Specialist Report Chargea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...ignition sources and field evidence of fire within open cave passages in the WGGA. Affected Environment

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

1

Introduction

The Hume Lake Ranger District is proposing to implement a prescribed fire project in the Boulder Creek area of the Hume Lake Ranger District, Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM). The project area is located in the Windy Gulch Geologic Area (WGGA), where several caves are located (see Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to document an analysis of potential impacts to caves in the WGGA from the proposed prescribed fire. This report includes a map showing the location of the caves and proposed burn boundary, burn units and planned ignition sources. In order to protect the location of the caves, cave locations will not be disclosed in this report. Cave locations will be given to the project implementation team on a need to know basis.

Purpose and Need for Action

Timing is critical for the Boulder Creek Fuels Restoration (Boulder) Project. In 2010, the Sheep Fire, ignited by lightning, burned through a portion of Monarch Wilderness and Agnew Roadless Area and was stopped on the eastern edge of the Boulder Creek drainage. To take advantage of the natural fuel break the Sheep Fire created, implementation of the Boulder project would need to start as soon as possible (i.e., by 2013 at the latest).

This project is needed to:

• Reduce excessive fuel loads across the landscape, specifically within the Monarch Wilderness per Manual direction (FSM 2320);

• Re-establish fire to this fire-adapted ecosystem, specifically within several sequoia groves;

• Reduce the risk of loss of old-growth forest habitat to large scale, stand-replacing wildfires; and

• Reduce the risk of loss of cultural resources to wildfires.

The purpose of this project is to:

• Establish or maintain conditions that allow for safe and efficient fire suppression activities;

• Establish conditions that allow for a highly diverse vegetation mosaic of age classes, tree size, and species composition; and

• Protect the other objects of interest where applicable and feasible.

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan as amended, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan.

Geologic Assessment Report for the Proposed Boulder Burn Project

2

3

Overview of Issues Addressed

The proposed project has the potential to affect caves in the WGGA. Caves could be affected by increased sedimentation into the caves and from fire being directly ignited in caves, and by smoke entering caves.

Caves could be affected from the burning of the vegetation, accelerated erosion, and increased sedimentation in the project area. This increased sedimentation could result in deposition of sediment into cave entrances along drainages in the WGGA.

Caves could be damaged from fire igniting directly in cave passages from the fuel balls dropped from helicopters. In addition, smoke could affect air quality in the caves and effect cave fauna that may be living in the caves.

Issue Indicators The indicators used to evaluate erosion potential are tons per acre and sediment potential are tons per linear length of channel along specific points in the WGGA.

Indicators used to evaluate ignition of fire in cave openings and passages are locations of planned ignition sources and field evidence of fire within open cave passages in the WGGA.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The WGGA has at least nineteen inventoried caves (see Gallegos, 2005-need reference in list). At least nine of these caves meet the criteria for significant caves. Twelve caves are located in the Windy Gulch subwatershed and two cave entrances are located within the high water flow zone of the channel in Windy Gulch. Three caves are located in the east side of the WGGA, high on a ridge and are known as the Evans Caves. Boyden Cave, Church Cave and Beauty Cave have been inventoried for cave fauna. Bats, spiders, ants and several other organisms were found living in Boyden Cave, Church Cave and Beauty Cave (SID, 2012). Review of Church cave in early spring has found flowing water, high water lines and evidence of minor sedimentation in portions of cave passages. It is unknown how these caves may be affected by prescribed fire in the area. Natural fire has occurred in the past, based on evidence of fire scars on Giant Sequoia trees in the upper Windy Gulch subwatershed. Inventory reports that describe caves in the WGSG are available and are considered sensitive information. There is potential that other unknown caves exist in the Windy Gulch Geological area. The location of caves in the Windy Gulch Geologic Area is sensitive information under the authority of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Locations of caves are available and will be disclosed to the implementation team on a need to know basis.

