HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2014-056 Pima Co. Wildfire Regional Protection Plan.MARANA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-056
RELATING TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT APPROVING Tl IEIA SEPTEMBER 2013
PIMA COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO SIGN A DECLARATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONCURRENCE
WITH THE PLAN
WHEREAS the Pima Count Communit Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was
developed in response to the Health Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 for the at-risk
communities and unincorporated areas in Pima Count Arizona, located in and around public
lands in Pima Count and
WHEREAS the Town of Marana, Pima Count partner a and participatin
communities wish to adopt a CWPP to better protect their communities from wildfire risk, to
better prepare citizens, and to become eli to appl for and receive federal and other g rant
monies to implement wildland fire miti projects and pro and
WHEREAS the Ma and Council of the Town of Marana find that approval of the
Pima Count CWPP is in the best interests of the Town of Marana and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF MARANA, approvin the September 2013 Pima Count Communit Wildfire
Protection Plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and authorizin the Ma to si a
declaration of a g reement and concurrence with the plan for and on behalf of the Town of
Marana.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Mana and staff are hereb directed and
authorized to undertake all other and further tasks re or beneficial to carr out the terms,
obli conditions and objectives of the Pima Count CWPP.
PASSED AND ADOPTED b the Ma and Council of the Town of Marana, Arizona,
this 17th da of June, 2014.
Ma ha lonea
ATTEST:
Mce
' Bronson, Town Clerk
V l
Resolution No. 2014-056
APPR D AS TO FORM:
V N
rw
/N v
nk Cassid Town Attorne =_ '= ='
AMARANA
IN/N/
PIMA COUNTY
COMMUNITY WILDFIRE
PROTECTION PLAN
September 2013
I
AO
4
Pima County Board of Supervisors
City of Oro Valley
City of Sahuarita
Town of Marana
City of South Tucson
City of Tucson
Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
Southern Arizona Buffelgrass
Coordination Center
Salt River Project
Tucson Electric Power
TRICO Electric Cooperative
Ajo- Gibson Volunteer Fire Department
Arivaca Fire District
Avra Valley Fire District
Cascabel Volunteer Fire Department
Corona de Tucson Fire Department
Drexel Heights Fire District
Elephant Head Volunteer Fire
Department
Golder Ranch Fire District
Green Valley Fire District
Helmet Peak Volunteer Fire Department
Mescal -J6 Fire District
Mount Lemmon Fire District
Northwest Fire District
Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fire Department
Picture Rocks Fire District
Rincon Valley Fire District
Rural Metro Fire Department
Sonoita -Elgin Fire Department
South Tucson Fire Department
Three Points Fire District
Tucson Fire Department
Why Fire Department
Arizona State Forestry Division
Bureau of Land Management
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Coronado National Forest
Saguaro National Park
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
e
- - - -
„ �„ �'F*�'' -.� ".?�+ �' 15. #�_' i ',. � r, 7M. r °�i ! ��•d "" � �, �- �'' ,�. � '.It -� ,w ``.ti il � �• �� '*� °
y
a -
ff `
LIC - •
{ .
s _
t
ii �
g1 .
VOW
WL
Jt
�T
Pima County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
Prepared by:
Logan Simpson Design Inc.
33 North Stone Avenue
Suite 1460
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 884 -5500
www.logansimpsondesiqn.com
Y .
LOCAN SI MPSON
DESIGN INC.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The citizens of Pima County dedicate this Pima County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan to the 19 members of the Prescott Fire Department's interagency
Granite Mountain Hotshots who died protecting the community of Yarnell from the
Yarnell Hill Fire on June 30, 2013, and to all the firefighters who have perished
before them responding to fires in the wildland -urban interface. May this plan help
reduce the number of fires, lessen fire behavior, and protect lives and property so
that such tragedies will never occur in our county.
(Graphic courtesy of Palo Verde Signs, Tucson, Arizona)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronymsand Abbreviations ................................................................................... ............................... ix
ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................... ............................... xi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... ..............................1
A. Background .......................................................................................................... ............................... 5
B.
WUI and Delineation Process ............................................................................... ...............................
8
C.
Desired Future Condition and Wildfire Mitigation in the WUI .............................. ...............................
12
D.
Goals for the Pima County CWPP ...................................................................... ...............................
15
E .
Planning Process ................................................................................................. .............................16
II. Pima
County CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis ............................... .............................19
A.
Fire Regime and Condition Class ....................................................................... ...............................
26
B .
Fuel Hazards ........................................................................................................ .............................29
Vegetation Associations ..................................................................................... ...............................
40
C.
Conditions of Ignition and Past Fire Occurrence ................................................. ...............................
57
D .
Community Values at Risk ................................................................................. ...............................
57
1. Housing, Businesses, Essential Infrastructure, and Evacuation Routes .......... ...............................
58
2. Preserve and Sensitive Lands ........................................................................ ...............................
62
3. Local Preparedness and Protection Capability ................................................ ...............................
62
E.
Summary of Community Assessment and Cumulative Risk Analysis ................. ...............................
67
Community WUI Descriptions and Risk Rating ................................................... ...............................
67
F .
Cumulative Risk Analysis ................................................................................... ...............................
87
III Community
Mitigation Plan ................................................................................. ...............................
93
A .
Fuel Reduction Priorities .................................................................................... ...............................
93
B.
Prevention and Loss Mitigation ......................................................................... ...............................
107
1. Establish Pima County CWPP Administration and Implementation ............... ...............................
108
2. Improve Protection Capability and Reduce Structural Ignitability .................. ...............................
108
3. Promote Community Involvement and Improve Public Education,
Information, and Outreach ................................................. ............................... ............................109
4. Encourage Use of Woody Material from WUI Fuel Mitigation Programs ....... ...............................
110
IV. Pima
County CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation ..........................113
A .
Administrative Oversight ................................................................................... ...............................
113
B.
Priorities for Mitigation of Hazardous Wildland Fuels ........................................ ...............................
115
C.
Identified Action Items for Protection Capability and Reduced Structural Ignitability ........................
118
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 v
Table of Contents
D. Priorities for Promoting Community Involvement through Education,
Information, and Outreach ................................................................................ ............................... 119
V. Monitoring Plan ...................................................................... ............................... ............................121
A. Administrative Oversight, Monitoring, and Pima County CWPP Reporting ....... ............................... 121
B. Effectiveness Monitoring ...................................................... ............................... ............................122
VI. Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence ....................... ............................... ............................125
VII. References ............................................................................ ............................... ............................129
VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms ................................. ............................... ............................135
APPENDIXES
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations ............ ............................... ............................155
Appendix B. National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Model Selection Key ....... ............................163
Appendix C. Educational Resources ......................................... ............................... ............................167
Appendix D. Information Data Sheet and Contacts .................. ............................... ............................171
Appendix E. Invasive Species .................................................... ............................... ............................173
Appendix F. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland
FireManagement Policy ........................................ ............................... ............................189
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1.
Pima County CWPP Recommended At -Risk Community WUIs and Communities ......................4
Table 2.1.
Land Management within the Pima County Community WUIs ...................... .............................19
Table 2.2.
Fire Regime Information ............................................................................. ...............................
26
Table 2.3.
Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative
Associationsin the WUI .............................................................................. ...............................
33
Table 2.4.
Fuel Hazard Components ............................................................................ .............................54
Table 2.5.
Ignition History and Wildfire Occurrence ...................................................... .............................57
Table2.6.
Community Values ..................................................................................... ...............................
63
Table 2.7.
Cumulative Risk Levels, by Percentage of the WUI Area ........................... ...............................
88
Table 3.1.
Fuel Modification and Treatment Plans ...................................................... ...............................
95
Table 3.2.
Identified Treatment Management Units ....................................................... .............................97
Table 3.3.
Acres of Wildland Fuels Mitigation Treatment Conducted by ASFD Fire
and Fuels Crew during a 10 -Hour On -Site Workday ..... ............................... ............................106
Table 4.1.
Action Recommendations for Wildland Fuel Modification ............................ ............................116
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 Vi
Table of Contents
Table 4.2. Action Recommendations for Structural Ignitability and Public Outreach ..... ............................118
Table 4.3. Action Recommendations for Enhanced Public Education, and Information ............................119
Table 5.1. Performance Measures to Assess Pima County CWPP Progress ............... ............................123
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Pima County CWPP Analysis Area .............................................................. ...............................
3
Figure 1.2.
Pima County CWPP Process ...................................................................... ...............................
9
Figure 2.1a.
Pima County CWPP Landownership, North .............................................. .............................21
Figure 2.1 b.
Pima County CWPP Landownership, South ............................................ ...............................
22
Figure 2.1c.
Pima County CWPP Landownership, West ............................................... .............................23
Figure 2.2a.
Landcovers of the Pima County WUI, North .............................................. .............................30
Figure 2.2b.
Landcovers of the Pima County WUI, South ............................................. .............................31
Figure 2.2c.
Landcovers of the Pima County WUI, West ............................................... .............................32
Figure 2.3a.
Normal -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, North ...................... ...............................
48
Figure 2.3b.
Normal -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, South ....................... .............................49
Figure 2.3c.
Normal -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, West ....................... ...............................
50
Figure 2.4a.
Extraordinary -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, North ............ ...............................
51
Figure 2.4b.
Extraordinary -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, South ............ ...............................
52
Figure 2.4c.
Extraordinary -Year Fuel Hazard of the Pima County WUI, West ............... .............................53
Figure 2.5. Areas of Known Buffelgrass Invasions (2009) in the Tucson Basin ........... ...............................
56
Figure 2.6a.
Wildland Fire Ignition History, North ........................................................ ...............................
59
Figure 2.6b.
Wildland Fire Ignition History, South ......................................................... .............................60
Figure 2.6c.
Wildland Fire Ignition History, West ........................................................... .............................61
Figure 2.7a.
Wildfire Risk to Community Values, North ............................................... ...............................
64
Figure 2.7b.
Wildfire Risk to Community Values, South .............................................. ...............................
65
Figure 2.7c.
Wildfire Risk to Community Values, West ................................................ ...............................
66
Figure 2.8.
Mt. Lemmon Community WUI Analysis Area ............................................. ...............................
78
Figure2.9a.
Cumulative Community Wildfire Risk, North ............................................... .............................89
Figure2.9b.
Cumulative Community Wildfire Risk, South ............................................ ...............................
90
Figure2.9c.
Cumulative Community Wildfire Risk, West .............................................. ...............................
91
Figure 3.1a.
Pima County CWPP Treatment Management Units, North ...................... ............................103
Figure 3.1 b.
Pima County CWPP Treatment Management Units, South ...................... ............................104
Figure 3.1c.
Pima County CWPP Treatment Management Units, West ....................... ............................105
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 vii
Table of Contents
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1.1. Saltcedar- Infested Riparian Corridor in Pima County
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 viii
(courtesy of Northwest Fire Department) ....................................................... ..............................7
Photo 1.2.
Pima County CWPP Core Planning Team Meeting ...................................... .............................11
Photo 1.3.
Wildland Fire in Pima County (courtesy of Northwest Fire Department) ....... .............................11
Photo 1.4.
Type 6 Wildland Fire Truck (courtesy of Northwest Fire Department) .......... .............................15
Photo 2.1.
Desert Shrub -Scrub Vegetation Association ................................................ .............................41
Photo 2.2.
Shrublands Vegetation Association ............................................................. .............................42
Photo 2.3.
Woodlands Vegetation Association .............................................................. .............................43
Photo 2.4.
Madrean Oak/Conifer /Manzanita on Hills with Extensive Rock Outcrops ..... .............................43
Photo 2.5.
Deciduous Southwest Riparian Vegetation Association ............................. ...............................
44
Photo 2.6.
Timber -Type Vegetation Association ........................................................... .............................45
Photo 2.7.
Desert Grasslands Vegetation Association .................................................. .............................46
Photo 2.8.
Roadway with Heavy Buffelgrass Infestation ............................................... .............................55
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASLD
Arizona State Land Department
ASFD
Arizona State Forestry Division
BAER
burned area emergency response
BANWR
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (US Fish and Wildlife Service)
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BSA
Boy Scouts of America
CWPP
community wildfire protection plan
CNF
Coronado National Forest
dre
diameter at root collar
EMS
emergency medical service
FMU
fire management unit
FRCC
fire regime condition class
FS
Forest Service
GIS
geographic information system
GPS
Global Positioning System
GSA
Girl Scouts of America
HFRA
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
IGA
intergovernmental agreement
IMS
Internet Mapping Service (Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence)
ISO
Insurance Services Office
NPS
National Park Service
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
PCOEM
Pima County Office of Emergency Management
MLFD
Mount Lemmon Fire District
MLWD
Mount Lemmon Water District
NFPA
National Fire Protection Association
NPS
National Park Service
RRM
Recreation Resource Managment
Rx
prescribed fire
SABCC
Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Co4dination Center
SR
state route
SRP
Salt River Project
SWReGAP
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
TEP
Tucson Electric Power
UA
University of Arizona
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations
USDA
US Department of Agriculture
USDI
US Department of the Interior
USFWS
US Fish and Wildlife Service
WFLC
Wildland Fire Leadership Council
WUI
wildland -urban interface
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 x
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
PIMA COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
The Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was developed in response to the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 for the at -risk communities and unincorporated areas in
Pima County, Arizona, located in and around public lands administered by the US Department of the
Interior Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM) Gila District Office, Coronado National Forest (CNF),
National Park Service (NPS) Saguaro National Park, US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR), the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Pascua
Yaqui Tribe. HFRA established unprecedented incentives for communities to develop comprehensive
wildfire protection plans in a collaborative, inclusive process. Furthermore, this legislation gives direction to
BLM and the US Forest Service to address local community priorities in fuel reduction treatments, even on
nonfederal lands. For a community to take full advantage of the opportunities provided in HFRA, it must
first prepare a CWPP. A CWPP developed in accordance with HFRA is the most effective way to acquire
federal funding for fire preparedness and planning. Pima County, partner agencies, and participating
communities wish to adopt a CWPP to better protect their communities from wildfire risk, to better prepare
citizens, and to become eligible to apply for and receive federal and other grant monies to implement
wildland fire mitigation projects and programs.
To ensure that all residents of Pima County were represented in this planning process, three core teams
were formed to implement the agency and public collaboration necessary to develop a CWPP compliant
with HFRA: the Northern Planning Zone Core Team consists of the communities of Mount Lemmon, Oro
Valley; northwest Tucson, Lukeville; Ajo; Why; Pima County lands adjacent to the Catalina Mountains;
Rincon Mountains; Marana; Avra Valley; and Picture Rocks to the Gates Pass area, including Saguaro
National Park West and Tucson Mountain Park. The Southern Planning Zone Core Team consists of the
developed lands adjacent to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Robles Junction, Green Valley, Sahuarita, Arivaca-
Sasabe CWPP lands, South Tucson, Vail, Corona de Tucson, Saguaro National Park East, and Pima
County lands to the Cochise County boundary. The Central Core Team is composed of the cities of Tucson
and South Tucson.
Section I. Introduction
A primary objective of a CWPP is to help local governments, fire departments and districts, and residents
identify at -risk public and private lands to better protect those lands from severe wildfire threat. Additional
functions of a CWPP are to improve fire prevention and suppression activities, as well as to identify funding
needs and opportunities to reduce the risk of wildland fire and enhance public and firefighter safety.
Identifying at -risk areas and improving fire protection capabilities helps the communities to prioritize high -
risk projects and to expedite overall project planning. Pima County's CWPP was created to meet these
objectives at a local level while integrating with overall federal- and state -level fire planning.
The Core Teams identified needed agency and organization partners and interested parties to initiate the
collaborative process and to establish the following overarching goals of the Pima County CWPP:
• Improve fire prevention and suppression, emphasizing firefighter and public safety
• Reduce hazardous fuels, emphasizing public and private property protection
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 xi
Executive Summary
• Restore forest, rangeland, and riparian health
• Promote community involvement and provide for community protection
• Recommend measures to reduce structural ignitability in the wildland -urban interface (WUI)
• Encourage economic development in the communities from vegetative treatments
• Promote development of wildfire emergency evacuation and communication plans
• Integrate use of the CWPP with surrounding community and agency fire management plans
The Core Teams developed and concurred with the process that was to be followed in developing the Pima
County CWPP. This section establishes all necessary planning components and clearly articulates the
intent of the Pima County CWPP, discloses the communities identified for analysis, and ensures that the
Pima CWPP is compliant with H FRA.
Section II. Community Assessment
Section II covers the methods used in community wildfire risk assessments; the identification of the WUI;
and the identification of communities with high, moderate, and low wildland fire risk within the WUI. The
Pima County CWPP was developed through quantitative analyses of wildland fire risk across Pima County,
designing mitigation measures and priority needs to implement mitigation measures, whether for wildland
fire fuel manipulations, resource response, reduced structural ignitibility or public education and outreach.
Environmental elements used by the Core Teams to identify the WUI include wildland vegetative fuel
hazards, comparison of normal and extreme rainfall years, consideration of aspect and local topography,
historical fire occurrence, and wildfire ignition history. These environmental factors were coupled with
community -based characteristics and values, such as local fire resource preparedness, infrastructure,
evacuation routes, and population /structure density. An external element, the Fire Insurance Service
Organization ratings, was also used in determining wildland fire risk to communities within the WUI. These
elements were all identified and combined using spatial analysis within a geographic information system
(GIS). As a result of the GIS analysis, a WUI and sub -WUI boundary map and a wildfire risk rating map
were created. Sub -WUIs were divided into treatment management areas, according to high, moderate, and
low fuel hazard. Several components, including slope, aspect, fire behavior models for each vegetation
type, and presence of nonnative /invasive plants, were used to make fuel hazard determinations. The
Pima County CWPP analysis consisted of 5,877,578 acres of federal, state, and private lands, of which
1,579,699 acres were classified as the WUI. Cumulative risk levels across the Pima County CWPP
community WUIs include 121,511 acres (8 %) of high wildland fire risk, 926,760 acres (59 %) of moderate
risk, and 531,189 acres (34 %) of low risk.
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Section III prioritizes the areas in need of wildland fuel mitigation and recommends the types and methods
of treatment and management necessary to mitigate the potential for catastrophic wildland fire in the WUI.
Also presented in this section are the Pima County CWPP communities' recommendations for enhanced
wildland fire protection capabilities; public education, information, and outreach; and support for businesses
and industries centered on local wood products, woody biomass, and wildland vegetative fuel
management.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 xii
Executive Summary
As part of the community mitigation plan, the Core Teams identified the Pima County CWPP
administrators Pima County fire chiefs, Pima County Office of Emergency Management (PCOEM), CNF,
Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD), Tohono O'odham Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and BLM who will
be mutually responsible for implementing and monitoring Pima County CWPP action recommendations in
coordination with the future - established countywide community CWPP Working Group. Pima County
CWPP administrators are responsible for ensuring implementation of the Pima County CWPP, for
preparing reports and work plans, and for developing community bulletins and public service
announcements that inform residents of wildfire dangers and preventive measures. Additional tasks include
assisting federal and state agencies and private landowners to identify appropriate funding sources to
implement action recommendations of the Pima County CWPP, as well as continued coordination with
communities outside the analysis area. Pima County CWPP administrators are also responsible for the
monitoring and reporting of implementation actions that will allow for enhanced coordination of
management programs and that will reduce inconsistencies among local, state, and federal agencies.
To prioritize treatments, the Core Teams identified 95 wildland treatment management units within 23 sub -
WUI designations of the WUI. These treatment units were analyzed and categorized according to potential
risk for wildfire. The Core Teams ranked and described each unit, then provided a recommendation for
each unit's preferred treatment type and method. Preferred treatments were recommended for treatment
management units identified as high risk. These treatments are designed to meet the fuel reduction and
modification objectives of the Pima County CWPP.
Section IV. Pima County CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
To achieve the goals outlined in the CWPP, the Core Teams identified priority action recommendations,
which are presented in Section IV. The first action recommendation was to identify priority treatment areas
for fuel reduction projects. Treatment areas were identified within community WUls to create survivable
space through treatments within the home ignition zone, the use of strategically placed fuelbreaks, and the
modification of hazardous wildland fuels. The objective of a fuels reduction project is to create an
acceptable vegetation condition class for community and infrastructure protection and public and firefighter
safety. Priority treatment management areas were designated in areas identified as high risk. Table 4.1 in
Section IV lists the priority action recommendations for the reduction of hazardous fuels within the
Pima County CWPP area. The second action recommendation identified by the Core Teams was to reduce
structural ignitability. Reduction of structural ignitability is achieved through evaluation; maintenance; and,
at times, upgrades to community response facilities, capabilities, and equipment. The third action
recommendation identified was to promote community involvement through education, information, and
outreach.
Section V. Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan, outlined in Section V, describes how monitoring the implementation of the
Pima County CWPP will occur. The Pima County CWPP administrators are responsible for implementation
and monitoring. Implementation begins by securing grants and other funding necessary to execute the
action items.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 xiii
Executive Summary
The Pima County CWPP administrators will report successful grant awards and projects implemented as a
result of those awards to the CWPP signatories. The administrators will also update work plans based on
projects completed in the previous years.
Acknowledgments
The following communities and agencies were involved in the collaborative
process in preparation of and
are assisting as appropriate in the implementation
of the Pima County CWPP:
• Pima County Office of Emergency Management
• Arizona State Forestry Division
• Municipal fire departments and local fire districts and fire
chiefs from the following communities:
Ajo- Gibson
Tucson
Helmet Peak
Volunteer Fire Department
Fire Department
Volunteer Fire Department
Arivaca
Green Valley
Sonoita -Elgin
Fire District
Fire District
Fire Department
Avra Valley
Cascabel
Picture Rocks
Fire District
Volunteer Fire Department
Fire District
Three Points
South Tucson
Mescal -J6
Fire District
Fire Department
Fire District
Golder Ranch
Elephant Head
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Fire District
Volunteer Fire Department
Fire Department
Rural Metro
Why
Drexel Heights
Fire Department
Fire Department
Fire District
Corona de Tucson
Arivaca
Northwest
Fire Department
Fire District
Fire District
Mount Lemmon
Rincon Valley
Fire District
Fire District
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
• US Forest Service, Coronado National Forest
• National Park Service, Saguaro National Park
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
• Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center
• Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
Salt River Project
• Tucson Electric Power
• Trico Electric Cooperative
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 xiv
Section I. Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION
The Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was developed in response to the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) for the at -risk cities and unincorporated areas in Pima County,
Arizona (Figure 1.1), located around public lands administered by the following agencies: the US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDI BLM), Gila District Field Office; the
Coronado National Forest (CNF); the National Park Service (NPS), Saguaro National Park (SNP); Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM); the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR); the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD); and the Pascua Yaqui
Tribe. HFRA established unprecedented incentives for communities to develop comprehensive wildfire
protection plans in a collaborative, inclusive process. Furthermore, this legislation gives direction to BLM
and the US Forest Service (FS) to address local community priorities in fuel reduction treatments, even on
nonfederal lands.
