />
*Obtain easements for trail segments as necessary<br />
*Memoranda of Agreement between agencies in relation to specific FORTAG segments<br />
*Environmental Impact Report<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The project aims for completion within 10 years<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Map gallery==<br />
<br />
Below are additional maps associated with FORTAG. Click on each thumbnail to reveal a larger image. Full resolution images and additional maps are available on the FORTAG website in the [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm maps] section.<br />
<br />
<br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO 150130 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop 150130.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop 150423 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Vert 161027 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|FORTAG map, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Southern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Seaside vertical layout map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG CSUMB 160923 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p6-3 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORP HikerBikerTrails 150420 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p3-1 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Segments near CSUMB<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Trail/Open Space Link<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Hiker/Biker trails<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Overlay with FORA Land Use map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORHA 150206 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO HCP 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO NPR 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Lengths 160524 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Comparison to Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA) Trail Master Plan<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to Fort Ord habitat and management conservation plans<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to native plant reserves<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Length of FORTAG trail segments<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Slopes Portrait 160510 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Elevs 150328 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Simple Population 160513 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG Hotels 160429 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments slopes<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments elevations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to population density<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Relationship to select hotel locations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm FORTAG Maps]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Regional_Trail_and_Greenway_(FORTAG)Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)2017-04-11T17:06:49Z<p>Nikkii: /* Route and details */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORTAG_FFO_Simple_160902_450dpi.png|350px|thumb|The proposed Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/</ref>]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) is a proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>.The proposed route connects the existing Coastal Rec Trail to the communities of [[City of Marina|Marina]], [[City of Seaside|Seaside]] and [[City of Monterey|Monterey]], creating a streamlined, accessible trail network connecting existing public lands and parks, residential communities, [[California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)]], Fort Ord National Monument and existing transportation corridors. FORTAG was a grassroots, community conception spearheaded by CSUMB faculty Scott Waltz and Fred Watson. The total cost of the project is estimated at $40 million. In November 2016, Monterey County voters approved $20 million in funding for FORTAG as part of the transportation bill Measure X.<br />
<br />
==Route and details==<br />
FORTAG is composed of two main loops:<br />
*'''Northern loop''': The northern loop of FORTAG follows a 13-mile route around the City of Marina and includes three miles of the existing Coastal Rec Trail. <br />
*'''Southern loop''': The southern loop of FORTAG following a 15-mile route around Seaside and through Del Ray Oaks, and includes four miles of the existing trail system<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref><br />
<br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=0px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop Simple 161212 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Simple 161001 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Southern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
As proposed, FORTAG will be a continuous 12-ft wide paved trail with an open space buffer on both sides extending to 150-ft on each side of the trail for most of its length. Habitat, parks, playing fields, developed outdoor recreation sites, associated amenities, unpaved trails, and agriculture will be incorporated into the buffer regions. The trail will connect with existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and plans. Several sections of the paved trail will loosely parallel to existing unpaved trails. In its current proposed form, FORTAG involves about three road underpasses and one overpass.<br />
<br />
===Vision===<br />
[[File:IMG_8389c_resize.JPG|left|340px|thumb|The proposed FORTAG route incorporates segments of the existing Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. Photo courtesy Fred Watson<ref>http://www.fortag.org/gallery.htm</ref>.]]<br />
<br />
FORTAG proponents primarily see the trail network as a facilitator of active transportation that expands opportunities for utilizing biking, walking, running or wheelchairs to commute among home, work, public lands and commercial areas. Unpaved portions of the trail may be suitable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian travel. <br />
<br />
The trail is intended to be "a pleasant and visually obvious route that invites safe use by families with young children on bikes, and that can be jointly used by walkers, joggers, children in strollers, wheelchairs (in key segments), commuter cyclists, and recreational cyclists (including those with narrow tires)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>."<br />
<br />
FORTAG's website lists the following values:<br />
*Connect people to open space<br />
*Be a pleasant experience<br />
*Be useable by anyone<br />
*Have room for everyone<br />
*Be complementary to the built environment<br />
*Have loops, of different sizes<br />
*Be 100% connected all the way around each loop<br />
*Have no 'red flags' from land owners and/or jurisdictions<br />
*Function as a habitat corridor for dispersal of native plants and movement of wildlife (with the exception of certain constrained segments where this is impractical)<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
According to Scott Waltz, one of the project's founding volunteers, the concept for the project came from the [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]]'s call for access to public trails and wildlife corridors as a part of the area's new uses. Along with trail access advocates Fred Watson, Marina City Councilwoman Gail Morton and Marina Planning Commissioner Margaret Davis, FORTAG was conceived of in 2013<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20160813/NEWS/160819910</ref>. <br />
<br />
===Timeline===<br />
*'''1994''' Fort Ord military base closure<br />
*'''1997''' [[Fort Ord]] Base Reuse Plan adopted<br />
*'''April 20, 2012''' [[Fort Ord National Monument]] designated under the Antiquities Act. <br />
*'''Early 2013''' Davis, Morton, Watson and Waltz conceive FORTAG precursor ideas<br />
*'''Jan 29, 2014''' Marina City Council adopts a motion to examine feasibility of a trails/greenways project from 8th Street to Inter-Garrison. <br />
*'''2014''' Comprehensive mapping of FORTAG trail concepts<br />
*'''2014''' Proponents meet and conduct tours with key stakeholders, present FORTAG to community groups including the [[Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District]], FORT Friends, Sierra Club<br />
*'''November 20, 2014''' Morton and Watson present to Marina City Council and Planning Commission. Council adopts a motion to support the concept of FORTAG.<br />
*'''2015''' Continued meetings, tours and presentations to groups including Sustainable Seaside, Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse, and Citizens of Sustainable Marina<br />
*'''August 26, 2015''' Presentation to Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC unanimously passes potion ot work toward FORTAG.<br />
*'''December 17, 2015''' FORTAG presented to Seaside City Council<br />
*'''Feb. 24. 2016''' TAMC Board approves FORTAG to be included included at $20M on final list of regional projects to be funded by TAMC's Transportation Safety and Investment Plan, a sales tax to go before voters in November, 2016.<br />
*'''November 8, 2016''' General election in which Measure X passes.<br />
*'''November 30, 2016''' FORTAG secures its $20 million in funding from the plan passed by Measure X.<br />
*'''2017''' FORTAG proponents continue meetings, tours and presentations with stakeholders, as well as working to include FORTAG in relevant general plan updates<br />
*'''March 22, 2017''' TAMC Board approves conditional use of additional $900k of TAMC funds as match toward an upcoming application for additional funds through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Measure X funding==<br />
On November 8, 2016, voters passed "Measure X: Monterey County Transportation Agency Sales Tax" with 67.7 percent of the vote. This measure enacts an 0.375 percent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transportation infrastructure projects. The funding is designated for a variety of transportation infrastructure projects that will:<br />
*Repair potholes and maintain our roads<br />
*Improve safety on our local roads, highways, and intersections<br />
*Reduce traffic and reduce commute times<br />
*Make walking and biking safer and more accessible<br />
*Protect and enhance public transportation, especially for those who need it most: youth, seniors, and people with disabilities<br />
*Support alternatives to driving and protect our environment<br />
*Improve safety and traffic flow on Highways 68, 101, and 1<br />
*Support safe routes to school and crosswalks <ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Transportation_Agency_for_Monterey_County,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_X_(November_2016)#Support Transportation Agency for Monterey County, California, Sales Tax, Measure X, Ballotpedia ]</ref><br />
<br />
FORTAG will receive an estimated $20 million in funding from Measure X<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Fordord.jpg|right|350px|thumb|FORTAG aims to connect communities to open space including municipal, county, regional and federal public lands. Photo courtesy Bureau of Land Management.<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmcalifornia/6990204572/in/album-72157629585939752/</ref>.]]<br />
===Ballot language===<br />
<blockquote>''"Shall the Transportation Agency for Monterey County fund a transportation safety and investment plan to: improve safety on local roads and highways; repair potholes; maintain streets and roads; reduce traffic congestion; improve transportation for seniors, young people, and people with disabilities; and make walking and biking safer, by enacting a three-eighths percent sales tax, raising approximately twenty million dollars annually over 30 years, plus state and federal matching funds, with citizen oversight and annual independent audits?"''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Measure X received endorsements from three major media outlets in Monterey County: the Monterey Herald<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20161024/LOCAL1/161029854</ref>, the Salinas Californian<ref>http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2016/10/06/transit-measures-yes/91706662/</ref> and the Monterey County Weekly<ref>http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/weekly-endorsement-measure-x-is-a-vote-for-a-thriving/article_a927a978-f139-11e5-a3e0-b3d4a3c06ff0.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Key stakeholders==<br />
FORTAG proponents include a core team of volunteers:<br />
*Fred Watson: FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - [[CSUMB]]<br />
*Scott Waltz:FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - CSUMB & [[Sierra Club]]<br />
*Margaret Davis:Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse & Marina Planning Commissioner<br />
*Gail Morton:Marina City Councilor & [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]] Boardmember<br />
<br />
The following organizations are involved in or relevant to FORTAG planning and funding:<br />
*TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey County)<br />
*[[City of Seaside]]<br />
*[[City of Marina]]<br />
*[[City of Monterey]]<br />
*[[CSUMB]]<br />
*[[Bureau of Land Management]]<br />
*[[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
*[[Monterey County]]<br />
<br />
==Current progress==<br />
Since the passage of Measure X, FORTAG construction is pending incorporation of FORTAG into various jurisdictional planning documents, prioritization of Measure X projects and grant funding<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>. Within the next two years, proponents of the FORTAG project aim to:<br />
*Obtain easements for trail segments as necessary<br />
*Memoranda of Agreement between agencies in relation to specific FORTAG segments<br />
*Environmental Impact Report<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The project aims for completion within 10 years<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Map gallery==<br />
<br />
Below are additional maps associated with FORTAG. Click on each thumbnail to reveal a larger image. Full resolution images and additional maps are available on the FORTAG website in the [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm maps] section.<br />
<br />
<br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO 150130 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop 150130.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop 150423 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Vert 161027 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|FORTAG map, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Southern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Seaside vertical layout map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG CSUMB 160923 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p6-3 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORP HikerBikerTrails 150420 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p3-1 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Segments near CSUMB<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Trail/Open Space Link<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Hiker/Biker trails<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Overlay with FORA Land Use map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORHA 150206 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO HCP 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO NPR 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Lengths 160524 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Comparison to Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA) Trail Master Plan<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to Fort Ord habitat and management conservation plans<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to native plant reserves<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Length of FORTAG trail segments<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Slopes Portrait 160510 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Elevs 150328 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Simple Population 160513 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG Hotels 160429 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments slopes<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments elevations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to population density<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Relationship to select hotel locations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm FORTAG Maps]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fort_Ord_Regional_Trail_and_Greenway_(FORTAG)Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)2017-04-11T17:05:30Z<p>Nikkii: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:FORTAG_FFO_Simple_160902_450dpi.png|350px|thumb|The proposed Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/</ref>]]<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) is a proposed 30-mile network of paved trails and greenways aimed to connect communities to open space<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>.The proposed route connects the existing Coastal Rec Trail to the communities of [[City of Marina|Marina]], [[City of Seaside|Seaside]] and [[City of Monterey|Monterey]], creating a streamlined, accessible trail network connecting existing public lands and parks, residential communities, [[California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)]], Fort Ord National Monument and existing transportation corridors. FORTAG was a grassroots, community conception spearheaded by CSUMB faculty Scott Waltz and Fred Watson. The total cost of the project is estimated at $40 million. In November 2016, Monterey County voters approved $20 million in funding for FORTAG as part of the transportation bill Measure X.<br />
<br />
==Route and details==<br />
FORTAG is composed of two main loops:<br />
*'''Northern loop''': The northern loop of FORTAG follows a 13-mile route around the City of Marina and includes 3 miles of the existing Coastal Rec Trail. <br />
*'''Southern loop''': The southern loop of FORTAG following a 15-mile route around Seaside and through Del Ray Oaks, and includes 4 miles of the existing trail system<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref><br />
<br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=0px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop Simple 161212 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Simple 161001 450dpi.png|border|400px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Southern loop<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
As proposed, FORTAG will be a continuous 12-ft wide paved trail with an open-space buffer on both sides extending to 150-ft on each side of the trail for most of its length. Habitat, parks, playing fields, developed outdoor recreation sites, associated amenities, unpaved trails, and agriculture will be incorporated into the buffer regions. The trail will connect with existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and plans. Several sections of the paved trail will loosely parallel to existing unpaved trails. In its current proposed form, FORTAG involves about three road underpasses and one overpass.<br />
<br />
===Vision===<br />
[[File:IMG_8389c_resize.JPG|left|340px|thumb|The proposed FORTAG route incorporates segments of the existing Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. Photo courtesy Fred Watson<ref>http://www.fortag.org/gallery.htm</ref>.]]<br />
<br />
FORTAG proponents primarily see the trail network as a facilitator of active transportation; expanding opportunities for utilizing biking, walking, running or wheelchairs to commute among home, work, public lands and commercial areas. Unpaved portions of the trail may be suitable for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian travel. <br />
<br />
The trail is intended to be "a pleasant and visually obvious route that invites safe use by families with young children on bikes, and that can be jointly used by walkers, joggers, children in strollers, wheelchairs (in key segments), commuter cyclists, and recreational cyclists (including those with narrow tires)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/vision.htm</ref>."<br />
<br />
FORTAG's website lists the following values:<br />
*Connect people to open space<br />
*Be a pleasant experience<br />
*Be useable by anyone<br />
*Have room for everyone<br />
*Be complementary to the built environment<br />
*Have loops, of different sizes<br />
*Be 100% connected all the way around each loop<br />
*Have no 'red flags' from land owners and/or jurisdictions<br />
*Function as a habitat corridor for dispersal of native plants and movement of wildlife (with the exception of certain constrained segments where this is impractical)<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
According to Scott Waltz, one of the project's founding volunteers, the concept for the project came from the [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]]'s call for access to public trails and wildlife corridors as a part of the area's new uses. Along with trail access advocates Fred Watson, Marina City Councilwoman Gail Morton and Marina Planning Commissioner Margaret Davis, FORTAG was conceived of in 2013<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20160813/NEWS/160819910</ref>. <br />
<br />
===Timeline===<br />
*'''1994''' Fort Ord military base closure<br />
*'''1997''' [[Fort Ord]] Base Reuse Plan adopted<br />
*'''April 20, 2012''' [[Fort Ord National Monument]] designated under the Antiquities Act. <br />
*'''Early 2013''' Davis, Morton, Watson and Waltz conceive FORTAG precursor ideas<br />
*'''Jan 29, 2014''' Marina City Council adopts a motion to examine feasibility of a trails/greenways project from 8th Street to Inter-Garrison. <br />
*'''2014''' Comprehensive mapping of FORTAG trail concepts<br />
*'''2014''' Proponents meet and conduct tours with key stakeholders, present FORTAG to community groups including the [[Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District]], FORT Friends, Sierra Club<br />
*'''November 20, 2014''' Morton and Watson present to Marina City Council and Planning Commission. Council adopts a motion to support the concept of FORTAG.<br />
