DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4: Fire Hazards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 4: Fire Hazards TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the 2003 SAFETY ELEMENT CITY of GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 4: FIRE HAZARDS 4.1 Wildland Fires Due to its weather, topography and native vegetation, the entire southern California area is at risk from wildland fires. The extended droughts characteristic of California’s Mediterranean climate result in large areas of dry vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. Furthermore, the native vegetation typically has a high oil content that makes it highly flammable. The area is also intermittently impacted by Santa Ana (or Santana) winds, the hot, dry winds that blow across southern California in the spring and late fall. These winds often fan and help spread fires in the region. Combine these conditions with the fact that more people than ever are living and playing in wildland areas, and the potential for major wildland fires to occur increases even further. In fact, the wildfire risk in the United States has increased in the last few decades with the increasing encroachment of residences and other structures into the wildland environment and the enduring drought conditions that have affected some regions. Between 1990 and 1999 inclusive, there were on average 106,347 wildfires annually in the United States, for a combined average annual burn of nearly 3.65 million acres of brush (htpp://nifc.gov/fireinfo/1999/highlites.html). These fires are for the most part caused by people: between 1988 and 1997, human-induced fires burned nearly eight times more acreage than fires caused by lightning. A wildfire that consumes hundreds to thousands of acres of vegetated property can overwhelm local emergency response resources. Under the right wind conditions, multiple ignitions can develop as a result of the wind transport of burning cinders (called brands) over distances of a mile or more. Wildfires in those areas where the wildland approaches or interfaces with the urban environment (referred to as the urban-wildland interface or UWI) can be particularly dangerous and complex, posing a severe threat to public and firefighter safety, and causing devastating losses of life and property. This is because when a wildland fire encroaches onto the built environment, ignited structures can then sustain and transmit the fire from one building to the next. This is what happened at three of the most devastating fires in California: the Oakland Hills/Berkeley Tunnel fire of October 1991, the Laguna fire of 1970 in northern San Diego County, and the Laguna Beach fire of 1993. In the Oakland Hills fire, 25 lives were lost, and 2,900 structures were damaged for a total of $1.7 billion in insured losses. The September 1970 fire, which started as a result of downed power lines, burned 175,425 acres, destroyed 382 structures and killed 5 people. The Laguna Beach fire of 1993 burned 14,437 acres and destroyed 441 homes, but thankfully no lives were lost. It is clear that continuous planning, preparedness, and education are required to reduce the fire hazard potential, and to limit the destruction caused by wildfires. Fires usually last only a few hours or days, but their effects can last much longer, especially in the case of intense fires that develop in areas where large amounts of dry, combustible vegetation have been allowed to accumulate. If wildland fires are followed by a period of intense rainfall, debris flows off the recently burned hillsides can develop. Flood control facilities may be severely taxed by the increased flow from the denuded hillsides and the resulting debris that washes down. If the flood control structures are overwhelmed, widespread damage can ensue in areas down gradient from these failed structures. This happened in several communities in and near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains during the winters of 1934, 1969, 1978, and 1980, with areas below burned watersheds receiving the bulk of the damage. In November 1933, there was a large fire in the Montrose-La Crescenta area that burned more than 5,000 acres. Then, on January 1, 1934, the recently burned watershed experienced an exceptionally intense rainstorm. Debris-laden flows that overtopped canyons impacted the La Crescenta and Glendale areas. Streets were clogged with debris, several bridges were washed out, and several people died (see Chapters 2 and 3). Earth Consultants International Fire Hazards Page 4-1 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the 2003 SAFETY ELEMENT CITY of GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA However, this does not need to happen if remedial measures following a wildfire are taken in anticipation of the next winter. Studies (Cannon, 2001) suggest that in addition to rainfall and slope steepness, other factors that contribute to the formation of post-fire debris flows include the underlying rock type, the shape of the drainage basin, and the presence or absence of water-repellant soils (during a fire, the organic material in the soil may be burned away or