Congress passed HFRA in November 2003, and the President signed it into law that December. When
certain conditions are met, Title I of HFRA authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to
expedite the development and implementation of hazardous fuel reduction projects on federal, tribal, state,
and private lands. HFRA requires federal agencies to collaborate with communities in developing
hazardous fuel reduction projects and places priority on treatment areas identified by communities through
the creation of a CWPP. Priority areas include the wildland -urban interface (WUI), municipal watersheds,
areas affected by windthrow or by insect or disease epidemics, and critical wildlife habitat that would be
negatively affected by a catastrophic wildfire.
In compliance with Title I of HFRA, the CWPP requires agreement among local governments, local fire
departments and districts, and the state agency responsible for forest management. For the Pima County
CWPP, this agency is the Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD). The CWPP must also be developed in
consultation with interested parties and the applicable federal agency managing the public lands
surrounding the at -risk communities. The majority of lands surrounding the at -risk communities and
unincorporated intermixed community zones within Pima County are located adjacent to "public lands," as
defined in Sections 3.1.A and B of HFRA; Indian tribal lands, as defined in Section 3.2 of HFRA; and
Arizona State Trust lands.
The Pima County CWPP has been developed to assist local governments, fire departments and districts,
and residents to identify lands including federal lands at risk from severe wildfire threat and to identify
strategies for reducing hazardous vegetative fuels within the WU I while improving watershed and
rangeland health, restoring ecosystem processes, creating resilient ecosystems, keeping people engaged,
supporting local industry and local economies, and improving public and firefighter safety and response
capabilities through innovative and scientific approaches. The Pima County CWPP is based on the
Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management and
Decision Record (USDI BLM 2004a); the Arizona BLM Gila District Fire Management Plan (USDI
BLM 2013), the Coronado National Forest Plan (US Department of Agriculture [USDA] CNF 1988, as
amended); the Coronado Fire Management Plan (USDA FS 2010); the Arizona FireScape Project
( http: / /www.azfirescape.org /home the Saguaro National Park Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2007);
the Tohono Obdham Fire Management Plan Johono O'odham Nation 2004); the Wildland Fire
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 1
Section I. Introduction
Management Plan Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] Salt River Agency 2012x); and the
Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007). This CWPP
has been developed in consultation with the BLM Gila District, the NPS Saguaro National Park, and CNF to
help Pima County, local municipalities, and the State of Arizona implement the recommendations of the
Pima County CWPP. Cooperating fire agencies include the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the participating fire
departments /districts of South Tucson, Tucson, Ajo, Arivaca, Avra Valley, Cascabel, Corona de Tucson,
Drexel Heights, Elephant Head, Golder Ranch, Green Valley, Helmet Peak, Hidden Valley, Picture Rocks,
Mountain Vista, Mount (Mt.) Lemmon, Northwest, Rincon Valley, Sonoita- Elgin, Rural Metro, Sabino Vista,
Tanque Verde Valley, Tucson Country Club Estates, and Three Points. The Pima County CWPP also
encourages these entities to identify strategies for reducing vegetative fuels within the WUI while improving
health of native habitats and undeveloped lands within Pima County, making recommendations for
reducing structural ignitability, developing wildfire public education and outreach programs, and improving
public and firefighter safety and response capabilities. The Pima County CWPP is based on guidance from
the Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for wildland -Urban Interface
Communities (Communities Committee et al. 2004), the Community Guide to Preparing and Implementing
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Communities Committee 2008), and the Southwest Community
Wildfire Protection Plan Guide (Southwest Strategy 2004).
To ensure that all residents of Pima County were represented in this planning process, three core teams
were formed to implement the agency and public collaboration necessary to develop a CWPP compliant
with HFRA: the Northern Planning Zone Core Team consists of the communities of Mt. Lemmon; Oro
Valley; northwest Tucson; Lukeville; Ajo; Why; Pima County lands adjacent to the Catalina Mountains;
Rincon Mountains; Marana; Avra Valley; and Picture Rocks to the Gates Pass area, including Saguaro
National Park West and Tucson Mountain Park. The Southern Planning Zone Core Team consists of the
developed lands adjacent to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Robles Junction, Green Valley, Sahuarita, Arivaca-
Sasabe CWPP lands, South Tucson, Vail, Corona de Tucson, Saguaro National Park East, and Pima
County lands to the Cochise County boundary. The Central Core Team is composed of the city of Tucson.
The Core Teams agreed to and established an efficient process to be followed throughout the Pima County
CWPP development. The Core Teams analyzed 5,877,578 acres for potential risk from catastrophic
wildland fire within Pima County (Figure 1.1). This analysis resulted in describing 1,579,699 acres of
community WUI to be managed for the protection of 33 individual communities determined to be "at risk"
from wildland fire (Table 1.1).
In addition, the Core Teams were formed to ensure that local, state, and federal management
recommendations for wildland fire protection, watershed, and riparian health were addressed in the
Pima County CWPP. The Core Teams represent all identified at -risk communities and developed areas
within Pima County. As additional guidance documents become available, changes or amendments will be
incorporated into the Pima County CWPP as necessary.
The following sections detail the background and process used to develop the Pima County CWPP and
define the associated WUI. In addition, the desired future condition of lands covered by the Pima County
CWPP is described; current fire policies and programs are identified; and current projects and future needs
are discussed. Finally, the goals of the Pima County CWPP are presented along with an outline of planning
methods to achieve those goals.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 2
Section I. Introduction
Cow ado city Frisdoota � �,..
I Te$G Nos Pos
Jacob Lake KayE nta _ .
e
t a=
N1 H
UrFotti R A P A C H E
r
a ; -1 Tubs
as u.- ,, w� •,;r•° fl Sri' �`� *V► 0h inde
, rO,- i and Can
~'
.. ecorrd'
�. BSE1
PWh SR�n9� Window
N A V A J
5 '21 igm a n g KfAg
Bull he a d City Ash Fork ''a� _ Williams � Sander s
Flags raft
8 F
�t 1
p�`
City
A V A P ►? I 0 ed*na
Topock
rrr�
55 MkilDup Chino Valley
-Prescott gym.
Ld ht .rigs era &u City Ip C vailleY -. v
6rje ,
Hear .�o�h�Fs
Tay*r 481
4 C
Parker Payso" S _ 0W"
U5 1
A P A E ag
* YM nq Pinet
279 14zl�inf
s7�JrI,zMt$
101 I . fA 3
auckaye Pph, 4 ra sir I Apalhu Junction lami;�,
A H A M �
I M A R I C
0 P A ��_° - r. n
M
7 Kea mgr
U M A Gila Ben MONO ROFMF?C p �
Project location
Yarrr� ` ��nd�'�
9 f � Mammoth
'd5?�IfCnn E l
S. Luis a P I N A L 'r !Fo-t GrEvll,,
aonit d
1 ' 9 1 !
wh y P I M A
Sri.@
Simon
Ju notion % -
� Ron
STATE HIGHWAY YST E M Lu ke viCh s
F ARI �. Hf+
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORT T[ON Oil
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION DIVI ION Ana Tornk)-mona F
Fail ' Pa tagonia ierra
25 .50 75 100 19
I i 1 1 II , AN TA` " ta
MILES Douglas
0 40 80 120 160
l 1 1 ! 1
KILOMETERS
Figure 1.1 Pima County CWPP Analysis Area
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 3
Section I. Introduction
Table 1.1. Pima County CWPP Recommended At -Risk Community WUls and Communities
Community Communities Fire Department/ Community Communities Fire Department/
WUI and Risk in in Each WUI District WUI and Risk in in Each WUI District
Ajo /M Ajo Ajo- Gibson Volunteer
Fire Department
Arivaca /H Arivaca Arivaca Fire District
Avra Valley /M
Avra Valley
Avra Valley Fire
District
Three Points /M
Robles Junction
Three Points
South Tucson /L
South Tucson
Fire District
Golder Ranch /H
Catalina
Golder Ranch
Saddle Brook 1 and 2
Fire District
Lukeville /M
Florence Junction
Not applicable
Mountain Vista Fire
Picture Rocks /H
Department
Picture Rocks Fire
Oro Valley
District
Catalina
Tucson Country Club
Rural Metro
Foothills * /H
Estates
Fire Department
Sabino Vista
Hidden Valley
Tanque Verde Valley
Corona
Corona de Tucson
Corona de Tucson
de Tucson /M
Fire Department
Mt. Lemmon /H
Summerhaven
Mt. Lemmon
Loma - Sabino Pines
Fire District
Willow Canyon,
Soldier's Camp, Mt.
Lemmon Ski Valley,
Fern Ridge, Soldier
Camp, Bear Wallow,
Willow Canyon,
Organization Ridge
Drexel Heights /M
Drexel Heights
Drexel Heights
communities
Fire District
Tohono
Tohono O'odham
Tohono O'odham
O'odham /M
Indian communities,
Nation Fire
including Sells and
Department
Kitt Peak
San Xavier
Northwest WUI /M Marana Northwest Fire
Flowing Wells District
Tucson Mountains
Dove Mountain
Cascabel /M
Redington
Cascabel Volunteer
Fire Department
Tucson and
Tucson
Tucson Fire
South Tucson /L
South Tucson
Department
South Tucson
Fire Department
Lukeville /M
Lukeville
Not applicable
and Port of Entry
Picture Rocks /H
Picture Rocks
Picture Rocks Fire
District
Mescal -J6 /H
Mescal -J6 Ranch
Mescal -J6 Fire District
and developments
Pascua Yaqui /M Pascua Yaqui Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Indian communities Fire Department
Rincon Valley /H Vail Rincon Valley Fire
District
Sasabe /H Sasabe Buenos Aires National
and Port of Entry Wildlife Refuge
Why /M Why
Green Valley /M Green Valley
Sahuarita
Helmet Peak
Sonoita - Elgin /H Sonoita
Elgin
Canelo
Why Fire Department
Green Valley
Fire District
Elephant Head
Volunteer
Fire Department
Helmet Peak Volunteer
Fire Department
Sonoita -Elgin Fire
District
a Summerhaven listed as high; Arivaca, Kitt Peak, and Catalina listed as moderate; and Sasabe listed as low on the 2009 Arizona Communities at
Risk Matrix ( www.azsf.az.gov ).
b Wildland fire risk: L = low, M = moderate, H = high.
* Through agreement with Rural Metro Fire Department.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 4
Section I. Introduction
A. Background
The process for developing this CWPP consisted of evaluating Pima County including tribal trust lands
to identify communities, infrastructure, and remote private lands at risk from catastrophic wildland fire.
During this analysis the County solicited federal, state, and local governments; fire chiefs; and interested
individuals to participate in the Core Teams. The Core Teams were created to define and locate interface
and intermix communities in which significant community values and infrastructure are at risk because of
the potential of wildland fire.' The Pima County Office of Emergency Management (PCOEM) requested
that local governments, fire departments and districts, BLM, NPS, CNF, ASFD, and interested individuals
throughout Pima County participate in the Core Teams to develop the Pima County CWPP. Pima County is
the local government authority for the unincorporated communities identified as at risk, while the city or
town councils of the cities of Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, South Tucson, and Tucson are the appropriate
municipal government authorities for cooperating fire departments in developing and agreeing to the Pima
County CWPP. Pima County and the Core Teams recognize the value of conveying information developed
from the Pima County CWPP process to local citizens. This process established by the Core Teams
ensures an open public process, with the goal of all community interests being represented during the
development of the Pima County CWPP. The Core Teams, in association with planned public involvement,
meets all collaborative guidance criteria established by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC 2002).
The Core Teams and collaborators developed this CWPP to increase preparedness, to reduce hazardous
wildland fuels, to reduce impacts from catastrophic wildfire, and to prepare recommendations for reducing
structural ignitability. In addition, the Core Teams developed this CWPP to increase communication with
local, county, state, and federal emergency response personnel by determining areas of high risk from
unwanted wildland fire; by developing mitigation measures to reduce hazardous wildland fuels; by
improving emergency response to unplanned wildfire; by preventing wildfire ignitions from state and public
lands from spreading into the WUI and into the communities; and by preventing wildfire ignitions within the
WUI from spreading to adjacent state and public lands.
During initial analyses for the proposed wildland fuel mitigation recommendations, as well as the
development of the Pima County CWPP, the Core Teams reviewed the following documents:
"Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk
from Wildfire," Federal Register Vol. 66, Nos. 3 and 160 (USDA and USDI 2001 a, 2001 b)
• Field Guidance: Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk (National Association of State
Foresters 2003)
• Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment (Arizona State Forester 2004)
• Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk (Arizona State Forester 2009)
• Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007)
• Forest Health Landscape -scale Restoration Recommendations. (Western Governors' Association
Forest Health Advisory Committee 2010)
Interface communities exist where structures directly abut wildland fuels; intermix communities exist where structures are
scattered throughout a wildland area (USDA and USDI 2001 a).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 5
Section I. Introduction
• Landscape Conservation and Restoration Strategic Action Plan (USDA FS 2011)
• A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment: 10 -Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDA FS and USDI BLM
2002)
• Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality
Management and Decision Record (USDI BLM 2004a)
• Arizona BLM Gila District Fire Management Plan (USDI BLM 2013)
• Coronado National Forest Plan (USDA FS 1988, as amended)
• Coronado National Forest Fire Management Plan (USDA FS 2010)
• Saguaro National Park Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2007)
• Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2004)
• Tohono O'odham Nation Wildland Fire Management Plan Johono O'odham Nation 2004)
• Pascua Yaqui Tribe Wildland Fire Management Plan (BIA Salt River Agency 2012a)
• Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fuels Management Plan (BIA Salt River Agency 2012b)
• Arizona FireScape Project (http://www.azfirescape.org/home
• Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Strategic Plan: A Regional Guide for Control, Mitigation and
Restoration (Rogstad 2008)
• Mt Lemmon Wildland -Urban Interface Plan for Forest Health and Wildland Fire
Management (2004)
• Catalina Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Golder Ranch Fire Department 2007)
• Sonoita -Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Sonoita Fire Department 2007)
• Arivaca- Sasabe Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Arivaca Fire Department 2007)
• Cascabel Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Cascabel Fire Department 2006)
• Altar Valley Fire Management Plan (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2008)
The Core Teams also reviewed Section 101.16.B.iii of HFRA to determine an area adjacent to an
evacuation route for hazardous fuel reduction measures to provide safer evacuation from an at -risk
community. Since 1980, there have been 3,226 wildfire ignitions within the Pima County analysis area
reported in federal and state databases. Large wildfires have become increasingly common in the desert
vegetation zones due to the presence of invasive plant species, primarily nonnative annual and perennial
grasses. In total, there have been nine large wildfires which burned approximately 137,000 acres of
wildland habitat within and adjacent to the Pima County CWPP WUI in the 6 -year period of 2002 through
2007. In 2003, a wildfire destroyed more than 314 buildings, including most of the businesses in
Summerhaven and the Mt. Lemmon WUI. The fire departments and districts within the county have
responded to and suppressed numerous wildland fires within the WUI during the past several years. The
areas with the greatest potential for fire ignition, either from natural or human (though unplanned) causes,
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 6
Section I. Introduction
are found within the communities of Sells and Summerhaven and along the eastern edge of Pima County
(http: // wildfire .cr.usgs.gov /firehistory /). Many of these wildland fire ignitions have occurred within areas
infested with nonnative grasses such as buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), red brome (Bromus rubens), and
Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus); within xeroriparian corridors; and within higher - elevation
chaparral and woodland vegetation associations that threaten the at -risk communities of Pima County with
the potential for catastrophic wildland fire. Continued extreme weather conditions, dry fuels, increased
nonnative invasive vegetation, and increased fuel loading on federal and nonfederal lands contribute to the
potential for catastrophic wildland fires within Pima County (Photo 1.1). As a result, the fire departments
and districts and governmental agencies have initiated fire preparedness and land- treatment planning
efforts to deal with the types and densities of wildland fuels that significantly threaten communities with
potential catastrophic wildfire.
Photo 1.1. Saltcedar- Infested Riparian Corridor in Pima County
(courtesy of Northwest Fire Department)
Wildland fire behavior as it relates to weather can be basically divided into four periods equating to the four
seasons. Wildfires occurring during the late spring and early summer often exhibit erratic behavior due to
dry lightning and heavy fuels from high average daily temperatures and seasonal droughts. In recent years,
the southwestern United States has experienced widespread and intense drought, which has been
stressing forests (Karl et al. 2009). Record wildfires are also being driven by rising temperatures and
related reductions in spring snowpack and soil moisture (Westerling et al. 2006). Associations between
wildfire and hydroclimate in western forests indicate that increased wildfire activity over recent decades
may be tied to reduced winter precipitation and an early spring snowmelt, particularly in mid - elevation
forests (Westerling et al. 2006). If the Southwest becomes warmer and drier, as projected by many climate
models, wildland fire seasons are anticipated to increase in length and severity driven by rising spring and
summer temperatures and related reductions in spring snowpack and soil moisture (Karl et al. 2009;
Westerling et al. 2006; USDA 2012). If periods of extended drought and warmer temperatures become
more common in Pima County, increases in wildland fire occurrences, particularly in higher - elevation
vegetation associations, and fire severity can be anticipated.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 7
Section I. Introduction
In 2003, Governor Janet Napolitano created the Forest Health Advisory Council and the Forest Health
Oversight Council in response to the increasing number, frequency, and intensity of unwanted wildfires
threatening Arizona communities and forests (Executive Order 2003 -16). The councils were directed to
develop scientific information and policy recommendations to advise the Governor's administration on
matters of forest health, unnaturally severe forest fires, and community protection. In 2005, the councils
established a subcommittee to begin work on a 20 -year strategy to restore forest health, protect
communities from fire, and encourage forest -based economic activity. Governor Napolitano approved and
signed the Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests in June 2007. Governor Janice Brewer
issued Executive Order 2007 -17, re- establishing the Forest Health Council on July 9, 2009. The Core
Teams have reviewed the strategy specifically, the Sky Islands landscapes to ensure that the
recommendations adopted by the Core Teams and presented within the Pima County CWPP comply with,
and complement, the Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests. The Core Teams have also
reviewed the goals and objectives of the Arizona FireScape Project to ensure that the Pima County CWPP
is compatible with and complementary to the FireScape Project. Using the information gathered from these
supporting documents, the Core Teams and collaborators agreed that the Pima County communities listed
in the Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk (Arizona State Forester 2009), as well as other developed
areas identified as at risk within the Pima County CWPP WUI, constitute interface or intermix communities
(see USDA and USDI 2001 a; Arizona State Forester 2007) at risk from wildland fire.
B. WUI and Delineation Process
In 2009, five Pima County communities (Kitt Peak, Summerhaven, Arivaca, Sasabe, and Catalina) were
included in Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk (Arizona State Forester 2009) and were given a WUI
risk rating for catastrophic wildland fire. The Core Teams and collaborators concur with this 2009 listing of
at -risk communities maintained by the Arizona State Forester. The Core Teams and collaborators
recommend maintaining the listing of those five communities, based on the results of the Pima County
CWPP wildland fire analysis, and further recommend including 28 other Pima County communities, along
with their associated WUI risk ratings, in the 2009 Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk (see Table 1.1).
The Pima County CWPP analyzes risk and makes recommendations to reduce the potential for unwanted
wildland fire to the 23 at -risk community WUls composed of 33 individual communities in Pima County,
including tribal trust lands. The Pima County CWPP analysis further refines components of wildland fire risk
and prioritizes community recommendations for reducing wildland fire potential through vegetative fuel
management and public outreach /education for reducing structural ignitability. Figure 1.2 summarizes the
process that the Core Teams followed to produce the Pima County CWPP. At the far right of each tier is
the "product" resulting from the activities in that tier. These tiers correspond to the sections in the Pima
County CWPP and serve as a guide for the rest of this document.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 8
Section I. Introduction
Collabofative Process
Core Tearns
1, V-11111-.101) d
AL RiP f-orivrupirliv.
— ;v --
I'Stdiflisti
Minnin Proc*ss
i
Cann-runily Duwipwl
mil WUN
� � ALMM MM � � Mw Moo � dwM dump daft
NeAhk%m Cora; 6k%;3 m I Soutmem Core Toarri
wo � � dwo � - +
WUl and Communit
DeSUiplion
Burn Status Geeh:iped Land and Fire Distrid Inventor and An-ab
InTf
lt� asiructure 1z; 0 R 11
4
------------------------- ........ .................. ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
Oveirall Risk
Communit Assessirneri.
Delterrin 1 nation
Fire Mana Zones
ilf
Recommended Land I reatme nts tar
Fucl Rod uctiGn and Forest Health Restwati]Gn
........... ........... . ........ .... ..... ... ..... ........
XdmMilstradve 4DVW�lqm Ccwi-imunit hnvk cament. Enrmnoernoni: or PrOtMon Capabllrt�
Public Education, and VVC*d-1R1D1MA-d I no LIVY14r. and Structural l
Info"aWn Outreach I I
Priorit Mifi Measures
CnMU"Ry J%t lVMrEnt. FUG1 R-OductICA and Enhancemeno of Lacal Froler-tan CapabiliIIN
Public Educaum. and Forest Health Restoration I nclustries and Structural l
14NMUon OiutiroaO
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Fuel Reduction
Miti Plan
Prevention end Loss Communit
Miti Plan Miti Plan
Action Recommendiatiion
an i lin p 1ementati on
1rnp1afwWkn wd
�d.3pti a4 F manag-ornonil
— f Monitorin Plan
Subse VO&k Plan fl I
Fi 1.2. Pima Count CWPP Process
Pima Count Communit Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 9
Section I. Introduction
According to HFRA, an "(1) At -risk community ...means an area — (A) that is comprised of — (i) an
interface community ... or (ii) a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services
...within or adjacent to Federal land; (B) in which conditions are conducive to a large -scale wildland fire
disturbance event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a
wildland fire disturbance event" (Secs. 101.1.A.i —ii, 101.1.13, and 101.1.C).
The at -risk communities within Pima County are adjacent to federal lands, including public lands
administered by BLM, NPS, and CNF, and are consistent with the Arizona State Forester's definition of an
intermix or interface community (2007:1):
The Intermix Community exists where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is
no clear line of demarcation; wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed
area. The developed density in the intermix community, ranges from structures very close together
to one structure per forty acres. Local fire departments and /or districts normally provide life and
property fire protection and may also have wildland fire protection responsibilities.
The Interface Community exists where structures directly abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line
of demarcation between wildland fuels and residential, business, and public structures. Wildland
fuels do not generally continue into the developed area. The development density for an interface
community is usually three or more structures per acre, with shared municipal services. Fire
protection is generally provided by a local fire department with the responsibility to protect the
structure from both an interior fire and an advancing wildland fire.
