Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

This project was funded through a grant from the USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program

December 2003

FIRE SAFE PLAN FOR THE SHINGLETOWN COMMUNITY -TABLE OF CONTENTSPage I. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION A. Statement of Need i. History ii. Shingletown Ridge iii. Potential Losses to Wildfire iv. Climate v. Wildlife and Plants B. Goals and Objectives of the Plan C. Methodology SUPPORTING PLANS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND AGENCIES A. Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan 1995 B. National Fire Plan C. California Fire Plan D. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection E. Shasta County Fire Safe Council i. Shingletown Fire Safe Council F. Lassen National Forest G. Bureau of Land Management H. Private Timberland I. Private Land Other ANALYSIS OF FUEL MODELING AND FIRE CONDITIONS A. Fire History B. Fuel, Weather, and Topography C. Fuel Models D. Results of Fuel Modeling VALUES AT RISK A. Current Land Uses i. Fishing ii. Hunting iii. Observable Wildlife iv. State Highway 44 Corridor v. Scenic Views vi. Residential Environments B. Forest Land C. Fish and Wildlife 1 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 14 14 15 16 17 18 18 18 18 19 21 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

FUEL REDUCTION METHODS AND MAINTENANCE Introduction A. Prescribed Burning B. Mechanical Treatment C. Shaded Fuel Breaks D. Maintenance Treatment i. Herbicides ii. Manual Treatment iii. Herbivores VII. SOILS VIII. ROADS FOR ACCESS IX. BIOMASS X. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES XI. FUEL BREAK MAINTENANCE FUNDING XII. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Introduction B. Construct Shaded Fuel Breaks i. Fire Safe Areas ii. Prioritized Individual Locations C. Community Evacuation Plan D. Fire Safety E. Funding F. Other Action Items XIII. REFERENCES APPENDIX A. B. C. D. GLOSSARY PROJECT TEAM COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE FUEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES WILDLAND FIRE EVACUATION PLAN FOR THE SHINGLETOWN RIDGE

28 28 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 33 34 34 37 38 38 39 39 39 45 47 47 48 48 49

52 54 56 61

TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. FEDERALLY LISTED AND THREATENED SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA INCIDENCE OF FIRES IN THE SHINGLETOWN AREA 1910-2000 FUEL MODELS FOR ESTIMATING FIRE BEHAVIOR FUEL MODEL 1 RESULTS FUEL MODEL 4 RESULTS FUEL MODEL 5 RESULTS FUEL MODEL 8 RESULTS FUEL MODEL 9 RESULTS FUEL MODEL 10 RESULTS FEDERAL CANDIDTATE SPECIES FOR LISTING AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED FOUND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SHARE PROGRAMS FIRE SAFE AREA PRIORITY PROJECTS INDIVIDUAL ROADS IN NEED OF FUEL REDUCTION WORK PRIORITY PROJECTS

PAGE 8 18 20 23 23 23 24 24 24 27 37 40 45 PAGE 42 43 43 44 44 46 47 69

FIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. MAPS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. FIRE SAFE AREA HIGH PRIORITY Shasta Forest Village Subdivision FIRE SAFE AREA HIGH PRIORITY Berry Springs/Plateau Pines Area LOOKING DOWN SITES ROAD/PLATEAU PINES HIGH PRIORITY LAKE McCUMBER ROAD TYPICAL LAKE McCUMBER ROAD INDIVIDUAL ROAD HIGH PRIORITY Thumper Drive INDIVIDUAL ROAD HIGH PRIORITY Ritts Mill & Thatcher Mill Roads

PROJECT OVERVIEW AREAS INCLUSIVE OF THE SHASTA COUNTY RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAC) GRANT APPLICATION FIRE HISTORY VEGETATION LAND OWNERSHIP SOILS FIRE SAFE AREAS AND PRIORITY PROJECTS FIRE SEVERITY

FIRE SAFE PLAN FOR THE SHINGLETOWN COMMUNITY

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wildfire has played a natural part in the evolution of vegetation within the 112,100 acre planning area of the Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community, located approximately 25 miles east of Redding, California. Fuels in the planning area are characterized by grass and understory vegetation, forest and hardwood litter, dormant brush, slash, and chaparral brush. Much of the vegetation has evolved and co-existed with fire for many years and is either dependent on fire or has adapted to the fire regime now associated with the area. Successful fire suppression activities for the past eighty years in the western United States in general, and in the planning area in particular, have significantly increased the volume and type of fuels across the landscape, resulting in High to Very High Fire Hazard Ratings throughout the planning area, according to the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF). 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 Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community was prepared by the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (WSRCD) under a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service National Fire Plan Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program. This plan is an update of the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan, which covered an area of 40,000 acres. The community of Shingletown and surrounding rural residential areas occupy about 27,520 acres along Highway 44, and have a population of about 2,600 people (2000 US Census data). The purpose of the plan is to identify and lay out a network for the construction of shaded fuel breaks and other community activities that can increase protection for those living in the Shingletown area; to protect values at risk; to provide firefighter safety when containing a blaze; to encourage awareness among residents of the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)) for the Shingletown Ridge that illustrates safe transportation routes away from a wildfire; and to encourage a maintenance plan for constructed fuel breaks. During the preparation of the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan, an inventory and location of the various fuel types was completed for the area, and computer modeling was used to predict fire behavior in various vegetation types. The data is displayed in this plan along with updated information gathered from personal communication with staff members of CDF. This plan discusses values at risk around Shingletown, addresses landowner objectives, fuel treatments, the road system, potential funding sources, proposed fuel reduction projects, and previously planned fuel break locations used to

develop the current recommended fuel break system. The recommendations include placing shaded fuel breaks along key roadways and ridges, making the community evacuation plan more publicized and accessible through posting on the WSRCD website, continuing annual, neighborhood-based fuel reduction work, and establishing a locallybased Fire Safe Council to participate in the Shasta County Fire Safe Council.

II.

INTRODUCTION

In 2001 the USDA Forest Service-National Fire Plan Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program awarded funding to the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (WSRCD) to prepare a Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community as an update to the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan. WSRCD has completed other strategic fuels reduction plans in the district for the Lower Clear Creek Watershed, the community of French Gulch, the Shasta West Watershed, the Cottonwood Creek Watershed, the Cow Creek Watershed, and the northern boundary of the Cow Creek Watershed known as Backbone Ridge. The boundary of the Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community (Plan) encompasses 112,100 acres and includes the community of Shingletown, located approximately 25 miles east of Redding, California. Shingletown lies within the Bear Creek and Battle Creek Watersheds, important tributaries to the Sacramento River. Both of these watersheds are part of the Sacramento River Basin in the Upper Cow-Battle watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18020118). Other communities that lie within the Plans boundary include Viola on the eastern end, and Manton, which is just outside the Plans boundary on the south. There are approximately 2,600 residents living within the Plans boundary, but the area is used heavily for recreation during the summer months substantially increasing the number of people using the land during the most dangerous period of the fire season. Land ownership is approximately 4% public including Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, and 96% private, including Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), lands managed by W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc. (W.M. Beaty), and other private land ownership. The Bear Creek watershed is about 45 miles long, ranges from two to ten miles wide, and covers a total area of about 125 square miles or approximately 80,000 acres; approximately 65%, or 52,430 acres of the watershed are included within the Plans boundary. The watershed can be reached from the east and west along State Highway 44, the major two-lane highway connecting Redding and Lassen Volcanic National Park. The topography of this watershed is varied, with elevations ranging from 350 feet at the confluence with the Sacramento River on the west end to 4,400 feet at the eastern end. The majority of the watershed has remained relatively undeveloped over time and is a high water quality tributary to the Sacramento River. The Battle Creek watershed includes the communities of Mineral and Manton, encompasses about 410 square miles or approximately 262,400 acres, and lies along the border of Tehama and Shasta Counties on the eastern side of the Sacramento River. Approximately 59,660 acres of the watershed lie within the Plans boundary, or 23%. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 330 feet on its western end along the Sacramento River to 10,470 feet at the top of Lassen Peak. Ownership in this watershed is comprised of Lassen National Park, the United States Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Large industrial timberland and small, private landowners make up the remainder of the ownership (wim.shastacollege.edu).

The Technical Advisory Committee formed for collaborative implementation of this Plan, which included staff members of state and federal agencies, private timber companies, local landowners/members of the Bear Creek Watershed Group, and public utility companies, felt that creating a boundary that stressed maximum synergy with other groups performing similar work in the area would foster further collaboration and overall project effectiveness. This was the impetus in creating an area of fire protection that not only is inclusive of the land found within the boundary, but of the surrounding areas as well (Map 1). The organizations and agencies affected by the Plans boundary delineation are described below. The USDA Forest Service ownership is in Lassen National Forest, located on the eastern end of the Plans boundary. To the north of the boundary is the Cow Creek Watershed, represented by the Cow Creek Watershed Management Group, an incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit formed to protect and restore the natural resources of this watershed; this group recently completed the Cow Creek Strategic Fuel Reduction Plan and Backbone Ridge Defensible Fuel Profile Zone Plan. The southern end of the boundary includes the Battle Creek Watershed, represented by the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy, includes land owned by the Nature Conservancy, which perform fuel reduction work on their land, and is adjacent to the community of Manton. The goals and objectives of this Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community are as follows.

Identify assets at risk, including streams, timber, wildlife, and structures. Foster and maintain multi-agency and landowner roles and responsibilities in the implementation and maintenance of the Shingletown Fire Safe Plan. Define the boundary of the planning area in order to maximize coordination with other groups performing similar work in the area. Encourage effective, community-based fire safe practices around structures. Identify, prioritize and map potential fuel reduction projects that will provide for human safety, minimize private property loss and minimize the potential of a wildfire burning into the community. Develop maps of the features important to fire prevention and control, including soils, fire history, vegetation, land ownership, topography, roads, and the locations of residential areas. Enter the completed plan on the Western Shasta Resource Conservation Districts website.

A.

