The graph also shows an approximate green-up period around mid-January. Green-up is defined as the beginning of a new cycle of plant growth. Shortly after green-up occurs, live and dead fuels slowly start to dry out and become available to burn as the summer progresses. This analysis indicates that fire season generally lasts from mid-April through September when ERC and BI values are elevated. Rainfall, or lack thereof, can alter the duration of fire season.
Figure D6. Energy Release Component
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page D8
Figure D7. Burning Index
D.5 Winds
Of the three primary drivers of wildfire behavior (wind, fuels, and topography), wind typically has the greatest impact on rates of wildfire spread and spread direction. Historical wind data for the Amador County area were collected from Amador County SIG for daytime hours (0800 to 1900) during the same 8-year period as the ERC and BI analysis. FF+ used this data to generate a wind rose (Figure D8). Wind roses show the frequency with which winds blow from a particular direction at a particular speed. The length of each spoke is proportional to the amount of time that the wind blows from that direction (NRCS 2025).
The Amador County SIG wind rose shows that daytime winds are typically from the west-southwest and southwest about 36% of the time. Wildfires that ignite in the county and that escape initial attack under these conditions would likely spread up-slope in a northeasterly direction.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page D9
Figure D8. Wind Rose for Amador County SIG.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page D10
D.5.1 Critical NFDRS Indices
Fire modeling and analysis were completed using the 50th and 97th percentile weather conditions and NFDRS indices calculated from Amador County SIG data. These percentiles represent very high to extreme fire danger conditions (Table D3). The results from FF+ were used as inputs in FlamMap (USFS 2025) for wildfire behavior simulation and subsequent output analysis.
Table D3. Critical NFDRS Indices from Amador County SIG.
NFDRS Index 90th Percentile 97th Percentile
Max Temp (°Fahrenheit) 99 105
Min RH (%) 12 9
Windspeed (mph) 6 6
Wind Gust Speed (mph) 13 15
1-Hr. Fuel Moisture (%) 3 3
10-Hr. Fuel Moisture (%) 4 3
100-Hr. Fuel Moisture (%) 6 5
1000-Hr. Fuel Moisture (%) 7 6
Woody Fuel Moisture (%) 63 63
Herbaceous Fuel Moisture (%) 4 3
Ignition Component2 (%) 51 59
Burning Index3 91 98
Energy Release Component 108 115
Notes:
1) Ignition Component is a rating of the probability that a firebrand will cause an actionable fire. The Ignition Component can range from 0, when conditions are cool and damp, to 100 on days when the weather is dry and windy. When the Ignitions Component value is 0, a single firebrand will not start a wildland fire requiring suppression action. For a value of 50, there is a 50% probability that a single firebrand could start a wildfire requiring suppression action.
2) Key: Hr = hour; ID = identifier; mph = miles per hour; NFDRS = National Fire Danger Rating System; RAWS = Remote Automated Weather Station; RH = relative humidity.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page D11
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page D12
Appendix E: Community HVRA Prioritization and Risk
Assessment Inputs and Summary
E.1 Relative Importance Values
Relative importance refers to the assigned weight or priority given to each HVRA, reflecting its perceived value or sensitivity in the landscape. According to Scott et al. (2013), relative importance values are critical for scaling and comparing the potential effects of wildfire across a diverse set of HVRAs. For Amador County, for each zone, each HVRA category was assigned a score between 1 (low) - 5 (high) importance by Amador County stakeholders and averaged across respondents. Weights were assigned for each sub-HVRA based on data from Vibrant Planet and to be consistent with their methodology. This allowed for a final ranking from highest to lowest relative importance.
Tables E3-E5 include the HVRA Relative Importance values.
Relative importance values are used in conjunction with fire exposure metrics (notably burn probability and flame length outputs derived from wildfire simulations) and response functions to compute the NVC caused by wildfire. The result of the NVC analysis is helpful in prioritizing risk mitigation actions.
E.2 Response Functions
In the context of QWRA, a response function is a means to generally estimate the impact of wildland fire – beneficial or detrimental - on sub-HVRAs, based on the intensity of the fire exposure. Response functions link modeled fire behavior outputs (such as flame length) to the expected change in value of a sub-HVRA, typically expressed as a relative percentage of gain (benefit) or loss (Scott et al. 2013). For instance, a response function for residential structures may show increasing levels of damage with increasing flame length, while a response function for a fire-adapted habitat may show ecological benefits at low intensities and losses or damage at higher fire intensities. A foundational question asked when identifying a response function related to a specific sub-HVRA is – “if this sub-HVRA were exposed to this fire intensity (say flame length of 2 to 4 feet), what are the likely fire effects on that sub-HVRA?” For Amador, response functions were identified by Vibrant Planet and for additional sub-HVRAs by SIG for each sub-HVRA and reflect how that group of resources or assets (i.e., sub-HVRA) generally respond to different levels of fire intensity. For each combination of sub-HVRA and flame length, Table E1 and Tables E2 were used to help decide whether a flame length category would be relatively “beneficial” (+1 [slightly] to +3 [extremely]), “neutral” (0), or “detrimental” (-1 [slightly] to -3 [extremely]) to a sub-HVRA. Table E2 aided in interpreting expected fire behavior/effects on a sub-HVRA where low severity was defined as generally less than 25% mortality, moderate severity covered from 25-90% mortality, and high severity was greater than 90% mortality. Examples of fire behavior are given for forested vegetation, but the intensity gradient represented in Tables E3-E5 was applied to other vegetation types as well as buildings and infrastructure related sub-HVRAs.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E1
Table E1. Response function scoring method used by WSP in determining relative beneficial or detrimental effects on each sub-HVRA.
Response Function Score
Response Function Description
-3
Highly detrimental to sub-HVRA
-2
Moderately detrimental to sub-HVRA
-1
Slightly detrimental to sub- HVRA
0 No beneficial or detrimental effect on sub-HVRA (neutral) 1 Slightly beneficial to sub-HVRA
2 Moderately beneficial to sub-HVRA
3 Highly beneficial to sub-HVRA
Table E2. Flame Length Categories Used in Defining Fire Intensity Intensity Flame
Length (ft)
Description of General Fire Behavior and Effects
Low 0–2
Scorch height 5–20 ft; typically low severity; surface fire in low fuel load and/or mild conditions. Fire consumes or kills surface fuels, small shrubs, or seedlings.
2–4
Scorch height 10–40 ft; typically low-to-moderate severity; surface fire in moderate fuel load and/or moderate weather conditions. Fire consumes or kills surface fuels, shrubs, and smaller trees.
