text:
Lakehead Area Strategic Fuels Management Plan
Uploaded by Western Shasta Resource Conservation District
saveSave Lakehead Area Strategic Fuels Management Plan For Later
California Coast Pamphlet, Lauren Reible
COST letters
SENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
Geography Unit 1 AOS 1 Kinglake Fieldwork Report
HOUSE HEARING, 108TH CONGRESS - WILDFIRES IN THE WEST: IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE ADEQUATE?
SoCal 7 Day Fire Potential
feugo
laporan kerentanan sosial
Merritt Morning Market 3039 - Aug 9
Landscope 2010-11 Article
Vol 2 Issue 2 Electronic
Diaster Management
Notice: Valid existing rights determination requests: Daniel Boone National Forest, KY; existing Forest Service road use
Notice: Environmental statements; notice of intent: Trinity River Watershed, TX
Notice: Environmental statements; notice of intent: Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council
Group1 AirPollution Document
2010 Temp Baker River IHC Outreach
Tapescript 10CTC U116
Notice: Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Prier Products, Inc., et al.
LAKEHEAD AREA STRATEGIC FUEL REDUCTION PLAN FOR PRIVATE LAND
Prepared For: Lakehead Fire Safe Council By: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District through a grant awarded by the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee from Title II - The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 U.S. D. A. Forest Service Grant No. 03-DG-11051458-047
I. II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION A. Introduction B. Statement of Need C. Goals and Objectives D. Methodology SUPPORTING PLANS, ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES A. National Fire Plan B. California Fire Plan C. Shasta County Fire Safe Council D. Shasta Trinity National Forest E. Private Timber Production Zones F. Private Land Other G. Partners ANALYSIS OF FUEL INVENTORY AND CONDITIONS A. Recent History of Major Fires B. Agency Large Fire Databases C. Wildland Fire Environment D. Fuel Inventory VALUES AT RISK A. Residences and Major Structures B. Forest Land C. Fish and Wildlife FUEL TREATMENTS A. Introduction B. Shaded Fuelbreaks C Mechanical Treatment D Maintenance Treatment SOILS
VIII. ROADS FOR ACCESS IX. X. XI. BIOMASS ANALYSIS POTENTIAL COST-SHARE FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING FUELBREAK MAINTENANCE
STRATEGIC FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTION ITEMS A. Introduction B. Potential Projects C. Construct Shaded Fuelbreaks D. Communities At Risk E Undeveloped Lots F. Community Evacuation Plan G. Fire Safety H. Fire Early Warning System I. Grant Funding Opportunities
XIII. REFERENCES
TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Fuel Model Types Acres of Vegetation Type Lakehead Fire Safe Area Roads Funding Sources and Cost Share Programs Proposed Fuelbreak Project Locations
APPENDIX AND MAPS APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY B. PROJECT TEAM C. COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE FUEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES MAPS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LAKEHEAD FIRE SAFE COUNCIL AREA ZIP CODE 96051 GENERAL VEGETATION FIRE HISTORY FUEL MODELS VALUE/HAZARD/RISK RATING LAND OWNERSHIP PLANTS AND WILDLIFE SOILS EXISTING ROADS LOCATION OF PROPOSED FUELBREAK PROJECTS
LAKEHEAD AREA STRATEGIC FUEL PLAN
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildfire plays a natural part in the evolution of vegetation in the 256,000-acre Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area (LFSCA), located 26 miles north of Redding, California. Vegetation in the area is characterized by seven vegetation types: Douglas-firMixed Conifer Forest, Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Canyon Live Oak Woodland, Black Oak Woodland, Gray Pine Woodland, and Chaparral. Elevation ranges for these vegetation types are between 1,065 feet (lake shore) and 5,613 at Tombstone Mountain. Successful fire suppression activities combined with successful historic fuel modification for the past eighty years have significantly increased the volume of vegetation across the landscape, resulting in High to Very High Fire Hazard Ratings by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF). The USDA Forest Service (USFS) rates the LFSCA as an extreme wildfire zone. The number and size of devastating wildfires impacting the western United States over the past ten years resulted in the creation of a National Fire Plan for the U. S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Funding was made available through the National Fire Plan, California Fire Plan and other agencies to assist local communities and watershed groups in identifying/planning and implementing fuel reduction projects. The Lakehead Area Strategic Fuel Plan has been prepared by the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District under a grant through the Shasta County RAC from the USFS Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The community of Lakehead and surrounding rural residential areas have a population of about 556 permanent residences housing 1,220 permanent residents, and about 223 seasonal/recreational residences spread throughout the LFSCA (U.S. 2000 census). There are also camping areas (public and private) and resorts. The purpose of this plan is to identify and lay out a network for the construction of shaded fuelbreaks and other community activities that dovetail with fuel reduction plans of the USFS. These combined projects will be designed to increase protection for those living in the area, protect values at risk, provide firefighter safety when containing a blaze, allow residents safe transportation routes away from a wildfire, and encourage a maintenance plan to protect and continue this fuel reduction plan. Prior to this plan, an inventory and location of the various fuel types was completed for the area (Shasta Lake West Watershed Analysis, October 2000). This data was used to predict fire behavior in various vegetation types, and a fuel reduction plan was developed by the USFS to be implemented on public land. The intermingling of private with the public land has made it imperative to develop a fuel reduction plan for private land to complement and increase the effectiveness of the USFS fuel reduction plan. The reader is reminded that this plan is not a static document. Information contained within is the best currently available. Present on-going research, next fire season, or a change in the community may make updates and changes to this strategic fuel reduction plan necessary.
35-13 Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area Strategic Fuel Plan USFS Grant No. 03-DG-11051458-047 Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, March 2004
INTRODUCTION In 2003 the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee authorized the USDA Forest Service through the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, to award funding to the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (WSRCD) to prepare a Strategic Fuel Reduction Plan for the Lakehead Area. This plan supports the goals and objectives of the Shasta Lake West Watershed Analysis (USFS, October 2000), and the USFS Fuel Reduction Plan. WSRCD has completed other strategic fuels reduction plans in the district for the Lower Clear Creek Watershed, Upper Clear Creek Watershed, Cottonwood Creek Watershed, Shingletown Ridge Area, Shasta West Watershed, and Cow Creek Watershed. The Lakehead community is located on the Sacramento River Arm of Shasta Lake, in the Interstate 5 corridor, approximately 26 miles north of the City of Redding, California and 235 miles north of San Francisco. The Lakehead Area is part of the Upper Sacramento River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 18020112) and is an important watershed of the Sacramento River and Shasta Lake. The immediate watershed in which the Lakehead area resides is called the Shasta Lake West Watershed (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 2000). The Lakehead Fire Safe Council covers an area about 25 miles long, which averages about 20 miles wide, and covers a total area of about 400 square miles or approximately 256,000 acres. Access to the area is via Interstate 5. Access from the south is also available from Shasta Lake. Access from the west is available from several Forest Service roads. The topography of this watershed is steep, with elevations from 1,065 to 5,613 feet, draining into Upper Sacramento River and flowing into Shasta Lake. The area has remained relatively undeveloped over time and is a high quality water supply for the Central Valley Project, which supplies water throughout the state. The communities within the Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area are: LaMoine, Vollmers, Delta, Lakehead, Lakeshore, and Gilman Road area. With the presence of Shasta Lake National Recreation Area (NRA), the area is heavily used for recreation. Land ownership is 56% public and 44% private. The USDA Forest Service (USFS) land lies within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Fuels reduction projects for the Lakehead community area are of high priority because the area is: Surrounded by the Shasta Trinity National Forest on all sides; Located near areas where major large fires have occurred to the northwest, east, and southwest of the community; and is Surrounded by vegetation on Forest Service land that has the highest fire hazard risk rating given by the USDA Forest Service. Based on the current conditions in this area and on the compounded hazardous fuels situation, the Shasta Trinity National Forest estimates are that the next fire event in this area is likely to be more extensive and destructive than the 1999 High Complex wildfire event. The analysis of stand structure data within the watershed indicates that an estimated 60 percent of the existing National Forest stands in the analysis area are likely to generate or allow crown fire behavior in a future wildfire event.
35-13 Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area Strategic Fuel Plan USFS Grant No. 03-DG-11051458-047 Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, March 2004 2
Drainages in the watershed that were affected by the High Complex Fire include Charlie Creek, Sugarloaf Creek, Big Backbone Creek, and Little Backbone Creek. Charlie Creek serves as the domestic water supply for the City of Lakehead. Ten recommendations were made in this USDA Forest Service report for resources other than riparian reserve management. The #1 recommendation is: access fire hazard risk on public lands located adjacent to the Lakehead urban interface. In addition, identify potential projects for fuels treatments to reduce the fuel hazard and risk of fire starts in the urban interface. B. STATEMENT OF NEED i. History The following information has been excerpted from the Shasta Lake West Watershed Analysis, October 2000. This document was prepared by the USFS for ecosystem recovery efforts in the Shasta Lake West Watershed. Native American groups inhabited the LFSC area for thousands of years prior to European settlement. Native Americans hunted and gathered food and other supplies in the LFSCA. When the first fur trappers followed the Sacramento River in search of beaver they found the area populated by the nomtipom or Upper Sacramento River Wintu. Most of the Wintu villages were located on terraces lining the Sacramento River that are now inundated by Shasta Lake. The Wintu traveled to the upland, forested areas of the area to the west to collect acorns, gray pine nuts, buckeye, and other food and nonfood materials. Tributary creeks were rich in suckers, and the Sacramento River was a source of salmon. Although very little archaeological investigation has been conducted in the immediate area, a major exception was the excavation of two large prehistoric villages at Delta, commissioned in 1985 by the CalTrans relocation of Interstate 5. These sites along with two others at LaMoine and Pollard Flat resulted in establishment of a prehistoric chronology stretching over 5,000 years into the past. Dating techniques radiocarbon and obsidian hydration and differences in artifact types and prehistoric land use patterns led the investigators to divide prehistoric time in the area into three periods. Only the latest is associated with or temporally equivalent to the Wintu occupation. Earlier groups hunted on the slopes and ridge tops, fished in the creeks, and collected large quantities of pine nuts from gray pine, camping where their pursuits took them. The past 150 years have brought many changes to the physical, biological, and human elements of the area. The Sacramento River trail was first explored in 1830 by Hudsons Bay trapper Peter Skene Ogdon. The trail came to be known as the west branch of the California-Oregon Trail. During the gold rush the route became a major mule trail and later a wagon road connecting Shasta and Yreka. Although some gold mining was conducted at such points as Kennett and Dogtown (Delta), the Sacramento River did not play a major role in the mining industry until the 1890s when the copper boom began. The area where the copper mining activities took place was known as the West Shasta Mining District. For about 20 years, copper and zinc ore was produced from numerous underground mines in the area. In 1916 the California-Oregon Trail was modernized by the Division of Highways and renamed the Pacific Highway and later called Highway 99. Some portions of Interstate 5 still follow this route. This was also the route followed by the Central Pacific
Railroad, which was extended north from Redding in 1872. Settlements sprang up along many of the railroad stops such as Morley, Elmore, Pollack, Antlers, and Delta. Many of these sites are now under water. ii. Previous Reports The Shasta Lake West Watershed Analysis was completed in October 2000. The recommendations identified were in the areas of: Riparian Reserve Management and Other Resource Recommendations. Under Other Resource Recommendations applicable to the scope of this fuel reduction plan, the #1 priority was: Assess fire hazard and risk on public lands located adjacent to the Lakehead urban interface. Identify potential projects for fuels treatments to reduce the fuel hazard and risk of fire starts in the urban interface. An additional recommendation was to improve fire suppression abilities and fire fighter safety by treating fuels along selected ridgelines to minimize the spread of fire within and out of the watershed. Thinning activities should focus on the reduction of both ground and vertical fuel ladders. The Soil Survey of Shasta-Trinity National Forest Area, California was consulted for soil information. Specific information was used from the General Soil Maps, and from individual soil mapping unit descriptions. iii. Climate The Lakehead Area experiences extreme fire weather conditions, especially from May until September, when the high temperature frequently goes above 110 degrees F for sustained periods. Frequent strong zonal north winds occur throughout the summer; dry lightning storms occur most years; and dry winds are common in the late summer and throughout the fall. Generally, the climate of the Lakehead FSC Area is seasonal and varies with elevation. The summers are hot and dry and winters are cool with moderate rainfall, and snow above 4,000 feet elevation. The average annual precipitation in the Sacramento River Basin varies from a low of 30 inches north of Mount Shasta City, to a high of 80 inches near High Mountain. iv. Wildlife and Plants Large ponderosa pine trees within one mile of Shasta Lake provide existing and potential nest sites for bald eagles. Eagles are more likely to nest in trees that are located close to water. Snags provide roosting sites for eagles, as well as habitat for cavity nesting birds. Potential habitat for the long horned elderberry beetle may be present in the Lakehead Area. Elderberry bushes are found within riparian zones of streams that bisect the area. Northern spotted owls occur in the Dog and Slate Creek drainages. South of Lakehead the habitat is too fragmented, hot, and open for this species. Fishers are likely present in low numbers in riparian corridors. Goshawks and martens are present in higher elevations north of Lakehead. Pallid and big-eared bats have not been observed, but may occur in the LFSC area. The Hesperian snail has been found in the South Dog Creek drainage. The Church sideband snail is widespread in the area burned by the High Complex Fire.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN The purpose of this plan is to create a fuel reduction plan for the Lakehead area. This area consists of high fire risk properties clustered in the canyons with tributaries to Shasta Lake, and the developed areas around Shasta Lake. This plan was completed in partnership with CDF, USFS, Lakehead Fire Department, the Lakehead Fire Safe Council (LFSC), and any other businesses and agencies that have interest in or jurisdiction in the Lakehead vicinity. The goals and objectives of this plan are to: D. Provide for personal safety and minimize property loss Create a fire safe corridor along Interstate 5, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Sacramento River from [Bridge Bay to LaMoine] Develop a citizen volunteer fire protection/inspector program Partner with USFS and private landowners on a strategic fuels reduction plan Develop neighborhood fuel reduction plans Develop a community educational program to promote fire-safe standards and practices for business owners and homeowners to reduce fuel build up on their properties Develop a chipping program to reduce community fuels Assist the Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company to up-grade their firefighting equipment Invite Union Pacific Railroad, CalTrans, Sierra Pacific Industries, Shasta County Road Department to partnership with the LFSC Protect ecological and landscape values to soils and to the environment Reduce volatile fuels on ridge lines, roads and large blocks of property Minimize the risk of fire starts Minimize wildfire from burning into the watershed Reduce fuels so that large trees or other valued landscape vegetation will be spared Encourage safe burning practices for the reduction of fuels Identify agency and landowner fire prevention responsibilities Encourage and maintain multi-agency and land owner responsibilities in the implementation and maintenance of this plan