In addition to a community's listing status, the current condition of the wildland fuels within and adjacent to
at -risk communities significantly contributes to the possibility of a catastrophic wildfire capable of damaging
or destroying community values such as houses; infrastructure; recreational sites; businesses; wildlife;
and unique plant communities, especially desert areas with saguaro cactus which are important
economically for maintaining property values and tourism. Establishing a CWPP to enhance the protection
of community values and to minimize the potential loss of property, while ensuring public and firefighter
safety during a catastrophic wildfire, remains the overriding priority recommendation of the Pima County
CWPP.
The WUI is commonly described as the zone where structures and other features of human development
meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Communities in the WUI face
substantial risk to life, property, and infrastructure. Wildland fire in the WUI is one of the most dangerous
and complicated situations firefighters face. The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy
Phase 11 National Report (WFLC 2012) emphasizes working collaboratively with communities in the WUI to
reduce their risk from large -scale wildfire. HFRA builds on existing efforts to restore healthy wildland
conditions in the WUI and empowers local communities to determine the extent of the WUI; to determine
appropriate wildland fuel mitigation measures; to enhance public education for the prevention of wildland
fire; and to authorize expedited environmental assessments, administrative appeals, and legal review for
qualifying projects on federal land.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 10
Section I. Introduction
The Pima County CWPP process of delineating WUI boundaries for at -risk communities involved
collaboration among local, state, and federal government representatives, as well as interested individuals
within the communities (Photo 1.2).
Photo 1.2. Pima County CWPP
Core Planning Team Meeting
The Pima County CWPP WUI is the minimum area needed to provide protection to each community and its
surrounding community values. The identified WUI includes a total of 1,579,699 acres composed of a mix
of private, county, state, tribal trust, and federal lands. The WUI lands that surround the communities are in
a condition conducive to a large -scale wildland fire, and such a wildfire could threaten human life and
properties (Photo 1.3).
Photo 1.3. Wildland Fire in Pima County
(courtesy of Northwest Fire Department)
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 11
Section I. Introduction
General elements used in creating the WUI for Pima County at -risk communities include the following:
• Fuel hazards, local topography, vegetative fuels, and natural firebreaks
• Historical fire occurrence
Community development characteristics
• Firefighting preparedness and response capabilities
• Infrastructure and evacuation routes
• Recreation, scenic, and wildlife values
C. Desired Future Condition and Wildfire Mitigation in the WUI
The desired future condition of Pima County CWPP lands includes the maintenance of, or return to,
wildland fire resiliency status and the maintenance of, or return to, the vegetation component of the
historical plant potential community and appropriate management of nonnative vegetation across Pima
County. The historical plant potential community is composed of desert scrublands, shrublands (mesquite
uplands), riparian corridors, and semidesert grasslands and oak woodland, pine -oak woodland, and pine
and mixed conifer forests all of which have an associated understory of grasses and shrubs. Some
historical plant communities have become invaded and colonized by invasive grasses or woody species
and may have undergone a permanent type conversion (NatureServe 2004; Gori and Enquist 2003). The
Core Teams intend the Pima County CWPP to complement BLM, NPS, and CNF wildland fire
management objectives; the Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health
Councils 2007); the Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air
Quality Management and Decision Record (USDI BLM 2004a); the Coronado National Forest Plan (USDA
FS1988, as amended), Coronado National Forest Fire Management Plan (USDA FS 2010) and the
Saguaro National Park Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2007), Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2004), Arizona BLM Gila District Fire Management Plan (USDI BLM
2013), and the Arizona FireScape Project ( http: / /www.azfirescape.org /home
The desired future condition of public lands is consistent with those described by the Core Teams
community wildfire protection, watershed and rangeland restoration, and protection of community values,
as well as the restoration of native vegetation to historical wildfire return intervals. However, in the face of
changing climate conditions, historical vegetation communities may not be achievable. The Core Teams
encourage land- management agencies to develop landscape -scale restoration of vegetation communities
that restore critical wildlife habitat, ensure healthy functioning watersheds, and safeguard our communities.
Vegetative types maintained in this condition allow natural processes such as fire to be incorporated into
long -term management practices to both sustain habitat health and meet Pima County CWPP
management goals while providing for community protection from unwanted wildland fire. Public education
and land treatment projects in the Pima County CWPP area coupled with current efforts of local
governments, fire departments and districts, CNF, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and BLM will create a
better - informed constituency capable of protecting at -risk communities through restoration and vegetative
fuels mitigation efforts within the WUI. Federal wildfire reduction policy on public lands is planned and
administered primarily by BLM, NPS, USFWS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and CNF, which are the federal and
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 12
Section I. Introduction
tribal governing entities for the public lands associated with the Pima County CWPP planning area. These
agencies and tribes manage wildland fire to help reduce unnaturally high wildland fuel loads that contribute
to catastrophic wildland fire, to help encourage the return of fire to a more natural role in fire - adapted
ecosystems, to achieve ecosystem goals, to keep fire out of fire - sensitive desert and riparian plant
communities, to reduce economic impacts, and to enhance public and firefighter safety.
The desired future condition of federal lands includes improving public and firefighter safety from wildland
fire, using wildland fire as a management tool to achieve resource objectives where appropriate, managing
hazardous wildland fuels within and adjacent to the WUI, providing adaptive wildland fire response and
suppression, and returning public lands to Condition Class I status. Federal lands in this condition class
can carry wildfire without significant impacts on habitat components. Current federal fire policy allows
wildland fires to be concurrently managed for one or more objectives, and objectives can change as the fire
spreads across the landscape (USDA and USDI 2009). The BLM, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and CNF
adhere to federal policy when managing all unplanned wildfire ignitions on public lands within the WUI.
Federal policy for reducing wildfires on public lands (that is, BLM, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and FS lands)
is planned and administered locally through the BLM's field offices, Saguaro National Park, Pascua Yaqui
Tribe, and the CNF. In Saguaro National Park, all fires are suppressed in desert areas where plants are not
adapted to fire. In fire - adapted plant communities at higher elevations, fire may be managed to achieve
resource objectives depending on the current and predicted situation. At Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, desert areas are protected from fire. The Tohono O'odham Nation and Pascua Yaqui Tribe
manage tribal wildland fire programs.
Under the proposed action described in the Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for
Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management and Decision Record (USDI BLM 2004a), BLM-administered
public lands are assigned one of two land use allocations for fire management: Allocation 1 includes areas
suitable for wildland fire use for resource management benefit, and Allocation 2 includes areas not suitable
for wildland fire use for resource benefit. The CNF Fire Management Plan (USDA FS 2010) has identified
two fire management units (FMUs). These FMUs maintain consistency with the management objectives as
outlined in the CNF Plan (1988, as amended). FMU 1 includes a full range of responses, from aggressive
initial attack to managing natural ignitions to achieve desired CNF Plan objectives when risk is within
acceptable limits. FMU 2 is generally located at elevations less than 4,500 feet in the Santa Catalina, Santa
Rita, Galiuro, and Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Areas. In this FMU, resource protection is the only
objective, as it contains non - fire - adapted vegetation, which, within the CNF, consists of the southwestern
desert scrub vegetation associations.
The basic objectives of the management policies at Saguaro National Park are the protection and
perpetuation of naturally operating ecosystems to the fullest extent consistent with safeguarding public
safety, cultural resources, and private property. As described in the Saguaro National Park Fire
Management Plan (USDI NPS 2007), fire is a natural process in the Park's ecosystems, and consequently,
fire must be managed so that it can assume its natural role, either as wildland fire use or through
prescribed burning. Management- ignited prescribed fire will be used to re- establish the natural influence of
fire and restore natural fuel loadings through the reduction of hazardous fuel accumulation. All projects that
include prescribed burning will include specific burning prescriptions which will ensure that the fire can be
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 13
Section I. Introduction
controlled within established boundaries and that the burning will meet the desired fire management
objectives for the resource.
The desired future condition of private lands in the WUI is for landowners to comply with the National
Firewise Communities program ( http://www.firewise. ) or to meet home - ignition -zone landscaping
( http://www.fi read apted. orq/ or fire -safe landscaping recommended by the Pima County CWPP fire
departments and districts in compliance with local ordinances. The Fire Adapted Communities Web site
offers information and specific actions homeowners can take to reduce wildfire risk. Firewise is a national
program that helps communities reduce wildfire risks and provides them with information about protecting
themselves against catastrophic wildfires and mitigating losses from such fires. Within Arizona, the State
Forester administers the Firewise certification program. Fire departments and districts and local
governments in Pima County would like to make this information available to their citizens and to
encourage its application. Residential and other structures that comply with Firewise standards significantly
reduce fire - ignition risks in a community, as well as the potential for fires to spread to surrounding habitats.
Additionally, structures that comply with Firewise recommendations are more likely to survive wildland fires
that do spread into a community (Cohen 2008).
The Core Teams are aware that wildland fuel accumulations primarily associated with the invasion of
woody species and nonnative grasses, together with community growth in the WUI, have produced areas
at high risk from catastrophic wildfire. The Core Teams aspire to achieve restored, self- sustaining,
biologically diverse habitats of mixed open space and developed areas that contribute to a quality of life
demanded by Pima County citizens. The Core Teams recognize that protection from catastrophic wildland
fire requires collaboration and implementation through all levels of government and through an informed
and motivated public. The Core Teams considered the restoration of forest, rangeland, desert, and riparian
health; community protection, and public and firefighter safety while developing this CWPP.
Financial commitments required to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire can be extensive for municipal,
county, state, and federal governments; for fire districts; and for the small rural communities surrounded by
public lands. Pima County, CNF, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and BLM have implemented wildland fuel
mitigation projects within or near the Pima County CWPP WUI. Fire departments and districts have
improved wildland fire suppression response and continue public education and outreach programs
concerning wildland fire threat and home - ignition -zone recommendations. However, the availability of
federal, state, and local funding for mitigation of wildland fire risk and for enhanced response and public
education will drive the ability of the Cooperators to meet the goals of the Pima County CWPP (that is,
treatments depend on fund availability). The CWPP Core Team recognizes the importance of partnering
with organizations such as the Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center (SABCC) to assist in
meeting CWPP goals and objectives. Pima County fire departments and districts have standing automatic -
aid agreements allowing for closest resources to provide initial- attack response. The fire departments and
districts of Pima County maintain wildland fire response teams supported by various engines and support
equipment including ambulances, brush trucks, fire engines, ladder trucks, and heavy- rescue vehicles
and various other specialized response vehicles to help suppress wildland fires (Photo 1.4).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 14
Section I. Introduction
Photo 1.4. Type 6 Wildland Fire Truck
(courtesy of Northwest Fire Department)
Additionally, the fire departments and districts have taken proactive measures to encourage willing property
owners to reduce fire risk on private property (HFRA, Sec.103A.2.13). Wildland fire response teams are
composed of personnel with various levels of wildland firefighting training, including red - carded firefighters.
The response teams have coordinated radio frequencies to improve communications between initial- attack
and responding firefighting agencies and departments. Specially trained wildland fire response teams not
only provide suppression response to brush fires but also provide community awareness programs and
structural -fire risk assessments. The Core Teams, BLM, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and CNF collaborators
are proposing additional wildland fuel treatments and wildland fire suppression enhancements and have
been proactive in pursuing funding for wildland fire public outreach programs and fire - suppression training
and equipment.
D. Goals for the Pima County CWPP
To reduce the risks to life and property from catastrophic wildland fire, and as a collaboration of
communities and agencies, the Core Teams have agreed on the following primary goals of the Pima
County CWPP:
• Improve fire prevention and suppression, emphasizing firefighter and public safety
• Reduce hazardous fuels, emphasizing public and private property protection
• Maintain and appropriately restore forest, rangeland, and riparian health
• Promote community involvement and provide for community protection
• Recommend measures to reduce structural ignitability in the WUI
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 15
Section I. Introduction
• Encourage economic development in the communities from vegetative treatments
• Promote development of wildfire emergency evacuation and communication plans
Use the CWPP in conjunction with surrounding community and agency fire management plans
E. Planning Process
During initial analysis, and to aid the overall development of this plan, the Core Teams reviewed the
following documents and studies:
• "Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk
from Wildfire," Federal Register Vol. 66, Nos. 3 and 160 (USDA and USDI 2001 a, 2001 b)
• Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities
(Presidential Policy 2002)
• HFRA
• The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Interim Field Guide
(USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004)
• Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland -Urban Interface
Communities (Communities Committee et al. 2004)
• Field Guidance: Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk (National Association of State
Foresters 2003)
• Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment (Arizona State Forester 2004)
• Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk (Arizona State Forester 2009)
• Identifying Arizona's Wildland /Urban Interface Communities at Risk: A Guide for State and
Federal Land Managers (Arizona State Forester 2007)
• Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007)
• A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment: 10 -Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDA FS and USDI
BLM 2002)
• Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality
Management and Decision Record (USDI BLM 2004a)
• Arizona BLM Gila District Fire Management Plan (USDI BLM 2013)
• Coronado National Forest Plan (USDA FS 1988, as amended)
• Coronado National Forest Fire Management Plan (USDA FS 2010)
• Saguaro National Park Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2007)
• Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Fire Management Plan (USDI NPS 2004)
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 16
Section I. Introduction
• Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Strategic Plan (Rogstad 2008)
• Wildland Fire Use Implementation Procedures Reference Guide (USDI and USDA 2005)
• Wildland Fire Suppression (Including Wildland Fire Use) and Rehabilitation in Riparian and
Aquatic Habitats (RA) (USDI BLM 2004b)
• Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
(USDA and USDI 2009)
• Pima County Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (PCOEM 2012)
• Pascua Yaqui Tribe Wildland Fire Management Plan (BIA Salt River Agency 2012a)
• Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fuels Management Plan (BIA Salt River Agency 2012b)
• Tohono O'odham Nation Wildland Fire Management Plan Johono O'odham Nation 2004)
• Pima County Ordinance No. 2012 -34: "Adopting by Reference the 2012 International Wildland-
Urban Interface Code with Local Amendments (Applicable Only to Areas Designated Rural
Forest Village under the Pima County Comprehensive Plan and Areas Encircled Thereby)" (Pima
County 2012)
• Arizona FireScape Project (http://www.azfirescape.org/home
Action recommendations for at -risk areas within the Pima County CWPP WUI boundaries have been
developed as part of this planning process. Treatments for wildland vegetative fuels and additional wildland
fire mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented in specific time frames and with associated
monitoring to determine and document measurable outcomes. Successful implementation of the
Pima County CWPP will require collaboration by fire departments and districts, governments, resource -
management agencies, and private landowners. The cooperating agencies must develop processes and
systems that ensure recommended actions of the Pima County CWPP comply with applicable local, state,
and federal environmental regulations. The dedication of the Core Teams and collaborators in
implementing the Pima County CWPP ensures that all agencies, groups, and individuals involved will
develop any additional formal agreements necessary for the timely implementation, monitoring, and
reporting of the Pima County CWPP. The Core Teams were formed not only to meet collaborative
requirements of HFRA but also to represent all of the different interests and diversity within Pima County
communities, with all parties being involved and committed to the development and implementation of the
Pima County CWPP.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 17
Section I. Introduction
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 18
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
II. PIMA COUNTY CWPP COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
The community risk assessment is an analysis of the potential for catastrophic wildland fire to Pima County
communities. This risk analysis incorporates the current fire regime- condition class, wildfire fuel hazards,
risk of ignition, local preparedness and protection capabilities, and at -risk community values. In addition,
the Arizona State Forester's Identifying Arizona's Wildland /Urban Interface Communities at Risk: A Guide
for State and Federal Land Managers (2007), Arizona Forest Resource Assessment (ASFD 2010a),
Arizona Forest Resource Strategy (ASFD 2010b) and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management
Strategy (USDA and USDI 2011) were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate to ensure that the Pima
County CWPP is compatible with and complementary to national and statewide CWPP planning efforts.
This analysis includes all risk factors required by the Arizona State Forester for a compliant CWPP. The
areas of concern for wildland fuel hazards, risk of ignition and wildfire occurrence, local preparedness, and
protection capabilities and loss of community values are evaluated to determine areas of highest wildland
fire risk within Pima County. The initial analysis area included all of Pima County, including tribal trust
lands. The initial analysis depicted all areas within the county at risk for unwanted wildland fire. Subsequent
to the initial analysis, the Core Teams identified each Pima County community WUI in accordance with the
Arizona State Forester's guidance. The initial analysis area comprises 5,877,578 acres of land, of which
1,579,699 acres are designated as community WUI (Table 2.1; Figures 2.1 a -2.1 c).
Table 2.1. Land Management within the Pima County Community WUIs
Ownership Type WUI Acres % of WUI Acres
Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range
538
0
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR)
20
1
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
94
6
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
2
0
Coronado National Forest (CNF)
75
5
Davis Monthan Air Force Base
10
1
Arizona Game and Fish Department
1
0
Military Reservation
40
0
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
1
0
Other /Unclassified
22
0
Parks and Recreation
11
1
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
557
0
San Xavier Indian Reservation
71
5
Tohono O'odham Nation
24
2
Private Land
727
46
Saguaro National Park
33
2
State Trust Lands
503
32
Total 1 100
*Actual total may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 19
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Pima County CWPP planning area primarily includes private lands (46 %), state trust lands (32 %), BLM
(6 %), and CNF (5 %) lands, and SNP (2 %). Tribal trust lands consisting of Pascua Yaqui, San Xavier, and
Tohono O'odham lands collectively compose over 7 percent of the Pima County CWPP WUI.
Outside tribal trust lands, primary landownership in the Pima County CWPP planning area is a mosaic of
privately owned lands and lands administered by the ASLD, BLM, and CNF (Figures 2.1a- 2.1c). Private
lands within the Pima County CWPP planning area include urban areas with associated adjacent urban
development in proximity to undeveloped public and state lands (such as Oro Valley), rural communities
with minimal development (such as Arivaca), and undeveloped land parcels.
Of the publicly owned lands within the analysis area, Arizona State Trust lands (state lands) compose the
largest acreage 503,672 acres, or 32 percent of land within the analysis area. State lands were
established in 1912 under the terms of the Arizona Enabling Act. With statehood, Arizona was granted
ownership of four sections per township. The ASLD manages state lands to produce revenue for the
Arizona State Trust beneficiaries, including the state's school system. Within the Pima County CWPP area,
State lands are managed primarily for recreation, natural resource protection, and livestock grazing.
There are several large county, state, and national parks within the analysis area. These include Tucson
Mountain Park, Catalina State Park, and Saguaro National Park. There are a large number of popular
hiking trails within these designated parks as well as within the CNF, such as the Sabino Canyon
Recreation Area. Designated parks and recreation areas adjacent to the major communities of the Tucson
Basin can increase potential wildfire fire risk due to human - caused ignitions.
Of the remaining publicly owned lands within the analysis area, CNF lands compose 75,129 acres, or
approximately 5 percent, of the analysis area. CNF lands within the WUI include recreational residences
such as Greater Soldier Camp and Willow Canyon, organizational recreational areas such as the Camp
Lawton Boy Scout Camp and the Whispering Pines Girl Scout Camp, as well as the First Southern Baptist
Church, Sycamore Canyon Academy -Rite of Passage, Camp Zion, Amphi Camp, St. Marks Presbyterian
Church, Pima County Sheriff's Department, as well as communications sites, observatories, and University
of Arizona research sites. These federal lands provide extensive popular hiking, hunting, and recreational
areas within or adjacent to the analysis area.
Private land within the analysis area composes the largest ownership within the CWPP at 727,999 acres,
or roughly 46 percent, of the analysis area. Private lands are mostly clustered near the communities, with
some scattered private in- holdings located throughout the analysis area. The municipalities /unincorporated
communities of Ajo, Catalina, Green Valley, Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, Sells / Tohono O'odham,
Summerhaven, South Tucson, Tucson, and Vail contain the majority of private land acreage within the
analysis area. Commercial structures are clustered along state and federal highways and community
centers, and they are assumed to remain as the principal commercial corridors within the Pima County at-
risk communities.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 20
_U
3
w
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
CD
=:h
0
0
0
Sy
0
Cn
CD
3
CT
C:)
W
71
ca
3
0
0
0
rEPL
I,<
0
CL
0
(D
M1
U)
=r
-50
%A
Z
0
M1
rMIL
=r
Toltec
Arizona C5 E M I
Picacho Mammoth
Friendl Corn
,e.rs Golder Ranch Oracle
,1 Ch
San Martue I
U
Red Rock
rade I u net io
vra Valle I
Penal Count
rj
E-
Golder Ranch
Pima Count Do s0 n
u m merh aven
Avra V
C, R11111to Torto I fta U,
Mt Lemmon
marana -IC
51 liver Be 11 Avira Va I le North West
•
Comore Ca abel
bel
l P icture Rod s Casas Ad bes
SC
Mama
-Sa li�na Foothills ■
Flo In Cascabell
' National Park
11 Catalina Foothills
West
0 0
Tan Verde C) I
Tucson
U n tes EL (
Tucson and .1
p k
-.T' f' 10
Tb6no Oodharn Sou h Uc on South Tucson
O
Three Points rel on
valentiiaWest iii ietown Rincon Valle
Pas SLyLrf�eI Hei an Xavier C p 2009 ES1 I, Cop Vii' 2013 DeLorme
Bureau of Land Mana
( BLM )
US Forest Service ( USFS )
National Parks Servioe ( NPS )
Wildlife
Indian Reservation (IR
Militar Reservations and Corps
of En
State
State, Count C Wildlife,
Park and Outdoor Recreation
Areas
Private
Pima Count
C/)
(1)
0
0
=3
PIMA COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP
Map Index
0
3
3 3
C
=3
F1
(n
(n
0
(n
73 M I les (n
"6— 3
0 2.5 5 10 IM (D
=3
CL
(n
(n
- U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
rn
=:h
0
0
0
0
Cn
3
CT
C:)
W
71
can
Fr
0
0
rEPL
0
CL
0
U)
=r
� 0
%A
Cn
0
r.
rMIL
=r
Robles I u n cCojn I
Three Ints Summit Rincon Valle t
F - Wil I
San Pedf San Xavier
ell
Coyote Field Tucson and
K - Pain Tak South Tucson �tano
—Nalviana Akya r,� Mount" i Pa
e
San Xavier
C tt Peak ahuarfta
O CO5 -- 1 Three Points East huarlta --Corona de Tiui !�ai MescalJ16:
Kitt Peak �,
�C'orona De Tucson r .. sens0n
>
4.-
G reen Va ley Cont I ri Z ' ental r P 3
Chluli Shalt
P"Itoilkam Green Valle Elephant Head,
r-%ahachi Milluk and Helmet Peak M
EI
i-eate ille 0
Sonofta-El 0-1
06 A /fVa 6a, J u n ct i o n Pima Count
P mado Whetst
Santa Cruz Count one 0
Sonolta
"El I
Nuachuca City
Tubac
ML
Carmert
Arivaca-Sasabe
kiTurnacacorl Sf e r ra Vi sta
Ar ivacs Turhacaco r I. Carmen
Pata Ca nelo I
Buenos Aires
j
L5? Oro 8 1 anco Ric Rico Northwest
C
Rub Calabasas..' RIO Rico Harshaw
Ric-%]Rico S6uthwest
Sur n
C,
-0) 2009 ESRI, Cop 1 l i-
) 20 De om-��
Beye rville Cop . 11
Bureau of Land Mana
( BLM)
US Forest Service ( USFS )
NatiGnal Parks Service ( NPS )
Wildlife
Indian Reservation ( I H
Militar Reservations and Corps
of En
State
State, Count Cit Wildlife,
Park and Outdoor Recreation
Areas
Private
Pima Count
C/)
(1)
0
0
=3
PIMA COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP
Map Index
0
3
3
3
J
=3
(n
(n
:3MIleS 6".