Moderate/
Elevated
4–6
Scorch height 20–60 ft; typically moderate severity; surface fire in moderate fuel load and moderate-to-severe conditions. Fire consumes or kills surface fuels, shrubs, and smaller trees, as well as individual mature trees.
6–8
Scorch height 30–80 ft; typically moderate-to-high severity; some surface fire transitioning to canopy fire in moderate-to-heavy fuel load and moderate-to-severe conditions. Fire consumes or kills surface fuels, shrubs, and smaller trees, and some smaller clumps of mature trees.
Extreme 8–12
Scorch height 50–100 ft; typically high severity; some surface fire transitioning to canopy fire in moderate-to-heavy fuel load and moderate-to-severe conditions. Fire burns hot, killing larger clumps of mature trees as well as consuming understory and surface fuels. >12
Scorch height exceeds tree height; high severity; crown fire in heavy fuel load in moderate-to-severe conditions. Fire burns hot, killing nearly all mature trees in a wider area, as well as consuming understory and surface fuels.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E2
Table E3. HVRA weighting: Amador West
CWPP HVRA Priorities Risk Weighting - West
HVRA Sub-HVRA Weight Sub-Categor
y Weight
Combine
d Weight
Wildfire Threat
Impact
Wildfire Threat Impact:
Beneficial impact: (1 least beneficial to 100 most
beneficial)
No impact: 0
Negative impact: (-1 least negative impact to -100 most negative impact)
Extr
eme
Very
High
High Mod
erat
e
Low Very
Low
Assets
Structures 4.9 3 54.5 -90 -80 -60 -40 -20 -10
Utilities 4.9 3.9 71.4 -82.
9 -71.
9 -52.
9 -31.
4 -18.
1 -10.
4 Biodiversity
Aquatic/Rip
arian
Animal
Species
4.9 5.5 100 24.1 26.5 23.9 24.4 24.1 21.8
Woodland
Plant
Species
4.9 5.5 100 -90 -90 -40 20 60 40
Ecological Commodity
Agriculture 3.5 3.5 45.7 -30 -30 -10 -10 10 10
Foresty 3.5 3.5 45.7 -100 -67.
2 -26.
6 -21.
9 -8 -4.2
Recreation
Recreation
Areas
1.9 4 62 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Recreation
Infrastructu
re
1.9 1.5 10.5 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Safety
Communic
ations
4.8 3.5 62 -50 -40 -30 -10 0 0
Protection 4.8 4 70.9 -100 -90 -80 -60 -30 -10
Safety
Zones
4.8 4.5 79.7 -30 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Services 4.8 4 70.9 -92.
5 -80 -60 -40 -22.
5 -12.
5 Science & Culture
Cultural
Resources
2.6 5.6 55.1 -95 -95 -70 -25 5 2.5
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E3
Monitoring 2.6 6.3 6.2 -77.
5 -65 -45 -30 -12.
5 -7.5
Water
Hydro-geo
morphology
3.6 5.5 74.4 -70 -70 -30 -10 -10 -10
Surface
Water
3.6 1.5 20.3 -88.
8 -68 -41.
3 -13.
8 8 13
Watershed 3.6 4.5 60.8 -60 -30 -10 5 10 10
Wildlands Health
Forest
Vegetation
2.9 5 53.6 -90 -50 0 0 10 10
Riparian
Vegetation
2.9 3 32.2 -100 -89.
5 -67.
9 -64.
4 -65.
7 -65.
7 Table E4. HVRA weighting: Amador Central
CWPP HVRA Priorities Risk Weighting - Central
HVRA Sub-HVR
A
Weight Sub-Cate
gory
Weight
Combine
d Weight
Wildfire Threat
Impact
Wildfire Threat Impact:
Beneficial impact: (-1 least beneficial to 100-5 most
beneficial)
No impact: 0
Negative impact: (-1 least negative impact to -1005
most negative impact)
Extre
me
Very
High
High Mod
erate
Low Very
Low
Assets
Structures 4.3 3 47.6 -90 -80 -60 -40 -20 -10
Utilities 4.3 3.9 62.3 -82.9 -71.9 -52.9 -31.4 -18.1 -10. 4 Biodiversity
Aquatic/Ri
parian
Animal
Species
2.5 5.5 51.3 24.1 26.5 23.9 24.4 24.1 21.8
Woodland
Plant
Species
2.5 5.5 51.3 -90 -90 -40 20 60 40
Ecological Commodity
Agricultur
e
3.3 3.5 42.4 -30 -30 -10 -10 10 10
Foresty 3.3 3.5 42.4 -100 -67.2 -26.6 -21.9 -8 -4.2
Recreation
Recreatio
n Areas
1.8 4 26.1 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E4
Recreatio
n
Infrastruct
ure
1.8 1.5 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Safety
Communi
cations
5 3.5 65.3 -50 -40 -30 -10 0 0
Protection 5 4 74.6 -100 -90 -80 -60 -30 -10
Safety
Zones
5 4.5 83.9 -30 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Services 5 4 74.6 -92.5 -80 -60 -40 -22.5 -12.
5 Science & Culture
Cultural
Resource
s
2 5.6 42 -95 -95 -70 -25 5 2.5
Monitorin
g
2 6.3 46.6 -77.5 -65 -45 -30 -12.5 -7.5
Water
Hydro-ge
omorphol
ogy
3.8 5.5 76.9 -70 -70 -30 -10 -10 -10
Surface
Water
3.8 1.5 21 -88.8 -68 -41.3 -13.8 8 13
Watershe
d
3.8 4.5 62.9 -60 -30 -10 5 10 10
Wildlands Health
Forest
Vegetatio
n
3.8 5 69.9 -90 -50 0 0 10 10
Riparian
Vegetatio
n
3.8 3 42 -100 -89.5 -67.9 -64.4 -65.7 -65.
