1

 Chapter 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Overview

The sustainability of ecological systems is a necessary prerequisite

for strong, productive economies; enduring human communities;

and the values people seek from wildlands.

— USDA Committee of Scientists (1999)

The USDA Forest Service and other land

management agencies are committed to a

stewardship philosophy called ecosystem management. The concept of ecosystem

management is to utilize the best available ecological knowledge to produce desired resource

values, products, and services in ways that also

sustain the diversity and productivity of ecosystems. The desired outcome is sustainable

ecological systems that meet the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs.

Ecosystem management is a means the

Forest Service and other agencies use to meet

objectives specified in agency programs and

plans. It is not an end in itself. In application,

ecosystem management works only when resulting actions are scientifically credible, legally

defensible, and socially acceptable (Manley et

al. 1995).

A framework for implementing ecosystem

management has been adopted by the Forest

Service’s Pacific Southwest Region, which encompasses all of the national forests in

California. This framework identifies five basic questions which must be addressed in local

planning areas (Manley et al. 1995):

1) How did ecosystems evolve?

2) What is sustainable?

3) What do we want?

4) What do we currently have?

5) How do we move from what we have to

what we want?

The Southern California Mountains and

Foothills Assessment (SCMFA) was initiated

by the Cleveland, San Bernardino, Angeles,

and Los Padres national forests to help address

these questions by compiling, integrating, and

interpreting existing information on the status of native ecosystems and species and the

processes that influence them. This report

summarizes the assessment results and identifies the primary issues resource managers face

in trying to conserve native ecosystems and

species in this growing region of the state.

Gathering the Best

Available Knowledge

Our aim for natural resources management is to utilize the best available knowledge

about the land, water, and inhabitants of the

region. Applied on public lands, this knowledge can help us sustain native ecosystems and

their inherent biological diversity while being

responsive to the interests of local economies

and the values of all people who use these

lands. We believe that effective management

can be achieved through collaborative planning, development of a clear strategy, timely

implementation, consistent monitoring,

thoughtful adaptation, and strong leadership

to keep us on course.

This document, together with the SCMFA

databases, is the first major step toward fulfillment of that vision. It is not a

decision-making document. Rather, it describes existing conditions and compiles the

best available knowledge of the ecosystems,

habitats, and species in this region. It provides

a foundation of information from which policies, strategies, and decisions can be built,

evaluated, and modified. In geographic scope

it extends beyond state, federal, or private

boundaries to assess the “big picture” across
2

6.1 million acres of coastal mountains (fig.

1.1). In using the assessment data, land managers can now consider the larger, natural

boundaries of ecosystems rather than just the

artificial boundaries of individual counties,

districts, or national forests.

This review of habitat and species conservation issues was accomplished through the

cooperation of federal and state natural resource agencies within the southern California

region. Cooperating members include U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG); and U.S. Department of Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service. This cooperation

significantly expanded the scope and depth of

analysis that might have been accomplished

by separate initiatives. The findings in this assessment do not reflect unanimous views of

all agencies involved on all points.

Although the SCMFA is broad and comprehensive in subject matter and geographic

scope, there are many opportunities to further expand the analyses based on these data.

This type of assessment is an ongoing process.

Thus, identifying data gaps and future information needs is as important a task as

gathering existing data. This assessment serves

as both a useful reference and as a benchmark

for future analyses.

There is no specific statutory requirement

for this type of regional assessment. However,

the value of gathering and analyzing information at a regional scale is now widely

recognized and is being done throughout the

United States (e.g., southern Appalachian

Mountains, Pacific Northwest forests, northern Great Plains, interior Columbia River

Basin, and Sierra Nevada). In fact, the four

national forests that are the central focus of

this report are the last of the national forests

in California to be considered in a large-scale

regional assessment.

There are a variety of other large-scale

habitat conservation planning efforts underway in southern California. The Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) is spearheading

several planning efforts that focus on public

lands in the Mojave and Colorado deserts. In

the densely populated coastal region, city and

county governments in conjunction with

California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and private

landowners are engaged in planning efforts to

create habitat reserves for maintaining

biodiversity in rapidly developing areas where

there is little existing public land. Such efforts

include the San Diego Multiple-Species Conservation Plan, the Western Riverside County

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,

the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Santa Clara

River Enhancement and Management Plan.