Land Management Plan Direction The desired condition for geologic features is based on the new Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) Management Plan (Monument Plan) (USDA, 2012) which amended the 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988).


4

Desired Conditions The Desired conditions for geologic features, including caves, domes and spires, soda springs, and hot springs, are to protect these features while providing for public use and enjoyment of these resources.

Legal and Regulatory Compliance Several laws and regulations that apply to the management of geologic resources including caves are described in the Monument Plan and include the following: Cave management is authorized under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq). This act provides that Federal lands be managed to protect and maintain, to the extent practical, significant caves.

National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852 as Amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347). (FSM 1950.2.) This act directs all agencies of the Federal Government to utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment. Geology is one of the applicable sciences.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (RPA) (88 Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) as Amended by National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1609). (FSM 1920 and FSM 2550.) This act requires consideration of the geologic environment through the identification of hazardous conditions and the prevention of irreversible damages. The Secretary of Agriculture is required, in the development and maintenance of land management plans, to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences.

Environmental Consequences

The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect cave resources by:

1. Deposition of sediment in cave floors; this is mostly a concern in the caves located in Windy Gulch.

2. By igniting fires in caves from dropping spherical incendiary devices (SID) into cave entrances. This is a concern in all caves in the WGGA.

3. By smoke circulating in caves. This is a concern in all caves in the WGGA.

Methodology

The effects analysis for potential impacts to cave resources from sedimentation was conducted by considering the results of the prescribed fire in terms of soil cover, erosion potential, channel geometry and the location of cave openings. The effects analysis for potential impacts to cave resources from fire was conducted by considering the location of cave openings and where SID would be restricted from dropping or landing. The effects analysis of smoke circulating in caves

5

was conducted by personal communication from people who have been present at Boyden Cave over the years, when fires have occurred.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Very little research has been conducted on the effects of smoke from prescribed fire on cave processes. Prescribed burning has been implemented in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park near Lilburn Cave and Crystal Cave. Smoke in caves was considered a natural effect of fires burning in the park and monitoring was not conducted. Review of the published literature did not find any documentation on the effects of smoke in caves.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The effects analysis considered direct short term impacts of prescribed fire during implementation of the Boulder Burn Project. Short term, indirect impacts were also included by considering impacts to caves during precipitation the first and second year after implementation and long term impacts for at least five years after implementation. Cumulative effects from sedimentation were

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis. A number of impacts have occurred in the project area over the past several decades including grazing, wildfires, timber sales, recreation use, establishing and maintaining conifer plantations, road maintenance and drought. Present activities continuing in the project area are plantation and road maintenance, and recreation use, including recreation use of Boyden Cave and Church Cave. Ongoing recreation uses within the project area include hunting, dispersed camping, and use of roads and trails. These uses have not resulted in significant habitat loss or resource damage. Past activities in the vicinity of the Boulder project area that modified fuels are the 1997 Boulder Timber Sale, and 1999 Tornado Forest Health Project which both included piling and burning, and under burning; the 2009 Roadside Hazard Tree Removal which felled and removed trees posing a public/employee safety hazard; and the 2010 Sheep Fire which forms the eastern boundary of this project. On-going and reasonably foreseeable activities in the vicinity of the Boulder project area are grazing, vegetation management, wildfires and recreation, including recreation use of Boyden Cave and Church Cave. Portions of the Buck Rock, Hoist and Horse Corral cattle grazing allotments are near or within the Boulder Creek drainage. The grazing use level and associated impacts are not expected to change or contribute measurable impacts to the Boulder Creek Fuels Restoration Project. The analysis area is used regularly by campers, hunters and off highway vehicle (OHV) users. There are approximately 215 miles of road in the analysis area, with Burton Pass Road (Forest Road 14S02) and State Highway 180 providing primary vehicular access. Road and trail maintenance activities are on-going activities. Two areas currently slated for maintenance in the next year are the Deer Meadow Trail and Forest Road 13S05, since they are both likely to be used to access the Boulder Creek Fuels Restoration Project in the next few years. There are only two projects currently in the planning process that may overlap the southern portion of the Boulder Creek Fuels Restoration Project. The Kirkland Plantation Thin proposes to masticate small trees (less than 10 inches diameter breast height) and brush causing overstocked conditions in plantations near Kirkland Meadow. The Kirkland project would under burn, or pile and burn fuel concentrations leaving 80-120 trees per acre and pockets of untreated