7 Table E5. HVRA weighting: Amador East
CWPP HVRA Priorities Risk Weighting - East
HVRA Sub-HVR
A
Weigh
t
Sub-Ca
tegory
Weight
Combine
d Weight
Wildfire Threat
Impact
Wildfire Threat Impact:
Beneficial impact: (-1 least beneficial to 100-5
most beneficial)
No impact: 0
Negative impact: (-1 least negative impact to
-1005 most negative impact)
Extre
me
Very
High
High Moder
ate
Low Very
Low
Assets
Structures 4.4 3 49.2 -90 -80 -60 -40 -20 -10
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E5
Utilities 4.4 3.9 64.5 -82.9 -71.9 -52.9 -31.4 -18.1 -10.4 Biodiversity
Aquatic/Ri
parian
Animal
Species
2.6 5.5 53.3 24.1 26.5 23.9 24.4 24.1 21.8
Woodland
Plant
Species
2.6 5.5 53.3 -90 -90 -40 20 60 40
Ecological Commodity
Agriculture 3.2 3.5 41.8 -30 -30 -10 -10 10 10
Foresty 3.2 3.5 41.8 -100 -67.2 -26.6 -21.9 -8 -4.2
Recreation
Recreatio
n Areas
3 4 44.8 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Recreatio
n
Infrastruct
ure
3 1.5 16.8 -30 -20 -10 -5 0 0
Safety
Communic
ations
4.4 3.5 57.4 -50 -40 -30 -10 0 0
Protection 4.4 4 65.6 -100 -90 -80 -60 -30 -10
Safety
Zones
4.4 4.5 73.8 -30 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Services 4.4 4 65.6 -92.5 -80 -60 -40 -22.5 -12.5
Science & Culture
Cultural
Resources
2.6 5.6 54.5 -95 -95 -70 -25 5 2.5
Monitoring 2.6 6.3 60.6 -77.5 -65 -45 -30 -12.5 -7.5
Water
Hydro-geo
morpholog
y
3.6 5.5 73.8 -70 -70 -30 -10 -10 -10
Surface
Water
3.6 1.5 20.1 -88.8 -68 -41.3 -13.8 8 13
Watershed 3.6 4.5 60.4 -60 -30 -10 5 10 10
Wildlands Health
Forest
Vegetation
3.2 5 59.7 -90 -50 0 0 10 10
Riparian
Vegetation
3.2 3 35.8 -100 -89.5 -67.9 -64.4 -65.7 -65.7
E.3 Calculating Net Value Change
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E6
Conditional weighted net value change C(wNVC) assumes fire occurrence somewhere on the landscape and incorporates the previously discussed modeled flame lengths, response functions, and weighted relative importance values to produce mappable wildfire risk information for each sub-HVRA. In contrast, E(wNVC) is based on annual burn probability and therefore represents expected weighted NVC. C(wNVC) eliminates the additional challenge of needing to calibrate fire behavior models to produce annual burn probability by assuming that a wildfire occurs somewhere on the landscape during the period of interest (such as 1 year).
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page E7
Appendix F: Vibrant Planet Scenario Development, Results, and Priority Project Areas
F.1 Overview
This analysis aligns wildfire mitigation planning in Amador County with community-identified values, with a focus on improving safety outcomes and protecting life, property, and critical community assets. The Vibrant Planet platform was used to integrate community priorities with quantitative wildfire hazard and risk information to support consistent, defensible planning.
The analysis begins at the countywide scale, providing a unified view of wildfire hazard, risk, and valued resources across Amador County. From this perspective, results are refined into Distinct Management Areas (DiMAs) that reflect differences in vegetation, fire behavior, development patterns, access, and community priorities. These DiMAs support prioritization and strategy development while maintaining alignment with CWPP recommendations.
An example project is included to demonstrate how DiMA-level priorities and CWPP guidance can be translated into project-scale planning using Vibrant Planet.
F.2 Subdivision of Amador County into DiMAs
Amador County was divided into three Distinct Management Areas (DiMAs)—West, Central, and East—based on differences in vegetation, fuels, population distribution, working lands, safety constraints, and water-resource patterns. Refinements of the DiMA boundaries were guided by input from the CWPP Steering Committee.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F1
Figure F1: Amador County showing West, Central, and East DiMA CWPP Planning Divisions.
Key characteristics distinguishing the DiMAs include:
West DiMA
● Least forested DiMA in the county, dominated by herbaceous cover, hardwood woodlands, shrublands, and agricultural lands, with only small, isolated pockets of coniferous forest.
● Most populated portion of the county, containing all incorporated cities, including Jackson, Sutter Creek, Ione, Amador City, and Plymouth. ● DiMA boundary was drawn to keep incorporated city boundaries intact. ● Land ownership is almost entirely private, with the lowest proportion of government-owned land compared to the Central and East DiMAs. ● Contains two major reservoirs that supply water to the eastern Bay Area: Pardee Reservoir and Camanche Reservoir.
● Includes multiple fire stations and local fire departments supporting structural and wildland response.
● Evacuation routes are present but more dispersed than in the Central DiMA, reflecting lower fuel continuity and generally less hazardous vegetation conditions.
Central DiMA
● Transitional landscape moving upslope from west to east, shifting from hardwood woodland, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation into dense conifer forest.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F2
● Elevated fire hazard and fire risk driven by continuous fuels, increasing forest density, and extensive wildland–urban interface conditions.
● Predominantly privately owned land, including significant private industrial timberlands, with smaller areas of BLM, Forest Service, Tribal lands, and State Parks. ● High concentration of structures, particularly west of the Highway 88 corridor, resulting in widespread WUI exposure across much of the DiMA.
● Numerous unincorporated communities, including Buckhorn, Volcano, Red Corral, Pine Grove, Clinton, Amador Pines, Lockwood, and Fiddletown. ● Complex evacuation route network in the western portion of the DiMA reflecting WUI complexity.
● Multiple fire stations and response facilities distributed throughout the area. ● Major infrastructure along the southern county boundary, including dam, hydroelectric facilities, and transmission lines associated with the Mokelumne River drainage, and canals.
● Recreation opportunities, including State Parks, trail networks, fishing, boating, and historic/educational points of interest.
East DiMA
● High-elevation, alpine landscape with extensive exposed granite, and areas classified as barren or other.
● Vegetation dominated by conifer forest, with limited hardwood and herbaceous vegetation confined to canyon bottoms.
● Almost entirely federally owned land, including a wilderness area; limited private ownership, mostly concentrated on the western end of the DiMA, and small pockets of State land.
● Headwaters of the Mokelumne River, containing major water supply and hydropower infrastructure, including Salt Springs Reservoir and associated transmission lines. ● Concentrated recreation, including skiing, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, boating, and camping; includes a portion of Kirkwood Ski Resort and community. ● Low population and structural density, with small clusters of development in Kirkwood Meadows, Silver Lake, and a few reservoir areas.
● One fire station serves the DiMA, resulting in limited emergency services, long response times, and seasonal access constraints due to snow.
● Contains a significant concentration of designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, a condition not present elsewhere in the county.
F.3 Scenario Development
Scenario development was conducted through multiple iterations using the Vibrant Planet platform. Final scenarios were structured to reflect different priorities across the West, Central, and East DiMAs, while maintaining a consistent analytical framework.
