Has the Sacramento area ever been hit by a major fire?

[MtnSurfer]

Here's an excellent map by the state's Fire Resource and Assessment Program (FRAP). It clearly shows certain areas are at greater risk. That is also why it's getting harder to buy fire insurance in these places since the risk is higher. All the west isn't the same. That's a hasty generalization. In fact, there are even parts within Sacramento County which are higher risks than others.

Chim, this is not an attack on Sacramento as you seem to take things at times though I'm not sure why. Your immediate reaction and need to my post my exact Q in the Monterey forum seemed a bit childish. But that's ok. Instead, this is simply an opportunity to consider the facts and real threats that exist for Sacramento residents, greater for some than for others. We're talking about probability based upon real data. To pretend its all the same is simply not reality. Take a look a the map and see what I mean.

http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgis...s/frnk_map.pdf




Derek

[Chimérique]

Derek, you should post that map in a California thread as it applies to all of California. It will be helpful to a lot more people in the California thread than just in Sacramento.

In fact your thread really belongs in every forum in California.

As you can see by the map you posted it is easy to generalize that almost all of California's most populous areas are in High Fire zones.

Most of Sacramento is NOT in a high or even moderate fire zone, but because of California's 5-6 month dry season, we should all be mindful that "everywhere" in California (including Sacramento) is vulnerable, certainly more than places that get consistent rain all year long.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Derek, you should post that map in a California thread as it applies to all of California. It will be helpful to a lot more people in the California thread than just in Sacramento.

In fact your thread really belongs in every forum in California.

Why are you so opposed to me asking it about Sacramento? If I'm thinking of living there it's completely relevant. Don't you get that? It has nothing to do with the rest of the state since I'm not looking at living there. Rather, I'm considering the greater Sacramento area including the foothills which can have greater fire risk. Does that make more sense now? Do you really think all CA is the same or more importantly the greater Sacramento area when it comes to potential for fire?

Derek

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Why are you so opposed to me asking it about Sacramento? If I'm thinking of living there it completely relevant. Don't you get that? It has nothing to do with the rest of the state since I'm not looking at living there. Rather, I'm considering the greater Sacramento area including the foothills which can have greater fire risk. Does that make more sense now? Do you really think all CA is the same or more importantly the greater Sacramento area when it comes to potential for fire?

Derek

I personally think it is common sense. I mean seriously how long have you lived in California to not know that the entire state is very vulnerable. It doesn't rain 6 months out the year all over the state.

Why hasn't Paradise burned so badly before in the last 100 years or so? Primarily because 27,000 people now live there (or used to live there). Just 20-30 years ago less than half the people lived there. If you put people and houses in forests or very near forests in a climate like Californias you are going to get fires. Thirty years ago the amount of high transmission lines didn't exit in our forested areas, less fire potential.

[JohnS_15]

I think most of Sacramento certainly has the hot and dry conditions and periods of strong N/E wind conditions that make for dangerous wildfire risk. However once you get into the foothills I think the risk goes up substantially higher for a couple of reasons: The topography and the more sparse infrastructure and population. Having the hills and canyons makes finding fires early more difficult and fighting them harder and then the canyons and hills funnel the winds to an even stronger degree making them rip through even faster. Add to that more woodsy vegetation with fast burning fuels on the floor with more bulky trees to add to the magnitude. You can see the red on the CA map above in the foothill communities right along the line of the mountains from SoCal all the way up to NorCal.

Most of Sacramento is much flatter with less woody vegetation - the rural areas are more grasslands and agriculture. I've seen plenty of grassfires but they tend to be short-lived - they spark up and burn out or are put out quickly without the fuel to burn and easier to get at for firefighters. In the valley though we do tend to get suffocated with smoke from any fires to the north and east of us as evidenced by the most recent fires in northern CA over the summer and just a couple of weeks ago. Although pretty much the entire central valley and the bay area suffered that same fate most recently.

I prefer living down in the more urban area of the Sacramento valley - I've mentioned before that while the foothills can be beautiful at certain times of year - they are too hot and dry, the air quality can be very bad, and the fire risk is very high.

[Adriatica]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I mean seriously how long have you lived in California to not know that the entire state is very vulnerable.

That's incorrect. The level of vulnerability varies all over the state, which is exactly what the previously posted map shows.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by JohnS_15

I think most of Sacramento certainly has the hot and dry conditions and periods of strong N/E wind conditions that make for dangerous wildfire risk. However once you get into the foothills I think the risk goes up substantially higher for a couple of reasons: The topography and the more sparse infrastructure and population. Having the hills and canyons makes finding fires early more difficult and fighting them harder and then the canyons and hills funnel the winds to an even stronger degree making them rip through even faster. Add to that more woodsy vegetation with fast burning fuels on the floor with more bulky trees to add to the magnitude. You can see the red on the CA map above in the foothill communities right along the line of the mountains from SoCal all the way up to NorCal.

Most of Sacramento is much flatter with less woody vegetation - the rural areas are more grasslands and agriculture. I've seen plenty of grassfires but they tend to be short-lived - they spark up and burn out or are put out quickly without the fuel to burn and easier to get at for firefighters. In the valley though we do tend to get suffocated with smoke from any fires to the north and east of us as evidenced by the most recent fires in northern CA over the summer and just a couple of weeks ago. Although pretty much the entire central valley and the bay area suffered that same fate most recently.

I prefer living down in the more urban area of the Sacramento valley - I've mentioned before that while the foothills can be beautiful at certain times of year - they are too hot and dry, the air quality can be very bad, and the fire risk is very high.

Thanks, John. That's what I've been thinking after driving through the area. The foothills look like their ready to burn at any time. While the more suburban and urban parts at least don't look as bad in terms of dryness. Though I'm sure there are still some pretty dry parts. The map also shows the risks being lower toward downtown.

One of the interesting parts I noticed is that the northern side of town all along I80 from ~ Rocklin seemed less dry than its counterpart along 50 starting around Folsom & El Dorado Hills. There are more trees and green along I80 even during the dry season.

Derek