DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverside Fire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverside Fire Riverside Fire Erosion Threat Assessment/Reduction Team (ETART) Extended Report December 2020 ETART Extended Report – Riverside Fire This page intentionally left blank. DR-4562-OR | EROSION THREAT ASSESSMENT/REDUCTION TEAM ETART Extended Report – Riverside Fire Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 1. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Burned Area Characterization ........................................................................................ 3 1.2. Post-fire Watershed Condition ........................................................................................ 8 Risk Assessment and Recommendations .............................................................................. 13 1. Human Life and Safety Summary ........................................................................................ 13 1.1. Hazard Trees ................................................................................................................. 13 1.2. Debris flow, Rock fall, and Landslides ........................................................................ 14 1.3. Post-Fire Flooding, Floating Debris, and Others ......................................................... 15 2. Property Summary ................................................................................................................ 16 3. Natural Resources Summary ............................................................................................... 20 3.1. Soil and Water .............................................................................................................. 20 3.2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................................. 20 3.3. Native Plant Communities Summary .......................................................................... 24 3.4. Cultural Resources Summary ...................................................................................... 28 4. Monitoring and Management Recommendations ............................................................... 29 4.1. Watershed Response and Hydrologic Analysis - Monitoring Recommendations ..... 30 4.2. Geologic Hazards - Management Recommendations................................................ 30 4.3. Roads and Travel Routes - Management Recommendations ................................... 31 4.4. Fish/Aquatic Habitat - Management Recommendations and Monitoring ................ 31 Resource Reports.................................................................................................................... 32 1. Weeds Specialist Report ...................................................................................................... 32 2. Engineering Report ............................................................................................................... 55 2.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 55 2.2. Values at Risk ............................................................................................................... 55 2.3. Observations ................................................................................................................. 56 2.4. Reconnaissance Methodology and Results ................................................................ 56 DR-4562-OR – December 2020 i ETART Extended Report – Riverside Fire 2.5. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 57 2.6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 57 2.7. Management Recommendations ................................................................................ 58 2.8. References .................................................................................................................... 58 3. Heritage and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 59 3.1. Setting ........................................................................................................................... 59 3.2. Background ................................................................................................................... 60 3.3. Critical Values and Proposed Treatments .................................................................. 62 3.4. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 62 4. Soil Resources ...................................................................................................................... 64 4.1. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 64 4.2. Resource Condition and Setting .................................................................................. 65 4.3. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 67 4.4. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 68 4.5. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 70 5. Hydrology Resources ............................................................................................................ 73 5.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 73 5.2. Critical Values ............................................................................................................... 73 5.3. Resource Condition and Setting .................................................................................. 74 5.4. Assessment Methodology and Modeling .................................................................... 79 5.5. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 79 5.6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 82 5.7. References .................................................................................................................... 83 6. Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................. 84 6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 84 6.2. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 86 6.3. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 87 6.4. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 88 6.5. Mitigation and Further Evaluation ............................................................................... 90 6.6. References .................................................................................................................... 91 DR-4562-OR – December 2020 ii ETART Extended Report – Riverside Fire 7. Hazard Trees ........................................................................................................................ 94 7.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 94 7.2. Danger/Hazard Trees Described ................................................................................. 94 7.3. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 98 7.4. Danger Tree Guidelines ............................................................................................. 101 7.5. References .................................................................................................................. 108 8. Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................................................... 111 8.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 111 8.2. Assessment Methodology - Field and Modeling ....................................................... 111 8.3. Resource Setting ........................................................................................................ 111 8.4. Critical Values, Results, Risk Assessment, and Recommendations ....................... 111 8.5. Recommended Monitoring ........................................................................................ 112 Riverside ETART Members .................................................................................................... 113 Appendix A – Road Treatment Cost Estimates ..................................................................... 115 Appendix B – Supporting Botany Information ...................................................................... 117 Appendix C – Supporting Soil Information ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007
    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Fire Treatment Effectiveness for Hillslope Stabilization
    United States Department of Agriculture Post-Fire Treatment Forest Service Rocky Mountain Effectiveness for Research Station General Technical Hillslope Stabilization Report RMRS-GTR-240 August 2010 Peter R. Robichaud, Louise E. Ashmun, and Bruce D. Sims A SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE FROM THE Robichaud, Peter R.; Ashmun, Louise E.; Sims, Bruce D. 2010. Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hill- slope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 p. Abstract This synthesis of post-fire treatment effectiveness reviews the past decade of research, monitoring, and product development related to post-fire hillslope emergency stabilization treatments, including erosion barri- ers, mulching, chemical soil treatments, and combinations of these treatments. In the past ten years, erosion barrier treatments (contour-felled logs and straw wattles) have declined in use and are now rarely applied as a post-fire hillslope treatment. In contrast, dry mulch treatments (agricultural straw, wood strands, wood shreds, etc.) have quickly gained acceptance as effective, though somewhat expensive, post-fire hillslope stabilization treatments and are frequently recommended when values-at-risk warrant protection. This change has been motivated by research that shows the proportion of exposed mineral soil (or conversely, the propor- tion of ground cover) to be the primary treatment factor controlling post-fire hillslope erosion. Erosion barrier treatments provide little ground cover and have been shown to be less effective than mulch, especially during short-duration, high intensity rainfall events. In addition, innovative options for producing and applying mulch materials have adapted these materials for use on large burned areas that are inaccessible by road.