Across the three DiMA scenarios, core priorities and constraints were standardized. These included an emphasis on risk reduction, use of planning-area-scale normalization, inclusion of the full DiMA extent in each scenario, and a consistent project configuration of ten projects per Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F3
DiMA, each approximately 3,000 acres in size. This standardized structure ensures that differences among scenarios reflect value-based prioritization rather than changes in scale or methodology.
Within this framework, emphasized objectives were adjusted by DiMA based on direction from the CWPP Steering Committee. These adjustments reflect documented regional differences in values, hazards, and resources and are summarized in the emphasized objectives table below (Table F1).
Set Priorities:
● Opportunity Emphasis: Risk Reduction
● Normalization: Planning Area Scale Normalization
○ Planning-Area-Scale Normalization justification: this setting allows each DiMA’s internal priorities (e.g., population density, water infrastructure, fuel conditions) to rise to the surface without being suppressed by conditions in the other regions) ● Include area in scenario: Yes
Emphasize Objectives:
● Each scenario (West, Central, East) received a distinct Emphasis Objective weighting based directly on Relative Importance Questionnaire results (see Table F1) Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F4
Table F1: Relative importance scores by DiMA.
West
Amador
Central
Amador
East
Amador
Grand
Total NOTES
Assets 5 4 4 5
AVERAGE of ASSETS (e.g. homes, businesses,
energy and water infrastructure, other features of
the built environment)
Safety 5 5 4 5
AVERAGE of SAFETY (e.g. ingress/ egress
routes, cell towers, emergency service stations,
other health and safety areas)
Recreation 2 2 3 2
AVERAGE of RECREATION (e.g. trails,
recreation areas such as campgrounds and ski
resorts)
Biodiversity 2 3 3 2
AVERAGE of BIODIVERSITY (e.g. important
habitat, nesting and denning sites, rare plant
areas)
Ecological
Commodity 4 3 3 3
AVERAGE of ECOLOGICAL COMMODITY (e.g.
managed timberlands, ranching and grazing
areas)
Wildlands
Health 3 4 3 3
AVERAGE of WILDLANDS HEALTH (e.g. forest
vegetation, riparian vegetation, or other areas
representing function and resilience)
Water 4 4 4 4
AVERAGE of WATER (e.g. lakes, rivers,
streams)
Science &
Culture 3 2 3 2
AVERAGE of SCIENCE & CULTURE (e.g.
monitoring stations, historic structures,
archaeological sites)
Relative importance scores were assigned by DiMA based on survey respondents’ demonstrated area of knowledge, professional involvement, and geographic focus within Amador County. The survey included a question asking respondents to self-identify the area(s) of the county in which they have direct expertise or professional involvement. Responses were weighted accordingly (e.g., respondents whose work primarily focuses on the West DiMA informed that DiMA’s scores, while respondents with direct responsibility or experience in the East DiMA, such as Kirkwood-area fire leadership, informed that DiMA’s scores). This approach ensures that emphasized objectives reflect place-based knowledge of local values, landscape conditions, hazards, and community-defined priorities specific to each DiMA, consistent with CWPP requirements.
F.3.1 Recommended Management
Vibrant Planet provides eight distinct management recommendations:
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F5
Complex Mechanical Removal
Mechanical treatments that remove vegetation using multiple methods or equipment types, often combining thinning, biomass removal, mastication, or piling to address complex fuel conditions.
Herbicides
The application of chemical treatments to control or suppress targeted vegetation, typically used to manage invasive species or limit competing regrowth following disturbance or mechanical treatment.
Herbivory
The use of managed grazing (e.g., livestock) to reduce fine fuels and vegetation biomass. This treatment primarily affects surface and ladder fuels and is highly dependent on access, timing, and operational feasibility.
Manual
Vegetation treatment conducted using hand crews and hand tools, such as chainsaws or brush tools. Manual treatments are typically applied in areas with access constraints, sensitive resources, or where mechanized equipment is not feasible.
Mechanical Rearrangement
Mechanical treatment that alters the spatial arrangement of fuels without removing biomass from the site, such as mastication or chipping where material is redistributed on the ground surface.
Mechanical Removal
Mechanical treatment that removes vegetation from the site entirely, including thinning, biomass extraction, or hauling of treated material. This category reduces fuel loads by reducing total biomass.
Revegetation
Active establishment or reestablishment of vegetation following disturbance or treatment, including planting or seeding, intended to support desired ecological conditions or reduce future hazard.
Rx Fire (Prescribed Fire)
The intentional application of fire under controlled conditions to reduce fuel loads, modify fire behavior potential, and support ecological processes consistent with land management objectives.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F6
Set Constraints
● Size per project - Acres: 3,000 acres
● Budget per project - $: 9,000,000
● Number of projects: 10
Rationalization: We selected a 3,000-acre project size as a practical intermediate scale to simplify subsequent planning beyond the scope of the CWPP, with the understanding that each area could be subdivided into smaller implementable projects as needed. The $9 million budget reflects an assumed $3,000 per acre cost, which is consistent with the higher end of treatment costs observed in comparable landscapes. Finally, we limited scenarios to 10 projects—rather than VP’s default 25—to reduce fragmentation and create fewer, larger planning units that are more manageable for refined planning in later stages.
A note on iterative development
Initial scenario runs followed Vibrant Planet’s recommended management options across all DiMAs. Upon review of treatment acreage by method, iterative runs were conducted in the West DiMA after approximately 70,202 acres were assigned to herbivory treatments. Current research and operational experience do not support the feasibility of implementing herbivory at this scale.
Additional scenarios were therefore developed excluding herbivory to evaluate alternative, more realistic treatment options. Comparative analysis showed strong agreement (83%) in prioritized treatment locations between herbivory and non-herbivory scenarios, with limited spatial variation (Figure. F2). Based on these results, herbivory was retained as a viable treatment option but excluded from the final West DiMA scenario used for CWPP recommendations. The original herbivory-inclusive scenario remains available within the platform for reference.
Figure F2. Close-up of the southeastern portion of the West DiMA consensus area of treatments with and without herbivory. Consensus areas are dark green, Non-consensus areas are light green.
F.4 Scenario Outputs
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F7
This section summarizes the treatment scenarios developed for the West, Central, and East DiMAs using the emphasized objectives described in Table F1. For each scenario, the primary outputs reported here include Resilience Opportunity Efficiency, a Land Ownership Distribution table (Table F2, Table F5, Table F8), a Distribution of Management Methods table (Table F3, Table F6, Table F9), and Financial Estimates associated with the selected treatment portfolio (Table F4, Table F7, Table F10). These outputs are intended to show how proposed treatments align with locally prioritized values within each planning area. Additional scenario details and supporting breakdowns are available within the Vibrant Planet platform, but are not reproduced here because they are more useful for iterative planning and implementation than for summary reporting.