(D
(n
3
0 2-5 5 10
(D
(n
(n
_U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
=:h
0
0
0
0
Cn
3
CT
C:)
W
M
can
3
0
0
0
rEPL
0
CL
C O
U)
=r
�n
%A
U)
rMIL
--------- I CaUnt
I ofth KOM e I I k
Pima Count
ChIlds 0 Ve nta na
07,
Ajo 0 Hilcklwan "a Ch in Noipa Kam Anegam
C")
Santa Rosa
Palo Verde Stand
Ch arco
b
Sil Nak
Mak Havoka Hol Oida k1
0 (IN
Narcho Santos
Quijntoa
Slkul Himatk
C.
Litt I e Tucson San Luis Santa Crum
Peach Pu CFrasnal Can 0 Cornobabi
Nato Va
Vainom KU
Pis i n e rno p [sin i mo FKul Tatk
(Z) Hall Murk 5aihon Ku
0
Sweetwater
Pfa Oilk
Lukeville
jV1 Ak Chin
,Sells
0 SZ11s
KLLpk Gu 01dak (D Artesa)
Cowlic
0
Cop 2009 E I. Cop 201 l3e�Lerme
--a. -
Cn
(1)
0
0
=3
Bureau of Land Mana
( BL M)
US Forest Service (USFS
National Parks Service { N PS
Vvildlife
Indian Reservation (IR)
Militar Reservations and Corps
of En
State
State, Count Cit Wildlife,
Park and Outdoor Recreation
Areas
Private
Pima Count
PIMA COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP
Map index
3
3
Old
3
(n
(n
:3 Mile S
(1)
(n
3
0 2-5 5 10
CL
=3
(n
(n
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Pima County has experienced considerable growth in population and housing during past decades. The
1900 decennial census recorded 14,689 residents in Pima County. In 2010, the population center moved
southwest, closer to the intersection of South Park Avenue and East Aviation Parkway. The earlier north -
south pattern of expansion appears to be recurring, and future development in Pima County is
expected to be oriented around 1 -10 and 1 -19 corridors. The majority of the population lives in the eastern
half of the county, which contains all of the five incorporated jurisdictions, the Tohono O'odham
Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, San Xavier District, and a large, urbanized unincorporated area.
Approximately 85 percent of the county's land is federal, state or Native American owned
(http://www.pagnet.org/RegionalData/Demographics/).
The 2010 population estimate for Pima County was reported as 980,263 residents living in 442,484
housing units. This represents an approximate 48 percent increase in population over the 666,880
residents reported in the 2000 census. Growth is anticipated to continue in both urban and rural settings in
Pima County ( http : / /quickfacts.census.gov /qfd /states /04/04019.html).
Some portions of the Pima County analysis area are included within the Statewide Strategy for Restoring
Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007), which distinguishes nine forested landscapes.
A portion of one of these identified forested landscapes, the Sky Islands, occurs in Pima County.
The Sky Islands region is located at the confluence of four major bioregions the southern Rocky
Mountains, the northern Sierra Madre Mountains, the Sonoran Desert, and the Chihuahuan Desert. The
Sky Islands region of the Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests is circumscribed by the Gila
Mountains to the north, the Baboquivari Mountains to the west, and the Mexican border to the south.
Landscape vegetation within the Sky Islands ranges from cold, wet, spruce -fir forests above 8,000 feet to
mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest occurring at 6,500 to 8,000 feet to the Madrean encinal oak
woodlands at elevations occurring from 3,600 to 6,500 feet (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007:109).
Due to high levels of topographical complexity and gradient within the portion of the Sky Islands landscape
within the Pima County analysis area, fire characteristics are variable. Single fires can cross multiple
vegetation associations. Unnaturally high fuel loads and drought continue to contribute to high wildland fire
risk. Recommendations for "Future Restoration Needs" (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007:115) of
the Sky Islands landscape applicable to the analysis area include (1) conducting educational outreach to
stakeholders that will highlight the ecological and socioeconomic benefits of ecological restoration; (2)
providing incentives and assistance for restoration of privately owned forests (or lands within the Pima
County CWPP); (3) integrating restoration planning with long -term planning and zoning processes, which
will require outreach and education to planning and zoning commissions; (4) encouraging Firewise
landscaping and building in communities; and (5) encouraging the restoration -based harvesting of firewood
as opposed to importing firewood from Mexico.
Wildland fire is identified as a critical issue within the Arizona Forest Resource Assessment (ASFD 2010a).
Higher elevations of the Santa Catalina, Rincon, and Baboquivari mountains are focus landscapes for
wildland fire, as derived from two primary datasets: (1) the 2004 Arizona Wildland Urban Interface
Assessment report and (2) communities identified as at -risk by the Arizona State Forester. The analysis
includes all risk components and is constructed to be compatible with all influencing factors identified in the
Arizona Forest Resource Assessment (AS F D 2010a).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 24
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The climate of Pima County is varied ranging from semiarid desert shrub -scrub vegetative associations
with relatively low precipitation, low humidity, and high summer temperatures to vegetative communities
associated with the oak, pinyon - juniper, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer woodlands with mild summers
and cool winters. Precipitation averages 12 inches per year in Tucson but is variable throughout the county
and occurs primarily during two rainy periods summer rainfall, which usually occurs in local torrential
convection showers, and winter rainfall, which is usually slow and can occur over several days. The
average maximum annual air temperature ranges from a high of 99 to a low of 64 degrees Fahrenheit,
while minimum annual temperatures range from 38 to 73 degrees Fahrenheit.
The majority of federally managed public lands outside tribal trust lands, national parks and monuments,
and national wildlife refuges in Pima County are administered by the BLM and locally managed through the
BLM, Gila District, Tucson Field Office. In accordance with the Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan
Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management and Decision Record and the Wildland Fire
Suppression (Including Wildland Fire Use) and Rehabilitation in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (USDI BLM
2004a and USDI BLM 2004b), BLM- administered public lands are assigned to one of two land use
allocations for fire management. Allocation 1 lands include areas where fire is desired and there are few or
no constraints for its use. Wildland fire may be used to achieve resource objectives, such as improved
watershed or wildlife habitat. Where fuel loading is high and conditions are not initially suitable for wildland
fire, fuel loads may be reduced by mechanical, chemical, or biological means to acceptable levels and to
meet resource objectives. Allocation 2 lands include areas where mitigation and suppression are required
to prevent direct threats to life or property. It also includes areas where fire never played a large role in
ecosystem management and where unplanned ignitions would have negative effects on resources. In
these areas BLM will implement programs to reduce unwanted ignitions and emphasize prevention,
detection, and rapid suppression. The Gila District Fire Management Plan (USDI BLM 2010) refers to these
two land use allocations and identifies areas where wildland fires can be managed for than one fire
management objective and that mechanical, biological, or chemical means may be used to maintain
nonhazardous levels of fuels to reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires and meet
resource objectives. The Fire Management Plan will also identify areas for exclusion from fire (through fire
suppression), chemical, mechanical, and /or biological treatments. In addition to both land use allocations,
BLM will undertake education, enforcement, and administrative fire - prevention measures to reduce human -
caused fire.
National forest lands are administered by the CNF and consist of two FMUs: FMU 1 —FS lands, except
southwestern desert scrub vegetation type, and FM2— southwestern desert scrub vegetation type (USDA
FS 2005 2010):
FMU 1 — Forest -wide, except within in the southwestern desert scrub (Upper Sonoran Desert)
vegetation type. This FMU includes a full range of responses, from aggressive initial attack to
managing natural ignitions to achieve desired Land and Resource Management Plan objectives
when risk is within acceptable limits.
FMU 2 — Generally, this FMU is located at elevations less than 4,500 feet on the Santa Catalina,
Santa Rita, Galiuro and Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Areas (EMAs). In this FMU, resource
protection is the only objective, as it contains non -fire adapted vegetation. The vegetation type on
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 25
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
the Coronado this applies to is the Southwestern Desert scrub, which contains the following
species: saguaro (Camegiea gigantea), palo verde (Cercidium spp.), creosote bush (Larrea
tridentata), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), and brittle bush (Encelia spp.). Due to the limitations of
accurate mapping, on -scene resources will need to identify the vegetation type at both the point of
ignition and in the direction of likely spread, prior to making resource objective decisions
NPS suppresses all fires in desert vegetation types because they are not adapted to fire, and fires cause
unacceptable resource damage. Saguaro National Park fire management goals include giving primary
consideration to firefighter, employee, and public safety; managing fire to minimize threats of unacceptable
effects of fire to property outside the park and sensitive cultural and natural resources; and restoring and
maintaining fire - adapted ecosystems through the ecologically appropriate use of fire. In the WUI, Saguaro
National Park can use herbicides and manually remove invasive plant species (especially buffelgrass) to
protect park resources and private property.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument fire management goals involve protecting human life and property
and employing strategies to suppress all wildland fires within monument boundaries that minimize costs
and resource damage consistent with values at risk. The monument is currently undergoing a planning
effort to potentially broaden and increase fuel treatment possibilities.
A. Fire Regime and Condition Class
Before European settlement of North America, fire played a natural (historical) role in the landscape. Five
historical fire regimes have been identified based on the average number of years between fires (fire
frequency) combined with the severity (amount of overstory replacement) of fire on the dominant overstory
vegetation (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2. Fire Regime Information
Frequency Severity
Regime 1
0 -35 years
Low
Regime II
0 -35 years
High
Regime III
35 -100 years
Low
Regime IV
35 -100 years
High
Regime V
200+ years
High
Source: FRCC Guidebook, Version 3.0 (FRCC Interagency Working Group 2010:15).
http: / /www.fire.org /niftt /released /FRCC Guidebook 2010 final.pdf
a Low = less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced. High = greater than 75%
of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced (stand replacement).
The condition class of wildland habitats describes the degree to which the current fire regime has been
altered from its historical range, the risk of losing key ecosystem components, and the vegetative attribute
changes from historical conditions. The following descriptions of condition classes are provided by the
Arizona State Forester (2007:3):
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 26
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Condition Class 1:
Fire regimes are within a historical range, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.
Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within the
historical range.
Condition Class 2:
Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key
ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by
one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This results in moderate changes to
one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation
attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range.
Condition Class 3:
Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key
ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by
multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size,
intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
from their historical range.
The Pima County analysis area covers 5,877,578 acres, including 142,917 acres of land classified as
developed and low- density open space and barren landscape ( <3% of analysis area acres), 32,573 acres
of unclassified lands (<l% of analysis area), and 24,680 acres of agricultural land (<l% of analysis area
acres). The analysis area includes 4,007,788 acres (69% of analysis area acres) of Fire Regime Condition
Class (FRCC) I lands, 850,206 acres (15% of analysis area acres) of FRCC II lands, and 814,480 acres
(14% of analysis area acres) of FRCC III lands, as described in Development of Coarse -Scale Spatial Data
for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management (Schmidt et al. 2002).
Because condition -class categories are based on coarse -scale data that are intended to support national-
level planning, any interpolation of national data for localized conditions may not be valid
(FRCC Interagency Working Group 2005a, 2005b) due to invasive perennial and annual grasses, exotic
forbs, and woody - species encroachment in native habitats altering local fire regimes. Therefore, local
agencies are asked to provide data for localized vegetative conditions that reflect an accurate, current
FRCC (USDA FS 2000). In addition to effects of invasive grasses and perennial woody species, the
Southwest has experienced widespread and intense drought in recent years (Karl et al. 2009). Record
wildfires occurring in the last decade are being driven by rising temperatures and related reductions in
spring snowpack and soil moisture (Westerling et al. 2006). If the Southwest becomes warmer and drier, as
projected by many climate models, the wildland fire season is anticipated to increase in length and severity
driven by rising spring and summer temperatures and related reductions in spring snowpack and soil
moisture (Karl et al. 2009; Westerling et al. 2006). If periods of extended drought and warmer temperatures
become more common in Pima County, increases in wildland fire occurrences — particularly in higher-
elevation vegetation associations and severity can be anticipated. The amount of land disturbance causing
the growth of flammable annuals (pigweed [Amaranth spp.], mustards, and thistles) and invasive grasses
(such as buffelgrass [Pennisetum ciliare], red brome [Bromus rubens], and Mediterranean grass [Schismus
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 27
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
barbatus]) in the analysis area can rapidly alter the potential of a vegetation association to support
unwanted wildland fire. In addition, increasing woody - species invasions, especially saltcedar (Tamarix
spp.) within the riparian corridors, indicate that the perennial and ephemeral riparian, upland, and desert
grassland habitats no longer conform to components of Condition Class 1 lands. Invasive nonnative plants
have severe ecological impacts on vegetative structure (Arizona Wildlands Invasive Plant Working Group
[AZ- WIPWG] 2005). Therefore, local conditions indicate that the majority of wildland habitats within the
analysis area may actually fall within Condition Classes 2 and 3.
As reported in the Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's Forests (Governor's Forest Health
Councils 2007:46), the majority of the Sky Islands landscape (92 %) has been classified as
Condition Classes 2 and 3 in which there is a "moderate to high risk of losing key ecosystem components
to fire." Within the Sky Islands landscape, fire exclusion combined with recent drought has exacerbated
heavy fuel loading in some areas that in turn increases the probability of uncharacteristic wildfire.
The desired future condition of federal land within the Pima County CWPP area is to return to or maintain
wildland within Condition Class 1, as described in Fire Regime and Condition Class (FRCC) Interagency
Handbook Reference Conditions (2005a):
Open park -like savanna grassland, or woodland, or shrub structures maintained by frequent surface
or mixed severity fires .Surface fires typically burn through the understory removing fire-
intolerant species and small -size classes and removing less than 25 percent of the upper layer,
thus maintaining an open single -layer overstory of relatively large trees ...Mosaic fires create a
mosaic of different -age, postfire grassland, savannah woodlands, or open shrub patches by leaving
greater than 25 percent of the upper layer (generally less than 40 hectares [100 acres]). Interval[s]
can range up to 50 [years] in systems with high temporal variability.
Desired future conditions for Sonoran Desert habitats "are for an adequate cover and mix of natural plant
species that have good vigor" and for riparian habitats the "Desired Future Condition are that annual weeds
cover and density is controlled and ladder fuels and downed woody debris are limited or not present.
Disturbances such as livestock grazing, mining and off road vehicle travel, that can potentially reduce
natural vegetation cover and vigor, are managed to maintain adequate cover and mix of natural plant
species" (USDI BLM. 2004a).
However, a growing body of evidence shows that climate has changed substantially since 1900, that this
change is accelerating, and that even greater change is likely to occur in the next 100 years (USDA 2012)
and such climate change will alter natural ecosystems and affect their ability to provide goods and services
(USDA 2012). Additionally, post wildfire conditions and fire management activities can create ideal
opportunities for invasions by nonnative plants undermining the benefits of fire management actions
(Brooks and Lusk. 2008). While it may be possible to maintain or revert some areas to historical fire
regimes during the life of this plan, land management agencies recognize that due to the effects of climate
change, urbanization, increasing human use, increasing distribution and abundance of invasive plant
species, and continued expansion of the wildland interface, currently described historical fire regimes and
plant communities may not be achievable in the larger landscape in both fire- and non - fire - adapted
vegetation associations in the future.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 28
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
B. Fuel Hazards
The arrangement of vegetative fuel, relative flammability, and potential of vegetation to support wildland fire
varies throughout the analysis area. Wildland fuel hazards depend on a specific composition, type,
arrangement, or condition of vegetation such that if the fuel were ignited, an at -risk community or its
infrastructure could be threatened. Table 2.3 identifies the vegetative associations in the analysis area that
were evaluated for vegetative fuel hazards. Historically, fire played an important role in keeping woody
species in check and light ground fuels low (USIDI BLM 2004b:3 -8; Gori and Enquist 2003). However, with
the suppression of natural wildfires within the last century, fire return intervals have increased, increasing
fuel loading. In addition, invasions by nonnative plant species (such as saltcedar, buffelgrass, red brome,
and Mediterranean grass) have introduced fire into desert areas that were formerly nearly fire -proof and
converted them into grasslands (Schmid and Rogers 1988; Stevens and Falk 2009), and saltcedar is
invading riparian areas and increasing fuel load and volatility (Brooks 2008).
The vegetation associations within the analysis area were identified and mapped using Southwest
Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) data (USGS 2005; NatureServe 2004) (Figures 2.2a- 2.2c).
These datasets provide the level of landscape description and vegetative landcover detail necessary for
aligning wildland fuel flammability with existing vegetation. The major distinguishing types for each Pima
County vegetation association were field verified.
Vegetation data for the community of Summerhaven and the Mt. Lemmon WUI was derived from the
Catalina Rincon FireScape program. The current vegetative landscape of the Catalina Mountains has been
mapped in great detail according to several different criteria. The recent work by the FireScape program
allows for much greater detail and fire behavior modeling based on current landcover,
geology, topography, and land form. The Core Teams incorporated the data from ecological
units, which are patches of the landscape that share similar vegetation cover
( http : / /www.azfirescape.org /catalina /landscape types into the risk assessment of the Mt. Lemmon WUI.
This detailed data allows for site - specific fire behavior modeling within each ecological unit. Each separate
ecological unit then may show several fuel models based on these varying biophysical conditions. The data
used to map FireScape products (for example, fuel models, fire behavior models) were obtained from the
Catalina Rincon FireScape program and are embedded in Table 2.3 to be comparable with SWReGAP
landcover data used for other community WUI landcover descriptions, fire behavior models, and vegetative
fuel risk ratings.
The existing arrangement and flammability of vegetation associations largely determine wildland fire
behavior. Areas at risk from wildland fire were determined by evaluating vegetative fuels on federal and
nonfederal land in the analysis area through spatial analysis using geographic information system (GIS)
technology in a series of overlays. For the analysis area, the vegetation type, density, and distribution were
analyzed to help categorize areas at highest risk for fire intensity and spread from wildland fuels.
Vegetative data for predicting wildfire behavior was quantified by developing descriptions of associated fuel
properties that are described as fuel models. The fuel model (as described by Anderson 1982; Scott and
Burgan 2005) and vegetation fuel fire -risk rating within the analysis area are shown in Table 2.3.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 29
O
C)
CD
0
0
(1)
0
0
Z3
C/)
(1)
0
CD
CT
C:)
CA)
CA)
C:)
mn
(D
CL
0
0
(D
M%
U)
0
Wh
rMIL
=r
(D
0
0
IFEIL
C
Z
0
Mi
IFEIL
=r
Toltec
M Encinai Oa Woodland
Pond@ ro&a Pine Mix eci Con ifar
IM Barren Land&, Non-specific
Arizona C1 0
i Recentl Burned
Cha parrs I
Mes Upland Scrub
0
-Chhh valh Lien Mixed Desert Scru b
North America ri Wa rm Dose rt Rips rian
Riparian Wxdlaind and Shrti bland
Pfcacho
mes ue
Ses ml.Chesert G rassla nd and Steppe
Mammoth
FrIendl Corners
Golder Ranch Oracle
h>
SOnDiran PaIGverde-Mixed Cacti Desert
Developed, Medium - H Intensit
Pine-Oa k. Forest and Wood land
San Manuel
Developed, Open Space - Low intensit
Pin iper Woodla n d
; cle
0 2-5 5 10
Red Rock
Jun "10
ractilo 1
Avra Va.11e
:3
(n
(n
Frnaf Count
------------------------------
0
10
Golder Ranch
E
Pima Count
C1 a 51-0 n
-Cat a I i n
M
=
6-
as m merh aver I U
Aura Va 11e Redln
RE111to "Tortolita Mt Lemmon iso
0
r
Bell Av ra Va I le y North West
A
Cascabel
6 Q Casa !; Adobes
P ic t ure
0
&
a ro
Sagu Pic Cato liana Fuot h 11 Is Cascabel
in ells C)
C
National Park
Catalina Foot ills
West
Tan Verde
T - sun
' 6-
se fn E5t T ucson and 0_
, ite s
0
Tohono Oc)dharr 506 son. South Tucson 0
Plp k
Three Points Mescal-H
I We rn o ri
Valencia West Littletown Rinco n Valle
20IXi EST, Cop 3 DeLorme
Pas -Ya Hci Xavier S 9 p r i g ht.(L
n
A ulture
M Encinai Oa Woodland
Pond@ ro&a Pine Mix eci Con ifar
IM Barren Land&, Non-specific
Juniper Savanna
i Recentl Burned
Cha parrs I
Mes Upland Scrub
Recentl Mined or Qua rriied
-Chhh valh Lien Mixed Desert Scru b
North America ri Wa rm Dose rt Rips rian
Riparian Wxdlaind and Shrti bland
re4D5otebu5li.V*i1te Sursa DeseFt
mes ue
Ses ml.Chesert G rassla nd and Steppe
dru
Open Water
L
SOnDiran PaIGverde-Mixed Cacti Desert
Developed, Medium - H Intensit
Pine-Oa k. Forest and Wood land
Scrub
Developed, Open Space - Low intensit
Pin iper Woodla n d
cn
(j)
(1)
0
0
:3
PIMA COUNTY VEGETATION
Map index
0
3
2
L
(n
(n
=1 M l ie S
cn
0 2-5 5 10
Q_
:3
(n
(n
0
C)
0
0
(1)
0
0
Sv
Z3
C/)
(1)
0
CT
C:)
CA)
CA)
mn
cc
(D
Fr
CL
0
0
(D
M%
U)
0
Muh
rEIL
=r
(D
0
0
rMIL
C
Cn
0
r.
rMIL
=r
Sa n
Coyote Field Pan Yak
C,Ha Iva n a 144'kya r,;
tt Pea k
Kitt Peak
Pi Mil Chluli Shaik
C
Mtoi6m
0_�ahachii ICI iliuk
Robles Junction I
Rincon Valle
Three Points
Sumrnilt Vail
San Xavier
Tucson and
L
J L' So6 n th Tucso
Mount d rP% Pantano
Xavier
Sahuarita
Three Points Corona de Tucson
rr-: Cz. 6"Mril h An Ce -11 1 a
a,AW
Oro Blanco Ric Rico Northwest
RIO Rico
Rub Calab asa!51. H a rshaw
1140 KIM ZPUUL WeSs
Sunn
-5 2009 E S R 1, Cop -
g ht`,�,,' 201 3 De Lorj __ J' ��L
Beyerville Cop I , i
A Encinal Oak V;bodlland Pond@ rosa Pine Mix ad Con ff er
Barren Lairds, Non-specific Juniper Savanna Recentl Burned
Cha parrs I Mesc Upland Scfub Recentl Mined of Qua rried
Chih valh Lean Mixed Desert Scrtl b Noft America n Wa rm Dese rt Rapa ream Riparian dland and Shrti bland
Mes Ekr
Creosote busli-Vftlte Sursa Desert Ses ml-Desert G rassia nd and Steppe
gra Open Mter Sonoran PaIGverde-Mixed Cacti Desert
Developed, Medium - 111 Intensit Pine-Oa k Forest and Mod la nd Scrub
Developed, Open Space - Low intensit Pin iper Woodla n
U)
(1)
0
0
:3
P1 MA COU NTY VEG ETATI ON
C
Corona De Tucson Derls0n
Map Index
valle�v Cuntinentall
4-
r k
Green Va I le s , Elep h a n.t Hea
10
3
an Heir net Peak
G�ezite 0le E! =
Bone -da-El 1 0
ti
du _Z_
rivaca Junct i on P ma Co-unt
- - - - --
-- r ----
j Arnado Santa Cruz Count I hetstone
Sonoita
CD
0 2-5 15 10
'Ei I
Huachuca CIt
Tubas
0"
C rMen
a
iumacacorl-Carrner.,
Tunnacacori
Sferra Vista
I r
I
L
I
17 Pata Ca nelo I
Oro Blanco Ric Rico Northwest
RIO Rico
Rub Calab asa!51. H a rshaw
1140 KIM ZPUUL WeSs
Sunn
-5 2009 E S R 1, Cop -
g ht`,�,,' 201 3 De Lorj __ J' ��L
Beyerville Cop I , i
A Encinal Oak V;bodlland Pond@ rosa Pine Mix ad Con ff er
Barren Lairds, Non-specific Juniper Savanna Recentl Burned
Cha parrs I Mesc Upland Scfub Recentl Mined of Qua rried
Chih valh Lean Mixed Desert Scrtl b Noft America n Wa rm Dese rt Rapa ream Riparian dland and Shrti bland
Mes Ekr
Creosote busli-Vftlte Sursa Desert Ses ml-Desert G rassia nd and Steppe
gra Open Mter Sonoran PaIGverde-Mixed Cacti Desert
Developed, Medium - 111 Intensit Pine-Oa k Forest and Mod la nd Scrub
Developed, Open Space - Low intensit Pin iper Woodla n
U)
(1)
0
0
:3
P1 MA COU NTY VEG ETATI ON
C
Map Index
0
3
=1 Miles
CD
0 2-5 15 10
Q_
Sy
(n
(n
_U
3 .
