Section 7 – Fuels and Fire

Introduction

This section of the Millerton area watershed assessment addresses the history and role of fire in the Sierra foothill region and the potential impact of fire to the environment and communities.  The California Department of Forestry (CDF) provided all technical information and maps detailing fuel models, fire history, fuel modification projects and fire prevention standards for property owners.[1]  This information was also provided as a public presentation in April, 2003.  Additionally, the Eastern Madera County and Highway 168 (Fresno County) FireSafe Councils have participated in educational outreach to local land owners.  Fire can be beneficial for watersheds.  However, with the most recent fire in the Cascadel area of North Fork on the Whiskey Creek watershed in 2001 in which over 4,000 acres of watershed were affected – there is a growing sensitivity to the importance of managing fuels in conjunction with potential water quality impacts.

Fuel Models

For the prediction of fire behavior, fuel types have been broken down into four general fuel groups (grasslands, shrublands, timber and slash).  These four groups are then subdivided into thirteen fuel models.   The most prevalent fuel models in the watershed are:

In the lower portion of the watershed Fuel Model 1 is the most dominant type.  Fuel Model 2 becomes more dominate in the mid to upper portion of the watershed.  The watershed continues to transition to short and tall brush (Fuel Model 5 and 6) – mixed with hardwood and conifers, (Fuel Model 8) within the higher elevations.

Figure 27 – Fuel Models within the Watershed

Fire History

Historically, fire has always been a naturally occurring event on different landscapes throughout California.  Within the Sierra foothill region and the Millerton watershed, lightening – or fire deliberately or accidentally set  by the indigenous population would occur.  More recently, fire has been utilized on a prescribed basis to improve grazing – or as a preventative measure.  From 1900 through 1949, nearly half of the upper Millerton has experienced fire.  Additional fires have occurred as the population has increased in the area.  Fuel loads have increased by the introduction of non-native species such as eucalyptus.  Most recently close to the urban interface, significant arson or accidental man-caused fires have occurred in the Backbone area of Auberry, Fresno County (2000) and the Casadel area in North Fork, Madera County (2002).

From 1900 through 1969 there has been a rather extensive fuels modification program in place within the Millerton watershed – especially in the Finegold watershed of Madera County.  From 1990 through 1999 there was an extensive fuels modification program in the Kerchoff reservoir area towards North Fork, Madera County.  However, there appears within the watershed in Fresno County to have been relatively very little fuels modification – in light of increased population within the Prather, Auberry and Tollhouse areas.

Figure 28 – Map showing the history of fire in the Millerton Watershed

Figure 29 – Map of Fuel Modification Projects in the Millerton Watershed

Summary of Findings

1.      Fire can be beneficial for watersheds.

2.      Awareness is increasing related to the importance of managing fuels in conjunction with potential water quality impacts due to the uncontrolled occurrences of fire within the watershed.

3.      There are six fuel models prevalent in the Millerton Watershed out of fifteen models classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as relevant to the watershed.

4.      The Millerton watershed is predominately Fuel Model 1 – Short Grass, and Fuel Model 2 – Grass and Understory.

5.      Historically within the watershed, fire has always been a natural occurrence or utilized by the indigenous population within the watershed.

6.      The frequency of fires has increased in more recent years.

7.      More population clusters are becoming an urbanized interface to rangelands and forested areas within or adjoining the watershed.

8.      Until approximately 1970, there was a more active fuels modification program in the Madera County portion of the watershed.

9.      Fuels modification programs have been more common in the Madera County portion of the watershed than within Fresno County’s portion which carries the majority of the urbanizing interface and increased population clusters.

10.  The California Department of Forestry analyzes vegetation as a fuels model type.  Separately, the California Department of Fish and Game analyze vegetation type to determine its contribution towards species propagation and biodiversity.

Conclusions

1.      In general, the occurrence of fire can be beneficial to watersheds and may have a positive role to play.

2.      The watershed will burn.  Hopefully, not all at once, but over the years the watershed will burn in places.  The native species are adapted and require fire to maintain a natural, balanced ecosystem.

3.      Population increases, carelessness and the lack of knowledge by residents or visitors will have the largest impact on both fuels and fire frequency in the watershed.

4.      Fuel loads are increasing due to the introduction of non-native species that are not resistant to fire and/or drought tolerant.

5.      “Do we need to have an acre breakdown on fuel types?”  The primary fuel type is savannah/grassland and oak woodland.  Both of these fuel types are annual grass fuel components and are a high fire danger fuel type.

6.      Control burns are more difficult to employ due to poor air quality in the San Joaquin air basin.  The Vegetative Management Program (VMP) is essentially on hold indefinitely according to the California Department of Forestry’s watershed representative.

7.      Future fire protection – Madera County is expanding fire protection as the population grows.  Whereas, Fresno County Fire protection is not growing with land development according to the California Department of Forestry’s watershed representative.

8.      Fuels may increase because of lower grazing uses and the increase of the creation of “ranchette” development and an increase in population clusters and the number of urbanized interfaces.

9.      As the population increases, the frequency of non-prescribed fires will also increase.

10.  Along with the large number of fire starts comes the increased chance of all the right conditions for larger, catastrophic wildfires to also occur.

11.  With the larger population and development in the watershed, instead of just vegetation burning – homes, businesses and other facilities will be at risk.

12.  With education and intelligent planning many of these dangers can be mitigated.

13.  These concerns are not a new problem in this state. 

Section 8

02/15/06