METHODOLOGY The activities necessary for the development of the Lakehead Strategic Fuel Reduction Plan include: Meet with community members, landowners and stakeholders about the scope of a plan Evaluate values at risk, such as structures and natural resources Present data to the Lakehead FSC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which includes local residents, representatives from USDA Forest Service (USFS), CDF and the local volunteer fire company, for review and assistance in prioritization Coordinate with agencies on their management objectives in the watershed
Identify long term maintenance options for fuelbreaks Identify potential mechanical treatments and possible uses of excess fuels Develop a priority list of recommendations and potential funding sources Complete a draft fuel management plan for review by the TAC Present a draft fuel management plan to the community through the LFSC Incorporate recommendations and issue a final plan
SUPPORTING PLANS, ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN In 2001 the Chief of the USDA Forest Service published a National Fire Plan (U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001), which is a cohesive strategy for improving the resilience and sustainability of forests and grasslands at risk, for conserving priority watersheds, species and biodiversity, reducing wildland fire costs, losses and damages, and to better ensure public and firefighter safety. To achieve these goals, work began to improve firefighting readiness, prevention through education, rehabilitation of watershed functions, hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, collaborative stewardship, monitoring jobs, and applied research and technology transfer. The objective of the National Fire Plan is to describe actions that could restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize the potential for uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority basis. Methods include removal of excessive vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire and other treatment methods. The focus of the strategy is on restoring ecosystems that evolved with frequently occurring, low intensity fires. These fires typically occurred at intervals of between 1-35 years and served to reduce the growth of brush and other understory vegetation while generally leaving larger, older trees intact. The report is based on the premise that sustainable resources depend on healthy, properly functioning, resilient ecosystems. The first priority for restoration is the millions of acres of already roaded and managed landscapes that are in close proximity to communities. More information about the National Fire Plan is available on the Internet at www.fireplan.gov. B. THE CALIFORNIA FIRE PLAN The California Fire Plan has five strategic objectives: Create wildfire protection zones that reduce risks to citizens and firefighters. Assess all wildlands (not just the state responsibility areas) to identify high risk, high-value areas and develop information and determine who is responsible, who is responding, and who is paying for wildland fire emergencies. Identify and analyze key policy issues and develop recommendations for changes in public policy. Develop a strong fiscal policy focus and monitor wildland fire protection in fiscal terms. Translate the analyses into public policies. A key product of the Fire Plan is the identification and development of wildfire safety zones to reduce citizen and firefighter risks from future large wildfires. Initial attack success is measured by the percentage of fires that are successfully controlled
before unacceptable costs are incurred. Assets at risk are identified and include citizen and firefighter safety, watersheds, water, timber, wildlife, habitat, unique areas, recreation, range structures, and air quality. Air quality is a factor because based on the annual average acres burned by wildfires from 1985-1994, CDF calculates wildfires emit almost 600,000 tons of air pollutants each year. The safety and asset assessments in the plan enable fire service managers and stakeholders to set priorities for prefire management project work. Prefire management includes a combination of fuels reduction, ignition management, fire-safe engineering activities and improvements to forest health to protect public and private assets. CDF finds there is a direct relationship between reduced expenditures for prefire management and suppression and increased emergency fund expenditures, disaster funding, and private taxpayers expenditures and losses. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is responsible for fire suppression on privately-owned wildlands and provides emergency services under cooperative agreements with the counties. In 2000 the State Board of Forestry and CDF completed a comprehensive update of the state fire plan for wildland fire protection in California. The overall goal of the plan is to reduce total costs and losses from wildland fire by protecting assets at risk through focused prefire management prescriptions and increasing initial attack success. CDFs statewide Initial Attack Fire Policy is to aggressively attack all wildfires, with the goal of containing 95% of all fire starts to 10 acres or less. In the Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area (LFSCA), USFS shares responsibility for wildland fire protection with the Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company and Shasta County Fire Department (CDF) on all ownerships. CDF and the USFS have entered into a cooperative agreement for dispatching and resource sharing on all wildland fires occurring in the mutual threat zone near the I-5 corridor. In the I-5 corridor, from Bridge Bay north through Castle Crags State Park, the USFS responds to wildland fires, and the Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company, in cooperation with Mountain Gate Fire Protection District responds to structure and vehicle fires. The cooperative agreement, in conjunction with the California Cooperative Fire Agreement on Wildland Fire Suppression between CDF, USFS, NPS, and BLM, outlines the cooperative sharing of resources for wildland fire suppression, since wildfires do not recognize political or ownership boundaries. In summary, USFS and CDF believe that cooperative fire protection, fuels reduction, and fire prevention must be linked in order to have future success in dealing with the wildfire problems within the Lakehead FSCA. SHASTA COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL The Shasta County Fire Safe Council (SCFSC) was formed in May 2002 as part of a statewide effort that began in 1993 to form area Fire Safe Councils across the state to educate and encourage Californians to prepare for wildfires before they occur. (See www.firesafecouncil.org for more information.) The mission of the Shasta County Fire Safe Council is to be a framework for coordination, communication and support to decrease catastrophic wildfire throughout Shasta County. The group meets quarterly to discuss projects, share information, schedule speaking engagements, develop educational opportunities, and update maps showing fuels reduction projects and maintenance throughout the county. SCFSC has a public outreach element in the form of an
educational exhibit housed in a trailer designed specifically for the purpose. The trailer will be available for use by fire safe councils throughout the county for use at schools, fairs, and other civic gatherings. For more information check out SCFSC on the web at www.shastacountyfiresafecouncil.org. SHASTA TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST The Forest Service administers about 194,312 acres or 56% of the Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area (See Map #5). These lands are managed as part of the National Recreation Area of the Shasta Trinity National Forest (STNF). A completed Fuels Analysis and Strategy provides a basis for managers to make decisions concerning placement and priorities of fuels management projects. It is a unit level analysis meant for forest level considerations. The report states it may also be used as a tool for project level planning. The analysis characterizes the STNF in terms of hazard, risk and value. Hazard is defined as fire behavior potential, which has implications for resource damage as well as suppression capability. Risk is the probability of a fire occurring based on local fire history. Value refers to the monetary, ecological or political worth of a definable area. All three values (hazard, risk and value) are quantified by a measure of low, moderate, or high through a combined use of scientific data and technical expertise, and displayed in a GIS map. The three are then combined in an overall rating. The final step of this analysis prioritizes the forest in terms of critical fire danger areas based on the hazard, risk and value ratings and management needs. These priorities align with the National Fire Plan and the Cohesive Strategy and will guide resource management considerations on the forest, such as natural fuels project priorities and identification of essential road access for protection purposes. The national priorities are wildland-urban interface, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and maintenance of existing low risk Condition Class I areas. D.
PRIVATE TIMBER PRODUCTION ZONES About 77,384 acres or 22% of the Lakehead FSCA are owned by private forest landowners who manage the lands as Timber Production Zones (TPZs), which are restricted to timber production and certain compatible uses (See Map #5). Sierra Pacific Industries is the largest commercial forest landowner in the watershed. Typically, all contractors and employees permitted on private forest land are required to make every effort and take all precautions necessary to prevent fires. A sufficient supply of hand tools are maintained on a job site at all times for fire fighting purposes only. Tools include shovels, axes, saws, backpack pumps, and scraping tools. Each forest worker, employee, or person permitted on private forest land is required to take immediate action to suppress and report any fire on or near the property. On all fires, a sufficient number of people stay on a fire until it is known that adequate action has been taken by USFS taking primary responsibility for putting out the fire. All people and equipment remain until released by the agency in charge, or for a longer period, if considered necessary by the land manager. During fire season, most companies conduct daily aerial patrols covering their forest operations and pay special attention to those areas where work is being conducted, even hours after workers have left the area.
Specific treatments are required for limbs and other woody debris (often called slash) created by harvest operations in order to minimize fire hazards in areas where the public has access. It can include piling and burning slash no later than April 1 of the year following its creation, or within a specified period of time after fire season, or as justified in the associated Timber Harvest Plan. Within 100 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of public roads, and within 50 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of permanent private roads open for public use where permission to pass is not required, slash and any trees knocked down by road construction or timber operations are typically lopped for fire hazard reduction, then piled and burned, chipped, buried or removed from the area. Lopping is defined as severing and spreading slash so that no part of it remains more than 30 above the ground. All woody debris created by harvest operations greater than one inch (1) and less than eight inches (8) in diameter within 100 feet of permanently located structures maintained for human habitation are removed or piled and burned. All slash created between 100-200 feet of permanently located structures maintained for human habitation are usually lopped (cut) for fire hazard reduction, removed, chipped or piled and burned. Lopping may be required between 200-500 feet from a structure if an unusual fire risk or hazard has been determined. F. PRIVATE LAND OTHER Other private land in the watershed totals about 75,614 acres or 22% of the Lakehead FSC Area (See Map #5). Private land use includes residences, businesses, recreation facilities in and around the communities of Lakehead, Lakeshore, Delta, Pollard Flat, Vollmers, and LaMoine, and the Gilman Road Area. G. PARTNERS The Lakehead Fire Safe Council was founded in 2001 by a group of homeowners who recognized the need to reduce the hazard of wildfire from around their communities and homes. The LFSC Mission Statement is: The goal of this council is to identify, define, and reduce the fire danger in our area. The Scope of this Lakehead Fire Safe Council (LFSC) will encompass all Lakehead area residents including, but not limited to all 96051 zip code residents. The goals and objectives of LFSC follow: Establish guidelines including: 1. Development of Fire Safety education 2. Identify local fire dangers and develop a community wildfire protection plan 3. Develop and implement plans to reduce fire danger 4. Develop evacuation procedures 5. Continue expansion of guidelines for LFSC Following is a list of organizations and agencies LFSC is partnering with to implement this Strategic Fuels Reduction Plan. USDA Forest Service (USFS), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), California Highway Patrol (CHP), CalTrans, Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (WSRCD), Lakehead Community Development Association (LCDA),
Shasta County Fire Safe Council (SCFSC), Shasta County Sheriffs Department, ShasCom, Shasta County Road Department, Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company, Shasta County Fire Department, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), Union Pacific Railroad, Shasta Lake Business Owners Association, OBrien Mountain Homeowners Association, Salt Creek Special Use Group, Campbell Creek Special Use Group, Local water utility groups, Upper Sacramento River Exchange, The communities of: Lakehead, Lakeshore, Delta, Pollard Flat, Vollmers, and LaMoine, and the Gilman Road Area.
