Rapid Response to a Wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin Revised Final June 15, 2011 Rapid Response to a Wildfire in the Tahoe Basin June 15, 2011 Prepared by Alan Getler (DRI) Alan Heyvaert (DRI) Zach Hymanson (TSC) Jonathan Long (PSW) Wally Miller (UNR) John Reuter (UCD) Peter Stine (PSW) Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act funding was provided by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station to support the development of this plan i
Rapid Response to a Wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Guidelines for Initiating a Rapid Response ........................................................................................... 2 General Approach to an Emergency Response .................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 4 A. Direct Effects on Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 4 Key questions ....................................................................................................................................... 4 General design of data collection effort ............................................................................................... 4 Cost estimates ...................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Consequences of Atmospheric Deposition ...................................................................................... 5 Key questions ....................................................................................................................................... 5 General design of data collection effort ............................................................................................... 6 Costs estimates .................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3: Upland Fuels and Soils ............................................................................................................... 9 A. Direct Effects on Fuels ..................................................................................................................... 9 Key questions ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Cost estimates .................................................................................................................................... 10 B. Consequences to Soils .................................................................................................................... 10 Key questions ..................................................................................................................................... 10 General Design and Data Collection Efforts ....................................................................................... 11 Cost estimates .................................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 4: Stream Water Quality and Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 15 A. Direct Effects on Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 15 Key questions ..................................................................................................................................... 15 General design of data collection effort ............................................................................................. 16 Cost estimates .................................................................................................................................... 17 B. Consequences on Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................. 17 Key questions ..................................................................................................................................... 17 General design of data collection effort ............................................................................................. 17 Chapter 5: Communication coordination and access issues ...................................................................... 20 ii
Communication Strategy for Execution of the Rapid Response Plan ..................................................... 20 Rapid Response Research Team Contact Information ........................................................................... 21 Communication and Rapid Response Logistics Coordination ............................................................ 21 Land Management and Regulatory Agency Contact Information .......................................................... 22 References ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 27 iii
Chapter 1: Introduction Several kinds of catastrophes could have significant immediate and persistent effects on the natural resources and habitats of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Tahoe Science efforts funded through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (beginning with Round 9 in 2008) called upon the Tahoe Science Consortium to “build a reserve to fund rapid response science efforts (e.g., focused research or short-­‐
term monitoring) deemed necessary to obtain information about the effects of catastrophes (e.g., wildfires, sewage spills, or earthquakes), or provide critical baseline information to understand the effects of restoration and remediation efforts undertaken in response to a catastrophe.” This provision was established to ensure that the science community would be prepared to mobilize an immediate response to a catastrophic event in the Basin, with the aim of developing information to understand the near-­‐term effects of the catastrophe. Wildfires are a persistent threat during summer and fall in the dry Mediterranean climate of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Manley et al. (2000) presents several analyses regarding fire susceptibility, and concluded that, “urban and wildland interface areas on the south and north shores [of Lake Tahoe] have the greatest fire occurrence.” While there is a very high likelihood of wildfire within the basin, the precise timing of such events will be the product of weather and, most likely, human sources of ignition. A recent notable example was the Angora wildfire that started from a campfire on June 24, 2007 in South Lake Tahoe, California. Nearly 3,100 acres were burned, including hundreds of residential and commercial structures. In response to the Angora fire, the regional scientific community immediately mobilized and interacted with agency personnel to begin assessing the effects of the fire on water quality and ecological resources in the area. That mobilization effort, while successful, would have been greatly facilitated by a pre-­‐existing strategic response plan, a ready source of funds, and advance coordination and planning. This is not a situation that is unique to the Tahoe Basin. In their examination of several wildfire rapid science response efforts, Lentile et al. (2007) found that lack of funding, inadequate pre-­‐season planning and coordination, poor adoption or adherence by researchers to the Incident Command System, and lack of acceptance or tolerance of research by Incident Management Teams have all hampered research on active wildfires. The purpose of this plan is to describe the specific scientific activities that will address the most immediate information needs of government agencies, regional stakeholders, and scientists about the effects of a wildfire in the Tahoe Basin. This plan describes a strategy for focused, short-­‐term assessments to quantify the level of impacts on air quality, soil resources, water quality, and aquatic resources. There are immediate and long term ramifications of a wildfire to a variety of natural resources, and this plan addresses only the scientific efforts associated with assessing the immediate ramifications. The plan described here contemplates collecting some information during the fire, particularly to quantify first-­‐order effects such as smoke production, atmospheric deposition, and alteration of soil properties. The plan also contemplates collecting some information for a period after the fire to fully document first-­‐order effects and to quantify the impacts to water quality and aquatic resources. In all cases, the efforts described in this plan would occur while the fire is active but outside the fire perimeter, or inside the fire perimeter after the fire is out. This approach obviates the need for researchers to obtain permission from the Incident Management Team to enter the fire perimeter while 1