*'''2015''' Continued meetings, tours and presentations to groups including Sustainable Seaside, Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse, and Citizens of Sustainable Marina<br />
*'''August 26, 2015''' Presentation to Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC unanimously passes potion ot work toward FORTAG.<br />
*'''December 17, 2015''' FORTAG presented to Seaside City Council<br />
*'''Feb. 24. 2016''' TAMC Board approves FORTAG to be included included at $20M on final list of regional projects to be funded by TAMC's Transportation Safety and Investment Plan, a sales tax to go before voters in November, 2016.<br />
*'''November 8, 2016''' General election in which Measure X passes.<br />
*'''November 30, 2016''' FORTAG secures its $20 million in funding from the plan passed by Measure X.<br />
*'''2017''' FORTAG proponents continue meetings, tours and presentations with stakeholders, as well as working to include FORTAG in relevant general plan updates<br />
*'''March 22, 2017''' TAMC Board approves conditional use of additional $900k of TAMC funds as match toward an upcoming application for additional funds through the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Measure X funding==<br />
On November 8, 2016, voters passed "Measure X: Monterey County Transportation Agency Sales Tax" with 67.7 percent of the vote. This measure enacts an 0.375 percent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transportation infrastructure projects. The funding is designated for a variety of transportation infrastructure projects that will:<br />
*Repair potholes and maintain our roads<br />
*Improve safety on our local roads, highways, and intersections<br />
*Reduce traffic and reduce commute times<br />
*Make walking and biking safer and more accessible<br />
*Protect and enhance public transportation, especially for those who need it most: youth, seniors, and people with disabilities<br />
*Support alternatives to driving and protect our environment<br />
*Improve safety and traffic flow on Highways 68, 101, and 1<br />
*Support safe routes to school and crosswalks <ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Transportation_Agency_for_Monterey_County,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_X_(November_2016)#Support Transportation Agency for Monterey County, California, Sales Tax, Measure X, Ballotpedia ]</ref><br />
<br />
FORTAG will receive an estimated $20 million in funding from Measure X<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Fordord.jpg|right|350px|thumb|FORTAG aims to connect communities to open space including municipal, county, regional and federal public lands. Photo courtesy Bureau of Land Management.<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/blmcalifornia/6990204572/in/album-72157629585939752/</ref>.]]<br />
===Ballot language===<br />
<blockquote>''"Shall the Transportation Agency for Monterey County fund a transportation safety and investment plan to: improve safety on local roads and highways; repair potholes; maintain streets and roads; reduce traffic congestion; improve transportation for seniors, young people, and people with disabilities; and make walking and biking safer, by enacting a three-eighths percent sales tax, raising approximately twenty million dollars annually over 30 years, plus state and federal matching funds, with citizen oversight and annual independent audits?"''<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Measure X received endorsements from three major media outlets in Monterey County: the Monterey Herald<ref>http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20161024/LOCAL1/161029854</ref>, the Salinas Californian<ref>http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2016/10/06/transit-measures-yes/91706662/</ref> and the Monterey County Weekly<ref>http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/forum/weekly-endorsement-measure-x-is-a-vote-for-a-thriving/article_a927a978-f139-11e5-a3e0-b3d4a3c06ff0.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Key stakeholders==<br />
FORTAG proponents include a core team of volunteers:<br />
*Fred Watson: FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - [[CSUMB]]<br />
*Scott Waltz:FORTAG proponent & Associate Professor - CSUMB & [[Sierra Club]]<br />
*Margaret Davis:Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse & Marina Planning Commissioner<br />
*Gail Morton:Marina City Councilor & [[Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)]] Boardmember<br />
<br />
The following organizations are involved in or relevant to FORTAG planning and funding:<br />
*TAMC (Transportation Agency for Monterey County)<br />
*[[City of Seaside]]<br />
*[[City of Marina]]<br />
*[[City of Monterey]]<br />
*[[CSUMB]]<br />
*[[Bureau of Land Management]]<br />
*[[Fort Ord National Monument]]<br />
*[[Monterey County]]<br />
<br />
==Current progress==<br />
Since the passage of Measure X, FORTAG construction is pending incorporation of FORTAG into various jurisdictional planning documents, prioritization of Measure X projects and grant funding<ref>[http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/measure-x-paves-way-for-new-trail-network-from-monterey/article_ff0d851e-cd35-11e6-bd01-b78888f8ec80.html "Measure X paves way for new trail network from Monterey to Marina", Monterey County Weekly]</ref>. Within the next two years, proponents of the FORTAG project aim to:<br />
*Obtain easements for trail segments as necessary<br />
*Memoranda of Agreement between agencies in relation to specific FORTAG segments<br />
*Environmental Impact Report<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The project aims for completion within 10 years<ref>http://www.fortag.org/timeline.htm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Map gallery==<br />
<br />
Below are additional maps associated with FORTAG. Click on each thumbnail to reveal a larger image. Full resolution images and additional maps are available on the FORTAG website in the [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm maps] section.<br />
<br />
<br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO 150130 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG NLoop 150130.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop 150423 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG SLoop Vert 161027 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|FORTAG map, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Northern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Southern loop, in detail<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Seaside vertical layout map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG CSUMB 160923 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p6-3 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORP HikerBikerTrails 150420 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Fig3p3-1 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Segments near CSUMB<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Trail/Open Space Link<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Overlay with FORA Hiker/Biker trails<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Overlay with FORA Land Use map<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO FORHA 150206 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO HCP 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO NPR 150213.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Lengths 160524 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Comparison to Fort Ord Recreational Habitat Area (FORHA) Trail Master Plan<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to Fort Ord habitat and management conservation plans<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to native plant reserves<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Length of FORTAG trail segments<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br><br><br />
{|style="background:transparent; color:black" border="0" height="300" align="center" valign="bottom" cellpadding=2px cellspacing=0px<br />
|-align="center"<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Slopes Portrait 160510 450dpi.png|border|250x250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Elevs 150328 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG FFO Simple Population 160513 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:FORTAG Hotels 160429 450dpi.png|border|250px|none]]<br />
|<br />
|-align="center" valign="top"<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments slopes<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Trail segments elevations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100"|Relationship to population density<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|width="100";;|Relationship to select hotel locations<br />
|width="25"|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
* [http://www.fortag.org/maps.htm FORTAG Maps]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Disclaimer=<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Soberanes_Wildfire_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionSoberanes Wildfire in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T17:03:06Z<p>Nikkii: /* Location */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
[[Image:soberanes_burn_severity2016.png|400px|thumb]]<br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
The Soberanes wildfire started on July 22, 2016 and was not contained until October 12, 2016.<ref> [https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/article/4888/34066/ Incident Information Website] </ref> It burned a total of 132,127 acres, mostly in [[Los Padres National Forest]] (94,933 acres).<ref name="fire"> [http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_details_info?incident_id=1348 CalFire Incident Information]</ref><br />
<br />
Although previous fires, like the [[Marble Cone Fire]] and [[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|Basin Complex-Indians Fire]], burned a greater acreage, the proximity to populated areas and duration of the Soberanes Fire made it a greater threat human life and homes,<ref> [http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/how-the-soberanes-fire-compares-to-others-in-recent-county/article_1621870e-543d-11e6-b7e3-330915949b7a.html Schmalz, D. 2016 Jul 28. How the Soberanes Fire compares to others in recent county history. Monterey County Weekly.] </ref> and it is considered to be the most expensive fire fought on U.S. soil.<ref> [http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/cover_collections/the-soberanes-fire-is-contained-but-its-aftermath-has-just/article_38d32b08-a13c-11e6-bd7c-cff01a2d304e.html Ceballos, A. 2016 Nov 3. The Soberanes Fire is contained, but its aftermath has just begun. Monterey County Weekly.] </ref><br />
<br />
==Location==<br />
The Soberanes Fire began in [[Garrapata State Park]] along the central coast, about 12 miles south of Monterey, California. The fire spread across the [[Ventana Wilderness]] of Los Padres National Forest in the the northern part of the [[Santa Lucia Range|Santa Lucia Mountains]], and south into [[Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park|Big Sur]] <ref> [https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2016/californias-soberanes-fire-still-burns-on Jenner, L. 13 Sep 2016. California's Soberanes Fire Still Burns On. NASA: Fire and Smoke.] </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Resources at Stake ==<br />
<br />
<br />
For more information on the impacts of wildfires in [[California's Central Coast Region|California's Central Coast Region]], click [[Fire issues in California's Central Coast Region|here]].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
* Map of burn severity area [[Carmel River Watershed: 2016 Soberanes Fire Burn Severity]]<br />
<br />
* Other [[Watershed Issues]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students' work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T17:01:54Z<p>Nikkii: /* Tools */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western U.S., large wildfire frequency and duration has increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16 percent in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency charged with managing wildfires on private land. Their budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million in funding for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are: improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency; a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation; a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems; and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits of fire to ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems - all characteristic of the region - are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for people to travel far distances in a relatively short amounts of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels because fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2 to 3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure of the soil steady and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion and gullying will worsen in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some research on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] has developed a well-respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LiDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human fatalities, spurring the general view that wildfires are dangerous and unwanted.<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that wild fire can cause presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T16:59:41Z<p>Nikkii: /* Science */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western U.S., large wildfire frequency and duration has increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16 percent in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency charged with managing wildfires on private land. Their budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million in funding for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are: improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency; a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation; a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems; and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits of fire to ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems - all characteristic of the region - are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for people to travel far distances in a relatively short amounts of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels because fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2 to 3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure of the soil steady and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion and gullying will worsen in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some research on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The California Department of Fish and Game has developed a well respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LIDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human deaths. And so began the general view of fire being "bad".<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that fire is often responsible for presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T16:59:09Z<p>Nikkii: /* Ecological Benefits of Fire */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western U.S., large wildfire frequency and duration has increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16 percent in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency charged with managing wildfires on private land. Their budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million in funding for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are: improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency; a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation; a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems; and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits of fire to ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems - all characteristic of the region - are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for people to travel far distances in a relatively short amounts of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels because fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2 to 3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure of the soil steady and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion and gullying will worsen in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some work done on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The California Department of Fish and Game has developed a well respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LIDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human deaths. And so began the general view of fire being "bad".<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that fire is often responsible for presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T16:49:29Z<p>Nikkii: /* Policy */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western U.S., large wildfire frequency and duration has increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16 percent in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency charged with managing wildfires on private land. Their budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million in funding for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are: improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency; a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation; a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems; and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits fire can bring to the ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems, characteristic of the region, are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes, characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges, erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for humans to travel far distances in a relatively short amount of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels as fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2-3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure and erosiveness of the soil, and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion, and gullying will be worsened in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some work done on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The California Department of Fish and Game has developed a well respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LIDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human deaths. And so began the general view of fire being "bad".<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that fire is often responsible for presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T16:47:23Z<p>Nikkii: /* Location and Management */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western U.S., large wildfire frequency and duration has increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16 percent in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency charged with managing wildfires on private land. Their budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, a Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency, a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation, a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems, and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits fire can bring to the ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems, characteristic of the region, are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes, characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges, erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for humans to travel far distances in a relatively short amount of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels as fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2-3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure and erosiveness of the soil, and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion, and gullying will be worsened in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some work done on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The California Department of Fish and Game has developed a well respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LIDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human deaths. And so began the general view of fire being "bad".<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that fire is often responsible for presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Fire_issues_in_California%27s_Central_Coast_RegionFire issues in California's Central Coast Region2017-04-11T16:44:32Z<p>Nikkii: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|watershed-related topic]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. This page aims to portray the benefits and challenges wildfire presents to the people and ecosystems of the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast Region]]<br />
[[File:ChaparralBurn.jpg|400px|thumb|right| Image 1. Flames engulf a hillside of chaparral in Palo Colorado Canyon during the Soberness Fire of 2016. Photo by David Royal.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
The various ecosystems that comprise the central California landscape have adapted to fire over time.<ref>[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens_Fry_Redwood_2005.pdf Stephens SL, Fry DL. 2005. Fire history in coast redwood stands in the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Fire Ecology,1(1):2-19.]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rb240.pdf (USFS) Fried JS, Bollinger CL, Beardsley D. 2004. Chaparral in southern and central coastal California in the mid-1990s: area, ownership, condition, and change. PNW-RB-240. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 86 p.]</ref> As California's population grows, urban expansion into natural areas is becoming more commonplace, creating a higher risk to human life and infrastructure in the event of wildfire. Hot, dry conditions on the Central Coast during late spring, summer and fall also contribute to fire risk. In the fall and early winter, it's not atypical for [[Santa Ana winds]] to fan and spread active fires.<ref>[http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/04eos_westerling.pdf Westerling AL, Cayan DR, Brown TJ, Hall BL, Riddle LG. 2004. Climate, Santa Ana winds and autumn wildfires in southern California. Eos, 85(31):289-296.]</ref> This combination of high temperatures and warm winds contributes to increasing flammability of dead and live fuel sources and is often exacerbated by drought conditions, which sometimes leads to "catastrophic" wildfires.<ref name="Fire Activity"/><br />