6

shrubs for wildlife. One of the proposed stands extends into the Boulder project area. About one half of the 40 acres is plantation number 108-0007, which extends into Area 3A of the Boulder project. A new Hume District Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project proposes to fell dead or damaged trees along district roads (Including 35 miles in the analysis area) that pose a safety hazard or danger to public/employees using these routes. Some trees may be removed after down woody debris requirements are met.

Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative will serve as a baseline from which to compare Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. The no action alternative assumes that a wildfire could burn in the Boulder Project Area and the effects of a wildfire would be similar to the Sheep Fire. Wildfire is a recurring event in the Windy Gulch drainage (see Fire Report for discussion on fire history of the Proposed Boulder project area). The Sheep Fire burned in the summer of 2010 and burned up to the east boundary of the Proposed Boulder Project Area. The Proposed Boulder project area has similar terrain and vegetation as the Sheep Fire area. The effects of a wildfire on caves in the Boulder Project area would be from ash and sediment entering cave openings and depositing in cave passages. There are two sets of caves in the Boulder Project area and only the caves in Windy Gulch could be affected from sediment indirectly caused by a wildfire in the Boulder Project Area.

The wildfire in the Sheep Fire area resulted in 5% high burn severity, 21% moderate burn severity and 25% low burn severity. Approximately, 49% of the Sheep Fire area was unburned. The Sheep Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Assessment estimated that 1,700 yds3/mi2 of soil could be transported into stream channels in the Sheep Fire area (USDA, 2010). Applying the sedimentation rate of the Sheep fire to a wildfire in the proposed Boulder Burn Project area would result in similar amounts of sediment. The Windy Gulch drainage is approximately 837 acres and at 1,700 yds3/mi2 that would be approximately 2,223 yds3 of sediment moving through Windy Gulch. A small portion of this sediment could move into the cave openings in the bottom of Windy Gulch. It is estimated that approximately 10% or 220 yds3 of the sediment could enter Church Cave and possible Boyden Cave.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The no action alternative is in compliance with the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan in allowing for natural wildfire to occur in the project area. The results of a wildfire would be similar to the 2010 Sheep Fire, which resulted in desired conditions from the fire.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to use prescribed fire to reintroduce fire into the lower portion of the Boulder Creek drainage. The project area encompasses approximately 14,385 acres of the watershed, of which 6,000 to 9,000 acres would be proposed for under burning (see Figure 2). The smaller amount of treatment acres is due to large areas of rock and other features that would need other treatments prior to, or instead of, prescribed fire.

Prescribed fires would be ignited in the fall, with some limited ignitions in the spring, one or two weeks prior to a predicted rain/snow event. This would allow the prescribed fire to burn long enough to achieve resource goals before wetting rains or snow extinguish the active burning in

7

the project area. The duration of active burning and smoke impact on the air shed is expected to be two weeks.

The project area would be burned in sections over approximately 5 years (see Table 1). The burn treatments would begin on the east side of Boulder Creek in year one and work in a counter-clockwise direction over the years. Each burn would use the previous year’s activities as a buffer and fuel break for the next treatment area. The Windy Gulch Geological Area is located in Burn Units 2 and 3A and they are proposed to be burned in year 2 and 3 of the proposed 5 year burn cycle (see Figure 2 - Boulder Burn Unit map). The Windy Gulch Geological Area would be burned in two different years.

See the Environmental Assessment for more information the Proposed Action.