Note the report format used for West DiMA outputs will be used in the subsequent sections and should be referred to for explanations on output details.
West DiMA
The map below shows the West DiMA planning area and the 10 projects identified within it during scenario development. These projects represent the priority treatment areas selected based on the emphasized objectives used in Vibrant Planet.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F8
Figure F3. West DiMA project areas identified through the scenario planning process.
Resilience Opportunity Efficiency
The graph below illustrates how individual projects contribute to overall Emphasized Resilience Opportunity (RO) in the West DiMA scenario. It shows the share of total acres treated relative to the share of maximum RO achieved, along with the cumulative distribution of RO gains across Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F9
the treatment portfolio. These results help show how effectively the scenario concentrates treatment in areas most closely aligned with prioritized objectives.
Figure F4. West DiMA project Resiliency Opportunity Efficiency Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F10
Land Ownership Distribution
Table F2. West DiMA ownership categories within the proposed treatment areas.
Distribution of Management Methods
Table F3. West DiMA recommended treatment approaches, proportion of acreage and acreage assigned to each treatment approach.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F11
Financial Estimates
Table F4. West DiMA estimated treatment costs associated with the proposed project portfolio.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F12
Central DiMA
Figure F5. Central DiMA project areas identified through the scenario planning process.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F13
Figure F6. Central DiMA project Resiliency Opportunity Efficiency Land Ownership Distribution
Table F5. Central DiMA ownership categories within the proposed treatment areas.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F14
Distribution of Management Methods
Table F6. Central DiMA recommended treatment approaches, proportion of acreage and acreage assigned to each treatment approach.
Financial Estimates
Table F7. Central DiMA estimated treatment costs associated with the proposed project portfolio.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F15
East DiMA
Figure F7. East DiMA project areas identified through the scenario planning process.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F16
Figure F8. East DiMA project Resiliency Opportunity Efficiency Land Ownership Distribution
Table F8. East DiMA ownership categories within the proposed treatment areas.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F17
Distribution of Management Methods
Table F9. East DiMA recommended treatment approaches, proportion of acreage and acreage assigned to each treatment approach.
Financial Estimates
Table F10. East DiMA estimated treatment costs associated with the proposed project portfolio.
F.5 Countywide Proposal Outcomes
In this section, all projects from the three DiMA scenarios are combined into a single proposal representing the full treatment portfolio across Amador County. This step allows the platform to evaluate landscape-scale outcomes of the proposed treatments, including wildfire hazard reduction, ecosystem service impacts, changes in acres by hazard class, and cumulative Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F18
Resilience Opportunity Efficiency. These metrics provide a countywide view of how the proposed treatments influence wildfire behavior and risk across the entire planning area.
Figure F9. CAPTION HERE
Wildfire Hazard Metrics
The table below summarizes modeled wildfire behavior metrics before and after implementation of the combined treatment portfolio. These metrics describe how the proposed treatments influence wildfire intensity, spread potential, and expected area burned across the county (Table F11).
Table F11. Wildfire Hazard Metric by Action, No Action, and Change Wildfire Hazard
Metric Description No Action
Post
Action Change Percent Change
Total Wildfire
Hazard
Hazard is a combination of how likely an area is
to burn and the intensity at which it burns. High
hazard may reflect either frequent fire or high
flame lengths. A reduction in hazard is
beneficial for many SARAs, but not necessarily
all SARAs.
0.885 0.511 -0.374 -42%
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F19
Characteristic
Flame Length
(Feet)
Flame lengths represent fire intensity. A
reduction in flame length will also result in a
reduction in wildfire hazard. Many resources,
but not all, respond poorly to high-intensity fires.
7.4 5.7 -1.7 -23%
Estimated
10-year Burn
Probability
Burn probability (BP) shows how likely an area
is to burn sometime in the next 10 years. A
higher BP means fire is more likely in an area.
9.36% 7.89% -1.47% -16%
Expected
Annual Acres
Burned
Using BP, this metric indicates how many acres
are expected to burn in a single year. Note that
this metric does not reflect intensity.
3,807 3,151 -656 -17%
Expected Acres
Burned within
10 Years
Similar to the metric above, this indicates how
many acres are expected to burn within 10
years.
35,495 29,925 -5,570 -16%
Rate of Spread
(Chains per
Hour)
Spread rate indicates how quickly a fire will
grow. A reduction in spread rate often increases
fire management opportunities and corresponds
to lower intensities.
13.9 11.8 -2.1 -15%
Rate of Spread
(MPH)
Similar to the metric above, but spread rate is
expressed in miles per hour (MPH) rather than
chains per hour.
0.174 0.148 -0.026 -15%
Wildfire Impact for Ecosystem Services
This table summarizes the modeled change in ecosystem service values associated with wildfire under existing and treated conditions. The metrics estimate how wildfire is expected to affect the combined value of resources represented in the emphasized objectives and how those outcomes change following treatment (Table F12).
Table F12. Ecosystem Service Metrics by Action, No Action, and Change Ecosystem Services
Value Change Metric Description No Action
Post
Action Change
Predicted Value
Change if Wildfire
Occurs
Every SARA in an Objective can respond
differently to wildfire, but this metric shows
how the combined value of all SARAs in an
Objective (or combined Objectives if
applicable) changes if a wildfire happens.
-17.40% -2.00% 15.40%
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F20
Wildfire Impact
(Expected Value
Change)
Similar to the metric above, but burn
probability is also incorporated to estimate
how likely value change is across the
management area, estimating the likely
impact of wildfire on an Objective.
-3.00% -0.30% 2.70%
Acres by Hazard Class
This table summarizes how treatment shifts the distribution of wildfire hazard across the landscape. Reductions in higher hazard classes correspond to increases in lower hazard classes, reflecting a modeled redistribution of wildfire hazard following treatment (Table F13).
Table F13. Hazard Class Acres by Action, No Action, and Change Hazard Class No Action Post Action Change Percent Change Highest 10 5 -5 -50%
High 103,717 50,246 -53,471 -52%
Moderate 242,462 268,633 26,171 11%
Low 26,134 53,175 27,041 103%
Very Low 4,118 4,296 178 4%
Little to None 2,920 3,006 86 3%
Cumulative Resilience Opportunity Efficiency
The graph below summarizes the cumulative Resilience Opportunity Efficiency for the combined countywide proposal (Figure F10). While the graphs presented earlier showed project performance within individual DiMA scenarios, this graph reflects the aggregated performance of all projects across the three DiMAs. By evaluating the full treatment portfolio together, this output illustrates how effectively the combined set of projects captures resilience and opportunity benefits across the broader landscape.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F21
Figure F10. Cumulative Resilience Opportunity Efficiency F.6 Conclusion
The scenario analysis presented in this report demonstrates how the Vibrant Planet platform can support CWPP-level planning by integrating community priorities with spatial wildfire hazard information. By subdividing Amador County into three Distinct Management Areas (DiMAs), the analysis allowed treatment priorities to reflect regional differences in vegetation, development patterns, wildfire risk, and community values.
