DOCSLIB.ORG

Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final Sierra County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Final December, 2014 1 Sierra County CWPP Final Table of Contents Sierra County Update Community Wildfire Protection Plan Mutual Agreement Page ................................ 6 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 8 CWPP Objective ................................................................................................................................... 8 Sierra County Communities at Risk ...................................................................................................... 8 I. Requirements of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) ..................................................... 11 Federal .................................................................................................................................................... 11 State of California ................................................................................................................................... 13 Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and Local Jurisdiction ............................................... 14 II. Planning Process ................................................................................................................................. 17 Collaboration........................................................................................................................................... 17 Primary Collaborators ......................................................................................................................... 17 Primary CWPP Development Team members and responsibilities ........................................................ 17 -CWPP Planning Process ........................................................................................................................ 19 Planning Area Boundaries .................................................................................................................. 19 Public Education Effort ........................................................................................................................... 19 III. Community Description .................................................................................................................. 20 Weather, Demographics, Topography & the Wildland Urban Interface ................................................ 20 Weather ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Demographics ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Vegetation and Fuels ........................................................................................................................... 21 Westside .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Eastside ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Wildland Urban Interface.................................................................................................................... 23 Community Emergency Fire Department Services................................................................................. 25 IV. Community Hazard Assessment ..................................................................................................... 40 Current Risk ............................................................................................................................................ 40 Current Risk Situation ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Fire Response ...................................................................................................................................... 51 Local Wildfire Fire Protection Responsibilities: .................................................................................... 51 Wildland Urban Interface wildfire suppression condition .................................................................. 52 2 Sierra County CWPP Final VI. Community Preparedness for a wildfire emergency and Action Plan with Recommendations for Projects. ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 1. Critical Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 54 Fire Response ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Communications and Early Warning in case of a wildfire ................................................................. 55 Roads and Evacuation Planning .......................................................................................................... 55 Individual understanding of Evacuation Planning .............................................................................. 58 Evacuation Planning ........................................................................................................................... 58 Basic Individual Preparation for Evacuation ...................................................................................... 59 Water Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 62 Collaboration, Public Education and Prevention CPRC 4291 ............................................................ 62 2. Fuel Treatment Recommendations Past and Future Projects .......................................................... 64 Community Project recommendations of the 2002 Fire Safe Plan: ............................................................ 64 Future Projects within Sierra County .......................................................................................................... 84 US Forest Service Projects ...................................................................................................................... 