2015

Wildfire Risk Model

SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RITTENHOUSE, RYAN J

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Shasta County ................................................................................................................................. 1
Vegetation Cover in Shasta County ................................................................................................ 4
Vegetation Type (Fuel) Risk Factors .............................................................................................. 6
Topographic Factors ....................................................................................................................... 8
Aspect ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Slope ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Overall Fire Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 12
Calculating the Composite Risk................................................................................................ 12
Classifying the Composite Scores ............................................................................................ 13
Assessing Site Specific Risk ......................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15
Geographic Information Systems Additional Information ........................................................... 19

|1

Table of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 A general reference map of Shasta County, CA. ______________________________________________ 3
Figure 2 Vegetation types in Shasta County, CA. ____________________________________________________ 5
Figure 3 Vegetation Risk Rating Map _____________________________________________________________ 7
Figure 4 Cartographic model depicting aspect risk rating process. ______________________________________ 8
Figure 5 A fire risk map of Shasta County aspects. ___________________________________________________ 9
Figure 6 An aspect map of Shasta County. __________________________________________________________ 9
Figure 7 A cartographic model depicting the slope rating process. ______________________________________ 10
Figure 8 A map of Shasta County slope risk ratings. _________________________________________________ 11
Figure 9 A map of Shasta County slopes. __________________________________________________________ 11
Figure 10 A cartographic model of arriving at the composite risk values. ________________________________ 12
Figure 11 A map of the final composited risk ratings using nominal classifications. ________________________ 14
Figure 12 Fire risks at varying distances from 39705 MacArthur Rd. ___________________________________ 17
Figure 13 Shasta County Vegetation Map _________________________________________________________ 19
Table 1 Land Cover/Land Use Risk Ratings ..................................................................................................................6
Table 2 Aspects and their assigned risk ratings ............................................................................................................8
Table 3 A table of the weights assigned to each risk factor. ........................................................................................ 12
Table 4 A table depicting reclassification of risk values to nominal categories. ......................................................... 13
Table 5 A table of the risk levels near Shasta County properties at varying distances. .............................................. 16

|1

Introduction
Wildfires pose an ever present threat to many communities. They incur significant losses in both
property damages and lives every year warranting the creation of models in an attempt to
estimate the likelihood of another fire. This paper proposes a basic wildlife risk assessment
model which was created using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). It allows us to gather
spatial data on risk factors for wildfire in a particular area. Then, the individual risk factors are
overlaid onto one another to arrive at a composite risk score. For illustrative purposes, the model
proposed in this paper has been applied to Shasta County, California. This county has a vested
interest in the predictive modeling of wildfire behavior due to its long history of being subject to
them, as well as projections of substantial increases of their severity and frequency in the future.

Shasta County
Shasta County may not be the most populated of Californias counties, yet it is still important to
the states economy. The 2010 U.S Census recorded 177,223 people living in the county, with
91,119 of them in the city of Redding (See Figure 1). Remarkably, the city has seen a 12.7%
increase in its population since 2000 with 3% of that in the last 3 years (US Census, 2010). This
increase has been attributed to an explosion of start-up companies employing highly skilled labor
in the professional services sector. Many of these jobs pay upwards of $80,000, which
influences the housing market as well (US BLS, 2015). In Redding, 64% of its 77, 536 homes
are occupied by the homeowner with a mean value of $220,000 (US Census, 2010). These
statistics have several implications with regards to fire risks. First, planning the citys expansion
should take fire risk into account. Second, there are many valuable homes in the area that may
be at risk in the event of a wildfire. This risk should be of concern to residents, fire protection
services, officials, and insurance companies. An uncontrolled fire in this area could incur budget
breaking damages. And finally, an interruption of business in this area may have economic
impacts through the loss of taxes of tourism.
Shasta Countys natural resources are an asset beyond tourism, however. More than half of the
countys 3,700 square miles is densely forested with various species of pine and oak (Shasta
County, 2015) (See Figure 2). The remainder is grassland and wetlands with a few areas of
higher elevation (USGS, GAP, 2011). This rich and diverse ecosystem is the habitat for many
rare or endangered species such as: the Southern Bald Eagle, the American Peregrine Falcon, the
Bull Trout, the wolverine, the Shasta Salamander, the Sierra Nevada Red Fox, the Rough
Sculpin, the Shasta Crayfish, the Greater Sandhill Crane, and the Swainson's Hawk (Shasta
County, 2015). Furthermore, the county is home to the highest point upstream one can reach on
the Sacramento River (Shasta County, 2015). This area is the spawning grounds for Steelhead
and Chinook salmon. The fire risk model outlined herein can be used to assess the risk to the
environment when planning road construction, and permitting campsites. Both of these human
activities have been shown to be responsible for the ignition of many western wildfires (Shasta
County, 2015).