ANALYSIS OF FUEL INVENTORY AND CONDITIONS
RECENT HISTORY OF MAJOR FIRES The following fire history was supplied by Jim Harkabus, Chief of the Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company. This information is based on his years of experience serving on the Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company. The Lakehead area has experienced two (2) major fires in the last 20 years, plus numerous smaller fires each year that were caught in their initial stages by aggressive fire suppression or otherwise restrained by less than perfect fire weather conditions. The Delta Fire, a 1,260 acre fire was started in the early afternoon on July 18, 1985, about 4 miles north of Lakehead by an illegal campfire down by the river. The fire blew up the canyon, jumping the freeway. The conditions were critical fire danger due to low humidity, a drought, and hot weather. In Sept. 1999, a series of dry lightning strikes sparked numerous fires around the Lakehead area. Due to depleted fire suppression resources (local fire fighters were sent to other numerous major fires in the western United States), the fires were able to grow and became the High Complex Fire, and ultimately threaten the town of Lakehead. The High Complex Fire was eventually contained at around 39,000 acres, after a massive fire suppression effort by over 1,000 personnel, including over 100 structure engines deployed to protect homes. One foot bridge and a water districts above ground supply line were lost when fire over ran fire lines. Three (3) other major fires occurred in Shasta County in the last decade, the Fountain Fire near Round Mountain (1992) burned 63,960 acres, the Canyon Fire near Happy Valley (2001) burned 2,580 acres, and the Jones Fire near Bella Vista (2001) burned 26,020 acres were wind driven events, with resulting extreme fire behavior and great property and timber losses.
In summary, with heavy fuel loading, hot temperatures, critically low humidity, and strong north winds, a major wildfire potential exists in the Lakehead and northern Shasta County area. AGENCY LARGE FIRE DATABASES CDF and USFS maintain databases and GIS layers on large fires and fire starts within and around their Forest Protection Zones (FPZ). The CDF database also includes fires recorded within the NPS FPZ. Both databases include the year of fire start, large fires, and total fire acreage, but cause of fire is included only on CDF fire start data and USFS large fire data. USFS records were made only of those fires that received some type of fire suppression action; fires that had no suppression activity or that went out due to natural causes were not recorded. The CDF database is also historically incomplete because it does not record large fires less than 300 acres and does not contain fire starts prior to 1985. B.
WILDLAND FIRE ENVIRONMENT The three major components of the wildland fire environment are fuels, weather, and topography (National Wildland Coordination Group, 1994). Weather is a major factor and local weather conditions are important in predicting how a fire will behave. Within the lower elevations of the Sacramento River Canyon the wind blows from the north during the early part of the summer and from the south during the latter part of the summer; and in the western foothills, the wind trends up the canyons on the hillsides east to west. In the valley the wind patterns push wildfire in a northerly or southerly direction and westerly direction in the foothills. From a strategic standpoint, fire spread in lower elevations can most likely be decreased by an east-west oriented fuelbreak or area to set up control lines. To hold valley fires from being pulled up through chimneys in the canyons of the foothills, strategically placed fuelbreaks near the foothills oriented in a north-south direction can help. Topography can affect the direction and the rate of fire spread. Topographic factors important to fire behavior are elevation, aspect, steepness and shape of the slope. When fire crews are considering fire suppression methods, the topography is always critical in determining the safest and most effective plan of attack. When accessible, ridge lines are very important features from which to conduct fire suppression activities and can be a strategic area from which to conduct fuels management activities. Fuel factors that influence fire behavior are: fuel moisture, fuel loading, size, compactness, horizontal continuity, vertical continuity, and chemical content. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 1994) Fuel moisture is the amount of water in a fuel, expressed as a percentage of the ovendry weight of that fuel. For example, a fuel sample can be found to have 20- 60% moisture content. Moisture content can range from as low as 5 % to a high of 260+%. Fuel loading is defined as the ovendry weight of fuels in a given area, usually expressed in bone dry tons. For example, an area can be calculated to have 20 bone dry tons per acre of fuel. A bone dry ton is 2000 pounds of vegetation when rated at 0% moisture content.
35-13 Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area Strategic Fuel Plan USFS Grant No. 03-DG-11051458-047 Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, March 2004 11
Size refers to the dimension of fuels, and compactness refers to the spacing between fuel particles. Continuity is defined as the proximity of fuels to each other, vertically or horizontally, that governs the fires capability to spread and sustain itself. Chemical content in fuels can either retard or increase the rate of combustion. All of these factors will influence the quantity of heat delivered, the duration, flame length and the rate of spread of any given fire, and should be considered prior to considering pre-fire projects or initiating fire suppression activities. D. FUEL INVENTORY The Shasta-Trinity National Forest has developed a GIS layer that shows the fuels in the LFSC area. The Forest Service also has a layer that shows Values, Hazard, and Risk. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of landowners and agency personnel, expressed concern that the inventory needed a Point Fire History (location of fire starts) added to facilitate the location of fuelbreaks and other pre-fire activities. The TAC agreed to seek out data to show a comparison of past and present fuel conditions in the watershed. Fuels are made up of the various components of vegetation, live and dead, that occur on a given site. Fuels have been classified into four groups grasses, brush, timber, and slash. The differences in fire behavior among these groups are basically related to the fuel load and its distribution among the fuel diameter-size classes. In 1972, 13 mathematical fire behavior models or Fuel Models were developed by Rothermel (1972) to be utilized in fire behavior predictions and applications for every vegetation type. These Fuel Models represent the types of fuel most likely to support a wildfire. TABLE 1 FUEL MODEL TYPES Fuel Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fuel Complex Grass and Grass-Dominated Short Grass (1 foot) Timber (grass and understory) Tall Grass (2.5 feet) Chaparral and shrub fields Chaparral (6 feet) Brush (2 feet) Dormant brush, hardwood slash Southern rough Timber litter Closed timber litter Hardwood litter Timber (litter and understory) Slash Light logging slash Medium logging slash Heavy logging slash
The fuel models were designed to estimate fire behavior during severe fire hazard conditions when wildfires pose greater control problems and severely impact natural resources. Fuel models are simply tools to help the user realistically estimate fire behavior. The criteria for choosing a fuel model includes the assumption that fire burns in the fuel stratum best conditioned to support the fire. This means that situations will occur where one fuel model will represent the rate of spread most accurately, while another best depicts fire intensity. In other situations, two different fuel conditions may exist, so the spread of fire across the area must be weighed by the fraction of the area occupied by each fuel type. Results of the Fuel Inventory The USFS Fuel Model GIS layer (Map #3) shows that 85 percent of the area lies in Fuel Model # 9 or #10, and 15 percent lies in Fuel Model # 6. Following is a description of these three predominant fuel models. Fuel Model #9 comprises 40% of the area. Model #9 is described by Anderson, 1982, as hardwood litter. Both long-needle conifer and hardwood stands are typical. Closed stands of long-needled pine like ponderosa, Jeffrey, and red pines, or southern pine plantations are grouped in this model. Fuel Model #10 comprises 45 % of the area. Model #10 is described by Anderson, 1982, as dead-down fuels include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting from overmaturity or natural events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor. Any forest type may be considered if heavy downed material is present. Fuel Model #6 is prevalent in much of the rest of the area. It is described by Anderson, 1982, as dormant brush, hardwood slash. Fuel situations to be considered include intermediate stands of chamise, chaparral, and oak brush. Much of the remaining area is covered in low elevation hardwoods, poisonoak, and whiteleaf manzanita. TABLE 2 ACRES OF VEGETATION TYPE
Fuel Model/ Vegetation Type 6 dormant brush, slash 9 hardwood litter 10 overmature litter TOTAL Total Acres 52,097 138,924 156,289 347,310
To understand the current fuel loading conditions, it is important to understand past fuel loading conditions. Due to the historical fire regime, overall plant densities were most likely lower than those of today. Frequent fires would have drastically reduced vegetation densities and accumulated fuels. Furthermore, it is also very likely that the species composition is much different today due to fire suppression. Fire-adapted species, which thrived in re-occurring fire environments, have declined due to competition from non-fire dependent species. In addition, much of the area was impacted by the smelters in operation around the turn of the 20th century. Much of the vegetation that has come back since 1920 is different from what was growing in 1880.
Whatever the cause of the fuel modification, the resulting danger from wildfire is critical. Map # 4, Value/Hazard/Risk Rating, graphically shows the breakdown of high, medium, and low rated areas. Those areas in the wildland urban interface are graphically represented as the High rating areas.
VALUES AT RISK
RESIDENCES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES About 556 homes and 223 vacation/recreation homes make up the communities of Lakeshore, Lakehead, Delta, Pollard Flat, Vollmers, LaMoine, the Gilman Road Neighborhood, and the surrounding area. Major structures include stores, post office, motels, school, and resorts and marinas. The year-round population is 1,225 residents. In summer, the population can swell to three times this number of people (personal communication with local business leaders).
LAKEHEAD VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY
THE LIONS CLUB HALL
CANYON COMMUNITY CHURCH
CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Dog Creek Bridge .
FOREST LAND Private timber production zones occupy about 77,384 acres in the higher elevations in the area. These lands are operated and managed by commercial timber companies, which are regulated by the California Forest Practice Rules. The intent of the Forest Practice Act is to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive system of regulation and use of all timberlands so as to assure that: a) where feasible, the productivity of timberlands is restored, enhanced and maintained; and b) the goal of maximum sustained production of high-quality timber products is achieved while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range, forage, fisheries, regional economic vitality, employment and aesthetic enjoyment. C. FISH AND WILDLIFE The LFSCA has a typical distribution of wildlife species for Douglas-fir/mixed conifer/ponderosa pine/ gray pine forests, and California black oak woodlands of northern California. Elevation and exposure are primary influences on the distribution of these forest habitats. Douglas-fir occurs on north and east slopes, especially at elevations over 3,000 feet, but Douglas-fir is also a component of mixed conifer forests where the exposure is slightly warmer or elevations lower. The driest habitat types occur adjacent to Shasta Lake on south slopes. These areas are often vegetated by brushfields and gray pine. Ponderosa pine also occurs in these areas, but is more prevalent on east and north facing slopes. California black oak also occurs as a minor species in all four forest types. The California black oak is an important source of mast for wildlife. Mast is the fruit of oaks and other trees, particularly where considered food for wildlife and domestic livestock. The USFS report showed the High Complex Fire had a positive overall effect on wildlife habitat conditions in the LFSCA. Decadent areas of chaparral were abundant prior to the fire due to approximately 80 years of successful fire exclusion. Some forested stands were decadent, affording cover but little to no palatable forage for wildlife species inhabiting the watershed. The 1999 fires have resulted in a proliferation of early seral vegetation (grasses, forbs, shrubs, young trees) in the burned areas. The increase in early seral vegetation has, in turn, increased seral stage diversity throughout the burn area. The USFS report states the 1999 fires had a negative effect on late-seral forested habitats. Late-seral habitats with well developed conifer over stories were present in small patches at high elevations in the area prior to the fire. Conifer mortality was high in late seral stands that were burned at moderate and high intensities. Listed Species The extensive forest present in the LFSCA serves as habitat for several threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (See Map #6). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - federally threatened and state endangered The Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) federal species of concern and state species of special concern The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) federal species of concern California wolverine (Gulo gulo) federal species of concern and state threatened Marten (Martes americana) federal sensitive species
Fisheries Shasta Lake has both a warm water and a cold water fishery. The warm water fishery is dominated by spotted bass, smallmouth bass, black crappie, channel catfish, and blue gill. The cold water is composed of rainbow trout, brown trout, and Chinook salmon. Native species such as white sturgeon, Sacramento blackfish, hardhead minnow, riffle sculpin, Sacramento sucker, and Sacramento squawfish are also present, but receive little fishing pressure. Fish habitat for warm water species is limited by the lack of cover and reservoir drawdown. Habitat for cold water species is considered good.