Historically, lightning fires and purposeful ignitions by indigenous tribes ensured rather frequent fires of low to moderate severity.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/827540 Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography, 29(3):303-320.]</ref> Years of fire suppression, coupled with prolonged drought conditions, however, have changed the fire regime on the [[California's Central Coast Region|Central Coast]] <ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2426173 Greenlee JM, Langenheim JH. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay Area of California. The American Midland Naturalist 124(2):239-53. doi:10.2307/2426173.]</ref>, yielding a greater challenge when it comes to mitigating fire damage to both ecosystems and man-made infrastructure.<br />
<br />
== Location and Management==<br />
[[File:PublicLandCenCal.gif|400px|thumb|right|Image 2. Public land distribution in Central Coastal California. Copyright Interactive Outdoors, Inc.[http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=CATRCC&CU_ID=1]]]<br />
Wildfires occur on both private and public land on the Central Coast (Image 2). Due to the close proximity of different land jurisdictions in the area, fire management often involves multiple agencies including but not limited to: the [[United States Forest Service (USFS)|Forest Service]], [[California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)|CalFire]], [[California Department of Parks and Recreation|California State Parks]], [[United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)|Bureau of Land Management]], [[California's Central Coast Region|individual counties]], [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)|California Department of Fish and Wildlife]], volunteer fire brigades, and other entities that manage open space or rural areas.<br />
<br />
In the early part of the 20th Century, United States land managers generally believed that fire exclusion promoted ecological stability. It wasn't until the mid 1960's that fire was scientifically proven to provide ecological benefits, resulting in gradual shifts in fire management policy to allow more fires to take their natural course.<ref name="Policy Review">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf (NPS & USFS) National Park Service and United States Forest Service. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> As a result of changing policies and shifts in climatic patterns in the western United States, large wildfire frequency and duration have increased and wildfire seasons have lengthened since 1970.<ref name="Fire Activity">[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789):940-943.]</ref> Most recently, federal fire management policy has emphasized fuels management treatments such as prescribed burns and mechanical thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfires.<ref name="Policy Review"/><br />
<br />
=== Cost of Fire Management ===<br />
The cost of fighting wildfires across the United States is already exorbitant and is quickly rising. For example, in 2015 more than 50% of the Forest Service federal budget of approximately $6.5 billion went to wildfire management, up from 16% in 1995. This change in funding allocation is directly responsible for defunding other Forest Service departments such as recreation, restoration, and planning.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2014. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf (USDA) United States Forest Service. 2015. The rising cost of wildfire operations: effects of the Forest Service's no-fire work. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref><br />
<br />
In California, the state fire management agency budget is one of the highest in the nation. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, is California's fire response agency that is charged with managing wildfires on privately owned land. Their budget for fiscal year 2016-2017 was reported at approximately $3.2 billion.<ref>[http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Glance.pdf (CalFire) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2016. CalFire at a glance. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Policy==<br />
There are two pieces of legislation that dominate national policy regarding wildfire management. The National Forest Plan was a federal policy responding to the growing concern of dangerous levels of fuels in national forests. The main focuses of the plan are firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel removal, community assistance and accountability. The original plan released $108 million for fuels removal in 2000; this number increased to $401 million by 2005. <br />
<br />
To identify where funds were most necessary, a Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy directed the collaborations of local, tribal, state, and federal land mangers along with scientific and regulatory agencies. The four goals of the plan are improved information sharing, monitoring of accomplishments and forest conditions to improve transparency, a long-term commitment to maintaining the essential resources for implementation, a landscape-level vision for restoration of fire adapted ecosystems, and an emphasis on the importance of using fire as a management tool (Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy 2006).<br />
<br />
== Ecological Benefits of Fire==<br />
[[File:Condor in Redwood.png|200px|thumb|left|Image 3. California condor #167 in a burned out redwood cavity in Big Sur, CA, on 28 March 2006, Photo by Joseph Brandt, Ventana Wildlife Society.]]<br />
The following list is a snapshot of some of the many benefits fire can bring to the ecosystems of the region:<br />
*'''Growth stimulation of native plants:''' The [[California Chaparral|chaparral]], [[Oak Woodlands of California's Central Coast Region|oak woodland]], [[Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)|redwood forest]], and grassland ecosystems, characteristic of the region, are well-adapted to fire. Many plants in these ecosystems depend on wildfire for germination cues, restarting the succession cycle, protection against disease, and making nutrients available for uptake.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Hanes TL. 1971. Succession after Fire in the Chaparral of Southern California. Ecological Monographs, 41(1)): 27-52. doi:10.2307/1942434.]</ref><br />
*'''Replenishment of sand for river and ocean beaches:''' Steep, fractured, granitic slopes, characteristic of the coastal mountain ranges, erode easily, especially when saturated. If a fire has burned the vegetation in the area, and damaged root systems that help stabilize soil, larger than normal debris flows and landslides can occur during the rainy season. Although these processes can pose inconveniences to humans living in affected watersheds, fluvial sediment transport is the main mode of beach sand replenishment on the West Coast. Therefore, fires play an instrumental role in ensuring beach sustainability.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345922?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Willis CM, Griggs GB. 2003. Reductions in fluvial sediment discharge by coastal dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. The Journal of Geology, 111(2):167-182.]</ref><br />
*'''Creation of habitat:''' Fire generally burns in irregular patterns and varies in intensity. The mosaic that results destroys habitat for some animals while creating habitat for others. Cavity nesters, or birds that live in holes in trees, often benefit from fire. One such bird is the endangered [[Special Status Animals in the Central Coast Region|California condor]] whose range is slowly being reestablished on the Central Coast. The wide cavities created by fire in the tops of redwood trees have served as ideal nesting spots for multiple condors on the Big Sur coast (Image 3).<ref>[http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/cond.2013.110150 Burnett LJ, Sorenson KJ, Brandt J, Sandhaus EA, Ciani D, Clark M, David C, Theule J, Kasielke S, Risebrough RW. 2013 Eggshell thinning and depressed hatching success of California Condors reintroduced to central California. The Condor, 115(3):477-491.]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Potentially Negative Ecological Impacts of Fire===<br />
Wildfires can negatively impact ecosystems in a variety of ways:<br />
*'''Ecosystem type conversion:''' Today's transportation technology allows for humans to travel far distances in a relatively short amount of time. Because of this capability, certain historical biogeographical barriers have been broken down, exposing native ecosystems to a variety of pathogens and exotic plant and animal species that would not otherwise be in a given location. Type conversion, or the conversion of chaparral ecosystems to nonnative grassland, is becoming more common in Central California in the wake of fire.<ref>[https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/fireecology.htm Fire Ecology in the Santa Monica Mountains, National Recreation Area]</ref> This poses a threat to native flora and fauna because biological invasions have been documented to cause species extinctions and disruptive changes in ecosystem function.<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431 D'Antonio CM, Vitousek PM.1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1):63-87.]</ref><br />
*'''Increased turbidity:''' Turbidity, or the murkiness of water caused by fine, suspended sediment, increases during storm events. When large rainstorms occur on the Central Coast after fire has burned the land, affected watersheds often experience spikes in turbidity. Many of the coastal streams serve as important spawning habitat for endemic [[Steelhead|steelhead]] populations. Steelhead are sensitive to turbidity levels as fine sediment can interfere with gill function.<ref>[http://www.oregondeq.org/lab/techrpts/docs/08-LAB-003.pdf Mulvey M, Borisenko AN, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Lower Columbia Wadeable Streams Conditions Report. (Internet). (cited 2017 April 05).]</ref> Additionally, sediment transport during post-fire rain events can scour steelhead redds (egg deposits) or cover eggs with fine sediment and starve developing embryos of oxygen.<ref>[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.579.8223&rep=rep1&type=pdf Lisle TE. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water resources research, 25(6):1303-1319.]</ref><br />
*'''Crown Fires:''' Crown fires are considered those that completely burn stands of trees, including the tops of trees (or crowns). Some forest types can take a very long time to regenerate after crown fires. Although crown fires can occur on the Central Coast, the effects of severe fires generally persist for a relatively short amount of time (about 2-3 years).<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-0836.1/epdf Keeley JE, Brennan T, Pfaff AH. 2008 Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications, 18(6):1530-1546.]</ref><br />
*'''Geologic changes:''' Vegetation plays a major role in maintaining slopes and drainage areas, keeping structure and erosiveness of the soil, and providing overall landscape stability. Without this vegetation, processes like rock falls, debris slides and flows, dry ravel, surface erosion, and gullying will be worsened in accordance with burn severity during storm flows.<ref> [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/oes/Soberanes-Fire/Recovery/USFS%20Geologic%20Hazard%20Report.pdf Schwartz JY, King A. 2016. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, Soberanes Fire –Los Padres N.F.] </ref> Soil hydraulic conductivity can also be affected depending on the severity of the burn. Severely burned soils have a high degree of hydrophobicity which decreases the infiltration rate of rainfall and, in turn, increases erosion rates and overland flow. The eroded material has the potential to increase sedimentation in streams affecting water quality and flow.<ref>[https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/documents-and-media/wildfire-impacts-stream-sedimentation Rocky Mountain Research Station, Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. 2014. Wildfire Impacts on Stream Sedimentation. Science Briefing]</ref><br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
* The [[United States Geological Survey (USGS)]] regularly performs research to understand post-fire debris flows.<br />
* There has been some work done on the long term effects of fire on watershed processes.<ref name="cowSalSed">[http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_SalSedReport_030530c.pdf Watson F, Angelo M, Anderson T, Casagrande J, Kozlowski D, Newman W, Hager J, Smith D, Curry B. 2003. Salinas Valley Sediment Sources. The Watershed Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, Publication No. WI-2003-06, 227 pp.]</ref><br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
* The California Department of Fish and Game has developed a well respected method for in stream fish habitat assessment[http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/].<br />
* High resolution LIDAR and aerial photography can help to detect erosion and debris flows.<br />
<br />
===Challenges for Humans in the Wake of Fire===<br />
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States experienced a number of wildfires in a short amount of time that caused multiple human deaths. And so began the general view of fire being "bad".<ref name="Policy Review"/> The loss of human life, infrastructure, and possessions that fire is often responsible for presents many challenges. The following is a list of some of the difficulties that arise in the wake of fire:<br />
*Increased burden of cost on California taxpayers for increasing fire management needs<br />
*Loss in tourism for affected areas<br />
*Mudslides and debris flows can impede access to whole communities and rural homes<br />
*Home and life loss<br />
*Increased flood risk post fire<br />
*Decrease in air quality for duration of fire<br />
<br />
==Major Fires since 1970 that Have Affected the Region==<br />
*[[Soberanes Fire|2016 Soberanes Fire]]<br />
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows|2008 Basin Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Zaca Fire|2007 Zaca Fire]]<br />
*[[Kirk Complex Fire|1999 Kirk Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Painted Cave Fire|1990 Painted Cave Fire]]<br />
*[[Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire|1985 Rat Creek - Gorda Complex Fire]]<br />
*[[Marble Cone Fire|1977 Marble Cone Fire]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page contains student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Los_Osos_Groundwater_Basin_and_SewerLos Osos Groundwater Basin and Sewer2017-04-10T04:25:01Z<p>Nikkii: /* Cost */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]], on the central coast of California, has experienced water supply issues over several decades due to over-pumping of the local groundwater basin and nitrate pollution from agriculture. This unincorporated area relies solely on local groundwater for potable water. Overdraw of the local lower aquifer has caused saltwater intrusion, further limiting fresh water supplies <ref name="DEIR"> Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report County of San Luis Obispo: Los Osos Wastewater Project. Irvine, California. [http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/DEIR.pdf] </ref>.<br />
<br />
Los Osos residents have relied on individual septic tanks for wastewater collection since the 1970s, causing health concerns due to the shallow water table. Several wastewater collection and treatment projects have been proposed and litigated, ultimately failing due to a lack of community support <ref name="DEIR"/>. Under the authority of [[San luis Obispo County |San Luis Obispo County]], construction of The Los Osos Wastewater Collection System began in 2014 and now provides sewer service to residents <ref> Waddell J. 2016. Los Osos Wastewater Project: Project Construction Update January-March, 2016. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/PM+Monthly+Update+2016+Q1.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Location ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]] is an unincorporated community south of [[Morro Bay]] in [[San Luis Obispo County]], California with a 2010 population of 14,276 <ref> U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Los Osos CDP, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0644182,00 </ref>. The town's water supply is locally sourced from the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, which is managed by three water providers: Los Osos Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, and S&T Mutual Water Company <ref> [CSLO]County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. 2010-2012 Resource summary report: San Luis Obispo County general plan. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/RMS/2010-2012_RMS.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Los Osos Groundwater Basin ==<br />
<br />
The Los Osos Groundwater Basin provides residential, commercial and agricultural water for Los Osos. The basin covers about 10 square miles with a maximum depth of 1,000 feet. The basin is lined with unconsolidated deposits such as alluvium, ancient sand dunes, mostly-mpermeable Paso Robles Formation and basement Franciscan Complex <ref> Yates and Wiese. 1988. Hydrogeology and water resources of the Los Osos Valley ground-water basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4081/report.pdf] </ref>. Water is extracted from the multi-level Paso Robles Formation, but the underlying Franciscan Complex does not bear water and confines the basin to the west <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Rainfall and runoff percolation account for the majority of aquifer recharge. Additional sources of basin recharge are from irrigation and septic system return flow, as the town has strictly used septic systems for wastewater treatment until recently <ref name="Basin Plan"/>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:LO_basin.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Image 1. Los Osos Groundwater Basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. Image: Cleath-Harris Geologists 2016]]<br />
<br />
== Saltwater Intrusion ==<br />
<br />
[http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html Saltwater intrusion] was first recorded in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin in 1972 by the [[Department of Water Resources]]. Saline water has subsequently increased on the western edge of the basin where the water table is shallow, impacting water purveyors' access to fresh water. Overdraft of the lower aquifer in response to nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer has increased saltwater intrusion <ref name="Basin Plan"> Cleath and Associates. 2005. Draft Final Report: Seawater intrusion assessment and lower aquifer source investigation of the Los Osos Valley Ground Water Basin San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for: Los Osos Community Services District </ref>. The annual advance of saltwater intrusion from 2005 to 2015 was approximately 190 feet <ref name ="LO Basin Plan"> Cleath-Harris Geologists. 2016. Los Osos Basin Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Sewer ==<br />
Los Osos residents have used septic systems as wastewater treatment for more than 40 years. This sanitary system has caused concern since 1971 due to the shallow depth of groundwater and the town's reliance on the local aquifer for potable water. The [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| Regional Water Quality Control Board]] (RWQCB)-Central Coast Region determined in 1983 that septic systems had contaminated the upper aquifer. Major construction or expansion in that area was halted until the water pollution was addressed and reduced <ref name="DEIR"/>. <br />
<br />
Many attempts have been made to rectify the water pollution problem following [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| RWQCB's]] action, ultimately becoming a divisive issue in the community. The first wastewater treatment facility was proposed in 1987. An [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_impact_report_eir Environmental Impact Report (EIR)] was written for the project and revised when the site location was changed. With little community support, the new facility was not completed <ref name="DEIR"/>. Community members were concerned due to the:<br />
* Project cost<br />
* Use of percolation ponds<br />
* Flooding potential<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1998, the community voted to create a wastewater community services district known as The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). LOCSD created a new wastewater collection and treatment project, preparing its EIR in 2001. After members of LOCSD were recalled in 2005, the project EIR was revoked. LOCSD filed for bankruptcy in 2006 <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Jurisdiction over the wastewater treatment project was transferred to the County of San Luis Obispo with the passage of AB 2701 in 2007. <br />
Proposition 218, also passed in 2007, authorized funding of the wastewater collection and treatment project through local property taxes <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project began in 2014 with pipeline installation and road resurfacing. The Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in March 2016 <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Los Osos sewer line connections start March 28th, 2016. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66988712.html </ref>, and individual residents have been scheduled to connect to the sewer laterally by a specified date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. 2017. Sewer lateral connections and septic system decommissioning. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Sewer_Lateral_Connections_and_Septic_System_Decommissioning.htm </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Cost ==<br />