the fire is active. The efforts are generally scoped for rapid implementation assuming a total of $100,000 is available for rapid science response efforts. All of this information will be used to understand the consequences of a particular wildfire and to inform appropriate remedial actions. Guidelines for Initiating a Rapid Response The process for determining and funding rapid response science efforts is intended to support a well-­‐reasoned and efficient rapid science response. It is the Consortium’s goal to complete the entire process in 1-­‐3 days from agency executive notification that a catastrophe has occurred. Determinations of what work gets funded or the amount of work that an entity might complete will be made upon notification of a catastrophe, and will depend on the type and extent of the catastrophe and the associated critical information needs. The process for determining and funding rapid response science efforts is based on an integrated response operating principle: It is expected that the agencies and institutions providing rapid response efforts will work in a highly collaborative manner to provide an efficient, integrated response. The steps to access and use rapid response funds are as follows: 1. At least two (2) agency executives1 must communicate to the TSC executive director that a catastrophe has occurred in the Tahoe Basin, which would benefit from immediate efforts to collect data or other types of information that are within the purview of the rapid response fund. This communication also will identify any additional resources (e.g., additional funding, staff, equipment, supplies, or assistance in obtaining access or permissions) the executives can provide to support rapid response efforts. Any mode of communication is acceptable to facilitate the rapid transfer of information, but a follow-­‐up email or letter documenting the executives’ communication is required. This communication is very important as it will be a fundamental component of the funding expenditure rationale that PSW is required to provide to BLM. 2. Members of the TSC Committee of Scientists (COS) and the science community will work together to determine what rapid response science efforts are most appropriate, and identify an entity/individual to serve as response project leader. This information will be communicated to relevant agency representatives to seek their advice and support. 3. The COS will make recommendations to PSW as to which institutions and individuals are most qualified and appropriate to complete the identified rapid response efforts. Factors considered in developing the recommendations include but are not limited to applicable expertise, availability, and cost efficiencies. 4. PSW will pursue agreement augmentations with the appropriate entities to fund completion of the identified rapid response efforts. General Approach to an Emergency Response Each event has its own set of circumstances that dictate a particular response. However, there are some basic operating principles that are applicable to all such events. These include: 1
For a wildfire the TSC would expect to receive communications from executives from any two of the following agencies: US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Division of Forestry, Nevada Division of State Parks, Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, California Tahoe Conservancy, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2
1. Coordination. Any response will likely require the perspectives and resources of many organizations, as well as authorizations to access the burn area. The COS will designate a project leader who will work with the TSC executive director to coordinate the rapid science response. Coordination and clear communication are essential to making the rapid response efficient and effective. 2. Planning. Coordination will establish the routes of communication to determine an appropriate plan in advance of what to do and how the activities can be accomplished most efficiently and effectively. This wildfire rapid response plan strives to aid those preparations. 3. Data collection and sampling strategies. Planning will identify what information is needed during a wildfire and within the first days and weeks after the event occurs. Data collection and sampling strategies document the protocols that will be used to obtain high quality data and maximize the information return. 4. Funding. Some immediate funding is necessary to support the purchase of supplies, and should be in place to enable immediate execution of the rapid response plan. It will take at least a couple of weeks or more to move funds around to pursue the work defined in the plan. Preparations are needed to have funds available to all the institutions that will commit staff and resources to support rapid response efforts. 5. Outreach and communication. There is typically an intense level of activity during and in the immediate post-­‐event time frame with a heightened requirement for communication and coordination. Effective communication will maximize sampling efficiency and minimize the chance of mishap. 6. Results. The entities completing rapid response work will be required to describe rapid response activities through the preparation of individual progress reports. These entities also will be required to contribute to a joint summary report of findings and recommendations resulting from their collective rapid response efforts within two months of the completion of sampling/monitoring. 3
Chapter 2: Air Quality Rapid response efforts to understand the impacts of a wildfire on air quality are divided between two different issues: (1) efforts to understand the direct effects on air quality (i.e., visibility, ozone levels and secondary organic aerosol formation); and (2) understanding the contributions to atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, phosphorous, and particulates and the impacts these depositions may have on lake clarity and water quality in general. A. Direct Effects on Air Quality Key questions 1. What are the effects of wildfires and other unusual events on basin visibility? Fires emit both fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) into the atmosphere. Coarse PM (PMc, the difference between PM10 and PM2.5) rapidly deposits; however fine PM (PM2.5) can remain suspended in the atmosphere for extended periods and obscure visibility. In order to develop an understanding of the impacts of wildfires and other unusual events on visibility, it is necessary to characterize the physical (i.e., size distribution) and chemical properties of aerosols generated by these events. Measurements taken during the event can be compared to long-­‐term monitoring data collected at established stations to further quantify changes in visibility relative to background conditions. 2. What are the effects of wildfires on the emissions of gaseous species leading to ozone (O3) and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation? Events such as wildfires lead to the emission of significant amounts of NOx (an O3-­‐forming precursor) and other chemical species. This could potentially result in violations of ambient air quality standards for both O3 and PM2.5. These questions will both require data collected during the fire and potentially extending two months after the event. Under typical circumstances, the immediate effects from smoke and ash deposition should last for a period of not more than one month, while the effect of gaseous precursors would last a matter of days. General design of data collection effort Site selection Potential monitoring sites would be determined based on the location of the event and wind direction. Depending on the specific issue/research question to be addressed, locations could include both existing and new monitoring sites on Lake Tahoe, along the shore, or at elevated locations required to assess transport into the basin. Different air sampling devices have different requirements (e.g., some require a power supply some do not), and the type of sampling device may influence site selection. Indicators and sampling protocols Indicators that could be monitored include but are not limited to: size-­‐segregated PM mass and chemistry, PM concentrations by size, speciated hydrocarbon concentrations, and continuous measurements of gaseous pollutants (e.g., NOx). PM samplers could include minivols and other filter-­‐
based PM samplers for chemical speciation, samplers designed to provide enhanced size distribution 4
information (e.g., DRUM, MOUDI, optical particle counters, etc.). Gaseous pollutant samplers include continuous pollutant monitors (e.g., O3, NOx, etc.), and canister and other hydrocarbon (volatile and semi-­‐volatile) samplers. Frequency and duration of monitoring In order to provide adequate data to assess the impacts of wildfires and other unusual events, filter-­‐
based sampling should be for intervals of twenty-­‐four hours or less. Sampling should take place for a minimum of two days during the event, with additional sampling taking place following the event to provide an adequate baseline for comparison. Cost estimates a. Installation and site set-­‐up (per site) b. Per site sampling (Deployment and collection of samples) c. Per site sample analysis d. Data analysis and reporting $2,500 $2,000 $1,100 $12,500 Total estimated cost (per site): $18,100 Team Leaders: David Barnes, Anne Liston, S. Geoffrey Schladow, Thomas Cahill. Length of data collection: 2-­‐14 days during the fire and 2-­‐7 days post fire. Deliverables: Final report, including the database of field and laboratory data, data analyses and interpretive reports, due 30 days after data collection. B. Consequences of Atmospheric Deposition Key questions 3. What is the contribution of wildfire smoke, ash, gases and other by-­‐products to atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and particulate matter? 4. What are the short-­‐term effects of atmospheric deposition from wildfire on lake clarity and water quality in general? Background Smoke and ash emitted from forest fires contain elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and particulate matter (USDA 2009). Atmospheric deposition of this material directly onto the surface of Lake Tahoe has the potential to impact water clarity through the direct contribution of particles that block light transmission and nutrients that promote algal growth. The immediate effects will depend on a number of factors including, but not limited to, fire intensity, physiographic position of the fire, vegetation type in the burn area, distance to Lake Tahoe, wind and weather patterns during the fire, and duration and extent of the burn. Any immediate impact to the Lake from atmospheric deposition also will depend on existing conditions in the Lake and the characteristics of the plankton community (e.g. levels of algal standing crop in the Lake at the time of the fire). The following information obtained from sampling conducted during the 2007 Angora wildfire and continuing for two months after the fire (Reuter et al. 2008) illustrate how various factors can affect atmospheric deposition. •