Each of these efforts is emphasizing the need

for corridor connections from their respective

habitat reserves to existing public lands. The

SCMFA is an important complement to those

ongoing plans because it addresses habitat and

species conservation issues in the largest aggregation of public land in the southern

California coastal region. As development

pressures increase on private lands, the public

wildlands are increasingly being looked upon

as the core refugia for native habitats and species.

 The Land and Resource Management

Plans (Forest Plans) for the four southern California national forests date back to the

mid-1980s. This assessment provides new and

current information for updating and revising those Forest Plans. Given the large role

that the national forests play in stewardship

of southern California’s mountain and foothill ecosystems (fig. 1.2), comprehensive and

scientifically credible data are needed to facilitate land management planning. To

facilitate easy access to the information gathered in this assessment, many of the databases

and maps will be made available over the

Internet on the Forest Service, Region 5 Home

Page (www.r5.fs.fed.us).
3

 Chapter 1

National 

 Forest 

 57%

Local 

BLM <1%

4%

Private 

33%

Indian 3%

Military 1%

State

2%

Scope of Analysis

This assessment brings together information from published reports, field surveys,

“gray” literature (i.e., unpublished technical

reports), mapping efforts, satellite imagery,

agency files, and expert opinion to provide an

in-depth analysis of the following topics:

• Trends in the composition, structure,

and extent of ecological communities in

the planning area;

• The natural and human processes that

are driving landscape change;

• Species and communities at risk and the

factors affecting their long-term

viability;

• Possible methods and strategies for

sustaining species viability and

ecological integrity.

Related subjects addressed in this review

include broad habitat and land-cover patterns,

fire regimes, exotic species, fragmentation,

forest health, watershed condition, threatened

and endangered (T&E) species, rare communities, and popular game animals (table 1.1).

The information databases that were developed for this assessment are extensive but far

from complete. We try throughout the document to identify where there are particularly

critical information gaps and research needs.

The assessment team set goals to identify

and develop information that could be assimilated and analyzed using a Geographic

Information System (GIS). A GIS is computer

software that allows you to store and display

the exact geographic position of different

Table 1.1. Using existing information and referenced material, this assessment attempts to answer

key questions in four primary subject areas.

1. Ecological Communities — What are the major ecological communities in the coastal

mountains of southern California? What is known about their status and distribution? How

have they changed in the last one hundred to two hundred years? What rare communities

exist and what are their status and trends? (chapter 2)

2. Ecological and Human Processes — What are the principal ecological processes and

human activities that sustain or drive change in the composition, structure, and extent of

southern California mountain and foothill ecosystems? How are those processes and activities

affecting the landscape and what can be ascertained regarding the natural range of variability?

What current trends are apparent and what threats or opportunities are presented by them?

(chapter 3)

3. Focal Species — Which species are (1) rare or at risk or (2) of high public interest in the

coastal mountains and foothills of southern California? What is known about the status and

distribution of each? What factors threaten their abundance or continued persistence? What is

the potential for conserving or enhancing populations on public lands? (chapters 4, 5, and 6)

4. Key Areas — What specific geographic areas have particularly important ecological

significance and what resources are located there? (chapter 7)

Figure 1.2. Land ownership percentages in the

Southern California Mountains and Foothills

Assessment area. The entire area covers 6.1 million

acres.
4

elements on the landscape. It is particularly

useful for evaluating the distribution and extent of different elements (e.g., vegetation

types, species, land uses, fire history) and the

degree of overlap between them. GIS products were developed to assess key questions

and to compile a unified database. Some resource and land use data were unavailable or

available for only a portion of the assessment

area. Once again, we have tried to identify

where these information gaps exist.

The team consisted of three primary staff

members: a wildlife ecologist (project leader),

botanist, and GIS analyst. Additional resources

included several part-time seasonal technicians

and a fifteen-member, multi-disciplinary task

group. The task group met ten times to review the assessment data, identify issues, and

develop recommendations for new management direction. Members of this committee

included a forester, ecologist, fire management

specialist, recreation specialist, wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist, land management

planner, soil scientist, and district ranger.

Given the infeasibility of separately addressing, let alone individually managing, each

and every plant and animal species, our analysis made extensive use of a community-level

“coarse-filter” screening approach. The underlying assumption of the coarse-filter approach

is that most plant and animal species are predictable occupants of a broad habitat type or

structural stage. Thus, the persistence of these

species can be assumed in a well-managed,

functioning landscape that maintains those

native habitats in a condition that is similar

to what has historically occurred in the area

(Noss 1987; Hunter 1991). This includes the

need to maintain or mimic the ecological processes (e.g., fire and floods) that shape and

rejuvenate habitats and keep them within the

natural range of variability (Smith et. al. 1993;

Manley et al. 1995).