W
0
O
C�
3
3
C=
UG
CD
O
0
n
O
Sy
N
3
CT
(D
O
W
W
N
_71
ca
N
C�
CL
0
O
�D
N
O
h
IFEDL
S
M
MCI
3
2)
0
O
IFEIL
C
U)
IFEIL
Ch Ilds
- - -- Pinaa ClUirt y _ - �,torth
- ------ _---- -_—a -�_— - -�_ --
uentar,a
P ima County
C
Y Hickhwan NolipaY Kara Anela m
Vaya Chin , )
Santa Rosa
0 Palo Verde Stand
charco
Why
Si l Nak
makgam;Havoka Hol 01dak
0 0
6 Sweetwater
Pfa Pik
) Lukeville
Lu 4ce�ri l�l
AM Ak Chin
Sells
Ku pk G u Ci dak '" I Artesa)
0
CO MIC
a
o py rl ght.0 2009 ESR1, Co py rig ht; 0 20 13 D1e LiD rme
n
O
Agriculture EnfinaI Oak dland Ponderosa Pine Mixed Donfifer
Barren Lands, Non- specific Jumper Savanna Recently Burned
Chs parrs I mesq Upland Scrut Recently Mire or Quarr
Ghi h uah u an Mixed Desert Scru � North America n Wa rm )ese rt Rips rears Riparia rk "U diand and Shr•u bl and
mesq uite We
Creo5ot ebush -VVh ite Su rsag a Desert Se mi.DeFert G rassla nd and Steppe
;crab Open Water
So noran Pa love rde -Mixed Cacti Desert
Developed, Medium - H :oh intensity Pine -Oa k Forest and Mod land � Scrub
Developed, Open Space - Lour I ntensity CM Pinyon - Juniper Woodland
Narcho 5antoS
Qui jotaa
Sikul Hinatk
Litt I e Tucson, San Luis
F 1, Santa Cr
Peach Pu CF resna I Canis n Cam oh a h i
Plato Vaya Val nom ' Ku�i TAU RiSinernc P sin rmc 4;
Hall Murk V Ka lhon K L(S
C�
PIMA COU VEGETATION
n
Map Index.
n
O
3
3
j2
=3
0
0 2-5 5 10
(D
Sy
S?
Sy
(n'
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Fire Intensity
Flame Level from Fire Flame Length (ft) Fire Intensity Level
Wildfire Risk Anderson Fire - Danger Length Fire - Danger Rate Of Spread Behavior Low Dead Fuel from Fire Behavior Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Fuel Type Vegetation Association Rating Fuel Model Rating Model (ft) Rating Model ft/hr (ch /hr) Fuel Model Moisture Fuel Modele Low Dead Fuel Moisture Acre ( %)
Desert Shrub -Scrub Creosotebush, mixed desert, L
and thorn scrub
Sonoran paloverde -mixed cacti M
desert scrub
(25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
1,2 T
4-6 4
1,3 L and T
4-6 3
2310 -5150
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
80,250
(35 -78)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -15)
(5 %)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1,1
SH1, 7 -132 (0 -2)
2310 -5150
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1,1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
641,402
(35 -78)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -120)
(41%)
GR4
1.0 -22
GR4, 1 -4
GR4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 — >6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -132 (0 -2)
SH4
1.0 -16
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 2 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 2 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL2
4.0 — >25.0
TL2, 2 -6
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL6
1.0 -7.0
TL6, 1 -4
TL6, 2-1650(2-25)
TU2
1.0 -8.0
TU2, 1 -5
TU2, 0 -5,280 (0 -80)
2110 -5150
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
99,170
(32 -78)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0.1 -1.7)
(6 %)
2310 -5150
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
(35 -78)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -120)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 2 -5
GS2, 0 — >6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0.1 -1.7)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
Creosotebush -white bursage desert L 1 L and T 4 -6 3
scrub
Chihuahuan Mixed - desert scrub L 1,2 L and T 4-6 3
(1,2,3) d
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 33
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Fire Intensity
Flame
Level from
Fire
Flame Length (ft)
Fire Intensity Level
Wildfire Risk Anderson
Fire - Danger
Length
Fire - Danger
Rate Of Spread Behavior
Low Dead Fuel
from Fire Behavior
Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Fuel Type
Vegetation Association
Rating Fuel Model
Rating Model
(ft)
Rating Model
ft/hr (ch /hr)
Fuel Model
Moisture
Fuel Modele
Low Dead Fuel Moisture
Acre ( %)
Shrublands
Mesquite upland scrub
M 1,3
B and T
4 -12
6
5150 -6860
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
230,189
Mesquite grasslands
(78 -104)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -120)
(15 %)
(9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) d
GR4
1.0 -22
GR4, 1 -6
GR4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
GR7
5.0-45
GR7, 3 -6
GR7, 1- 33,000 (0 -500)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0— 2)
SH2
1.0 -4.5
SH2, 1 -3
SH2, 0 -1188 (0 -18)
SH4
1.0 -16
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL2
4.0 — >25.0
TL2, 3 -6
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TU2
1.0 -8.0
TU2, 1 -4
TU2, 0 -5,280 (0 -80)
Grasslands
Semi - desert grassland and steppe
L 1,2
F and T
4-6
3
2310 -5150
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
70,377
(35 -78)
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
(4 %)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -120)
GR4
1.0 -22
GR4, 1 -6
Gr4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
Woodlands
Chaparral
H 4,6
B and T
6 -19
4 -6
2110 -4950
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
12,299
(19) d
(32 -75)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -120)
(1 %)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0— 2)
SH4
1.0 -16
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -4
TL8, 0 -2640 (0-40)
TU2
1.0 -8.0
TU2, 1 -4
TU2, 0 -5,280 (0 -80)
Encinal Oak Woodland
M 1,3
B and T
2.6-6
4
495 -2310
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
34,453
Desert oak transition
(7.5 -35)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7920 (0 -15)
(1 %)
(4, 5, 6, 9) d
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0. -2)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3 0 -198 (0 -3)
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September
2013
34
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Fire Intensity
Flame Level from Fire Flame Length (ft) Fire Intensity Level
Wildfire Risk Anderson Fire - Danger Length Fire - Danger Rate Of Spread Behavior Low Dead Fuel from Fire Behavior Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Fuel Type Vegetation Association Rating Fuel Model Rating Model (ft) Rating Model ft/hr (ch /hr) Fuel Model Moisture Fuel Modele Low Dead Fuel Moisture Acre ( %)
Pinyon juniper Woodland H 2,3 F
Oak-pinyon-juniper woodlands
(20,21,22,23 ) d
Juniper savanna M 2,6 F
Juniper mesquite grasslands
6 -19 4 -6 2110 -4950
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
12,815
(32 -75)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(1 %)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0 -2)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3, 0-198(0-3)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -5
TL8. 0 -2640 (0-40)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
6 -8 4 2110 -2310
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
639
(32 -75)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(0 %)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0 -2)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3, 0-198(0-3)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 35
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Fire Intensity
Flame Level from Fire Flame Length (ft) Fire Intensity Level
Wildfire Risk Anderson Fire - Danger Length Fire - Danger Rate Of Spread Behavior Low Dead Fuel from Fire Behavior Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Fuel Type Vegetation Association Rating Fuel Model Rating Model (ft) Rating Model ft/hr (ch /hr) Fuel Model Moisture Fuel Modele Low Dead Fuel Moisture Acre ( %)
Timber Ponderosa Pine
Mixed conifer
(16, 17, 24) d
H 2,9 E and T 2.6 — >8 4 -5
495 -2310
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
4,624
(7.5 -35)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(0.2 %)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0— 2)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 — >25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3 0 -198 (0 -3)
TL6
1.0 -7.0
TL6, 1 -4
TL6 0 -1650 (2 -25)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -5
TL8, 0 -2,649 (0 -40)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
TU2
1.0 -8.0
TU2, 1 -4
TU2, 0 -5,280 (0 -80)
TU5
2.0 -13.0
TU5, 2 -6
TU5, 0 -2,772 (0-42)
495 -2310
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
3,323
(7.5 -35)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(0.2 %)
GR4
1.0 -22.0
GR4, 1 -6
GR4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0 -2)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 -25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3, 0 -198 (0 -3)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -4
TL8, 0 -2,649 (0 -40)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
TU5
2.0 -14.0
TU5, 2 -6
TU5, 0 -2,772 (0-42)
Pine -oak Forest and Woodland M 2,9 F and E 2.6 -8 4 -5
( 8 ) d
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 36
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Fuel Type Vegetation Association
Wildfire Risk
Rating
Anderson
Fuel Model
Fire - Danger
Rating Model
Flame
Length
(ft)
Fire Intensity
Level from Fire
Fire - Danger Rate Of Spread Behavior
Rating Model ft/hr (ch /hr) Fuel Model
Flame Length (ft)
Low Dead Fuel
Moisture
Fire Intensity Level
from Fire Behavior
Fuel Modele
Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Low Dead Fuel Moisture
Acre ( %)
Deciduous North American Warm Desert
H
6,9
E and T
2.6 -12
6
495 -2110
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
10,319
Southwest Riparian Riparian Mesquite Bosque
(7.5 -32)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(0.6 %)
GR4
1.0 -22.0
GR4, 1 -6
GR4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0 -2)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 -25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3, 0 -198 (0 -3)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -4
TL8, 0 -2,649 (0 -40)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
Invasive Southwest Riparian
H
4
G and T
19
6
4950
GR1
0.5 -1.7
GR1, 1
GR1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
1,944
Woodland and Shrub
(75)
GR2
1.0 -8.0
GR2, 1 -4
GR2, 0 -7,920 (0 -15)
(0.1%)
(18) d
GR4
1.0 -22
GR4, 1 -6
GR4, 0- 33,000 (0 -500)
GS1
1.0 -6.0
GS1, 1 -3
GS1, 0 -3960 (0 -60)
GS2
1.5 — >10.0
GS2, 1 -5
GS2, 0 -6600 (0 -100)
Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
H
8 and 9
E and T
2.6-6
4 -6
495 -2110
SH1
0.2 -0.7
SH1, 1
SH1, 7 -112 (0— 2)
(18) d
(7.5 -32)
SH4
1.0 -16.0
SH4, 1 -6
SH4, 0 -11880 (0 -180)
SH5
4.0 -25.0
SH5, 3 -6
SH5, 0 -16500 (0 -250)
SH7
4.0 — >25.0
SH7, 3 -6
SH 7, 0 -11889 (0 -180)
TL1
0.0 -0.5
TL1, 1
TL1, 0 -66 (0 -1)
TL2
0.3 -1.0
TL2, 1
TL2, 0 -132 (0 -2)
TL3
0.4 -1.3
TL3, 1
TL3 0 -198 (0 -3)
TL6
1.0 -7.0
TL6, 1 -4
TL6, TL6 0 -1650 (2 -25)
TL8
1.0 -8.0
TL8, 1 -4
TL8, 0 -2,649 (0 -40)
TU 1
1.0 -4.0
TU 1, 1 -3
TU 1, 0 -990 (0 -15)
TU2
1.0 -8.0
TU2, 1 -4
TU2, 0 -5,280 (0 -80)
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 37
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Table 2.3. Fuel Model, Fire - Danger Ratings, and Intensity Levels on Vegetative Associations in the WUI
Fuel Type Vegetation Association
Wildfire Risk
Rating
Anderson
Fuel Model
Fire - Danger
Rating Model
Flame
Length
(ft)
Fire Intensity
Level from Fire
Fire - Danger Rate Of Spread Behavior
Rating Model ft/hr (ch /hr) Fuel Model
Flame Length (ft)
Low Dead Fuel
Moisture
Fire Intensity Level
from Fire Behavior
Fuel Modele
Rate of Spread ft /hr (ch /hr)—
Low Dead Fuel Moisture
Acre ( %)
Other Agriculture
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB3
NA
NA
NA
45,269
( %)
Developed, Open Space —Low
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB1
NA
NA
NA
117,627
Intensity
(8 %)
Developed, Medium —High Intensity
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB1
NA
NA
NA
157,603
(10 %)
Barren Lands, Non - Specific
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB9
NA
NA
NA
18,745
( %)
Recently mined or quarried
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB9
NA
NA
NA
36,186
( %)
Recently Burned
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB9
NA
NA
NA
1,847
( %)
Open water
L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NB9
NA
NA
NA
513
( %)
Total
100%
Source: National Fire Danger Rating System (USDA FS 1983; Burgan 1988).
a L = low, M = moderate, H = high, NA = not applicable.
b See Appendix B for the National Fire Danger Rating System definitions.
° Fire behavior fuel models are designed for wildland vegetation and do not accurately predict fire behavior when structures are involved.
d Ecological unit map legends included in vegetation associations from http: / /www.azfirescape.orci/catalina /ecounit map
e Fire Intensity Level (FIL) an expression of fireline intensity based on flame length as an indicator of fire intensity, FIL1 = 0 -2' Flame length (FL in feet): FIL2 = 2.1-4' FL; FIL3 = 4.1 -6' FL; FIL4 = 6.1 -8' FL; FIL5 = 8.1 -12' FL, FILE > 12' FL
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 38
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Arizona State Forester (2007:1) defines the term at -risk community as follows:
EVALUATE RISK TO COMMUNITIES: Not all structures and /or communities that reside in an
"interface" area are at significant risk from wildland fire. It is a combination of factors, including the
composition and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions, topography, density of
structures, and response capability that determines the relative risk to an interface community. The
criteria listed below are intended to assist interagency teams at the state level in identifying the
communities within their jurisdiction that are at significant risk from wildland fire. The application of
these risk factors should allow for greater nationwide consistency in determining the need and
priorities for Federal projects and funding.
Wildland fire behavior potential in the analysis area is consistent with the Risk Classification Situations 1, 2,
and 3 as described by the Arizona State Forester (2007:1 -2):
Risk Factor 1: Fire Behavior Potential
Situation 1 : In these communities, continuous fuels are in close proximity to structures. The
composition of surrounding fuels is conducive to crown fires or high intensity surface fires. Likely
conditions include steep slopes, predominantly south aspects, dense fuels, heavy duff, prevailing
wind exposure and /or ladder fuels that reduce fire fighting effectiveness. There is a history of large
fire and /or high fire occurrence.
Situation 2 : In these communities, intermittent fuels are in proximity to structures. Likely conditions
include moderate slopes and /or rolling terrain, broken moderate fuels, and some ladder fuels. The
composition of surrounding fuels is conducive to torching, spotting, and /or moderate intensity
surface fires. These conditions may lead to moderate fire fighting effectiveness. There is a history of
some large fires and /or moderate fire occurrence.
Situation 3 : In these communities, fine and /or sparse fuels surround structures. There is infrequent
wind exposure and flat terrain to gently rolling terrain. The composition of surrounding fuels is
conducive to low intensity surface fires. Fire fighting generally is highly effective. There is no large
fire history and /or low fire occurrence.
Pima County is composed of three major land resource areas (Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS] 2011): Southeast Arizona Basin and Range, Sonoran Basin and Range, and Mogollon Transition.
The Southeastern Arizona Basin and Range division is composed of mountain ranges that trend southeast
to northwest and has relatively smooth valleys between the mountains extending to the Continental Divide
in New Mexico. The Sonoran Basin and Range region is in the Sonoran Desert section of the Basin and
Range province of the Intermontane Plateaus and is characterized by many short, fault -block mountain
ranges trending southeast to northeast that rise abruptly from the smooth, gently sloping desert valley
floors. Elevation ranges from 980 to 3,600 feet in most areas, with mountains reaching 4,590 feet. The
Mogollon Transition region is within the Mexican Highland section of the Basin and Range province of the
Intermontane Plateaus. The area is characterized by canyons and structural troughs and valleys with
elevations ranging from 3,000 to 5,500 feet in most areas, with mountains reaching 5,100 to 7,500 feet.
Vegetative production within these major land resource areas ranges from over 4,000 lb per acre in
highest - elevation sites in the >12 -inch precipitation zone during favorable precipitation years to <50 lb per
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 39
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
acre in lower desert scrub — mudstone hills range sites in the <7 -inch precipitation zone during unfavorable
precipitation years. Precipitation ranges from 7 to 14 inches annually though as much as 20 inches of
precipitation may occur in highest elevations. More than half of the precipitation occurs as high- intensity
convective thunderstorms during July, August and September producing a winter - summer rainfall ratio of
40:60. Warm- season rains (July— September) originate in the Gulf of Mexico and are usually brief and
intense. Cool- season rains (December— March) originating in the Pacific Ocean are generally frontal,
widespread, long, and less intense. May and June are the driest months of the year, with many natural fire
ignitions occurring before the monsoon rains. Humidity is generally low, with mostly mild winters and hot
summers in lower elevations to mild summers and cold winters in higher elevations. During May and June
temperatures can exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Cool- season vegetation growth begins in early spring
and matures in early summer. Warm- season vegetation initiates growth after the summer rains and may
remain green throughout the year in lower elevations.
The analysis area includes 6 major vegetative fuel types composed of 20 major vegetation associations
(including agricultural lands), 3 mostly nonvegetation associations, and 2 open -space residential
developed landcovers, recently burned lands, as well as open water (NatureServe 2004,
http : / /www.azfirescape.org /catalina /landscape types Each vegetative community is assigned to an array
of fuel models that predicts the rate of spread, flame length, and fire - intensity levels possible for each
vegetation association during an average fire season under average weather conditions. Assigning a fuel
model to each vegetation association within the analysis area will help predict wildfire behavior and thus
proper suppression response (for detailed fuel model descriptions, see Anderson 1982; Scott and Burgan
2005).
The mean fire return interval is highly variable among vegetation associations across the analysis area.
Habitat or stand replacement wildfires or wildfires resulting in a major loss of habitat components, in
conjunction with drought, will be reduced in frequency and intensity in lower desert habitats. However,
moist periods may increase fire frequency and intensity in desert habitats due to increased production of
annual grasses and forbs and increased annual growth of perennial grasses and shrubs (FRCC
Interagency Working Group 2005b), in synergy with increased production of invasive grasses and forbs.
Total wildland fuel load ranges from less than 500 lb per acre in desert and scrub /shrub types to over 20
tons /acre in dense woodland habitats. Buffelgrass fuel loads have been documented to reach 4 tons per
acre in undisturbed desert in Saguaro National Park and over 5 tons per acre in old agricultural fields in
Avra Valley (McDonald 2009).
Vegetation Associations
The Desert Shrub -Scrub vegetation association is the largest natural landcover within the analysis area; it
occurs on drier upland sites and includes areas of bare ground and rock habitats supporting a variety of
grass, herbaceous, scrub, and shrub species (Photo 2.1). This major vegetative fuel type ranges from
lower desertscrub - creosotebush - bursage associations to mixed desert scrub types to paloverde -mixed
cacti desertscrub association. The Desert Shrub -Scrub association constitutes 820,822 acres (52 %) of
WUI acres. During normal rainfall years and the typical fire season, the majority of the lowest - elevation
associations (mixed desert scrub and creosotebush -white bursage associations) do not support high -
intensity wildfires with high rates of spread, and many wildfires self- extinguish from a lack of contiguous
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 40
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
ground or aerial fuels. However, during periods of extraordinary rainfall in the fall, winter, and spring
months, the growth of winter annuals and forbs, in synergy with the presence of invasive grasses and forbs
(for example, buffelgrass, Mediterranean grass, red brome, and mustards), can produce areas with the
potential for extreme rates of spread and enough intensity to ignite overstory vegetation. Buffelgrass is
increasing at an exponential rate in Sonoran Desert habitats, and it responds mostly to precipitation
received in summer months (Olsson et al. 2012).
