Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Consequences are identified that could reduce potential water quality impacts and they are also feasible, practicable, and cost-effective, the discharger is required to implement the identified alternative measures. One effective BMP identified in the General Permit is the use non-toxic and less toxic controls. These include larvicides with very low toxicity that pose very little or no threat to the environment. USEPA has concluded that microbial larvicides (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, Bacillus sphaericus) do not pose risks to the environment; and methoprene, as used in vector control programs, does not pose unreasonable risks to the environment (California State Water Resources Board 2004). Therefore, the current vector control practices being conducted on the Refuge are not expected to result in any adverse effects to water quality. Public Use The pathway that provides access for the public from the Refuge office/visitor contact station to the observation deck consists of decomposed granite installed along a relatively flat surface. No signs of erosion along the pathway are evident and the pathway continues to provide a firm and stable surface, therefore, the continuation of the public use program currently conducted on the Refuge would have little, if any, effect to water quality in the adjacent wetlands. 5.2.1.7 Effects from Climate Change/Sea Level Rise Overview Climate change, especially sea level rise, will significantly alter the existing conditions on the coast, making coastal intertidal habitats, including the salt marsh habitat protected within the Seal Beach NWR, some of the most at risk habitats in the world. As sea level rises, intertidal mudflats and salt marsh habitat will be converted to subtidal habitat. In addition, decreases in precipitation could adversely affect the health of the remaining cordgrass and other salt marsh vegetation that depends on some seasonal freshwater input to promote plant vigor. Although global sea level rise is well-documented, as described in Section 4.2.5.2, there are currently no clear answers regarding how fast and to what extent sea level rise will impact these existing habitats. This makes it difficult to establish specific long-term management strategies for protecting this important habitat. We must instead rely on adaptive management to help us identify measures to insure that coastal intertidal habitat and the wildlife it supports can persist at some level as conditions change. In an effort to better understand the potential effects of sea level rise on the habitat at the Seal Beach NWR, the Service contracted the application of the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) for the refuge. SLAMM 5.0.1, which accounts for the dominant processes involved in wetland conversion and shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise, predicts the changes in tidal marsh area and habitat type as a result of sea level rise (Park et al. 1989; www.warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM). The primary set of global sea level rise scenarios used within SLAMM was derived from the work of the IPCC (IPCC 2001) and was run using the IPCC and fixed-rate scenarios presented in Table 5-1. These scenarios, which include new information related to assumptions of one meter and 1.5 meters of global sea level rise by the year 2100 (Chen et al. 2006, Monaghan et al. 2006), indicate that global sea level may be rising progressing more rapidly than was previously assumed. The A1B maximum (A1B Max) scenario incorporates the suggestion by Rahmstorf (2007) that a feasible range by 2100 might be 50 cm (19.7 inches) to 140 cm (55.1 inches). The SLAMM analysis for the Seal Beach NWR also incorporated a number of other factors including: digital elevation mapping derived from LIDAR and ifSAR data from 2003 and 1998, respectively; 2005 wetland boundary data from the National Wetlands Inventory; historic trends in Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-7
Chapter 5 sea level rise in the general vicinity of the Refuge; the approximate tidal range at the site; salt marsh accretion rates; and the assumption that all of the Refuge’s tidally influenced habitats have unrestricted tidal flow (Clough and Larson 2008). The historic trend for sea level rise in the general vicinity of the Refuge was estimated at 1.5 mm/year (0.059 inches/year) using the average of the three closest stations (9410660, Los Angeles California; 9410580, Newport Beach California; 9410840, Santa Monica California). There are no long-term sea level trend data available for the gage at Long Beach CA. The measured rate at this location is roughly equal to the global average for the last 100 years. Scenario Global SLR 1 by 2025 (cm) Table 5-1 Scenarios Used to Run SLAMM 5 Global SLR 1 by 2050 (cm) Global SLR 1 by 2075 (cm) Global SLR 1 by 2100 (cm) A1B Mean 8 17 28 39 A1B Max 14 30 49 69 1 meter 13 28 48 100 1.5 meter 1 Sea Level Rise 18 41 70 150 Source: (Clough and Larson 2008) The tide range at the Refuge was estimated at 1.67 meters using the average of the four closest NOAA oceanic gages (9410660, Los Angeles California; 9410580, Newport Beach California; 9410680, Long Beach, Terminal Island California; 9410650, Cabrillo Beach California). The USGS topographical map for this region suggests an approximate tidal range of four feet (1.22 meters) (Clough and Larson 2008). The salt marsh accretion rate used in the model for this site was 2 mm per year (0.079 inches per year), which represents the low end of measured accretion rates for salt marsh. This rate was deemed appropriate because freshwater input into the marsh is extremely limited and subsidence has occurred in the area in the past. The rate of 2 mm per year does account for biogenic production and the possibility that increased sea level rise will deliver additional sediment to the Refuge (Clough and Larson 2008). Although the results of the SLAMM for the Seal Beach NWR indicate that the Refuge would have differing degrees of vulnerability to sea level rise depending on the scenario of sea level rise analyzed, the results confirm that the Refuge will be adversely affected by sea level rise in all scenarios. Under the most conservative sea level rise scenario (A1B Mean), 0.39 meter (1.28 feet) by 2100, roughly one quarter of the Refuge’s salt marsh habitat would be converted to subtidal habitat. The amount of salt marsh acres lost to habitat conversion increases to two thirds under scenario A1B Max, a 0.69 meter (2.26 feet) rise by 2100, and nearly one hundred percent of the salt marsh habitat would be lost under scenarios that assume a rise of greater than one meter (3.28 feet). The small quantity of undeveloped dry land on the Refuge is predicted to be vulnerable under all scenarios run, while the developed dry land was assumed to be maintained and protected in this analysis (Clough and Larson 2008). A review of results presented in Table 5-1 indicates that under the sea level rise scenario adopted by the California Coastal Conservancy Board (40 cm [16 inches] by 2050 and 140 cm [55 inches] by 2100) roughly one quarter of the salt marsh habitat on the Refuge would be converted to subtidal 5-8 Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Page 1 and 2:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seal
Page 3 and 4:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seal B
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract The issues addressed in t
Page 7 and 8:
Reader’s Guide Appendix A, Compa
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents 2.8 Alternative
Page 11 and 12:
Table of Contents 4.3.4.1 Birds ..