There are some species, however, whose

rarity or habitat requirements are such that

they will not be adequately addressed by the

coarse-filter, habitat-based approach. These

species need to be considered individually, in

a fine-filter, population-based assessment. We

developed a process for identifying these finefilter species and then specifically addressed

the conservation status of each.

The Assessment Area

The assessment area covers a 6.1 million

acre chain of mountains and foothills that parallel the Pacific coastline from Monterey south

to the Mexican border. This long, undulating

string of coastal mountain ranges varies considerably in breadth and elevation (fig. 1.3).

Collectively, the mountains are a prominent

landscape feature that separates coastal basins

from the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave

and Colorado deserts. Over 64 percent of the

assessment area is public land, the vast majority of which (3.5 million acres) is contained

within four national forests (fig. 1.2).

South and west of the mountains, the

lower elevations are dominated by small towns

and agricultural lands along the narrow central coast, and by extensive urbanization in the

broader southern basins that extend from

Ventura to San Diego (fig. 1.4). Over fifteen

million people live in the greater Los AngelesSan Diego metropolitan area (U.S. Census

Bureau). To the north and east, the mountains drop quickly into arid, desert habitats of

the southern San Joaquin Valley and the

Mojave and Colorado deserts. Urbanization

on the desert side is increasing with the rapid

growth of communities around Lancaster,

Victorville, and Palm Springs.

Geographically, these coastal mountains

are identifiable as distinct ranges or groups of

ranges. In recognition of the many differences

among these mountain ranges, we divided the

assessment area into nine distinct regions (fig.

1.5). The boundaries of these regions correspond closely with one or more of the

subsections defined in the Ecological Units of

California (Goudey and Smith 1994; Miles

and Goudey 1997) that are part of the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological

Units (ECOMAP 1993). Some basic information on each of the nine mountain regions
5

 Chapter 1

Figure 1.4. Patterns of human development along the southern California coast. The mountains are largely

surrounded by major population centers, particularly in the south. The data used to generate this map portray

the situation as of the late 1980s.

is provided below and in table 1.2. The name

and code (e.g., M262Bo) for each ECOMAP

subsection in the region is also listed. The regions are addressed in the order they occur

from south to north.

San Diego Ranges

Beginning at the Mexican border, the San

Diego ranges run from south to north through

the center of San Diego County, ending just

inside the Riverside County line. Covering

958,000 acres, this region consists of a series

of low, coastal mountains with foothills, mesas, and valleys lying in between. Only 3,640

acres rise above 6,000 feet. The major mountains in the San Diego ranges are Laguna,

Cuyamaca, Volcan, Hot Springs (the highest

at 6,533 feet), and Palomar. Geologically, they

are all part of the Peninsular Ranges

(Schoenherr 1992). Major streams emanating

from these mountains are Cottonwood Creek

(a tributary of the Tijuana River), Sweetwater

River, San Diego River, San Dieguito River

(Santa Ysabel Creek), San Luis Rey River, and

Santa Margarita River. For additional

information, see descriptions of the
6

Palomar-Cuyamaca Peak (M262Bo) and

Western Granitic Foothills (M262Bn) subsections in Miles and Goudey (1997).

The Cleveland National Forest makes up

30 percent of the San Diego ranges region.

Three state parks (Cuyamaca Rancho, Palomar

Mountain, and Anza-Borrego Desert) cover another 7 percent, BLM lands take in 8 percent,

and 11 percent is within Indian reservations.

Santa Ana Mountains

The Santa Ana Mountains region includes

the Santa Margarita and Elsinore mountains

and the Santa Rosa Plateau. Collectively they

cover 275,000 acres that straddle the line between Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties. These are low, coastal mountains, with

the highest point being 5,687-foot Santiago

Peak. As the westernmost extension of the

Peninsular Ranges, the Santa Ana Mountains

jut out into a broad coastal basin and are

largely surrounded by urbanization. The primary streams emanating from these mountains

are San Mateo Creek, San Juan Creek, Trabuco

Creek, and Santiago Creek. For additional

information, see the Santa Ana Mountains

(M262Bf) subsection description in Miles and

Goudey (1997).