NASA remote images showed that smoke density was not uniform throughout the Tahoe Basin during the fire. 5
•
Smoke was more intense in the region of the fire, and while the smoke did reach to the opposite shores there was considerable variability. •
Significant smoke may be transient lasting for less than a week, depending on how rapidly the fire is brought under control. Wildfires outside the Tahoe basin can result in smoke inside the basin that may last longer and be more uniformly distributed than smoke from in-­‐basin fires. •
Levels of N and P in the lake’s airshed (near ground level) can vary by a factor of 2-­‐15 depending on location. As expected, there was decline in air PM10 mass and nutrients with distance and time from the fire. •
Atmospheric deposition at mid-­‐lake, away from the burn area increased 3-­‐4 and 4-­‐7 times the normal rate for N and P, respectively. •
Over a period as short as five days, the percent of annual atmospheric loading was 2-­‐4% for N and 6-­‐11% for P. •
Impacts to phytoplankton were very short-­‐lived and restricted to the south end of the Lake. Impacts to water quality over the summer and on an annual basis appeared insignificant. General design of data collection effort To address both key questions above, a two-­‐fold monitoring approach is needed. 1. Atmospheric deposition Upon commencement of a significant wildfire, portable HDPE plastic deposition buckets (hereafter referred to as bucket collectors) should be deployed around the Basin to measure nutrient and particulate matter associated with atmospheric deposition. A coordinating team consisting of air quality, water quality and forestry experts, in consultation with forest resource managers, will determine the level of deployment required for a particular wildfire. The specific placement of these collectors will depend on the location of the burn area. While there should be a higher density of collectors near the burn area, deployments should be made around the Basin since smoke and fire emission products are widely transported. If possible, it is recommended that ten bucket collectors be deployed, four in the vicinity of the fire and six spread out around the Lake. Since total loading to the Lake is likely to be greatest in that portion of the water near the fire where ash deposition is likely higher, a reliable whole-­‐Lake deposition estimate could be underestimated unless a sufficient number of bucket collectors are placed near the burn area. Bucket collectors should be sited as close as possible to the Lake near shore. Piers are particularly good locations. Once appropriate locations are identified, the lead researcher must secure permission from the property owners before deployment of the bucket collectors. The Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP) uses bucket collectors as a sampling device in that program, and field staff for that program should be involved in the planning and sampling (contact: Scott Hackley, UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Incline Village, shhackley@ucdavis.edu). Bucket collectors do not need to be automated and no electricity is required. Samples will be collected as bulk (equals wet plus dry) fallout. Duplicate bucket collectors should be deployed at each site. The collections can be composited, if funding is limited. Bucket collectors should be sampling while smoke and other fire emission by-­‐products are still in the air; however, the sampling will be dependent on the specific characteristics of the fire. Samples should be collected, transported and chemically analyzed according to LTIMP specifications (see Hackley et al., 2010). Constituents measured should include nitrate, ammonium, total and dissolved Kjeldahl-­‐N, soluble reactive-­‐P, total dissolved-­‐P, total P, and total filterable mass. Data should be expressed as 6
concentration and loads following the LTIMP protocol contained in Hackley et al. (2010). Bucket collector change-­‐out or daily replacement as well as QA/QC protocol for atmospheric deposition sampling should also follow LTIMP specifications described in Hackley et al. (2010). Identical bucket collectors should be deployed on Lake buoys to estimate mid-­‐lake deposition. UC Davis TERC/NASA JPL owns and operates a series of open-­‐water buoys (Figure 1) that serve as meteorological stations and support ongoing research. Sampling for atmospheric deposition currently occurs at two of these buoys – TB-­‐1 and TB-­‐4. These are located in the north-­‐central portion of the lake. Those meteorological buoys located in the south-­‐central portion of the lake should be modified to allow for bucket collector deployment at the earliest possible time. Figure 1. Locations of various monitoring stations in Lake Tahoe and the surrounding watershed (From TERC 2010). 2. Lake monitoring Direct Lake monitoring is the best way to gauge a water quality response. Monitoring should be stratified among three Lake habitats: (1) the shallow near shore; (2) offshore but in a region of the Lake closest to the maximum smoke and ash deposition; and (3) pelagic deep water. Each habitat would be monitored with the following periodicity: twice during the period of active deposition (assuming a fire duration of one week); and one, two and six weeks after the fire is controlled/out. This equates to five sampling events within each of the three Lake habitats. a. Near shore – Conduct long-­‐shore transects for turbidity, optical properties and chlorophyll using boat-­‐based continuous sensors (Susfalk et al., 2009). Along-­‐shore transects should be made in the near shore at various distances from the shoreline as determined by the local 7
bathymetry. Five surface composite samples also should be taken and analyzed for nitrate, ammonium, total and dissolved Kjeldahl-­‐N, soluble reactive-­‐P, total dissolved-­‐P, total P, and total suspended solids. Control sites are difficult to establish if there is no pre-­‐fire monitoring program already in place. Scientists should evaluate the appropriateness of using offshore transects and near shore transects away from the directly impacted area (may depend on historical data) as potential controls. b. Regional Offshore – Based on the recommendation of the researchers at the time of the wildfire, a series of transect-­‐based stations should be established and sampled in the open water in the vicinity of the fire. Combined, these transects should include ten sites that are most likely to be affected by localized atmospheric deposition. At each site, continuous vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and extinction, conductivity, chlorophyll/phaeophytin should be taken with in situ instrumentation used to collect data for the State of the Lake Report (TERC 2010). Profiles need to be run to depths below the thermocline and through the deep chlorophyll maximum (DCM). While atmospheric deposition from the wildfire emissions are not expected to have an immediate effect on the DCM, it is important that changes in chlorophyll levels in the upper DCM not be mistaken for a Lake response to the fire. In addition, measurements should be taken for Secchi disc depth. c. Pelagic Deep Water -­‐ UC Davis has operated two deep-­‐water lake monitoring stations for many decades as part of LTIMP – located in the northern portion of the Lake. Continued sampling from these established locations allow for an evaluation of the long-­‐term effects. The sampling schedules for these two sites may require modification to fit into the post-­‐fire monitoring needs. Costs estimates Atmospheric deposition Installation and site set-­‐up Per site sampling costs (Deployment and collection of samples and sample analysis) Data analysis and reporting Lake monitoring2 Nearshore Regional Offshore Pelagic Deep Water $2,000 $17,600 $3,600 Total estimated cost: $23,200 $11,400 $11,180 $5,000 Total estimated cost: $27,580 Team Leaders: Scott Hackley, Anne Liston, Geoffrey Schladow, John Reuter. Length of data collection: Not to exceed 60 days after the end of the fire. Deliverables: Final report, including the database of field and laboratory data, data analyses and interpretive reports, due 30 days after all data collection and sample analyses are completed. 2
All costs including, sampling, data processing and evaluation/reporting are include for each category. 8