INTRODUCTION Reducing fuel loads is one of the most effective elements of any fire prevention and protection program. Although fire is an integral component of the LFSCA ecosystem, managing fire by managing fuel loading is critical to maintaining communities, ranches, forest land, grazing lands, riparian areas, and the overall health and function of the watershed. The ability to implement fuel reduction projects typically comes down to the source of funds available, the cost of labor, the permitting process to implement the project, and landowner cooperation. SHADED FUELBREAKS Shaded fuelbreaks are constructed to create defensible space where firefighters can conduct relatively safe fire suppression activities. Shaded fuelbreaks may also slow a wildfires progress enough to allow supplemental attack by firefighters. The main idea behind shaded fuelbreak construction is to break up fuel continuity to prevent a fire from reaching the treetops, thus forcing the fire to stay on the ground where it can be more easily and safely extinguished. Shaded fuelbreaks may also be utilized to replace flammable vegetation with less flammable vegetation that burns less intensely. A welldesigned shaded fuelbreak also provides an aesthetic setting for people and a desirable habitat for wildlife, in addition to fuels reduction. The California Board of Forestry has addressed the needs to strengthen community fire defense systems, improve forest health and provide environmental protection. The Board rules allow a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) to use a special silviculture prescription when constructing or maintaining a community fuelbreak, exempts community fuelbreaks from an assessment of maximum sustained production requirements and allows defensible space prescriptions to be used around structures. The WSRCD, through consultation with its agency partners, has developed the following Shaded Fuelbreak Standards: The typical minimum width of a shaded fuelbreak is 100 feet, but can be up to 300 feet wide. The appropriate width is highly dependent on the slope, fuel density, fuel type, fuel arrangement, and landowner cooperation. Fuelbreaks should be easily accessible by fire crews and equipment at several points. Rapid response and the ability to staff a fire line is very important for quick containment of a wildfire. B.
The edges of a fuelbreak are varied to create a mosaic or natural look. Where possible, fuelbreaks should compliment natural or man-made barriers such as meadows, rock outcroppings, and roadways. A maintenance plan should be developed before construction of a fuelbreak. Although a fuelbreak can be constructed in a matter of a few weeks, maintenance must be conducted periodically to keep the fuelbreak functioning properly. The establishment of a shaded fuelbreak can lead to erosion if not properly constructed. Short ground cover, such as grass, should be maintained throughout the fuelbreak to protect the soil from erosion.
Demonstration Fuelbreak at Canyon School A properly treated area should consist of well-spaced vegetation with little or no ground fuels and no understory brush. Tree crowns should be approximately 10-15 feet apart. The area should be characterized by an abundance of open space and have a park like look after treatment. In areas where privacy is a concern, islands of brush may be left in strategic positions. CDF recommends that brush left in place be limited to islands having a diameter two times the height of the brush, and a distance three times the height of the brush between the islands. If the islands of brush are strategically placed, a homeowner can achieve a reasonable amount of defensible space, and retain the privacy most people are seeking when they move to the wildland urban interface (WUI). The Pile and Burn method is most commonly utilized when constructing fuel breaks. Material is cut and piled in open areas to be burned. Burning takes place under permit on appropriate burn days. Burn rings can be raked out after cooling as a means to decrease their visual effect.
In dealing with chaparral, a relatively new technique called crush and burn combines mechanical fuels treatment with burning. It is more effective in eliminating chaparral than a low-intensity prescribed burn, which has difficulty competing with the high moisture content of live chaparral. In this method, the chaparral is mechanically crushed, then piled and burned. It is a good technique for areas adjacent to communities and to encourage chaparral regeneration in riparian zones. C. MECHANICAL TREATMENT Using mechanized equipment for reducing fuels loads on suitable topography and in certain fuel types can be very effective. Depending on the use of the equipment, it may require environmental review and documentation. Using equipment to remove excess vegetation may enable the landowner to process the debris to a level where it can be marketed as a product for use in power generation. The debris then becomes labeled as biomass or biofuels and is further explained in Section IX of this report. Mechanical methods to remove fuels include, but are not limited to, the utilization of bulldozers with or without brush rakes, excavators, chainsaws or mechanized falling machines, masticators, chippers, and grinders. Mechanical treatments are typically conducted on chaparral landscapes with some type of masticator, which grinds standing brush and reduces it to chips, which are typically left on the ground. Brush may also be mechanically removed and fed into a grinder for biomass production. Mechanical treatments are also utilized on industrial and non-industrial timberlands in which trees are thinned by mechanized tree cutting or falling machines. In most cases, stands of trees are thinned from below as a means to eliminate the fuels that can take a fire higher in the forest into the tree canopy (ladder fuels). However, stands of trees may also be thinned from above to eliminate crown continuity. Mechanical treatments can be used successfully on stable ground up to 50% slope, but should only be conducted during dry periods when soils are not saturated to minimize erosion and compaction. The drastic visual impacts should be considered when planning projects so that all parties are aware of how the area will look when the project is completed. Initial planning should address mitigation for erosion potential, using measures such as waterbars, ditching, and mulching in critical areas. Furthermore, the impacts on wildlife and archaeological resources must be addressed. Due to air quality concerns, the mechanical treatment method is becoming a more acceptable method of fuel reduction in WUI areas despite its greater cost. Compared to prescribed fire, mechanical treatment involves less risk, produces less air pollutants, is more aesthetically pleasing, and allows landowners to leave desirable vegetation. Mechanical treatment will usually necessitate a cultural resource survey, CEQA/NEPA documentation, a Natural Diversity Database search, and the preparation of Water Quality documents. The cost of these safeguards must be figured into the budget for any projects using mechanical methods. D. MAINTENANCE TREATMENT Maintenance plans for all existing shaded fuelbreaks, as well as a maintenance strategy for all planned shaded fuelbreaks need to be formulated as soon as funding can be made available. A maintenance section needs to be added to all planned shaded fuelbreaks. Scrub oak re-sprouts and manzanita seedlings on disturbed areas are typical of the vegetation needing control. Control can take many forms including chemical control, mechanical control, or grazing by livestock (namely goats).
The time frame for maintenance is typically two years, five years and ten years after initial construction of the shaded fuelbreak. Treatment with livestock would need to be repeated more frequently (See #2 below). Periodic maintenance of a fuelbreak sustains its effectiveness. Seeding the fuelbreak with annual grass cover immediately following its construction will help reduce brush and conifer invasion, but only depending on grass cover will not eliminate invading plants for an extended period of time. The species of grass must be selected with care. A mature stand of tall grass presents a flashy fuel hazard that may be almost bad as the resprouts. Shade is another method for controlling the re-growth of vegetation. The shade in shaded fuelbreaks is a two-fold benefit. Not only does it make the fuelbreak more aesthetically palatable, the shade also limits the re-growth of shade intolerant species like manzanita and toyon. Following are several methods to maintain fuelbreaks: 1. Herbicides The use of herbicides is a very effective and inexpensive method of eliminating unwanted vegetation, but there are many restrictions. Some herbicides are species specific, which means they can be used to eliminate brush species and will not harm grass species. Manual treatment is also a very effective means to eliminate invading vegetation, but is very labor intensive. The cost of fuelbreak maintenance must be balanced with its degree of effectiveness. 2. Herbivores Herbivore (goat) grazing may be used as a means of maintaining fuelbreaks, since goats will eat brush and weeds. Browse makes up about 60% of a goats diet, but only about 10-15% of a cows diet. Goats used for fuel load reduction are managed to remove dense understory, including brush, shrubs, forbs, and lower branches to remove ladder fuels. It may require giving goats supplements of protein or energy, depending on the class of goats used and the time of year. The choice must be balanced on the type of soil, vegetation and livestock analysis. Monitoring of the herbivore grazing is critical since over-grazing can lead to erosion. As goats work through an area they also work on the understory, old pine needles and leaves, break lower branches, and split apart old downed branch material. Once an area has been brushed by goats, it can be maintained as a living green belt. Fire control or containment with goats takes coordination of the stock owner, land steward, local fire patrol, professional fire abatement teams, CDF, DFG, and others. According to a report published by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, grazing goats have been observed to select grass over clover, prefer browsing over grazing pastures, prefer foraging on rough and steep land than over flat, smooth land, graze along fence lines before grazing the center of a pasture, and graze the top of the pasture canopy fairly uniformly before grazing close to the soil level. Herbivore grazing has been done in the Sierra Foothills by Goats Unlimited, Rickerby, CA. They report the vegetation in the Sierra Foothills grazing area consists of woody plants, shrubs, forbs and grasses. Before entering a new area, the herder develops a landscape goal, completes a vegetative survey and identifies toxic plants. They identify the growth habit and adaptation of each plant species, especially those that are toxic. The
objective is to control the invasion of unwanted species and encourage perennial grasses to return. In a report published by Langston University, goats improve the cycling of plant nutrients sequestered in brush and weeds, enabling the reestablishment of grassy species. Portable electric fencing with solar energizers is used to control the goats foraging area. A Rule of Thumb for the cost of using goats for fuels reduction projects was found in a report on the Internet. A minimum effective goat herd has 500 animals, which will remove fuel from about 3 acres per day at a cost of $1.00 per day per goat. The cost includes the goats, portable fencing, a goat herder, water and all transportation and daily supervision. Herbivores Used In Fuel Reduction
3. Converting Brush Land to Forest Land Brush land frequently occurs on soils that are best suited for growing brush. The exception to this are forest soils that have been burned, and have come back to brush. Brushland soils are sloping to very steep loams and are gravelly, stony, or rocky. These soils are usually shallow to bedrock, and available water capacity is low or very low. Vegetation is generally chaparral, which includes such species as chamise, Lemmon ceanothus, buckbrush, toyon, poison-oak, whiteleaf manzanita, and western mountainmahogany. There are few trees occurring on the sites, such as interior live oak and gray pine. At least 80 percent of the surface cover is woody vegetation. Conversion from brushland to forest land will entail a thorough investigation of the site. Soil depth, type, aspect, and exposure will all determine the success or failure of an attempted conversion. With few exceptions, most of the brushy sites are naturally occurring, and represent the native vegetative community. Natural regeneration of coniferous species after a burn is very difficult to accomplish. A conversion from brush to forest land should begin with a thorough investigation of the capability of the site to support coniferous trees. The second, or next step, should be to secure a reliable source of climatically adapted seedlings; and the third step should be to develop a planting plan. A realistic cost estimate should be the fourth step. All this should be accomplished before the existing brush cover is removed.