Table 1 – Proposed Burning Schedule

Burn Area Year of Burning

Area 1 Fall 2013

Area 2 Years 2-5

Area 3 Years 1-5

Area 4 No Burning


8

Figure 2 – Map showing location of proposed burn units and ignition sources.

9

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

The following design measures for cave resources are identified in the GSNM LMP.

Protect cave entrances from all activities, including prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and recreation. Cave entrances will need to be protected from fire by preventing direct ignition of spherical incendiary devices (SID) in cave entrances. SID should not be dropped within 500’ above cave entrances and should not be dropped within 200’ below or on either side of cave entrances. Locations of cave entrances will be given to the project implementation team in order to protect the entrances.

Direct Effects The direct effects of wildfire on caves in the Windy Gulch Geologic area include potential burning of vegetation near the cave openings in inventoried caves and in un-inventoried caves. Another potential effect of the proposed prescribed fire is smoke entering the caves. Smoke could leave a residue on cave speleothems and formations and slightly discolor the cave formations. Cave mineralization results in different colors of speleothems and formations and rings are often seen in some of these features. Some of this discoloration and rings could be from smoke generated from wildfires of the past. Wildfire has been occurring in this landscape for millennium and caves have developed with fire as part of the natural processes.

Indirect Effects The indirect effects of the Proposed Boulder Burn Project to caves in the Windy Gulch Geological area would be from ash and sediment entering the caves as a result of a rainfall event after the fire. Most of the ash and sediment mobilized after the fire would occur within the first few major storms in fall and early winter. Ash would initially be mobilized, in solution with the flowing water moving down Windy Gulch channel. Some of the water and ash would enter the cave openings in Windy Gulch and be transported into Church Cave and Boyden Cave. Steven Fairchild Sr. attested that in a wildfire about 15 years ago, ash was deposited into Boyden Cave and left a ring in the cave channels in Boyden cave (personal communication, 2012).

It is possible that sediment could be mobilized in storm events, two years after the prescribed fire in the Windy Gulch Geological Area. Sedimentation after a fire is a function of exposed soil, rainfall, and proximity to a steam channel.

The Windy Gulch sub-drainage is approximately 837 acres. The lower 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage (up to 4800’ elevation) is underlain with shallow soils and rock outcrop. The middle 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage (between 4800’ and 6600’ elevation) is underlain with moderately deep to shallow soils, and the upper 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage is underlain with moderately deep soils and rock outcrop (see USDA, 1996). Approximately 25% of the Windy Gulch drainage is rock outcrop. Using the burn severity values from the Sheep Fire, there would be approximately 837 acs. x 5% = 42 acres of high burn severity, 837 acs. x 21% = 176 acres of moderate severity, and 837 acs. x 25% = 209 acres of low burn severity areas in the Windy Gulch sub-drainage. Approximately, 410 acres in the Windy Gulch drainage would be unburned. The high burn severity areas would have exposed soils with less than 20% ground cover and these areas would be susceptible to erosion and subsequent deposition of sediment into the Windy Gulch drainage. The estimated amount of sediment depositing into Windy Gulch from high burn severity areas is approximately 40 ton/ac. With approximately, 42 acres of estimated high burn


10

severity, that would be approximately 1600 tons of sediment generated in the Windy Gulch drainage. Approximately, 10% of this sediment or 160 tons could enter the cave openings in the Windy Gulch drainage.

This estimates are based on erosion modeling using the WEPP based ERMit Model (see Appendix 1).

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect cave resources by:

1. Deposition of sediment in cave floors; this is mostly a concern in the caves located in Windy Gulch.

2. By igniting fires in caves from dropping spherical incendiary devices (SID) into cave entrances. This is a concern in all caves in the WGGA.

3. By smoke circulating in caves. This is a concern in all caves in the WGGA.

The effects analysis for potential impacts to cave resources from sedimentation was conducted by considering the results of the prescribed fire in terms of soil cover, erosion potential, channel geometry and the location of cave openings. The effects analysis for potential impacts to cave resources from fire was conducted by considering the location of cave openings and where SID would be restricted from dropping or landing. The effects analysis of smoke circulating in caves was conducted by personal communication from people who have been present at Boyden Cave over the years, when fires have occurred.