Chapter 3: Upland Fuels and Soils (Need some intro on fuels from new PSW contributors) Preliminary model simulations (Weisberg et al. 2009) suggest that at the Basin-­‐wide scale, fire suppression has resulted in a significant increase in total and available nitrogen, as well as a reduction in spatial and temporal variability of nitrogen pools. This has implications for water quality of the Lake Tahoe Basin in that increased nutrient sources are potentially available to be transferred from terrestrial to aquatic systems during periods of surface runoff or excessive leaching. Spatial model predictions for deviation of phosphorus content from historical reference conditions differ from predicted nitrogen responses. Available phosphorus does not appear to change much with fire suppression for eco-­‐regions that historically experienced more frequent fire. For eco-­‐regions at higher elevations that have historically experienced infrequent fire, phosphorus made available by increases in litter contributions tends to exceed the magnitude of pre-­‐settlement losses of phosphorus due to fire (Weisberg et al., 2009). Preliminary findings on potential shifts in stable isotope values for C and N as a result of wildfire suggest they may be a useful means of tracing the impacts on water quality, food web interactions, and the potential restoration of fish species, especially if runoff events deposit recently burned soil and ash into nearby streams (Saito et al., 2007). The impact of a single erosion event following a wildfire can be substantive based on comparative baseline erosion rates reported in the literature for mountainous terrain in the Sierra Nevada (Carroll-­‐
Moore et al., 2007). Fire intensities may vary, but are generally hot enough to remove most vegetation and organic litter from the soil surface. Hence, an increased likelihood of post-­‐wildfire runoff, debris and sediment flows from exposed soils due to lack of vegetative cover and fire-­‐induced subsurface hydrophobic layers clearly exists, and a more quantitative knowledge of the equilibrium between nutrients adsorbed to the sediment and their counterpart in solution is needed. Because this chemical equilibrium defines the direction in which a reaction will proceed (i.e., how much gets adsorbed and remains with the mineral sediment or how much is potentially released into solution), a better knowledge of sediment equilibrium chemistry and whether or not it can be manipulated would be beneficial. Wildfire also results in a substantive system loss of C and N, mostly by the combustion of forest floor and woody vegetation (Murphy et al., 2006). Mineral N leaching was accelerated for three years following the Gondola wildfire, but accounted for only a small portion of the total N loss. No significant changes in soil leaching of P were noted until the second year following wildfire. However, the wildfire was shown to have immediately increased the frequency and magnitude of elevated ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations in discharge runoff (Miller et al., 2006). Consequently, the potential for wildfire to cause an immediate adverse impact on discharge water quality clearly exists. A. Direct Effects on Fuels NOTE: In order for the Section on Upland Soils to be consistent with the formats applied for the “Air Quality “ and “Stream Water Quality and Aquatic Resources” components, a significant restructuring of the format and content is required. Although a “content outline” is provided 9
wilymalr 6/15/11 10:38 AM
Deleted: Watershed Burn
wilymalr 6/15/11 10:38 AM
Deleted: Status
below, further input from new investigators will be required to complete the fuels monitoring section. Key questions 1. What are the effects on remaining fuels moisture status, burn patchiness, and scale of mineral soil exposure? A targeted approach to assess fuel consumption of different fuel components would be implemented. This would include sampling along at least 25 Brown's transects randomly placed both within and outside of the burn perimeter. There would be a need to verify that management and burn histories are similar in the paired areas sampled. Evaluating fuel moisture would allow us to link consumption and patchiness with erosion potential. 2. What are the effects on fuel consumption? Fuel loading is typically highly variable, meaning that in most fuel types, many plots are required to get a reasonable estimate. Using the standard Brown (1972) protocol, an average based on fewer than 25 or so transects would be inappropriate. (What measurements will be used??). General Design and Data Collection Efforts 1. Fuel moisture samples should be collected during or as soon after the burn as possible... moisture of the components that potentially have the greatest effect on soil resources -­‐ duff and large woody debris do not change rapidly, so could conceivably be measured within a few days of the fire. Burn patchiness would be quantified along the Brown's transects for evaluating woody fuels, using sampling methods described in Knapp et al (2005). (Fuel reduction and coarse woody debris dynamics with early season and late season prescribed fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 208:383-­‐
397.) We will use 50m transects when evaluating burn patchiness rather than the standard 20m Brown's transect to obtain a more representative characterization. 2. In order to focus on a targeted approach, post fire fuel consumption measurements will be taken within and immediately outside of the burn perimeter. (Design specifics??) Cost estimates ???? Team Leaders: (Designated PSW contributors). ??? Length of data collection: ??? Deliverables: ??? B. Consequences to Soils Key questions 1. What are the effects on short and long-­‐term soil erosion? We remain uncertain as to which erosion control and or site restoration methods may be most effective at different locations throughout the Tahoe Basin, how long they will remain effective, and whether or not they are self-­‐sustaining or must be maintained at regular intervals. Nor do we know how the performance of erosion control methods varies among storm events (e.g., 20-­‐yr. vs. 50-­‐yr. vs. 100-­‐yr.) or 10
wilymalr 6/15/11 10:24 AM
Deleted: course changing hydrologic scenarios (e.g., rain only events vs. rain on snow events). In order to increase our knowledge base in this regard, both short and long-­‐term erosion potential must be assessed. Our rapid response measurements would help to determine the immediate impacts on short-­‐term erosion potential. Data from these measurements could then be compared to similar measurements following the installation of various erosion control and site restoration activities over time. 2. What are the effects on soil nutrient cycling and transport? The shift from low-­‐intensity fire to catastrophic wildfire has the potential to affect many aspects of soil ecology. Information on the effects of wildfire on soil organic matter, nutrient cycling, and biological response is scarce in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Methods that control the runoff of fine particle sizes most associated with nutrient source/sink loading need to be more clearly identified. Proper design of control measures for the reduction of nutrient loading as opposed to just sediment loading requires more quantitative knowledge of equilibrium soil chemistry. General Design and Data Collection Efforts Our basic approach is to develop a program to assess the immediate (first 2 months) affects of a wildfire, and to support the longer term assessment wildfire impacts relative to the implementation of mitigation strategies. The overall goal is to better characterize soil, water flow, sediment, vegetation and nutrient budget parameters at the watershed scale in order to develop a more robust quantification of the linkage between wildfire, runoff, erosion, nutrient transport, and restoration (e.g., BAER Team) activities. Short term rapid response objectives •
•
To measure the immediate impacts of wildfire on soil chemical and physical properties relative to adjacent control areas in order to establish a baseline database. To quantify localized point source precipitation, surface runoff, erosion, and nutrient transport data in order to assess the discharge loads as a function of amount, type (snow vs. rainfall), frequency, and precipitation intensity should they occur immediately following the wildfire event. These results would be compared to historical data or values from reference sites. Long term rapid response objectives •
•
•
Characterize the spatial distribution, depth, and persistence of fire induced soil water repellency in order to determine the distribution of potential areas of recharge versus those that are overland flow-­‐generating. Quantify the effects of various restoration activities on slope and surface stabilization, re-­‐
vegetation, enhanced ability for infiltration and recharge, nutrient runoff, and erosion and sedimentation as a means of ascertaining functionality. Evaluate which mitigation strategies are most effective in controlling runoff, erosion (including the transport of fine particulates and their associated equilibrium chemistry), and nutrient loading over time. Site selection Study site selection and number will, to a large extent depend on the characteristics of the wildfire. It is our belief that any rapid response effort should be focused on at least two immediate objectives: (1) to quickly assess obvious significant impacts requiring urgent management attention; and (2) to provide pilot data for the assessment of longer-­‐term impacts and the effectiveness of implemented mitigation strategies. The latter objective is based on the premise of further study which will require supplemental funding from any available source. Factors such as total area, physiographic position, vegetation, soil 11