STATEMENT OF NEED

i. History - Pre-European Settlement (modified from the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan) When the European settlers arrived in the Shingletown Ridge area, the Asagewis or Hat Creek Indians, the Yanas of the foothills, and the valley Wintu were using the land. The Native Americans did not simply use the resources of the forest as they found them. There is growing evidence that they actively managed their lands using fire to encourage certain plant and animal species and to create and maintain desirable landscapes. The

open stands of trees and diversity of ecosystems encountered by the first Europeans were largely the result of human resource management through the use of fire and frequent accidental and lightning fires. The forest ecosystems and the chaparral on the canyon slopes within the planning area evolved with frequent, low intensity fire over thousands of years. The Native Americans were apparently the most important influence on the timing and location of fires, and therefore contributed to the maintenance of the fire dependent ecosystem. Prior to land management by these various methods, the forests in the Shingletown appear to have evolved in conjunction with fire. The area probably had frequent, low intensity burns varying from 2 to 100 years based on such factors as fuel type, slope, aspect, elevation, local weather patterns and other factors. Fire suppression and early logging practices over the past 50 to 100 years has led to changes in the successional pattern of forest development in the area. Prior to logging and fire exclusion, the forest was more open, with a mosaic of species and age classes. Low intensity fires reduced fuel loads, thinned dense pockets of young trees and created small openings in the forest to allow species with less tolerance for shade, such as Douglas-fir, sugar pine and ponderosa pine, to dominate the forested landscape. Fire, both natural and human caused, accidental and purposeful, governed the evolution of the mixed conifer forest of the Shingletown Ridge at least since the end of the last ice age. It is as natural a part of the forest as sunshine and water and, perhaps, as essential to forest health. However, the uses human beings make of the forest today differ immensely from those made by Native Americans and fire cannot play the same role in the same way. Nevertheless, the pre-settlement forest provides an excellent starting place from which to select a sustainable forest ecosystem condition that meets current and future human needs. It also provides a foundation for understanding how to live safely with fire in the forest and to protect ecological, natural resource, and property values and human life from wildfires destructive potential. ii. Shingletown Ridge (modified from the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan) Fire hazard on the Shingletown Ridge (Ridge) is high. Vegetative cover includes large areas of continuous, heavy fuels on the forest floor, and timber stands with tightly spaced trees and crowns. Widespread fire ladder conditions, resulting from dense reproduction and heavy brush under trees, create the ideal setting for the movement of ground fires to the crown. Short rotations for timber production have resulted in stands of trees with crowns closer to the understory, making torching even more likely. The juxtaposition of buildings, ornamental vegetation, and other flammables in settlements also adds to the fuel available to a wildfire. In addition, lightning strikes are extremely common on the Ridge, and occur most often to the southeast in the Rock Creek drainage. It also hits the higher elevations to the north of the ridge in the vicinity of Latour Butte (personal communication with Ralph Minnich, CDF). Although the topography on the Ridge itself is fairly flat, steep country to the south, west, and north increases the potential for intense fast moving fire burning into the Ridge from

those directions; prevailing south winds supported by up slope winds on hot days and the concentrating influences of canyons add to the threat. Summers are hot with many days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the valleys below the Ridge and above 90 on the Ridge itself. In the fall, hot, dry north to east winds are common and usually continue for 3 to 5 days on at least 3 separate occurrences. The potential for severe fire activity is only reduced with significant precipitation. In addition to these threats, the Ridge is densely settled with homes and businesses, and settlement patterns are becoming more and more widespread throughout the community. Most of the buildings are clustered in subdivisions and other neighborhoods, and are concentrated within an area of about 5,000 acres principally along major roads. Between these settlements lie expanses of undeveloped and commercial forest lands, which typically are adjacent to and intermixed within residential areas. Removal of fuels and excess vegetation and improving defensible space was initiated by CDF in the Shingletown community in 1993. In collaboration with Chico State University, Shasta Forest Village was the area chosen for a demonstration project. In subsequent years, a total of 11 neighborhoods and numerous other residents have participated in the annual spring cleanup. Removal of excess fuels, combined with timber harvesting, has occurred on commercial timberlands with the added benefit of significantly improving the health of retained trees. However, smaller timberland holdings have received minimal cleanup. Concentrations of slash, crowded growing conditions and excessive fuel accumulations pose a significant threat for increased intensity and fire spread should a fire occur (Personal communication with Ralph Minnich of CDF). Exposure to fire risk has increased due to logging practices that did not reduce ground level fuels, exclusion of low intensity fire, division of timberland into smaller parcels, and lack of resource management. The result is excessive accumulations of vegetation, thickets of white fir and cedar reproduction, and an unnaturally high ratio of mature white fir in stands that would typically be composed largely of pines and Douglas fir. Insects and disease attack the white fir more easily than the pines and the fir dies more easily from drought. Lastly, subdivisions have added to the problem where building preparations and road construction have damaged root systems and altered drainage, and where vegetation has been allowed to grow unchecked on vacant lots and common areas. iii. Potential Losses to Wildfire (modified from the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan) Perhaps the worst case scenario for the planning area would be an incident similar to the Fountain Fire, which occurred in August of 1992. The fire burned 64,000 acres in less than 40 hours, destroyed 330 homes, damaged 78 others, and razed 37 businesses, plus 250 other structures within the Cow Creek Watershed, which is to the north of the Plan area. Over 45,000 acres of prime timberland were burned with 600 million board feet of timber killed.

Economic losses of the Fountain Fire are estimated to exceed $110 million. Of that, $8 million was due to the destruction of and damage to structures; $16 million in damage to utilities such as roads and powerlines; and $86 million was lost in commercial timber values. Commercial timber losses equaled $1,343 per acre burned. The timber resource in the area burned by the Fountain Fire is similar to that in the current planning area. In addition to property losses, people experience important social and psychological losses in disasters. In the 1970s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attempted to quantify the human non-property losses associated with flooding. Those losses included the distress on economic productivity and social services. When the results of the study were applied to the Fountain Fire, the losses attributable to distress alone exceeded $30 million for two years following the fire. Additional losses would result from stress-related disruptions of work and added costs in social services over at least two years following the disaster. Because the number of people living within the current planning area is much higher than in the Fountain Fire area and because the value of structures and other property is much higher, both the property and community losses could be much greater. The denser settlement also means that firefighters would have to focus much of their attention on evacuation of people at the expense of suppressing the wildland fire. Structural protection would also take resources away from direct attack on the fire itself, especially during the critical first hours when resources are being assembled. The potential for a fire within the current planning area to threaten lives, destroy property, and natural resources and grow rapidly into a major conflagration is higher than it was for the Fountain Fire area. iv. Climate The area included in the Plan experiences extreme fire weather conditions, especially from May until September, when the high temperature frequently exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Frequent strong zonal south and west winds occur throughout the summer; dry lightning storms occur most years. Beginning in late summer and throughout the fall, very dry foehn (warm dry wind coming off the lee slopes of a mountain range) winds blowing from the north and east are common. Generally, the climate of the area is seasonal and varies with elevation. The summers are hot and dry and winters are cool with moderate rainfall and periodic, heavy snowfall in the higher elevations. The mean monthly temperatures in Shingletown, reflecting data gathered since 1975 from a forested, north-facing site at 4,800 feet, range from 39 degrees Fahrenheit in winter to 70 in summer. The coldest, average, monthly low temperature recorded was 25 degrees Fahrenheit in December of 1990, while the hottest, average, monthly high temperature recorded was 92 degrees in July of 2003. The average annual precipitation measured in Shingletown is about 53 inches, with most of the rain falling in the winter and spring months; precipitation as snowfall increases with elevation in winter.

v. Wildlife and Plants The following table displays federally listed endangered (E) and threatened (T) species that may be affected by work performed within the study area. Some species listed here, however, may not actually occur inside of the boundary of the plan, but may live downstream of, fly over, or migrate through and are therefore included. The data is current through June 2003, and was obtained through entering the names of all the 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle (quad) maps that are included in the Plans boundary into the following US Fish and Wildlife website: http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/spp_list.htm. Table 1. Federally Listed Endangered (E) and Threatened (T) Species Found within the Plan Area. Invertebrates Pacifastacus fortis - Shasta crayfish (E) Branchinecta lynchi - Vernal pool fairy shrimp (T) Desmocerus californicus dimorphus - Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T) Lepidurus packardi - Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (E) Fish Hypomesus transpacificus - Delta smelt (T) Oncorhynchus mykiss - Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (T) (NMFS) Pogonichthys macrolepidotus - Sacramento splittail (T) Amphibians Rana aurora draytonii - California red-legged frog (T) Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus - Bald eagle (T) Plants Orcuttia tenuis - Slender orcutt grass (T)

B.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN

The purpose of this document is to produce a Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown community. This will be accomplished by consulting with the Bear Creek Watershed Group and agency representatives on the TAC, and reviewing the 1995 Shingletown

Wildfire Defense Plan to determine what actions identified in that plan have been completed and which ones still need to be addressed. Goals and Objectives include:

Identify assets at risk, including streams, timber, wildlife, and structures. Foster and maintain multi-agency and landowner roles and responsibilities in the implementation and maintenance of the Shingletown Fire Safe Plan. Define the boundary of the planning area in order to maximize coordination with other groups performing similar work in the area. Encourage effective, community-based fire safe practices around structures. Identify, prioritize and map potential fuel reduction projects that will provide for human safety, minimize private property loss and minimize the potential of a wildfire burning into the community. Develop maps of the features important to fire prevention and control, including soils, fire history, vegetation, land ownership, topography, roads, and the locations of residential areas. Enter the completed plan on the Western Shasta Resource Conservation Districts website.

C.

METHODOLOGY

The activities necessary for the development of the Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community (Plan) include: Meeting with Bear Creek Watershed Group members, landowners (residential, farm, ranch, timber), and representatives from local agencies about the scope of the plan. Evaluating values at risk, such as structures and natural resources. Presenting data to the TAC formed to help create the Plan, which includes representatives from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), W.M. Beaty, the Shingletown Volunteer Fire Department, members of the Community Fire Safe project, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), and local landowners for review and assistance in prioritization of fuel reduction projects. Coordinating with agencies on their management objectives in the watershed. Identifying long term maintenance options for fuel breaks. Identifying mechanical treatments and possible uses of excess fuels. Developing a priority list of recommendations and potential funding sources. Completing a draft fuel management plan for review by the TAC. Presenting a draft fire safe plan to the community, and incorporating recommendations into the final plan.

III.
A.

SUPPORTING PLANS, ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES

1995 SHINGLETOWN WILDFIRE DEFENSE PLAN

The Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan was completed in 1995 and was authored by Ralph Minnich, CDF Battalion Chief, Mark Lancaster, Registered Professional Forester, and Ron Hodgson, a professor from the California State University, Chico. The 1995 plan was intended to be a general organizing effort, and covered an area of approximately 40,000 acres. It contained seven chapters discussing the goals and values relating to the forest; a physical description of the forest on Shingletown Ridge; the resource management history and present land uses; forest health; a description of the wildfire threat to human life, property, and forest values; the predicted behavior of wildfires under typical extreme fire danger experienced in the summer months; and included recommendations to improve wildfire defenses for Shingletown Ridge through hazard and risk management. The following list is taken from the 1995 plan, and describes (in italics) the Actions Needed in the Shingletown area in order to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. It includes a brief discussion of the follow up actions already taken, or those that will be taken as a result of the current Plan. Identify and develop funding sources to support cooperative hazard reduction by public and private landowners. A list of funding sources is shown in Table 11 and is discussed in Sections X and XI of this Plan. Find more cost-effective methods for removing and disposing of material generated during hazard reduction projects. The details of transferring biomass to Wheelabrator Shasta Energy, a 50-megawatt, wood-fired power plant that utilizes approximately 1,400 bone dry tons of biomass/day seven days a week to produce electricity - are discussed in Section IX of this plan. Expand the educational programs for neighborhood organizations. Develop educational materials that describe how to assess the fire threat in ones neighborhood; how to organize with ones neighbors to reduce the fire threat; and how to select vegetation for removal, how to prune, and how to do other work needed to adapt the neighborhood setting to better contain fires and survive wildfires burning into them from the neighboring wildlands. As a result of the recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed for this Plan and the cooperative efforts of CDF, a Fire Safe Council was formed in May of 2003 for the Shingletown area. This group will benefit from the organizational structure of the Shasta County Fire Safe Council, which recently received funding to develop a mobile educational display to disseminate information about fire safety throughout Shasta County. Educational videos have recently been produced by CDF. The first is called Defensible Space, and shows landowners how to prune, how to pick a site to burn debris in a safe manner, and how to obtain permits for this activity. The second is called Fire Safe Inside and Out, which discusses how landowners can choose appropriate fire safe landscaping, make their home visible to firefighters with proper signing, establish an