Photo 2.1. Desert Shrub -Scrub
Vegetation Association
The Shrublands vegetation association includes the mesquite upland scrub and mesquite grasslands
occurring in the upland vegetative type within the analysis area, accounting for 230,189 acres (15 %) of
WU I acres (Photo 2.2). The xeroriparian area within this association provides movement corridors and
foraging areas for a variety of wildlife species. Adjacent vegetation associations are often a mix of
semidesert grassland and desert scrub. The understory of the shrub types will vary from a mix of nonnative
grass with some areas of native grasses, depending on canopy closure. Areas of higher canopy closure
( >60 %) support little herbaceous and perennial grass cover, which limits fine fuels needed for fire laddering
and limits rate of spread. Stands of mature upland mesquite habitats can include trees with trunks and
limbs greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height, providing habitat for a variety of cavity- nesting bird
species. This shrubland association also provides recreational use, day use, and camping areas. Plant
communities dominated by mature mesquites may include native or invaded grass understory, creating
areas of open woodlands and savannas to areas of high canopy.
A major vegetative association of shrubland fuel types includes Mogollon chaparral. This ecological system
occurs across central Arizona, western New Mexico, southwestern Utah, and southeast Nevada. It often
dominates along the mid - elevation transition from the Mojave, Sonoran, and northern Chihuahuan deserts.
It occurs on foothills, mountain slopes, and canyons in drier habitats below the encinal woodlands. Stands
are often associated with more xeric and coarse - textured substrates such as limestone, basalt, or alluvium,
especially in transition areas with more mesic woodlands. The moderate to dense shrub canopy includes
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 41
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
species such as oak, sumac, and ceanothus. Most chaparral species are fire - adapted, resprouting
vigorously after burning or producing fire - resistant seeds. Substrates are normally shallow /rocky and
shaley soils at lower elevations.
Photo 2.2. Shrublands Vegetation Association
The Woodlands vegetation association includes the chaparral, pinyon - juniper, oak - pinyon - juniper, Madrean
pine -oak, juniper savannas, juniper mesquite grasslands, transitional desert oak, encinal oak, and desert
oak woodlands (Photo 2.3). The Madrean pine -oak forest and woodland are composed of Madrean pines
including Arizona pine (Pinus arizonica), Apache pine (Pinus engelmannii), and Chihuahua pine (Pinus
leiophylla) with an understory of chaparral species. Fires in the Madran Pine -oak forest and woodlands
may be more frequent than ponderosa pine forests and woodlands (NatureServe 2004).The woodland
association fuel type covers 60,206 acres (4 %) of WUI acres and is the third largest upland vegetative fuel
type within the analysis area.
The woodland vegetation associations include Madrean encinal oak woodlands, which are the defining
feature of the Sky Islands mountains (Governor's Forest Health Councils 2007: 107) occurring on foothills,
canyons, bajadas, and plateaus in Mexico, extending north into sub - Mogollon Arizona. These woodlands
are dominated by Madrean evergreen oaks along a low -slope transition normally occurring at higher
elevations and within moister habitats than Mogollon chaparral (Photo 2.4). Lower - elevation stands are
typically open woodlands or savannas where they transition into desert grasslands, chaparral, or,
sometimes, desertscrub. Common evergreen oak species include Emory, Arizona white, and scrub live
oak. Other species include Manzanita, chaparral species, and, at higher elevations, pinyon and juniper
species. The grass layer usually prominent between trees is grassland or steppe that is dominated by
warm - season grasses typical of semidesert grasslands. This association can also be composed of stands
dominated by shrubby Madrean oaks, typically with a strong grass layer and, in some instances, invasive
grasses and forbs. In transition areas with drier chaparral systems, stands of chaparral are not dominated
by the Madrean encinal association; however, it may extend down along drainages.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 42
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
P q
a
p ' War 43W
•`,a r
. atey
s
Y _v
Photo 2.3. Woodlands Vegetation Association
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 43
Photo 2.4. Madrean Oak /Conifer /Manzanita on Hills
with Extensive Rock Outcrops
( http: / /www.azfirescape.org /content/
madrean oakconifermanzanita hills and mountains extensive rock outcrops
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Deciduous Southwest Riparian vegetation association consists of the North American warm - desert
riparian mesquite bosque, southwest invasive riparian woodland and shrub, and riparian woodland and
shrubland associations (Photo 2.5). This vegetative association covers 12,263 acres (less than 1%) of WUI
acres. The Pima County analysis area includes the riparian corridor of the Santa Cruz and a small section
of the San Pedro River near the community of Redington. This ecological system consists of low- elevation
riparian corridors along intermittent streams in valleys of southern Arizona into adjacent New Mexico and
Mexico. Dominant trees include mesquite species, and dominant shrubs include desert broom and desert
willow. Vegetation, especially the mesquites, tap groundwater below the streambed when surface flows
stop with high local densities of mesquites being dependent on an annual rise in the water table for growth
and reproduction. This association can be intermixed with an understory of grasses and shrubs and often
includes areas of near monocultures of saltcedar. This vegetation association may be underrepresented
because of some xeroriparian association acres included with the shrubland associations. In general,
riparian areas have characteristics that reduce the frequency and severity of fire relative to the surrounding
uplands. These characteristics include less steep slopes, surface water, saturated soils, shade, fewer
lightning ignitions, cooler air temperatures, lower daily maximum temperature, higher relative humidity,
higher fuel moisture content, and lower wind speed. However, there tend to be more human - caused
ignitions in these areas. Late seral -stage riparian vegetation supports wildland fire similar to the
surrounding potential natural vegetation group (PNVG) when a stand replacement fire occurs in
surrounding PNVG during extreme drought and wind events. Late seral -stage riparian and bosque habitats
can support nonreplacement fire in greater proportion of total fire frequency than surrounding
PNVGs (FRCC Interagency Working Group 2005b: PNVG Code RIPA).
Yl� . AA
RM1��� v � F.• Ws
f 4
yf '{ v
• � e 4r
p f
h l 4 �� �
1. r .
A I X !I
Photo 2.5. Deciduous Southwest Riparian
Vegetation Association
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 44
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Timber -Type vegetation association is found only in the Mt. Lemmon WUI but does occur in higher
elevations of the Sky Islands throughout Pima County. The timber fuel type is composed of the mixed
conifer and ponderosa pine vegetation associations (Photo 2.6). The mixed conifer vegetation group is a
transitional forest and therefore best thought of as a continuum that follows a moisture gradient driven by
elevation and aspect. The mixed conifer associations will have less ponderosa pine than the warm /dry
slopes and exposures; however, ponderosa pine will occur in small groups or isolated places usually in
open areas, at the edges of meadows, and along ridges (LFRA
The mixed conifer association is found along the summit of the Santa Catalina Mountains ranging from
7,500 feet elevation to the summit at 9,157 feet. About two - thirds of the mixed conifer association occurs
on 18 percent or steeper north- facing slopes dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir
(Abies concolor), and southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis). South - facing slopes and flats make up
the remaining one -third of the mixed conifer association and include areas of primarily Ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa) and white pine with silverleaf oak (Quercus hypoleucoides). Many of these drier stands
burned during the 2003 Aspen fire, including the southern aspects of Marshall Gulch, Carter Canyon, and
Upper Sabino Canyon along the highway from Summerhaven to Ski Valley, as well as the slopes below
Sykes Knob and Inspiration Rock (http://www.azfirescape.org). Ponderosa pine associations will have a
dominant overstory of ponderosa pine with mixed co- dominant and understory vegetation associations
such as silverleaf oak, netleaf oak (Quercus rugosa), Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), and Emory
oak (Quercus emoryi) or a grassy understory of bunchgrasses such as Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica),
mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), and June grass (Koeleria macrantha). The ponderosa vegetation
associations range from approximately 4,875 feet to over 8,600 feet in elevation on a variety of topographic
features, including mountains, mesas, and canyons. In the Catalinas the ponderosa pine association
includes the town of Summerhaven and upper Sabino Canyon.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 45
Photo 2.6. Timber -Type Vegetation Association
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Desert Grasslands vegetation association is primarily represented by the semi - desert grassland and
steppe association (Photo 2.7). This is the smallest of the naturally occurring vegetative associations,
covering 70,377 acres (4 %) of WUI acres. This ecological system consists of a broadly defined desert
grassland, mixed shrub - succulent, or tree savannas that are typical of the borderlands of Arizona, New
Mexico, and northern Mexico, but it extends west to the Sonoran Desert, north into the Mogollon Rim, and
throughout much of the Chihuahuan Desert. It is found on gently sloping bajadas that supported frequent
fire throughout the Sky Islands and on mesas and steeper piedmont and foothill slopes in the Chihuahuan
Desert. Diverse perennial grasses typically characterize this association. Common grass species include
grama grasses, Eragrostis intermedia, Muhlenbergia porteri, Muhlenbergia setifolia, and succulent species
of Agave, and Yucca, and tall shrub /short tree species of mesquite and various oaks. Many of the historical
desert grassland and savanna areas have been converted, some to mesquite upland scrub types from
woody species invasions through intensive grazing and other land uses.
Photo 2.7. Desert Grasslands Vegetation Association
Included within the total analysis area are residential and open -space community lands occurring in the
developed areas of the community. As depicted in Figures 2.2a -2.2c, the SWReGAP landcover shows that
within the CWPP approximately 275,230 acres (18 %) of lands evaluated for wildland fire potential are
"developed," with at least 20 percent of the landcover consisting of nonpervious surfaces. However, private
lands within the analysis area account for approximately 46 percent of all WUI lands. Therefore, much of
the analysis area lands analyzed include private lands that are predominantly naturally landscaped.
Developed, Open Space —Low Intensity lands include areas with some constructed surfaces, but mostly
consist of native vegetation associations. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 percent of total
cover and most commonly include large -lot single - family housing units or multiple -acre private lands in
single ownership, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion
control, or aesthetic purposes. These areas most commonly include single - family housing units.
Developed, Medium —High Intensity lands include areas with a mixture of constructed materials and
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 46
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
vegetation. Impervious surface accounts for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover. These areas most
commonly include single - family housing units, including highly developed areas where people reside or
work in high numbers examples include apartment complexes, and commercial /industrial areas. These
lands are generally considered at low risk for wildland fire. However, the threat of fire (structural or wildland
ignition) spreading from developed lands to wildlands has been considered in determining risk within the
analysis area. In addition, wildland fires can ignite areas with high- density homes, and the structures
themselves can then carry a fire, especially in strong winds (Rehm et al. 2002).
Several fuel hazard components, including vegetation type and density, previously burned areas, and slope
and aspect, were analyzed for wildland fire potential. For example, some areas of the WUI can be heavily
dissected, with some areas having slopes exceeding 20 percent that are heavily vegetated. Slopes greater
than or equal to 20 percent and areas with south -, southwest -, or west - facing slopes in areas of high
wildland fuels were identified as having greater risks because of fuel - ladder fire effects and convectional
preheating of vegetative fuels associated with steep terrain and decreased humidity associated with the
microclimates created by southerly exposed aspects. Areas with moderate fuel hazards on slopes greater
than or equal to 20 percent are considered a high fuel hazard, while the same fuel type on slopes less than
20 percent is still considered a moderate fuel hazard. During extraordinary rainfall years, when rainfall is
above average during the fall, winter, and spring months, increased germination and growth of
Mediterranean grass, and other invasive annual grasses and forbs, can result in more continuous fine fuel
cover. The areas within the WUI that are heavily infested with invasive perennial grasses such as
buffelgrass can have altered fire behavior from increased fuel loading from less than one ton per acre to
over 5 tons per acre. This change in fine -fuel continuity can result in increased flame heights, faster rates
of spread and increased intensity levels in desert shrub -scrub and shrubland habitats that do not normally
sustain wildland fire. These areas of low -risk vegetation associations, including lower- elevation desert
shrub -scrub associations in combination with "thermic semiarid soils" (Hendricks 1985:93), will be favored
by some invasive grasses (Hauser 2008; Rogstad 2008) and will, under these extraordinary circumstances,
become areas of extremely high wildfire risk.
During a normal fire season, low -risk vegetative associations will be enhanced to a moderate level by
influencing effects of slope and aspect; in a similar manner, moderate -risk vegetative associations will
increase to high risk from these same influencing factors. (Figures 2.3a- 2.3c). Other untreated or unburned
areas that fall under the category of moderate ground fuels and that do not overlap areas with steep slopes
or with south, southwest, or west aspects are considered a moderate risk from fuel hazards. All other areas
have a low risk from fuel hazards, including the areas that have been treated or burned within the last
decade. The wildland fuel hazards component influence was compiled to depict areas of high, moderate,
and low wildland fire potential based on vegetation type, density, and arrangement and to show areas with
high wildfire risk and therefore of greater wildland fire risk during years of extraordinary rainfall and
enhanced fire conditions creating extreme fire behavior. Visual representations of these fuel hazard
components during extreme fire seasons are mapped in Figures 2.4a -2.4c. Table 2.4 identifies these
various fuel hazards components and their assigned values.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 47
Cn
CD
3
rn
0
W
00
71
can
N
W
Z
O
�D
1'I
�D
2
N
CL
O
rf
M
0
O
rMIL
C
Z
O
4
Toltec
Ar Izona Cf a }
Rfcacho -
Frfendly Corners
Red Rock
Aura Va I key
Pinal County
Pima County
A.V Va lley
51 Iver.9ell Av r a Va I le
Pipya k
G older Ranch
�7c1(- J'jnct i0
Colder Ranch
rrr YCaca I l n
R11 [to Torto I ita
Ail a rave
N orth West
Co rtaro
lctulre f C _ Cas
0
0
S a g uaro Flea
latranal Dark. f�
1, lop
West
i
I
I
r
Ma mmoth ti
I
I
I
I
I
Sari Manue
1
I
I
I�
�0
I
I
u m merh aver
Cascalbel
r, �e�iingt�r�
Tbhono Oodha
South Tucson Oath I C S
Three Points Mescal -
Drexe `1e rnon
Valencia West Littl+etown Rinc Valley
Pa qa�a- ' qui Drexel Heights` an vier C� yrighty 2009 E R I. C opyrlgh eZ [201 Dc Lurme
Normal bears Fuel Hazard
6 -8
NORMAL YEARS FUEL HAZARD
Map Index.
I
Mile
0 _ 1() � E
Cn
0
0
C)
C)
0
3
3
D
0
3
rn
sv
v
(n
v ell , Catalina Fuot h i l Is
I 1=asca hel
Cata fina Fo othl I I I s
Tanq ue Verde
s ,
Tuc5un
0 I
0
M p
Tucson and
A
E to
Tbhono Oodha
South Tucson Oath I C S
Three Points Mescal -
Drexe `1e rnon
Valencia West Littl+etown Rinc Valley
Pa qa�a- ' qui Drexel Heights` an vier C� yrighty 2009 E R I. C opyrlgh eZ [201 Dc Lurme
Normal bears Fuel Hazard
6 -8
NORMAL YEARS FUEL HAZARD
Map Index.
I
Mile
0 _ 1() � E
Cn
0
0
C)
C)
0
3
3
D
0
3
rn
sv
v
(n
_U
Sv
0
C)
0
CD
0
(1)
0
0
C/)
(1)
0
CD
CT
C:)
CA)
4�1
(D
mn
CB•
r.
Cr
M
Z
0
mn
N
CL
0
h
rMIL
=r
0
0
rMIL
C
%M
Cn
0
r.
rMIL
=r
Robles Junctiojn Rincon Valle
Three Points SummIt Vail
San. Pedro San Xavier
Co Feld Tucson and
( I Pan Tak Soutb Tucson
"Haivana Nak ount
San Xavler
Witt Peak Sa h ua6ta
Jh ua rita Corona de Tu son
C M ) East S Mescal-J6:
Kitt Peak I Corona De Tucson Bensc n
( 0-1
Three Points
C;
Green Valle Continental :3
PiMZ Chiiuli Sh-afk 0
12ft
1 ,oikam Green Valle Elephant Head.
-!(Aachl Miliuk anj Helmet Peak
E
teate Sri lle
1
S000ita-El
ArIv,aca)unction Pima County— dq
1 fnada I
1A Santa Cruz Count whet5tone
Tu b A-C
;asabe czurnen
IrTumacacorii
Tu rinac-aco r i - Ca r mp n
,a
ore Blanco J Rid Rico Northwest
Ric Rico
Rub Ca I abasa S,
�He
Rio Rfco Southwest
Sonofta
El I
Huachuca Cit
C
Si erra Vi sta
Pata Ca nelo I
Harshaw
Sun n
0
"erville 0r)p -Co 2009 ESR1, Cop ht: @ 2013 DeLorme
C/)
(D
0
0
Normal Years Fuel Hazard
1 -2
2 - 6
6-8
NORMAL YEARS FUEL HAZARD
0
Map Index
C)
0
E!
2
(n
(n
(1)
(n
:3 Miles FZ
0 2.5 5 10
Q_
sv
(n
(n
_U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
CD
1<
=:h
0
0
0
0
Sv
V
3
CT
C:)
W
Cn
C:)
71
can
M
F)
Z
0
N
CL
0
Eh
rEP,
=r
M
3
0
0
rMIL
C
%A
U)
rMIL
-.,-----_Plnal Count __ KoMellk
_
Childs Ventana Pima Count
T) Hicklwart Noipa Kam Anegarn
r,7;
Va Chin
Santa Rosa
Palo Verde Stand
Charco
Wh
Sil Nak
0
Mak Havoka Hol 01dakj
0
Narcho Santos
quijotaa
Sikull Hilmatit
r-k
Little Tucson San Loll, Santa Cruz
Peach PU Piato Vaya CFresnal CanOn Comobabi
vainom Ku 0
Pislnern� U ,.4ul Tatk
0 Pfsinfmc�
Hall Murk Rallhon Ku
)Lukeville
Lukevi I I
Sweetwater
0
Pla 01k
0
AJI Alk Chin
0
Sells
11 SFIN
Ktppk Gu Gidak QD Art szr-.
COMIC
0
Cop 2009 ESRI, Cop ri 201 Be porrce
I
Nonnal Years Fuel Hazard
0 1-2
2-6
68
in
(D
0
0
=3
NORMAL YEARS FUEL HAZARD
Map Index
0
3
3
2
C
=3
(n
(n
=1MIles
(D
(n
3
0 2-5 5 10
(D
=3
CL
=3
(n
(n
3
w
O
O
3
1<
Q
CD
O
n
O�
Cn
CD
3
CT
(D
0
w
71
�D
N
M
O
CL
71
N
CL
MIN
S
0
O
rMIL
C
Z
O
M1
rMIL
Toltec
a I
Ari ona Cit FIB
Pi caches -! Mam. moth
I
I
Friendly Corners Golder Ranch �r�cle
,: an Manuel t
cr
Reel Riock
racle Junctio s
vra. Valley I c
w I� 0
Pinal County Golder Ranch
'E
PIrna County t . bA
� 'Ca�talin� � c�
A r alPe Red i
+d In ton
y RWito TortoIita
Mr�a
Agra Val r���fa
51; Ov e11 �` North � f e st
Czar #,�rc,
asualr��l
Picture locks V Cates AdbbPs
C &
S aguaro Catalina Foothil Is r
Flo irrg'4 ils �� Cascabel
Nat Pa
w ..
Catalina Foothills
W e st c
Tan q u e Verde o
Tuc son I u
Tucson and
Tucson Esttites f I. 0
ip l Tohano Dedham S6uth Tucson South Tucson
i
Three Points Mescal-,1
Brno
varencla West � � � Litti+etown Rincon Valley
Pasqua - Yaqui prexel Heights - San avian' r p rlcht- 20019E a, u yri hit; ` 1 eLurme
Extraordinary 'Years Fuel Hazard
-6
6 -8
Cn
0
EXTRAORDINARY YEARS FUEL HAZARD
n
Map Index
n
O
3
3
j 2
=3
D
Miles
3
0 - 10
N
sv
D
v
(n
O
C)
0
0
(1)
0
0
Z3
C/)
(1)
0
CD
CT
C:)
CA)
mn
cc
Fr
M
X
rMIL
0
M%
CL
mn
N
CL
0
rEPL
=r
0
0
rMIL
C
Cn
0
r.
rMIL
=r
"Rob le s J u n ctf jn
I F -
, Rincon Valle
, I
Three Summit
An ts Vai I
S a n d edf'- C1% San Xavier CIP
Co Field Pan Tak
C ,Ha Iva n a N4 k
Peak
Kitt Peak
Chlulii Shaik
P itoikam
',K hachii Miliuk
1UL;b " d"U
South Tucson Mountaii&Vie
San Xavier
huarfta
Three Points Ea 0 5 a h uari'ta Cc rona de Tucscm Mescal-JS
Corona De Tucson Benson
0
Green Ufa IeV Continental
r
U
J
Green Valle Elephant Head,
anti Helmet Peak M t
Arivaca-Sasabe
Arivaca lumacaco
L
Buenos Aires
0. Oro Blanco
Rub
Ivac,a J U n ction Pima Count
i6 do Santa Cruz Count
Tubac
Z111
Carmen
Turnacaco r i
hr Pat-a
17 Ak fr-f) 17
Rio Rico Northwest
1 0
SoniDeta-Elgin 1
Whetstone
0
Sonolta
0
H Loac h uca C it y
Sierra Vi st
Canclol
Cal,abas-as Rio Rico Harshaw
R \ .�� 0
i
a Rico S6uthwest
C
Sunn
Be Cop 2009 E. R], Cop 0) 2013 Del-orme
C/)
(1)
0
0
:3
Extraordinar Years Fuel Hazard
1 -2
2-6
6-8
EXTRAORDINARY YEARS FUEL HAZARE)
Map index
0
3
(n
=i Miles
(D
(n
0 2-5 5 10
C
(n
(n
_U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
=:h
CD
0
0
0
0
Cn
3
CT
C:)
W
71
M
X
rMP,
0
M1
CL
CL
0
Eh
rEP,
=r
(D
0
0
rMIL
C
%A
(D
U)
rMIL
Childs
Charco
Wh 113
P'nal Count
I __,., Kom e Ilk
Ventana Pima Count
Nick lWan Ane M
Nil Kam
Va Chin r,7;
Santa Rosa
Palo Verde Stand
Sil Nak
Mak Havoka Hal Oldakj
0 0
Narcho Santos
Quijotoa
Sikul Hlirnatk
("I
Litt I e Tucson San Wif. Santa Cruz
Peach Pu CFresnal Can vbn Coniobabi
P la w Va
Vail nom K U l(ui Tatk
Pis Ine r& PIsin frina
Hall Murk �Xalhon 10
Sweetwater
0
Lukevill Plia Olk
)e 0
LL kevil 12
All Ak Chin
ti
Sells
Kupk. Gu Cidak Artesa)
0
Cop 2009 E S R Cop 2013 BeeLerme
C/)
(1)
0
0
=3
Extraordinar Years Fuel Hazard
1-2
2-6
6-8
EXTRAORDINARY YEARS FUEL HAZARD
Map Index
1
0
3
IE 3
3
.2
C
=3
(n
(n
S.