type and parent material, burn intensity and distribution, and proximity to perennial stream flow discharges, BAER Team restoration activities, and other water quality and biological resource measurement stations would be important considerations. Fifteen study plots (0.04 ha each) for each prominent characteristic would be delineated either randomly or along a physiographic transect. Areas where a suitable adjacent control site is available may be desirable, especially if pre-­‐fire data are unavailable. The total number of study plots is limited to 15 for two reasons: (1) the rapid response approach is designed to quickly collect short-­‐term exemplary data to provide potential impact information and to help identify areas of longer-­‐term concern; and (2) to minimize the physical disturbance of the barren highly unstable conditions during instrumentation. Indicators and protocols (short term objectives) O horizons and large woody debris will be sampled at each of five randomly-­‐assigned sampling points in each designated 0.04 ha unburned control site plot area. All O horizon material will be removed within a 0.07 m2 ring by horizon and category: other (woody material up to 2.54 cm diameter), Oi (intact foliage), Oe (partially decomposed material), and Oa (humic substances). Samples of tree needles and herbaceous vegetation will also be collected. After the O horizons are removed, soils at each point will be sampled by depth (corresponding to roughly major horizons identified from a nearby exploratory soil pit) using a bucket auger. For the wildfire study plots, post-­‐wildfire surface deposits of ash will be collected immediately after the fire and post-­‐burn soil samples will be taken prior to ash infusion into the soil profile due to subsequent rain or snow events. Soil water repellency will be determined by depth increment using water drop penetration time (Letey, 1969), surface infiltration using the disk permeameter (Topp et al., 1992), and soil texture and bulk density (Klute, 1986) measurements will be conducted for both control and burn site study plots. Subsamples of O horizons, vegetation, litter and ash will be analyzed for total P, K, Ca, Mg, and S. Phosphorus, K, Ca, Mg, and S using a Jarrell Ash ion coupled plasma spectrophotometer (ICP; Thermo Jarrell Ash Corp., Franklin, MA) after microwave digestion (Method 985.01, Association of Official Analytical Chemists) in a nitric acid hydrogen/peroxide mixture. Total C and N will be analyzed using a dry combustion C and N analyzer (LECO, St. Joseph, MI). Soil samples will be oven dried at 55°C until weight losses cease, and then passed through a 2-­‐mm standard testing sieve prior to nutrient analyses. Soils will be analyzed for exchangeable Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+ (10 g soil in 50 ml 1 M ammonium acetate), NaHCO3-­‐-­‐P (2 g soil in 50 ml 0.05 M NaHCO3-­‐), and Bray-­‐P (2 g soil in 0.5 M HCl plus 1 M NH4F) using a Jarrell Ash ion coupled plasma spectrophotometer (Thermo Jarrell Ash Corp., Franklin, MA). Soil total C and total N will be analyzed using a dry combustion C and N analyzer (LECO, St. Joseph, MI) and for NH4+ and NO3-­‐ (1 M KCl extraction followed by analysis on a Lachat 8000 flow-­‐injection analyzer with Cetac xyz autosampler). Selected soil samples will be analyzed for stable C and N isotopes using a continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS; 20-­‐30 mass spectrometer, PDZEuropa, Northwich, UK) after sample combustion in an on-­‐line elemental analyzer (PDZEuropa ANCA-­‐GSL). Collectively, these data can tell us much about the impacts of fire on nutrient cycling and mobility in watersheds of the Lake Tahoe Basin and eastern Sierras. Although we are unaware of any agencies having established management thresholds based on our data thus far, the accumulating database should lend itself to identification of baseline nutrient status. To monitor inorganic N and P fluxes through the soil profile, resin lysimeters as described by Susfalk and Johnson (2002) will be installed at five randomly-­‐assigned locations in each 0.04 ha study plot in both control and burned areas. The resin lysimeters will be installed at two depths: one just at the O horizon mineral soil interface (collecting from the O horizon, or after the fire, from the O horizon + ash) and one set at 20 cm in the mineral soil. Once the lysimeters are removed from the field, the resins will be removed and extracted by shaking in 100 mL of 1 M KCl for one hour and analyzed with either a Quick 12
Chem 800 flow injection auto analyzer (Lachat, Milwaukee, WI)) or an Alpkem segmented flow auto analyzer (Pulse Instrumentation Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada) for ortho-­‐P, NH4+, and NO3-­‐. In addition, a Plant Root Simulator (PRSTM) probes (Western Ag Innovations, Inc., Saskatoon, Canada) will be installed adjacent to each resin lysimeter. The PRS probes are a convenient, nearly non-­‐destructive way to monitor soil nutrient availability. The PRS probes consist of anion or cation exchange membranes imbedded in plastic stakes measuring approximately 14 cm in length, 3 cm in width, and 0.4 cm in thickness. They are inserted so that 10 cm of the resin is exposed to mineral soil and left to accumulate nutrients over the winter season. The PRS probes are extracted with 17.5 ml of 0.5 N HCl for one hour in a zip lock bag, and the extractant is analyzed for NH4+ and NO3-­‐ colorimetrically using a Technicon Autoanlyzer II. The remaining nutrients on the extract are analyzed with the use of inductively-­‐coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (Perkin Elmer Optima 3000-­‐DV ICP; Perkin Elmer, Inc. Shelton, CT). The values for both the probes were reported in units of 10 µmol cm-­‐2 of resin surface. To determine surface water nutrient inputs and outputs, rain gauge and surface runoff collectors (Miller et al., 2005) will be installed at each control and burn site study plot. To monitor soil solution, tension lysimeters (SoilMoisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA) will be installed in each study plot at a depth of 30 cm. Precipitation, overland flow runoff, and soil solution concentrations will be analyzed for inorganic N, P, and S content. Ortho-­‐P, NH4+, and NO3-­‐ will be analyzed with either a Quick Chem 800 flow injection auto-­‐analyzer (Lachat, Milwaukee, WI) or an Alpkem segmented flow auto analyzer (Pulse Instrumentation Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada). Sulfate is analyzed by high performance ion exchange chromatography (Dionex Corp., Sunnyvale, CA) and solution pH is determined using a glass electrode. Selected solution samples will be analyzed for stable C and N isotopes using a continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS; 20-­‐30 mass spectrometer, PDZEuropa, Northwich, UK) after sample combustion in an on-­‐line elemental analyzer (PDZEuropa ANCA-­‐GSL). Frequency and duration (short term objectives) The successful fruition of rapid response objectives is predicated on early if not immediate access to the wildfire location once the fire itself is no longer an issue. Initial ash and soil samples must be obtained and field sampling equipment installed prior to any form or amount of precipitation, runoff, and/or wind erosion event. For this reason, control and burn site samples must be collected simultaneously. Precipitation, runoff, soil solution, resin lysimeters, and PRS probes will be sampled immediately following the first significant precipitation event, and each event thereafter for at least 2 months following the wildfire pending climatic activity. In the absence of substantive precipitation over the first 2 months following wildfire, the measurement timeline will be extended accordingly. Repeat soil samples should be collected following termination of the rapid response program (~2 months). Longer term objectives can be addressed through continued sampling over time. Cost estimates a. Installation and site set-­‐up (15 sites) b. Per site sampling (deployment and collection of samples) c. Data analysis and reporting $12,000 $10,000 $15,000 Total estimated cost: $37,000 Team Leaders: Wally W. Miller and Dale W. Johnson Length of data collection: 60 days or more pending climatic events. 13
Deliverables: Final report, including the database of field and laboratory data, data analyses and interpretive reports, due 45 days after data collection (including analytical work) has been completed. 14
Chapter 4: Stream Water Quality and Aquatic Resources Wildfires can have highly variable effects on downstream water quality conditions and aquatic resources, depending upon the influence of several, event-­‐specific factors including fire severity, burn area topography, soil type, vegetation, post-­‐event precipitation patterns, and land use. The July 2002 Gondola fire above Stateline, NV burned 673 acres, and caused substantially increased nutrients concentrations in Eagle Rock Creek that persisted for several years. In contrast, monitoring after the July 2007 Angora fire in South Lake Tahoe, CA, which burned about 3100 acres, showed only modest changes in downstream water quality evident over a shorter period of time. This difference in post-­‐