Community members voted to take on costs of the Los Osos Wastewater Project with Prop. 218, though grants and financial assistance are available. Homeowners are responsible for the cost of hooking up their sewer line to the street, which varies between $2,000 and $10,000 per household. Project construction costs are added to homeowners' property taxes - $165 per month on average or $1,980 per year <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Workshop on Los Osos sewer hookups planned as system nears completion. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article55733220.html </ref>. The project has received $21.5 million in grants to date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. Date unknown. Project costs and financial assistance. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Project_Costs_and_Financial_Assistance.htm </ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Los_Osos_Groundwater_Basin_and_SewerLos Osos Groundwater Basin and Sewer2017-04-10T04:24:15Z<p>Nikkii: /* Sewer */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]], on the central coast of California, has experienced water supply issues over several decades due to over-pumping of the local groundwater basin and nitrate pollution from agriculture. This unincorporated area relies solely on local groundwater for potable water. Overdraw of the local lower aquifer has caused saltwater intrusion, further limiting fresh water supplies <ref name="DEIR"> Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report County of San Luis Obispo: Los Osos Wastewater Project. Irvine, California. [http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/DEIR.pdf] </ref>.<br />
<br />
Los Osos residents have relied on individual septic tanks for wastewater collection since the 1970s, causing health concerns due to the shallow water table. Several wastewater collection and treatment projects have been proposed and litigated, ultimately failing due to a lack of community support <ref name="DEIR"/>. Under the authority of [[San luis Obispo County |San Luis Obispo County]], construction of The Los Osos Wastewater Collection System began in 2014 and now provides sewer service to residents <ref> Waddell J. 2016. Los Osos Wastewater Project: Project Construction Update January-March, 2016. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/PM+Monthly+Update+2016+Q1.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Location ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]] is an unincorporated community south of [[Morro Bay]] in [[San Luis Obispo County]], California with a 2010 population of 14,276 <ref> U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Los Osos CDP, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0644182,00 </ref>. The town's water supply is locally sourced from the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, which is managed by three water providers: Los Osos Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, and S&T Mutual Water Company <ref> [CSLO]County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. 2010-2012 Resource summary report: San Luis Obispo County general plan. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/RMS/2010-2012_RMS.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Los Osos Groundwater Basin ==<br />
<br />
The Los Osos Groundwater Basin provides residential, commercial and agricultural water for Los Osos. The basin covers about 10 square miles with a maximum depth of 1,000 feet. The basin is lined with unconsolidated deposits such as alluvium, ancient sand dunes, mostly-mpermeable Paso Robles Formation and basement Franciscan Complex <ref> Yates and Wiese. 1988. Hydrogeology and water resources of the Los Osos Valley ground-water basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4081/report.pdf] </ref>. Water is extracted from the multi-level Paso Robles Formation, but the underlying Franciscan Complex does not bear water and confines the basin to the west <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Rainfall and runoff percolation account for the majority of aquifer recharge. Additional sources of basin recharge are from irrigation and septic system return flow, as the town has strictly used septic systems for wastewater treatment until recently <ref name="Basin Plan"/>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:LO_basin.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Image 1. Los Osos Groundwater Basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. Image: Cleath-Harris Geologists 2016]]<br />
<br />
== Saltwater Intrusion ==<br />
<br />
[http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html Saltwater intrusion] was first recorded in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin in 1972 by the [[Department of Water Resources]]. Saline water has subsequently increased on the western edge of the basin where the water table is shallow, impacting water purveyors' access to fresh water. Overdraft of the lower aquifer in response to nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer has increased saltwater intrusion <ref name="Basin Plan"> Cleath and Associates. 2005. Draft Final Report: Seawater intrusion assessment and lower aquifer source investigation of the Los Osos Valley Ground Water Basin San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for: Los Osos Community Services District </ref>. The annual advance of saltwater intrusion from 2005 to 2015 was approximately 190 feet <ref name ="LO Basin Plan"> Cleath-Harris Geologists. 2016. Los Osos Basin Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Sewer ==<br />
Los Osos residents have used septic systems as wastewater treatment for more than 40 years. This sanitary system has caused concern since 1971 due to the shallow depth of groundwater and the town's reliance on the local aquifer for potable water. The [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| Regional Water Quality Control Board]] (RWQCB)-Central Coast Region determined in 1983 that septic systems had contaminated the upper aquifer. Major construction or expansion in that area was halted until the water pollution was addressed and reduced <ref name="DEIR"/>. <br />
<br />
Many attempts have been made to rectify the water pollution problem following [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| RWQCB's]] action, ultimately becoming a divisive issue in the community. The first wastewater treatment facility was proposed in 1987. An [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_impact_report_eir Environmental Impact Report (EIR)] was written for the project and revised when the site location was changed. With little community support, the new facility was not completed <ref name="DEIR"/>. Community members were concerned due to the:<br />
* Project cost<br />
* Use of percolation ponds<br />
* Flooding potential<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1998, the community voted to create a wastewater community services district known as The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). LOCSD created a new wastewater collection and treatment project, preparing its EIR in 2001. After members of LOCSD were recalled in 2005, the project EIR was revoked. LOCSD filed for bankruptcy in 2006 <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Jurisdiction over the wastewater treatment project was transferred to the County of San Luis Obispo with the passage of AB 2701 in 2007. <br />
Proposition 218, also passed in 2007, authorized funding of the wastewater collection and treatment project through local property taxes <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project began in 2014 with pipeline installation and road resurfacing. The Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in March 2016 <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Los Osos sewer line connections start March 28th, 2016. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66988712.html </ref>, and individual residents have been scheduled to connect to the sewer laterally by a specified date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. 2017. Sewer lateral connections and septic system decommissioning. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Sewer_Lateral_Connections_and_Septic_System_Decommissioning.htm </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Cost ==<br />
Community members voted to take on costs of the Los Osos Wastewater Project with Prop. 218, though grants and financial assistance are available. Homeowners are responsible for the cost of hooking up their sewer line to the street, which varies between $2,000 and $10,000 per household. Project construction costs are added to homeowner's property taxes, $165 per month on average or $1,980 per year <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Workshop on Los Osos sewer hookups planned as system nears completion. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article55733220.html </ref>. The project has received $21,500,000 in grants to date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. Date unknown. Project costs and financial assistance. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Project_Costs_and_Financial_Assistance.htm </ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Los_Osos_Groundwater_Basin_and_SewerLos Osos Groundwater Basin and Sewer2017-04-10T04:22:33Z<p>Nikkii: /* Saltwater Intrusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]], on the central coast of California, has experienced water supply issues over several decades due to over-pumping of the local groundwater basin and nitrate pollution from agriculture. This unincorporated area relies solely on local groundwater for potable water. Overdraw of the local lower aquifer has caused saltwater intrusion, further limiting fresh water supplies <ref name="DEIR"> Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report County of San Luis Obispo: Los Osos Wastewater Project. Irvine, California. [http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/DEIR.pdf] </ref>.<br />
<br />
Los Osos residents have relied on individual septic tanks for wastewater collection since the 1970s, causing health concerns due to the shallow water table. Several wastewater collection and treatment projects have been proposed and litigated, ultimately failing due to a lack of community support <ref name="DEIR"/>. Under the authority of [[San luis Obispo County |San Luis Obispo County]], construction of The Los Osos Wastewater Collection System began in 2014 and now provides sewer service to residents <ref> Waddell J. 2016. Los Osos Wastewater Project: Project Construction Update January-March, 2016. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/PM+Monthly+Update+2016+Q1.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Location ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]] is an unincorporated community south of [[Morro Bay]] in [[San Luis Obispo County]], California with a 2010 population of 14,276 <ref> U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Los Osos CDP, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0644182,00 </ref>. The town's water supply is locally sourced from the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, which is managed by three water providers: Los Osos Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, and S&T Mutual Water Company <ref> [CSLO]County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. 2010-2012 Resource summary report: San Luis Obispo County general plan. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/RMS/2010-2012_RMS.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Los Osos Groundwater Basin ==<br />
<br />
The Los Osos Groundwater Basin provides residential, commercial and agricultural water for Los Osos. The basin covers about 10 square miles with a maximum depth of 1,000 feet. The basin is lined with unconsolidated deposits such as alluvium, ancient sand dunes, mostly-mpermeable Paso Robles Formation and basement Franciscan Complex <ref> Yates and Wiese. 1988. Hydrogeology and water resources of the Los Osos Valley ground-water basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4081/report.pdf] </ref>. Water is extracted from the multi-level Paso Robles Formation, but the underlying Franciscan Complex does not bear water and confines the basin to the west <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Rainfall and runoff percolation account for the majority of aquifer recharge. Additional sources of basin recharge are from irrigation and septic system return flow, as the town has strictly used septic systems for wastewater treatment until recently <ref name="Basin Plan"/>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:LO_basin.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Image 1. Los Osos Groundwater Basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. Image: Cleath-Harris Geologists 2016]]<br />
<br />
== Saltwater Intrusion ==<br />
<br />
[http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html Saltwater intrusion] was first recorded in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin in 1972 by the [[Department of Water Resources]]. Saline water has subsequently increased on the western edge of the basin where the water table is shallow, impacting water purveyors' access to fresh water. Overdraft of the lower aquifer in response to nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer has increased saltwater intrusion <ref name="Basin Plan"> Cleath and Associates. 2005. Draft Final Report: Seawater intrusion assessment and lower aquifer source investigation of the Los Osos Valley Ground Water Basin San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for: Los Osos Community Services District </ref>. The annual advance of saltwater intrusion from 2005 to 2015 was approximately 190 feet <ref name ="LO Basin Plan"> Cleath-Harris Geologists. 2016. Los Osos Basin Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Sewer ==<br />
Los Osos residents have used septic systems as wastewater treatment for over 40 years. This sanitary system has caused concern since 1971 due to the shallow depth of groundwater and the town's reliance on the local aquifer for potable water. The [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| Regional Water Quality Control Boards]] (RWQCB)-Central Coast Region determined in 1983 that septic systems had contaminated the upper aquifer. Major construction or expansion in that area was halted until the water pollution was addressed and reduced <ref name="DEIR"/>. <br />
<br />
Many attempts have been made to rectify the water pollution problem following [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| RWQCB's]] action, ultimately becoming a divisive issue in the community. The first wastewater treatment facility was proposed in 1987. An [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_impact_report_eir Environmental Impact Report (EIR)] was written for the project and revised when the site location was changed. With little community support, the new facility was not completed <ref name="DEIR"/>. Community members were concerned due to the:<br />
* project cost<br />
* use of percolation ponds<br />
* flooding potential<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1998, the community voted to create a wastewater community services district known as The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). LOCSD created a new wastewater collection and treatment project, preparing its EIR in 2001. After members of LOCSD were recalled in 2005, the project EIR was revoked. LOCSD filed for bankruptcy in 2006 <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Jurisdiction over the wastewater treatment project was transferred to the County of San Luis Obispo with the passage of AB 2701 in 2007. <br />
Proposition 218, also passed in 2007, authorized funding of the wastewater collection and treatment project through local property taxes <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project began in 2014 with pipeline installation and road resurfacing. The Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in March, 2016 <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Los Osos sewer line connections start March 28th, 2016. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66988712.html </ref>, and individual residents have been scheduled to connect to the sewer laterally by a specified date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. 2017. Sewer lateral connections and septic system decommissioning. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Sewer_Lateral_Connections_and_Septic_System_Decommissioning.htm </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Cost ==<br />
Community members voted to take on costs of the Los Osos Wastewater Project with Prop. 218, though grants and financial assistance are available. Homeowners are responsible for the cost of hooking up their sewer line to the street, which varies between $2,000 and $10,000 per household. Project construction costs are added to homeowner's property taxes, $165 per month on average or $1,980 per year <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Workshop on Los Osos sewer hookups planned as system nears completion. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article55733220.html </ref>. The project has received $21,500,000 in grants to date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. Date unknown. Project costs and financial assistance. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Project_Costs_and_Financial_Assistance.htm </ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Los_Osos_Groundwater_Basin_and_SewerLos Osos Groundwater Basin and Sewer2017-04-10T04:21:59Z<p>Nikkii: /* Los Osos Groundwater Basin */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]], on the central coast of California, has experienced water supply issues over several decades due to over-pumping of the local groundwater basin and nitrate pollution from agriculture. This unincorporated area relies solely on local groundwater for potable water. Overdraw of the local lower aquifer has caused saltwater intrusion, further limiting fresh water supplies <ref name="DEIR"> Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report County of San Luis Obispo: Los Osos Wastewater Project. Irvine, California. [http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/DEIR.pdf] </ref>.<br />
<br />
Los Osos residents have relied on individual septic tanks for wastewater collection since the 1970s, causing health concerns due to the shallow water table. Several wastewater collection and treatment projects have been proposed and litigated, ultimately failing due to a lack of community support <ref name="DEIR"/>. Under the authority of [[San luis Obispo County |San Luis Obispo County]], construction of The Los Osos Wastewater Collection System began in 2014 and now provides sewer service to residents <ref> Waddell J. 2016. Los Osos Wastewater Project: Project Construction Update January-March, 2016. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/PM+Monthly+Update+2016+Q1.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Location ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]] is an unincorporated community south of [[Morro Bay]] in [[San Luis Obispo County]], California with a 2010 population of 14,276 <ref> U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Los Osos CDP, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0644182,00 </ref>. The town's water supply is locally sourced from the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, which is managed by three water providers: Los Osos Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, and S&T Mutual Water Company <ref> [CSLO]County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. 2010-2012 Resource summary report: San Luis Obispo County general plan. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/RMS/2010-2012_RMS.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Los Osos Groundwater Basin ==<br />
<br />
The Los Osos Groundwater Basin provides residential, commercial and agricultural water for Los Osos. The basin covers about 10 square miles with a maximum depth of 1,000 feet. The basin is lined with unconsolidated deposits such as alluvium, ancient sand dunes, mostly-mpermeable Paso Robles Formation and basement Franciscan Complex <ref> Yates and Wiese. 1988. Hydrogeology and water resources of the Los Osos Valley ground-water basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4081/report.pdf] </ref>. Water is extracted from the multi-level Paso Robles Formation, but the underlying Franciscan Complex does not bear water and confines the basin to the west <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Rainfall and runoff percolation account for the majority of aquifer recharge. Additional sources of basin recharge are from irrigation and septic system return flow, as the town has strictly used septic systems for wastewater treatment until recently <ref name="Basin Plan"/>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:LO_basin.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Image 1. Los Osos Groundwater Basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. Image: Cleath-Harris Geologists 2016]]<br />
<br />
== Saltwater Intrusion ==<br />
<br />
[http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html Saltwater intrusion] was first recorded in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin in 1972 by the [[Department of Water Resources]]. Saline water has subsequently increased on the western edge of the basin where the water table is shallow, impacting water purveyors' access to fresh water. Overdraft of the lower aquifer in response to nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer has increased saltwater intrusion <ref name="Basin Plan"> Cleath and Associates. 2005. Draft Final Report: Seawater intrusion assessment and lower aquifer source investigation of the Los Osos Valley Ground Water Basin San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for: Los Osos Community Services District </ref>. The annual advance of saltwater intrusion from 2005-2015 was approximately 190 feet <ref name ="LO Basin Plan"> Cleath-Harris Geologists. 2016. Los Osos Basin Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Sewer ==<br />