Alternative 1, no action, serves as a baseline from which to compare Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. The no action alternative assumes that a wildfire could burn in the Boulder project area and the effects of a wildfire would be similar to the Sheep Fire. Wildfire is a recurring event in the Windy Gulch drainage and the Boulder project area has similar terrain and vegetation as the Sheep Fire area. Under Alternative 2, the Windy Gulch Geological Area is located in Areas 2 and 3A, which are proposed to be burned in year 2 and 3 (See Figures 1 and 3).

Under either alternative, the direct and indirect effects of fire on caves in the Windy Gulch Geologic Area include potential burning of vegetation near the cave openings, ash and sediment entering cave openings and depositing in cave passages, and smoke entering the caves. Burning vegetation near cave entrances has the potential to supply ash and smoke into the caves. It also has the indirect effect of increasing erosion and sedimentation if all the vegetation is burned up so there is nothing left to hold the soil in place. Alternative 2 includes a mitigation to avoid dropping the spherical incendiary devices directly into caves or near the cave entrances to minimize the amount of vegetation burned in this vicinity.

The amount of ash and sediment is directly related to how severely a fire burns. The Sheep Fire burned at various severities across the landscape (see Table 2). It resulted in approximately 5 percent high burn severity, 21 percent moderate burn severity and 25 percent low burn severity. Approximately, 49 percent of the Sheep Fire area was unburned. The Sheep Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Assessment estimated that 1,700 cubic yards per square mile of soil could be transported into stream channels in the Sheep Fire area (USDA, 2010). Applying the sedimentation rate of the Sheep fire to a wildfire in the proposed Boulder project area would result in similar amounts of sediment under Alternative 1.

Under either Alternative the Windy Gulch sub-drainage has the most susceptible cave resources to fire effects. The Windy Gulch sub-drainage is approximately 837 acres. The lower 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage (up to 4800 feet elevation) is underlain with shallow soils and rock outcrop. The middle 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage (between 4800 and 6600 feet elevation) is

11

underlain with moderately deep to shallow soils, and the upper 1/3 of the Windy Gulch drainage is underlain with moderately deep soils and rock outcrop (USDA, 1996). Approximately 25 percent of the Windy Gulch drainage is rock outcrop.

Using the Sheep Fire data (1,700 cubic yards per square mile) across the approximately 837 acre Windy Gulch sub-drainage, there would be approximately 2,223 cubic yards of sediment movement (see Table 2). A small portion, 10 percent or 220 cubic yards of this sediment could move into Church Cave or Boyden Cave in the bottom of Windy Gulch. The chance of this occurring is greater under Alternative 1 than Alternative 2 simply because a wildfire burning under high temperatures and very dry conditions is more likely to produce more severe burning and subsequent sediment than a prescribed burn under a specific temperatures and humidity’s. However under either alternative 220 cubic yards of sediment would have a low potential to affect cave resources. Alternative 2 includes mitigations to avoid dropping the spherical incendiary devices directly into caves or near the cave entrances to monitor burn severity and sediment deposition in the caves and modify treatments to reduce potential for further sedimentation into the caves.

Table 2: Comparison of Estimated Burn Severity across Burnable Area1

Burn Severity

Sheep Fire (acres) Boulder Project (acres)

Windy Gulch sub-drainage (acres)

High (5%)

451 719 42

Moderate (21%)

1894 3021 176

Low (25%)

2255 3596 209

Unburned (49%)

4420 7049 410

Total Acres 9020 14,385 837

1. This estimates are based on erosion modeling using the WEPP based ERMit Model (See Appendix 1)

The portions of the project area with potential for high burn severity would have exposed soils with less than 20 percent ground cover and these areas would be susceptible to erosion and subsequent deposition of sediment into the Windy Gulch sub-drainage. Under either alternative, the estimated amount of sediment depositing into Windy Gulch from high burn severity areas is approximately 40 tons per acre. With approximately 42 acres of estimated high burn severity, that would be approximately 1600 tons of sediment generated in the Windy Gulch sub-drainage. Approximately, 10 percent of this sediment or 160 tons could enter the cave openings in the Windy Gulch sub-drainage. However under either alternative 160 tons of sediment would have a low potential to affect cave resources and limited direct and indirect effects.