wildfire stream water quality response was attributed to very different precipitation patterns after each fire. Although fire impacts on water quality and aquatic resources remain largely unpredictable, a focused rapid response effort to evaluate these effects can improve scientific understanding of the underlying ecological processes, and will generate information that can inform remediation and restoration efforts. A. Direct Effects on Water Quality Key questions 1. What are the characteristics of post-­‐fire runoff and associated impacts on downstream water quality conditions? Fires directly and indirectly affect the mobilization and transport of sediment, nutrients and other chemicals derived from vegetation and soils in the burn zone. Other types of pollutants may be released as a consequence of fire fighting efforts and post-­‐fire remediation, or when wildfires consume materials associated with human development. The extent of impact on downstream receiving waters depends on site conditions, fire and climate characteristics, as well as on proximity to sensitive aquatic resources. To develop an understanding of specific impacts, it is necessary to characterize both watershed runoff quantity and water quality. 2. What are the primary factors that influence pollutant loads resulting from wildfire and restoration? As discussed above, the effects of wildfire on water quality can be highly variable. Improved understanding of the primary factors that influence these characteristics is needed. Therefore, to the extent possible, water quality monitoring should be conducted in coordination with the application of specific management practices or testing strategies that could link stream water quality changes to soils and vegetation management. 3. What are the trends in post-­‐fire runoff effects, and how long will they persist? Wildfire effects on water quality and quantity may be transitory or persistent, depending upon site and fire characteristics. Although longer-­‐term monitoring is not the subject of this rapid response plan, it is relevant to consider site features and sampling strategies that are suited to both short-­‐term evaluation 15
and to continued longer-­‐term monitoring if necessary after the rapid response effort has been completed. General design of data collection effort Ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams are all at risk of water quality deterioration due to wildfire impacts. In some cases, extremely high runoff flows and pollutant loads may occur if intense precipitation events take place over the burned area prior to remediation and restoration. Therefore, it is important to establish sites and implement the water quality monitoring as soon as possible. Site selection Potential stream monitoring sites should be identified based on a GIS review of area topography and stream distribution, vegetation types, soil type and geology, land use, and fire perimeter maps. Initial site selection is to be followed by site reconnaissance to assess access, stream conditions, and suitability for stream monitoring installations. At a minimum two stream monitoring sites are required, one above and one below the burn area. If an above-­‐burn site is not available, it may be practical to identify a nearby site outside of the burn area to serve as a control. It is strongly recommended that monitoring occur on at least one site outside of the burn area to provide ambient data from a similar watershed for comparison to runoff from the burned areas. Ideally this would be an existing location with data available from previous monitoring. Installation of more than two monitoring sites may be indicated if the wildfire is very large, or if it has burned area(s) of particular concern. Localized monitoring on Lake Tahoe near the point of discharge from the burned area may be warranted in some cases. Stream installations would include a well defined transect with a fixed staff gauge, a continuous stage monitoring device, and a nearby precipitation gauge. Monitoring efforts related to geomorphic conditions are described below in Section B. Indicators and sampling protocols Traditional water quality indictors include the macro-­‐nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon in both soluble and total forms), suspended sediment concentrations and particle size distributions, electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity. Sampling would typically be conducted with depth integrating samplers at equal width interval increments, using standard USGS procedures, Grab samples may be collected instead of cross-­‐sectional, depth-­‐integrated samples when the water flows are very low and shallow or dangerously high. Depending upon site characteristics and the level of development, other indicators of particular interest may include toxic compounds, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and major ions. However, these specialized indicators can be expensive to obtain and analyze, so they should only be included when necessary. Frequency and duration of monitoring Two different types of runoff monitoring will be conducted: 1) on a periodic schedule to represent non-­‐
event runoff conditions, and 2) on an episodic basis to represent event runoff characteristics. Periodic manual flow measurements (for calibration) and sampling should occur on a weekly basis during the first month, then every other week in the second month (and monthly thereafter if the monitoring effort is extended). In the case of anticipated significant precipitation (≥ 0.25 inch/24 hrs.) or runoff from snowmelt, each site must be sampled immediately prior to the event if more than seven days has passed since the last periodic sampling. During runoff events the sampling must be conducted at intervals sufficient to describe runoff characteristics. Usually at least three individual grab samples are desired for an event: one during the mid-­‐stage of a rising hydrograph, one near the peak of the hydrograph, and then one during mid-­‐stage of the falling hydrograph (a fourth sample in the tailing arm of the hydrograph could be an appropriate addition). These should be analyzed as separate samples. 16
Event mean concentration (EMC) can be determined from the analytic results and flow data using flow-­‐
weighted calculations. Additional samples can be collected as desired and either composited according to the above schedule prior to analysis or analyzed as separate samples with the EMC calculated post-­‐
analysis. Continuous flow data are required for determination of flow-­‐weighted composites and accurate determination of loads. Therefore, a suitable site cross-­‐section should be chosen to accommodate the full range of anticipated flows within a stable channel profile along with the recording stage or flow logger. All significant runoff events during the rapid response period should be monitored and sampled, with continued monitoring thereafter determined on the basis of available funding and degree of expected impacts. Cost estimates The projected costs for stream water quality monitoring shown below are based on the assumption that two monitoring sites will be established after a wildfire and that no automated sampling equipment is used. The monitoring duration is for two months, and assumes additional sampling to characterize two precipitation events during that time, generating a total of 24 samples (with an additional 20% for field QC). Sample analyses consist of the traditional indicators listed above. a.
b.
c.
d.
Site selection, installation, and set-­‐up (two sites) $4,000 Gauge monitoring and sample collection (two months) $8,000 Sample analyses (with QC) $12,000 Data analysis and reporting $12,500 Total estimated cost (two sites): $36,500 Team Leaders: Alan Heyvaert, Todd Mihevc, Collin Strasenburgh. Length of data collection: 60 days after fire suppression is completed. Deliverables: Final report, including the database of field and laboratory data, data analyses and interpretive reports. Due 60 days after final sample collection. B. Consequences on Aquatic Resources Key questions 1. What effects does a wildfire have on aquatic biological communities in riparian zones? Aquatic biological communities including macroinvertebrates, amphibians, fish and other sensitive species can suffer habitat loss and direct mortality as a consequence of wildfire. In some cases these impacts may trigger specific restoration requirements. 2. Are there important changes in channel morphology and stream ecology resulting from the fire and subsequent management practices? Ecological conditions are important for aquatic system resilience and stability. Features of particular interest include channel morphology, bank stability, debris distribution, and stream substrate composition. Changes in channel morphology, debris and substrate affect both stream hydrology and ecological habitats. General design of data collection effort Cross-­‐sectional and longitudinal stream surveys should be used to identify detrimental impacts in areas of concern and to assess general stability of the riparian environment. At the same time these surveys 17