Page 13 and 14:
Table of Contents 5.4.2 Alternativ
Page 15 and 16:
Table of Contents ─────
Page 17 and 18:
Table of Contents ─────
Page 19 and 20:
Ventura County Hopper Mt. NWR P a c
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 1 The development of this
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 1 document, or administrat
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 1 e) The use is consistent
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 1 area now meets the defin
Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 1 Additional ecosystem pla
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 Goal 2: Protect, manage,
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 1-3. Artist’s Rendition of
Page 35 and 36:
Chapter 2 recovery, and wildlife-d
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 2 2.5 Management Concerns/
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 2 Refuge Access The Refuge
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 2 approved CCP will be imp
Page 43 and 44:
San Gabriel River California Nevada
Page 45 and 46:
Chapter 3 implementation of the fo
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 3 activities at NWSSB are
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 3 Alternative C a larger p
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 3 3.4.2.2 Features Common
Page 53 and 54:
Pacific Co ast H wy A n a h e i m B
Page 55 and 56:
Chapter 3 For the California least
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 3 requires that all pestic
Page 59 and 60:
Chapter 3 species habitat; the sea
Page 61 and 62:
Chapter 3 Wildlife Photography. Ca
Page 63 and 64:
l Bolsa Ave. Seal Beach National Wi
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 BMPs that further define
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 3 greater than three miles
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 3 6. Increase Efforts to I
Page 73 and 74:
Chapter 3 The upland areas to the
Page 75 and 76:
Chapter 3 Native American subsiste
Page 77 and 78:
Chapter 3 One proposal that would
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter 3 clean sand suitable for
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter 3 Improve Public Access on
Page 83 and 84:
Issue Raised During Scoping Habitat
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 4-1. Seal Beach NWR - Site P
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 4-2. Historical (1894) Coast
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 4-4. Aerial View of Anaheim
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 4 With the exception of th
Page 93 and 94:
im Bay California Nevada Seal Beach
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Chapter 4 The results of studies c
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 4-10. Anaheim Bay-Huntington
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 4-11. Tidal and Freshwater C
Page 103 and 104:
Chapter 4 lead to a breach in the
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 4 salinity, and alternatel
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 4 “beneficial uses.” T
Page 109 and 110:
Chapter 4 Station Location East of
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 4 address issues related t
Page 113 and 114:
Chapter 4 The CALFED Independent S
Page 115 and 116:
Chapter 4 Within the South Coast A
Page 117 and 118:
Chapter 4 while also preparing a s
Page 119 and 120:
Chapter 4 Site Number Table 4-4 Su
Page 121 and 122:
Chapter 4 At present, there are ap
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 4 The Shorebird Plan ident
Page 125 and 126:
Chapter 4 acres within the Refuge
Page 127 and 128:
Chapter 4 roots and rhizomes of th
Page 129 and 130:
Chapter 4 following a period of si
Page 131 and 132: Chapter 4 A variety of foraging ha
Page 133 and 134: Chapter 4 Harbor seals (Phoca vitu
Page 135 and 136: Chapter 4 Wandering Skipper. A but
Page 137 and 138: Chapter 4 artificial containers, a
Page 139 and 140: Chapter 4 Mollusk communities in s
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 4 The data collected durin
Page 143 and 144: Chapter 4 sand, in which one to fo
Page 145 and 146: Chapter 4 experienced late rain sh
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 4 stems is pulled over and
Page 149 and 150: Chapter 4 condition that could be
Page 151 and 152: Chapter 4 individuals are also obs
Page 153 and 154: Chapter 4 north as Alaska (Southwe
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 4 The 2008 report encompas
Page 157 and 158: Chapter 4 Presented in Table 4-12
Page 159 and 160: Chapter 4 Protection Plan for Nava
Page 161 and 162: Chapter 4 mobile early occupants.