10

emergency water supply, choose building and roofing materials that increase a homes resistance to fire, plan evacuation routes, and follow a course of action to protect themselves when a wildfire threatens. In addition, handouts have been created and distributed to the community that show landowners the meaning of fire safe, and the Community Fire Safe program in Shingletown is getting larger every year with the help of Neighborhood Coordinators and CDF, who prepare landowners each year for excess vegetation removal, chipping of downed brush and tree limbs, and hauling material off-site. Find and test equipment appropriate for vegetation management in the wildlandurban interface. Landowners who participate in the Community Fire Safe Program use handsaws, chainsaws, and pruning shears for their work, and then pile debris near their driveways so staff from CDF can use a front-end loader to place material in a chipper. This method has been working well for the last few years, and will most likely remain the way in which vegetation is removed near homes in the Shingletown area. Develop recommendations for specific fuel modification projects, particularly the location of and vegetation management prescriptions for fuel breaks. Through the TAC process used for this Plan, a list of prioritized fuel breaks for the Shingletown area and the community of Viola has been prepared and is included in Section XII of this Plan. Prescriptions for each fuel break will be done on a project-specific basis and will depend on funding, terrain, availability of CDF conservation crews, availability of WSRCD crews and equipment, time of year, and environmental permitting restrictions. Encourage interest within the private sector for application of landscape management techniques to wildland fire defense landscaping. Many local contractors are aware of the work that the WSRCD performs in fuel reduction and management, and as a result have been working with landowners in the area to determine reasonable rates for vegetation management on a neighborhood scale. Develop a variety of typical neighborhood-scale landscape designs that demonstrate fire safety and forest health while preserving or improving aesthetics and providing for security, privacy, and other values. Publish illustrations of those designs. Appendix C of this plan displays Community Fire Safe Fuel Reduction Guidelines (Guidelines), which contains illustrations of how to design a landscape with fire safety in mind, and the CDF video Fire Safe Inside and Out also discusses this topic. However, the Guidelines and the CDF video focus on maintaining a fire safe landscape around individual homes, and do not discuss how to create a fire safe landscape on the neighborhood scale. Develop lists of more fire safe plant materials that can be grown successfully in the Southern Cascade Mountains and Northern Sierra Foothills. Provide instructions for planting and care of those plants. Provide information on plant identification for native species and information about flammability with recommendations for replacement with safer plant materials. This item was not a focus of this plan, although the fire safety video produced by CDF does discuss this topic. In addition, Grey Pine Farms, a native plant nursery, was established in Oak Run in 1995, and supplies native stock to CalTrans and other public agencies and homeowners. They can be reached at PO Box 31, Oak Run, CA 96069. Furthermore, the California Native Plant Society (Society) is a state-wide non-

11

profit organization whose amateur and professional members share a common interest in Californias native plants. The Society seeks to increase the understanding of Californias native flora to preserve this resource for future generations. They can be found on the internet at www.cnps.org. Develop illustrations of fire defense landscaping zones around structures in different kinds of vegetation and on different slopes and aspects. Illustrate the use of landscape construction and plantings to slow the fire down, cool it down, and keep it on the ground. These topics are discussed in Appendix C and in the two CDF videos previously mentioned. Support programs which enhance long-term forest health, including the reintroduction of controlled fire as a management tool. The maintenance of commercial forest lands after thinning and fuel breaks after completion is an essential use of prescribed fire. Funding sources for maintenance of fuel breaks is presented in Section XI of this plan; controlled burns are performed by CDF on a case-by-case basis. Stimulate an understanding and appreciation for the interaction of a vigorous forest environment, wildlife, recreation, water, and aesthetics. A healthy forest is essential to a prosperous local economy. The formation of the Shingletown Fire Safe Council will enable the community to benefit from the recently funded mobile educational display that the Shasta County Fire Safe Council is creating. This educational unit will help to stimulate the understanding and appreciation of the forest, including fire, which is necessary in order for a community to make choices regarding fire safety that will lead to a healthy forest environment. Recently, several events have stimulated the understanding of the value of healthy, well-managed forests. These include the aforementioned Fountain Fire, the Cone Fire of 2002, and the Whitmore Fire of 2003. In addition, the Turtle Bay Exploration Park has a Healthy Forests display that serves to educate youth on the subject of maintaining and appreciating forest health. Recognize that widespread community participation in preparing wildland fire defenses and improving forest health creates a stronger, more effective community better prepared to deal with other concerns as well. The efforts of those involved in the Community Fire Safe program, the formation of the Shingletown Fire Safe Council, and the creation of this plan (which includes prioritized locations of fuel breaks) as an update to the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan all show that these ideas have been recognized and will continue to be into the future. NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

B.

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, conserving priority watersheds, species and biodiversity, reducing wildland fire costs, losses and damages, and insuring 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.

12

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. C. 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. Pre-fire 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 has identified a direct relationship between reduced expenditures for pre-fire management and suppression and increased emergency fund expenditures, disaster funding, and private taxpayers expenditures and losses.

13

D. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CDF) CDF is responsible for fire suppression and prevention on non-federal lands identified as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and on lands where a contract has been signed for CDF protection, known as Direct Protection Areas (DPAs). CDF may also provide and manage emergency services through cooperative agreements with counties and fire districts. 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 summary, CDF believes that cooperative fire protection, fuels reduction, and fire prevention must be linked in order to have future success in dealing with the wildfire problems on lands for which they are responsible. E. SHASTA COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL

The Shasta County Fire Safe Council was formed in May 2002 as part of a statewide effort that began in 1993 to form area Fire Safe Councils to educate and encourage Californians to prepare for wildfires before they occur. 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. More information is available at www.firesafecouncil.org, or at www.shastacountyfiresafecouncil.org. i. Shingletown Fire Safe Council The Shingletown Fire Safe Council was formed in 2003 as a result of an idea planted at a community meeting held during the formation of this Plan. Community meetings were an integral aspect of the process, and were scheduled to announce the Plan to the community, to ask for input as the process continued, and to present the final Plan to the community once completed. At the second community meeting held in April of 2003, staff from the WSRCD and CDF encouraged the neighborhood coordinators of the Community Fire Safe program to think about forming a Fire Safe Council of their own and joining the Shasta County Fire Safe Council. This seemed to be a logical step for the group, as some of the goals of this Plan are educational in nature, and serve the community directly; members of the Community Fire Safe program have lived in the area for years and are known to other community members. It was felt a locally based effort would bring less resistance and skepticism that could thwart the new Fire Safe Council as

14

they began attempts to disseminate information on fire safety and gain widespread community support. F. LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST

The Forest Service administers about 2,375 acres or 2% of the land on the eastern boundary of the planning area. These lands are managed as part of the Hat Creek Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. Responsibility for fire incidents is dependent upon where the fire is located, and can include CDF, the Hat Creek Ranger District, the Shingletown Volunteer Fire Department, the National Park Service or the Lassen National Forest. The total area of the Lassen National Forest is 1.2 million acres or 1,875 square miles. It lies within seven counties; Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Plumas, Siskiyou, and Modoc. The forest lies at the heart of one of the most fascinating areas of California that has been named The Crossroads. Here the granite of the Sierra Nevada, the lava of the Cascades and the Modoc Plateau, and the sagebrush of the Great Basin meet and blend. The area is known for its variety, greeting visitors as well as residents with a wide array of recreational opportunities. Fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, bicycling, boating, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and just exploring and learning about nature are among the many popular pastimes (www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/about/). During TAC meetings held as part of the collaborative process used to create this Plan, it was determined that there was an opportunity to pursue funding for fuel reduction work through the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) before the Plan had been completed. At the time that this was determined, the boundary of the Plan had been set, and the specific neighborhoods where the Community Fire Safe program takes place had been mapped; this map also showed where fuel breaks had been planned in the past by CDF. This data lead to an idea for grant funding that involved W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc., SPI, and the Lassen National Forest, Hat Creek Ranger District. The first priority for fuel reduction work, as determined by the TAC, was the Shasta Forest Village subdivision. W.M. Beaty manages land east, west, and north of this area, and was planning a commercial thinning operation on the western boundary of their land, which is the eastern boundary of the subdivision. In addition, there had been a fuel break constructed in 2001 on the south and west of Shasta Forest Village that was in need of maintenance. After collaborating with W.M. Beaty, it was determined that the WSRCD would perform the maintenance where it was needed, and clean up the commercial thinning operation after W.M. Beaty had performed their work. The work that W.M. Beaty performed on their western boundary would be used as an in-kind match for the RAC application. SPI was a part of the TAC, and stated that they would be able to do a fuel break as an inkind match for the WSRCDs grant application along 19 miles of the sections of their property that lie along the boundary of this Plan. The Hat Creek Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest was contacted as well, and it was found that they had been planning to do fuel reduction work right up to the point where their land intersects with SPI ownership. This grant application therefore created synergy with this Plans first

15

priority for fuel reduction work, W.M. Beaty work, SPIs fuel reduction efforts, and the Lassen National Forests planned fuel reduction work as match for this one grant. This grant application was funded in September of 2003 by the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). Once completed, this project will serve to protect the resources of the Lassen National Forest as well as those of the community of Shingletown. See Map 2 for an overview of this project. G. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers about 3,225 acres or 3% of the land in the planning area. All BLM lands with burnable vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan (FMP), a strategic plan that defines a program to manage the wildland and prescribed fires based on the areas approved land management plan (U. S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002). The FMP provides for firefighter and public safety, includes fire management strategies, tactics and alternatives, addresses values to be protected and public health issues, and is consistent with resource management objectives, activities of the area and environmental laws and regulations. Until an FMP is approved, BLM units must take aggressive suppression action on all wildland fires consistent with firefighter safety and public safety and the resources to be protected. The BLM Fire Management Officer is responsible and accountable for providing leadership for the BLM fire and aviation management program at the local level. BLM strategically focuses fuel treatment activities by placing priorities on areas where actions will mitigate threats to the safety of employees and the public, areas were actions will protect, enhance, restore and/or maintain plant communities and habitats that are critical for endangered, threatened or sensitive plant and animal species, and areas where actions will reduce risks and damage from a wildfire. Although structural fire suppression is the responsibility of tribal, state or local governments, BLM may assist with exterior structural protection activities under a formal agreement with CDF (as of 2003, CDF is under contract to provide fire protection to BLM lands). There are three categories of structures: those not threatened; those threatened; those lost or too dangerous to protect. In the wildland-urban interface, BLM lists several Watch Outs that assist personnel in sizing up a wildfire situation. These Watch Outs may be beneficial to readers of this report in assessing the fire-safe condition of personal property. Watch Out for:

Wooden construction and wood shake roofs. Poor access and narrow one-way canyons. Bridge weight and size limits when using heavy equipment. Inadequate water supply. Natural fuels 30 or closer to structures. Evacuations of public, livestock, pets, animals (planned or occurring). Power lines and poles overhead and fallen lines.

16

Propane and above-ground fuel tanks with nearby vegetation or wooden improvements. Local citizens attempting suppression actions. Level of coordination with multiple agencies.

H. PRIVATE TIMBERLAND W.M. BEATY AND SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES About 49,100 acres (44%) of the planning area are privately owned timberlands, most of which are zoned as Timber Production Zones (TPZs) that are restricted to timber production and certain compatible uses. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) is the largest commercial forest landowner in the planning area, managing 27,500 acres; W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc. manage approximately 21,560 acres within the planning area. Typically, all contractors and employees authorized 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 firefighting purposes. Tools include shovels, axes, saws, backpack pumps, and scraping tools. Each forest worker, employee, or person authorized 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 CDF or the agency 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. Typically there are specific treatments detailed for care of limbs and other woody debris (often called slash) created by harvest operations in order to minimize fire hazards. 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. A Timber Harvest Plan is a detailed logging plan that must be approved by the California Board of Forestry before any work begins. 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, the 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 remains more than 30 above the ground. All woody debris created by harvest operations greater than one inch and less than eight inches 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 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 exist has been determined.