can document evidence of mortality and ecological conditions under initial post-­‐fire conditions, which will be important for evaluating potential habitat restoration activities and species recovery efforts. Site selection As with identification of stream monitoring sites, the areas selected for stream channel and habitat surveys should be identified based on GIS review of area topography (including digital elevation maps), streams, vegetation, geology, land use, and fire perimeter maps. Any previous channel surveys conducted within the burn area should be identified, and these sites should be re-­‐examined as part of the initial survey. A minimum of two stream channel reaches within the burn area should be selected for both longitudinal and profile surveys. These sites should be representative of longer stream sections with channel gradients that are typical for the area. Additional channel reaches may be surveyed if the area is very heterogeneous or if stream features of particular concern are identified. Indicators and sampling protocols Typical indicators of stream morphological condition include channel planform changes, sinuosity and slope, entrenchment ratio, bank height and angle, and width to depth ratio. Additional factors that may be relevant include sediment accumulations, size distribution of bed material, and faunal composition. Each selected reach should include a complete meander and be at least 20 times the bank-­‐full channel width. Channel survey pins can be installed during the initial surveys to serve as long-­‐term reference points in tracking cross-­‐sectional changes to channel configuration. Channel profiles should be measured by rod and level method, by alternative rapid thalweg procedures, with ground-­‐based LiDAR, or a suitable combination of these approaches. Ecological habitat can be evaluated by visual assessment of channel features, and substrate and biota sampling within a subset of macro-­‐habitat units along the channel reach. This should include the collection and analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples to evaluate stream ecological condition, although other sensitive or endangered species may be included as appropriate when based on prior distribution data. The samples should be collected and analyzed in terms of habitat diversity indices as described in standard operating procedures for bioassessment by the California Surface Ambient Monitoring Program (or equivalent USEPA methods for bioassessment). In some cases, existing survey sites in adjacent watersheds with similar characteristics may serve as useful comparison sites for habitat assessment. Assessments between comparable sites may be particularly important to gauge the performance of remediation or restoration efforts. Frequency and duration of monitoring Monitoring of morphological and ecological conditions should be conducted as soon as possible after wildfire suppression has been completed. The information from a comprehensive reconnaissance visit can inform both the aquatic resource evaluation and the selection of sites for subsequent water quality monitoring. These surveys should be repeated at the end of two months to assess short-­‐term changes in stream condition. Continued assessment of geomorphic and ecological conditions may be necessary on an annual basis after the rapid response period is ended to identify longer-­‐term patterns and post-­‐
fire stabilization trends. Cost estimates The projected costs for stream aquatic resource monitoring are based on the assumption that a minimum of two complete channel reaches will be surveyed within the burned area. An equivalent effort is anticipated for documenting the initial stream channel reconnaissance prior to site selection for profiles and habitat assessment. Sample analysis will include determination of substrate composition, and macroinvertebrate and sensitive species identification and enumeration. a. Initial stream channel reconnaissance $3,000 18
b. Channel surveys (twice at two sites) c. Substrate and biota sample analyses d. Data analysis and reporting $6,000 $3,500 $10,500 Total estimated cost (two sites): $22,500 Team Leaders: Rick Susfalk, Sudeep Chandra, Alan Heyvaert. Length of data collection: Up to 60 days after fire suppression is completed. Deliverables: Final report, including the database of field and laboratory data, data analyses and interpretive reports. Due 60 days after final sample collection. 19
Chapter 5: Communication coordination and access issues Wildfire rapid science response efforts are valuable because they can provide information and knowledge about the effects of the fire that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the rapid response efforts described in this plan will require researchers to directly engage with teams managing the response to an active wildfire. The first priority of these teams is fire suppression and minimizing the damage to life and property. In all cases, the efforts described in this plan would occur while the fire is active but outside the fire perimeter, or inside the fire perimeter after the fire is out. This approach obviates the need for researchers to obtain permission from the Incident Management Team to enter the fire perimeter while the fire is active. However, personnel safety is of paramount importance. Severe hazards exist within the burn area even after the fire is out. All individuals will be expected to wear proper clothing and safety equipment and follow all safety rules of their home institution, the landowner, and fire suppression personnel. The TSC has worked with the major public land owners in the Tahoe Basin (i.e., USFS, CTC, CDPR, NDSL, and NDSP0 to secure advance permission to access areas affected by a wildfire. These permissions and the conditions associated with them are included in Appendix A. Communication Strategy for Execution of the Rapid Response Plan The TSC executive director will initiate and coordinate the communications associated with identification of a catastrophe eligible for rapid response funding, as well as the specific response. The science team leader(s) for a rapid response science effort will likely depend on the location of the wildlife (California, Nevada, or both), and the underlying land ownership (Federal, State, or local). The science team leader(s) and the TSC executive director will work together to define, communicate, and implement the specific rapid science response efforts. The process for determining and funding rapid response science efforts is intended to support a well-­‐reasoned and efficient rapid science response. It is the Consortium’s goal to complete the entire process in 1-­‐3 days from agency executive notification that a catastrophe has occurred. Determinations of what work gets funded or the amount of work that an entity might complete will be made upon notification of a catastrophe, and will depend on the type and extent of the catastrophe and the associated critical information needs. The process for determining and funding rapid response science efforts is based on an integrated response operating principle: It is expected that the agencies and institutions providing rapid response efforts will work in a highly collaborative manner to provide an efficient, integrated response. The steps to access and use rapid response funds are as follows: 5. At least two (2) agency executives3 must communicate to the TSC executive director that a catastrophe has occurred in the Tahoe Basin, which would benefit from immediate efforts to 3
For a wildfire the TSC would expect to receive communications from executives from any two of the following agencies: US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Division of Forestry, Nevada Division of State Parks, Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, California Tahoe Conservancy, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 20
collect data or other types of information that are within the purview of the rapid response fund. This communication also will identify any additional resources (e.g., additional funding, staff, equipment, supplies, or assistance in obtaining access or permissions) the executives can provide to support rapid response efforts. Any mode of communication is acceptable to facilitate the rapid transfer of information, but a follow-­‐up email or letter documenting the executives’ communication is required. This communication is very important as it will be a fundamental component of the funding expenditure rationale that PSW is required to provide to BLM. 6. Members of the TSC Committee of Scientists (COS) and the science community will work together to determine what rapid response science efforts are most appropriate, and identify an entity/individual to serve as response project leader. This information will be communicated to relevant agency representatives to seek their advice and support. 7. The COS will make recommendations to PSW as to which institutions and individuals are most qualified and appropriate to complete the identified rapid response efforts. Factors considered in developing the recommendations include but are not limited to applicable expertise, availability, and cost efficiencies. 8. PSW will pursue agreement augmentations with the appropriate entities to fund completion of the identified rapid response efforts. The team leader will serve as the liaison between the research team and the relevant government agencies. This includes serving as the point of contact to obtain researcher access within the fire perimeter and implementation of activities described in this rapid response plan. Rapid Response Research Team Contact Information Lead scientist contact information is provided below for each topic area considered in this wildfire rapid response monitoring plan. Communication and Rapid Response Logistics Coordination Maureen McCarthy, Executive Director, Tahoe Science Consortium. (775) 881-­‐7561; mimccarthy@unr.edu Air Quality David Barnes, Research Scientist, John Muir Institute for the Environment, University of California, Davis. (530) 752-­‐1120; debarnes@ucdavis.edu John Reuter, Research Faculty and Associate Director, Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of California, Davis. (530) 304-­‐1473; jereuter@ucdavis.edu Geoffrey Schladow, Professor and Director, Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of California, Davis. (530) 752-­‐3942; gschladow@ucdavis.edu Upland Soils Wally Miller, Professor, Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada, Reno. (775) 784-­‐4072; wilymalr@cabnr.unr.edu Dale Johnson, Professor, Environmental and Resource Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno. (775) 784-­‐4511; dwj@cabnr.unr.edu 21