|2
Developing an understanding of the potential for wildfires is especially important in areas such
as Shasta County. With so much to lose economically and ecologically, it is paramount that
people prepare accordingly. Shasta County is exceedingly susceptible to fires. From 1992 until
2008 there were 6 major fire events that consumed over 120,000 acres and 2,000 structures
(Shasta County, 2015). That figure does not account for the hundreds of smaller fires and
controlled burns that occur annually. In fact, most of the fires in this county occur in uninhabited
areas. However, the county has been experiencing a development boom in the past 5 years so
that is likely to change. Another recent development is the role of climate change on the
frequency of forest fires. The Shasta County Resource Management Department is projecting a
400% increase in the number of fires annually by the middle of the century (Shasta County,
2015). Consequently, they expect the damages to increase by over 90% as a result of
development sprawling into new areas and the increase in human activities associated with it.
Those projections reinforce the value of models such as the one for protecting the lives of its
residents and their natural resources.

|3

Figure 1 A general reference map of Shasta County, CA.

|4

Vegetation Cover in Shasta County

Shasta Countys primary source of income is also the main source of its wildfire risk. Therefore
it is crucial to identify what types of vegetation there are, and where they are located (See Figure
2). This model was constructed using vegetation data gathered from United States Geological
Surveys (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP). This dataset contains 556 different types of
ecosystems, and 27 types of land uses, in the continental United States and where they are
located. This classification system will also give us information on the drainage capabilities of
the soil, vegetation density, and information on the type of climate present. All of which are
critical to estimating the risk of a fire.
Shasta County has an incredible array of vegetation types, however there are only that dominate
the area. The basin surrounding Lake Shasta contains the most predominant vegetation type of
the two. This California Woodland and Forest area radiates out from the lake in all directions
until it hits the rolling hills and valleys nearing the edges of the county. This area makes up
more than 50% of the total acreage of the county, and is depicted as a light green. The next most
common vegetation type is Southern Vancouverian Montane & Foothill Forest, which is
represented with dark green. This vegetation type begins in the foothills surrounding the basin
and continues into neighboring counties. The GAP vegetation classes give us additional
information about the county that were used in creating this wildfire risk model.

|5

Figure 2 Vegetation types in Shasta County, CA.

|6

Vegetation Type (Fuel) Risk Factors

The GAP data classifications contain exhaustive descriptions of each type land cover. This
model uses four in particular: vegetation type, size, density, and the drainage capabilities of the
area. Vegetation type is used to estimate the amount of fuel in an area. Additionally, it can tell
us how susceptible an area is to a fire, or if the flora require it to regenerate. This gives historical
context. Vegetation size was used to determine the approximate fuel load of an area. This
characteristic contributes to the severity of a fire, and the length of time that it may burn.
Vegetation density is used in conjunction with the size to estimate the fuel load, and to predict
the likely spread of a fire. For example, an area containing a lodge pole pine stand was assigned
a higher risk value that an area which was primarily low density scrub land.
The drainage capability of an area is the third trait that the GAP classification system describes.
Drainage is important to this model for estimating the likelihood of ignition. Areas like
wetlands, were assigned a lower rating since they are moist through most of the year.
Conversely, more arid areas like savannahs are given a higher rating to reflect their ignition
potential.
Based on each of those three site characteristics, each
Land Cover /
Risk
vegetative GAP classification was assigned a value from 1
Land Use
Rating
to 10. Some land uses that were to be excluded from the
1-10
Vegetation
models calculations include: agricultural, urban, open
water, quarries, and barren. Since they do not contribute to Agricultural
100
fire risk evaluated by this model, there were assigned
200
Urban
numbers ranging from 100 to 500. This ensures that non300
Quarry
vegetative land cover types will fall into predictable
400
Water
ranges, and be easily identifiable after the risk factor
500
weighting system was applied (See Table 1). In addition to Pasture
the vegetation, this model includes the role that the
Table 1 Land Cover/Land Use Risk Ratings
countys topography plays in calculating the likelihood of a
wildfire. The resulting map shows a significant fuel for the majority of the county (See Figure
3).

|7

Figure 3 Vegetation Risk Rating Map

|8

Topographic Factors
An areas topography contributes significantly to its wildfire risk. This model uses the USGS
digital elevation maps (DEM) in conjunction with ESRIs ArcMap spatial analyst tools to
calculate the aspects and slopes of Shasta County at a resolution of 30m2. These values were
then assigned fire risk ratings based on the logic provided below in the appropriate subsection.
Additionally, figures and tables embedded in related subsection provide the processes and ratings
system used to arrive at this model. The aspect and slope characteristics are included to provide
an additional level of accuracy in estimating the speed that a fire may spread.