"
(1)
(n
3
0 - 5 10 go
(1)
=3
CL
=3
(n
(n
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Table 2.4. Fuel Hazard Components
Component Influencea
Vegetation type and density
Woodlands and timber in Fuel Models 2,3 4,6, and 9; Deciduous Riparian H
>100 stems /acre; or moderate fuel types in slopes >_20%
Upland Shrubland associations in Fuel Models 1 and 3 and desert shrublands and M
grasslands 2, 3, and 6
Desert Scrub associations, barren land types, and agriculture and developed areas L
Burned areas L
Slopes >_20% H
Aspect (south -, southwest -, or west - facing slopes) M
Source: Logan Simpson Design Inc.
a H = high, M = moderate, L = low.
Riparian corridors, shrublands, and vegetation associations occurring in steep slopes with a south or
southwest aspect are the greatest wildland fuel hazards within the CWPP. Saltcedar- invaded and early -
seral -stage riparian habitats constitute a second major wildland fire risk vegetative association. Shrubland
areas constitute the next greatest wildland fire risk, in relation to high slopes and south or southwest
aspects. In invaded riparian vegetation associations where riparian deciduous tree species are located,
total wildland fuels can exceed 20 tons per acre and produce flame lengths greater than 6 feet above the
overstory with a rate of spread of over 525 feet (8 chains) per hour. In addition, some shrublands with
heavy invasions of nonnative grasses can produce wildfires of high intensity and high rates of spread that
are capable of igniting adjacent overstory vegetation. Buffelgrass infestations that comprise a 25 percent
landcover will produce approximately 1 ton of fuel; at 50 percent landcover, infestations can produce up to
3 tons of fuel, and at 80 percent landcover, they can produce over 5 tons of fuel that can produce flame
lengths in excess of 25 feet and rates of spread in excess of 700 chains per hour with a mid -flame wind
speed of 15 mph (Grissom 2010). Buffelgrass readily invades disturbed habitats such as trails, roadways,
utility easements and desert washes and also invades undisturbed desert (Photo 2.8). Areas with heavy
infestations of buffelgrass will significantly alter wildland fire behavior increasing severity with high rates of
spread and flame heights from native vegetation. This potentially leads to devastating fires that can convert
the ecologically rich Sonoran Desert into a more monotypic exotic grassland environment. Buffelgrass fires
are highly detrimental to cacti and native trees and can eliminate them from the landscape. The occurrence
of fire in ecosystems that evolved in the absence of fire often can lead to species loss and future
restructuring of plant and animal interactions, favoring fire - adapted exotic species over natives (Hobbs and
Huenneke 1992). Such wildfires do not significantly impact the buffelgrass stands which can come back
more vigorously than before the fire (Cox et al. 1990). Areas of known buffelgrass invasions in 2009 for the
Tucson Basin are shown in Figure 2.5 (SABCC 2010). As additional investigations into buffelgrass
invasions are completed, areas of buffelgrass infestations where landcover is 50 percent or higher should
be defaulted to high wildland fire risk.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 54
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Moderate wildland fuel risk is associated with the ecotone of the riparian and desert upland vegetation
associations. In areas where shrub canopy exceeds 35 percent, light fuels produced by the herbaceous
understory are reduced because of overstory shading and competition from overstory shrub species. Under
extreme fire conditions, upland shrub communities can carry crown fires with moderate intensities and high
rates of spread. Lower wildland fire risk occurs in desert scrub communities in which total fuel loading is
low with no continuous arrangement of ground or aerial fuels. Desert upland vegetation associations are
not fire - dependent communities, and wildfires within desert vegetation associations will be suppressed
during years of above - normal rainfall when wildfires occurring in these vegetative associations may not
self- extinguish.
Photo 2.8. Roadway with Heavy Buffelgrass Infestation
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 55
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Figure 2.5. Areas of Known Buffelgrass Invasions (2009) in the Tucson Basin
_.. .,
i
PFE
a k
�1
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 56
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
C. Conditions of Ignition and Past Fire Occurrence
Past regional wildfire events are important for determining the potential of an area to support wildland fire.
Because of the combination of current drought conditions and a regional history of fires, there will be
wildland fire ignitions within the CWPP planning area that must be suppressed. The fire history of the
CWPP, including recent large wildfires that have occurred within or close to the analysis area, has been
included in this analysis to determine the most likely areas for either natural or human wildland fire ignition.
Table 2.5 details the high, moderate, and low positive - influence values assigned to fire -start incidents.
These include concentrated areas of lightning strikes and human - caused ignitions. High - potential areas
have the greatest number of fire starts per square mile. Wildland fire ignition data is obtained from the
Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Internet Mapping Service (IMS) Web site and database
(http: // wildfire .cr.usgs.gov /firehistory /) and from the Arizona State Forester's Office. The Federal Fire
Occurrence IMS is an interactive GIS for use in the wildland fire and GIS community. The datasets used in
this GIS are based on official fire occurrence data collected from five federal and state agencies that have
been merged into one fire history point layer. According to these data, 3,226 wildfire ignitions have been
reported within the analysis area since 1980. There were nine large fires which burned approximately
137,000 acres in the 6 -year period of 2002 through 2007. The areas with the greatest potential for fire
ignition, either from natural or human (though unplanned) causes, are found within the communities of
Sells and Summerhaven and along the eastern edge of Pima County. Visual representations of these large
wildfire and ignition -point locations are mapped in Figures 2.6a -2.6c.
Table 2.5. Ignition History and Wildfire Occurrence
Wildfire Occurrence
Value Sum of Acres
0 -2 fire starts /square mile
L 1 1 377 1 947
2 -4 fire starts/ square mile
M 174
>4 fire starts /square mile
H 26
D. Community Values at Risk
Valued at -risk community resources include private and community structures, communication facilities,
power lines, local recreation areas, cultural and historic areas, sensitive wildlife habitat, watersheds, natural
resources, and air quality. The community values were determined based on the sum of five components:
housing density, Insurance Services Office (ISO) ranks, vacant lands, preserve lands, and sensitive
species habitats as derived from Pima County Map Guide data (http: / /gis.pima.gov /maps /mapguide /). High
community values include areas where more than three of these influencing factors occur collectively on
the landscape. Areas where at least one but less than three of these factors occur on the landscape were
assigned moderate values, and areas where these factor do not appear on the landscape were not
assigned values.
Risk - influencing factors of developed land and other infrastructures within the area of highest flammability
were given the highest priority for protection. In areas where community values occur within or adjacent to
areas of high risk due to the fuel hazards of vegetation associations, a cumulative risk from catastrophic
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 57
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
wildland fire was created. These areas of cumulative risk are of greatest concern to Pima County. In
accordance with "Risk Factor 2: Risk to Social, Cultural and Community Resources" identified by the
Arizona State Forester (2007:2), the Pima County analysis area does include lands consistent with Risk
Factor 2, Situations 1, 2, and 3, as follows:
Risk Factor 2: Risk to Social, Cultural and Community Resources
Situation 1 : This situation most closely represents a community in an urban interface setting. The
setting contains a high density of homes, businesses, and other facilities that continue across the
interface. There is a lack of defensible space where personnel can safely work to provide
protection. The community watershed for municipal water is at high risk of being burned to other
watersheds within the geographic region. There is a high potential for economic loss to the
community and likely loss of housing units and /or businesses. There are unique cultural, historical
or natural heritage values at risk.
Situation 2 : This situation represents an intermix or occluded setting, with scattered areas of high -
density homes, summer homes, youth camps, or campgrounds that are less than a mile apart.
Efforts to create defensible space or otherwise improve the fire - resistance of a landscape are
intermittent. This situation would cover the presence of lands at risk that are described under state
designations such as impaired watersheds or scenic byways. There is a risk of erosion or flooding
in the community of vegetation burns.
Situation 3 : This situation represents a generally occluded setting characterized by dispersed single
homes and other structures that are more than a mile apart. This situation may also include areas
where efforts to create a more fire - resistant landscape have been implemented on a large scale
throughout a community or surrounding watershed.
1. Housing, Businesses, Essential Infrastructure, and Evacuation Routes
The analysis identifies high -risk areas including the major community cores and portions of 1 -10, 1 -19,
US 60, State Route (SR) 77, SR 86, SR 83, SR 85, and SR 286, as the focus of commercial
development. Residential community development is occurring throughout the analysis area in a mix of
high- density, single - family, and multi -acre parcels. Parcel data developed by Pima County was reviewed to
determine the distribution of private lands and lands uses within the analysis area. These data were then
portioned into risk categories depending on the level of development and presence of natural landcover
types. This includes areas of highly developed lands that lack significant open space or natural landcovers;
moderately developed private lands where an intermingling of public and private lands occur and the major
portion of the landscape comprise natural landcover types; and lightly developed private lands where the
majority of landcover is composed of natural landcover. Areas of highest development were considered at
moderate risk of wildfire, areas of moderate development are considered at high risk of wildfire, and areas
of light or no development are considered at low risk of structure /infrastructure loss due to wildfire.
Therefore, structures associated with housing and commercial development located in isolated
subdivisions and in more dispersed areas of the analysis area with higher ISO ratings are at highest risk.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 58
3
W
0
O
3
3
UG
S?
=:h
CD
O
rf
0
O"
Cn
CD
3
N
O
W
Cn
(.fl
C N
� A +
CL
0
CL
=r 'n
N
O
sy to
CL
D
Cn O
v �
N
O U)
o rEP,
Z
O
rEPL
S
Toltec
ti
c�
1
Arizona City €Ipy,,,�
I
I
Pi �act14
'
`
Mammot
i
I
1
1
Friendly erners
O
oldor Ranch tae
I
r
3
� .
San Manuel 1
Red Fuck
1
PracIR Jana ion
�
Miles
I�
Pinal County
;
--- - - - - --
------------- -� - - -�
--
Pima County
- - �ti
--
Go Ranch
3,
E
=
Catalina CO
Su rrr merrh aaen I
Antra Va lleV 0 " rRedingAcin
0 Rill I[to Tortolit,3 Mt Lean mon 0 - - - -- -� - - --
Mlarana C!r��f lle
Silver Bell v ra V a lley oath West
Cortaro Cascabel
I iut u re Rocks Casas Adobes 1L
agua ro Catalina. Foot h i l Is r �
Fla , ing V ils v I y Cascabc�l
National l Pa rk ` Catalina Foothl III ' Q
' West ! 0
Tanque Verde
Tucson M
2j Tucson and L
Tuc son Estate s z �. a- I° 0
Plipyak TOhonn Oodham U South Tucson South Tucson
s
Three Points �
Mescal - mil
E�rexI- Aber "rt n
Llttletown
Valencia West i incon Va lley
I•.f k,�
Pasqua =Yaqui D�L-xel Heights- an Xavier 0Pyright 009 E R I. opyrighxe��� 01 DeLurme %
F ire Sta rt s Per Sq ua re Mil le
® Low ( 0 -
Moderate ( R 4)
High ( >
Fire Ignition Point
CD
0
FIRE STARTS PER SQUARE MI
c�
Map Index
n
O
IE 3
3
D
Miles
(n
0 _5 5 10
v
CL
D
v
(n
- U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
rn
=:h
0
0
0
0
Cn
CD
3
CT
C)
W
M
=r n
�- -1
(D
CL
Cr
• ■
cn CL
0
CL
mn
0
CL
rNPL
En 0
O
n
Cf)
0
r .
rEP,
=r
Sa
tiJ
Co Feld Pan Tak
-.,Halvan-a Nak
( ' I tt Peak
Kitt Peak
Chiulf Shafk
Pitolkam
,,Ka�hachii Miliu.k
Robles Jundijn
Valle
Three
Points
San Xavier
Summit
L Rincon
Tucson and
0
South Tucson
Mound, in VieW. Pantano
3
3
C
San Xa fer
=3
&ahuarita
Three Points East
Uarfta
Cc rona de Tucson
Me sc al-A
(D
Miles
Coirona De Tucson
0 25 5 10 1
3
(D
Benson
=3
sy
0
Green Val le Y Co nt ine n1a I
7,-
0
c
sy
Green Valle Elephant Head,
(n
U 1
r
(n
-and Helmet Peak
Gteate rV-11 a
T
d- 1 6
lvari
Sonollta-
A jvaea JU n Ct on Pima Count
Santa Cruz Count
Whetstone
Er n
Huachuca Cit
Tubat
Carrnen
a SaSi3be
-a-Sasa be 'rTu
. ma cacori
vaca I u ma cacorp-Ca r me n
rivaca
Pata
Canelol
Sierra Vista
ro Blanc Rio Wco Northwest
Oo 0
C
Ru b Gala basas. Rio RICO HarShaw
RiXii co Sbuthwe st
Sunn
0
o p r 1 g hti-(D 2009 E S R 1, C 0 PY ri hN0 201 De L o rm e
Fire Starts per S Mile
Low ( 0 - 2
Moderate ( 2 - 4
Hi ( >4 )
Fire I Point
CD
(D
0
FIRE STARTS PER SQUARE MILE
Map Inclex
0
3
3
3
C
=3
(n
(n
(D
Miles
(n
(n
0 25 5 10 1
3
(D
=3
sy
sy
(n
(n
Sv
0
C)
0
(D
0
(D
0
0
Sy
C/)
(D
0
r-4.
(D
CT
(D
I
N)
C:)
CA)
rn
= ----% n
r
(D
CD
W
CL
0 2)
C
CD L
=r 'n
5)• �m
r-1-
0
CIO
CL
rMIL
> �m
Cn 0
n
(D
(D U)
to rMIL
0
(D
U)
rMIL
� u k a Ina l Count -North Komelik
Pima punt
Childs 'Yentana C
Dick Ivan AnegaM
Noipa Kam
Va Chin
Santa Rosia
Palo Verde Stand
Charm
Wh
Sil Nak
Mak Havoka Hol Gid-A k1i
(% ..
Narcho Santos
Qui
Sikul Hfmatk
r�
Little Tucson San Luis Santa Cruz
Peach Pu r Fresnal Ca"bn Comobabi
o va
Pis lnerT�kb Pisininio Plat a vairlom X u9 Kul Tatk
Kalhon 10
HAH Murk
Sweetwater
0
LU kevi I I )Lukeville Pla Oik
AM Ak Chin
Sells
0 Ku pk G Oidak Mir. Artesa
cowlic
a
C o p y ri g ht 2009 ES R 1, Co p ht ; 0 201 D Q I r m
Fire Starts per S Mile
Low ( 0 - 2
Moderate ( 2 - 4)
IMI Hi ( >4 )
Fire I Point
C/)
(D
0
0
:3
FIRE STARTS PER SQUARE MILE
Map Index
0
3
2
(n
U)
=lmiles V7111
(D
(n
U)
0 2-5 5 10
(D
(n
(n
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
2. Preserve and Sensitive Lands
Recreational features within and adjacent to the analysis area including camping and recreation areas
associated with several regional parks; designated camping and recreation areas in Saguaro National
Park, on the CNF, and on BLM- managed public lands; wildlife areas; and major FS trailheads are located
throughout Pima County. These parks and recreational areas provide scenic vistas of deep canyons, dry
washes, sheer cliffs, distant mountain ranges, colorful soils and rock formations, and mosaics of different
vegetation, particularly of the iconic saguaro cactus.
These features are environmental, economic, and aesthetic resources for the surrounding communities
and provide year -round recreational opportunities. Because of the benefits that these recreation areas
provide to local citizens and community visitors and the potential for increased human - caused wildfire
ignitions with increased recreational use, these areas have been analyzed as community values and have
an increasing influence factor on wildland fire risk.
The analysis area also includes known and potential habitat areas for several threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species and lands acquired by the City of Tucson and Pima County in support of their proposed
habitat conservations plans currently under review by the USFWS. The land- management agencies use
accepted conservation strategies to mitigate risk to these species by implementing programs that meet
natural resource management goals and objectives and to maintain conservation values. Wildland fuel and
vegetative restoration treatments within sensitive species habitat may require additional site - specific
analysis due to the extraordinary circumstances created by the presence of sensitive species or their
habitats. Before any vegetation treatment by the NPS, BLM, or CNF, an assessment will be conducted by
the appropriate agency biologist. Site - specific evaluations of individual recommended wildland fuel
mitigation projects will determine whether sensitive wildlife species and habitats would benefit from habitat -
enhancing treatments that would lessen the threat of catastrophic wildland fire in the vegetative
communities of the analysis area while also protecting the recreational values that local residents and
visitors associate with the community. The presence of sensitive wildlife and botanical species habitats, in
conjunction with areas of high recreational value and human use, have an increasing influence factor on
wildland fire risk.
3. Local Preparedness and Protection Capability
For many years, the ISO has conducted assessments and rated communities on the basis of available fire
protection. The rating process grades each community's fire protection on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 is ideal
and 10 is poor) based on the ISO's Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Five factors make up the ISO fire
rating: water supply the most important factor accounts for 40 percent of the total rating, while type and
availability of equipment, personnel, ongoing training, and the community's alarm and paging system
account for the remaining 60 percent of the rating. Some areas within the Pima County analysis area are
not within a fire district; the ISO rating for these areas is 10. Other communities and municipalities within
the analysis area are within a fire department or district and have ISO ratings ranging from 1 to 9; these
areas are included in the overall risk analysis as reducing the potential of catastrophic wildland fire. ISO
ratings will vary within each fire department's or district's service area, depending on housing densities and
distance of structures isolated (usually 3 to 5 miles) from a fire station.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 62
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The wildland and structural fire response within the analysis area is provided by local fire departments and
districts. BLM, CNF, ASFD, BANWR, Tohono O'odham, Pascua Yaqui, and local fire departments and
districts provide support for initial wildland fire attack for areas within the Pima County analysis area. Initial -
attack response from additional local fire departments and districts can occur under the authority of
automatic -aid system and mutual -aid agreements between individual departments or under the
intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) that individual fire departments and districts have with the Arizona
State Forester and adjacent fire departments and districts.
Land use in the planning area consists primarily of residences; military ranges and airfields; agriculture;
livestock production; community businesses; and community services, such as hospitals, schools,
organized- sports facilities, and airports. Surrounding areas are dominated by state lands; NPS, BLM, and
CNF lands; and private properties. Land uses within or close to the analysis area include fuelwood cutting,
hunting, and other recreational activities (for example, hiking, bird watching, nature study, photography,
and off - road - vehicle use). State lands occur on the periphery of the communities and often surround
developed private land parcels. State lands are administered by ASLD, are managed for a variety of uses,
and account for 15 percent (861,623 acres) of the analysis area. State lands within and adjacent to the
analysis area could be identified for sale for residential and commercial development or leased for
commercial land development.
The primary block of federal land in the Pima County CWPP area consists of portions of BLM lands located
throughout the analysis area, with NPS and CNF lands located in the northern, eastern, and southern
portions of the analysis area. Pima County provides extensive outdoor recreational opportunities. The open
space provided by federal lands and recreational opportunities, in association with the significant wildlife
habitats found within the county, provide the quality -of -life amenities that many county residents desire to
protect and enhance.
Table 2.6 identifies the different values given to these community value components. Visual
representations of these community value components are mapped in Figures 2.7a -2.7c.
Table 2.6. Community Values
WU I Acres
Component Value (% of WUI)
Recreation areas and infrastructure in the analysis area H 289 (18)
>_500 and <1,000 households /square mile
Housing and business structures and infrastructure in the M 859 (54)
analysis area >_1,000 households /square mile
All other areas L 430 (27)
Source: Logan Simpson Design Inc.
a = high; M = moderate; L = low
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 63
O
C)
0
(D
0
(D
0
0
Z3
C/)
(D
0
r-4.
(D
CT
(D
C)
CA)
0')
4�1
mn
62
r.
'-4
CL
h
U)
X0
rMIL
0
0
0
rMIL
U)
Z
0
r4
=r
Ai lzona Cl'-,- L 1,j
Pinal Count
Pima Count
llll=�
91 1 i r4orin wrest
L
L costa ro casai
,,,n vves,
c"rti;ro
Picture Rocky i A
5 Cia sa
Sa
F I -o�Wv i n I
National Park
I West
Mammoth
Ora de
San Manuel
E
M
summerhavert 0
Fledi n n
Mt Lemmon
Cascabel
ri d
ion
Mescal-,16
. R on Valle
1 2 De L omie
C Py ri 0 9 E 1, Co p ri ht. _4 YID
R1 s k to (; oni ni u n it Va I u es
Low
Moderate
Hi
WILDFIRE RISK TO COMMUNITY VALUES
Map Index
F 2
71MIles
0 2-5 55 10
C/)
(1)
0
0
0
(n
(n
(D
(n
(D
(n
(n
Tu)f'�*dn Esf te,
Tbho no Oodharn
A Three Points
v" Valencia West
Pasqua-Yaqujr-"rexel
Catalina Foothi!15
5
Is
Cascabel
Catal F0 othi Ja 11§-
q ue Verde
0 0
ri d
ion
Mescal-,16
. R on Valle
1 2 De L omie
C Py ri 0 9 E 1, Co p ri ht. _4 YID
R1 s k to (; oni ni u n it Va I u es
Low
Moderate
Hi
WILDFIRE RISK TO COMMUNITY VALUES
Map Index
F 2
71MIles
0 2-5 55 10
C/)
(1)
0
0
0
(n
(n
(D
(n
(D
(n
(n
Tu)f'�*dn Esf te,
Tbho no Oodharn
A Three Points
v" Valencia West
Pasqua-Yaqujr-"rexel
- U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
rn
=:h
0
0
0
0
Cn
3
CT
C:)
W
M
Cn
71
can
Fr
CL
Eh
rEPL
0
0
0
rMIL
U )
%A
Cn
0
a
rMIL
=r
yftblesAjundlon e 'I"
Rincon Valle
Three Irits su'r"Mit
San Pedf San Xavier 0
Tucson and
Co Field Pan Tak
South Tuc sort tend
C -HalvanaNa'k y a Mou e
e J.'