VII. SOILS
The soil report for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is the source of soil information for the LFSCA. The following soils information is excerpted from that report. The General Soils Map for the LFSCA appears in Map #7. Soil parent materials in the area can be characterized as either metamorphic rocks, deep alluvium, or sedimentary rocks (limestone). Soils overlying metamorphic rocks are generally shallow to moderately deep, and very gravelly; erosion potential is moderate to low, often depending on slope. Soils overlying alluvium are deep, fine-textured and mostly unconsolidated; erosion potential is high to very high, again this is usually tied to slope. Yearly precipitation totals in the area range from 50 to 70 inches, mostly as rain in the lower elevations, and snow in the higher elevations. When parts of the area were denuded of vegetation during the copper smelting era, 1896 to 1919, extreme soil erosion occurred in those denuded areas. On the alluvial terraces the extent of the erosion was disastrous. Metamorphic surfaces experienced accelerated erosion and lost much of their topsoil. Alluvial surfaces also experienced accelerated surface erosion, but what is most striking is that they all eroded into a network of deep gullies. What had been a terrain of gently sloping terraces became a landscape of steep-sided gullies up to 20 feet deep. The gullies continued to erode for many years after smelting ended in 1910. Despite a massive effort to plug and dam the gullies from 1910 to 1960, they are only beginning to stabilize today. Fuels management activities located on unstable soils or on slopes greater than 40 percent can stimulate erosion processes or exacerbate existing erosion problems; therefore, prior to any fuels management activities, all soil types within any future project area should be identified and evaluated to determine the erosion hazard. Projects should be designed to prevent or minimize erosion by reducing soil disturbance, maintaining vegetation where appropriate, avoiding steep and unstable slopes if possible, and incorporating the use of grass seed or fire resistant vegetation as a means to provide soil stabilization. Detailed soil mapping information should be examined once project boundaries have been established. High intensity wildfire can also damage soil by incinerating roots and the humus layer (organic portion of soils) that holds soils together and provides energy dissipation. In addition, the loss of large areas of vegetation can reduce evapotranspiration and increase peak flow, which can result in augmented erosion potential, adversely affecting watershed resources. Many life forms, including invertebrates of phylum Arthropoda that are essential for cycling plant material and fixing atmospheric gases, are unknowingly destroyed. These invertebrates eventually re-establish their populations, but time is lost in maintaining and building up the soils. Over time, continual burning will result in soil depletion, much the same as continual plowing and crop harvesting will deplete the soil of mineral nutrients and negatively affect the soil structure. Fortunately in this area of California, there exist relatively young volcanic soils in the mountains and recent alluvial soils in the valleys that can tolerate fire without immediately showing negative effects. Continued burning though can have long-term negative effects (National Park Service, 2002).
Low intensity prescribed fires in light to medium fuels seldom produce enough heat to significantly damage soil or increase the erosion potential within a given watershed. The chemical and physical properties of soil change dramatically after a high intensity fire. Loss of organic matter causes the soil structure to deteriorate, and both the water-storing and transmitting properties of soils are reduced. The living tissues of microorganisms and plants can be damaged by fire if the temperatures are above 1200 degrees F (DeBano 1970).
VIII. ROADS FOR ACCESS
Roads are an essential part of any fire and fuels management plan, providing the principal access to the communities, homes and wild places in the watershed (See Map #8). Additionally, roads may offer a defensible space from which firefighters can conduct direct attack on wildfires and also provide strategic locations for roadside fuelbreaks. Roadside fuelbreaks provide not only defensible space for firefighters, but also a safe escape route for residents in the event of a wildfire. Roads in the LFSCA typically intersect the Interstate 5 corridor. The area can be reached from both the north and south along I 5, which is the major connection throughout the area. All roads are important for providing fire protection access. This plan will not attempt to identify and map all paved or improved roads. Roads that are vital to future projects will be included in treatment options. Following is a list of dominant fire access roads. TABLE 3 LAKEHEAD FIRE SAFE AREA ROADS A. MAIN NORTH SOUTH ROADS Interstate 5. ROADS GOING WEST FROM INTERSTATE 5 Lakeshore Drive Lower Salt Creek Road Gregory Creek Road Sugarloaf-Lakeshore Road Sugarloaf Lookout Road Dog Creek Road Slate Creek Road Highlands Lake Road Upper Shotgun Road ROADS GOING EAST FROM INTERSTATE 5 Turn Table Bay Road Gilman Road Statton Road Gregory Creek Road Antlers Road Fenders Ferry Road
Sims Road North Salt Road Girard Ridge Road D. OTHER ROADS Delta Point Lookout Road Riverview Drive Mammoth Drive Chamise Street Doney Street Snowbird Lane Pollard Flat Gibson Road Little Slate Creek Road Bear Flat Way
BIOMASS ANALYSIS
For thousands of years, people have been taking advantage of the earths vegetation, also called biomass, to meet their energy needs (www.epa.gov, 2002). Technologies for using biomass continue to improve and today biomass fuels can be converted into alternative fuels (biofuels), such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and as boiler fuel for use in industrial heating and power generation. When used for generating electricity, biomass is typically burned to transform water into steam, which is used to drive a turbine and attached generator (www.epa.gov, 2002). Although a majority of the biomass market is associated with energy production, biomass offers a wide verity of uses such as fiber-reinforced composites, fiber-filled thermoplastics, high performance fiberboard, cement board, mulch for landscaping and soil amenities, smoke chips for curing and flavoring meat and bio-oils which are used as asphalt additives or adhesives. Potential markets continue to be explored and developed by the private sector, and the federal government has also demonstrated interest in the biomass industry by the release of Executive Order 13134. On August 12, 1999, President Clinton released Executive Order 13134, designed to stimulate the creation and early adoption of technologies needed to make biobased products and bioenergy costcompetitive in the large national and international markets (www.bioproductsbioenergy.gov, 1999). The utilization and development of biomass technology offers many economic and socioeconomic benefits. However, one of the most widely acknowledged benefits is the development and utilization of biofuels as a means to reduce the worlds dependency on non-renewable fossil fuels. Presently, a majority of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. On the local level, the development of biotechnology also offers both economic and socioeconomic benefits. The LFSCA contains thousands of acres of forestland, which produce a substantial amount of renewable biomass each year. The biomass market associated with wood products production has long been developed, and biomass harvesting for fuel reduction is a common practice within managed forestlands in northern California. Biomass
production not only provides economic support at the local, state, and federal levels, but also reduces the nations dependency of fossil fuels. The watershed also contains thousands of acres of brushland, which produce a significant amount of renewable biomass, although only a small portion of the biomass produced from chaparral landscapes is utilized for biofuels. The potential for biomass production within the LFSCA is good given that the watershed contains a substantial amount of raw material (brushland and forest land species). The closest wood-fired power plant is approximately 50 road miles away in Anderson, California. This is a 50-megawatt wood-fired power plant, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy, which utilizes one hundred semi truckloads (~1,400 bone dry tons) of biomass each day, seven days/week, to produce electricity (Jolley 2002). There are other wood-fired power plants in Shasta County, but this facility is the closest to the Lakehead Fire Safe Area. The feasibility of any biomass operation depends on the market price of biomass, (also commonly called hogged fuel or hog fuel if it is processed through a hammer hog) the density or amount of fuel on the ground, and transportation costs. Processing can include harvesting and chipping or hogging and costs are directly correlated with the species, age, size and density of the vegetation being processed as well as the topography of the area. The transportation cost from the project area to the nearest wood fired power plant is directly related to the size of the vehicle, time needed for loading biomass, the road bed system and distance to the plant. The price a power plant is willing to pay for a ton of biomass vs. the processing and transportation costs determines the economic feasibility of an operation. However, the value of fuel reduction to the landowner should be included in this calculation to determine the true feasibility of a biomass operation. Harvesting is usually accomplished with an excavator and/or a bulldozer tractor, which is utilized to remove and pile the brush. Processing can be accomplished with a hammer hog, tub grinder, drum chipper or some other type of industrial type chipper fed by the excavator or other mechanical means. Biomass Collection in Action. Tub grinder on right, conveyor moves biomass into the van.
Pursuant to the California Forest Practice Rules, if biomass operations involve the harvest of commercial species, the project requires a permit issued by CDF. Biomass operations not involving the harvest of commercial species are not subject to the California Forest Practice Rules, but are subject to Water Quality jurisdiction, and may require county permits or other agency review depending on the physical characteristics of the project area. A Registered Professional Forester should be involved prior to
commencement of any biomass operation in order to determine what permits might be required and to estimate the cost and timing of obtaining the permits. Although the biofuels industry is the most developed biomass market in northern California, other markets are currently in the developmental stage and may become a commercially viable option for biomass products in the future. These markets are far from becoming a significant force in the market place, but may provide alternative utilization methods and future marketing opportunities.
POTENTIAL COST SHARE FUNDING SOURCES
The following table is a list of cost share programs provided by the University of California, Cooperative Extension Service (UCCE). TABLE 4 FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SHARE PROGRAMS
Program Emergency Watershed Protection Goals Helps safeguard people and property following natural disasters. To address significant natural resource needs and objectives Hazard mitigation to reduce risk from future disasters To provide incentives for using fire as a tool to control unwanted brush, and other vegetation, which creates wildfire hazards? Forestry, watershed and riparian protection and enhancement Services Technical and financial assistance Will Fund Up to 75% Agency NRCS Who Public agencies, nonprofits, community groups Limitations 25% cost share. Must obtain necessary permits
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Cost sharing, technical and educational assistance
Up to 75% set by local working group
NRCS, FSA
Agricultural producers having significant natural resource needs Agencies, governments, non-profits, tribes Landowners, individual or group
Approved practices up to $10,000 per producer per year. Must have Conservation Plan approved by RCD. Federal Disaster Areas
Cost share
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Vegetation Management Program
Covers liability, conducts prescribed burn
Up to 90% cost share
Agreement to sign, plan required
California Forest Improvement Program
Reforestation, site prep, land conservation, and fish & wildlife habitat improvements
75% up to $30,000 per contract, rehab after natural disaster up to 90%
Plan (can be cost shared) required, 20-50,000 acres of forestland
Additional funding sources include: California Department of Conservation, RCD Grant Assistance Program U. S. Forest Service, Forest Service Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Grant Program Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee, Title II Funds, Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Sacramento Regional Foundation (for the Bureau of Land Management), Community-Based Wildfire Prevention Program California State Fire Safe Council, Clearing house for sources of funding for fuel reduction projects
XI. FUNDING FUELBREAK MAINTENANCE
Since grant funds are often obtained just to construct the fuelbreak, maintenance efforts are often left to the landowner. Unfortunately, some landowners do not have the physical or financial means to do maintenance. If a fuelbreak is not properly maintained in its entirety, it will not provide adequate fire protection in the long run. Therefore, in some situations it is often best for watershed groups and other conservation organizations to seek funding for maintenance as a means to better ensure fire protection for a given area. The Community Protection Plan was developed as a result of the USFS National Fire Plan. This plan provides grant funding for fuel reduction projects on private lands. In addition, many of the programs listed in Table 5 above also provide funding opportunities for fuels reduction and maintenance. Future legislation, such as AB 1983, may also provide funding for fuels reduction projects. California Assembly Bill AB 1983 was introduced by Assembly Member Dickerson on February 14, 2002. The bill would enact the California Fuel Hazard Reduction Act to be administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), in consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, to encourage the development of wildland fuel reduction practices. The bill would establish the Fuel Hazard Reduction Fund in the State Treasury to fund the program. CDF would be authorized to spend up to 5% of the fund balance for program administration and wildfire cost collection. The bill would authorize the allocation of up to 10% of the fund balance to agencies and institutions each fiscal year for fuel management research purposes. In addition, the bill would establish a cost-share assistance program and would permit the director to fund up to 90% of the cost to complete an eligible wildland fuel reduction project. This bill would establish both the procedure by which applicants may apply for assistance and the process used by the director to grant funds. The full text of the bill can be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov. As of this writing, the bill was not reintroduced at the next legislative session (2003-2004). In addition, many private sector programs are available. Information on private sector funding can be found at the following Internet sites:
www.fdncenter.org www.ice.ucdavis.edu/ www.tpl.org/tpl/about/ www.ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/funding.html www.teleport.com/~rivernet/general.htm www.ufei.calpoly.edu/data/news/grants.html
Funding programs can assist in the development of shaded fuelbreaks, defensible space around structures, roadside fuel reduction, and community fire safe projects.
STRATEGIC FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTION ITEMS
INTRODUCTION: Action items described in this plan have been proposed by the Lakehead Fire Safe Council TAC and are presented as a result of their deliberation. All action items are considered to be an integral part of any plan to manage the fuels in the Lakehead Fire Safe Council Area. Funding for accomplishing these action items, as well as others that
may arise in the future, will be discussed in a separate section of this plan. A priority list of fuel reduction and maintenance projects was developed by the Project Team. Factors considered in developing this list include: B. Fire history for the area, both lightning caused and human caused fires. Heavy fuel loading conditions with closed canopies. Assets at risk. Common wind directions and speed. Roadsides overgrown with vegetation. Major topographical features important to fire control and weather patterns which influence fire behavior. Road access for fire fighters.