decompose into water-repellent substances that prevents water from percolating into the soil.) Other effects of wildfires are economical and social. Homeowners who lose their house to a wildfire may not be able to recover financially and emotionally for years to come. Recreational areas that have been affected may be forced to close or operate at a reduced scale. In addition, the buildings that are destroyed by fire are usually eligible for re-assessment, which reduces income to local governments from property taxes. The impact of wildland fire on plant communities is generally beneficial, although it often takes time for plant communities to re-establish themselves. If a grassland area has been burned, it will re-sprout the following spring. A chaparral community, however, takes three to five years to recover. Oak woodland, which has had most of the seedlings and saplings destroyed by fire, will require at least five to ten years for a new crop to start. Regardless of the comments above, we should not forget that wildland fire is a natural process. In the past, the presumption has been that all wildfire is bad, and that it should therefore be extinguished promptly. This has caused fire-dependent plant communities to grow more densely, which ultimately weakens the plants in their struggle for living space and increases their destruction by pests and disease. Dead and dying plants add fuel for fire. In addition, the absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succession and wildlife habitat in many areas (http://www.nps.gov/gosp/resource/fire_nps.htm). Consequently, land management agencies are now committed to finding ways, such as prescribed burning, to reintroduce fire into natural ecosystems. Future efforts to reduce this hazard need to consider ways of managing wildland fire to benefit the natural environment, while reducing the potential for structural fires in the built environment. Policies developed to manage the fire hazard will be successful if a balance between both goals is obtained. 4.1.1 Wildland Fire Susceptibility Mapping Wildfires have been part of the natural ecosystem in the rolling hillsides and mountains of southern California for thousands of years. Some of the plants native to this area actually require periodic burning to germinate and recycle nutrients that enrich the soils. Researchers have also determined that Native Americans in California used fire to reduce fuel load and improve their ability to hunt and forage. It is thought that as much as 12 percent of the State was burned every year by the various tribes (Coleman, 1994). In the early 20th Century, as development started to encroach onto the foothills, wildfires came to be unacceptable as they posed a hazard with the potential loss of property and even life. As a result, in the early 1920s, the fire service began to prevent wildfires from occurring. Unfortunately, over time, this led to an increase in fuel loads. Wildfires that impact areas with fuel buildup are more intense and significantly more damaging to the ecosystem than periodic, low-intensity fires. The fire hazard of an area is typically based on the combined input of several parameters. Some of these conditions include: • fuel loading (that is, type of vegetation, its density, and moisture content), • topography (slope), Earth Consultants International Fire Hazards Page 4-2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT to the 2003 SAFETY ELEMENT CITY of GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA • weather, • dwelling density and accessibility, • building construction (with emphasis on combustible roof coverings), • wildfire history, and • whether or not there are local mitigation measures in place that help reduce the zone’s fire rating (such as an extensive network of fire hydrants, fire-rated construction materials, fuel modification zones, fire sprinklers in structures, etc.). Since the early 1970s, several fire hazard assessment systems have been developed for the purpose of quantifying the severity of the hazard in a given area. Those that have been developed in California are described further below. Early systems characterized the fire hazard of an area based on a weighted factor that typically considered fuel, weather and topography. More recent systems rely on the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to integrate the factors listed above to map the hazards, and to predict fire behavior and the impact on watersheds. HUD Study System: In April 1973, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CDF) published a study funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under an agreement with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (Helm et al., 1973). As is often the case, the study was conducted in response to a disaster: during September and October 1970, 773 wildfires burned more than 580,000 acres of California land. The HUD mapping process relied on information obtained from US Geological Survey (USGS) 15- and 7.5-minute quadrangle maps on fuel loading (vegetation type and density) and slope, and combined it with fire weather information to determine the Fire Hazard Severity of an area.