17

I.

PRIVATE LAND OTHER

Other private land totals about 57,500 acres, or 51% of the total planning area, and includes a mixture of residential parcels, farms, and ranches. Of historical interest is the Aldridge Ranch, the second longest continually owned ranch in Shasta County. It was purchased in 1862, and contains approximately 5,000 acres of ranchland. This area has been subjected to a CDF Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) which used prescribed burning (Section VI) to reduce the fuel load on the ranch. Residential parcels are found in scattered clusters throughout the Plan area, and have been prioritized for fuel reduction work (Section XII, Map 7).

IV.
A.

ANALYSIS OF FUEL MODELING AND FIRE CONDITIONS

FIRE HISTORY

CDF maintains databases on large fires within and around their State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Direct Protection Areas (DPAs), and has recorded 32 large fires within and around the planning area between 1900 and 2000, including prescribed burns (Table 2, Map 3). The CDF database also includes fires recorded within the National Park Service Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs). Both databases include the year of fire start and the number of large fires, but cause of fire is included only on CDF fire start data and Forest Service large fire data. The CDF database is also historically incomplete because it does not record fires less than 250 acres and does include the cause of fire starts prior to 1985. Table 2. Incidence of Fires in the Shingletown Area 1910 2000. Also See Map 3. (Forest Service and CDF data) Decade Number of Large Fires (>250 acres) Total Acres Burned 1910 4 4,510 1920 9 5,653 1930 5 2,851 1940 1 292 1950 3 2,715 1960 4 19,512 1970 2 8,986 1980 0 0 1990 2 796 2000 2 140 Total 32 45,455 B. FUEL, WEATHER, & TOPOGRAPHY

The three major components of the Wildland Fire Environment are fuels, weather, and topography (National Wildfire Coordination Group, 1994). Weather is a major factor and

18

local weather conditions are important in predicting how a fire will behave. Within the planning area, the wind generally blows from the southwest throughout the summer, although periodic winds out of the north during summer and fall are common as well. From a strategic (yet hypothetical) standpoint, a fire start can most likely be attacked by an east-west fuel break or area to set up control lines. If a community had an east-west fuel break on the north and south boundary, it would have a level of protection perpendicular to either dominant wind situation, from the north or south. 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 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 in this case is the amount of water in a fuel sample, expressed as a percentage of the green weight of that fuel. A fuel with less than 30% moisture content is considered a dead fuel, while live fuels will range from 30 to 60 percent moisture content, depending on the plant's stage of growth in a season. Fuel loading is defined as the ovendry weight of fuels, usually expressed in bone dry tons. A bone dry ton is 2000 pounds of vegetation at 0% moisture content. 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 sustain itself. Chemical content in fuels can either retard or increase the rate of combustion.

All of these factors in combination with fire weather conditions (relative humidity, temperature, wind, etc.) will influence the quantity of heat delivered, and the duration, flame length and rate of spread of any given fire. Map 4 displays the live vegetation found within the planning area. C. FUEL MODELS

Fuels are made up of various components of vegetation, live and dead, that occur on a given site. Fuels have been classified into four groups grass, shrub, timber litter, and slash. The differences in fire behavior among these groups are related to the fuel load and its distribution among the fuel diameter-size class. In 1972, 13 mathematical fire behavior models or Fuel Models were developed by Rothermel 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.

19

Fuel models represent what type of fuel will most likely support fire. Fuel models 1-3 are grass or grass dominated, 4-7 are shrub dominated, 8-10 are timber litter, and 11-13 are slash dominated. The fuel models were identified based on the publication Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior by Anderson, 1982. Table 3. Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. Fuel Model Fuel Complex Found in Shasta County? Grass and Grass-Dominated Short Grass (1 foot) Yes 1 Timber (grass and understory) Yes 2 Tall Grass (2.5 feet) No 3 Chaparral and shrub fields Mature brush with considerable Yes 4 amounts of dead fuel Young brush with very little dead Yes 5 fuel Dormant brush Yes 6 Southern rough No 7 Timber litter Short needle conifer and hardwood Yes 8 litter 9 10 11 12 13 Long needle conifer and black oak litter Timber litter greater than 3 inches Slash Light logging slash Medium logging slash Heavy logging slash Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

The fuel models were designed to predict fire behavior for specific weather and fuel conditions. They are accurate throughout a broad range of climates but tend to under predict the spread and intensity of fire during extreme conditions (high winds combined with very low relative humidity). Fuel models are 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. Using the fuel models described by Rothermel in 1972 (Table 3), computer models were employed to indicate the intensity and rate of spread for the types of fuel conditions found in the planning area of the 1995 Wildfire Defense Plan for the Shingletown Area. This type of modeling also quantifies the benefits resulting from the removal of unwanted

20

fuel, the reduction in numbers of tree stems (increased spacing) and the general decrease in flammable vegetation. Areas modeled in 1995 included the Shingletown Ridge and the slopes below the Ridge to the south and west, leaving the eastern part of the current planning area to be modeled. However, the vast majority of the land east of the Shingletown Ridge is in private timber ownership (Map 5), and as a result will mostly fall under Fuel Models 9 and 10; the former was not modeled in 1995, while the latter was (it should be noted that Sierra Pacific Industries and W.M. Beaty have been using biomass operations to convert the predominant Fuel Model 9 and 10 conditions to Fuel Model 8 in order to change the fuel model from characteristically fast moving fire with long flame lengths to a slow, ground burning fire with short flame lengths). Consultation with staff from CDF has revealed that the modeling done in 1995 can still be applied to the current situation, as no large fire event has occurred in the area since that time. Therefore, a near-complete modeling of the current planning area is possible with a new iteration of Fuel Model 9, which was completed for this Plan. Results of Fuel Model 9, using the same parameters used for fuel modeling in the 1995 plan, are shown in Table 8. D. RESULTS OF FUEL MODELING

Personal communication with CDF staff familiar with the planning area, and review of the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan (Plan) revealed 6 different fuel models occurring in the planning area. These include Fuel Model 1 (grass), Fuel Models 4 and 5 (shrub), and 8, 9, and 10 (timber litter). Fuel Model 9 was not discussed in the 1995 Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan; therefore this Fuel Model will be used, with the same assumptions used for the 1995 Plan, in running the BEHAVE computer fire model. A summary of the fuel types found within the current planning area is shown below using Anderson (1982); tables showing results of the computer modeling follow.

Fuel Model 1 (short grass) is governed by the fine, very porous, and continuous herbaceous fuels that have cured (dried) or are nearly cured. Fires are surface fires that move rapidly through the cured grass and associated material. Very little shrub or timber is present, generally less than one-third of the area. This model includes annual and perennial grasses, and can be found on the western edge of the planning area. Fuel Model 4 (mature brush with considerable amounts of dead fuel) may have very high to extreme rates of spread, which makes control efforts difficult. Fire involves the foliage and live and dead fine woody materials in the crowns of a nearly continuous secondary overstory. Besides flammable foliage, there is dead woody material in the stand that significantly contributes to the fire intensity. Dominant stands of chamise or manzanita with chamise are representative of Fuel Model 4. This fuel model can be found in the planning area from one thousand to fifteen hundred feet elevation within a mix of Fuel Models 8 and 5. Fuel Model 5 (young brush with very little dead fuel) is characterized by fire carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally not very intense because surface fuel loads are light, the shrubs are young with little dead material, and the foliage contains little volatile material. Usually, shrubs are

21

short and almost totally cover the area. Young, green stands with no dead wood would qualify, and for the planning area, include manzanita and chamise. Most of the brush in the planning area is in Fuel Model 4, but this Fuel Model can be found mixed with Fuel Models 8 and 4 between 1,000 and 1,500 feet of elevation. Fuel Model 8 (short needle conifer and hardwood litter) describes slowburning ground fires with low flame lengths. However, a fire moving through this model may encounter a jackpot, or heavy fuel concentration, that can cause a flare up, but only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards. Closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers or hardwoods that have leafed out support fire in the compact litter layer. Representative conifer types include white pine, lodgepole pine, spruce, fir, and larch. This Fuel Model is found in areas where fuel reduction work has been done, including commercial forest lands where thinning and biomass removal has been completed and residential lands where hazard reduction takes place continually. This Fuel Model can be found mixed in with Fuel Models 4 and 5 between one thousand and fifteen hundred feet on the Shingletown Ridge. Fuel Model 9 (long needle conifer and black oak litter) can be found between 2,000 and 4,000 feet in the planning area, where ground fuels of mostly needle litter and downed wood less than three inches in diameter is interspersed between fairly young stands of pine and a closed canopy. It is characterized by both faster moving fires and longer flame heights than Fuel Model 8. Long needle conifer stands and hardwood stands are typical. Fall fires in hardwoods are predictable, but high winds will actually cause higher rates of spread than predicted because of spotting caused by rolling and blowing leaves. Closed stands of long-needled pine like Ponderosa, Jeffrey, and Red Pines, or southern pine plantations are grouped in this model. Concentrations of dead-down woody material will contribute to possible torching out of trees, spotting, and crowning. Fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity in Fuel Model 10 (timber litter greater than 3 inches) than in other timber litter models. Dead-down fuels include greater quantities of three inch or larger limb wood resulting from over maturity or natural events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor, and ladder fuels are common. Crowning out, spotting, and torching of individual trees are more frequent in this Fuel Model, leading to potential fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered for this Fuel Model if heavy, downed material is present. Examples include insect or disease-ridden stands, wind-thrown stands, over mature situations with deadfall, and aged light thinning or partial cut slash.