POTENTIAL PROJECTS: After several meetings to review the assets at risk, fire safe practices, Shasta Trinity National Forest plans and funding opportunities, the TAC recommended the following action items. Seek funding and/or agency support for the following: Maintain and refine Emergency Evacuation Plans for the area. Purchase aerial photos and GIS maps for the area, and seek useful satellite maps. Develop comprehensive road maps of the area to assist emergency response agencies. Locate emergency Landing Zones for helicopters in the Salt Creek LaMoine corridor. Locate and maintain at least 100 foot diameter areas. Develop a citizens alert system for residents and businesses to provide notification in the event of an emergency. Reduce hazardous fuels along local roads, and request county grading and maintenance to provide safe and efficient ingress and egress for citizens and fire fighters in the event of a Wildland fire. Reimburse fire prevention inspectors for their expenses, or reward them for their efforts. Assist residents unable to meet the challenge of reducing the fuel load on their property themselves. CONSTRUCT SHADED FUELBREAKS: Sites for shaded fuelbreaks have been identified by citizens of the watershed through the TAC. Locations of the proposed fuelbreaks are a combination of neighborhood protection and efforts to compartmentalize the fuels in the LFSCA (See Map # 9). New fuelbreaks should be constructed as funding becomes available, and/or as partnerships can be formed to benefit a larger part of the community. The community through the TAC has identified areas of concern with no particular order of priority. The following list is arranged more or less from north to south and from east to west. C.
Sims Road: Area has a campground and about 35 homes. There are 0.7 miles from the freeway to the Forest Service Camp Ground east of the freeway, with four homes along
the road. This translates into 17 acres of roadside fuelbreak. Roadside clearing is also needed along 1.4 miles of Mears Ridge Road, or about 34 acres of roadside fuelbreak. Coordinate with Forest Service fuel reduction efforts within the campground, and implement fuel reduction around the homes in the area.
Mears Ridge Road north of the intersection with Sims Road Gibson Road: Along Gibson Road, which is about 3.0 miles to Pollard Flat, a fuelbreak project is needed to clear along the road yielding about 72 acres of roadside fuelbreak. There are about 15 homes in the Highland Lakes area. Create a defensible fuel profile zone around the homes in the area. Work with landowners to create 72 acres of roadside fuelbreak along 3 miles of Highland Lakes Road. Land along much of the road is owned by a commercial timber company. An effort should be made to coordinate roadside fuel reduction efforts with a timber harvest plan. This tactic can be very effective in reducing the cost of the fuelbreak.
0.3 miles from Gibson Road Pollard Flat: Implement fuel reduction around homes (6) in the area, and the restaurant, creating a defensible fuel profile zone. The accelerated amount of traffic visiting the
restaurant increases the risk factor for this location. Create about six acres of fuelbreak in the vicinity of the homes and the restaurant east of the freeway.
Pollard Flat east of the restaurant LaMoine and Slate Creek: These homes are situated in a canyon or on a hillside. A recent fire in July 2003 had the opportunity to do great damage, but weather conditions, evening temperatures, combined with fire suppression, limited the fire to six acres. Two historic structures were destroyed. Create a roadside fuelbreak along Slate Creek Road, Little Slate Creek Road, and LaMoine Road, about 1.3 miles, or 31 acres. Homeowners need to thin fuel around homes (12) west of the freeway to create about six acres of defensible space.
Vegetation along Slate Creek Road Dog Creek Road and Cavanaugh Canyon: Access is through the Dog Creek Exit from the freeway.
The landowners should be encouraged to thin the forest behind the homes in the Dog Creek/Cavanaugh Canyon. Access is a three mile long narrow, winding, paved road along the bottom of a steep canyon, with six private side roads about 0.1 miles each. Homeowners should create defensible space around their homes. About 72 acres of roadside fuelbreak is needed to provide adequate access for fire engines and escape for residents in the event of a wildfire.
Vegetation along Dog Creek Road
More of the vegetation along Dog Creek Road Delta/Vollmers: This area lies east of the freeway at the Dog Creek Exit. A fuel break is provided by the Sacramento River, and the Union Pacific Railroad provides protection from the east side.
Delta homeowners have created a large green safety zone in their subdivision, and should be commended for it. The access road into town is 0.4 miles-long, with turnouts, down a steep bluff. The access road goes through a wooded area that should be thinned to reduce the fire hazard to residents and firefighters. There are about 20 acres of timbered area to be thinned.
Access road into Delta/Vollmers North Lakeshore area: This is north of Snowbird Lane to the end of Lakeshore Drive. Build on and enhance the power line fuelbreak put in place by PG& E. Implement fuel reduction below the fuelbreak. This involves about 25 to 35 homes. Create defensible fuel profile zones around homes to complement the roadside fuelbreak along Lakeshore Drive, see below for details. Defensible space will amount to about 0.75 acres per home.
Vegetation in the North Lakeshore area Snowbird Bird Lane area: This is north of Antlers, off Lakeshore Drive, near the transfer site. These 20 homes are in very heavy brush, grass and conifer fuel load, with a single overgrown dirt road for access and escape route. Snowbird Lane is 0.5 miles long, and Big Oak Lane and Ralphs Lane are each about 0.2 miles long. This will yield about 24 acres of roadside shaded fuelbreak. Creation of defensible space around the houses is also needed. There is no safety zone for these residents if trapped. Thinning, a fuelbreak, and a safety zone/second escape route are needed for adequate protection from a wildfire. The power lines offer some protection at this time, but it is not adequate.
Entrance to Snowbird Lane
Vegetation along Snowbird Lane
Lakehead - Riverview Drive area: This subdivision is located east of the freeway, at the Riverview Exit, and contains about 75 homes. Create about 38 acres of defensible space around the homes. Riverview Drive is 1.6 miles from the freeway to the end, and is in need of roadside clearing, which amounts to 38 acres of roadside fuelbreak. Main Street in Lakehead is 0.3 miles long with four businesses, and Black Boulevard and Moody Avenue are 0.2 and 0.1 miles long. There is no opportunity to construct a roadside fuelbreak along either of these streets. There appears to be a lot of Scotch broom in the area.
Riverview Drive north of Lakehead
Dead vegetation along Riverview Drive
Main Street, Lakehead looking south
Main Street, Lakehead looking north
Lakeshore: Lakeshore Drive: Three miles of roadside clearing is needed from Beehive Lakeshore Campground to Pine Street. This project will yield about 54 acres of roadside fuel reduction. From the Antlers freeway exit to the end of Lakeshore Drive is another 3.0 miles, and another 54 acres of roadside fuel reduction.
Vegetation along Lakeshore Drive north of the Antlers freeway exit
Lakeshore Drive looking south next to the freeway, north of the Antlers exit
Lakeside Woods Subdivision: Create a fuelbreak, and implement thinning above the homes, extending from Doney Creek past Riverview Dr. This involves about 150 homes. A firebreak and thinning are needed on the knoll above Mammoth Drive and Slate Street, as well as behind the homes on Chamise and Doney Streets. Several homes are in or built against thick stands of brush & grass. Chamise Street has five homes, one house under construction, one lot being cleared, and one vacant lot. Slate Street has three homes, and one empty lot that has had some fuel reduction work. Mammoth Drive has 24 homes, and one empty lot in need of fuel reduction. Oak Street has 20 homes, and four empty lots, with one needing fuel reduction. Cedar Street has 38 homes, and two empty lots well maintained. Doney Street has ten homes. The knoll north of Mammoth Drive and Slate Street figures into the defensible space for the Fire House and the Lions Hall, two empty lots and five homes. A three quarter mile, 7.6 acre peripheral fuelbreak needs to be constructed from Lakeshore Boulevard around the homes and connect with the proposed Firehouse fuelbreak on the north and west.
Fuels behind the Lakehead Firehouse and Lions Hall
Defensible space is needed in Lakeside Woods Subdivision
Lakeview Heights Subdivision: Between Charlie Creek and Doney Creek, use the fuelbreak constructed during the High Complex Fire just above the homes, and thin the fuel on the hill above the fuelbreak to create a defensible fuel profile zone. Create roadside fuelbreaks totaling 16 acres along Lakeview Drive, Mays Lane, and High Court. An additional project for this subdivision is to create a defensible fuel profile zone west of the railroad between it and Lakeview Drive, another eight (8) acres. This involves 55 homes. Work with residents to create defensible space around their homes. Sugarloaf Subdivision: Locate a shaded fuelbreak along the ridges to the west and wrap around on the ridge to the north, connecting with Lakeshore Drive. Implement a defensible fuel profile zone between the fuelbreak and the homes to reduce fuel loading. This involves 84 homes and five businesses. Work with residents to create defensible space around their homes and businesses.
This is a view of the brush field behind Sugarloaf Subdivision
Gregory Creek Drainage area: This area, off the Gregory Creek Exit east of the freeway, has a great potential for a major fire driven by a north wind, coming from the Gregory Creek Campground. Two narrow, single lane roads access Gregory Creek Acres (20 up-scale homes), making access for emergency vehicles very difficult, and escape very dangerous. While a safety zone is available at the lake, residents would be cut off if the fire began at the lake. Roadside clearance should be implemented along Gregory Creek Road, and include Claus Lane, Branch Road, Herman Way, Cordes Court, and Zola Drive.
Zola Drive showing the narrow road and the brush encroachment
Zola Drive showing the steep terrain and the vegetation encroachment
Zola Drive is the southern entrance to Gregory Creek Acres. It is a narrow, one lane road, with no alternative exit. A roadside fuelbreak is needed about 24 acres. An additional 4.8 acre roadside fuelbreak is needed along Cordes Court, a single lane dirt road. Branch road is another single lane dirt road needing 9.2 acres of roadside fuelbreak.
Herman Way showing the steepness of slope Herman Way is the northern entrance to Gregory Creek Acres, and it is also a narrow one lane gravel road with no alternative exit. About 12 acres of roadside fuelbreak is needed. Claus Lane is a single Lane dirt road off Herman Way. It needs 9.2 acres of roadside fuelbreak. An escaped campfire from Gregory Creek Campground at the base of the drainage on a north aspect could be devastating. Such a fire would quickly go through the drainage, and spill over into the Salt Creek/ Solus Mountain Road, the Lundgren Mountain, Statton Road Subdivision /Gilman Road area. Statton Road Subdivision: Use the Salt Creek Exit from the freeway. Statton Road is a through street between Gilman Road, and Salt Creek Road.
Statton Road showing narrow road in steep terrain
Statton Road showing brush encroachment Create a defensible fuel profile zone around and within the subdivision. This involves about 30 homes, Solus R/V Park, and Upper Salt Creek Group Campground. Roadside fuelbreaks are needed along Statton Road (33.6 acres), Klamath Court (2.3 acres), Kanuk Way (2.3 acres), Yurok Drive (4.6 acres), Wintoon Way (12 acres), and Pit Point (1 acre). Lower Salt Creek drainage: Access is through Lower Salt Creek Road. This area is west of the freeway, and involves about 70 homes and Salt Creek Lodge, with one route
for ingress and egress. Access is imperative, so fuel reduction along Lower Salt Creek Road and Kamloop Road must be included as part of the project.
Lower Salt Creek Road showing the brush encroachment Create a defensible fuel profile zone beginning at the shoreline, and thin fuels up to and around homes. Establish fuel clearance along Lower Salt Creek Road and Kamloop Road, totaling about 6 acres of fuelbreak. With the many homes in the area, this fuelbreak will take twice the normal amount of coordination. Gilman Road / Old Mill Road: There are 15 to 20 homes located in this steep canyon with a narrow single lane access and escape road.
Old Mill Road showing the narrow road and steep canyon
Create a defensible fuel profile zones around homes, and implement additional fuel reduction within the subdivision. Create a safety zone for residents as there is only a one lane for access and escape. Construct 48 acres of roadside fuelbreaks along Old Mill Road, Our Road, and Deerpark Avenue.