The Trabuco District of the Cleveland

National Forest makes up 49 percent of this

Figure 1.5. The nine mountain regions within the assessment area. See text for a description of each.
7

 Chapter 1

San Diego Ranges 958,046 45% 30% 39% <1% 6,533

Santa Ana Mountains 275,609 51% 49% 89% 0% 5,687

San Jacinto Mountains 428,288 60% 46% 12% 13% 10,805

San Bernardino Mountains 651,970 71% 61% 9% 38% 11,502

San Gabriel Mountains 658,414 81% 80% 28% 14% 10,064

Castaic Ranges 404,583 54% 52% 54% 0% 5,788

So. Los Padres Ranges 1,724,744 75% 74% 40% 5% 8,831

So. Santa Lucia Mountains 502,086 42% 37% 97% 0% 4,063

No. Santa Lucia Mountains 533,624 62% 59% 79% 0% 5,155

Entire Assessment Area: 6,137,363 63% 57% 44% 8% 11,502

Table 1.2. Characteristics of the nine mountain regions within the assessment area.

Southern California’s

Mountainous Regions

Total

Acres

% Public

Lands

% National

Forest

% below

3000 ft

% above

6000 ft

Highest

Point (ft)

region. Other large areas of natural habitat

include the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve (8,500

acres), Audubon’s Starr Ranch, and the Santa

Margarita River Reserve. Immediately north

of the Santa Ana Mountains is Chino Hills

State Park and to the southwest, along the

coast, is the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base.

San Jacinto Mountains

The San Jacinto Mountains region includes the highest portions of the Santa Rosa

Mountains and covers 428,000 acres of Riverside County. Mount San Jacinto, at 10,805

feet, is the second highest peak in southern

California. The San Jacinto Mountains are by

far the highest of the Peninsular Ranges, with

53,600 acres above 6,000 feet. Most of the

precipitation that falls in this range flows into

the San Jacinto River. The more arid northern and eastern slopes flow into tributaries of

the Whitewater River. For additional information, see the San Jacinto Mountains

(M262Bm) subsection description in Miles

and Goudey (1997).

The San Jacinto District of the San Bernardino National Forest accounts for 46

percent of the land area in this region. San

Jacinto State Park covers an additional 7 percent. BLM lands take in another 7 percent

and 9 percent of the area is within Indian reservations.

San Bernardino Mountains

The San Bernardino Mountains cover

652,000 acres in San Bernardino County. Rising between Banning Pass and Cajon Pass, they

contain the largest expanse of high elevation

country in southern California. Over 248,000

acres of the San Bernardino Mountains are

above 6,000 feet, including the highest peak

in southern California, 11,502-foot Mount

San Gorgonio. Geologically San Bernardino

Mountains are part of the east-west trending

Transverse Ranges (Schoenherr 1992). These

mountains are the primary headwaters of the

largest stream in southern California, the Santa

Ana River. On the desert side, they also are

the headwaters of the Mojave River. For additional information, see descriptions of the San

Gorgonio Mountains (M262Bg) and Upper

San Gorgonio Mountains (M262Bh) subsections in Miles and Goudey (1997).
8

The San Bernardino National Forest encompasses this range and accounts for 61

percent of the land area. BLM lands take in

an additional 10 percent and state lands, including Silverwood Lake State Park, make up

1 percent of the area. Indian reservations make

up 4 percent of the land in this region.

San Gabriel Mountains

West of Cajon Pass is another large transverse range, the San Gabriel Mountains. This

range covers 658,000 acres, mostly in Los

Angeles County with the eastern edge crossing into San Bernardino County. The highest

peak is 10,064-foot Mount San Antonio

(Mount Baldy). The San Gabriel Mountains

are rugged and steep but with considerably

less high country than the San Bernardinos:

91,700 acres rise above 6,000 feet. These

mountains are the headwaters of the Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River. They

also contribute significant runoff to the Santa

Ana River (via Lytle, Cucamonga, and San

Antonio creeks) and the Santa Clara River (via

Soledad Canyon). The major desert-flowing

drainage is Little Rock Creek. For additional

information, see descriptions of the San

Gabriel Mountains (M262Bd) and Upper San

Gabriel Mountains (M262Be) subsections in

Miles and Goudey (1997).

The Angeles National Forest and a small

portion of the San Bernardino National Forest account for 80 percent of the land area in

the San Gabriel Mountains.