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]
  • Attachment E Part 2
    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Preliminary Investigation B: Water Resources Prepared by: Tim Brick, Arroyo Seco Foundation The Arroyo Seco watershed is a major source of local water supply. The Arroyo Seco and its mountain watershed contribute about 40% of the water supply for Pasadena and neighboring communities. The Raymond Basin The Arroyo Seco watershed feeds the Raymond Basin aquifer, a 40 square mile groundwater basin that extends from La Canada and the San Rafael hills on the west to Santa Anita Canyon on the east, from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Raymond fault, a seven mile seismic feature, which runs along the boundary between Pasadena and South Pasadena and then extends out through San Marino and Arcadia to Santa Anita Canyon on the east. The groundwater basin is recharged by the Arroyo Seco, a tributary of the Los Angeles River, and by Eaton Canyon, Santa Anita Canyon and other streams in the watershed of the San Gabriel River. The Arroyo Seco stream contributes approximately one third of the natural replenishment of the aquifer. The long-term average yield of the Raymond Basin is about 30,000 acre-feet per year. Pumping rights in the Raymond Basin are adjudicated, i.e. determined by a court order, and managed by the Raymond Basin Management Board. The goal of the basin management program is to ensure a safe yield which will balance extraction with natural replenishment. Sixteen pumpers have rights to pump from the Raymond Basin. Three major subareas make up the aquifer: the Monk Hill subarea, which underlies La Canada and Northwest Pasadena, the larger Pasadena subarea, which underlies Pasadena and Altadena, and the Santa Anita subarea, which underlies Arcadia and Sierra Madre.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Other Natural Disasters
    Laguna Beach Community Wildfire Protection Plan And Other Natural Disasters Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3 1. Laguna Beach History......................................................................................................... 3 2. Covered Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. CWPP Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3 II. CITY RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 3 1. Fire ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Floods ................................................................................................................................ 39 3. Tsunamis ........................................................................................................................... 41 4. Earthquakes ....................................................................................................................... 47 5. Evacuation Plan ................................................................................................................ 53 III. PUBLIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    January 2018 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis SECTION 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on hydrology and water quality from implementation of the proposed project. Data for this section were taken from the Glendale Emergency Plan, Glendale General Plan Safety Element Technical Background Report, the EPA, and Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Watermaster. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.8.5 (References). 4.8.1 Environmental Setting Surface Water The proposed SGCP area is within the Los Angeles River watershed, which includes 834 square miles of Los Angeles County. The eastern portion of the watershed spans from the Santa Monica Mountains to the Simi Hills and in the west from the Santa Susana Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains. The watershed encompasses and is shaped by the Los Angeles River. The river flows adjacent to the western and southern borders of the proposed SGCP area in a concrete lined channel. The upper portion of the watershed (Upper Los Angeles River Watershed), where the proposed SGCP area is located, contains a network of flood control dams and debris basins that flow to the Los Angeles River (LACDPW 2016). The Upper Los Angeles River watershed is home to approximately 2.3 million people, mostly in high density development in the interior valleys and foothills. Precipitation within the Upper Los Angeles River watershed typically falls in a few major storm events between November and March to an average of 19 inches per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Fires in San Diego County History
    Major fires in San Diego County history September 1913: Barona fire burned 65,470 acres. September 1928: Witch Creek fire near Santa Ysabel charred 33,240 acres. September 1928: Beauty Peak fire near the Riverside County border in the North County blackened 67,000 acres. October 1943: Hauser Creek fire in the Cleveland National Forest, at least 9 firefighters dead (including 7 marines), 72 injuries and 10,000 acres burned. August 1944: Laguna Junction fire burned 60,000 acres August 1950: Conejos Fire charred 64,000 acres. [Month unknown] 1952: Cuyamaca fire burned 64,000 acres November 1956: Inaja fire killed 11 firefighters and burned 43,904 acres near Julian. September 26-Oct. 3 1970: The Laguna fire, the county's largest fire in modern times, burned 175,425 acres, killed eight people and destroyed 382 homes. In 24 hours the fire burned from near Mount Laguna into the outskirts of El Cajon and Spring Valley. September 1978: PSA Crash in North Park June 1985: Normal Heights fire destroyed or damaged 116 houses, causing $8.6 million in damage. October 1993: Guejito fire east of Escondido charred 20,000 acres and destroyed 18 houses. Estimated $1.25 million damage. October 1996: Harmony Grove fire burned 8,600 acres, from Harmony Grove west of Escondido to La Costa, destroying nearly 110 homes and killing one man. August 1997: Lake Wohlford fire northeast of Escondido - an arson blaze - destroyed seven houses and burned 500 acres. October 1999: La Jolla Fire (La Jolla Indian Reservation) burned approximately 7,800 acres and 1 firefighter died.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pasadena 175 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, Ca 91101-1704
    CITY OF PASADENA 175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101-1704 INITIAL STUDY In accordance with the Environmental Policy Guidelines of the City of Pasadena, this analysis, and supporting data constitute the Initial Study for the subject project. This Initial Study provides the assessment for a determination whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION I - PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Pasadena General Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena, Planning & Community Development Department 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Scott Reimers, Planner Planning & Community Development Department City of Pasadena (626) 744-6710 4. Project Location: The project site is the entire City of Pasadena, which is in the west San Gabriel Valley in central Los Angeles County, six miles northeast of the Los Angeles Civic Center (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Pasadena Scott Reimers, Planner Planning & Community Development Department 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91109 6. General Plan Designation: Various; see Section 8, below. 7. Zoning: Various; see Section 8, below. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed General Plan Update would apply to the entire City, spanning 14,802 acres from the southern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in the north to the west-central San Gabriel Valley in the south. The junction of the Interstate 210 (I-210), State Route 134 (SR-134), and I-710 freeways is near the western end of the City’s Central District; the I-210 then extends east across the central part of the City and north through the northwest part of the City.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It a Red Flag Day?