Los Osos residents have used septic systems as wastewater treatment for over 40 years. This sanitary system has caused concern since 1971 due to the shallow depth of groundwater and the town's reliance on the local aquifer for potable water. The [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| Regional Water Quality Control Boards]] (RWQCB)-Central Coast Region determined in 1983 that septic systems had contaminated the upper aquifer. Major construction or expansion in that area was halted until the water pollution was addressed and reduced <ref name="DEIR"/>. <br />
<br />
Many attempts have been made to rectify the water pollution problem following [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| RWQCB's]] action, ultimately becoming a divisive issue in the community. The first wastewater treatment facility was proposed in 1987. An [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_impact_report_eir Environmental Impact Report (EIR)] was written for the project and revised when the site location was changed. With little community support, the new facility was not completed <ref name="DEIR"/>. Community members were concerned due to the:<br />
* project cost<br />
* use of percolation ponds<br />
* flooding potential<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1998, the community voted to create a wastewater community services district known as The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). LOCSD created a new wastewater collection and treatment project, preparing its EIR in 2001. After members of LOCSD were recalled in 2005, the project EIR was revoked. LOCSD filed for bankruptcy in 2006 <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Jurisdiction over the wastewater treatment project was transferred to the County of San Luis Obispo with the passage of AB 2701 in 2007. <br />
Proposition 218, also passed in 2007, authorized funding of the wastewater collection and treatment project through local property taxes <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project began in 2014 with pipeline installation and road resurfacing. The Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in March, 2016 <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Los Osos sewer line connections start March 28th, 2016. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66988712.html </ref>, and individual residents have been scheduled to connect to the sewer laterally by a specified date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. 2017. Sewer lateral connections and septic system decommissioning. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Sewer_Lateral_Connections_and_Septic_System_Decommissioning.htm </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Cost ==<br />
Community members voted to take on costs of the Los Osos Wastewater Project with Prop. 218, though grants and financial assistance are available. Homeowners are responsible for the cost of hooking up their sewer line to the street, which varies between $2,000 and $10,000 per household. Project construction costs are added to homeowner's property taxes, $165 per month on average or $1,980 per year <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Workshop on Los Osos sewer hookups planned as system nears completion. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article55733220.html </ref>. The project has received $21,500,000 in grants to date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. Date unknown. Project costs and financial assistance. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Project_Costs_and_Financial_Assistance.htm </ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Los_Osos_Groundwater_Basin_and_SewerLos Osos Groundwater Basin and Sewer2017-04-10T04:17:27Z<p>Nikkii: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]], on the central coast of California, has experienced water supply issues over several decades due to over-pumping of the local groundwater basin and nitrate pollution from agriculture. This unincorporated area relies solely on local groundwater for potable water. Overdraw of the local lower aquifer has caused saltwater intrusion, further limiting fresh water supplies <ref name="DEIR"> Michael Brandman Associates. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report County of San Luis Obispo: Los Osos Wastewater Project. Irvine, California. [http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/DEIR.pdf] </ref>.<br />
<br />
Los Osos residents have relied on individual septic tanks for wastewater collection since the 1970s, causing health concerns due to the shallow water table. Several wastewater collection and treatment projects have been proposed and litigated, ultimately failing due to a lack of community support <ref name="DEIR"/>. Under the authority of [[San luis Obispo County |San Luis Obispo County]], construction of The Los Osos Wastewater Collection System began in 2014 and now provides sewer service to residents <ref> Waddell J. 2016. Los Osos Wastewater Project: Project Construction Update January-March, 2016. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/PM+Monthly+Update+2016+Q1.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Location ==<br />
<br />
[[Los Osos]] is an unincorporated community south of [[Morro Bay]] in [[San Luis Obispo County]], California with a 2010 population of 14,276 <ref> U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts: Los Osos CDP, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0644182,00 </ref>. The town's water supply is locally sourced from the Los Osos Groundwater Basin, which is managed by three water providers: Los Osos Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, and S&T Mutual Water Company <ref> [CSLO]County of San Luis Obispo. 2013. 2010-2012 Resource summary report: San Luis Obispo County general plan. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/RMS/2010-2012_RMS.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Los Osos Groundwater Basin ==<br />
<br />
The Los Osos Groundwater Basin provides residential, commercial and agricultural water for Los Osos. The basin covers about 10 square miles with a maximum depth of 1,000 feet. The basin is underlain by unconsolidated deposits such as alluvium, ancient sand dunes, mostly impermeable Paso Robles Formation and basement Franciscan Complex <ref> Yates and Wiese. 1988. Hydrogeology and water resources of the Los Osos Valley ground-water basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4081/report.pdf] </ref>. Water is extracted from the multi-level Paso Robles Formation, but the underlying Franciscan Complex does not bear water and confines the basin to the west <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Rainfall and runoff percolation account for the majority of aquifer recharge. Additional sources of basin recharge are from irrigation and septic system return flow, as the town has strictly used septic systems for wastewater treatment until recently <ref name="Basin Plan"/>.<br />
<br />
[[Image:LO_basin.PNG|300px|thumb|right|Image 1. Los Osos Groundwater Basin, San Luis Obispo County, California. Image: Cleath-Harris Geologists 2016]]<br />
<br />
== Saltwater Intrusion ==<br />
<br />
[http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/saltwater/salt.html Saltwater intrusion] was first recorded in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin in 1972 by the [[Department of Water Resources]]. Saline water has subsequently increased on the western edge of the basin where the water table is shallow, impacting water purveyors' access to fresh water. Overdraft of the lower aquifer in response to nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer has increased saltwater intrusion <ref name="Basin Plan"> Cleath and Associates. 2005. Draft Final Report: Seawater intrusion assessment and lower aquifer source investigation of the Los Osos Valley Ground Water Basin San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for: Los Osos Community Services District </ref>. The annual advance of saltwater intrusion from 2005-2015 was approximately 190 feet <ref name ="LO Basin Plan"> Cleath-Harris Geologists. 2016. Los Osos Basin Plan: Groundwater Monitoring Program 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Sewer ==<br />
Los Osos residents have used septic systems as wastewater treatment for over 40 years. This sanitary system has caused concern since 1971 due to the shallow depth of groundwater and the town's reliance on the local aquifer for potable water. The [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| Regional Water Quality Control Boards]] (RWQCB)-Central Coast Region determined in 1983 that septic systems had contaminated the upper aquifer. Major construction or expansion in that area was halted until the water pollution was addressed and reduced <ref name="DEIR"/>. <br />
<br />
Many attempts have been made to rectify the water pollution problem following [[California Regional Water Quality Control Board| RWQCB's]] action, ultimately becoming a divisive issue in the community. The first wastewater treatment facility was proposed in 1987. An [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_impact_report_eir Environmental Impact Report (EIR)] was written for the project and revised when the site location was changed. With little community support, the new facility was not completed <ref name="DEIR"/>. Community members were concerned due to the:<br />
* project cost<br />
* use of percolation ponds<br />
* flooding potential<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1998, the community voted to create a wastewater community services district known as The Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). LOCSD created a new wastewater collection and treatment project, preparing its EIR in 2001. After members of LOCSD were recalled in 2005, the project EIR was revoked. LOCSD filed for bankruptcy in 2006 <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Jurisdiction over the wastewater treatment project was transferred to the County of San Luis Obispo with the passage of AB 2701 in 2007. <br />
Proposition 218, also passed in 2007, authorized funding of the wastewater collection and treatment project through local property taxes <ref name="DEIR"/>.<br />
<br />
Construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project began in 2014 with pipeline installation and road resurfacing. The Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in March, 2016 <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Los Osos sewer line connections start March 28th, 2016. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66988712.html </ref>, and individual residents have been scheduled to connect to the sewer laterally by a specified date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. 2017. Sewer lateral connections and septic system decommissioning. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Sewer_Lateral_Connections_and_Septic_System_Decommissioning.htm </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Cost ==<br />
Community members voted to take on costs of the Los Osos Wastewater Project with Prop. 218, though grants and financial assistance are available. Homeowners are responsible for the cost of hooking up their sewer line to the street, which varies between $2,000 and $10,000 per household. Project construction costs are added to homeowner's property taxes, $165 per month on average or $1,980 per year <ref> Wilson N. 2016. Workshop on Los Osos sewer hookups planned as system nears completion. The Tribune. Available from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article55733220.html </ref>. The project has received $21,500,000 in grants to date <ref> San Luis Obispo County. Date unknown. Project costs and financial assistance. Available from: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/Project_Costs_and_Financial_Assistance.htm </ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:41:30Z<p>Nikkii: /* Economic Impacts */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| November 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for its farm. Fewer than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to mitigation land use ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits related to the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]]<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due diligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE requested an environmental consultation of the proposed site, which was conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref>.<br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain, as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref>. Both SunPower and First Solar claim to be committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref>. These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref>. A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as is the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. Twenty-eight percent of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref>. However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer-simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots could anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick-up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production, as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar farm development and upkeep create jobs. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar-related construction jobs were created. Solar farms also created an additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs which will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref>. The creation of solar farms also has a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:40:08Z<p>Nikkii: /* Impacts on land usage and agriculture */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| November 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for its farm. Fewer than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to mitigation land use ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits related to the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]]<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due diligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE requested an environmental consultation of the proposed site, which was conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref>.<br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain, as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref>. Both SunPower and First Solar claim to be committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref>. These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref>. A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as is the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. Twenty-eight percent of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref>. However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer-simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots could anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick-up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production, as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:35:37Z<p>Nikkii: /* Environmental Impacts */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| November 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for its farm. Fewer than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to mitigation land use ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits related to the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]]<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due diligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE requested an environmental consultation of the proposed site, which was conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref>.<br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain, as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref>. Both SunPower and First Solar claim to be committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref>.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref>. These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref>. A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as is the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. 28% of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry.<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref> However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref><br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots would anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:25:55Z<p>Nikkii: /* Existing */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| November 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for its farm. Fewer than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to mitigation land use ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits renegading the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]].<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref><br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due dilligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE request for an environmental consultation of the proposed site conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern.<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref> <br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat.<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state.<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref> Both SunPower and First Solar are committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species.<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape.<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref> A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. 28% of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry.<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref> However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref><br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots would anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:25:11Z<p>Nikkii: /* Panoche Valley Solar */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| Novemeber 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for its farm. Fewer than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to mitigation land use ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits renegading the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]].<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref><br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due dilligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE request for an environmental consultation of the proposed site conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern.<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref> <br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat.<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state.<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref> Both SunPower and First Solar are committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species.<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape.<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref> A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. 28% of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry.<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref> However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref><br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots would anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:18:42Z<p>Nikkii: /* California Flats Solar Project */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| Novemeber 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<BR><br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900-acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First Solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The tech company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for their farm. Less than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to use mitigation ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits renegading the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]].<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref><br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due dilligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE request for an environmental consultation of the proposed site conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern.<ref>[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/CVSR_BA_11_08_10_Final.pdf Department of Energy]</ref> <br />
<br />
SunPower worked with environmental consulting firm [http://www.harveyecology.com/ H.T Harvey & Associates] in order to enact proper monitoring and mitigation for these species and pertinent habitat.<ref>[http://www.harveyecology.com/california-valley-solar-ranch-project H.T Harvey & Associates]</ref><br />
<br />
===Animal species===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Plant species===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state.<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref> Both SunPower and First Solar are committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species.<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP (VegCAMP)] conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape.<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref> A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. 28% of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry.<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref> However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref><br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots would anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Solar_Farms_in_the_California_Central_Coast_RegionSolar Farms in the California Central Coast Region2017-04-08T20:13:14Z<p>Nikkii: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image: topaz.jpeg|400px|thumb|right|Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County. Image from Gigaom: [https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-special-report-the-rise-of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/]]]<br />
This page discusses solar farms in the central coast region.<br />
==Summary==<br />