Within each DiMA, scenario development identified priority treatment areas that align with emphasized objectives derived from stakeholder input. These scenarios produced a structured set of candidate projects that balance risk reduction with other community priorities such as water resources, biodiversity, recreation, and infrastructure protection.
When these projects are evaluated together as a single countywide proposal, the modeled results indicate meaningful reductions in wildfire hazard, flame length, burn probability, and expected acres burned. These outcomes illustrate how coordinated treatment implementation across multiple planning areas can influence wildfire behavior and risk at the landscape scale.
The scenarios presented here are not intended to represent final implementation plans. Rather, they provide a defensible, data-informed starting point for identifying priority treatment areas and organizing projects for future planning, funding, and implementation. These treatment areas can also be used as a basis for comparison with other planning efforts. For example, the CAL FIRE Amador–El Dorado Unit (AEU) consensus treatment polygon dataset was overlaid on the Vibrant Planet treatment areas (Fig. X) for comparison.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F22
This comparison shows areas of agreement between the two datasets, particularly within portions of the Central DiMA and parts of the West DiMA. While the spatial overlap is not exact, this is expected because the emphasized objectives, planning assumptions, and spatial scope differ between the two planning efforts. Despite these differences, the observed overlap suggests meaningful opportunities for coordination and collaborative implementation.
Figure F11. Comparison of CWPP proposed treatment areas (colored) with CAL FIRE AEU consensus treatment areas (cross-hatched) in Amador County.
F.7 Project-Scale Scenario Development Example
The DiMA scenarios presented above identify priority treatment areas at the landscape scale.
These areas can also be used as starting points for more detailed project-level planning within the Vibrant Planet platform. To illustrate this process, Project 1 from the Central DiMA scenario—located near Amador Pines northwest of Highway 88—was extracted and defined as its own planning area. The boundary of this treatment area was used to create a new scenario, allowing the project to be analyzed independently from the broader countywide prioritization process.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F23
Figure F12. Project 1 from the Central DiMA scenario, located near Amador Pines northwest of Highway 88.
Once defined as its own planning area, the project can be evaluated using the same scenario-development workflow applied at the county scale. Multiple scenarios can be tested by adjusting emphasized objectives, opportunity emphasis (e.g., risk reduction, resilience, or restoration), and treatment assumptions. This allows planners to explore how different priorities influence treatment placement and management recommendations within the project area.
When the same emphasized objectives and opportunity emphasis used in the original Central DiMA scenario are applied to this smaller planning area, the model tends to recommend treatment across most of the project footprint. This outcome is expected because the area was originally selected based on its strong alignment with those priorities. In other words, the prioritization step has already occurred, and the model confirms that treating much of the area would capture the targeted resilience and opportunity benefits.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F24
Figure F13: Project-scale scenario results for Project 1 in the Central DiMA.
At the project scale, planners can therefore use the platform to test alternative priorities or refine treatment strategies. For example, scenarios could emphasize protection of nearby residential areas, water resources, or specific ecological objectives. Iterating through these alternative scenarios allows project designers to evaluate tradeoffs among treatment approaches and better align project design with specific implementation goals. From there, the project can be advanced through the same proposal-level workflow described in the previous section to evaluate treatment outcomes, compare alternatives, and support more detailed implementation planning.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page F25
Appendix G. Planscape Scenario Development, Results, and Priority Project Areas
Overview
As a companion to the Vibrant Planet analysis, Planscape was used to generate simplified treatment-prioritization scenarios for the three Amador County DiMAs: West, Central, and East.
Planscape was included because it is publicly available and can be used by partners after project completion without a software license. The intent was not to replicate the full multi-objective workflow used in Vibrant Planet, but to provide an accessible secondary tool for exploring treatment priorities under single-purpose scenario settings.
Scenario Setup and Shared Parameters
For each DiMAs, three Planscape scenarios were developed using the treatment goals that most closely aligned with the broader CWPP prioritization framework: high probability of high-intensity fire, wildlife species richness, and WUI / built environment fire risk. Planscape allows only one treatment goal per scenario, so each objective was run separately. This produced nine total scenario runs across the three demonstration areas.
To maintain consistency across runs, the same core settings were applied in each demonstration area. Final scenarios used the large stand size option, equivalent to 500-acre stands, excluded Protection Status 1 lands (i.e.: wilderness areas), applied a maximum slope of 45 percent, and used a maximum road distance of 440 yards. Each run targeted 10 project areas at 3,000 acres each using the default treatment cost setting. Planscape’s guidance notes that project areas are generated from the selected treatment goal together with the scenario constraints and exclusions.
Interpreting Planscape Relative to Vibrant Planet
Planscape and Vibrant Planet serve different planning functions. Vibrant Planet is better suited to integrated prioritization in which multiple community values and resource concerns are considered at the same time. Planscape, by contrast, is useful for isolating a single planning objective and identifying where that objective is most strongly expressed under a fixed set of constraints. The Planscape guide notes that different treatment goals can produce very different project areas within the same planning area, which is why multiple scenario types are worth running side by side.
This distinction is useful in practice. Single-priority scenario planning can provide added clarity around one objective at a time, while multi-priority planning is better for balancing competing values across the landscape. In the Amador County runs, the Planscape scenarios were most useful as a screening tool to highlight places that become more apparent when one objective is isolated, particularly in the East demonstration area.
Scenario Maps and Priority Project Areas
The figures in this appendix show the treatment polygons and associated hex-grid outputs generated for each Planscape scenario. Because Planscape ranks project areas independently Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G1
for each treatment goal, the mapped outputs should be read as objective-specific priority areas within each demonstration area rather than as a single countywide treatment recommendation.
