An Example of a Large Wildfire in the Absence of Significant Winds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. -
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. -
Appendix C - Response to Science
Ringo EIS Appendix C - Response to Science Appendix C – RESPONSE TO SCIENCE The following table summarizes the Forest Service consideration of publications that were provided during the comment period and which were directly referenced in the comments, or determined to either have some relevance to the analysis or indicate there is a difference of opinion within the body of the science. NEPA states that comments on the EIS shall be as specific as possible (40 CFR 1503.3 Specificity of Comments). Some of the following documents are considered non-substantive comments that do not warrant further response. In either case, the following table explains the consideration given by the Forest Service. Referenced Document Forest Service Consideration/Response Cited Science by Dick Artley Mr. Artleys Attachment #1- Scientists Reveal the Natural Resources in the Forest are Harmed (and some destroyed) by Timber Harvest Activities Al-jabber, Jabber M. “Habitat Fragmentation:: Effects and The picture in the Cascadia Wildlands Project publication shows clearcuts and talks Implications” about fragmentation and edge effects which results in crowding of the ark (Meffe et Clearcuts and forest fragmentation, Willamette NF, Oregon. al. 1997) where after logging, species all try to exist in the remaining patches of From: Cascadia Wildland Project, Spring 2003 unlogged forest. Clear cuts are not proposed for the Ringo project. There are http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/a/Documents/Habitat%20Fragmentation%20Eff openings that will be created that are consistent with gaps and openings of at least 0.5 ects%20and%20Implication.pdf acres described in the Old Growth Definitions (USDA FS 1993, Region 6 interim Old Growth Definitions). -
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. -
Original Draft CWPP
DRAFT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA May 2020 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Table of Contents SECTIONS Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Development Team ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Community Involvement ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Public Outreach and Engagement Plan ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Public Outreach Meetings ............................................................................................................................. -
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. -
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 .......................................................................................................................... -
Southern California Fires
Lassen & Plumas National Forests Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Post-Fire BAER Assessment August 27, 2021 BAER Information: (707) 853-4243 PHASE 1--DIXIE POST-FIRE BAER SOIL BURN SEVERITY MAP RELEASED Due to the large size and continual active burning of the Dixie Fire, the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team divided the burned area into two phases for their assessment and analysis. BAER specialists recently completed their data gathering and analysis for Phase 1 of the Dixie burned area to produce a Phase 1 soil burn severity (SBS) map on August 25—analyzing 365,678 acres. The map and the data display SBS categories of unburned/very low, low, moderate, and high. Approximately 43% of the 365,678 acres are either unburned/very low and/or low soil burn severity, while 52% sustained a moderate soil burn severity and only about 5% identified as high soil burn severity. The SBS map also shows the acreage for each of the landowners for the 365,678 acres in the Phase 1 assessment to be: 176,460 acres for the Plumas National Forest; 93,466 acres for the Lassen National Forest; 94,648 acres of private/unknown lands; 889 acres for the State of California-Department of Fish and Game; 98 acres for the USDI Bureau of Land Management; 67 acres for the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 50 acres for the State of California-Lands Commission. The low category of soil burn severity indicate that there was only partial consumption of fine fuels and litter coverage remains relatively intact on the soil surface. -
Is It a Red Flag Day?
Is it a Red Flag Day? A Special Section on the Social Aspects of Wildfire Presented by the National Park Service in cooperation with Project Learning Tree, the Fire Prevention Officers of Marin County, and the Marin Independent Journal Advertising Department 2 Fire Recycles ildland fire is an plant particles while the larger material AIR SUN W ecological remains as ash. process affecting almost Ash returns nutrients from plants back all of the earth's vegeta- into the soil, especially calcium, potassi- tion. Underwater plants um and phosphorous. Nitrogen is are generally an returned by the nitrogen-fixing plants that PLANTS excpetion, although flourish after a fire and begin the process FIRE when seaweed or algae of regrowth. Without nitrogen, proteins are left onshore to dry, cannot be made, and DNA cannot be SOIL they too, can become fuel. reproduced. In some places, wildland fire occurs regularly enough that Most of the earth's nitrogen is in the species depend on it. air, but can’t be breathed in. Nitrogen-fix- What's Inside ers host bacteria in their roots which The length of a fire return interval, or convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form Fire Recycles . 2 "fire cycle" varies based on the climate, plants and animals can use. Defensible Space vegetation, and ignition frequency of a Like many hardwood trees, shrubs and other Perspectives. 3 particular location. Ignitions are mainly Plants in the pea family (legumes) are flowering plants, this California bay survived caused by lightning, volcanic ash, lava, notorious for their nitrogen fixing abilities. a wildfire by resprouting at the base. -
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................................................................... -
Full Agenda Packet
NOTICE AND AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING DATE/TIME: Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 1:30 PM PLACE: Board of Supervisors Chambers 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commission will hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected agency or any interested person who wishes to appear. Proponents and opponents, or their representatives, are expected to attend the hearings. From time to time, the Chair may announce time limits and direct the focus of public comment for any given proposal. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by LAFCO to a majority of the members of the Commission less than 72 hours prior to that meeting will be available for public inspection in the office at 651 Pine Street, Six Floor, Martinez, CA, during normal business hours as well as at the LAFCO meeting. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Commission to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Commission or a member of the public prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. For agenda items not requiring a formal public hearing, the Chair will ask for public comments. For formal public hearings the Chair will announce the opening and closing of the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please complete a speaker’s card and approach the podium; speak clearly into the microphone, start by stating your name and address for the record. -
Water Supply Management Report 2018-2019 Water Year
FINAL January 28, 2020 City of Santa Barbara Water Supply Management Report 2018-2019 Water Year Prepared by Water Resources Division, Public Works Department City of Santa Barbara Water Supply Management Report 2019 Water Year (October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019) Water Resources Division, Public Works Department January 28, 2020 INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Barbara operates the water utility to provide water for its citizens, certain out-of-City areas, and visitors. Santa Barbara is an arid area, so providing an adequate water supply requires careful management of water resources. The City has a diverse water supply including local reservoirs (Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir), groundwater, State Water, desalination, and recycled water. The City also considers water conservation an important tool for balancing water supply and demand. The City's current Long-Term Water Supply Plan (LTWSP) was adopted by City Council on June 14, 2011. This annual report summarizes the following information: The status of water supplies at the end of the water year (September 30, 2019) Drought outlook Water conservation and demand Major capital projects that affect the City’s ability to provide safe clean water Significant issues that affect the security and reliability of the City’s water supplies Appendix A provides supplemental detail. Additional information about the City's water supply can be found on-line at: www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Water. WATER SUPPLIES The City has developed five different water supplies: local surface water; local groundwater (which includes water that seeps into Mission Tunnel); State Water; desalinated seawater; and recycled water. Typically, most of the City’s demand is met by local surface water reservoirs and recycled water and augmented as necessary by local groundwater, State Water, and desalination.