    [Show full text]
  • OR0S-06 South Fork Clackamas WILDERNESS
    Appendix B, Page I WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS INVENTORY APPENDIX 8-INVENTORY AREA EVALUATION OR0S-06 South Fork Clackamas Evaluation ofCurrent Conditions: 1) Docwnent and review any existing BLM wilderness characteristics inventory findings on file regarding the presence or absence ofindividual wilderness characteristics, using Form 1, below. 2) Consider relevant information regarding current conditions available in the office. Identify and describe any changes to the existing inventory information. Use interdisciplinary team knowledge, aerial photographs, field observations, maps, etc. and docwnent the findings on Form 2, below. Docwnent current conditions regarding wilderness characteristics, as opposed to potential future conditions. Conduct field reviews as necessary to verify information and to ascertain current conditions. Reach conclusions on current conditions including boundaries, size ofareas and presence or absence ofwilderness characteristics. Fully explain the basis for each conclusion on Form 2, including any critical differences between BLM and citizen ( information. Docwnent the findings regarding current conditions for each inventoried area. Describe how the present conditions are similar to, or have changed from, the conditions docwnented in the original wilderness characteristics inventory. Document the findings on Form 2 for each inventory area. Cite to or attach data considered, including photographs, maps, GIS layers, field trip notes, project files, etc. Appendix B, Page 2 FORMl Documentation of BLM Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Findings from Previous Inventory on Record 1. Is there existing BLM wilderness characteristics inventory information on all or part of this area? No □ (Go to Fonn 2) Yes ~ (Ifyes, and ifmore than one area is within the area, list the unique identifiers for those areas.): a) Inventory Source: Computer generated from old BLM policy and all applicable BLM inventory files.
    [Show full text]
  • Station Fire BAER Revisit – May 10-14, 2010
    United States Department of Agriculture Station Fire Forest Service Pacific Southwest BAER Revisit Region September 2009 Angeles National Forest May 10-14, 2010 Big Tujunga Dam Overlook May 11, 2010 Acknowledgements I would like to express thanks to the following groups and individuals for their efforts for planning and holding the Revisit. Thanks to all the Resource Specialists who participated; Jody Noiron - Forest Supervisor; Angeles National Forest Leader- ship Team; Lisa Northrop - Forest Resource and Planning Officer; Marc Stamer - Station Fire Assessment Team Leader (San Bernardino NF); Kevin Cooper - Assistant Station Fire Assessment Team Leader (Los Padres NF); Todd Ellsworth - Revisit Facilitator (Inyo NF); Dr. Sue Cannon, US Geological Survey, Denver, CO; Jess Clark, Remote Sensing Application Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Pete Wohlgemuth, Pacific Southwest Research Station-Riverside, Penny Luehring, National BAER Coordinator, and Gary Chase (Shasta-Trinity NF) for final report formatting and editing. Brent Roath, R5, Regional Soil Scientist/BAER Coordinator June 14, 2010 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity
    fire The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity s is evidenced year after year, the na- ture of the “fire problem” in south- Jon E. Keeley, Hugh Safford, C.J. Fotheringham, A ern California differs from most of Janet Franklin, and Max Moritz the rest of the United States, both by nature and degree. Nationally, the highest losses in ϳ The 2007 wildfire season in southern California burned over 1,000,000 ac ( 400,000 ha) and property and life caused by wildfire occur in included several megafires. We use the 2007 fires as a case study to draw three major lessons about southern California, but, at the same time, wildfires and wildfire complexity in southern California. First, the great majority of large fires in expansion of housing into these fire-prone southern California occur in the autumn under the influence of Santa Ana windstorms. These fires also wildlands continues at an enormous pace cost the most to contain and cause the most damage to life and property, and the October 2007 fires (Safford 2007). Although modest areas of were no exception because thousands of homes were lost and seven people were killed. Being pushed conifer forest in the southern California by wind gusts over 100 kph, young fuels presented little barrier to their spread as the 2007 fires mountains experience the same negative ef- reburned considerable portions of the area burned in the historic 2003 fire season. Adding to the size fects of long-term fire suppression that are of these fires was the historic 2006–2007 drought that contributed to high dead fuel loads and long evident in other western forests (e.g., high distance spotting.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Vulnerability Assessment for Mendocino County ______