22

Table 4. Fuel Model 1. (from 1995 Plan) Western edge of planning area. 1 Hour Fuel Moisture Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread (un-mowed grass) Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 2% 4 mph 10% Upslope 93 feet per minute 116 BTU 198 BTU Over 5 feet

Table 5. Fuel Model 4. (from 1995 Plan) Current conditions. 1 Hour Fuel Moisture (July) Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 4% 4 mph 10% Upslope 70 feet per minute 2878 BTU 3669 BTU 19.6 feet

Table 6. Fuel Model 5. (from 1995 Plan) Goal situation after fuel reduction. 1 Hour Fuel Moisture (July) Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 4% 4 mph 10% Upslope 23 feet per minute 723 BTU 310 BTU 6.3 feet

23

Table 7. Fuel Model 8. (from 1995 Plan) Current conditions. 1 Hour Fuel Moisture Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 2% 3 mph 10% Upslope 2 feet per minute 243 BTU 7 BTU 2 feet

Table 8. Fuel Model 9 (from BEHAVE model ran for this Plan) 1 Hour Fuel Moisture Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 2% 3 mph 10% Upslope 6.5 feet per minute 488 BTU 59 BTU 2.9 feet

Table 9. Fuel Model 10 (from 1995 Plan). Goal situation after fuel reduction 1 Hour Fuel Moisture Mid Flame Wind Speed Slope Wind Direction to Slope Rate of Spread Fire Intensity (per square foot) Fire Intensity (at the flaming front, per square foot per second) Flame Length 2% 3 mph 10% Upslope 7 feet per minute 1578 BTU 197 BTU 5 feet

24

V.
A.

VALUES AT RISK
CURRENT LAND USES

About 2,600 people live within the Shingletown community and surrounding areas. Major structures include homes, stores, the post office, a medical center, the library, hotels, schools, restaurants, and the historical society. Commercial timber land makes up 44% of the Plan area with high value for wood-based products. The forests of the Shingletown area and Lassen National Forest also support many types of recreation and tourism including fishing, horseback riding, hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, scenic driving, water-based recreation, mountain climbing, camping, mountain and road bike riding, and picnicking. In addition, a large number of residents walk for pleasure both within the settlements and along the roads. The ditch right-of-ways are particularly important walking and hiking routes. i. Fishing Both cold and warm water fishing are available on Shingletown Ridge and in the Battle Creek and Bear Creek drainages. Small mouth bass and blue gill are caught in Bear Creek up to 1,000 feet elevation, while rainbow trout are supported in Bear Creek and Battle Creek. Grace, Nora, and McCumber Lakes support rainbow trout and brown trout, and brown trout, rainbow trout, and bullhead are found in Lake McCumber. Woodridge Lake also supports an excellent trout fishery but is not open to the public. The pond at Bear Creek Trading Post has rainbow trout that can be fished for a fee. Bailey Creek, North Fork of Battle Creek, Millseat Creek, and all diverted water support rainbow trout. ii. Hunting The planning area contains important deer migration routes. Deer, bears and turkeys are hunted throughout the planning area, especially on lands north of Highway 44 leased by local gun clubs. Quail, dove, and the Bandtail Pigeon are hunted, although the number of hunters for the Bandtail Pigeon is small. Between November 15 and March 1 fur trapping is allowed; species taken include bobcat, coyote, mink, raccoon, and muskrat. iii. Observable Wildlife Wildlife viewing is an important recreation activity for residents of the area and visitors. Mountain lions are common on the Shingletown Ridge and in the canyons to the north and south, and elk can also be found on the Ridge. Neither lions nor elk are legally hunted, however. Deer are viewed often, as well as song birds, quail, and raptors. Eagles and osprey are found near some of the lakes. Bears and mountain lions are also species some residents like to observe. Nearly any wildlife found adds to the pleasure of wildlife viewers. Elk might be managed effectively as a major wildlife viewing resource. The large meadows and glades provide excellent viewing sites. In other northern California locations, elk herds are important recreation and tourism attractions.

25

iv. Highway 44 Corridor Highway 44 is the route between Interstate 5 and Lassen Volcanic National Park and the year-round complex of outdoor recreation resources north of the park, and has been designated as a gateway to the Lassen Crossroads National Scenic Byway by the US Forest Service. Because of the aesthetic forest setting and attractive views, the highway is a major recreation resource. As Highway 44 merges with Highway 89 at Lassen Volcanic National Park, it becomes part of the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway, a 500 mile route that begins as a loop around Lassen Volcanic National Park, and ends just north of Crater Lake National Park near Mount Thielsen in Oregon. Driving the volcano to volcano route for pleasure attracts tourism in both summer and winter. v. Scenic Views Long vistas of Mount Shasta, including forest in the foreground or near background, are possible from Shasta Forest Village, some locations along Highway 44, Westmoore Road, and in the Midway area. Lassen Peak vistas are seen from locations on the west side of meadows and Lake McCumber in the eastern third of the planning area. Canyon views can be observed from the roads leading north and south off the ridge and into Battle Creek south of the Site Road/Pegnon Acres settlements. The Ash Creek drainage provides middle foreground to the views from the east side of Shingletown Ridge Road and the Weston House Bed & Breakfast. Canyon views are also visible to the northwest from Ponderosa Way and Westmoore. Throughout the area, forest scenes viewed from homes and roads are attractive. Lassen Peak is visible from the highway as drivers pass through large meadows in the eastern third of the planning area. Meadows and glades are scenic resources throughout the planning area, although some of these are locations are being invaded by brush and trees and would be improved by the application of prescribed fire. Meadows and glades double as potential safety zones for residents and firefighters and as fuel breaks. As a middle foreground, meadows are second only to lakes in scenic value. Brush fields offer less attractive scenes (and offer evidence of past stand-replacing fire events). They do not inspire the same kind of interest and attention provided by meadows and lakes. Brush fields are found throughout the planning area and along Highway 44, large brush fields are found near the airport and west of the planning area. They are also visible on hillsides to the northeast and on the canyon slopes to the south and north of the planning area. vi. Residential Environments The landscapes of residential settlements are a particularly important aesthetic resource. Research has demonstrated that for as many as one in five residents of the wildland-urban intermix, saving the landscape is more important than saving their homes in a wildfire. Comments by residents in focus groups and public meetings reinforce the notion that the

26

forested landscape is essential to the quality of life they experience as part of living in the Shingletown community (Hodgson, 1993). During hazard reduction work in the past, the importance of the landscape arose many times. Saving the landscape was an often stated motivation of those strongly supporting the hazard reduction efforts, while at the same time, some residents objected to the idea of removing the understory for fear that it would open the forest too much, losing desired screening from the neighbors and privacy. They particularly wanted to keep the landscape in what they perceived to be a natural state. Many of the residential areas have CC&Rs restricting logging and tree removal in order to protect the aesthetics of the landscape in which the homes are placed. The energy with which these restrictions have been enforced recently testifies to the importance of the landscape as an aesthetic resource. Residential area landscapes and the views from neighborhoods have very high recreation and aesthetic values as well. This landscape is the main attraction for living in the Shingletown area and contributes significantly to residential land values. B. FOREST LAND

Private timberland managed by SPI and W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc. occupy about 49,100 acres in the planning area. These lands are managed primarily for commercial forest products, and the timber harvests conducted on these lands are regulated by the Forest Practice Act (as are all commercial timber harvests regardless of ownership). 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

In general, the watershed provides suitable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. Several threatened, endangered and candidate plant and wildlife species are found in the planning area; Table 1 shows the federally listed endangered and threatened species found within this area. Table 10 shows federal candidate species that are found within, migrate through, occur downstream of, or fly over the planning area. Table 10. Federal Candidate Species for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Fish Acipenser medirostris - green sturgeon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon (listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service) Birds Coccyzus americanus occidentalis - Western yellow-billed cuckoo

27

VI.

FUEL REDUCTION METHODS AND MAINTENANCE

INTRODUCTION Reducing fuel loads is one of the most effective elements of any fire prevention and protection program. Managing fuel loading is critical to maintaining communities, ranches, grazing lands, forest lands, riparian areas, and the overall health and function of the watershed. The ability to implement fuels reduction projects typically comes down to the source of funds available, the cost of labor, and the ability to implement the project. A. PRESCRIBED BURNING

Advantages of prescribed fire include the low cost of implementation and the large area that can be treated at one time. Some of the negative aspects of prescribed fire are a potential for erosion, the smoke created, the limited time frame to implement, the risk of escape, non-feasibility in small areas, and that it is not a stand-alone tool. Prescribed fire is used to approximate the natural vegetative disturbance of periodic wildfire occurrence. This vegetative management tool is used to maintain fire dependent ecosystems and restore those outside their natural balance. Generally, low intensity prescribed fire is applied by trained experts to clear ground of dangerous fuels like dead wood and brush. This low-intensity fire is vital to the life cycles of fire-dependent range and forest lands. Most prescribed fires are lit by crews using a drip torch - a hand-carried device that pours out a small stream of burning fuel. Other fires or burns are ignited by helicopters carrying a gelled fuel torch (helitorch) or a sphere dispenser machine that drops material to ignite the surface fuels in forest and range types. Exactly how each unit is ignited depends on weather, the lay of the land, and the intensity of the fire needed to meet the goal of the burn (USDA Forest Service 2002). Prescribed fire is useful in restoring and maintaining natural fire regimes in wildland areas, but logistic, economic, and social attributes are constraints on widespread deployment. Because of such conflicts, resource managers often employ mechanical fuel reduction, such as thinning, in conjunction with prescribed fire to reduce fuels and the fire hazard (Regents of the University of California 1996, CDF 2002). Prescribed fire is not without controversy and risk. A prescribed fire can get out of control and cause damage to watersheds, wildlife habitat, and structures, and can even result in loss of life. For example, heavy fuel loading in timberlands precludes applying fire as the intensity is sufficient to kill overstory trees. It is only an option when the risk can be reduced to manageable levels. Factors closely monitored to mitigate risk include: Fuel moisture content Ratio of dead-to-live fuel Fuel volume Size and arrangement of fuel

28

Percentage of volatile extractives in the fuel Wind speed and direction Relative humidity Air temperature and topography A successful prescribed burn must account for all these factors to prevent the fire from going out of control. Guidelines for measuring the data and selecting the levels necessary to manage the prescribed fire are available from a variety of sources. One excellent reference for wildland-urban zones is the USDA Forest Service publication, Burning by Prescription in Chaparral (USDA Forest Service 1981). Air quality is another consideration when considering the use of prescribed burning. Communities in the Urban-Wildland Interface are very sensitive to the presence of smoke. Burn days approved by state and local authorities take into consideration the meteorological effects on both fire severity and smoke dispersion. In the case of chaparral, prescribed burning for range improvement has been practiced by California landowners under permit from CDF since 1945 (Green 1981). Currently, procedures for prescribed burning require a written plan for each burn. A plan includes such items as an objective, an area map, a description of the burn unit and surrounding areas, a smoke management plan, and the burn prescription (USDA Forest Service 1981). Prescribed fire is the primary treatment method for all public lands, ranging from USDA Forest Service land to state parks; most of the land in the planning area is in private ownership, however. According to FRAP, the Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program, most prescribed burns were to control brush, especially chaparral (Regents of the University of California 1996). Public agencies feel prescribed burns offer the lowest cost solution when considering the scale of the area requiring treatment. However, prescribed fires can be quite expensive when the true cost of planning, data gathering, reporting, and control and suppression are considered. Other major constraints are the reduction in allowable burn days because of increasing air quality concerns, high fuel load levels found in many forested and urban-wildland areas, and the increased production of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and particulates. In these situations, a combination of mechanical methods of fuel reduction combined with prescribed fire may provide the best solution. B. MECHANICAL TREATMENT

Using mechanized equipment for reducing fuels loads on suitable topography and with certain fuel types can be very effective. 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 biofuel. Mechanical methods to remove fuels include, but are not limited to, the utilization of bulldozers with or without brush rakes, excavators, mechanized falling machines, masticators, chippers, and grinders. Mechanical treatments conducted with a masticator grind standing brush and reduce it to chips that are typically left on the ground as mulch.

29

Or, mechanically removed brush may also be fed into a grinder for biomass production. A technique called crush and burn combines mechanical fuels treatment with burning. As the name implies, the brush is mechanically crushed and then burned. Due to the higher intensity heat created in burn piles, it is more effective at eliminating brush then a low-intensity prescribed burn, which has difficulty overcoming the high moisture content of live chaparral. In addition, it is a good technique for areas adjacent to communities, because fire agencies only burn when fire danger conditions are decreased during the rainy winter months. Mechanical treatments are also utilized on industrial and nonindustrial 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 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 so as 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 fast becoming the acceptable method of fuel reduction in urban interface areas. Compared to prescribed fire, mechanical treatment involves less risk, produces less air pollutants, is more aesthetically pleasing, and allows landowners to leave desirable vegetation. C. SHADED FUEL BREAKS

Shaded fuel breaks are constructed as a means to create a defensible space in which firefighters can conduct relatively safe fire suppression activities. Fuel breaks may also slow a wildfires progress enough to allow attack by firefighters. The main idea behind fuel break 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. Fuel breaks may also be utilized to replace flammable vegetation with less flammable vegetation that burns less intensely. A well-designed shaded fuel break 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 need to strengthen community fire defense systems, improve forest health and provide environmental protection. The California Board of Forestry rules allow a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) to use a special silviculture prescription when constructing or maintaining a community fuel break, exempts community fuel breaks from an assessment of maximum sustained production requirements and allows defensible space prescriptions to be used around structures.