Aspect
The direction that a slope faces, or aspect, plays an important role in modeling wildfire risk.
Since Shasta County is in the northern hemisphere, southward faced slopes will receive more
sunlight throughout the year than northward facing slopes. As a result, south facing slopes tend
to be drier than their wetter north facing counterparts. Thus more likely to catch fire from
lightning strikes, human activity, or embers blowing in from adjacent fires. Consequently, a risk
scale of 1 to 10 was assigned in ascending order to the cardinal directions (See Figure 4, Table
1). Northward facing slopes are a rating of 1, through east and west slope at 5, and ending with
south facing slopes with a rating of 10. Flat areas were considered to be as risk laden as east and
west facing slopes, and thus assigned a rating of 5. The resulting map shows many south facing
slopes in undeveloped areas north and west of Redding (See Figure 6).Figure 6 An aspect map of
Shasta County
Table 2 Aspects and their assigned risk ratings
with a compass for reference.

Figure 4 Cartographic model depicting aspect risk rating process.

Aspect
-1
0-22.5
22.5-45
45-90
90-135
135-180
180-225
225-270
270-315
315-337.5
337.5-360

Direction
Flat
North
East
South-East
South-West
West
North

Rating
6
1
3
5
8
10
10
8
5
3
1

|9

Figure 6 An aspect map of Shasta County.

Figure 5 A fire risk map of Shasta County aspects.

| 10

Slope
The slope can have a drastic effect on the rate that a wildfire may spread. Generally speaking,
greater degrees of slope will cause a fire to spread more rapidly. As the grade increases, the
potential for burning embers to be blown into a neighboring stand increases as well. According
to the U.S. Forestry service report, the speed a fire may move doubles with every 10 degrees of
increased slope. This model does not replicate the exponential nature of the speed increase, but
does reflect the increasing risk through the rating system. The slope ranges were assigned a
rating of 1 to 10 (See Figure 7, Table 3). The lowest risk was assigned to areas that were
essentially flat, and the highest risk was assigned to areas with over 35 degrees of slope. The
logic behind this decision was that the differences in the spread of a fire on lower slopes
warranted more separation in the classification system. Any differences in the fire behavior on
slopes 35 degrees or over are irrelevant since the speed of the fire is already dangerously fast.
As one would expect from the results of the aspect findings, a majority of the steepest slopes are
found north and west of Redding (See Figure 9).

Figure 7 A cartographic model depicting the slope rating process.

Slope
Percentage

Risk
Rating

0-5%

5-10%

10-15%

15-20%

20-25%

25-35%

35-75%

10

Table 3 Slopes in degrees and their

assigned risk ratings.

| 11

Figure 9 A map of Shasta County slopes.

Figure 8 A map of Shasta County slope risk ratings.

| 12

Overall Fire Risk Assessment

Calculating the Composite Risk
The final risk scores were calculated by weighing the relative impact each of the three factors in
relation to each other. The available fuel load is the most
Risk
Risk
consequential factor in fire risk, thus the vegetation score was
Factor
Weight
estimated to comprise 70% of the overall risk factor. The
70%
Vegetation
slope of an area is far less important than the fuel load, but it
has a far greater impact than the aspect. Therefore, slope was
20%
Slope
given a weight of 20%. The last factor to be considered in this
model, aspect, was assigned the remaining 10% of the impact
10%
Aspect
on wildfire risk (See Table 4). The weighted risk factor maps
were then added overlaid on one another, and added together
Table 4 A table of the weights assigned to
each risk factor.
to give the final risk score for each specific area (See Figure
10).

Figure 10 A cartographic model of arriving at the composite risk values.

| 13

Classifying the Composite Scores

After the calculation, the final risk scores were reclassified according to their fire risk or their
land use. There were a total of 181 different scores ranging from 10 3530. Using our equation,
we know that the final risk score would be 100 if all 3 layers were a maximum risk. Thus, scores
ranging from 10-100 were split into five different risk categories: Low, Low-Medium, Medium,
Medium-High, and High. Scores that ranged from 700-3530, represent developed land uses or
water, and were not assigned a wildfire risk (See Table 5). The ranges were assigned to the
nominal categories by calculating the fire risk given a maximum fuel load, and minimal
topographic influence.

Risk Rating
Range
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-80
80-100
703-726
1403-1430
2103-2116
2803-2828
3503-3530
Total

Risk Level /
Land Use
Low
Low - Medium
Medium
Medium - High
High
Agricultural
Urban
Quarry
Water
Pasture

Count
262649
855754
1750654
5263898
1952475
398879
365983
194
184550
86541

Acres
1947
6344
12978
39022
14474
2957
2713
1
1368
642
82446

Percentage of
Shasta County
2.36%
7.69%
15.74%
47.33%
17.56%
3.59%
3.29%
0.00%
1.66%
0.78%
100.00%

Table 5 A table depicting reclassification of risk values to nominal categories.