Solar farms, also referred to as photovoltaic power stations or solar parks, are large-scale arrangements of solar panels designed to supply energy into the power grid. These energy sources convert solar energy into electric energy that can be transferred to consumers. <br />
<br />
Currently, there are two large-scale solar farms in [[California's Central Coast Region]]. Two additional solar farms are in the process of being built: one in [[Monterey County]] and a second in [[San Benito County]]. <br />
<br />
While different forms of technology are used in solar farms, the types present in the Central Coast region) are listed in [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]].<br />
<br />
==Locations in the Central Coast Region==<br />
===Existing===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Name<br />
! Location<br />
! Date Completed<br />
! Acres<br />
! Energy capacity<br />
! Developer<br />
! [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region|Technology]]<br />
! Equivalent # of homes powered<br />
|-<br />
| California Valley Solar Ranch<ref>[https://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/fact-sheets/fs-california-valley-solar-ranch-factsheet.pdf SunPower]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| October 2013<br />
| 1500<br />
| 250 MWac<br />
| SunPower<br />
| PV single axis tracking arrays<ref>[https://energy.gov/lpo/california-valley-solar-ranch Energy.gov]</ref><br />
| 100,000<br />
|-<br />
| Topaz Solar Farm<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/Resources/Projects/Topaz-Solar-Farm First Solar]</ref><ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| San Luis Obispo County (Carrizo Plain)<br />
| Novemeber 2014<br />
| 4700<br />
| 550 MWac<br />
| First Solar<br />
| PV arrays, fixed at 25 degree angle<ref>[https://www.bherenewables.com/include/pdf/fact_sheet_topaz.pdf BHE Renewables]</ref><br />
| 160,000<br />
|}<br />
<BR><br />
<br />
===Proposed===<br />
====California Flats Solar Project====<br />
[[Image: Mtry Apple Solar Farm.jpeg|300px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of proposed California Flats Solar Project. Image from 9to5mac: [https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/10/apple-announces-850m-solar-farm-in-monterey-to-offset-all-its-ca-operations-incl-campus-2/]]]<br />
[http://www.firstsolar.com/ First Solar] has proposed building a 2,900 acre 280 megawatt AC solar park in Monterey County's Cholame Valley. The proposed project is estimated to bring in 300 construction and 11 ongoing operational jobs into the County. Once completed, the park would generate a power output estimated to cover the energy needs of 100,000 homes per year and would displace 109,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First-Solar/Project-Documents/CAFlats_03391_DS_NA.ashx First Solar]</ref><br />
<br />
[http://www.apple.com/ Apple] has partnered with First solar and has committed approximately $850 million to help build the California Flats Solar Project. The technological company stated that environmental concerns over climate change drove them to invest in green energy alternatives. Apple plans to power both Cupertino campuses and all 52 Apple Stores in the state with energy from the California Flats Solar Farm.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/02/10/apple-plans-850m-solar-plant-in-monterey-county-to-power-all-california-operations/ The Mercury News]</ref><br />
<br />
====Panoche Valley Solar====<br />
<br />
[[Image: PanocheProposed.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Proposed location of Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Image from San Benito county: [http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/]]]<br />
[https://www.duke-energy.com/home Duke Energy], a large-scale developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects across the state plans to build the Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the San Benito County's Panoche Valley. Once fully operational, the farm would generate an estimated 247 megawatts of energy.<ref>[http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/eis/SPN-2009-00443/DEIS/Panoche_DEIS-VolumeI.pdf Panoche Valley Solar Facililty Draft EIR]</ref> The energy output would be enough to power an average of 90,000 homes a year and would displace 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
Duke Energy's proposed plan also includes plans of setting aside land for mitigation purposes. In total, Duke Energy plans on using 26,000 acres for their farm. Less than 2,500 acres will consist of solar farms and the remainder will be used for mitigation. The plan proposes a 9:1 conservation to use mitigation ratio.<ref>[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/Actions/PSMAP.pdf Duke Energy]</ref><br />
<br />
==Environmental Impacts==<br />
===Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions===<br />
===California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Solar Farms===<br />
The [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)]] created the ''Renewable Energy Program'' to facilitate between the state's need for renewable energy and maintenance of natural resources. The Renewable Energy Program enforces compliance and grants permits renegading the [[California Endangered Species Act (CESA)]].<ref>[https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Renewable-Energy CDFW]</ref><br />
<br />
===Biological assessment of California Valley Solar Ranch in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
<br />
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program Office selected SunPower's application for due dilligence review on August 27, 2010. This process made all components of the then-proposed California Valley Solar Ranch subject to [[NEPA]] Compliance. Additionally, the DOE determined that the construction and operation of the proposed California Valley Ranch could affect species listed under the [[Federal Endangered Species Act]]. The DOE request for an environmental consultation of the proposed site conducted by the [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)] under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.<br />
<br />
Part of the environmental consultation involved assessing the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. The consultation revealed the presence of several species of concern.<br />
<br />
===Animal species===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
| Federally endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Kern Primrose sphinx moth<br />
| ''Euproserpinus euterpe''<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California condor<br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Plant species===<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower<br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus''<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads<br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii''<br />
| Federally endangered, [[CNPS]] List 1B<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Topaz Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
[[Image: Foxes CarrizoPlain.JPG|350px|thumb|right|San Joaquin kit foxes near a solar farm in the Carrizo Plain. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
On September 2, 2011, the CDFW issued a State [[Incidental Take Permits (ITPs)|Incidental Take Permit]] (2081-2011-04-04) in response to the presence of San Joaquin kit fox (''Vulpes macrotis mutica'') in the proposed Topaz Solar Farm location. The Incidental Take Permit designated 12,147 acres of "mitigation lands" to serve as habitat for several threatened and endangered species.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The report notes that more species than those listed could be impacted by solar farms in the Carrizo Plain as the region has highest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the state.<ref>[https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/placesweprotect/carrizo-plain.xml The Nature Conservancy]</ref> Both SunPower and First Solar are committed to protecting biological diversity and have created conservation plants to protect habitat for these species.<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox<br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| blunt-nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila''<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat<br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
|-<br />
| listed fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi''<br />
|-<br />
| Nelson’s antelope squirrel<br />
| ''Ammospermophilus nelsoni''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover<br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl<br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| pronghorn<br />
| ''Antilocapra americana''<br />
|-<br />
| tule elk<br />
| ''Cervus canadensis nannodes''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)]] notes that additional species of concern include:<ref>[https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm USFWS]</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn fairy shrimp<br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| long-billed curlfew<br />
| ''Numenius americanus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The CDFW Vegetation Community Mapping Program (VegCAMP) conducted botanical surveys in 2013 and 2014 in order to assess the presence of rare plants in the solar farm site. However, VegCAMP was unable to adequately assess vegetation both years due to low levels of plant germination, likely due to low levels of precipitation. A more comprehensive survey is slated for a year with higher levels of rainfall.<ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=78198 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report June 2013]</ref><ref>[https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=101003 (CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US). 2013. Topaz Solar Farm Conservation Lands Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Annual Report. Fresno (CA): CDFW. Available from: Topaz Preserve HMMP - Annual Report May 2014]</ref><br />
<br />
===Environmental review of California Flats Solar Project in the Cholame Valley===<br />
The final [http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/major/California%20Flats%20Solar/FEIR/FEIR_PLN120294_122314.pdf EIR] for the California Flats Solar Project was released by Monterey County in December 2014. The EIR listed several plant and animal species of concern that can be found or have the potential to be found in the proposed solar farm site.<br />
<br />
====Animal species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard<br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii''<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle<br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos''<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird<br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor''<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus''<br />
|-<br />
| burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia''<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus''<br />
|-<br />
| loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus''<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum''<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus''<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus''<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus''<br />
|-<br />
| whitetailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus''<br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus''<br />
|-<br />
| Pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus''<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis californicus''<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin pocket mouse<br />
| ''Perognathus inornatus inornatus''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
|-<br />
| Small-flowered morning glory<br />
| ''Convolvulus simulans''<br />
|-<br />
| Rattan’s cryptantha<br />
| ''Cryptantha rattanii''<br />
|-<br />
| diamond-petaled California poppy<br />
| ''Eschscholzia rhombipetala''<br />
|-<br />
| Diablo Range hare-leaf<br />
| ''Lagophylla diaboloensis''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Environmental review of Panoche Valley Solar Farm in the Carrizo Plain===<br />
====Animal species====<br />
<br />
An environmental impact report (EIR) by San Benito County assessed the effects of the proposed solar farm on three present endangered species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> The results of the (EIR) are summarized in the table below.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common Name<br />
! Scientific Name<br />
! Potential to occur <br />
! Status in California<br />
! Impact of Panoche Valley Solar Farm<br />
! Proposed mitigation<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin kit fox <br />
| ''Vulpes macrotis mutica''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally endangered; state threatened<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Prioritize habitat in the Ciervo-Panoche and Kern County as that would be the least expensive way to protect large tracts of habitat<br />
|-<br />
| giant kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys ingens''<br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| Secure the Ciervo‐Panoche Region from incompatible land uses<br />
|-<br />
| blunt‐nosed leopard lizard<br />
| ''Gambelia sila'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally and state endangered; state fully protected<br />
| Threatens high priority habitat important for long term survival and recovery of species. <br />
| 6,000 contiguous acres of occupied habitat within the Ciervo‐Panoche area needs to be secured from incompatible uses.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Additionally, several other invertebrate and vertebrate species occur or have the potential to occur in the proposed solar farm site. These organisms include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! Status in California<br />
|-<br />
| longhorn Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta longiantenna'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally endangered <br />
|-<br />
| vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp <br />
| ''Branchinecta lynchi'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened<br />
|-<br />
| Southwestern pond turtle <br />
| ''Actinemys marmorata pallida'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| silvery legless lizard <br />
| ''Anniella pulchra pulchra'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin coachwhip <br />
| ''Masticophis flagellum ruddocki'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| coast horned lizard <br />
| ''Phrynosoma blainvillii'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of special concern<br />
|-<br />
| California red-legged frog <br />
| ''Rana draytonii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally and state protected<br />
|-<br />
| two-striped garter snake <br />
| ''Thamnophis hammondii'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| California tiger salamander <br />
| ''Ambystoma californiense'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Federally threatened; state threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| western spadefoot toad <br />
| ''Spea hammondii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| tricolored blackbird <br />
| ''Agelaius tricolor'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| grasshopper sparrow <br />
| ''Ammodramus savannarum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| golden eagle <br />
| ''Aquila chrysaetos'' <br />
| Present<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| short-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio flammeus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| long-eared owl <br />
| ''Asio otus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Burrowing owl <br />
| ''Athene cunicularia'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Swainson’s hawk <br />
| ''Buteo swainsonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State threatened<br />
|-<br />
| mountain plover <br />
| ''Charadrius montanus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| northern harrier <br />
| ''Circus cyaneus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern; federally threatened candidate<br />
|-<br />
| white-tailed kite <br />
| ''Elanus leucurus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| State fully protected<br />
|-<br />
| California condor <br />
| ''Gymnogyps californianus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Federally and state endangered<br />
|-<br />
| bald eagle <br />
| ''Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| Federally protected; state endangered <br />
|-<br />
| Loggerhead shrike <br />
| ''Lanius ludovicianus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Oregon vesper sparrow <br />
| ''Pooecetes gramineus affinis'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| yellow-headed Blackbird <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin antelope squirrel <br />
| ''Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus'' <br />
| Not likely to occur<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| pallid bat <br />
| ''Antrozous pallidus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| Townsend’s big-eared bat <br />
| ''Corynorhinus townsendii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern <br />
|-<br />
| short-nosed kangaroo rat <br />
| ''Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus'' <br />
| High<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| western mastiff bat <br />
| ''Eumops perotis'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| Tulare grasshopper mouse <br />
| ''Onychomys torridus tularensis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|-<br />
| American badger <br />
| ''Taxidea taxus'' <br />
| Present<br />
| California species of concern<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Plant species====<br />
<br />
The proposed site also has the potential to support several special status plant species.<ref>[http://www.cosb.us/Solargen/feir/c06_biology.pdf San Benito County]</ref> These species include: <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Common name<br />
! Scientific name<br />
! Potential to occur<br />
! [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System#Summary|Status in California]]<br />
|-<br />
| forked fiddleneck <br />
| ''Amsinckia vernicosa var. furcata'' <br />
| High<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California androsace <br />
| ''Androsace elongata ssp. Acuta'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas milkvetch <br />
| ''Astragalus macrodon'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Heartscale <br />
| ''Atriplex cordulata'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex coronate var. coronate'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Brittlescale <br />
| ''Atriplex depressa'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin spearscale <br />
| ''Atriplex joaquiniana'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lesser saltscale <br />
| ''Atriplex minuscule'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Subtle orache <br />
| ''Atriplex subtilis'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| lost hills crownscale <br />
| ''Atriplex vallicola'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Big tarplant <br />
| ''Blepharizonia plumose'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| round-leaved filaree <br />
| ''California macrophylla'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| California jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus californicus'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Lemmon’s jewel-flower <br />
| ''Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii.'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Potbellied spineflower <br />
| ''Chorizanthe ventricosa'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hispid bird’s-beak <br />
| ''Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Hall’s tarplant <br />
| ''Deinandra halliana'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| gypsum-loving larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. Gypsophilum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| recurved larkspur <br />
| ''Delphinium recurvatum'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| cottony buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum gossypinum'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Idria buckwheat <br />
| ''Eriogonum vestitum'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Not very endangered<br />
|-<br />
| pale-yellow layia <br />
| ''Layia heterotricha'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Munz’s tidytips <br />
| ''Layia munzii'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Jared’s pepper-grass <br />
| ''Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| Serpentine Linanthus <br />
| ''Leptosiphon ambiguous'' <br />
| Present<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|-<br />
| showy golden madia <br />
| ''Madia radiate'' <br />
| Moderate<br />
| Seriously endangered<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| San Joaquin woollythreads <br />
| ''Monolopia congdonii'' <br />
| Low<br />
| Fairly endangered<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Scenic impacts===<br />
<br />
Solar farms can affect scenic views and alter landscape aesthetics. The panels and arrays have the potential to degrade the visual character or quality of the landscape.<ref>[ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/cluster-I-solar/06ch3-aesthetics.pdf Imperial County Planning and Department Services Department]</ref> A way to reduce aesthetic impacts is to build low-lying solar arrays, as the case with the proposed solar farm in Monterey County.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20151130/NEWS/151139988 Monterey Herald]</ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on land usage and agriculture==<br />
[[Image: Agave Solar2.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Artist rendition of a hypothetical agave plant and solar panel system. Image from greentechlead: [http://www.greentechlead.com/solar/agave-aloe-at-solar-plants-help-control-dust-23080]]]<br />