30

The WSRCD has developed the following fuel break standards:

The typical minimum width of a shaded fuel break is 100 feet, but can be up to 300 wide. The appropriate width is highly dependent on the slope, fuel density, fuel type, fuel arrangement, and landowner cooperation. Fuel breaks 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. The edges of a fuel break are varied to create a mosaic or natural look. Where possible, fuel breaks should compliment natural or man-made barriers such as meadows, rock outcroppings, and roadways. A maintenance plan should be developed before construction of a fuel break. Although a fuel break can be constructed in a matter of a few weeks, maintenance must be conducted periodically to keep the fuel break functioning. The establishment of a shaded fuel break can lead to erosion if not properly constructed. Short ground cover, such as grass or leaf/needle litter, should be maintained throughout the fuel break to protect the soil from erosion. 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 1015 apart. The area should be characterized by an abundance of open space and have a park like look after treatment.

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. D. MAINTENANCE TREATMENT

Maintenance plans for all existing shaded fuel breaks, as well as a maintenance strategy for all planned shaded fuel breaks, must be formulated as soon as funding can be made available. A maintenance section needs to be added to all planned shaded fuel breaks, and should address both short and long term maintenance. Scrub oak re-sprouts and manzanita sprouts and seedlings on disturbed areas are typical of the vegetation that will need control on a short term basis, while continued thinning of dense stands of timber to increase spacing between crowns will be typical of long term treatments. Control can take many forms, including chemical control, mechanical control, or grazing by livestock. The time frame for maintenance is typically two years, five years and ten years after initial construction of the shaded fuel break. Periodic maintenance of a fuel break sustains its effectiveness. Seeding the fuel break 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 cost of fuel break maintenance must be balanced with its degree of effectiveness. Listed below are several methods to maintain fuel breaks.

31

i. Herbicides The use of herbicides is a very effective and inexpensive method of eliminating unwanted vegetation, but should be used only as specified by the manufacturer. Some herbicides are species specific, which means they can be used to eliminate brush species and will not harm grass species. ii. Manual Treatment Manual treatment is a very effective means to eliminate invading vegetation, but is labor intensive. A rule of thumb is an experienced, 4 person crew can manually complete maintenance at a rate of 0.5 to 1 acre per 8 hour day, depending on density of resprouts, slope, terrain, and weather. iii. Herbivores Herbivore (goat) grazing may be used as a means of maintaining fuel breaks, since goats would rather eat brush and weeds than grass. 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, forbs, and lower branches to remove ladder fuels. However, browsing on this type of low-nutrition feed may require giving goats supplements of protein or energy, depending on the breed of goats used, time of year, soil type, and vegetation analysis. Generally speaking, a minimum effective goat herd has 500 animals, which will remove fuel from about 3 acres per day. Portable electric fencing with solar energizers can be used to control the goats foraging area. The cost will include the goats, portable fencing, a goat herder, water and all transportation and daily supervision. Lastly, monitoring of the herbivore grazing is critical since over-grazing can lead to erosion. As goats work through an area they are also working on the understory, breaking lower branches, and splitting apart old downed branch material. Once an area has been brushed by goats, it can be maintained as a living green belt. Fuel break maintenance with goats takes coordination of the stock owner, land steward, professional fire abatement teams, CDF, DFG, and others. According to Hart (2001), grazing goats have been observed to select grass over clover, prefer browsing over grazing pastures, prefer foraging Herbivores Used In Fuel Reduction

32

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 of Rackerby, California. They report the vegetation in the Sierra Foothills grazing area consists of woody plants, shrubs, forbs and grasses. Before entering a new area, they develop a landscape goal, complete a vegetative survey and identify 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 (2001), goats improve the cycling of plant nutrients sequestered in brush and weeds, enabling the reestablishment of grassy species.

VII. SOILS
Fuels management activities located on unstable soils or on slopes in excess of 40% can stimulate erosion processes or exacerbate existing erosion problems; therefore, prior to any fuels management activities, all soil types within any future project area will be identified and evaluated to determine the erosion hazard. Projects will 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 fire resistant vegetation as a means to provide soil stabilization. The locations of major soil types have been illustrated in Map 6; however, more detailed soils mapping information should be examined once specific project boundaries have been established. High intensity wildfire also damages soil by incinerating roots and the humus layer (organic portion of soils) that hold soils together and provide 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 also destroyed. These invertebrates eventually re-establish their populations, but time is lost in maintaining and building up the soils. Therefore, continual burning over time will result in gradual soil depletion, much the same as continual plowing and crop harvesting will deplete the soil of mineral nutrients and negatively affect the soil structure (Richards, 2002). 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 the negative effects. 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. Conversely, 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 120 degrees Fahrenheit (DeBano, 1970).

33

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. Additionally, roads may offer a defensible space from which firefighters can conduct direct attack on wildfires and also provide strategic locations for roadside fuel breaks. Roadside fuel breaks not only provide defensible space for firefighters, but also a safe escape route for residents in the event of a wildfire. Roads in the planning area typically intersect State Highway 44. The planning area can be reached from both the east and west along this route, which is the major two-lane highway connecting Redding and Lassen National Park. 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. SHINGLETOWN AREA ROADS MAIN NORTH-SOUTH ROADS Black Butte Road Ponderosa Way Wilson Hill Road Lake McCumber Road Ritts Mill Road MAIN EAST-WEST ROADS Long Hay Flat Road Inwood Road Dersch Road State Highway 44 Emigrant Trail 100 Road Shingletown Ridge Road Emigrant Trail Wildcat Road

IX.

BIOMASS

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.

34

When used for generating electricity, biomass is typically burned to transform water into steam, which is used to a 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 interested 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 planning area of the Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community contains about 49,100 acres of private timberland and thousands of acres of chaparral, which produce a substantial amount of renewable biomass each year. The biomass market associated with wood products production has been long 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 potential for biomass production within the planning area is good given that it contains a substantial amount of raw material (chaparral and forestland species), and is in close proximity to Wheelabrator Shasta Energy, a 50-megawatt wood-fired power plant that utilizes one hundred semi truckloads (~1,400 bone dry tons) of biomass each day, seven days a week, to produce electricity (Jolley 2002). There are other wood-fired power plants in Shasta County, but this facility is the closest to the planning area. The feasibility of any biomass operation depends on the market price of biomass fuel (also commonly called hog fuel), the density or amount of fuel on the ground, topography of the area being biomassed, and transportation costs (distance to market). 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 versus the processing and transportation 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.

35

Harvesting can be accomplished with an excavator, a bulldozer tractor or a feller/buncher, which are 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 takes biomass into the van.

A Registered Professional Forester should be involved prior to commencement of any biomass operation on timberlands in order to determine what permits might be required and to estimate the cost and timing of obtaining permits. Pursuant to the California Forest Practice Rules, if biomass operations involve the harvest of commercial timber species, the project requires a Timber Harvest Plan or exemption depending upon the nature of the operation. Biomass operations not involving the harvest of commercial species are not subject to the California Forest Practice Rules, but may require county permits or other agency review depending on the physical characteristics of the project area. Although the biofuel 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.

36

X.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

The following table of cost share programs was provided by the University of California, Cooperative Extension Service (UCCE). TABLE 11 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 Assist California communities to more actively manage their watershed resources, to keep forests and associated resources productive and healthy Services Technical and financial assistance Will Fund Up to 75% Agency NRCS Who Public agencies, nonprofits, community groups Agricultural producers having significant natural resource needs RCDs, RC&Ds, special districts, Indian tribes, and community non-profit organizations. 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

Approved practices up to $10,000 per producer per year. Must have Conservation Plan approved by RCD. Projects that involves activities that may lead to changes in the environment are required to comply with CEQA. Projects must be on NIPF land & address one of the major categories: pre-fire fuels mgmt, forest &woodland health, water quality, or wildlife & fisheries habitat. Federal Disaster Areas

Forest Stewardship Program

Technical, educational and financial assistance

Cost share up to $50,000. 100% match is required.

CDF

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Vegetation Management Program

California Forest Improvement Program

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, and post fire rehabilitation

Cost share

Up to 75%

FEMA

Agencies, governments, non-profits, tribes Landowners, individual or group

Covers liability, conducts prescribed burn

Up to 90% cost share

CDF

Agreement to sign, plan required

Reforestation, site prep, land conservation, and fish & wildlife habitat improvements

75% up to $30,000 per contract, rehab after natural disaster up to 90%

CDF

Landowners

Plan (can be cost shared) required, 20-50,000 acres of forestland

37

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 Tehama/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 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jobs in the Woods Program, provides funding for erosion reduction/mitigation and fuel reduction to benefit anadromous fisheries.

XI.

FUEL BREAK MAINTENANCE FUNDING

Since grant funds are often obtained just to construct the fuel break, maintenance efforts are often left to the landowner. Unfortunately, some landowners do not have the physical or financial means to do maintenance. If a fuel break 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 USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan. This plan provides grant funding for fuel reduction projects on private lands. In addition, many of the programs listed in Table 11 above also provide funding opportunities for fuels reduction and maintenance. Legislation may also provide funding for fuels reduction projects. 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 fuel breaks, defensible space around structures, roadside fuel reduction, and community fire safe projects.

XII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The TAC felt the Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community should address include the following items: 1. Defining the boundary of the planning area in order to maximize coordination with other groups performing similar work in the area.

38

2.

3.

4.

5.

This item was accomplished; it is discussed in the introduction to this Plan and is shown in Map 1. Publicizing the community evacuation plan and making it accessible through posting on the WSRCDs website. The evacuation plan is incorporated in Appendix D, and the Plan in its entirety will be posted on the WSRCD website. Continuing annual neighborhood-based fuel reduction work (Community Fire Safe project). This work is getting larger every year as a result of the Community Fire Safe project organized by Neighborhood Coordinators, and with the technical/mechanical assistance of CDF. Landowners remove excess vegetation from their property, and with CDF crews and equipment, it is removed off-site. Establishing a locally-based Fire Safe Council to participate in the countywide Fire Safe Council. As a result of WSRCD and CDF staff collaboration and local support, the Shingletown Fire Safe Council was formed in May of 2003 as an extension of the non-profit Shingletown Volunteer Fire Company. Placing shaded fuel breaks along key roadways and ridges. The priorities for these fuel breaks were discussed in TAC meetings, and are presented below.

A.