Old Mill Road showing the brush encroachment Gilman Road / Top of The Hill, Waterman Road, and Hirz Mountain Lookout Road: Another situation with single road access. This segment of Gilman Road has 15 to 20 homes, Top of The Hill Road has two homes, Waterman Road has five to six homes, and Hirz Mountain Lookout Road has five to six homes also. All three roads are narrow single lane in steep terrain with no alternative escape route.
Top of The Hill Road showing brush encroachment
Waterman Road Showing Brush Encroachment
Hirz Mountain Lookout Road showing narrow road in steep terrain Create a defensible fuel profile zone around homes and a safety zone. Establish fuel clearance along the road. Top of The Hill Road needs 14.4 acres of roadside fuelbreak on the private land. This road crosses national forest land for the first 0.1 mile from Gilman Road. Waterman Road needs 14.4 acres of roadside fuelbreak on the private land. It goes onto national forest land after 0.6 miles. Hirz Mountain Road (USFS Road #34-N05) needs 16.8 acres of roadside fuelbreak on private land. The areas of public land and private land need to be defined before a fuel reduction project can be implemented. Note: Hirz Mountain Lookout Road lacks a road sign.
Gilman Road: Gilman Road is 4.5 miles in length within the developed corridor east of I-5. A goal of LFSC plan is to create 110 acres of roadside fuelbreak along Gilman Road. This will have to be a cooperative effort between USFS, Shasta County Highway Department, and the homeowners needing the road for access and escape during a wildfire. McCloud Bridge: Bollibokka Recreation Area is located at the intersection of Gilman Road and Fenders Ferry Road. This gated recreation area has indicated they will take care of their own fuel reduction, but will need consideration in the event of an emergency evacuation. Establish fuel clearance along Gilman Road to the McCloud Bridge. This is an additional five miles beyond the consideration above, or an additional 120 acres of roadside fuelbreak. This segment of the road lies within the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area. Skyline Drive subdivision near Lakeview Marina: Located on the East Side of the freeway at the OBrien Exit, this subdivision has more than 20 homes, with one narrow road access.
Skyline Drive showing the over growth on the road
Skyline Drive showing over grown condition
Skyline Drive showing the turn-out on the right Create a defensible fuel profile zone around homes and a safety zone for the neighborhood. Establish fuel clearance along Skyline Drive, Lakeview Drive, Spiral
Lane, Ycotti Creek Ridge Road, and Oak Ridge Drive. This is about 48 acres of roadside fuelbreak in steep terrain. The roads are narrow with turnouts. OBrien Mountain Estates: This subdivision has its own fire safe council, and has indicated they will implement their own fuel reduction projects. Area has about 75 upscale homes. This is a gated community, so arrangements and permission will be necessary to gain access for any kind of assistance. Shasta Marina, Lakeview Marina, Holiday Harbor Marina, Packers Bay Marina, and McCloud Arm Marina: Create a fuelbreak around the marinas, and work with the owners/managers to create fuel clearance along access roads. This project will entail construction of an estimated 40 acres of fuelbreak and defensible fuel profile zone. Packers Bay-Northwoods: Access is solely from Southbound I-5. This subdivision has about 15 up-scale homes. This is a gated community, so arrangements will have to be made for access. Thin fuels around homes and the marina to create a defensible fuel profile zone for firefighter safety, and create 72 acres of roadside fuelbreak along Packers Bay Road and Northwoods Drive. TABLE 5 PROPOSED FUELBREAK PROJECTS NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT LETTER ON MAP #9 Sims Road A Gibson Road Highland Lakes Road B Pollard Flat C LaMoine and Slate Creek D Dog Creek Road and Cavanaugh E Canyon Delta and Vollmers F North Lakeshore Area G Snowbird Lane Area H Lakehead Riverview Drive Area I Lakeshore Drive J Lakeside Woods Subdivision K Lakeview Heights Subdivision L Sugarloaf Subdivision M Gregory Creek Drainage Area N Statton Road Subdivision O Lower Salt Creek Drainage P Gilman Road/Old Mill Road Q Gilman Road/Top of the Hill Road R Gilman Road/Waterman Road S Gilman Road/ Hirz Mountain Lookout T Road
Gilman Road McCloud Bridge Skyline Drive Subdivision OBrien Mountain Estates Packers Bay - Northwoods Shasta Marina, Lakeview Marina, Holiday Harbor Marina, Packers Bay Marina, and McCloud Arm Marina
U V W X Y Z Various locations not shown on the map
COMMUNITIES AT RISK The National Fire Plan lists the following communities on the Federal Register as Communities at Risk from wildfire: Gibson, Lakehead, Lakeshore, LaMoine, OBrien, and Sims. Federal criteria stipulated the communities listed. The LFSC will request that Delta, Vollmers, Gregory Creek Area, and Pollard Flat be added to local lists of communities at risk. E. UNDEVELOPED LOTS There are many undeveloped lots scattered throughout the LFSC area. Many of these landowners live outside Shasta County. Fuel build-up on these vacant parcels is dangerous for the rest of the homes in the area. It is the policy of the LFSC to find opportunities to aggressively work on reducing the fuel load on these undeveloped parcels, and seek funding to identify landowners of these properties, and work with them to get the fuel build-up on the parcel reduced to a safe level. LFSC will seek additional funding to actively clean-up parcels of those landowners choosing not to voluntarily reduce fuel levels on their property. F. COMMUNITY EVACUATION PLAN At the time this report is being published, CDF and Shasta County Sheriffs Department, working with WSRCD, have developed and distributed a community emergency evacuation plan for Lakehead and the smaller hamlets throughout the area. This plan includes provision for people, pets, horses, and other livestock. In addition to the actual emergency evacuation plan, the process included community meetings to get input from local residents. Local areas have been designated as fire safe areas for residents to gather or get information in case of a wildfire or other emergency. After considerable deliberation, the TAC decided to include refinement of the existing area emergency evacuation plan as part of the Action Items of this Strategic Fuel Reduction Plan. It felt there were areas of the existing emergency evacuation plan that could be expanded and perfected. An example is the development of a family of comprehensive road maps showing emergency escape routes and alternative safe areas. G. FIRE SAFETY LFSC, in cooperation with USFS, will seek funding to support volunteer fire safe inspectors to go door-to-door to educate homeowners about creating a fire safe environment. Ideally the home inspections would be conducted in the spring for at least two years. Home fire safety inspections will be coordinated with the Lakehead Volunteer
Fire Company and Shasta County Fire Department. The inspectors will also have the capability of helping residents understand how to construct defensible space around their homes. Inspectors will also work with residents to inform them how to safely defend their property during a wildfire, through the Sheltering In Place Program. H. FIRE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM WSRCD will work with local agencies to create an emergency early warning system. Efforts will also be made to coordinate with Shascom and/or Shasta Lake NRA recreation activities information radio station, or coordinate the fire danger warning with the same radio frequency used to broadcast snow warnings in the winter. Fire season ends before the snow season begins, and starts after snow season ends. This would be a natural use of the same radio frequencies during the summer season. If these alternative prove not to be feasible, WSRCD will seek necessary funding to purchase a low bandwidth frequency (AM) mobile radio transmitter designated for fire alerts in the Lakehead area regarding fire danger. GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Funding sources are as varied as the projects listed above. WSRCD has the mechanism in-place to seek funding for any projects generated through this plan. The Lakehead Fire Safe Council is seeking 501-c-3 non-profit status, and will be able to apply for grant funds also. There are several sources of funding available through the agencies in the area. Historically, funding sources have been CalFed, BLM, CDF, National Park Service (NPS), USFS, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Conservation (DOC). Programs that have funded WSRCD fuelbreak construction include: * USDA Forest Service Community Protection Grants Program * USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program * California Department of Conservation RCD Grant Assistance Program. * USDI Bureau of Land Management Community Based Wildfire Prevention Grants Program * USDI Bureau of Land Management Jobs In The Woods Program Grants * USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Jobs In The Woods Program Grants * California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection * National Park Service Community Assistance Grants * Shasta County Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I.
XIV. REFERENCES
Anderson, Hal, Aids in Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior, 1982, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Ogden, Utah, General Technical Report INT-122, 1982. Andrews, Patricia L., BehavePlus Fire Modeling System Version 1.00.00, December 2001. Bull, Brian, NF Ag News Views, Using Goats for Vegetation Management, 2002. Bureau of Land Management, Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations, 2002. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993. Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan For Action. Inland Fishery Division. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Plan, May 2000. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, (FRAP) 2002. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Shasta County Unit Fire Plan, 2002. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento Valley Westside Tributary Watershed Erosion Study, Executive Summary.), 1992. California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Forest Practice Rules 2002, California Resources Department. DeBano, L.F., and R.M. Rice, Fire in Vegetation Management: Its Effect on Soil, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1970. Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 160, Friday, August 17, 2001. Goats Unlimited, Goats Unlimited: Firebreaking with Meat Goats, 2002. Hart, S. P., Langston University, Journal of Dairy Science, Recent Perspectives In Using Goats For Vegetation Management In The USA, 2001. Hartley, Rick, CDF, personal communication to Hide Wenham (WSRCD), 2002. Jolley, Steve, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy, Anderson, CA, personal communication WSRCD, 2002. Kristofors, Kris V., Mining Era in Shasta County, California, 1896-1919: An Environmental Impact Study, an unpublished masters thesis at CSU Chico, 1973.
Lewis, H.T., Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory, Ballena Press, 1973. National Wildfire Coordination Group, S-290 Intermediate Wildland Fire Behavior, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho 1994. Regents of the University of California, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), 1996. Rothermel, Richard C. A Mathematical Model for Fire Spread Predictions in Wildland Fuels, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, INT-115, 1972. Schimke, H.E. and L.R. Green. Prescribed Fire For Maintaining Fuelbreaks in the Central Sierra Nevada, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA., 1970. Shasta Trinity National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan, 2002. Shasta Trinity National Forest, Shasta Trinity Fire Management Plan, Redding, CA, 2001 Shasta Trinity National Forest, Shasta Lake West Watershed Analysis, Redding, CA 2000 Sunset Western Garden Book, Kathleen Norris Brenzel, Editor, Sunset Publishing, 2001 U. S. Census Bureau, U. S. Census 2000. U.S. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Mines and Mineral Resources of Shasta County, California. County Report 6. 1974. USDI USDA, Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations, 2002. USDA Forest Service, Burning By Prescription in Chaparral, 1981. USDA Forest Service, Soil Survey of Shasta-Trinity National Forest Area, California, 1985. USDA Forest Service, The National Fire Plan, October 2000. US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov), Biomass, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2001. AFRP Final Restoration Plan. U. C. Davis, Natural Diversity Database 2002, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Executive Order 13134, Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy. www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov, 1999.
APPENDIX & MAPS APPENDIX
A. B. C. GLOSSARY PROJECT TEAM COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE FUEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LAKEHEAD FIRE SAFE COUNCIL AREA ZIP CODE 96051 GENERAL VEGETATION FIRE HISTORY FUEL MODELS VALUE/HAZARD/RISK RATING LAND OWNERSHIP PLANTS & WILDLIFE SOILS EXISTING ROADS MAP LOCATION OF PROPOSED FUELBREAK PROJECTS
BehavePlus A computer program used for predicting fire behavior. Chain A unit of measurement equal to 66 feet. Fuel Characteristics Factors that make up fuels such as compactness, loading, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, chemical content, size and shape, and moisture content. Fuel Ladder Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata. Fire is able to carry from ground, to surface, to crown. Fuel Moisture Content The amount of water in a fuel, expressed as a percentage of the ovendry weight of that fuel. Fuels Any organic material, living or dead, in the ground, on the ground, or in the air, that will ignite and burn. General fuel groups are grass, brush, timber and slash. Mast Fruit of oaks and other trees, particularly where considered food for wildlife and domestic livestock. Mechanical Treatment Using mechanized equipment including but not limited to bulldozers with or without brush rakes, excavators, rubber tired skidders, mechanized falling machines, chippers and grinders. Pile and Burn Material is cut and piled in open areas to be burned. Burning takes place under permitting environmental conditions. Prescribed Burning The burning of forest or range fuels on a specific area under predetermined conditions so that the fire is confined to that area to fulfill silvicultural, wildlife management, sanitary or hazard reduction requirements, or otherwise achieve forestry or range objectives. Rate of Speed It is expressed as rate of forward spread of the fire front, usually is expressed as chains per hour. Seral Vegetation A series of plant communities that follow another over time on a specific site. Shaded Fuelbreak A wide strip or block of land on which the vegetation has been modified by reducing the amount of fuel available, rearranging fuels so that they do not carry fire easily, and replacing particularly flammable fuels with others that ignite less easily and burn less intensely. Surface Fire A fire that burns surface litter, debris and small vegetation. Topography The configuration of the earths surface, including its relief and the position of its natural and manmade features.