    FIRE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ August 2020 Mendocino County Fire Vulnerability Assessment ________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I- OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 B. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. Mendocino County Description and Demographics ................................................................ 7 D. Planning Area Basis .................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION II- COUNTY WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 9 A. Wildfire Threat ......................................................................................................................... 9 B. Weather/Climate ........................................................................................................................ 9 C. Topography ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Fuel Hazards ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Service Region 6 Wilderness Interpretation and Education Plan
    U.S. Department of Agriculture February Forest Service 2012 Pacific Northwest Region Regional Wilderness Interpretation and Education Plan 2 Pacific Northwest Region Regional Wilderness Interpretation and Education Plan February 2012 3 Acknowledgements This Regional Wilderness Interpretation and Education Plan (Plan) was drafted by a core team including: • Bonnie Lippitt, Regional Interpretation and Tourism Program Manager, Region 6 • Hans Castren, Wilderness Program Manager, Hungry Horse/Spotted Bear Wilderness, Region 1 • Todd Cullings, Interpretive Specialist, Mount St. Helens NVM, Region 6 • Jennifer Lutman, Wilderness Education Intern, Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, Region 1 The team received tremendous support, technical assistance, and reviews from District, Forest, Regional, and Washington Office Wilderness Program Managers, the Region 6 Wilderness Advisory Group, staff at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center and Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, and others. 4 Regional Wilderness Interpretation and Education Plan Review and Approval Developed By: _______________________________________________ Bonnie Lippitt, Regional Interpretation Specialist Reviewed By: ________________________________________________ Michael Heilman, Regional Wilderness Coordinator ________________________________________________ Rodney Mace, Regional Assistant Director of Recreation Recommended By: _________________________________________________ Claire Lavendel, Director of Recreation, Lands, and Minerals
    [Show full text]
  • Volume-1-San-Diego-Main-Report
    Folsom (Sacramento), CA Management Consultants Regional Fire Services Deployment Study for the CountyCounty ofof SanSan DiegoDiego OfficeOffice ofof EmergencyEmergency ServicesServices Volume 1 of 3 – Main Report May 5, 2010 2250 East Bidwell St., Ste #100 Folsom, CA 95630 (916) 458-5100 Fax: (916) 983-2090 This page was intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page VOLUME 1 of 3 – (this volume) PART ONE—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i. Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework .................................................................... 2 Overall Attributes of the County of San Diego’s Fire Services............. 2 Accomplishments to Date ...................................................................... 3 Main Challenges..................................................................................... 3 Fire Plan Phasing.................................................................................. 17 ii. Comprehensive List of Findings and Recommendations ........................... 19 PART TWO—PROJECT BACKGROUND Section 1 Introduction and Background to the Regional Deployment Study .......................................................................................... 37 1.1 Project Approach and Research Methods.................................. 38 1.2 Report Organization................................................................... 38 1.3 Project Background...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Fire Debris Flow Erosion in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE POST-FIRE DEBRIS FLOW EROSION IN THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA: EVIDENCE FROM THE STATION FIRE, 2009 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Science in Geology By Martha M. Ahlstrom August, 2013 The thesis of Martha M. Ahlstrom is approved: _________________________________ ________________ Dr. Matthew d'Alessio Date _________________________________ ________________ Dr. Julie Laity Date _________________________________ ________________ Dr. Richard Heermance, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgments I most heartily thank Dr. Richard Heermance for his exceptional guidance, advice, patience, knowledge, support, and willingness in allowing me to conduct a study on debris flows. My other committee members, Dr. Julie Laity and Dr. Matthew d’Alessio, made heroic efforts in editing my thesis. I appreciate all their efforts to ensure the scientific integrity of this project. I also thank all the professors in the CSUN Geological Sciences Department for their support. I especially thank Dr. Vicki Pedone for her guidance and encouragement. Mrs. Marilyn Hanna and the Geological Sciences Scholarship Committee funded this thesis project. I am grateful for their support, grants, and scholarships. This project would have not been completed in such a timely manner without the awesome field assistants who trekked all over the San Gabriel Mountains to help conduct the field work. My field assistants included CSUN undergraduate geology students, CSUN graduate students, Morning Star Christian Academy students, LA Valley College students, and family members. I value all their time and efforts. I thank all my family members for their patience, graciousness, and support while I completed this project.