INTRODUCTION

Action items described in this Plan have been proposed by the TAC and are presented as a result of their deliberation. All action items are an integral part of the Plan to manage the fuels in the Shingletown Community. Funding to accomplish these action items is discussed in Sections X and XI. The priority list of fuel reduction projects was developed by the TAC and presented to the community. 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 crews. CONSTRUCT SHADED FUEL BREAKS

i. Fire Safe Areas During the initial TAC meetings, CDF staff presented a map showing the locations of the Community Fire Safe Areas that included fuel breaks that had been planned as a result of the 1995 Plan and as a result of separate CDF planning efforts. As the main priority for

39

any fuel reduction project is to protect lives and property, these Fire Safe Areas were logical areas to start planning since they center on highly populated areas already involved in fuel reduction work. Some areas have had fuel breaks constructed in the past, but in those cases, all are currently in need of maintenance. Each location was given a ranking of High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L) by the TAC. Fuel breaks should be constructed for the High priorities on the list, moving through the list to the Low priority projects as funding becomes available. Since Table 12 discusses the areas in need of work, no mileages or exact locations of fuel break projects are given. This was done in order to leave the detailed planning to the Bear Creek Watershed Group, the Shingletown Fire Safe Council, and/or the Shingletown Volunteer Fire Department as funding opportunities arise. Each location includes comments from the TAC and/or the 1995 Plan where available: Table 12. Fire Safe Areas - Priority Projects Priority Location also see Map 7 H Shasta Forest Village (Sections 31 and 32, Township 31 North (T31N) Range 1 East (R1E) TAC Comments/1995 Plan Comments where available The 1995 Plan advocated work on the escarpment on the west and north sides of the sub-division including thinning the understory, removing seriously damaged or diseased trees, and selecting species for removal to increase the disease, drought, and fire resistance of the stand. A lot of homes and property are at risk, maintenance can be performed on past fuel breaks and new fuel breaks can be created with RAC funding, if awarded. RAC funding was awarded to perform fuel reduction work in this area in September of 2003 (Section II, Part F). The WSRCD is awaiting the grant contract. Includes the very dense Sites Road (which turns into Plateau Pines Road), mentioned by CDF in TAC meetings as needing fuel reduction work. A relatively high population is located within this area, and fuel reduction work was planned for previously. Population here is increasing, and this area was planned for fuel reduction work previously, as dense brush fields in this area are a concern.

Near Berry Spring/Plateau Pines area (Section 25, including parts of Sections 26, 35, and 36 of T31N, R1E)

Battle Creek Estates/Lake McCumber and McCumber Flat (Section 15, T31N, R2E, and Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, T31N, R2E, respectively)

40

Priority H

Location also see Map 7 Northwest of Airport Landing Strip (Section 23, T31N, R1E)

Starlight Pines Sub-division (Section 19, T31N, R2E)

Midway Pines Sub-division (Sections 33 and 34, T31N, R1W)

Black Butte School Area including Ponderosa Way and Inwood Road in the vicinity (Sections 23 and 26, T31N, R1W) Viola (Sections 19 and 20, T31N, R3E)

TAC Comments/1995 Plan Comments where available The northern section of this area contains large amounts of Manzanita, and this area was planned for fuel reduction work previously. The brush fields in this area should be thinned; [they] appear to be the result of frequent, intense burning in the past that converted vegetation cover from timber to brush (1995 Plan). This area will work in conjunction with the above priority, as they are spatially connected. Previous planning showed the need for a fuel break along Starlight Pines Road off Highway 44, and around the west, north and east boundaries of the sub-division. The biggest threat is from the north side. Although the south side is fairly clear to Safari Ranch according to the TAC, this area only a few miles north of the Shingletown Ridge, a very high fire threat (Section II, Part A, sub-section ii.) This area is in good shape according to the TAC. This is the result of previous fuel reduction work performed. This area has improved tremendously over the last 5 years, with brush removal coordinated by a local landowner.

Woodridge Lake Estates (Section 5, More of a maintenance issue, but a T30N, R1E) high priority in this regard. The 1995 Plan states Woodridge is threatened by the high potential of a fire out of the Manton area burning up the steep, brush covered slope into the excessive fuel accumulation in the mixed conifer forest. Along Rock Creek Road, including Participants were not sure of the Carobe Lake (Section 18, T30N, R2E) details of the fuel conditions of this area. It had fuel reduction work planned in the past, however, and

41

rather than remove it from planning efforts altogether, it was given the last priority.

Figure 1. High Priority Shasta Forest Village Sub-division.

42

Figure 2. High Priority listed in Tables 12 and 13. Berry Springs/Plateau Pines area.

Figure 3. Looking down the High Priority of Sites Road/Plateau Pines Road showing dense brush, timber, and ladder fuels along both sides of the road.

43

Figure 4. High Priority Lake McCumber Road, leading to Battle Creek Estates and McCumber Flat.

Figure 5. Typical Lake McCumber Road, showing dense stands of smaller, less fire resistant trees.

44

ii. Prioritized Individual Locations During the TAC process, a brainstorming session was held to list roads that the group felt would be logical locations to pursue funding for fuel reduction work. A list was created and juxtaposed against the Fire Safe Areas prioritized in Table 12. It was found that many of the areas were found within the Fire Safe Areas listed above, while some areas stood alone. Therefore, the two areas were separated, but in those cases where a logical location lay within a Fire Safe Area, that logical location would, by default, take on the priority of the Fire Safe Area that contained it. For example, a High priority shown below is Thumper Road, and as it lies within Shasta Forest Village, a High priority of the Fire Safe Areas shown in Table 12, it too was given a High priority. The areas that did not fit this logic were then prioritized by the TAC. Table 13. Individual Roads in Need of Fuel Reduction Work Priority Projects. Priority Location Comments H Thumper Drive Lies within Shasta Forest Village. H Sites Road/Plateau Pines Part of Berry Springs/Plateau Pines area. Road H Thatcher Mill Road Includes area north of Lake McCumber and McCumber Flat. H Emigrant Trail Work would be primarily on the first 2 miles off Highway 44, as property is denser in this stretch. M Starlight Pines Road Part of Starlight Pines Sub-division. M Ritts Mill Road Part of Starlight Pines Sub-division. M Black Butte Road A lot of brush in this area. Homeowners insurance in this area becoming a problem due to thick brush and distance to the nearest fire station being more than 5 miles away, with no nearby fire hydrant. M Shingletown Ridge Road Area planned for lies between the gas line and the power lines in Sections 9 and 11 of T30N, R1W, respectively. L Deer Flat (near Viola) Work would include areas found in Sections 13 and 14 of T31N, R2E. L Wilson Hill Road Includes Woodridge Lake Estates. L Wildcat Road A low population and lack of structures warranted the low priority of this project. L Long Hay Flat Road Area planned for lies south of Highway 44 within Sections 27 and 33 of T31N, R2E. N/A Highway 44 This section will be treated separately, coordinating with CALTRANS in their efforts to keep the roadside clear of excess vegetation.

45

Priority N/A

Location Aldridge Ranch

Comments Originally purchased in 1862; second longest continually-owned ranch in Shasta County. Approximately 5000 acres; area has done Vegetation Management Plans (VMPs) with CDF in the past; area is in need of another VMP for range management and fuels reduction.

Figure 6. High Priority individual road. Thumper Drive within Shasta Forest Village.

46

Figure 7. Ritts Mill and Thatcher Mill Roads, both High Priorities. C. COMMUNITY EVACUATION PLAN

The Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan for the Shingletown Ridge (Evacuation Plan) will be posted on the WSRCD website for community wide access. It was also mailed to every PO Box and mail box in the Shingletown, Viola, and Manton area. The Evacuation Plan was sponsored by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Shasta County Fire, Shasta County Sheriffs Department, and the American Red Cross. The Evacuation Plan details pre-fire preparation, what would happen in the case of an evacuation, what to do if a wildfire is approaching, levels of shelter and evacuation, primary travel routes with an enclosed map, what to do if you are unable to evacuate, and what to do once the fire passes. It also includes contact phone numbers and radio stations to tune into in the event of a fire. A copy of the Evacuation Plan is attached as Appendix D. D. FIRE SAFETY

WSRCD will seek funding for fire safe inspectors to go door-to-door to educate homeowners about fire safety. This is an extremely important project, as the entire planning area lies within a High to Very High fire severity area as defined by CDF (Map 8). Ideally the home inspections would be conducted in fall and winter months (between November and April) for at least two years. Home fire safety inspections will be coordinated with the Shingletown Volunteer Fire Company. These inspectors would

47

also have the capability of helping residents understand how to construct defensible space around their homes. E. FUNDING

Funding sources are as varied as the projects listed above. WSRCD has the organizational structure to seek funding for any projects generated through this Plan. The Shingletown Fire Safe Council is under the umbrella of a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, and can apply for grant funds as well. There are several sources of funding available through the agencies in the area, discussed in Sections X and XI of this plan. F. OTHER ACTION ITEMS

Seek funding to develop a variety of typical neighborhood-scale landscape designs that demonstrate fire safety, increase forest health, and reduce impacts from a wind-driven fire while preserving or improving aesthetics and providing for security, privacy, and other values. Link these larger scale projects to individual fuel breaks (instructional videos and pamphlets have been created based on creating fire safe landscapes around individual homes, but not for the neighborhood scale). Seek funding to treat the dense stands of brush along State Highway 44 through crushing, piling and burning, mastication, or biomass removal. Seek CDF assistance to create a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for these areas. Seek funding to create defensible space through fuel breaks, VMPs, or other means within the Nature Conservancy property located in the southwest corner of the planning area. Coordinate with and support the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy in their fuel reduction planning efforts both in and to the south of the planning area, including within and around the community of Manton. Coordinate with the Cow Creek Watershed Management Groups Strategic Fuel Reduction Plan, whose planning area lies directly north of this Plans boundary. Continue to work with Sierra Pacific Industries and W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc. on tying in fuel reduction activities on their property with other fuel breaks throughout the Plan area. Coordinate fuel reduction projects with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) transmission line clearing projects.

48

XIII.

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., BEHAVE: Fire Behavior Prediction And Fuel Modeling System, May 1984. Brian Bull, 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 Forestry and Fire Protection, Tehama-Glenn Unit Fire Plan, 2002. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento Valley Westside Tributary Watershed Erosion Study, Executive Summary.), 1992. California Board of Forestry & Fire Protection, California Forest Practice Rules 2002, California Resources Department. Cottonwood Creek Watershed Group, Cottonwood Creek Watershed Assessment, CH2M Hill, Redding, CA., 2002 DeBano, L.F., and R.M. Rice, Fire in Vegetation Management: Its Effect on Soil, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1970. 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 & Gary Desselle (WSRCD), 2002, 2003.

49

Herzog, Walter, BLM, personal communication with Mike Rosan (WSRCD) 2002. Hodgson, Ronald, California State University, Chico, Mark Lancaster, Consulting Forester, and Ralph Minnich, Battalion Chief, CDF. Shingletown Wildfire Defense Plan, 1995. Jolley, Steve, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy, personal communication with Mike Rosan (WSRCD) 2002. Lewis, H.T., Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory, Ballena Press, 1973. Minnich, Ralph, CDF, personal communication to Gary Desselle (WSRCD), 2003. 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. Richards, Roy, CCWG, additional input submitted to WSRCD. Drafted Sept, 2002. 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 Fuel breaks in the Central Sierra Nevada, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA., 1970. 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, National Fire Plan, 2000. 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.

50

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.

51

APPENDIX A.

GLOSSARY

BEHAVE A computer program used for predicting fire behavior. Chain A unit of measurement equal to 66 feet. Fire Safe Area a community that comes together once a year as part of the Community Fire Safe Program to remove excess vegetation to decrease the fire hazard around their homes. Removed vegetation is piled and collected by CDF for chipping and disposal offsite for a nominal fee. Fuel Characteristics Factors that make up fuels such as compactness, loading, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, chemical content, size and shape, and moisture content. Fuel Chemical Content Substances in the fuels which can either retard or increase the rate of combustion, such as mineral content, resins, oils, wax or pitch. 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. Mechanical Treatment Using mechanized equipment including but not limited to bulldozers with or without brush rakes, 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 Spread Rate of forward spread of the fire front, usually expressed as chains per hour. Shaded Fuel Break 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.