84 Future Projects by Fire District ............................................................................................................... 87 Sierra County Fire Safe and Watershed Council, projects .................................................................... 100 Fuels Treatments and Restoration Projects ............................................................................................... 101 VII. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 102 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................... 106 Appendix A: Sierra County Fire Behavior Modeling ............................................................................... 107 Model Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 107 Appendix B: Treatment Descriptions and Prescriptions ........................................................................... 112 Appendix C: Useful Resources in Pre Fire and Emergency Planning ...................................................... 120 Appendix D: Community meeting Questionnaire and Results ................................................................. 121 Appendix E: Fire Protection District Structure Protection Preplan .......................................................... 123 Attachments .............................................................................................................................................. 124 3 Sierra County CWPP Final Tables Table 1: Resistance to control matrix ......................................................................................................... 47 Table 2: Effective Fire Suppression efforts ................................................................................................. 47 Table 3: Fire history 1994-2012 Table of acres size and cause ................................................................... 50 Table 4 Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) conditions and suppression and treatment strategies .............. 53 Table 5: 2002 Fire Plan Recommended Projects ........................................................................................ 74 Table 6: Completed Sierra County projects over the past 10 years ........................................................... 81 Table 7: Sierra County Fire Protection District #1 projects......................................................................... 87 Table 8: Loyalton Projects ........................................................................................................................... 89 Table 9; Verdi Projects ................................................................................................................................ 91 Table 10: Sierra City Projects ...................................................................................................................... 92 Table 11: Allegany Projects
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Trip Summary Report for Sierra Nevadas, California: Chico NE, SE
    \ FIElD TRIP SUMMARY FOR SIERRA NEVADAS, CALIFORNIA CHICO NE, SE AND SACRAMENTO NE I. INTRODUCTION Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the actual wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topo~raphy. This information is weighted with seasonality and conditIOns at both dates of photography and ground truthing. The project study area was located in northern California's Sierra Nevada Mountains. Ground truthing covered the area of each 1:100,000: Chico NE, Chico SE, and Sacramento NE. This field summary describes the data we were able to collect on the various wetland sites and the plant communities observed. II. FIELD MEMBERS Barbara Schuster Martel Laboratories, Inc. Dennis Peters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service III. FIELD DATES July 27 - August 2, 1988 IV. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Type: Color Infrared Transparencies Scale: 1:58,000 V. COLLATERAL DATA U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangles Soil Survey of HI Dorado Area. California, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey of Nevada County Area. California, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1 Soil Survey of Sierra Valley Area. California. Parts of Sierra. Plumas. and Lassen Counties, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Tahoe Basin Area. California and Nevada, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Soil Survey - Amador Area. California, 1965. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooking in Prehistory: Evidence from the Sugar Loaf
    COOKING IN PREHISTORY: EVIDENCE FROM THE SUGAR LOAF SITE IN SIERRA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA AND THE EASTERN SIERRA ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology ____________ by Marilla M. Martin Fall 2014 COOKING IN PREHISTORY: EVIDENCE FROM THE SUGAR LOAF SITE IN SIERRA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA AND THE EASTERN SIERRA A Thesis by Marilla M. Martin Fall 2014 APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH: _________________________________ Eun K. Park, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Antoinette Martinez, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Frank Bayham, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must first thank my thesis committee, Dr. Antoinette Martinez and Dr. Frank Bayham for their constant encouragement from the beginning of my journey through graduate school until now. You have both made this process meaningful, fun, and productive. Next, I must recognize the enormous support and patience I have received from all the members of my work family at the Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office. Jill Poulsen, Amy King, Valda Lockie, and Missi Nelson, all your kind words and support got me through this process. David Jack Scott, thank you for frequently inquiring to see if my thesis was done yet, I’m happy to report that it finally is! Thank you to my work mentor, my friend, and one of many proofreaders, Sharynn-Marie Blood for your unwavering support, time, and patience. The BLM also provided financial assistance that made this thesis possible.