Castaic Ranges

The Castaic Ranges cover 404,000 acres

and include Liebre Mountain, Sawmill Mountain, and the Sierra Pelona. They lie northwest

of the San Gabriel Mountains, between

Soledad Canyon and Piru Creek in Los Angeles County. Geologically, they are considered

part of the Transverse Ranges. The area has

rugged topography but is relatively low in elevation, climbing above 5,000 feet only on

Liebre and Sawmill mountains. The highest

point is 5,788-foot Burnt Peak on the south

side of Sawmill Mountain. Major drainages

in this region are San Francisquito Creek,

Elizabeth Lake Creek, and Castaic Creek, all

tributaries of the Santa Clara River. Miles and

Goudey (1997) split this region somewhat

differently. The southeastern half is identified

as the Sierra Pelona-Mint Canyon (M262Bc)

subsection, and the northwestern half (which

includes Liebre and Sawmill mountains) is part

of a larger Northern Transverse Ranges

(M262Bb) subsection that extends west over

to the Mount Pinos area.

The Angeles National Forest makes up 52

percent of this region. Castaic Lake State Recreation Area and Vasquez Rocks County Park

are also located here.

Southern Los Padres Ranges

The southern Los Padres ranges region

covers 1.7 million acres of mostly mountainous terrain that extends from north of the

Santa Clara River and west of Piru Creek to

where the Cuyama River cuts through the

Coast Ranges. The region encompasses large

portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and extends into the southwest corner of

Kern County. Major mountains in this region

include Pinos, Abel, Frazier, Cobblestone, Sierra Madre, San Rafael, Figueroa, Pine, Alamo,

Santa Ynez, and Topatopa. Although large in

area and rich in topography, the region does

not encompass much high elevation land:

Only 5 percent (82,000 acres) rises above

6,000 feet. Mount Pinos is the highest point

at 8,831 feet. These mountains are the headwaters for Piru and Sespe creeks (both

tributaries of the Santa Clara River) and for

the Ventura, Santa Ynez, Sisquoc, and Cuyama

rivers. The ecological units described in Miles

and Goudey (1997) divide this region into the

following subsections: San Rafael-Topatopa

Mountains (M262Ba), Northern Transverse

Ranges (M262Bb), and Santa Ynez-Sulphur

Mountains (261Bb).

The Los Padres National Forest makes up

74 percent of this region. The Hungry Valley

State Vehicular Recreation Area and the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge are

also located here.
9

 Chapter 1

Southern Santa Lucia Range

The southern Santa Lucia Range region

covers 502,000 acres north of the Cuyama

River in San Luis Obispo County. Geologically part of the southern Coast Ranges

(Schoenherr 1992), the most prominent

mountains in this area are the La Panza Range,

Pine Mountain, and Garcia Mountain. These

are low-elevation peaks, with 4,063-foot

Machesna Mountain (in the La Panza Range)

being the highest point. The southern Santa

Lucia Range is the headwaters of the Salinas

River. Other streams emanating from these

mountains include the Huasna River, Alamo

Creek, and Arroyo Grande Creek. For additional information, see descriptions of the

South Coastal Santa Lucia Range (261Ak) and

Interior Santa Lucia Range (M262Ae) subsections in Miles and Goudey (1997).

The Los Padres National Forest takes in

37 percent of this region. Most of the remaining area is private ranchland.

Northern Santa Lucia Range

The northern Santa Lucia Range region

covers 533,000 acres north of San Simeon in

Monterey County. The mountains rise

abruptly from the Pacific coastline, reaching

5,155 feet at Cone Peak. The combination of

their proximity to the coast, steep topography,

and northern latitude results in precipitation

amounts that are substantially higher than the

rest of the assessment area receives (fig. 1.6).

Geologically, the northern Santa Lucia Range

is part of the southern Coast Ranges. Major

streams emanating from these mountains include the Nacimiento River, San Antonio

River, and Arroyo Seco (all tributaries of the

Salinas River) and the Big Sur and Carmel rivers. For additional information, see the North

Coastal Santa Lucia Range (261Aj) subsection

description in Miles and Goudey (1997).

The Monterey District of the Los Padres

National Forest makes up 59 percent of this

region. A number of state parks are also located along the Big Sur coastline, including

Andrew Molera, Pfeiffer Big Sur, Julia Pfeiffer

Burns, and Big Creek Reserve. Fort Hunter

Liggett Military Reserve encompasses the

southeastern flank of these mountains.

