DOCSLIB.ORG

MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Community Wildfire Protection Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Community Wildfire Protection Plan MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for: Mono County Mammoth Lakes, California Submitted By: Anchor Point Group Boulder, Colorado May, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN AND THE HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT..................................2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................................................3 COLLABORATION: COMMUNITY / AGENCIES / COUNCILS.......................................................................4 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................5 VALUES.....................................................................................................................................................................10 RECREATION AND LIFESTYLE ..................................................................................................................................10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................10 CURRENT RISK SITUATION.......................................................................................................................................11 FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS....................................................................................................................12 FIRE BEHAVIOR POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................................19 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING LIMITATIONS AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................................19 RATE OF SPREAD......................................................................................................................................................20 FLAME LENGTH........................................................................................................................................................22 CROWN FIRE ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................................................25 RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS............................................................................................................................28 ADDRESSING...........................................................................................................................................................29 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................31 PUBLIC EDUCATION.............................................................................................................................................32 PUBLIC EDUCATION.............................................................................................................................................32 Organizational Recommendations.......................................................................................................................32 Ordinances recommendations .............................................................................................................................33 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS RECOMENDATIONS....................................................................33 HOME MITIGATION..............................................................................................................................................35 DEFENSIBLE SPACE ..................................................................................................................................................36 BRUSH AND SHRUBS ..........................................................................................................................................39 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................40 LOCAL PREPAREDNESS AND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES.................................................................41 TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................41 FIREFIGHTER SAFETY ...............................................................................................................................................42 COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................42 EQUIPMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................42 WATER SUPPLY........................................................................................................................................................43 FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS ..................................................................................................................44 MONO COUNTY EXISTING AND FUTURE FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS ...................................46 INYO NATIONAL FOREST EXISTING FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS IN MONO COUNTY ........................................47 HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, BRIDGEPORT DISTRICT: FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS – MONO COUNTY ...................................................................................................................................................................48 BLM EXISTING FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS IN MONO COUNTY ......................................................................48 BLM FUTURE FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS IN MONO COUNTY.........................................................................49 ii MAMMOTH LAKES FIRE DEPARTMENT FUEL REDUCTION ZONES.....................................................50 MONO COUNTY CWPP RECOMMENDED FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS....................................51 GLOSSARY ...............................................................................................................................................................52 RECOMMENDED READING ................................................................................................................................55 WEBSITE RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................................57 TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. MONO COUNTY COMMUNITY HAZARD RATING MAP ..........................................................6 FIGURE 2. INYO AND MONO COUNTY WUI BOUNDARIES.........................................................................7 FIGURE 3. MONO COUNTY SLOPES ..................................................................................................................8 FIGURE 4. MONO COUNTY ELEVATIONS........................................................................................................9 FIGURE 5. FIRE REGIME AND CONDITION CLASS.....................................................................................14 FIGURE 6. DATA EXTENT FOR MONO COUNTY FIRE HISTORY............................................................15 FIGURE 7. NUMBER OF FIRES BY YEAR (1986-2006) ...................................................................................16 FIGURE 8. HISTORIC FIRE PERIMETERS: LARGE FIRES.........................................................................18 FIGURE 9. RATE OF SPREAD, MODERATE FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS.........................................20 FIGURE 10. RATE OF SPREAD, EXTREME FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS ..........................................21 FIGURE 11. FLAME LENGTH, MODERATE FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS .........................................23 FIGURE 12. FLAME LENGTH, EXTREME FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS ............................................24 FIGURE 13. CROWN FIRE ACTIVITY, MODERATE FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS ..........................25 FIGURE 14. CROWN FIRE ACTIVITY, EXTREME FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS..............................26 FIGURE 15. MONO COUNTY COMMUNITY HAZARD RATINGS ..............................................................35 FIGURE 16. SADDLE & RIDGE TOP DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................36 FIGURE 17. DEFENSIBLE SPACE ZONES (TIMBER AND BRUSH LANDS)..............................................38 FIGURE 18. DEFENSIBLE SPACE ZONES (GRASS LANDS).........................................................................38 FIGURE 19. USFS EXISTING AND PROPOSED FUELS TREATMENTS.....................................................46 FIGURE 20. MLFD FUEL REDUCTION ZONES...............................................................................................50 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. MONO COUNTY CWPP DEVELOPMENT TEAM...........................................................................4 TABLE 2. CONDITION CLASS DESCRIPTIONS..............................................................................................13
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007
    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity
    fire The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity s is evidenced year after year, the na- ture of the “fire problem” in south- Jon E. Keeley, Hugh Safford, C.J. Fotheringham, A ern California differs from most of Janet Franklin, and Max Moritz the rest of the United States, both by nature and degree. Nationally, the highest losses in ϳ The 2007 wildfire season in southern California burned over 1,000,000 ac ( 400,000 ha) and property and life caused by wildfire occur in included several megafires. We use the 2007 fires as a case study to draw three major lessons about southern California, but, at the same time, wildfires and wildfire complexity in southern California. First, the great majority of large fires in expansion of housing into these fire-prone southern California occur in the autumn under the influence of Santa Ana windstorms. These fires also wildlands continues at an enormous pace cost the most to contain and cause the most damage to life and property, and the October 2007 fires (Safford 2007). Although modest areas of were no exception because thousands of homes were lost and seven people were killed. Being pushed conifer forest in the southern California by wind gusts over 100 kph, young fuels presented little barrier to their spread as the 2007 fires mountains experience the same negative ef- reburned considerable portions of the area burned in the historic 2003 fire season. Adding to the size fects of long-term fire suppression that are of these fires was the historic 2006–2007 drought that contributed to high dead fuel loads and long evident in other western forests (e.g., high distance spotting.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES JASON KING, P.E. STATE ENGINEER ANTELOPE VALLEY (HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 9-106) GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE INVENTORY WATER YEAR 2010 By: Brandy Cardona, NDWR TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1 HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 3 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. Location Map of Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin 9-106 ............................... 4 Table 1. USGS Stream Flow Measurements .......................................................................... 4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS ......................................................................................................... 5 METHODS TO ESTIMATE PUMPAGE ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Location Map of Antelope Valley Groundwater Level-Monitoring Network ....... 6 PUMPAGE BY MANNER OF USE .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Vulnerability Assessment for Mendocino County ______
    FIRE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ August 2020 Mendocino County Fire Vulnerability Assessment ________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I- OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 B. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. Mendocino County Description and Demographics ................................................................ 7 D. Planning Area Basis .................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION II- COUNTY WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 9 A. Wildfire Threat ......................................................................................................................... 9 B. Weather/Climate ........................................................................................................................ 9 C. Topography ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Fuel Hazards ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Mclean: from the CAL FIRE Information Center, I'm Scott Mclean with the CAL FIRE Report for Monday, August 26, 2019. La