    [Show full text]
  • California & Oregon
    1 CALIFORNIA & OREGON 5TH – 19TH AUGUST 1999 This was a two-week trip with Alan Johnston. The idea was to travel up the Californian & Oregon coast, then go inland, travelling south through the Bend area, Crater Lake, Klamath Basin and back into California through the Sierra Valley and Yuba pass, then head down to Monterey and Bodega Bay for two pelagics, with the last few days birding around Point Reyes and San Francisco. Itinerary Day 1 – 5th August. Landed at San Francisco Airport. Drove up the USF 101 & SH 1 to Bodega Bay, birding around Stinson Beach and Bolinas Bay. Motel in Santa Rosa. Day 2 – 6th August. Left Santa Rosa and drove up the USF 101 to Crescent City. Birded at the Caltrans Rest Area, Woodley Island Marina, Arcata Marsh, Trinidad Head & the Elk Head Trail. Spent the evening around Crescent City and at Lake Earl. Motel in Crescent City. Day 3 – 7th August. Crescent City to Newport. This was the Oregon part of the trip. Drove up the USF 101 to Newport. Due to torrential rain we didn’t really bird after a good scout around Crescent City Harbour and area. Stopped at Gold Beach Harbour, Mt. Humbug SP, Takenitch Lake campsite, Siuslaw River Mouth and at a pond north of Glendana. Motel in Newport. Day 4 – 8th August. Newport to Sisters, via Corvalis and Albany along the USF 20. Birded early morning at the south jetty and the Marine Science Centre, then late morning at Yaquina Head. On the way to Sisters, birded Foster Reservoir campsite, Peter Green Reservoir, Hummer feeders at Soda Fork, Lost Lake, Indian Ford campsite/road area and Cold Springs campsite.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study
    Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study Prepared by: Quincy Library Group California Energy Commission -f California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research Plumas Corporation TSS Consultants National Renewable Energy Laboratory November 1997 'tt NREIJTP-580-24676 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of California is facedwith severalcritical issues relatedto how its biomassresources are used and managed.In particular,due to suppressionof forestfires, large quantitiesof dead/diseased treesand underbrush have accumulatedin the forest,creating dangerousfuel loadingwhich threatens human life and property. Resultingfires are so intensethat they destroythe forest ecosystem.In addition,the unnaturalecosystem producedby fire suppressionis endangeringforest health. To deal with theseissues, the Quincy Library Group has put forth a plan to strategicallythin the forestsso as to reducefire danger,improve forest health, and restoreecosystem balance. However, a key questionis what will be donewith the smallertrees (both live and dead)once they are removed from the forests. This reportpresents the resultsof onepotential use of the biomass- conversion to fuel ethanol and cogenerated electricity.This option has appeal in that the technologyfor ethanol productionfrom biomass is readyfor demonstrationand the demandfor fuel oxygenates,such as ethanol and ETBE, is growing in California. In addition, thereare synergistic benefits to the existing biomass-electricity industry.Finally, the technologyis ecologicallysound. The Quincy Library
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Calfire Kng M150 Statewide Channel Plan Zone # Ch Zone Name Description Zone # Ch Zone Name Decription
    2020 CALFIRE KNG M150 STATEWIDE CHANNEL PLAN ZONE # CH ZONE NAME DESCRIPTION ZONE # CH ZONE NAME DECRIPTION 1 ZONE 1- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 29 ZONE 29-FOOTHILL 2 ZONE 2- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 30 ZONE 30-SUSANA 3 ZONE 3- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 31 ZONE 31-RRU Riverside Unit 4 ZONE 4- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 32 ZONE 32-ORC Orange Co (SOLAR) 5 ZONE 5- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 33 ZONE 33-MVU San Diego Unit 6 ZONE 6- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 34 ZONE 34-SLU San Luis Obispo Unit 7 ZONE 7- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 35 ZONE 35-BDU San Bernardino Unit 8 ZONE 8- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 36 ZONE 36-LAC Los Angeles CO (CC) 9 ZONE 9- CMD or Other AGENCY SPECIFIC ZONE 37 ZONE 37-SBC Santa Barbara CO (CC) 10 ZONE 10-CMD/TAC CDF CMD/TAC 38 ZONE 38-VNC Ventura CO (CC) 11 ZONE 11-MEU Mendocino Unit 39 ZONE 39-PROS PROS PLAN 12 ZONE 12-HUU Humboldt-Del Norte Unit 40 ZONE 40 13 ZONE 13 Weather National Weather Service RX 41 ZONE 41-TUU Tulare Unit 14 ZONE 14-LNU Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 42 ZONE 42-MMU Madera-Mariposa-Merced 15 ZONE 15-MRN Marin County (CC) 43 ZONE 43-FKU Fresno Kings 16 ZONE 16-SCU Santa Clara Unit 44 ZONE 44-TCU Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit 17 ZONE 17-CZU San Mateo-Santa Cruz Unit 45 ZONE 45 18 ZONE 18-FED/IOP NIFC/Inter Op/USFS 46 ZONE 46-BEU San Benito-Monterey Unit 19 ZONE 19 - AIR AVIATION 47 ZONE 47-KRN Kern CO (CC) 20 ZONE 20 48 ZONE 48 21 ZONE 21-BTU Butte Unit 49 ZONE 49 22 ZONE 22-LMU Lassen Modoc Unit 50 ZONE 50-NTPAD 23 ZONE 23-NEU Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit 51 ZONE 51-INC 1 INCIDENT CLONE ZONE 1 24 ZONE 24-SHU Shasta-Trinity Unit 52 ZONE 52-INC 2 INCIDENT CLONE ZONE 2 25 ZONE 25-TGU Tehama-Glenn Unit 53 ZONE 53-INC 3 INCIDENT CLONE ZONE 3 26 ZONE 26-SKU Siskiyou Unit 54 ZONE 54-INC 4 INCIDENT CLONE ZONE 4 27 ZONE 27-AEU Amador-Eldorado Unit 55 ZONE 55- CFA CFA ACADEMY 28 ZONE 28 NOTE: Zones 51,52,53, & 54 are the ONLY Zones you can modify by keypad programming.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Sierra to the Sea the Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed
    From the Sierra to the Sea The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed © 1998 The Bay Institute of San Francisco Second printing, July 2003 The Bay Institute of San Francisco is a non-profit research and advocacy organization which works to protect and restore the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and its watershed. Since 1981, the Institute’s policy and technical staff have led programs to protect water quality and endangered species, reform state and federal water management, and promote comprehensive ecological restoration in the Bay/Delta. Copies of this report can be ordered for $40.00 (includes shipping and handling) from: The Bay Institute of San Francisco 500 Palm Drive Novato, CA 94949 Phone: (415) 506-0150 Fax: (415) 506-0155 www.bay.org The cover is taken from an engraving showing the entrance to the middle fork of the Sacramento River near modern-day Steamboat Slough, in C. Ringgold’s 1852 series of navigational charts and sailing directions for San Francisco Bay and Delta. Printed on recycled paper From the Sierra to the Sea The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Watershed July 1998 The Bay Institute FROM THE SIERRA TO THE SEA: THE ECOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA WATERSHED Table of Contents Page CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I. Background.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A General History of Sierra County
    A General History of Sierra County Author: William G. Copren EARLY BEGINNINGS The area now comprising Sierra County, California has been occupied for over 5,000 years. Ancient petroglyphs, which are scattered from Kyburz Flat to Lacey Meadows and Hawley Lake, bear witness to the existence of early Native Americans in the region. The Miwok tribe lived here, mostly on the west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Washoe tribal area included the region that is now Eastern Sierra County, including the Sierra Valley. IMMIGRATION In 1844 the first American immigrants passed through what is now southeastern Sierra County on their way up the Truckee River. By the next year migrant groups had found a route through Stampede and Dog Valleys that avoided the need to move their dray animals in the river. The Donner Party apparently used this trail to reach their winter camps in 1846. By 1847 thousands of migrants had moved Big Lucy over this trail to California. That year, members of Stephen Kearney’s Washoe Indian Woman Mormon Battalion returned to the East along this route. In 1848 gold with papoose was discovered at Sutter’s Mill precipitating the Gold Rush of 1849. Despite the frantic quest for gold, none of the travelers thus far had remained in this area. SETTLEMENT Cut-eye Foster’s Bar on the western boundary of Sierra County appears to be the first location occupied by migrant miners in late 1848 or early 1849. Miles and Andrew Goodyear were mining at the present site of Goodyears Bar in early 1849, and they sent workers up to the forks at the North Fork of the Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin 2020-11 Mandatory Moratorium on Cancellations
    RICARDO LARA CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER BULLETIN 2020-11 TO: All Admitted and Non-Admitted Insurers Writing Residential Property Insurance in California FROM: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara DATE: November 5, 2020 RE: Mandatory Moratorium on Cancellations and Non-Renewals of Policies of Residential Property Insurance After the Declaration of a State of Emergency As enacted by Senate Bill 824 (Lara, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2018) Insurance Code section 675.1, subdivision (b)(1) provides: “An insurer shall not cancel or refuse to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in any ZIP Code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code, based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred. This prohibition applies to all policies of residential property insurance in effect at the time of the declared emergency.” (Emphasis added.) Section 675.1, subdivision (d) defines “policy of residential property insurance” as follows: “…policy residential property insurance” has the meaning described in subdivision (a) of Section 10087.” (Emphasis added.) Section 10087, subdivision (a) provides: “…’policy of residential property insurance’ shall mean a policy insuring individually owned residential structures of not more than four dwelling units, individually owned condominium units, or individually owned mobilehomes, and their contents, located in this state
    [Show full text]
  • Loyalton Resource Supply Assess Report Final Redacted 20210204