Information Sources

The information utilized in this assessment came from a wide variety of sources.

Standard methods of literature citation are

used in this report to acknowledge material

that came from scientific journals and other

published material. However, a considerable

amount of our information came from unpublished sources. This is particularly true of

spatial data on landscape patterns, land uses,

and species locations as well as local habitat

relationships information for some species. We

benefited greatly from the availability of existing data sets and the generous contributions

of information from many different individuals. We want to specifically acknowledge those

contributions here and describe some of the

strengths and limitations of the data that were

utilized.

Vegetation Maps

Vegetation information came from a variety of sources. To assemble a complete

vegetation layer for the entire assessment area

we integrated digital data from five independent mapping efforts. Data sources were the

Forest Service Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory, San Diego County, Riverside County,

the California Gap Analysis Project, and specific information on Engelmann oak

distribution provided by Tom Scott of University of California (UC) Riverside,

Cooperative Extension. These mapping efforts

used different data-capture methods, classification systems, and decision rules.

Vegetation maps for the four southern

California national forests were developed by

Janet Franklin and associates at San Diego

State University. These maps use the CALVEG

series-level classification system (USDA Forest Service 1981). In forest types, the maps

also include labels for percent canopy cover,

average tree size, and secondary vegetation.
10

The minimum mapping unit (MMU) is approximately 5 acres. These maps were

developed using advanced image-processing

algorithms (segmentation, canopy modeling,

mixture modeling) applied to Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery (Franklin 1996).

A detailed description of the methods used

can be found in Franklin and Woodcock

(1997).

Vegetation maps for San Diego and Riverside counties use a modified Holland (1986)

classification system (for a review of classification systems see Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf

1995) and have an MMU of about 5 acres.

They were derived primarily from air photo

interpretation and do not contain information on canopy cover or tree size.

The Gap Analysis maps, developed by

Frank Davis and associates at UC Santa Barbara, also use the Holland classification system.

They have primary and secondary vegetation

labels but do not contain information on

canopy cover or tree size. The Gap Analysis

maps provide coverage of the entire state but,

with an MMU of around 240 acres (100 hectares), they capture patterns at a significantly

coarser resolution. Thus, vegetation patterns

appear more generalized in these maps.

Figure 1.6. Average annual precipitation in southern California for the period from 1961 to 1990. Notice the

strong influence that elevation (see fig. 1.3) has on precipitation. Latitude, steepness of terrain, and proximity

to the ocean are also important factors.
11

 Chapter 1

Our aggregated vegetation layer utilizes the

entire Forest Service data set (with Tom

Scott’s Engelmann oak map used to update

oak woodland labels), then fills in gaps with

the San Diego and Riverside county maps,

and finally fills the remaining holes with the

Gap Analysis data (fig. 1.7). The coarser

Gap Analysis data are used most extensively

to capture private lands in the central Coast

Ranges (southern and northern Santa Lucia

Ranges). Thus, the vegetation acreages presented in later chapters tend to be skewed

towards more dominant vegetation types in

those subareas.

Although formal accuracy assessments of

these maps have not been completed, it is important to recognize that there are errors

associated with them. Each map has its

strengths and weaknesses, corresponding with

the resolution of the source data and the methods used to assign vegetation labels. Some

vegetation types are inherently difficult to capture using remote sensing methods (e.g.,

narrow riparian communities) and others are

difficult to reliably distinguish from similar

types regardless of the method used (e.g., separating live oak chaparral from live oak

woodland). Map error rates are generally

higher for such types.

Figure 1.7. The distribution of major land-cover classes across the assessment area and surrounding lands.
12

The derivation of structural attributes (i.e.,

canopy cover and tree size) from satellite imagery is challenging and the confidence in

these mapped attributes is lower than the labels for vegetation type. There appear to be

particular problems with the modeling methods used to estimate tree size (Franklin 1996),

and consequently we seldom used this attribute in our analyses.

Other Mapped Landscape

Features

Spatial data on many other landscape features were compiled for the assessment area

from a variety of sources. Cartographic Feature Files (CFFs)(1:24,000 scale) from the

Forest Service Geometronics Service Center

and coarser-scale data (1:100,000) from the

state’s Teale Data Center were used to assemble

coverages of streams, lakes, roads, and structures.