Project Area 1 represents the highest-ranked area for the selected objective in that scenario, with lower-ranked project areas descending to Project Area 10.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G2
Figure G1: Planscape priority project areas for the built environment scenario in the East DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G3
Figure G2: Planscape priority project areas for the built environment scenario in the Central DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G4
Figure G3: Planscape priority project areas for the built environment scenario in the West DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G5
Figure G4: Planscape priority project areas for the probability of high intensity fire scenario in the East DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G6
Figure G5: Planscape priority project areas for the probability of high intensity fire scenario in the Central DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G7
Figure G6: Planscape priority project areas for the probability of high intensity fire scenario in the West DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G8
Figure G7: Planscape priority project areas for wildlife scenario in the east DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G9
Figure G8: Planscape priority project areas for wildlife scenario in the Central DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G10
Figure G9: Planscape priority project areas for wildlife scenario in the West DiMA.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G11
Additional Planscape Functionality
Planscape includes substantial additional functionality beyond the scenario-based priority area mapping presented in this appendix. In addition to identifying candidate treatment locations, the platform provides analytic outputs, supporting datasets, and treatment-planning tools that can help users further evaluate why particular areas are being surfaced and how those areas might be developed into future treatment concepts.
Those capabilities were not explored in detail here, as this appendix is limited to the identification and comparison of objective-specific priority project areas across the West, Central, and East DiMAs. However, this work provides a starting point. Amador County and partner organizations can return to the platform as needed to build from these initial scenarios and continue into more applied treatment planning.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G12
Appendix H. Amador County CWPP Field Tour Summary
April 29 & 30, 2026
Contact for follow-up:
Todd Bertwell
Amador Fire Safe Council & Amador Resource Conservation District [email protected]
209-217-1147
At the conclusion of the CWPP development process, a field tour was held with stakeholders to further inform the Amador County Wildfire Collaborators in working towards the goals identified in the CWPP. The tour was an educational experience for the 35 participants. Some key takeaways from each tour stop were as follows:
Defensible Space & Home Hardening @ Amador Pines
Hosts & Facilitators: Rebecca Pollon, Robin Bell, Jennifer Gobershock, Steve Ogburn, Robert Withrow, Kayla Dale, Jeff Hoag
Challenge: Ability to implement the best Defensible Space and Home Hardening practices remains a challenge even for informed residents. One common element of homes, wooden decks, are too expensive to replace with fire resistant material, and fire-resistant paint or other treatments to apply to existing wooden decks are lacking.
Solution: Beyond replacing the deck, consider more attainable ways to reduce risk, for example by installing fire-resistant composite siding, enclosing the bottom of the deck to prevent embers from lighting flammable material that accumulates underneath it, and pruning vegetation in proximity to the house.
Challenge: A homeowner may maintain their property well but has no control over their neighboring parcel which may remain unmaintained.
Solution: Amador County has approved the Good Neighbor policy within County codes addressing Defensible Space requirements which facilitates cooperation between neighbors to maintain vegetation. However, policy at the County level still has a ways to go to before being an effective enforcement tool. Questions remain to be answered about how much and what portion of a property beyond the currently regulated 100 feet around structures would be required to be maintained.
Solution: CAL FIRE performs Defensible Space inspections to enforce current state-wide requirements 100 feet around structures in the State Responsibility Area. By performing follow-up inspections on properties initially not in compliance, they achieve between 80 and 90 percent compliance by the third inspection. Citations are rarely necessary.
Solution: Amador Resource Conservation District is preparing to open a pilot Defensible Space Assistance Program for eligible residents in need. This would include optional treatment on a neighbor’s property within 100 feet of the applicant’s house, if the neighbor agrees.
Post-storm recovery @ Amador Pines
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G1
Hosts & Facilitators: Rebecca Pollon, Robin Bell, Steve Ogburn, Robert Withrow, Kayla Dale, Jeff Hoag, Todd Bertwell
Challenge: The February 2026 storm caused enormous damage through falling trees and broken tops in the upcountry neighborhoods of Amador County. This large fuel accumulation is compounded by downed wood remaining from the bark beetle infestations of the last decade.
Property owners find it difficult if not impossible to remove the large logs, especially where a creek divides the property and cuts off access to the road.
Solution: Forest operations can be expensive. Cost-share programs such as the CAL FIRE CFIP program of the NRCS EQIP program can help reduce the financial burden, but the application and approval processes are lengthy.
Challenge: Forest Practice Rules present a barrier to small landowners to properly manage their property.
Solution: Small private forest landowners may file an exemption with CAL FIRE to reduce the regulatory burden of performing forestry activities on their land. The forms are only a few pages long and in most cases are approved within five working days. Certain types of exemptions require a Registered Professional Forester to oversee, while others don’t.
Solution: Exemptions may not cover everything that a landowner wishes to accomplish on their land and a full Timber Harvest Plan may be prohibitively expensive. Advocacy at the State level may allow for reduced regulatory burden in the long term.
CAL FIRE Vegetation Management Program (VMP) @ Shake-Omo VMP Hosts & Facilitators: Patrick McDaniel, Eric Bither, Jeff Hoag Challenge: CAL FIRE maintains strategically located fuel breaks using prescribed fire to protect communities and natural resources. CAL FIRE has limited capacity to establish and manage these VMP’s everywhere they would be beneficial. Information about specific VMP’s and related projects in Amador County (South Division) are included in the CAL FIRE AEU Unit Fire Plan 2025, pages 89-92.
Solution: CAL FIRE, Amador Fire Safe Council and Amador Resource Conservation District are open to collaborating to expand the VMP program in closer proximity to neighborhoods in Amador County.
Challenge: What are the professional opportunities in fire and fuels reduction? Solution: CAL FIRE actively recruits firefighters on an annual hiring cycle. There are certain basic qualifications. Local fire departments recruit volunteer firefighters who can access training and certifications to qualify for entry positions with CAL FIRE. After gaining experience as a firefighter or other positions with CAL FIRE such Defensible Space Inspector or Public Information Officer, individuals who are interested in other aspects of fire or pre-fire can advance to other opportunities within the agency.
Community Fuel Break planning & maintenance @ Upper Rancheria Hosts & Facilitators: Ralph Meier, Melody Meier, Julie Harris Challenge: Private non-industrial lands dominate the Wildland-Urban Interface/Intermix (WUI) where people’s homes are most vulnerable to wildfire. Planning community fuel breaks to reduce that risk is extremely challenging since a strategic design crosses many private parcels.
For example, the Upper Rancheria Community Fuel Break was planned and implemented with Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G2
over sixty landowners. Community leaders spent months following up with their neighbors to obtain Rights of Entry for the project.
Solution: Community organization and dedicated leaders are essential to achieving buy-in from landowners to agree to work being done on their property. Firewise Communities are effective organizations to bring neighbors together around the goal of wildfire mitigation through which landscape-scale fuel reduction can be achieved. Outreach and education by institutions such as CAL FIRE, local fire departments, UC Cooperative Extension, Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador Resource Conservation District and others aim to improve landowners' willingness and ability to manage vegetation and fuels.