    Scott McLean: From the CAL FIRE Information Center, I’m Scott McLean with the CAL FIRE Report for Monday, August 26, 2019. Last week, amid yet another week of triple digit temperatures, California firefighters saw a steady flow of new wildfires. In total, 202 new fires started statewide, across all jurisdictions. Of those 202, 164 were within CAL FIRE’s jurisdiction. Switching over to our Statewide Fire Map, you can see that there are currently 4 active wildfires with most of those in Northern California. Let’s take a closer look at a few of those active fires, starting with the Mountain Fire in Shasta County. The Mountain Fire started on Thursday, August 22 north of Bella Vista. Within just a few hours, it grew to 600 acres and led to the evacuation of several surrounding communities. However, thanks to the aggressive initial attack by firefighters, the Mountain Fire was kept from growing further, and residents were able to return home relatively quickly. The Mountain Fire currently remains at 600 acres, and is 95% contained. Next up, another fire started yesterday along the California-Mexico border. This one is known as the Border 10 Fire and is burning along the area east of the Otay port of entry, about half a mile south of the border. The Border 10 fire did cross over into the US, but firefighters were able to quickly stop its spread at 20 acres. The Border 10 fire is currently 75% contained. And lastly, we have the Long Valley Fire which started over the weekend off Highway 395 north of the Hallelujah Junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Management Committee Safety Gram 2018
    SAFETY GRAM 2018 Fatalities, Entrapments and Accident Summary for 2018 (http://www.nwcg.gov/committees/risk-management-committee/resources) The following data indicates the fatalities, entrapments, burnovers and fire shelter deployments during calendar year 2018. The information was collected by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center and verified by the NWCG Risk Management Committee. Fatalities Incident Name Agency/Entity Number # Date Type of Jurisdiction Activity of Personnel of Shelters Fatalities Injuries/Treatment Accident Location Involved People Deployed 1/26 Puerto Rico Pack Test Work Capacity Test Local Government Medical 1 1 Cardiac Arrest Fatality Arduous San Juan Puerto Rico 2/28 Water Tender Accident Initial Attack Local Government Vehicle 3 1 2 injured, 1 fatality Fatality VFD New London TX 3/10 Grass Fire Fatality UNK Local Government UNK 1 1 Incident date: 3/10 Ellinger VFD (Suspected Medical) Deceased: 3/23 TX 3/12 Hazard Tree Mitigation Chainsaw Federal Medical 1 1 Fell unconscious, Fatality Operations USFS transported to Olympic NF hospital. Deceased WA 3/15 Grass Fire Fatality Initial Attack Local Government Medical 1 1 Fell ill and collapsed UNK Heart Attack on 3/16. OH Deceased: 3/16 1 Incident Name Agency/Entity Number # Date Type of Jurisdiction Activity of Personnel of Shelters Fatalities Injuries/Treatment Accident Location Involved People Deployed 4/12 Shaw Fire Initial Attack Local Government Entrapment 2 1 1 fatality; 1 FF with Cheyenne 2nd degree burns. OK 4/18 Rocky Mount Fatality Initial Attack Local Government Medical 1 1 Neck and back pain VA VFD on 4/18. Deceased: 4/19 4/21 Training Hike Fatality Fitness Training State Medical 1 1 Collapsed, treated on CA Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfire Impacts of Poorly-Planned Development in San Diego County
    November 13, 2018 Via Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery (with references) San Diego County Board of Supervisors Attn: David Hall Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, CA 92101 [email protected] Re: Wildfire Impacts of Poorly-planned Development in San Diego County Dear Supervisors: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) regarding the approval or pending approval of the following Projects: 1. Warner Ranch 2. Lilac Hills 3. Newland Sierra 4. Valiano 5. Harmony Grove Village South 6. Otay Ranch Village 14, 16, 19 7. Otay Ranch Village 13 8. Otay 250 Sunroad 9. Project Specific Requests (PSRs) While the Center has many concerns regarding the environmental impacts and inadequate analyses provided in the Environmental Impact Reports of the proposed Projects, the purpose of this letter is to voice our concern regarding the public safety impacts of these poorly-planned, sprawl developments in fire-prone chaparral ecosystems in San Diego County. The Center reviewed the Environmental Impact Report of each Project to determine the cumulative impacts of these developments on wildfire risk and analyze the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Project footprints were compared to the fire history and fire threat of the region, as identified by state agencies (the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [Cal Fire] and the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC]), and the total number of housing units and potential residents for all the developments were calculated. The proposed developments would be placed in natural landscapes dominated by fire- prone native chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats that rely on wildfires to persist.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Management Lessons Learned – Evolving Fire Management Programs 1
    Fire Management Lessons Learned Evolving Fire Management Programs on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky and Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument of California Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Washington Office and Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center By Carol Ewell and David Kerr, with contributions by Scott Williams – Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team (AMSET) and Frankie Romero and Tim Sexton – U.S. Forest Service November 2013 Fire Management Lessons Learned – Evolving Fire Management Programs 1 Contents Executive Summary…………………………………….………... 3 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 2. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests……………………………………… 7 Theme 1: Organizational Culture……………………………………………………………… 7 Theme 2: Safety……………………………………………………………………………………..… 19 Theme 3: Economics……………………………………………………………………………..…. 21 Theme 4: Natural Resource Effects and Data Modeling…………………….…….. 22 3. Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument…………..……… 29 Theme 1: Organizational Culture……………………………………………………………… 29 Theme 2: Safety………………………………………………………………………………..……… 40 Theme 3: Economics…………………………………………………………………………..……. 40 Theme 4: Natural Resource Effects and Data Modeling………………………..….. 43 4. National Goals Tie Ecosystem Restoration Together with Fire and Fuel Management…………………………………………………………..………. 47 5. Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………………………………..……….. 48 6. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..…….……. 51 7. References……………………………………………………………………………………………..…….