Page 163 and 164: Chapter 4 German immigrants from S
Page 165 and 166: Chapter 4 date for sites located t
Page 167 and 168: Chapter 4 ability for the public t
Page 169 and 170: Figure 4-16. Land Use in the Vicini
Page 171 and 172: Chapter 4 City of Seal Beach excee
Page 173 and 174: Chapter 4 Table 4-15 Economic/Empl
Page 175 and 176: Chapter 4 household income in 1999
Page 177 and 178: Chapter 5 Hydrology - An adverse
Page 179 and 180: Chapter 5 liquefaction, settlement
Page 181: Chapter 5 Surflan AS, with the act
Page 185 and 186: Chapter 5 per week. The sum of the
Page 187 and 188: Chapter 5 contaminants related to
Page 189 and 190: Chapter 5 erosion at the project s
Page 191 and 192: Chapter 5 would ensure that no sig
Page 193 and 194: Chapter 5 Spray applications will
Page 195 and 196: Chapter 5 The USEPA (2008b) descri
Page 197 and 198: Chapter 5 Measures shall be imple
Page 199 and 200: Chapter 5 Equipment will be calib
Page 201 and 202: Chapter 5 Refuge. Removal of concr
Page 203 and 204: Chapter 5 Public Use Expanding the
Page 205 and 206: Chapter 5 GHG emissions. Therefore
Page 207 and 208: Chapter 5 restoration/creation usi
Page 209 and 210: Chapter 5 Replacement of the exist
Page 211 and 212: Chapter 5 5.3.3 Alternative C (Pro
Page 213 and 214: Chapter 5 An action would result
Page 215 and 216: Chapter 5 conducted once a month,
Page 217 and 218: Chapter 5 Methoprene applied at le
Page 219 and 220: Chapter 5 in mammals, methoprene i
Page 221 and 222: Chapter 5 associated with the appl
Page 223 and 224: Chapter 5 moderately toxic to fish
Page 225 and 226: Chapter 5 impacts on nontarget spe
Page 227 and 228: Chapter 5 alternative as described
Page 229 and 230: Chapter 5 The removal of the drop
Page 231 and 232: Chapter 5 established on NASA Isla
Page 233 and 234:
Chapter 5 Pest Management Herbicid
Page 235 and 236:
Chapter 5 Pest Management Implemen
Page 237 and 238:
Chapter 5 Public Use No adverse or
Page 239 and 240:
Chapter 5 Proposals to better unde
Page 241 and 242:
Chapter 5 Pest Management The anal
Page 243 and 244:
Chapter 5 Section 800.5(1) Criteri
Page 245 and 246:
Chapter 5 An archaeological monito
Page 247 and 248:
Chapter 5 included in this section
Page 249 and 250:
Chapter 5 that extends along Bolsa
Page 251 and 252:
Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Economic Impac
Page 253 and 254:
Chapter 5 residents and visitors.
Page 255 and 256:
Chapter 5 5.7.3.5 Effects Related
Page 257 and 258:
Chapter 5 Harmony Cove Residential
Page 259 and 260:
Chapter 5 desalination facility ut
Page 261 and 262:
Chapter 5 abundance of mosquitoes
Page 263 and 264:
Chapter 5 Table 5-5 Summary of Pot
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Chapter 6 6.2 Refuge Goals, Object
Page 271 and 272:
Chapter 6 Objective 1.1 - Californ
Page 273 and 274:
Chapter 6 affecting reestablishmen
Page 275 and 276:
Chapter 6 Objective 1.6 - Protect
Page 277 and 278:
Chapter 6 Objective 2.3 - Control
Page 279 and 280:
Chapter 6 Objective 2.6 - Restore
Page 281 and 282:
Chapter 6 for migratory birds thro
Page 283 and 284:
Chapter 6 Alternative A B C
Page 285 and 286:
Chapter 6 Goal 4: Further strength
Page 287 and 288:
Chapter 6 public outreach at on- a
Page 289 and 290:
Chapter 6 describes when and how m
Page 291 and 292:
Chapter 6 Native American Graves P
Page 293 and 294:
Chapter 6 (The Service lands and w
Page 295 and 296:
Chapter 6 Water Quality Conservati
Page 297 and 298:
Chapter 6 CCP, additional staff wi
Page 299 and 300:
Chapter 6 Table 6-3 (continued) Pr
Page 301 and 302:
7 References Cited Anderson, J., F.
Page 303 and 304:
References Cited California State W
Page 305 and 306:
References Cited Extension Toxicolo
Page 307 and 308:
References Cited Kus, B.E. 1990. St
Page 309 and 310:
References Cited National Marine Fi
Page 311 and 312:
References Cited Robinson, W.W. 197
Page 313 and 314:
References Cited Underwood, J. and
Page 315 and 316:
References Cited U.S. Fish and Wild
Page 317:
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
show all

Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?