    Is it a Red Flag Day? A Special Section on the Social Aspects of Wildfire Presented by the National Park Service in cooperation with Project Learning Tree, the Fire Prevention Officers of Marin County, and the Marin Independent Journal Advertising Department 2 Fire Recycles ildland fire is an plant particles while the larger material AIR SUN W ecological remains as ash. process affecting almost Ash returns nutrients from plants back all of the earth's vegeta- into the soil, especially calcium, potassi- tion. Underwater plants um and phosphorous. Nitrogen is are generally an returned by the nitrogen-fixing plants that PLANTS excpetion, although flourish after a fire and begin the process FIRE when seaweed or algae of regrowth. Without nitrogen, proteins are left onshore to dry, cannot be made, and DNA cannot be SOIL they too, can become fuel. reproduced. In some places, wildland fire occurs regularly enough that Most of the earth's nitrogen is in the species depend on it. air, but can’t be breathed in. Nitrogen-fix- What's Inside ers host bacteria in their roots which The length of a fire return interval, or convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form Fire Recycles . 2 "fire cycle" varies based on the climate, plants and animals can use. Defensible Space vegetation, and ignition frequency of a Like many hardwood trees, shrubs and other Perspectives. 3 particular location. Ignitions are mainly Plants in the pea family (legumes) are flowering plants, this California bay survived caused by lightning, volcanic ash, lava, notorious for their nitrogen fixing abilities. a wildfire by resprouting at the base.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume-1-San-Diego-Main-Report
    Folsom (Sacramento), CA Management Consultants Regional Fire Services Deployment Study for the CountyCounty ofof SanSan DiegoDiego OfficeOffice ofof EmergencyEmergency ServicesServices Volume 1 of 3 – Main Report May 5, 2010 2250 East Bidwell St., Ste #100 Folsom, CA 95630 (916) 458-5100 Fax: (916) 983-2090 This page was intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page VOLUME 1 of 3 – (this volume) PART ONE—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i. Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework .................................................................... 2 Overall Attributes of the County of San Diego’s Fire Services............. 2 Accomplishments to Date ...................................................................... 3 Main Challenges..................................................................................... 3 Fire Plan Phasing.................................................................................. 17 ii. Comprehensive List of Findings and Recommendations ........................... 19 PART TWO—PROJECT BACKGROUND Section 1 Introduction and Background to the Regional Deployment Study .......................................................................................... 37 1.1 Project Approach and Research Methods.................................. 38 1.2 Report Organization................................................................... 38 1.3 Project Background...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic EA for Outdoor Tests
    FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR JET PROPULSION LABORATORY PERIODIC SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ON-SITE AND IN THE ARROYO SECO NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PREPARED BY Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 104 W. Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, California 93101 MARCH 2018 FINAL FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR JET PROPULSION LABORATORY PERIODIC SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ON-SITE AND IN THE ARROYO SECO 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216, Subpart 1216.3), NASA has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the proposed JPL Periodic Scientific Development and Testing Activities On-Site and in the Arroyo Seco. NASA has reviewed the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) prepared for the proposed periodic scientific development and testing activities and determined that it presents an accurate and adequate analysis of the scope and level of associated environmental impacts. NASA hereby incorporates the PEA by reference in this FONSI. The PEA programmatically assesses