The final product reveals that the majority of Shasta County is at a significant risk of wildfire.
This is due to the abundance of fuel from the forests within its boundaries. This model shows
that the more level areas surrounding cities tend to have less risk than areas in the open forest. It
also shows that the south facing slopes in the forested areas are at the highest risk of wildfire
(See Figure 11).

| 14

Figure 11 A map of the final composited risk ratings using nominal classifications.

| 15

Assessing Site Specific Risk

Wildfires can move rapidly and unpredictably, therefore its not enough to know the risk rating
associated with a building footprint. To accurately estimate the fire risk to a particular property,
one must extend the circumference of the potential area of influence. Ten addresses were
selected from the Census bureaus database. Using tools within the GIS, these addresses were
located on the map. Then, GIS was used to create circles surrounding each property with radii of
400, 1000, and 5000 feet. This was done to show actual risk to a property with regard to the
potential risk of a fire with the surrounding area taken into account. Using the following table
(See Table 6), a more accurate risk assessment of each individual property may be made.
However, the chart should be used with the accompanying map (See Figure 12) to provide a
geographic context for the data in the cart. For example, the property at 39705 MacArthur Rd.
would appear to be at a significant risk due to being surrounded by a large area of Medium-High
risk land. The geographic context the map provides communicates that the risk for that property
are probably much, much lower under certain conditions. If the fire is northeast or east of the
property, there is a large expanse of agricultural land separating the property from the higher risk
areas. This would likely provide a buffer to protect the property in the event of a wildfire.

Conclusion
This model is intended to be a basic forecasting tool for wildfire risk. It is based upon three
primary variables relevant to wildfire behavior: fuel load, slope, and aspect. This was an
intended design feature to maintain flexibility in model, so that it may be easily updated with
new data. However, it is entirely capable of a complete analysis of the properties in Shasta
County by simply inputting additional addresses. Furthermore, this model could be adapted to
other regions with a minimal investment of resources. The drawback to such a generalizable
model is that it is not accurately predictive in nature. It is probabilistic instead. Nonetheless, this
model is a powerful tool for: decision makers attempting to allocate fire prevention resources,
developers to select parcels for investment, and for insurers to evaluate capital risks.

| 16

Table 6 A table of the risk levels near Shasta County properties at varying distances.

| 17

Figure 12 Fire risks at varying distances from 39705 MacArthur Rd.

| 18

References
Land Cover Data and Modeling. 2015. Accessed March 24.
http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/data/.
The National Map: Small Scale. 2015. Accessed March 24. http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/.
National Elevation Dataset - USGS NED Official Site - U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. Accessed
March 24. http://ned.usgs.gov/.
Redding, CA - May 2013 OES Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates. 2015. Accessed March 24.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_39820.htm.
Redding (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. 2015. Accessed March 24.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0659920.html.
Shasta County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. 2015. Accessed March 24.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06089.html.
Shasta County Resource Management. 2015. Accessed March 24.
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index.aspx.

| 19

Geographic Information Systems Additional Information

This document reflects a project which models the wildfire risk for Shasta
County, California. Risk rating maps have been generated using ArcGIS10.2, a commercial
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) platform. The current iteration of maps as well as the
approved fire risk rating spreadsheet- can be found at the end of this document. The next stage
will be to consolidate the information of the maps into a single map that weighs characteristics of
the countys topography, vegetation, and human influence to estimate risk ratings by location.
This map consolidation will also be performed using GIS software to generate the final model.
GIS software solutions enable efficient and accurate conversion of raw data into usable
information. This is certainly the case with creating a fire risk model for Shasta County. In the
past, maps would have been painstakingly created by hand on transparencies. The transparencies
were then stacked on light box, so the cartographer could trace the consolidated information onto
a fresh sheet. This method is quite time consuming, expensive to produce, and can be rather
inaccurate. GIS allows us to complete the same task in a fraction of the time and cost with near
pinpoint accuracy. Furthermore, GIS allows us to easily change the parameters of the datasets,
so that we may make projections based on different conditions. The GIS software will
automatically update the map based on the new parameters within seconds. This would have
been an extremely labor intensive process with a potential for human error previously.
The utilization of GIS software on this model will give it accuracy and longevity, making
it a valuable asset upon its completion. Though this specific model is based on data for Shasta
County over the last 5 years, GIS software will allow us to create models for other locations and
update them. Additionally, this model may be adapted to serve multiple uses. For example,
insurance companies may use the information to examine their risks and premiums. Fire
protection services could use the maps to allocate their prevention resources as well. And
finally, developers could use this information to plan strategically. When applied to a real world
locale, the value of the model is apparent.