Assuming a wildfire occurrence under Alternative 1 or implementing Alternative 2 and a rainfall event after the fire, the indirect effects to caves in the Windy Gulch Geological Area would be from ash and sediment entering the caves. Most of the ash and sediment mobilized after a fire would occur within the first few major storms in fall and early winter. Ash would initially be mobilized, in solution with the flowing water moving down Windy Gulch channel. It is possible


12

that sediment could be mobilized in storm events up to two years after the natural or prescribed fire in the Windy Gulch Geological Area. Sedimentation after a fire is a function of exposed soil, rainfall, and proximity to a steam channel. Some of the water and ash would enter the cave openings in Windy Gulch and be transported into Church Cave and Boyden Cave. Steven Fairchild Sr., permittee operating Boyden Cavern tours, attested that in a wildfire about 15 years ago, ash was deposited into Boyden Cave and left a ring in the cave channels (personal communication, 2012).

Very little research has been conducted on the effects of smoke from prescribed fire on cave processes. Prescribed burning has been implemented in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park near Lilburn Cave and Crystal Cave. Smoke in caves was considered a natural effect of fires burning in the park and monitoring was not conducted. Review of the published literature did not find any documentation on the effects of smoke in caves. Smoke could leave a residue on cave speleothems and formations and slightly discolor the cave formations. Cave mineralization results in different colors of speleothems and formations and rings are often seen in some of these features. Some of this discoloration and rings could be from smoke generated from wildfires of the past. Boyden Cave formations show discoloration and rings from past fire events, which have not been dated. Wildfire has been occurring in this landscape for millennium and caves have developed with fire as part of the natural processes.

Cumulative Effects Management activities in the analysis area include grazing, fire suppression, silvicultural planting/release, mining, and recreational use, including public tours of Boyden and Church caves. These cumulative impacts have had minor alterations to the soil and geology of the project area, particularly the Windy Gulch sub-watershed. Since most of the project area has been designated wilderness or road less area since the early 1980s, most of the cumulative effects are located in the higher more accessible southern portion of the project area. The exception is the Boyden and Church caves area. Boyden has been a commercial public tour operation for over a century. Church cave is also open on a more limited basis for cave tours. Current regulations require a number of protection measures for management of these caves. The direct and indirect effects of a wildfire or cooler fall burn on cave resources, as described previously, would be minimal and of short duration. Under either alternative the sediment, ash and smoke that may reach the caves would be expected to remain within the natural variation in the long term. As a result, the reasonably foreseeable activities in combination with the limited direct and indirect effects of the Boulder Creek Fuels Restoration Project should result in minimal cumulative effects to geologic resources, especially those in the Windy Gulch sub-drainage.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This project is consistent with the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan if the design measures to avoid dropping the spherical incendiary devices directly into caves.

Monitoring Recommendations

It is recommended that soil monitoring be conducted in the Boulder Project area to determine the degree of soil burn severity and soil cover, especially in the first entry of burn area 1. If anticipated impacts (ground cover and high burn severity) from the prescribed fire are not as expected the prescribed fire conditions should be adjusted to achieve our desired results.

13

Monitoring of cave conditions in Boyden Cave and Church cave should be conducted to evaluate sediment deposition in cave passages. If cave passages become deposited with sediment, removal of the sediment to allow access through the cave should be considered.