environmental impacts associated with a suite of outdoor scientific development and testing activities at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) on-site and within other appropriate landscapes in close proximity to NASA JPL, including the adjacent Arroyo Seco. These outdoor testing actions are small-scale, non-intrusive, short-duration outdoor testing, verification, and calibration activities, and are necessary to support and fulfill NASA scientific and technology demonstration missions as well as tasks conducted by NASA JPL under technology development agreement with other Federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • GOCHA Landfill Position Paper
    GLENOAKS CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S (GOCHA) POSITION ON THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHOLL CANYON LANDFILL 2015 INTRODUCTION GOCHA represents the families of approximately 775 single-family homes within Glenoaks Canyon (“Canyon”), which is located at the eastern part of Glendale in the San Rafael Hills. The Scholl Canyon Landfill (“Landfill”) forms the easternmost boundary of the Canyon and is situated at the summit of a section of the San Rafael Hills directly above the Canyon. The Landfill extends from the summit of the San Rafael Hills to the bottom of Glenoaks Canyon where it terminates at the Lower Scholl Canyon Park. The Landfill’s address is 3001 Scholl Canyon Road, Glendale, California, 91206. It can be reached from the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134) by taking the Figueroa Street exit in Eagle Rock area of the City of Los Angeles. The Landfill consists of 535 acres, of which 440 acres of which are designated for landfill operations and 95 acres are designated for other related operations. Of the area designated for landfill operations, 314 acres are currently active and 126 acres are inactive. The Landfill was first opened in 1961 and currently serves a waste shed consisting of the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, La Canada-Flintridge, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena, and the unincorporated communities of Altadena, La Crescenta, Montrose, and East Pasadena. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GOCHA is opposed to the City of Glendale (The City) prolonging the current more than 50-year-life of the Scholl Canyon Landfill (1961 to 2015) either through the construction of an anaerobic digestion facility or expansion of the landfill site for waste disposal, as proposed in the Environmental Impact Report that will soon come before the City Council for review.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaster Declarations in California
    Disaster Declarations in California (BOLD=Major Disaster) (Wildfires are Highlighted) 2018 DR-4353 Wildfires, Flooding, Mudflows, And Debris Flows Declared on Tuesday, January 2, 2018 - 06:00 FM-5244 Pawnee Fire Declared on Sunday, June 24, 2018 - 07:11 FM-5245 Creek Fire Declared on Monday, June 25, 2018 - 07:11 2017 DR-4301 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides Declared on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 - 13:15 EM-3381 Potential Failure of the Emergency Spillway at Lake Oroville Dam Declared on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 - 14:20 DR-4302 Severe Winter Storm Declared on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 - 14:30 DR-4305 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides Declared on Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 04:48 DR-4308 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides Declared on Saturday, April 1, 2017 - 16:55 DR-4312 Flooding Declared on Tuesday, May 2, 2017 - 14:00 FM-5189 Wall Fire Declared on Sunday, July 9, 2017 - 14:18 FM-5192 Detwiler Fire Declared on Monday, July 17, 2017 - 19:23 DR-4344 Wildfires Declared on Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 08:40 2016 FM-5124 Old Fire Declared on Saturday, June 4, 2016 - 21:55 FM-5128 Border 3 Fire Declared on Sunday, June 19, 2016 - 19:03 FM-5129 Fish Fire Declared on Monday, June 20, 2016 - 20:35 FM-5131 Erskine Fire Declared on Thursday, June 23, 2016 - 20:57 FM-5132 Sage Fire Declared on Saturday, July 9, 2016 - 18:15 FM-5135 Sand Fire Declared on Saturday, July 23, 2016 - 17:34 FM-5137 Soberanes Fire Declared on Thursday, July 28, 2016 - 16:38 FM-5140 Goose Fire Declared on Saturday, July 30, 2016 - 20:48
    [Show full text]