David Grey, Business Owner 19990 Lakeshore Drive Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-2575 Sharol Schaefer, Landowner P.O. Box 633 Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-2514 Jim Harkabus, Landowner, Chief, Lakehead Volunteer Fire Company 20754 Oak Street Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-2352 Kenn & Judy Taylor, Landowners, Lakehead Fire Safe Council 20767 Mammoth Drive Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-8661 Brad & Beth Best, Landowners, Lakehead Fire Safe Council 20720 Doney Street Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-8516 Rich & Joy Artusy, Landowners, Lakehead Fire Safe Council 20700 Chamise Street Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-2024 James Dee & Christine Duarte, Landowners 20749 Waterman Road Lakehead, CA 96051 (530) 238-2138 Marty & Nikki Howard, Business Owners P.O. Box 133 Lakehead, CA 96051 (530)355-0436 Chris & Virginia Veal, Landowners, Lakehead Fire Safe Council P.O. Box 681 Lakehead, CA 96051 (530)238-2011
Bryant Pace USDA Forest Service 14225 Holiday Road Redding, CA 96003 (530) 242-5531 Doug Wenham CDF/SCFD 875 Cypress Avenue Redding, CA 96001 Steve Loughrey USDA Forest Service 14225 Holiday Road Redding, CA 96003 (530) 242-5545 Mike Weaver CDF/SCFD 6103 Airport Road Redding, CA 96002 (530) 224-2440 Ivy Williams USDA Forest Service 14225 Holiday Road Redding, CA 96003 (530) 242-5543 Jack Bramhall WSRCD, Assistant Project Manager 6270 Parallel Road Anderson, CA 96007 (530) 365-7332 X 213
COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE FUEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
qenerl egettion
vkehed2trtegi2puels2 edution2ln
wp2I
Twp 38N Rng 5W
rs R
Gi ra
Ri dg
lde Bou
ze l C
NI T
r Crk D r
TR I
Sl a
k t e Cr Rd
l t Rd Sa
Fen d
Ferry ers Rd nd
R Do g C reek
Lakehead
or e D r
H i rz
Lak e
tn L
ko ut
d nR
G ilm a
r ne D
k e v i ew
VEGETATION TYPE
Barren Greenleaf Manzanita Huckleberry Oak Brewer Oak Pinemat Manzanita Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral
Created January 19, 2004 Source: CASIL, USDA FS Shasta-Trinity Albers, NAD27
O' Bri e
nM tn R
Jeffrey Pine Knobcone Pine Mixed Conifer - Fir Mixed Conifer - Pine Ultramafic mixed Conifer Gray Pine Pondersosa Pine Canyon Live Oak Oregon White Oak Cottonwood/Alder CA Black Oak Willow Urban Water White Fir
Fire Safe Council Area
Other Road
County Boundary
Scrub Oak Whiteleaf Manzanita Montane Mixed Chaparral Pacific Douglas Fir Douglas Fir - Pine Douglas Fir - White Fir Annual Grass/Forbs Wet Meadows
Miles 12
pire ristory
wp2P
3333 Castella
TR IN IT
Lamoine 1661 3084 1783 1080 1630 3972
1427 Lakehead 2048 3155 1218 7555 1584
Fires by Decade
1920 1930 1940 (1000+ Ac Fires Labeled with 1950 Acreage) 1960 1007 2957 1970 1980 3588 1929 3480 1990 3316 2000 (None)
Ingot Fire Safe Council Area 26202
Town Highway Lake
Revised April 1, 2004 Source: CASIL, STNF Albers, NAD27
puel wodels
Twp 38N Rng 5W Twp 38N Rng 3W
wp2Q
Me a
d er C r k D r
H a ze l C
TR IN
IT Y
l Bo u
S la
lt R d
t e C rk
F en
y rs Ferr R d de
ST A
t Sla
rry
SH A
Do g
g Su
a lo
o sh
Hi r
re Dr
L ak e
Lkou t
s hore
G ilm a n
l in e
Shasta-Trinity NF Fuel Model
2 4 6 8 9 10 12 Water Rock/Barren Fire Safe Council Area Town Highway Other Road
Created February 5, 2004 Source: CASIL, USDA FS Shasta-Trinity Albers, NAD27
lueGrzrdGisk ting vkehed2trtegi2puels2
edution2ln
stl e Ca
C re
wp2R
ra rd
ul d e Bo
Sl a t e Crk Rd
Sa nf o
te M Sla
ry Fe r
D o g C reek
rl o ga Su
ko ut tn L
ore Dr
Hi rz
Pa c
r ke
French Gulch
Gr e
k Rd Cr
Gilm a n
ne D yli
O'Bri e
Other High Medium Low
Town Highway Other Road Lake
vnd ywnership
wp2S
stle Ca
C re ek R
Gi ra rd
ulde Bo
C H az e l
k t e C r Rd
lt Rd
LO Rd
F en de
te Sla
R D o g C reek
kout tn L
o re Dr
Lak e sh
B ar
ore D r
USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Mngt
ne yli
tn R
k ev i ew
State of California Industrial Other Private Fire Safe Council Area Town
Highway Other Road Lake
lnts28 ildlife vkehed2trtegi2puels2 edution2ln
Me a rs R
wp2T
rC ulde rk Dr Bo
Sl a Crk Rd te
Ferr y e rs Rd nd
A FR
BALD EAGLE BULL TROUT CALIFORNIA WOLVERINE CANTELOW'S LEWISIA DARLINGTONIA SEEP NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE PACIFIC FISHER PIT R DRNG RAINBOW/REDBAND TROUT STR SHASTA SALAMANDER SHASTA SIDEBAND (SNAIL) County Boundary Fire Safe Council Area Town Highway Other Road Lake
Shasta LakeSHASTA SNOW-WREATH FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG
KLAMATH MANZANITA LOWER MCCLOUD R/CANYON R NORTHERN GOSHAWK TAILED FROG THREAD-LEAVED BEARDTONGUE WATER BULRUSH
Created January 19, 2004 Source: CASIL, DFG Albers, NAD27
wp2U
Soil Map Unit Name
AUBURN-GOULDING-NEUNS (CA156) COHASSET-BOOMER-WACA (CA039) HENNEKE-STONYFORD-MAYMEN (CA139) ISHI PISHI-DUNSMUIR-WEITCHPEC (CA014) JOCAL-MARPA-SHEETIRON (CA149) LUMBERLY-CHOOP VAR.-GRAGS FAM. (CA009)
MARPA-GOULDING-HOHMANN (CA017) MILLSHOLM-SEHORN-LODO (CA147) NEUNS-DEADWOOD-KINDIG (CA011) PONTO-NEER-NEUNS (CA194) SHASTA-DELANEY-MCCUMBER (CA029) TANGLE-TOADLAKE-GOZEM (CA015) WOODSEYE-SMOKEY-NANNY (CA012) Fire Safe Council Area Town Highway Other Road
Created January 19, 2004 Source: CASIL, NRCS Albers, NAD27
ixisting ods
wp2V
C stl e ree kR Ca d
H az e l
u lde Bo
Ferr y ers Rd nd
ga Su
M ill Rd
Ol d
re go r
n Gilm a
ylin
k e v i ew La
nM tn R d
Legend Fire Safe Council Area
Town Highway Other Road
Created January 19, 2004 Source: CASIL Albers, NAD27
votion2of2roposed2 puelrek2rojets
id g
wp2W
H aze l C
nL OR
R t e Crk d
AS T
Sla te M
Fe n
R D og C r eek
s as
r s Ferry Rd
F rs
Fen de
Legend Prop. Project w/ Letter Code
af rl o ga
o re
ill R d
rz Hi
Mt n Lkout
Ol d M
N O P
shor e Dr
ne D y li
T U S
Updated March, 2004 Source: CASIL Albers, NAD27
Ba r
O'B ri e n
k ev i ew La
Mtn Rd
H K L
1 in equals 3.65 mi
Documents Similar To Lakehead Area Strategic Fuels Management Plan
Will Houston
RamblingChief
Terry Estrada
Agung Adiputra
Kim Leclair
Martu_Western_Desert
ppierson7690
yeswanth
malyn
thyngoc
California; Bay Friendly Gardening Guide: From your Backyard to the Bay - Daly City
Free Rain Garden Manuals
reading diversiteen.docx
Muhammad Mahardiyansah
More From Western Shasta Resource Conservation District
Forests and Global Warming: Potential Impacts
Western Shasta Resource Conservation District
Citizen Monitoring Program 2011 Aquatic Bioassessment Sampling
California Organic Retail Practices
Global Warming and forest fires risk
Managing forests for Global Warming
Forests, Carbon and Global Warming: A SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE FINDINGS
Global Warming and Canada's Forests: from Impacts to Adaptation
City of Anderson Walks Guide
Global Warming induced boreal forest change: Predictions versus current observations
Impacts of Global Warming on Forest Fire Severity and Consequences for Carbon Stocks in Boreal Forest
Forest Management Solutions for Mitigating Global Warming in the United States
Adaptation to Global Warming in forest management
City of Redding Walks Guide
Impacts of Global Warming on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest
A Post-Fire Wildlife Habitat Restoration Classroom Curriculum Unit for Grades 5-8
Environmental Health Requirements for Certified Farmers' Markets
Global Warming Science Literacy
Global Warming Stewardship Program
Pervasive Global Warming Changes in Western Forests
Planning for Global Warming Adaptation
Cow Creek Watershed Management Plan
Cow Creek Strategic Fuels Management Plan
French Gulch Area Fuels Reduction and Management Plan 2010
Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community: Case Study
Developing and Registering a Forest Carbon Project in Northern California
Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community
Healthy Shasta County: A Long Term Strategic Plan
Global Warming, Forests, and Fire: What Might We Expect
Fight the Bite: Home, Garden, and Neighborhood Maintenance Checklist
Growing Local Coalition to Host a Forum on the Future of Our Food
Popular in Business
Ali Ahmed
Short Iron Condor
Narendra Bhole
Copy of en Event Register
Mohamed A.Hanafy
Acct 201 - Chapter 3
Huy Tran
artigo-ARB-gp
Roane Adriane
Gaurav Project
Gaurav Kulkarni
Assignment - Exploring Surface Texture (Buijnsters, 2016) - Copy
01 Properties of Steam
Deepanshu Sehgal
Leica Cyclone II Topo V2 0 2P DS 763957 en PDF Media
Service Manual Sharp AR-5132
Ramón Colón
Jielyn San Miguel
E5182_OPlay_R1_user_manual.pdf
Petar Celik
CD r13 Unit Vi Jntuk
Manjusha Takkellapati
z18xer
Glbrt Elizondo
Bc Syllabus
Manual de La Placa PC 400
Esau Jimenez Arevalo
Robotic arm Circuit and Codes
Mutasim.Ali
Denise Koh Chin Hui
HTML Tags Chart
ChromisPOS - User Manual v1.8-Concept
wong.d
Fresh House Building Finance Documents Set to Staff
MOHAMMAD TAUSEEF
Premises as per GMP
divvela
Ejercicio Final Api1104
Mau Atenas Perez
Assignment – 2
ajayrana_tpd
60-GHz Textile Antenna Array for Body-Centric
Kenya Law Letter
Timothy Mudome
The Reston Transportation Service District (TSD)--FINAL.pptx
TerryMaynard
Unit 1 - 02 Elimination With Elimination with MatricesMatrices
parsa90p