Alan J. Gallegos

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text


14

References

Gallegos, Alan J., 2005. 2004 Giant Sequoia National Monument Cave Inventory. Open-File Report, Hume Lake Ranger District, Hume Lake, CA. 108 pgs.

SID, 2012. Reports from the Subterranean Institute’s Database for Beauty Cave, Boyden Cave and Church Cave. Hume Lake Ranger District, Giant Sequoia National Monument. Hume Lake, CA. 4 pgs.

USDA Forest Service, 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest Plan (LRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

USDA, 1996. Soil Survey Sequoia National Forest, California. Open-File Report Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA. 310 pgs w/ maps.

USDA, 2010. FS-2500-8. Sheep Fire, Initial BAER Request. Open File Report. Giant Sequoia National Monument, Porterville, CA. 5 pgs.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Giant Sequoia National Monument Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan. August 8, 2012.

Erosion Risk Management Tool

GRANT GROVE CA + Modified by Rock:Clime on October 12, 2012 from GRANT GROVE CA 43551 0 T MAX 43.01 44.18 44.34 49.62 56.89 66.98 74.90 74.01 68.67 59.76 50.06 44.70 deg F T MIN 24.89 25.31 25.67 29.84 36.34 44.41 50.71 49.61 45.39 38.79 31.19 26.56 deg F MEANP 7.78 6.19 6.76 3.63 1.33 0.40 0.13 0.11 1.05 1.82 4.64 6.74 in # WET 8.19 7.64 9.79 6.72 4.04 1.74 0.83 1.15 2.77 3.56 6.19 7.75

clay loam soil texture, 20% rock fragment

0% top, 50% average, 30% toe hillslope gradient

300 ft hillslope horizontal length

high soil burn severity on forest

100 - YEAR MEAN ANNUAL AVERAGES Total in

100 years

42 in annual precipitation from 6076 storms

4.7 in annual runoff from rainfall from 698 events

13 in annual runoff from snowmelt or winter rainstorm from 1890 events

Rainfall Event Rankings and Characteristics from the Selected Storms

Storm Rank based on runoff (return interval)

Storm Runoff

(in)

Storm Precipitation

(in)

Storm Duration

(h)

10-min Peak Rainfall Intensity

(in h-1)


(in h-1)Storm Date

1 14.11 15.83 16.80 3.78 3.63 December 3 year 39

5 (20-year) 6.95 8.02 12.74 4.09 3.75 January 17

year 97

10 (10-year) 5.76 7.50 6.95 4.08 3.73 January 9

year 1

20 (5-year) 3.98 5.40 9.32 3.60 3.22 December 14

year 16

50 (2-year) 2.93 3.20 4.51 3.83 3.12 March 6

year 3

75 (11/3-year) 2.09 3.07 3.60 3.59 2.94 May 28

year 35

Page 1 of 3ERMiT Results

10/12/2012http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/ermit/erm.pl

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX 1

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

ajgallegos

Typewritten Text

[ Sediment yield--probability table ] [ Sediment delivery paragraphs ] Sediment yield--probability of exceedance tables [ untreated | seeding | mulching 47% cover | 72% cover | 89% cover | 94% cover ] [ Log & straw wattle efficiency tables ]

Citation: Robichaud, Peter R.; Elliot, William J.; Pierson, Fredrick B.; Hall, David E.; Moffet, Corey A. 2006. Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) Ver.

2012.06.27. [Online at <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/>.] Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

WEPP VERSION 2000.100

Mitigation Treatment ComparisonsProbability that sediment yield

will be exceeded % 20

Event sediment delivery ( ton ac-1 ) Year following fire

1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Untreated 40.28 29.75 20.05 15.49 10.26

Seeding 40.28 21.58 17.19 12.94 10.26Mulch (0.5 ton ac-1) 20.02 20.07 20.05 15.49 10.26