    BIOMASS FUEL AND LOG SUPPLY AVAILABILITY AND COST ASSESSMENT FOR A BIOMASS POWER FACILITY AND SAWMILL COLLOCATED AT LOYALTON, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: February 4, 2021 Final Report REDACTED VERSION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TSS Consultants wishes to thank individuals and organizations for their significant efforts in support of this investigation. These include, but are not limited to: • Amy Berry, Chief Executive Officer, Tahoe Fund • John B. Jones, Jr., Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Boyd, Board Member, Tahoe Fund • Jim Turner, Chief Operations Officer, Sierra Valley Enterprises • Jon Shinn, Forest Products Manufacturing Consultant • Steve Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council USFS Vegetation Management, Contracting and Biomass Utilization Staff: o Larry Swan, Regional Office o Tim Howard, Regional Office o Dan Smith, Eldorado National Forest o Brian Garrett, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o Victor Lyon, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit o David Fournier, Tahoe National Forest o Annabelle Monti, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest o Will Brendecke, Plumas National Forest • Coreen Francis, State Forester, California and Nevada, Bureau of Land Management • Mike Vollmer, Forester, Nevada Division of Forestry • Steve Brink, Vice President, California Forestry Association • Bob Rynearson, Forester, W.M. Beaty and Associations • Mike Mitsel, Forester, Sierra Pacific Industries • Dan Porter, The Nature Conservancy • Craig Thomas, The Fire Restoration Group • Niel Fischer, Forest Manager, Collins Pine Company • Nic Enstice, Sierra Nevada
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document
    SIERRA VALLEY GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN CONCEPT DOCUMENT Prepared for: Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Sierra Valley Groundwater Basin PO Box 88 Chilcoot, CA 96105 http://www.sierravalleygmd.org/ Last Revised: June 1, 2020 Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Concept Document Prepared by: Greg Hinds, Hinds Engineering Email: [email protected] Phone: 530-401-0000 Author’s Notes: This document is a compilation of available and relevant information assembled for the purpose of streamlining the development of the Sierra Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (SV GSP). This document also includes draft text for GSP components that are required to be developed through the stakeholder engagement process. Such text is suggested for use as a starting place for said process. This document was originally being prepared as a draft GSP beginning in early 2018 when the prospect of obtaining grant funding for GSP development was uncertain. In early 2019, after a second round of SGMA grant funding was announced and the Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District (SVGMD) began to feel confident they would be able to apply for and receive funding for GSP development, the document title was changed and the approach to the development of this document evolved. It was decided by the SVGMD Directors that continuing to develop this document would be worthwhile, given the uncertainty associated with the timeline of the grant award and the likelihood that the time remaining for GSP development after receiving the award would be relatively limited. It was also decided that the format should be kept consistent with GSP formatting for ease of use of this document in the development of the actual SV GSP.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoke Still Hurting Northern California Air Quality, but LNU Fire Isn't Main
    Smoke still hurting Northern California air quality, but LNU Fire isn’t main culprit By Michael McGough Sacramento Bee, Monday, Aug. 31, 2020 The air remained unhealthy in the Sacramento area Monday morning as wildfires continue to burn across Northern California, and some of the morning relief that helped out last week is absent. Monitors from local air quality districts showed AQI readings in the “unhealthy” classification, from 151 to 200, in the early morning hours across the capital region, according to SpareTheAir.com. Pollutant levels are expected to stay in that range most of the day, with the sky already hazy and the smell of smoke apparent outdoors as of 6:30 a.m. A couple of days last week, an overnight Delta breeze helped clear some smoke away from Sacramento and kept AQI readings significantly lower until pollutants rolled in around midday. The weather hasn’t been quite as cooperative this week. The Spare The Air forecast page says that a “strong temperature inversion” combined with onshore winds Sunday increased wildfire pollutant buildup for Sacramento. Poor air quality will persist as northerly winds continue. Smoke has sullied the skies in Northern California for two weeks, ever since dozens of large fires and hundreds of smaller ones sparked during a powerful thunderstorm that brought down thousands of lightning strikes. For much of that stretch, Sacramento’s air pollution has come primarily from the LNU Lightning Complex, which as of Sunday evening had scorched more than 375,000 acres in parts of Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Yolo and Lake counties west of the capital.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 California Mobilization Guide
    2021 2021 California Mobilization Guide Table of Contents Chapter 10 – Objectives, Policy, Scope of Operations and Administration ....................................................1 Mission Statement ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Geographic Area Coordination Center ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Unit Level .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Incident Priorities ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Initial Attack ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Immediate Need ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Drawdown for Initial Attack (IA) ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mobilization/
    [Show full text]