Challenge: Maintenance of reduced fuel conditions is essential to extend the longevity of Community Fuel Breaks. The right tools should be used according to site conditions and landowner capacity and budget among mechanical treatment, herbicide, grazing and prescribed fire. In practice, maintenance treatments are inconsistent across landowners; some community leaders involved in such projects estimate that about one in five landowners implement maintenance treatments following grant-funded initial treatments.
Solution: Maintenance of fuel breaks within fragmented ownerships will continue to be a challenge. First, outreach and education as mentioned above should be prioritized to reduce the knowledge barriers that landowners face to manage their properties. Second, future grant funded projects can assist with maintenance as has occurred on the earliest treated fuel breaks:
Mitchell Mine and Pine Acres. Third, Amador Fire Safe Council and Amador Resource Conservation District are working to develop a project monitoring protocol to inform future maintenance interventions; this capacity-building effort is funded through Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Finally, future CAL FIRE VMP’s may develop to allow for CAL FIRE crews to maintain Community Fuel Breaks where feasible.
Forest Stand Improvement and Prescribed Fire @ Volcano
Hosts & Facilitators: Laura Moser, Mike Hampshire, Susie Kocher Challenge: Beneficial fire has been excluded from much of the forested landscape for a century, leading to dangerous fuel loads and crowded conditions.
Solution: Mechanical treatments are necessary on most properties before safely introducing fire. While these treatments are often expensive, cost-share programs through CAL FIRE and NRCS exist to help private nonindustrial landowners.
Challenge: Prescribed fire via pile burning and broadcast burning is one of the most effective tools to attain safe levels of forest fuels and maintain healthy forests, woodlands and grasslands. Currently, few private nonindustrial landowners feel comfortable enough to put it into practice safely.
Solution: Prescribed Burn Associations (PBA) such as the El Dorado – Amador PBA and UC Cooperative Extension promote peer-to-peer learning by facilitating burns on private property that anyone interested my volunteer to join. The need for such opportunities is much greater than a single PBA which services two counties can directly provide. Instead, PBA’s seek to educate individuals who will then start to use prescribed fire themselves on their properties and associate with their own networks to expand the practice. PBA’s seek to promote learning and practice within low-complexity burns under safe conditions; professional organizations such as CAL FIRE have the capacity to handle high-complexity burns.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G3
Challenge: Even after landowners treat fuels on their properties and fire-harden their structures, they still face high wildfire insurance premiums which seem to be based more on regional conditions than conditions specific to a home and its surroundings.
Solution: Continued advocacy and research are necessary. Detailed, localized assessments may contribute to encouraging private insurers into the WUI again in the future.
Targeted Grazing @ Sutter Creek
Hosts & Facilitators: John Allen, Bill Allen, Brian Allen, Dan Macon Challenge: The historic towns of the Sierra foothills are often surrounded by pasture or grazed woodlands, which in summer and fall may be highly likely to ignite from sources such as Highway 49. Vegetation along highway rights-of-way is managed by CALTRANS, though they are also sources of invasive weeds.
Solution: Targeted grazing utilizes livestock to maintain vegetative fuels at safe levels and shift vegetative composition. It sometimes comes at a cost to production, but ranchers are applying the practice successfully, for example by utilizing adult livestock and excluding calves at the appropriate times. At the example 60-foot wide fuel break between Highway 49 and Sutter Creek, targeted grazing with cattle reduces residual dry matter from 3,500-4,000 lbs/ac before grazing to closer to 500 lbs/ac, which has shown to produce more manageable 3.5-foot flame lengths when ignited. UC Cooperative Extension is actively engaging with ranchers to promote and expand the use targeted and prescribed grazing to meet their multiple goals, including wildfire protection.
Recommendations for livestock management when applying targeted grazing: Grazing livestock should be concentrated in paddocks so that they have to eat everything, but moved frequently to new areas so that they are always coming on to new feed. This allows intensive grazing in the control area while maintaining the livestock in good shape. It has been used successfully with horses and with Weiner calves but with the calves not to the same extent as with adult cattle. With critical timing it provides nutrition while leaving seed to replenish the feed for the following year and to reduce summer weeds.
Electric fences are used with continuous ground wires and a short training period with the livestock under observation. Besides electric fencing that is moved as required, it requires a good water supply to large troughs.
Permanent fencing is very costly and cannot be removed when the job is done. Virtual fencing has been used with some success, but requires greater location precision and lower cost before it can replace the electric fencing.
Challenge: To more intensively and precisely manage livestock for targeted and prescribed grazing, more fencing and watering accommodations are required.
Solution: Virtual fencing is a relatively new option to manage livestock while reducing the need for physical fences. The technology continues to improve, which will make the option more effective and affordable for ranchers in the future. UC Cooperative Extension is trialing the technology and pairing it with innovative grazing practices, preparing to educate and support ranchers when they’re ready to adopt it.
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G4
Participants Affiliation
Dan Epperson Amador County District 2 Supervisor
Brian Oneto Amador County District 5 Supervisor
Robert Withrow Amador Fire Protection District
Kayla Dale Amador Fire Protection District
Amanda Watson Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador RCD
Gordon Long Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador RCD
Cailin McLaughlin Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador RCD
Todd Bertwell Amador Fire Safe Council, Amador RCD
Steve Ogburn Amador Pines Firewise Community
Rebecca Pollon Amador Pines Firewise Community
Robin Bell Amador Pines Firewise Community
Serena Hangs Andrews Lupe Ridge Firewise Community
Beth Brenneman Bureau of Land Management
Jeff Hoag CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit
Logan O’Daniel CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit
Patrick McDaniel CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit
Eric Bither CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit
Garrett Hesser Calaveras Public Utility District
Susan Bragstad City Council, Amador City
Joey D. Smith East Bay MUD, UMWRA
Mike Hampshire Forest landowner
Laura Moser Forest landowner, USFS (retired)
Sandy Staples Mayor, Amador City
Julie Harris Quartz Mountain Firewise Community
John Allen Rancher
Bill Allen Rancher
Eric Gardner Rolling Oaks Firewise Community
Ian Moore Spatial Informatics Group
Nick Miley Spatial Informatics Group
Dan Macon UC Cooperative Extension
Susie Kocher UC Cooperative Extension
Brian Allen UC Cooperative Extension
Ralph Meier Upper Rancheria Firewise Community
Melody Meier Upper Rancheria Firewise Community
Jennifer Gobershock Woodland Road Firewise Community
Amador County CWPP 2026 Page G5