Mulch (1 ton ac-1) 16.22 18.15 20.05 15.49 10.26

Mulch (1.5 ton ac-1) 16.2 16.2 20.05 15.49 10.26

Mulch (2 ton ac-1) 14.02 16.16 20.05 15.49 10.26

Erosion Barriers: Diameter ft Spacing ft 0 50

Logs & Wattles 40.28 29.75 20.05 15.49 10.26

Return to input screen



ERMiT run ID wepp-23861 Observed annual precip 1030.9 mm; July, August, September precip 33 mm (3.20 percent): NON-MONSOONAL climate



Erosion Risk Management Tool

GRANT GROVE CA + Modified by Rock:Clime on October 12, 2012 from GRANT GROVE CA 43551 0 T MAX 43.01 44.18 44.34 49.62 56.89 66.98 74.90 74.01 68.67 59.76 50.06 44.70 deg F T MIN 24.89 25.31 25.67 29.84 36.34 44.41 50.71 49.61 45.39 38.79 31.19 26.56 deg F MEANP 7.78 6.19 6.76 3.63 1.33 0.40 0.13 0.11 1.05 1.82 4.64 6.74 in # WET 8.19 7.64 9.79 6.72 4.04 1.74 0.83 1.15 2.77 3.56 6.19 7.75

clay loam soil texture, 10% rock fragment

0% top, 50% average, 30% toe hillslope gradient

300 ft hillslope horizontal length

low soil burn severity on forest

100 - YEAR MEAN ANNUAL AVERAGES Total in

100 years

42 in annual precipitation from 6076 storms

4.6 in annual runoff from rainfall from 685 events

14 in annual runoff from snowmelt or winter rainstorm from 1943 events

Rainfall Event Rankings and Characteristics from the Selected Storms

Storm Rank based on runoff (return interval)

Storm Runoff

(in)

Storm Precipitation

(in)

Storm Duration

(h)


(in h-1)


(in h-1)Storm Date

1 14.08 15.83 16.80 3.78 3.63 December 3 year 39

5 (20-year) 6.98 8.02 12.74 4.09 3.75 January 17

year 97

10 (10-year) 5.96 6.61 9.93 4.05 3.65 February 3

year 84

20 (5-year) 3.96 5.40 9.32 3.60 3.22 December 14

year 16

50 (2-year) 2.92 3.20 4.51 3.83 3.12 March 6

year 3

75 (11/3-year) 2.09 3.24 4.16 2.01 1.82 November 13

year 38



[ Sediment yield--probability table ] [ Sediment delivery paragraphs ] Sediment yield--probability of exceedance tables [ untreated | seeding | mulching 47% cover | 72% cover | 89% cover | 94% cover ] [ Log & straw wattle efficiency tables ]

Citation: Robichaud, Peter R.; Elliot, William J.; Pierson, Fredrick B.; Hall, David E.; Moffet, Corey A. 2006. Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) Ver.

2012.06.27. [Online at <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/>.] Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

WEPP VERSION 2000.100

Mitigation Treatment ComparisonsProbability that sediment yield

will be exceeded % 20

Event sediment delivery ( ton ac-1 ) Year following fire

1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Untreated 27.63 20.97 15.76 13.94 11.31

Seeding 27.63 15.76 13.94 11.31 11.31Mulch (0.5 ton ac-1) 11.85 14.45 15.76 13.94 11.31

Mulch (1 ton ac-1) 9.34 11.57 15.76 13.94 11.31

Mulch (1.5 ton ac-1) 9.23 10.03 15.76 13.94 11.31

Mulch (2 ton ac-1) 9.11 9.73 15.76 13.94 11.31

Erosion Barriers: Diameter ft Spacing ft 0 50

Logs & Wattles 27.63 20.97 15.76 13.94 11.31

Return to input screen



ERMiT run ID wepp-25399 Observed annual precip 1030.9 mm; July, August, September precip 33 mm (3.20 percent): NON-MONSOONAL climate



Documents

Specialist Report Chargea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...ignition sources and field evidence of fire within open cave passages in the WGGA. Affected Environment