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 1 Effects of Fire on Fauna January 2000 Abstract _____________________________________ Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Fires affect animals mainly through effects on their habitat. Fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals. These increases are moderated by the animals’ ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the postfire environment. The extent of fire effects on animal communities generally depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused by fire. Stand-replacement fires usually cause greater changes in the faunal communities of forests than in those of grasslands. Within forests, stand- replacement fires usually alter the animal community more dramatically than understory fires. Animal species are adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that characterized their habitat in presettlement times. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines. Keywords: fire effects, fire management, fire regime, habitat, succession, wildlife The volumes in “The Rainbow Series” will be published during the year 2000. To order, check the box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • CAL FIRE 2014 Madera Mariposa Merced Unit
    Last update: 1 Feb 2012 UNIT STRATEGIC FIRE PLAN AMENDMENTS Page Numbers Description Updated Date Section Updated Updated of Update By 4/14 Contents Page ii 2014 Update P4224 5/14 Signature Page 1 Annual Update C4200 4/13 Executive Summary 2 Re-Write C4200 5/13 I 3-6 Re-Write 4200 5/14 II 7-8 Update P4224 4/13 III 9-10 Re-Write NK 4/13 IV 11-19 Update B4220 5/14 V 20-38 Update All Battalions 4/14 Appendix A 39-43 Update F4207 4/14 Appendix B 44 Update C4200 4/13 Appendix C 45-49 Update JP 4/13 Appendix C-1 50 Update JP 4/14 Appendix D 51 Update C4201 4/14 Appendix E 52 Update B4220 4/14 Appendix F 55-56 Update B4211 4/14 Appendix G 57-60 Update B4212 4/14 Appendix H 57-60 Update B4214 4/14 Appendix I 61-62 Update B4215 4/14 Appendix J 63-65 Update B16 4/14 Appendix K 66 Update B17 4/14 Appendix L 67-68 Update B18 4/13 Appendix M 69 Update JP 4/13 Exhibits: Maps 70-77 Update JP 6/1 Accomplishments 78-80 Re-Write P4224 i Last update: 1 May 2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 3 UNIT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County San Mateo County
    Santa Cruz County San Mateo County COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared by: CALFIRE, San Mateo — Santa Cruz Unit The Resource Conservation District for San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County Funding provided by a National Fire Plan grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the California Fire Safe Council. M A Y - 2 0 1 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................2 Background & Collaboration...............................................................................................3 The Landscape .....................................................................................................................6 The Wildfire Problem ..........................................................................................................8 Fire History Map................................................................................................................10 Prioritizing Projects Across the Landscape .......................................................................11 Reducing Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................12 x Construction Methods............................................................................................13 x Education ...............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Toiyabe Forest Plan Vista Towers Comm Site Amendment
    DECISION NOTICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Vista Towers Communications Project USDA Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Bridgeport Ranger District Mono County, California and Douglas County, Nevada Background Communications sites are one of the special uses recognized in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1986). New communications sites on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are required to be designated as such in the LRMP, as required by Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, Chapter 90. The Forest Service has been given direction from the President and Congress to facilitate implementation of the Nation's strategy for wireless communications. • Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771) authorizes the use of National Forest System lands for telecommunications uses. • On August 1 0, 1995, President Clinton released a memorandum entitled "Facilitating Access to Federal Property for the Siting of Mobile Services Antennas." The memorandum requires, upon request, and to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, that executive departments and agencies make available, Federal Government buildings and lands for the siting of mobile service antennas. • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332), Section 704(c) requires Federal agencies to facilitate the development and placement of telecommunications equipment on buildings and land they manage, when placement does not conflict with the agency's mission or current
    [Show full text]