Solar farms in the Central Coast Region could impact pre-existing land usage. A 2015 study by the Carnegie Institution of Science found that 15 percent of existing and proposed solar farms in California exist on land already impacted by human development. 28% of these farms impacted croplands and pastures and could impact the agriculture industry.<ref>[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-big-solar-big-impacts-2015oct19-story.html San Diego Union-Tribune]</ref> However, solar farms could have positive impacts on the agriculture industry. Some farmers are considering retiring agriculture land and using it to develop more profitable solar farms.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article46665960.html The Sacramento Bee]</ref><br />
<br />
Scientists at Stanford University have developed a way to grow crops in solar farms. Computer simulated experiments reveal that certain plants like agave could grow around solar panels. These plants would be beneficial to the solar panels as their roots would anchor the soil and foliage below and reduce dust kick up. The agave plants would benefit from the solar panels as they could capture runoff water used to clean the solar panels. This system could also create a pathway to increase ethanol production as the agave could be harvested and converted into biofuel.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-solar-water-crops-040914.html Stanford News]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image: Construction Topaz2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Construction of the Topaz Solar Farm, February 2012. Image from USFWS: [https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/featured-stories/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain/RenewableEnergy-CarrizoPlain.htm]]]<br />
<br />
==Economic Impacts==<br />
Solar Farm development and upkeep create jobs in the economy. Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 10,200 solar related construction jobs were created. An additional 136 permanent operations and maintenance jobs have also been created; these jobs will likely persist throughout the lifetime of the solar facilities.<ref>[http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/building-solar-ca14.pdf UC Berkeley Labor Center]</ref> The creation of solar farms also have a short-term boost on local economies. The California Flats Solar Project is expected to boost local commerce when workers make purchases in local shops and restaurants.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article39512118.html San Luis Obispo Tribune]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[Monterey County]]<br />
* [[San Benito County]]<br />
* [[Photovoltaic technology in California's Central Coast Region]]<br />
* [[California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Ranking System]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu/ CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_(CDFW)California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)2017-04-08T20:09:03Z<p>Nikkii: /* Regional Divisions */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:CDFW-Logo-228x300.jpg|300px|thumb|right|California Department of Fish and Wildlife logo [http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a state agency under the California Natural Resources Agency. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats. CDFW divides the State of California into seven management regions and is responsible for managing recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses. It also works to prevent illegal poaching.<br />
<br />
== History in California==<br />
[[File:1915troutstocking.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1915- Commission employees unload trout fingerlings from a rail car to be stocked in California streams [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
[[File:1958marinewardens.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1958- Two game wardens check nets to ensure they meet commercial fishing regulations [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has a long history in California: <ref> [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0ahUKEwiL3Y7VpITTAhWHLmMKHU_WASMQFghXMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D23573&usg=AFQjCNGxlm6R1GVwY9cAB6JfkPUKvjEXhw&sig2=cGhSfRawia0fowH6hpbFzA&cad=rja Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California]</ref> <br />
<br />
*Pre 1851 - Spanish and Mexican game and fish laws applied<br />
<br />
*1850s - California's first official fish and game laws established to protect species such as oysters elk, deer, salmon and quail. Game laws are extended to all counties in California<br />
<br />
*1860s - First closed seasons for trout fishing established<br />
<br />
*1870s - Board of Fish Commissioners is established, two of the first full-time game wardens are appointed, and the Fish Commission authority is expanded to include game <br />
<br />
*1885 - First California fish and game laws published.<br />
<br />
*1901 - Authority is expanded and game bag limits are set.<br />
<br />
*1909 - Name changed to Fish and Game Commission following a greater emphasis placed on game laws.<br />
<br />
*1913 - First year that fishing licenses are required. New law prevents sea otter take.<br />
<br />
*1920s - Reorganization of the Commission creates 3 new departments: fish culture, commercial fisheries, and patrol. Duties of the Fish and Game Commission taken over by the Division of Fish and Game (DFG).<br />
<br />
*1945 - A state constitutional amendment gives the Commission authority to make regulations for sport fishing and hunting.<br />
<br />
*1950s - Five regional offices established. New branches include: Bureaus of Game, Conservation, Inland Fisheries, Patrol and Marine Research. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is enacted requiring consideration of DFG resources by state agencies when planning federal projects. Creation of The Water Projects Branch to monitor impacts of land use and water development projects on water quality.<br />
<br />
*1960s - DFG becomes part of the Resources of California agency. The Davis-Dolwig act enables DFG to be more influential to the State Water Project planning. A DFG water quality laboratory approved by legislature to work on projects affecting fish and wildlife. Anadromous fish hatchery established.<br />
<br />
*1970s - The [[Endangered Species Act|Endangered Species Act]] requires DFG to inventory the state's threatened or endangered species. Multiple species' populations are inventoried including sea otters and mountain lions. Drought in the late 1970s require DFG to rescue and relocate threatened fish species. DFG releases new deer management limits in response to state legislation enacted to manage deer herds.<br />
<br />
*1980s - CalTIP is created to enable citizens to report illegal taking of fish and game. DFGs wildlife education program begins to be taught in schools. An automated commercial fish tax system is started to monitor compliance. A randomized hunting tag system is started to divide up game tags distributed each year.<br />
<br />
*1990s - Aquaculture industry in California is placed first worldwide. First time a domesticated white sturgeon is spawned([[Endangered Species Act|federally listed]]). DFG becomes involved with oil spill response and prevention. Captive bred condors are released. DFG teams up with timber companies to restore fisheries and watershed resources. After the legislature passes the Marine Live Management Act, the DFG is required to set new commercial fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
*2013 - The California Department of Fish and Game changes its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) January 1, 2013 in order to better encompass changes to their responsibilities. Game wardens are now called wildlife officers. https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/department-name-change-effective-tomorrow/<br />
<br />
==Management Responsibilities==<br />
===Regulations and Permitting===<br />
* Recreational Fishing<br />
* Commercial Fishing<br />
* Hunting<br />
* Game Breeding<br />
* Fur Dealing<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
* Education<br />
<br />
===Conservation===<br />
* Species Management<br />
* Habitat Conservation<br />
* Conservation Easements and Banks<br />
* Environmental Review<br />
**Cannabis Program<br />
* 286 Protected Areas statewide<br />
** 83 Wildlife Areas<br />
** 102 Ecological Reserves<br />
** 101 Marine Protected Areas<br />
<br />
==Recreational Fishing==<br />
[[File:flyfishingkernriver.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Fly fisherman fishing the Kern River, CA [http://www.grahamowengallery.com/photography/Sierra_Kern_River.html]]]<br />
CDFW is responsible for setting catch limits and publishing annual recreational fishing regulations. Separate regulations are available for ocean sport fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Sport-Fishing </ref>, freshwater fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/2017-Regulations </ref>, and sport fishing in Marine Protected Areas <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network </ref>.<br />
<br />
California Recreational Fisheries Surveys (CRFS) and Recreational Fisheries Data (recFIN)<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/Groundfish/Recreational-Fishery-Data </ref> are programs created to collect data on recreational fishing catches. This information is used to estimate catch rates and effort on a year-to-year basis, and can be used to update or change fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Fishing==<br />
CDFW issues the state's commercial fisherman with the proper licensing and permits needed to harvest within state waters. The department partners with multiple agencies, universities, stakeholders and fisherman to help monitor and regulate California's commercial fishing industry. By partnering with these groups, the CDFW has created a list of management programs and projects to protect and enhance California's ocean fisheries <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine#309771049-fishery-management-plans-and-related-projects </ref>. The CDFW enforcement division plays a key role in patrolling state waters and ensuring regulations are followed.<br />
<br />
==Hunting==<br />
[[File:Pheasant.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Ring-necked Pheasant (Upland game bird) [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Upland-Game-Birds]]]<br />
<br />
Hunting regulations and laws are implemented and regulated by the CDFW. Each year a new list of regulations is created to keep hunters up to date with new hunting laws, restrictions and hunting seasons <ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regulations </ref>. Hunting opportunities in the state are separated into categories:<br />
*Small game - rabbit, coyote, squirrel, etc.<br />
*Large game - deer, elk, bear, bighorn sheep, etc.<br />
*Waterfowl - duck, geese and migratory game birds<br />
*Upland birds - quail, pheasant, ruffed grouse, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The agency also keeps track of all public and federal lands that are available to hunters, along with resources on all California game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting </ref>. CDFW manages multiple programs to help develop hunting opportunities and promote land management to enhance habitat for game species:<br />
*''Private Lands Management''- This program provides incentives for landowners to manage their property for the benefit of wildlife, creating healthier populations of game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/PLM </ref>.<br />
*''Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement''- CDFW partners with private landowners to provide access to private lands for hunters, incentivizing the landowners with payment and liability protection<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/SHARE </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Education==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Hunters Education Program===<br />
In 1954, California's first law requiring hunter safety courses was established <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunter-education </ref>. Since then, CDFW requires all hunters to pass a hunter safety course that focuses on hunting regulations, firearm safety and responsible hunting.<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
''Classroom Aquarium Education Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/CAEP </ref> Also known as "Trout in the Classroom," this program introduces students to salmonids. Each classroom raises a batch of fish eggs while learning about salmonid ecology, aquatic habitats and fisheries management. The program ends with a field trip where the fingerlings are released.<br />
[[File:troutintheclassroom.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Trout in the Classroom program [http://escondidocreek.org/current-projects/trout-classroom-program/]]]<br />
''California National Archery in the Schools Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Learning/CALNASP </ref><br />
<br />
''Fishing in the City''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing-in-the-City </ref> Since 1993, CDFW has hosted fishing workshops in the metropolitan areas of Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The program was developed to get people interested in fishing who may otherwise lack the skills necessary to enjoy fishing or be unaware of fishing opportunities in their communities.<br />
<br />
''California Fishing Passport program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Passport </ref>Participants in this program are given a "fishing passport" and stamps to catch and check off more than 150 sport fish species while exploring the states many fishing locations.<br />
<br />
''Invasive Species''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives </ref> CDFW regularly updates lists of invasive species in the state and manages multiple online pages with information and resources on how to identify and stop the spread of invasive species.<br />
<br />
==Law Enforcement Division==<br />
[[File:licensecheck.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Warden checking fishing licenses [https://californiaoutdoorsqas.com/2013/11/21/did-game-warden-have-the-right-to-search-my-car/]]]<br />
CDFW law enforcement officers (Wildlife Officers) are tasked with a wide range of responsibilities. These duties include <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>:<br />
*Enforcement of hunting and fishing laws<br />
*Teaching and organizing hunter education programs<br />
*Protecting waterways and natural habitats from:<br />
**Pollution<br />
**Illegal dumping<br />
**Unregulated habitat destruction/alteration<br />
*Responding to natural disasters<br />
<br />
<br />
CDFW officers have the authority to enforce all federal fish and game laws, as well as all California laws <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>. CDFW Wildlife Officers responsibilities are separated into four districts:<br />
*Northern District<br />
*North Coast District<br />
*[[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central District]]<br />
*Southern District<br />
<br />
==Regional Divisions==<br />
The Department of Fish and Wildlife divides the State of California into seven management regions. The Marine Region includes the entire coastline of California. The six terrestrial regions are delimited by county boundaries with the exception of the North Central Region and Bay Delta Region (Sacramento, Yolo, and San Joaquin counties are split between the two). <br />
<br />
* Northern Region: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties.<br />
<br />
* North Central Region: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.<br />
<br />
* Bay Delta Region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties.<br />
<br />
* [[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central Region]]: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties.<br />
<br />
* South Coast Region: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.<br />
<br />
* Inland Deserts Region: Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.<br />
<br />
==CEQA Project involvement==<br />
<br />
==Conservation Easements==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Links==<br />
*[http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/ CDFW Logo]<br />
*[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110222_saltwaterangling.html Salwater Fisherman Picture]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_(CDFW)California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)2017-04-08T20:08:23Z<p>Nikkii: /* Regional Divisions */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:CDFW-Logo-228x300.jpg|300px|thumb|right|California Department of Fish and Wildlife logo [http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a state agency under the California Natural Resources Agency. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats. CDFW divides the State of California into seven management regions and is responsible for managing recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses. It also works to prevent illegal poaching.<br />
<br />
== History in California==<br />
[[File:1915troutstocking.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1915- Commission employees unload trout fingerlings from a rail car to be stocked in California streams [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
[[File:1958marinewardens.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1958- Two game wardens check nets to ensure they meet commercial fishing regulations [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has a long history in California: <ref> [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0ahUKEwiL3Y7VpITTAhWHLmMKHU_WASMQFghXMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D23573&usg=AFQjCNGxlm6R1GVwY9cAB6JfkPUKvjEXhw&sig2=cGhSfRawia0fowH6hpbFzA&cad=rja Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California]</ref> <br />
<br />
*Pre 1851 - Spanish and Mexican game and fish laws applied<br />
<br />
*1850s - California's first official fish and game laws established to protect species such as oysters elk, deer, salmon and quail. Game laws are extended to all counties in California<br />
<br />
*1860s - First closed seasons for trout fishing established<br />
<br />
*1870s - Board of Fish Commissioners is established, two of the first full-time game wardens are appointed, and the Fish Commission authority is expanded to include game <br />
<br />
*1885 - First California fish and game laws published.<br />
<br />
*1901 - Authority is expanded and game bag limits are set.<br />
<br />
*1909 - Name changed to Fish and Game Commission following a greater emphasis placed on game laws.<br />
<br />
*1913 - First year that fishing licenses are required. New law prevents sea otter take.<br />
<br />
*1920s - Reorganization of the Commission creates 3 new departments: fish culture, commercial fisheries, and patrol. Duties of the Fish and Game Commission taken over by the Division of Fish and Game (DFG).<br />
<br />
*1945 - A state constitutional amendment gives the Commission authority to make regulations for sport fishing and hunting.<br />
<br />
*1950s - Five regional offices established. New branches include: Bureaus of Game, Conservation, Inland Fisheries, Patrol and Marine Research. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is enacted requiring consideration of DFG resources by state agencies when planning federal projects. Creation of The Water Projects Branch to monitor impacts of land use and water development projects on water quality.<br />
<br />
*1960s - DFG becomes part of the Resources of California agency. The Davis-Dolwig act enables DFG to be more influential to the State Water Project planning. A DFG water quality laboratory approved by legislature to work on projects affecting fish and wildlife. Anadromous fish hatchery established.<br />
<br />
*1970s - The [[Endangered Species Act|Endangered Species Act]] requires DFG to inventory the state's threatened or endangered species. Multiple species' populations are inventoried including sea otters and mountain lions. Drought in the late 1970s require DFG to rescue and relocate threatened fish species. DFG releases new deer management limits in response to state legislation enacted to manage deer herds.<br />
<br />
*1980s - CalTIP is created to enable citizens to report illegal taking of fish and game. DFGs wildlife education program begins to be taught in schools. An automated commercial fish tax system is started to monitor compliance. A randomized hunting tag system is started to divide up game tags distributed each year.<br />
<br />
*1990s - Aquaculture industry in California is placed first worldwide. First time a domesticated white sturgeon is spawned([[Endangered Species Act|federally listed]]). DFG becomes involved with oil spill response and prevention. Captive bred condors are released. DFG teams up with timber companies to restore fisheries and watershed resources. After the legislature passes the Marine Live Management Act, the DFG is required to set new commercial fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
*2013 - The California Department of Fish and Game changes its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) January 1, 2013 in order to better encompass changes to their responsibilities. Game wardens are now called wildlife officers. https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/department-name-change-effective-tomorrow/<br />
<br />
==Management Responsibilities==<br />
===Regulations and Permitting===<br />
* Recreational Fishing<br />
* Commercial Fishing<br />
* Hunting<br />
* Game Breeding<br />
* Fur Dealing<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
* Education<br />
<br />
===Conservation===<br />
* Species Management<br />
* Habitat Conservation<br />
* Conservation Easements and Banks<br />
* Environmental Review<br />
**Cannabis Program<br />
* 286 Protected Areas statewide<br />
** 83 Wildlife Areas<br />
** 102 Ecological Reserves<br />
** 101 Marine Protected Areas<br />
<br />