Soil coverages for portions of the study area were

obtained from the Los Padres National Forest,

the National Resource Conservation Service, and

San Diego State University.

To derive slope, aspect, and elevation we

compiled 30-meter digital elevation models

(DEMs) for all the 7.5 minute quads in our

study area. These came from the Forest Service Geometronics Service Center and the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS). Ecological subsection maps and 10-meter SPOT satellite

imagery were obtained from the Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory.

Land Use Information

Julie Difani of the San Bernardino National Forest was particularly instrumental in

gathering information on the spatial extent

and intensity of different land uses. Shawna

Bautista on the Angeles National Forest also

provided this type of information.

Fire History Information

Digital data on historic fires (including

mapped perimeters) were received from the

California Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection (CDF), San Diego and Los Angeles counties, and the four southern California

national forests. Hard copy maps of recent fires

were also digitized to update the existing digital data. To develop an integrated GIS coverage

from these various sources, considerable time

was spent looking at areas of overlap, eliminating duplicate fires, and determining which

source had the most carefully mapped perimeter (there often was considerable variation).

In the combined coverage, we used the best

perimeter data from the available sources to

obtain as complete a fire history as possible

for the entire assessment area.

Several aspects of the historic fire perimeter data need to be understood in order to

aviod misinterpreting what they represent.

First, each data source extended back to a different point in time; thus, the coverage does

not uniformly cover all areas back through

time. This is most significant for areas where

the sole source was CDF data, which only extend back to 1950 (the other sources went back

more or less to around 1910). The primary

area where CDF data are the sole source is the

large expanse of private land between the

Monterey and Santa Lucia districts of the Los

Padres National Forest.

Second, even within the time period covered by each source, not every fire was mapped

and the record appears to become less accurate the further back in time you go

(particularly prior to the 1930s)(Minnich

1988). Third, where the data are incomplete,

large fires are more likely to be represented

than small fires because of the increased visibility and attention given to them. Finally,

the fire perimeters were not always mapped

accurately, or at least not drawn on fine-scale

maps that could be transferred accurately.

Thus, while we believe the fire history data

are effective at capturing key temporal and

spatial patterns at the landscape scale, they are

far less reliable for fine-scale assessments of

burn histories at specific points on the ground.
13

 Chapter 1

Species Locations and Status

Information

We obtained information on species locations and status from a number of unpublished

sources and are extremely grateful for the many

contributions. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was an excellent

source of information on many rare species as

were historic survey records and atlases in the

offices of the four southern California national

forests.

Specific locational information on birds

was provided by Robert McKernan (San Bernardino Natural History Museum) and Dan

Cooper (UC, Riverside). Distribution information on amphibians and reptiles was

received from Joe Copp (California Academy

of Sciences), Dan Holland (independent researcher), Sam Sweet (UC, Santa Barbara),

Robert Fisher and Ed Ervin (San Diego State

University), and Robert Goodman (California Polytechnic, Pomona). For fish, we

received information from Cam Swift (Occidental College), Alex Vejar (California

Department of Fish and Game), and Ben

Matibag (San Bernardino National Forest).

For plants, distributional information was

obtained from Tom Scott (UC Cooperative

Extension, Riverside), Steve Boyd (Rancho

Santa Ana Botanic Garden), Dieter Wilken

(Santa Barbara Botanic Garden), Fred Roberts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Eric

Wittner (University of Redlands), and Mark

Borchert (Los Padres National Forest).

Additional information on plants came

from Region 5 “Sensitive Plant Species Evaluation and Documentation” forms completed

by resource personnel from the four southern

California national forests (on file at the Cleveland National Forest Supervisor’s Office).

Those evaluations were completed by Bill

Brown (Angeles National Forest), Mike Foster (Los Padres National Forest), Melody

Lardner (San Bernardino National Forest), and

Kirsten Winter (Cleveland National Forest).

Information was also provided by Karen

Danielsen (formerly Los Padres National Forest), Dirk Rodriguez (Eldorado National

Forest), Jeff Kwasny (Los Padres National Forest), James O’Hare (Angeles National Forest),

Janet Nickerman (Barden Environmental),

Patty Krueger (Angeles National Forest), Brad

Henderson (formerly San Bernardino National Forest), Scott Eliason (San Bernardino

National Forest), Gary Wallace (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service), Charles E. Blair (northern

Santa Barbara County Liaison, California

Native Plant Society) and Scott White (Scott

White Biological Consulting).