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfire Impacts of Poorly-Planned Development in San Diego County
    November 13, 2018 Via Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery (with references) San Diego County Board of Supervisors Attn: David Hall Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, CA 92101 [email protected] Re: Wildfire Impacts of Poorly-planned Development in San Diego County Dear Supervisors: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) regarding the approval or pending approval of the following Projects: 1. Warner Ranch 2. Lilac Hills 3. Newland Sierra 4. Valiano 5. Harmony Grove Village South 6. Otay Ranch Village 14, 16, 19 7. Otay Ranch Village 13 8. Otay 250 Sunroad 9. Project Specific Requests (PSRs) While the Center has many concerns regarding the environmental impacts and inadequate analyses provided in the Environmental Impact Reports of the proposed Projects, the purpose of this letter is to voice our concern regarding the public safety impacts of these poorly-planned, sprawl developments in fire-prone chaparral ecosystems in San Diego County. The Center reviewed the Environmental Impact Report of each Project to determine the cumulative impacts of these developments on wildfire risk and analyze the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Project footprints were compared to the fire history and fire threat of the region, as identified by state agencies (the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [Cal Fire] and the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC]), and the total number of housing units and potential residents for all the developments were calculated. The proposed developments would be placed in natural landscapes dominated by fire- prone native chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats that rely on wildfires to persist.
    [Show full text]
  • Bobcat Fire 2020
    USDA FOREST SERVICE FS-2500-8 (2/20) Date of Report: November 12, 2020 Bobcat Fire 2020 Big Santa Anita Canyon PART I - TYPE OF REQUEST A. Type of Report ☒ 1. Funding request for estimated emergency stabilization funds ☐ 2. No Treatment Recommendation B. Type of Action ☒ 1. Initial Request (Best estimate of funds needed to complete eligible stabilization measures) ☐ 2. Interim Request #___ ☐ Updating the initial funding request based on more accurate site data or design analysis PART II - BURNED-AREA DESCRIPTION A. Fire Name: Bobcat B. Fire Number: CA-ANF-003687 C. State: California D. County: Los Angeles E. Region: 05 Pacific Southwest F. Forest: Angeles G. Districts: San Gabriel National Monument, H. Fire Incident Job Code: P5NJ7S20 0501 Los Angeles Gateway I. Date Fire Started: 9/6/2020 J. Date Fire Contained: 92% of 10/13/20 L. Fire Suppression Damages Repaired with Suppression Funds (estimates): 1 | Page USDA FOREST SERVICE FS-2500-8 (2/20) 1. Fireline repaired (miles): Approximately 140 miles of dozer line constructed. Approximately 16 miles of repair completed as of 10/11/2020. 2. Other (identify): M. Watershed Numbers: Table 1: Acres Burned by Watershed HUC # Watershed Name Total Acres Acres % of Burned Watershed Burned 180701050101 Alder Creek 13,092 213 2 180701050103 Upper Big Tujunga Creek 25,366 532 2 180701050302 Santa Anita Wash-Rio Hondo 34,556 11,149 32 180701060201 Devils Canyon 11,021 1,104 10 180701060202 Upper West Fork San Gabriel River 14,097 10,294 73 180701060203 Bear Creek 17,996 14,580 81 180701060204 North Fork
    [Show full text]