52

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.

53

APPENDIX B.
Name Mike Raysor Mike Mitzel Ben Rowe Fred Tulley Kathleen Schori Rick Hartley Ralph Minnich Jack Eastwood Cliff Kinzy Alan Merryman Duane Shintaku Dusty Gerbing Bill McKinney Bob Mattson Marlene Macomber Ted James Colleen Rullman John Dobson Peter Hujik Bea Nevins John Rochette George Eichelberger Eda Eggeman Jack Bramhall

PROJECT TEAM
Agency PG&E Sierra Pacific W.M. Beatty & Assoc. CDF CDF CDF CDF Neighborhood Coordinator CDF CDF Neighborhood Coordinator Neighborhood Coordinator Neighborhood Coordinator Neighborhood Coordinator SPI Neighborhood Coordinator CALTRANS The Nature Conservancy Landowner Landowner Landowner CDFG WSRCD Number 246-6547 378-8130 518-4666 472-3121 225-2406 225-2422 224-2473 472-3446 474-3199 474-3115 225-2432 474-5813 474-5310 474-1247 474-5842 378-8124 474-1687 225-2460 527-4261 474-3228 365-1608 474-3822 225-2753 365-7332 eeggeman@dfg.ca.gov jack@westernshastarcd.org Email mrr4@pge.com mmitzel@spi-ind.com benr@wmbeaty.com Fred.Tulley@fire.ca.gov Kathleen.Schori@fire.ca.gov Rick.Hartley@fire.ca.gov ralph.minnich@fire.ca.gov jbob@c-zone.net

alan.merryman@fire.ca.gov duane.shintaku@fire.ca.gov

tjames@spi-ind.com coleenrullman1@cs.com john_dobson@dot.ca.gov phujik@tnc.org beahiddencr@ispcal.com

54

Maxine Holder Stan Weidert Carl Weidert Tricia Bratcher Acronyms

Landowner Landowner Landowner CDFG

474-3422 474-3180 474-4300 225-3845

maxinwood@frontiernet.net sweidert@c-zone.net weidert@c-zone.net pbratcher@dfg.ca.gov

WSRCD Western Shasta Resource Conservation District CDFG California Department of Fish and Game PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection SPI Sierra Pacific Industries CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

55

APPENDIX C.

COMMUNITY FIRE SAFE FUEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES

56

57

58

59

60

APPENDIX D.

WILDLAND FIRE EVACUATION PLAN FOR THE SHINGLETOWN RIDGE

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

MAPS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. PROJECT OVERVIEW AREAS INCLUSIVE OF THE SHASTA COUNTY RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAC) GRANT APPLICATION FIRE HISTORY VEGETATION LAND OWNERSHIP SOILS FIRE SAFE AREAS AND PRIORITY PROJECTS FIRE SEVERITY

69

wp2I

DEL NORTE

SISKIYOU

MODOC

rojet2yverview
395

89
SHASTA HUMBOLDT TRINITY LASSEN

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

Whitmore

44

TEHAMA PLUMAS

BUTTE SIERRA

Surrounding Highway N. Calif. Counties

YUBA LAKE COLUSA SUTTER

NEVADA PLACER EL DORADO

nd er

ill Rd

1 in equals 44 mi

os

Th

ay

at c h e r M

Fire Plan Area MENDOCINO

GLENN

ill Rd

Legend

ts M

Po

De

er Flat

44
Rd

Inwood

Rit

44
October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: USDA NRCS, CASIL

g ra n

In w o

od

Rd

Viola
100 Rd

Br

ok

l Trai

f eo

fM

De

rsch R

B lac k Butte R d

Shingletown
d Ridge R

i Em

ea d

ow

sR

in Sh

Legend
Manton
Town Fire Plan Area State Hwy 44 Other Major Road County Line

Wilso

W ildcat Rd

nH

ill R

gl

wn e to

Shasta County

Tehama County
Miles 9

1.5

eres2snlusive2of2the2eent hst2gounty2esoure2edvisory2gommittee2@egA Fire Safe Plan qrnt2epplition for the

Shingletown Community R1W
T32N

wp2P

R1E

R2E

R3E

Th
l Rd

a tch

T31N

n Po

er os a

hst2porest illge

Rit ts

Mi l

ay

er Mill Rd

2.5 mi SPI Work with Link to Hat Creek Ranger District De Projects e
r Flat R d

44
Bro

44
rs De

nt T ra

In w

R o od

100 Rd

il

Viola

o ke
ff M

ea

E
ch R d

ra mi g

d o ws Rd

Bla c k B utte

Wilson

Wi l dca t Rd

lR H il

T30N

Shasta County Tehama County

2.5 1.25

T29N

le ing Sh

i dg nR tow

eR

Shingletown
Legend
Completed - Maintenance Required W.M.Beaty Understory Thinning Other Major Road State Hwy 44
Existing Harvest Area - SPI

Manton

Proposed Fire Plan Area Watershed Boundary Fire Safe Areas - CDF County

2.5

5 Miles

USDA Forest Service The Nature Conservancy

Modified 12/10/03 Albers, NAD27 Sources: CASIL, SPI, WMB, TNC, BLM

pire2ristory

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

Whitmore

wp2Q
Legend
Fire Plan Area Town Hwy 44 Other Major Road County Line Lassen NF Region Fire History by Decade 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990+

Prescribed Fire 1980+

1980s 1990s

Po

ts

REDDING

Mi

ll R

Th a

nd

er

a os

t c her

M ill

}
44
rs De
c

Inwood
oo d Inw
Rd
100 Rd
igr Em an
l rai tT

R it

Deer F

lat R

d hR

}
44

Viola
Br ok

Shingletown
Rd

eo

ff

Me a

do

ws

Wildcat R

S hin

gle t

ow

id nR

ge

Shasta County
Manton

Tehama County
0 1.5 3 6 9 Miles

October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: CDF Shasta/Trinity Unit, CASIL, USDA FS: Pac SW Region

egettion
Whitmore

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

wp2R

Legend
Fire Plan Area Town Hwy 44 Other Area Road County Agriculture Barren Ceanothus Mixed Chap Wedgeleaf Ceanothus

t c her

Th a

n Po

sa ero

M ill

Upper Montane Mixed Shrub Lower Montane Mixed Chap Scrub Oak Montane Mixed Chap Pacific Douglas-Fir

ts

REDDING
Inwood
d dR

Mi

ll R

Ri t

Deer F

lat R

Eastside Pine

Annual Grass/Forbs Wet Meadows

44
d hR

In w

oo

100 Rd
Em

tT ran ig

l rai

44

Viola

Lodgepole Pine Mixed Conifer-Fir

Br

Mountain Hemlock

rs De

Shingletown

ok

eo

ff

Mixed Conifer-Pine

Me

ad

Gray Pine

ow

Wildcat R

S hin

wn l e to

Ri

R d ge

Ponderosa Pine Canyon Live Oak Blue Oak White Alder Cottonwood/Alder CA Black Oak Valley Oak

Shasta County

Manton

Quaking Aspen Interior Live Oak Red Fir Subalpine Conifers

Tehama County
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 Miles
October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: CDF Shasta/Trinity Unit, CASIL

Urban Water White Fir

vnd2ywnership
Whitmore

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

Legend
Fire Safe Area Town Hwy 44 Area Road County Line

wp2S

Ownership
at c her Mill Rd
State Land Commission Latour Demonstration State Forest CA Parks and Recreation Lassen Volcanic National Park

n Po

ro de

sa

ay

Th

ill R

ts M

REDDING
Inwood
d oo
R d
100 Rd
Em

De

e r Flat

44
Rd

USDI Bureau of Land Mgmt USDA Forest Service

R it

44
Butte Rd
r

In w

ig r

t an

Trail

Viola
B ro
ke

The Nature Conservancy Private Industrial Forest

o ff

Me

De

sch R d

Shingletown
Rd
ll R
nH i

ad

ow

Private Industrial Forest

sR

Blac k

W ilso

W ildcat Rd

Sh

in

tow g le

n Ridge

Shasta County

Manton

Tehama County
0 2 4 8 Miles
October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: CDF Shasta/Trinity Unit, BLM, CASIL, TNC, USDA FS: Pac SW Region, Other Industrial Land Owners

oils
Whitmore
W
y

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

wp2T

ill R

R it ts M

Th a

n Po

de

a os

tc her

REDDING
44
I nw R o od d

Inwood
100 Rd
Em tT ran ig

D eer F lat R

M ill Rd

44

l ra i

Viola
B ro k eo ff M

October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (1994), CASIL

c ers

d hR

Shingletown
R

e ad

ow

Legend

Sh
Wildcat Rd

n tow ing le

e idg

Rd

Soil Map Unit Name

COHASSET-AIKEN-MCCARTHY (CA141) HOLLAND-GAVEL-HOLLOWTREE (CA032) JIGGS-LYONSVILLE-CHUMMY (CA161)

Shasta County Manton

KILARC-SITES-MYERS (CA155) MILLSHOLM-SEHORN-LODO (CA147) SHELD-YALLANI-INVILLE (CA016) TOOMES-SUPAN-GUENOC (CA143) TUSCAN-INKS-KEEFERS (CA142)

Tehama County

WACA-WINDY-JIGGS (CA853) Fire Plan Area Town Hwy 44 Area Road

8 Miles

County Line

pire2fe2eres nd riority2rojets
R1W

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

R1E R2E R3E

wp2U
Legend
Fire Safe Area, by Priority
High Medium Low

Whitmore

T32N

Prioritized Individual Road

High Medium

c her Mill Rd

Low Fire Safe Plan Area Town State Route 44 Other Road County

aW

ay

n Po

de r

T31N

Starlight Pines Rd

ts M

ill R d

Th at

os

De

R it

er Flat Rd

44
Viola

Inwood

ran

F la

Em

ig

t Rd

44

In w o

od

Rd
100 Rd

Thumper Rd

il Tr a

Sites Rd/Plateau Pines Rd

B roke

d ersch R

Shingletown
L

on

gH

ay

of

fM

ea

d ow sR

Butte Rd

wn Ridge R gleto d hin

T30N

W ildcat Rd

Blac k

ll R

Wilso

nH

1 " equals 2.01 mi

Manton

Shasta County Tehama County

T29N

October 16, 2003 UTM Z10, NAD83 Sources: CASIL, WSRCD

pire2everity
Whitmore

Fire Safe Plan for the Shingletown Community

Legend
Fire Plan Area Town Hwy 44

wp2V

Fire Hazard Severity

VERY High

Other Major Road

Fire Safe Areas - CDF

High Moderate (No Applicable Areas) Non-State Responsibility Area BLM USDA Forest Service Tehama Co: Severity Not Included

Mi

ll R

Th a

n Po

ro de

ts

t c her

sa

M ill
R it

REDDING
44
rs c De
h Rd

Deer F

Inwood
oo d Inw
Rd
100 Rd
E T nt ra g mi

lat R

44
l ra i

Viola
Br

Shingletown
ge Rd

ok

eo

ff

Me

ad

ow

Wildcat R

g Shin

n e to w

Ri d

Shasta County
Manton

October 16, 2003 Albers, NAD27 Sources: CDF Shasta/Trinity Unit, BLM, USDA FS: Pac SW Region

Tehama County
0 2 4 8 Miles