==Recreational Fishing==<br />
[[File:flyfishingkernriver.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Fly fisherman fishing the Kern River, CA [http://www.grahamowengallery.com/photography/Sierra_Kern_River.html]]]<br />
CDFW is responsible for setting catch limits and publishing annual recreational fishing regulations. Separate regulations are available for ocean sport fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Sport-Fishing </ref>, freshwater fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/2017-Regulations </ref>, and sport fishing in Marine Protected Areas <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network </ref>.<br />
<br />
California Recreational Fisheries Surveys (CRFS) and Recreational Fisheries Data (recFIN)<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/Groundfish/Recreational-Fishery-Data </ref> are programs created to collect data on recreational fishing catches. This information is used to estimate catch rates and effort on a year-to-year basis, and can be used to update or change fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Fishing==<br />
CDFW issues the state's commercial fisherman with the proper licensing and permits needed to harvest within state waters. The department partners with multiple agencies, universities, stakeholders and fisherman to help monitor and regulate California's commercial fishing industry. By partnering with these groups, the CDFW has created a list of management programs and projects to protect and enhance California's ocean fisheries <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine#309771049-fishery-management-plans-and-related-projects </ref>. The CDFW enforcement division plays a key role in patrolling state waters and ensuring regulations are followed.<br />
<br />
==Hunting==<br />
[[File:Pheasant.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Ring-necked Pheasant (Upland game bird) [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Upland-Game-Birds]]]<br />
<br />
Hunting regulations and laws are implemented and regulated by the CDFW. Each year a new list of regulations is created to keep hunters up to date with new hunting laws, restrictions and hunting seasons <ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regulations </ref>. Hunting opportunities in the state are separated into categories:<br />
*Small game - rabbit, coyote, squirrel, etc.<br />
*Large game - deer, elk, bear, bighorn sheep, etc.<br />
*Waterfowl - duck, geese and migratory game birds<br />
*Upland birds - quail, pheasant, ruffed grouse, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The agency also keeps track of all public and federal lands that are available to hunters, along with resources on all California game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting </ref>. CDFW manages multiple programs to help develop hunting opportunities and promote land management to enhance habitat for game species:<br />
*''Private Lands Management''- This program provides incentives for landowners to manage their property for the benefit of wildlife, creating healthier populations of game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/PLM </ref>.<br />
*''Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement''- CDFW partners with private landowners to provide access to private lands for hunters, incentivizing the landowners with payment and liability protection<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/SHARE </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Education==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Hunters Education Program===<br />
In 1954, California's first law requiring hunter safety courses was established <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunter-education </ref>. Since then, CDFW requires all hunters to pass a hunter safety course that focuses on hunting regulations, firearm safety and responsible hunting.<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
''Classroom Aquarium Education Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/CAEP </ref> Also known as "Trout in the Classroom," this program introduces students to salmonids. Each classroom raises a batch of fish eggs while learning about salmonid ecology, aquatic habitats and fisheries management. The program ends with a field trip where the fingerlings are released.<br />
[[File:troutintheclassroom.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Trout in the Classroom program [http://escondidocreek.org/current-projects/trout-classroom-program/]]]<br />
''California National Archery in the Schools Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Learning/CALNASP </ref><br />
<br />
''Fishing in the City''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing-in-the-City </ref> Since 1993, CDFW has hosted fishing workshops in the metropolitan areas of Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The program was developed to get people interested in fishing who may otherwise lack the skills necessary to enjoy fishing or be unaware of fishing opportunities in their communities.<br />
<br />
''California Fishing Passport program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Passport </ref>Participants in this program are given a "fishing passport" and stamps to catch and check off more than 150 sport fish species while exploring the states many fishing locations.<br />
<br />
''Invasive Species''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives </ref> CDFW regularly updates lists of invasive species in the state and manages multiple online pages with information and resources on how to identify and stop the spread of invasive species.<br />
<br />
==Law Enforcement Division==<br />
[[File:licensecheck.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Warden checking fishing licenses [https://californiaoutdoorsqas.com/2013/11/21/did-game-warden-have-the-right-to-search-my-car/]]]<br />
CDFW law enforcement officers (Wildlife Officers) are tasked with a wide range of responsibilities. These duties include <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>:<br />
*Enforcement of hunting and fishing laws<br />
*Teaching and organizing hunter education programs<br />
*Protecting waterways and natural habitats from:<br />
**Pollution<br />
**Illegal dumping<br />
**Unregulated habitat destruction/alteration<br />
*Responding to natural disasters<br />
<br />
<br />
CDFW officers have the authority to enforce all federal fish and game laws, as well as all California laws <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>. CDFW Wildlife Officers responsibilities are separated into four districts:<br />
*Northern District<br />
*North Coast District<br />
*[[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central District]]<br />
*Southern District<br />
<br />
==Regional Divisions==<br />
The Department of Fish and Wildlife divides the State of California into seven management regions. The Marine Region includes the entire coastline of California. The six terrestrial regions are delimited by county boundaries with the exception of the North Central Region and Bay Delta Region (Sacramento, Yolo, and San Joaquin counties). <br />
<br />
* Northern Region: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties.<br />
<br />
* North Central Region: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.<br />
<br />
* Bay Delta Region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties.<br />
<br />
* [[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central Region]]: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties.<br />
<br />
* South Coast Region: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.<br />
<br />
* Inland Deserts Region: Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.<br />
<br />
==CEQA Project involvement==<br />
<br />
==Conservation Easements==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Links==<br />
*[http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/ CDFW Logo]<br />
*[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110222_saltwaterangling.html Salwater Fisherman Picture]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkiihttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/California_Department_of_Fish_and_Wildlife_(CDFW)California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)2017-04-08T20:06:53Z<p>Nikkii: /* Law Enforcement Division */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:CDFW-Logo-228x300.jpg|300px|thumb|right|California Department of Fish and Wildlife logo [http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/]]]<br />
==Overview==<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a state agency under the California Natural Resources Agency. The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages and protects the state's fish, wildlife, plant and native habitats. CDFW divides the State of California into seven management regions and is responsible for managing recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses. It also works to prevent illegal poaching.<br />
<br />
== History in California==<br />
[[File:1915troutstocking.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1915- Commission employees unload trout fingerlings from a rail car to be stocked in California streams [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
[[File:1958marinewardens.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| 1958- Two game wardens check nets to ensure they meet commercial fishing regulations [http://winningisforwinners.com/CaliforniaWarden/history-2/california-game-warden-history/]]]<br />
<br />
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has a long history in California: <ref> [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0ahUKEwiL3Y7VpITTAhWHLmMKHU_WASMQFghXMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D23573&usg=AFQjCNGxlm6R1GVwY9cAB6JfkPUKvjEXhw&sig2=cGhSfRawia0fowH6hpbFzA&cad=rja Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California]</ref> <br />
<br />
*Pre 1851 - Spanish and Mexican game and fish laws applied<br />
<br />
*1850s - California's first official fish and game laws established to protect species such as oysters elk, deer, salmon and quail. Game laws are extended to all counties in California<br />
<br />
*1860s - First closed seasons for trout fishing established<br />
<br />
*1870s - Board of Fish Commissioners is established, two of the first full-time game wardens are appointed, and the Fish Commission authority is expanded to include game <br />
<br />
*1885 - First California fish and game laws published.<br />
<br />
*1901 - Authority is expanded and game bag limits are set.<br />
<br />
*1909 - Name changed to Fish and Game Commission following a greater emphasis placed on game laws.<br />
<br />
*1913 - First year that fishing licenses are required. New law prevents sea otter take.<br />
<br />
*1920s - Reorganization of the Commission creates 3 new departments: fish culture, commercial fisheries, and patrol. Duties of the Fish and Game Commission taken over by the Division of Fish and Game (DFG).<br />
<br />
*1945 - A state constitutional amendment gives the Commission authority to make regulations for sport fishing and hunting.<br />
<br />
*1950s - Five regional offices established. New branches include: Bureaus of Game, Conservation, Inland Fisheries, Patrol and Marine Research. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is enacted requiring consideration of DFG resources by state agencies when planning federal projects. Creation of The Water Projects Branch to monitor impacts of land use and water development projects on water quality.<br />
<br />
*1960s - DFG becomes part of the Resources of California agency. The Davis-Dolwig act enables DFG to be more influential to the State Water Project planning. A DFG water quality laboratory approved by legislature to work on projects affecting fish and wildlife. Anadromous fish hatchery established.<br />
<br />
*1970s - The [[Endangered Species Act|Endangered Species Act]] requires DFG to inventory the state's threatened or endangered species. Multiple species' populations are inventoried including sea otters and mountain lions. Drought in the late 1970s require DFG to rescue and relocate threatened fish species. DFG releases new deer management limits in response to state legislation enacted to manage deer herds.<br />
<br />
*1980s - CalTIP is created to enable citizens to report illegal taking of fish and game. DFGs wildlife education program begins to be taught in schools. An automated commercial fish tax system is started to monitor compliance. A randomized hunting tag system is started to divide up game tags distributed each year.<br />
<br />
*1990s - Aquaculture industry in California is placed first worldwide. First time a domesticated white sturgeon is spawned([[Endangered Species Act|federally listed]]). DFG becomes involved with oil spill response and prevention. Captive bred condors are released. DFG teams up with timber companies to restore fisheries and watershed resources. After the legislature passes the Marine Live Management Act, the DFG is required to set new commercial fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
*2013 - The California Department of Fish and Game changes its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) January 1, 2013 in order to better encompass changes to their responsibilities. Game wardens are now called wildlife officers. https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/department-name-change-effective-tomorrow/<br />
<br />
==Management Responsibilities==<br />
===Regulations and Permitting===<br />
* Recreational Fishing<br />
* Commercial Fishing<br />
* Hunting<br />
* Game Breeding<br />
* Fur Dealing<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
* Education<br />
<br />
===Conservation===<br />
* Species Management<br />
* Habitat Conservation<br />
* Conservation Easements and Banks<br />
* Environmental Review<br />
**Cannabis Program<br />
* 286 Protected Areas statewide<br />
** 83 Wildlife Areas<br />
** 102 Ecological Reserves<br />
** 101 Marine Protected Areas<br />
<br />
==Recreational Fishing==<br />
[[File:flyfishingkernriver.jpg|280x300px|thumb|Right| Fly fisherman fishing the Kern River, CA [http://www.grahamowengallery.com/photography/Sierra_Kern_River.html]]]<br />
CDFW is responsible for setting catch limits and publishing annual recreational fishing regulations. Separate regulations are available for ocean sport fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Sport-Fishing </ref>, freshwater fishing <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/2017-Regulations </ref>, and sport fishing in Marine Protected Areas <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network </ref>.<br />
<br />
California Recreational Fisheries Surveys (CRFS) and Recreational Fisheries Data (recFIN)<ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/Groundfish/Recreational-Fishery-Data </ref> are programs created to collect data on recreational fishing catches. This information is used to estimate catch rates and effort on a year-to-year basis, and can be used to update or change fishing regulations.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Fishing==<br />
CDFW issues the state's commercial fisherman with the proper licensing and permits needed to harvest within state waters. The department partners with multiple agencies, universities, stakeholders and fisherman to help monitor and regulate California's commercial fishing industry. By partnering with these groups, the CDFW has created a list of management programs and projects to protect and enhance California's ocean fisheries <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine#309771049-fishery-management-plans-and-related-projects </ref>. The CDFW enforcement division plays a key role in patrolling state waters and ensuring regulations are followed.<br />
<br />
==Hunting==<br />
[[File:Pheasant.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Ring-necked Pheasant (Upland game bird) [https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Upland-Game-Birds]]]<br />
<br />
Hunting regulations and laws are implemented and regulated by the CDFW. Each year a new list of regulations is created to keep hunters up to date with new hunting laws, restrictions and hunting seasons <ref>https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regulations </ref>. Hunting opportunities in the state are separated into categories:<br />
*Small game - rabbit, coyote, squirrel, etc.<br />
*Large game - deer, elk, bear, bighorn sheep, etc.<br />
*Waterfowl - duck, geese and migratory game birds<br />
*Upland birds - quail, pheasant, ruffed grouse, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The agency also keeps track of all public and federal lands that are available to hunters, along with resources on all California game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting </ref>. CDFW manages multiple programs to help develop hunting opportunities and promote land management to enhance habitat for game species:<br />
*''Private Lands Management''- This program provides incentives for landowners to manage their property for the benefit of wildlife, creating healthier populations of game species <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/PLM </ref>.<br />
*''Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement''- CDFW partners with private landowners to provide access to private lands for hunters, incentivizing the landowners with payment and liability protection<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/SHARE </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Education==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Hunters Education Program===<br />
In 1954, California's first law requiring hunter safety courses was established <ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunter-education </ref>. Since then, CDFW requires all hunters to pass a hunter safety course that focuses on hunting regulations, firearm safety and responsible hunting.<br />
<br />
===Outreach===<br />
''Classroom Aquarium Education Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/CAEP </ref> Also known as "Trout in the Classroom," this program introduces students to salmonids. Each classroom raises a batch of fish eggs while learning about salmonid ecology, aquatic habitats and fisheries management. The program ends with a field trip where the fingerlings are released.<br />
[[File:troutintheclassroom.jpg|343 KB|thumb|right|Trout in the Classroom program [http://escondidocreek.org/current-projects/trout-classroom-program/]]]<br />
''California National Archery in the Schools Program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Learning/CALNASP </ref><br />
<br />
''Fishing in the City''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing-in-the-City </ref> Since 1993, CDFW has hosted fishing workshops in the metropolitan areas of Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The program was developed to get people interested in fishing who may otherwise lack the skills necessary to enjoy fishing or be unaware of fishing opportunities in their communities.<br />
<br />
''California Fishing Passport program''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Passport </ref>Participants in this program are given a "fishing passport" and stamps to catch and check off more than 150 sport fish species while exploring the states many fishing locations.<br />
<br />
''Invasive Species''<ref> https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives </ref> CDFW regularly updates lists of invasive species in the state and manages multiple online pages with information and resources on how to identify and stop the spread of invasive species.<br />
<br />
==Law Enforcement Division==<br />
[[File:licensecheck.jpg|300px|thumb|right|CDFW Warden checking fishing licenses [https://californiaoutdoorsqas.com/2013/11/21/did-game-warden-have-the-right-to-search-my-car/]]]<br />
CDFW law enforcement officers (Wildlife Officers) are tasked with a wide range of responsibilities. These duties include <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>:<br />
*Enforcement of hunting and fishing laws<br />
*Teaching and organizing hunter education programs<br />
*Protecting waterways and natural habitats from:<br />
**Pollution<br />
**Illegal dumping<br />
**Unregulated habitat destruction/alteration<br />
*Responding to natural disasters<br />
<br />
<br />
CDFW officers have the authority to enforce all federal fish and game laws, as well as all California laws <ref> https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/cdfw-now-hiring-law-enforcement-cadets/ </ref>. CDFW Wildlife Officers responsibilities are separated into four districts:<br />
*Northern District<br />
*North Coast District<br />
*[[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central District]]<br />
*Southern District<br />
<br />
==Regional Divisions==<br />
The Department of Fish and Wildlife divides the State of California into seven management regions. The Marine Region includes the entire coastline of California. The six terrestrial regions are delimited by county boundaries with the exception of the North Central Region and Bay Delta Region (Sacramento, Yolo, and San Joaquin counties). <br />
<br />
* Northern Region: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties.<br />
<br />
* North Central Region: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.<br />
<br />
* Bay Delta Region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo counties.<br />
<br />
* [[Central Region Department of Fish and Wildlife|Central Region]]: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare and Tuolumne counties.<br />
<br />
* South Coast Region: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.<br />
<br />
* Inland Deserts Region: Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.<br />
<br />
==CEQA Project involvement==<br />
<br />
==Conservation Easements==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==Links==<br />
*[http://www.onedeltaonescience.net/california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-cdfw-and-the-wildlife-conservation-board-wcb-announce-public-meetings-to-discuss-new-prop-1-grant-programs/ CDFW Logo]<br />
*[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110222_saltwaterangling.html Salwater Fisherman Picture]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students.</div>Nikkii