Water Quality and Aquatic Resources Alan Heyvaert, Assistant Research Professor, Division of Hydrologic Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. (775) 673-­‐7322; alan.heyvaert@dri.edu Rick Susfalk, Associate Research Scientist, Division of Hydrologic Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. (775) 673-­‐7453; rick.susfalk@dri.edu Sudeep Chandra, Associate Professor, Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno. (775) 784-­‐6221; sudeep@cabnr.unr.edu Land Management and Regulatory Agency Contact Information Contact information for key land management and regulatory agencies in the basin are included below. This list is not exhaustive, since it does not include cities, counties, public utility districts, or general improvement districts. US Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Primary contact: Joey Keely, Ecosystem Staff Officer, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USFS Region 5, South Lake Tahoe, California. (530) 543-­‐2661; jkeely@fs.fed.us Alternate contact: Sue Norman, Physical sciences leader, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USFS Region 5, South Lake Tahoe, California. (530) 543-­‐2662; snorman@fs.fed.us California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) Brian Hirt, Forester, California Tahoe Conservancy, South Lake Tahoe, California. (530) 543-­‐6049; bhirt@tahoe.ca.gov. Amy Cecchettini, Public Land Management Specialist, California Tahoe Conservancy, South Lake Tahoe, California. (530) 543-­‐6033; acecchettini@tahoecons.ca.gov California State Parks Tamara Sasaki, Natural Resources Program Manager, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Sierra District, Tahoma, California. (530) 525-­‐9535; tsasaki@parks.ca.gov California Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) Doug Smith, Division Chief, Basin Planning Unit, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Lake Tahoe, California. (530) 542-­‐5453; dsmith@waterboards.ca.gov In general, the disturbance associated with monitoring equipment installations does not trigger the need for permits, prohibition, or exceptions. However, considering site-­‐specific issues and the variability in equipment, researchers should contact the Lahontan Water Board to discuss any proposed installations and determine whether formal approvals will be needed. Nevada Division of State Lands Primary contact: Robert Gregg, Tahoe Team Leader, Nevada Division of State Lands, Carson City, NV. (775) 684-­‐2725; rgregg@lands.nv.gov. Alternate contact: Elyse Randles, State Land Agent, Nevada Division of State Lands, Carson City, NV. (775) 684-­‐2735; erandles@lands.nv.gov. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Shane Romsos, Acting Chief, Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Stateline, NV. (775) 589-­‐5201; sromos@trpa.org. 22
Permits would be required for moving volumes of soil in excess of 3 cubic meters in sensitive areas and 7 cubic meters in high capability lands. Also, projects that would disturb a sensitive species may require some form of permit or disclosure. 23
References Carroll-­‐Moore, E.M., W.W. Miller, D.W. Johnson, L.S. Saito, R.G. Qualls, and R.F. Walker. 2007. Spatial analysis of a high magnitude erosion event following a Sierran wildfire. J. Enviorn. Qual. 36:1105-­‐1111. Fusina, L., Zhong, S., Koracin, J., Brown, T., Esperanza, A., Tarney, L., et al. (2007). Validation of BlueSky Smoke Prediction System Using Surface and Satellite Observations during Major Wildland Fire Events in Northern California. Pp. 403-­‐408 in: Butler, Bret W.; Cook, Wayne, comps. 2007. The fire environment—innovations, management, and policy; conference proceedings. 26-­‐30 March 2007; Destin, FL. Proceedings RMRS-­‐P-­‐46CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 662 p. CD-­‐ROM. Gullet, B.K. and Touati, A. 2003. PCDD/F emissions from forest fire simulations, Atmos. Environ. 37, pp. 803–813. Hackley, S.H., B.C. Allen, D.A. Hunter and J.E. Reuter. 2010. Lake Tahoe Water Quality Investigations: July 1, 2007-­‐ June 30, 2010. Tahoe Environmental Research Center, John Muir Institute for the Environment, University of California, Davis. 134 p. Klute, A. (ed). 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part I – Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI. Lentile, L.; Morgan, P.; Hardy, C.; Hudak, A.; Means, R.; Ottmar, R.; Robichaud, P.; Kennedy Sutherland, E.; Szymoniak, J.; Way, F.; Fites-­‐Kaufman, J.; Lewis, S.; Mathews, E.; Shovik, H.; Ryan, K. 2007. Value and challenges of conducting rapid response research on wildland fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS GTR-­‐193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p. Letey, John Jr. 1969. Measurement of contact angle, water drop penetration time, and critical surface tension. p.43-­‐47. In: L.F. DeBano and J. Letey Jr. (ed.), Proceedings of a symposium on water repellent soils. University of California, Riverside, CA. Manley, P., Fites-­‐Kaufman, J., Barbour, M., Schlesinger, M., and Rizzo, D. 2000. Biological integrity. Pages 403-­‐597 in D. D. Murphy and C. Knopp, eds. Lake Tahoe watershed assessment: Volume I. USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA. Meyer, C., Beer, T., Muller, J., Gillett, R., Weeks, I., Powell, J., Tolhurst, K., McCaw, L., Cook, G., Marney, D., and Symons, C. 2004. Dioxin emissions from bushfires in Australia. National Dioxins Program Technical Report No.1. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage. Miller, W.W., D.W. Johnson, C. Denton, P.S.J. Verburg, G.L. Dana, and R.F. Walker. 2005. Inconspicuous nutrient laden surface runoff from mature forest Sierran watersheds. J. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Vol 163, Numbers 1-­‐4, pages 3-­‐17. 24
Miller, W.W., D.W. Johnson, T.M. Loupe, J.S. Sedinger, E.M. Carroll, J.D. Murphy, R.F. Walker, and D. Glass. 2006. Nutrients flow from runoff at burned forest site in Lake Tahoe Basin. California Agriculture 60:65-­‐71. Murphy, J.D., D.W. Johnson, W.W. Miller, R.F. Walker, E.F. Carroll, and R.R. Blank. 2006. Wildfire effects on soil nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe Basin watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 35:479-­‐489. Ottmar, R. 2010. E-­‐mail communication to Jonathan Long received 7 January 2010. Reuter, J., B. Allen, A. Liston, S. Hackley, T. Cahill, G. Schladow and A. Paytan. 2008. Immediate Environmental Impacts of the Angora Fire: Air Quality, Atmospheric Deposition and Lake Tahoe Water Quality. 4th Biennial Tahoe Basin Science Conference, March 17-­‐19, 2008, Incline Village, NV. Saito, L.S., W.W. Miller, D.W. Johnson, R.G. Qualls, L. Provencher, E.M. Carroll-­‐Moore, and P. Szameitat. 2007. Fire effects on stable isotopes in a Sierran forest watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 36:91-­‐100. Susfalk R.B. and D.W. Johnson. 2002. Ion exchange resin based soil solution lysimeters and snowmelt collectors. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33: 1261-­‐1275. Susfalk, R., A. Heyvaert, T. Mihevc, B. Fitzgerald and K. Taylor. 2009. Linking On-­‐Shore and Near-­‐Shore Processes: Near-­‐Shore Water Quality Monitoring Buoy at Lake Tahoe. Publication by the Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV. 48 p. Topp, G.C., W.D. Reynolds, and R.E. Green (eds). 1992. Advances in Measurement of Soil Physical Properties: Bringing Theory into Practice. SSSA Special Publication Number 30. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI. Tahoe Environmental Research Center [TERC]. 2010. Tahoe State of the Lake Report 2010. 69 pages. Accessed on March 7, 2011 at http://terc.ucdavis.edu/stateofthelake/StateOfTheLake2010.pdf. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 2009. Effects of fuels management in the Tahoe basin: a scientific literature review. 306 pp. Accessed on March 30, 2011 at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/fuel_management.shtml. Weisberg, P.J., S. Ganschow, W.W. Miller, and D.W. Johnson. 2008. Validation of a landscape-­‐level simulation model for analyzing biomass management impacts on forest ecosystems. Final Report. USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 44pp. 25
26
Appendix A Advance Permission and Conditions for Access to Burn Areas on Public Lands in the Tahoe Basin 27