San Xavier
10 Wtt Peak FA. TAI Three Points dtf Coron
DW a. 1 tta escal� 6
Kitt Peak 1:
4 *2r —v:�q"r q a & e g ucson
r
Green Va eV Cont I nental
Chluli Shaik = 1 0
pitoi"M Green Valle Elephant Head,
'13�;hachi Miliuk w1and Helmet Peak
E
teate ill [L 0
Q
Soncita-El
IV's J linction Pima Count
Ana do Santa Cruz Count whPtstonp
Sono Ita
El I
H LjAc h Lita C it y
Tubac
Carmen
ArIvaca-Sasabe
VTurnacacorj Sierra Vista
r iv a cir I -LkFl IaGdLU r[-Carmen.,
I Pat Ca nelo
Buenos Aires
Ric Rico Northwest
Oro Blanco
Rub Calaba sas, Rio Rico H a rshaw
0 Ric-Nco S6uthwest
0
Sunn
C
201
1 2009 EZRI C 3 DeLorme
Beyerville Cop , g ht-
I
Risk to Communit Values
Low
Moderate
Hi
WILDFIRE RISK TO COMMUNITY VALUES
Map Index
3
2
:3MIleS
0 2-5 5 10
C/)
(D
0
0
0
3
3
(n
(n
0
(n
3
rn
(n
(n
M
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
=:h
M
n
0
0
0
0
=3
M
Sv
N
3
CT
C:)
W
W
71
can
CL
Eh
rEPL
0
0
0
3
3
rMIL
U )
%A
U)
rMIL
Childs
C.
h j Charco
W
I Pinal Count _-,North Komelik
VE! nta na Pima Count
Hickiwan NCI Ane rn
pa Kanh
Ga Chin
sarrta Rosa
Palo Verde Stand
Sil Nak
Malli Havoea Hol 01dakj
0 0
Narcho Santos
Quijutua
:S1 kull H Im at k
CI
Litt I e Tucson San Luigi Saryta Cruz
Peach Pu Nato Vaya CFresna I [an �bn Cojinobabi
Vainom KU �Kui Tatk
Pis Inte MO P[sin Irna,
Hall Murk % Xalhon 110
Sweetwater
0
)Lukeville Pla 01k
-Lukeville
AJI Ak Chin
Risk to Communit Values
Low
Moderate
Hi
Sells
0 KU pk G Cidak . Fil o Artesa)
CL
(n
(n
U)
cowlic
(1)
0
Co p ri g ht-.0 2009 ES R i j Cop 201 Be,Lerme
e
0
=3
WILDFIRE RISK TO COMMUNITY VALUES
Map Index
0
3
3
2
=3
(n
(n
=1Files
0
(n
3
0 2-5 5 10
CL
(n
(n
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
E. Summary of Community Assessment and Cumulative Risk Analysis
Pima County and local jurisdictions recognize the consequences of disasters and the need to reduce the
impacts of natural and human - caused hazards. The County and jurisdictions also know that with careful
selection, mitigation actions in the form of projects and programs can become long -term, cost - effective
means for reducing the impact of natural and human - caused hazards.
In addition, largely unincorporated areas of the analysis area that are not under the jurisdiction of a fire
department or fire district and that may or may not be serviced by individual fire protection are included with
the nearest community sub - analysis area and potential wildland fire risk rating.
Community INU/ Descriptions and Risk Rating
Arivaca Community WUl
The Arivaca Community WUI is composed of lands within and immediately adjacent to the Arivaca Fire
District boundary, the community of Sasabe, lands immediately adjacent to SR 286, Arivaca Road, and
Ruby Road that serve as emergency evacuation and fire response corridors. In 2007 the PCOEM and the
Arivaca Fire District completed the Arivaca - Sasabe Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The Arivaca Fire
District provides structural and wildland fire protection to the community, while the BANWR provides
wildland fire protection to the community of Sasabe through an agreement with the ASLD. The
2007 Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP analyzed 50,752 acres for wildfire risk. The BANWR is a signatory to the
Arivaca - Sasabe Community Wildlife Protection Plan and continues to support implementation of priority
recommendations of the Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP and those of the Pima County CWPP. The Pima County
CWPP incorporates by reference the 2007 Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP. The Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP area has
an estimated population in 2010 of 695 residents in Arivaca occupying 492 housing units. The 2010
population estimate for the community of Sasabe is 545 residents occupying 50 housing units.
The 2010 population residing within the census tract which includes these communities is estimated at
3,600 residents in approximately 1,800 housing units. ( http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pa-ges/
index.xhtml /Census tract 43.16 The Arivaca Fire District has an ISO rating of 10. The Pima County CWPP
estimates that 14 percent of the 2013 Arivaca Community WUI is at high risk and 71 percent is at moderate
risk for unwanted wildland fire. The majority of wildfire starts around the communities of Arivaca and
Sasabe have occurred within the riparian corridor of Arivaca Creek in and adjacent to the community of
Arivaca. Wildland fire also occurs in the vicinity of Sasabe within the upland vegetative types primarily
within the vicinity of Altar Wash and SR 286.
This Arivaca Community WUI does include areas of high risk in lower elevations and in grassland and
mesquite vegetation associations during extreme rainfall years. Wildfire ignitions within the Arivaca
Community WUI are low. Public use within the WUI is considered moderate in undeveloped areas and high
within the BANWR. The risk to community values is considered high due to proximity of the BANWR. The
WUI is mostly composed of large developed private land parcels and residential lots within the
communities. The combination of low housing density on large private land parcels intermixed with invaded
vegetative associations and a high ISO rating creates areas of high risk to community values. Due to areas
of high wildfire risk, a low ignition history, and a relatively high density of community values, the overall
wildland fire risk rating of the sub -WUI is high.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 67
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The Arivaca Fire District and CWPP cooperators are not recommending revisions to the CWPP goals and
objectives or fuel mitigation and fire prevention strategies and priorities. The Pima County CWPP
signatories support the priority recommendations of the Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP. The Pima County CWPP
assimilates by reference the Arivaca - Sasabe CWPP and recommends reviewing that CWPP for detailed
risk assessment and mitigation recommendations.
Avra Valley Community WUI
The Avra Valley Community WUI is composed of lands within the Avra Valley Fire District boundary and
public and private lands immediately adjacent the fire district boundary, including portions of the community
of Marana.
The primary transportation corridors in the Avra Valley Community WUI include 1 -10 east of the WUI;
Sandario, Anway, Trico, and Sanders Roads from the south and north; and Avra Valley Road and Trico
Marana Road from the east. The Union Pacific Railroad parallels 1 -10 traversing the Avra Valley
Community WUI from east to west. These roadways include the major business corridors in the WUI. Fire
protection services in the Avra Valley Community WUI are provided by the Avra Valley Fire District. The
Avra Valley Fire District is capable of responding to structure fires, wildland fires, emergency medical calls,
motor vehicle accidents, and hazardous material calls. The Avra Valley Community WUI has an estimated
population of 12,450 residents occupying approximately 4,500 housing units ( http://factfinder2.census.gov
census blocks 44.19 and 44.25 over a 325 - square -mile area. The fire district is composed of 3 fire stations
that are staffed 365 days a year and is currently building their fourth fire station which estimated to be
completed in November 2013. The Avra Valley Fire District has a current ISO rating of 5/9. Subsequent to
the 2013 ISO re- rating the Avra Valley Fire District ISO rating will change to 3/8B in July 2013.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, creosote bush- bursage desert
scrub types with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub, and mesquite upland associations occurring in higher
elevations of the Silver Bell, Waterman, and Roskruge mountains. The areas of highest wildfire risk are
located along the foothills of the Silver Bell, Waterman, and Roskruge mountains and along the Brawley
Wash xeroriparian corridor. This portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk in lower elevations
during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from winter annual and perennial invasive
grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, and buffelgrass. Wildfire ignitions within the Avra Valley
Community WUI are low. Public use within the WUI is considered low to moderate in undeveloped areas.
The WUI is mostly composed of large developed private land parcels. The combination of low housing
density on large private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and a high ISO
rating creates areas of high community value risk. The Avra Valley Community WUI analyses found that
4 percent of the WUI is at high risk and 74 percent of the WUI at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to a
moderate wildfire risk, a low ignition history, and a relatively high density of community values, the overall
wildland fire risk rating of the sub -WUI is moderate.
Ado Community WUI
The Ajo Community WUI is composed of private and public lands within 1 mile of developed areas of the
community of Ajo, including the Ajo Municipal Airport. The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is
adjacent to the Ajo Community WUI. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument lies south of the WUI;
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 68
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
however, Ajo provides many services to the visitors of this national monument. The Pima County CWPP
analyzed 23,957 acres within the Ajo Community WUI for the potential risk to wildland fire. The Ajo- Gibson
Volunteer Fire Department provides fire protection services to the community of Ajo and to portions of
western Pima County. The primary transportation corridor in the community of Ajo is SR 85 from the north
and south. The SR 85 corridor is the major business corridor in the WUI. The 2010 estimated population of
the Ajo census - designated place is 3,304 residents occupying 2,175 housing units.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and creosote bush- bursage
desert scrub types with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub occurring in higher elevations of the Little Ajo
Mountains. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along the foothills of the Little Ajo Mountains to the
south of the community of Ajo. This portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk in lower elevations to
the north and east of the community during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from
winter annual and perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, and buffelgrass.
Wildfire ignitions within the Ajo Community WUI are low. Public use within the WUI is considered moderate
due to the adjacent Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The WUI is mostly composed of large
developed private land parcels with traditional home lots found in the community center. The combination
of low housing density on large private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and
areas with a high ISO rating creates areas of high risk to community values. The Pima County CWPP
analyses determined that 2 percent of the Ajo Community WUI is at high risk and 55 percent is at moderate
risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate to high wildfire risk, a low ignition history, and a moderate
density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the Ajo Community WUI is moderate.
Cascabel Community WUl
The Cascabel Community WUI is composed of private lands along the San Pedro River riparian corridor,
including the community of Cascabel and developed lands in the vicinity of Redington. In 2006 the
Cascabel Community Wildfire Protection Plan was developed and approved by the Pima County Board of
Supervisors. The 2006 Cascabel CWPP was a cooperative effort between the citizens of Cascabel, the
Cascabel Fire Department, The Nature Conservancy in Arizona, Redington Natural Resources
Conservation District, ASFD, BLM, and Cochise County in Arizona. The 2006 CWPP was restricted to
developed lands within the San Pedro River riparian corridor within the Cascabel Fire Department
boundary in Cochise County. The Pima County CWPP expands the community WUI along the San Pedro
River riparian corridor into Pima County, including developed lands in the vicinity of Redington
approximately 12 miles north of the community of Cascabel. The 2006 CWPP wildfire risk assessment
found areas of high risk associated with invaded vegetation within the San Pedro riparian corridor. The
2006 Cascabel CWWP analyzed 16,350 acres within Cochise County for the risk of wildfire. The Pima
County CWPP analyzed an additional 13,599 acres, beginning immediately north of the 2006 CWPP and
extending north along the San Pedro River riparian corridor to developed lands north of the Redington
area. The 2006 Cascabel CWWP found that 34 percent of the Cascabel WUI is at high risk for wildland fire.
The Pima County CWPP found 3 percent of the Pima County Cascabel Community WUI to be at high risk
and 51 percent to be at moderate risk for wildland fire. With the exception of the WUI boundary, revised
vegetative landcover descriptions, and associated fuel models, the goals and objectives of the 2006 CWPP
are still valid; therefore, they have been included in the Pima County CWPP by reference and have been
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 69
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
expanded to include the Cascabel Community WUI within Pima County. The primary transportation corridor
in the Cascabel Community WUI is San Pedro Road, which provides access from the south through the
community of Pomerene and from SR 77 through San Manuel from the north. There are no retail
businesses within the WUI; the closest amenities are located in San Manuel approximately 12 miles north
of Redington. The Cascabel Volunteer Fire Department provides fire protection (both structure and
wildland) to the southern portion of the community WUI including Pima County and to the area immediately
south of Redington. The northern portion of the community WUI is not within a fire district and is assigned
an ISO rating of 10. Major vegetation associations within the Cascabel Community WUI area include the
warm - desert riparian mesquite bosque and warm - desert riparian woodland and shrublands within the
riparian corridor, with mesquite uplands and Sonoran paloverde -mixed cacti shrub associations occurring
in adjacent uplands. The major wildfire risk within the Cascabel WUI is within the invaded areas of the San
Pedro riparian corridor, though there are areas of high vegetation risk associated with upland associations
during years of extraordinary rainfall. Wildfire ignitions within the Cascabel Community WUI are low. Public
use within the WUI is considered moderate from off - highway - vehicle use, hiking trails, and undeveloped
areas of the WUI. The WUI has an overall low community value rating. Due to the complexity of wildland
fuels, limited access, intermixed recreation sites, the Cascabel Community WUI is rated at moderate risk to
wildland fire.
Catalina Foothills Community WUI
The Catalina Foothills Community WUI is composed of private and public lands that are mostly north and
east of the City of Tucson Fire Department boundary and southeast to about the northern border of
Saguaro Park East, including the Hidden Valley, Tanque Verde, Sabino Vista Volunteer, and Tucson
Country Club Estates fire districts. Actual fire services with the Catalina Foothill Community WUI, is
provided under contact to the Rural Metro Fire Department. The Sabino Canyon Trail, one of the heaviest
recreational use trails in the CN F, is located in the WUI, along with Saguaro National Park East bordering
the WUI to the southeast. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 72,529 acres within the Catalina Foothills
Community WUI for the potential risk to wildland fire. The Rural Metro Fire Department maintains eight fire
stations staffed by firefighters and emergency medical personnel. Rural Metro Fire Department is the sole
fire protection agency for the Catalina Foothills, including the fire districts of Mountain Vista, Hidden Valley,
Sabino Vista, Tanque Verde, and Tucson Country Club Estates. The Rural Metro Fire Department
maintains three fire stations and an administrative office within the Catalina Foot hills Community WUI.
Unlike fire - district residents who pay for their fire protection services through property taxes, residents,
business owners, and property owners in the unincorporated areas of Pima County are responsible for
setting up an account directly with Rural Metro. This means that fire protection and emergency services are
not paid for through taxes and that residents are responsible for establishing fire service directly with Rural
Metro Fire Department. The fire department maintains an ISO rating of 4 in the Sabino Vista Fire District, a
rating of 3 in the Tucson Country Club Estates Fire District, and a rating of 3 in the Mountain Vista Fire
District. The Tanque Verde Fire District has not yet been rated.
The primary transportation corridors in the WUI communities are River Road, an east -west corridor at the
southern end of the WUI, and Skyline /Sunrise Road, an east -west corridor in the central portion of the WUI.
Sunrise /Skyline and River road corridors are the major business corridors in the WUI. The 2010 estimated
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 70
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
population for the Catalina Foothills Community WUI includes 22 census tracts with a total estimated
population of approximately 75,000 residents occupying approximately 36,000 housing units. The Catalina
Foothills Community WUI analysis area includes approximately 115 square miles.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and paloverde -mixed cacti desert
scrub in lower elevations, with desert oak transition associations occurring in higher elevations toward the
foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along the numerous
desert washes originating from the foothills of the Santa Catalina and terminating at Tanque Verde and
Rillito creeks. The northern portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk in the foothills of the Santa
Catalina Mountains due to heavy fuel loads, invasive grasses, and winter annuals occurring in areas of
steep slopes. Wildfire ignitions within the Catalina Foothills Community WUI are moderate to low, with high
wildfire ignitions occurring above the WUI. Public use within the WUI is considered high due to the high use
of Sabino Canyon and other community and CN F trails in the WUI . The WUI is mostly composed of large
developed private land parcels of high assessed value. The combination of low housing density on large
private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and some areas with a high ISO
rating and some with moderate wildfire ignition history creates areas of high risk to community values. The
Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 22 percent of the Catalina Foothills Community WUI is at
high risk and 47 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of high wildfire risk, a moderate
ignition history, and a high density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the Catalina
Foothills Community WUI Community WUI is high.
Corona de Tucson Community WUI
The Corona de Tucson Community WUI is composed of lands within the Corona de Tucson Fire District
boundary and public and private lands immediately adjacent the fire district boundary. The Corona de
Tucson Community WUI lies immediately north of the Santa Rita Mountains within the CNF and adjacent to
the north boundary of the Santa Rita Experimental Range managed by the University of Arizona. The
primary transportation corridors in the Corona de Tucson Community WUI are Houghton Road connecting
to 1 -10 to the north and Sahuarita Road connecting to SR 83 to the east and to 1 -19 to the west. The major
retail businesses within the WUI are located at or near the intersection of Houghton and Sahuarita roads.
Fire protection services in the Corona De Tucson Community WUI are provided by the Corona De Tucson
Fire Department. The Corona De Tucson Fire Department was established approximately 35 years ago
and provides 24 -hour, 7 -day staffing with employees who have advanced -life- support training and
employees who have Firefighter II certification from the Arizona state fire marshal. The Corona De Tucson
Fire Department provides a wide range of services including fire protection, emergency medical services,
desert pest removal, vehicle /home lock -out, child car -seat installation assistance, CPR training, wildland
firefighting, residential sprinkler program services, and many others. The Corona De Tucson Fire
Department is supported by the taxpayers of Corona De Tucson, Arizona. Fire protection service is
provided when available to the nearby un- incorporated areas of Vail, Arizona, for a fee and /or subscription.
The 2010 estimated population of the Corona de Tucson census - designated place is 5,675 residents
occupying 2,165 housing units. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 125 square miles as the Corona de
Tucson Community WUI. The 2010 census block for the Corona de Tucson Community WUI analyzed for
the Pima County CWPP is composed of 8,521 residents occupying 3,307 housing units. The Corona de
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 71
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Tucson Fire District has an ISO rating of 5 in proximity to the Fire Stations 180 and 182. Outlying areas of
the district have an ISO rating of 8.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, semi - desert grassland, mesquite
uplands, paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub, and mid - elevation desert shrub associations occurring in
higher elevations of the foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located
along the foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains and within the numerous xeroriparian areas flowing to the
northwest and terminating in the Santa Cruz River. This portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk
in lower elevations during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from winter annual and
perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, Lehmann lovegrass, and buffelgrass.
Wildfire ignitions within the Corona de Tucson Community WUI are generally low, though high ignition
history is present immediately north of the WUI along the 1 -10 corridor. Public use within the WUI is
considered low in undeveloped areas. The WUI is mostly composed of large developed private land
parcels with more traditional home lots present in the community core. The combination of low housing
density on large private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and some areas of
low ignition history and some with a high ISO rating creates areas of moderate risk to community values.
The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 3 percent of the Corona de Tucson Community WUI is
at high risk and 87 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate wildfire risk, a low
ignition history, and a relatively low density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the
Corona de Tucson Community WUI is moderate.
Green Valley — Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Community WUI
The Green Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Community WUI is composed of private and public lands
within and adjacent to the Green Valley, Elephant Head, and Helmet Peak fire districts, located mostly
south of the city of Tucson generally adjacent to the 1 -19 corridor including the communities of Sahuarita,
and Green Valley, and south along 1 -19 to Arivaca junction. The Helmet Peak Fire Department provides fire
protective services to developed lands immediately south of the San Xavier Indian Reservation. Fire
services within the Green Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Community WUI are provided by the Green
Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Fire Departments. The 2010 population of Green Valley is estimated
to be 21,391 residents occupying 17,322 housing units. The estimated population of the Helmet Peak area
from the 2010 census (census block 43.27) is 4,815 residents occupying 2,446 housing units. The 2010
population of Sahuarita is estimated to be 25,259 residents occupying 10,615 housing units. The 2010
population estimate of the Arivaca junction area is 1,090 residents occupying 388 housing units
( http://factfinder2.census , accessed March 2013). The Green Valley Fire Department was established
in 1975, and provides fire protection and emergency services to more than 40,000 constituents residing in
a 40- square -mile area within Green Valley and portions of the town of Sahuarita. The Green Valley Fire
Department operates out of 4 stations, covering both residential and commercial areas, and maintains an
ISO rating of 4 and 6. The Helmet Peak Fire Department covers about 35 square miles in the area of South
Mission and Helmet Peak roads, east of 1 -19 and south of the San Xavier Indian Reservation. The Helmet
Peak Fire Department maintains 30 members and answers about 130 calls per year, mainly brush fires and
emergency services. The Helmet Peak Fire Department portion of the WUI is considered to have an ISO
rating of 10. The Elephant Head Fire Department was established in 1994 and provides fire protection
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 72
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
services to approximately 5,800 residents in the Arivaca Junction, Lakewood, Half -way Trailer Park, and
Elephant Head communities. The Elephant Head Fire Department has 33 volunteers serving in various
roles with 14 firefighters trained in structure fires, 10 emergency medical technicians (EMTs), 5 first
responders trained in basic life- saving techniques, and 7 support personnel who are board members. The
Elephant Head Fire Department volunteers respond to an average of about 350 calls per year, including
structure fires, brush fires, vehicle fires, and medical emergencies. The Elephant Head portion of the WUI
is considered to have an ISO rating of 10. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 208,440 acres within the
Green Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Community WUI for the potential risk to wildland fire.
The primary transportation corridors in the WUI communities are 1 -19 and South Mission Road, providing a
north -south corridor, and Sahuarita Road, providing access from the east. The 1 -19 and Sahuarita Road
corridors are the major business corridors in the WUI.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, creosotebush -white bursage
desert scrub, and paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub in lower elevations, with desert juniper transition
associations occurring in higher elevations toward the foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains to the east and
Sierrita Mountains to the west of the WUI. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along the numerous
desert washes originating from the mountain foothills. A moderate history of wildfire ignitions occurs along
1 -19 immediately north of Sahuarita; all others areas of the WUI have a low ignition history. Public use
within the WUI is considered low; however, access to the west slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains and to
the CN F originates from 1 -19 in this WUI. The WUI is composed of a mix of large developed private land
parcels and traditional housing subdivisions of varied assessed value. The combination of mixed housing
density, intermixed with areas of vegetative associations with low fire potential, and some areas with a high
ISO rating and some with low wildfire ignition history creates areas of low risk to community values. The
Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 3 percent of the Green Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak
Community WUI is at high risk and 66 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of low -
moderate wildfire risk, areas of moderate ignition history, and a low density of community values, the
overall wildland fire risk rating of the Green Valley— Elephant Head — Helmet Peak Community WUI
Community WUI is moderate.
Golder Ranch Community WUI
The Golder Ranch Community WUI is composed of lands within and immediately adjacent to the Golder
Ranch Fire District boundary. In 2007 the PCOEM and the Golder Ranch Fire District completed the
Catalina Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In 2009 the Pinal County Office of Emergency Management
and Golder Ranch Fire District participated in the development and approval of the Pinal County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. These two CWPPs encompass the Golder Ranch Fire District
boundary and adjacent lands within both Pima and Pinal counties. The Golder Ranch Fire District serves a
210 - square -mile area with a population of nearly 65,000 residents. Included in this district are the
communities of Oro Valley, Catalina, and Saddle6rooke and southern Pinal County.
The 2007 Catalina CWPP planning area analyzed 22,504 acres of land including Catalina State Park, Pima
County, CNF, ASLD, and private lands. The 2009 Pinal County CWPP includes that portion of Golder
Ranch Fire District north of Pima County, including Oracle Junction, developed lands in Falcon Valley, and
Saddle6rooke Estates 2. The Pima County CWPP Golder Ranch Community WUI has expanded the
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 73
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Catalina analysis area to 31,095 acres through the addition of a 1 -mile buffer along the CNF boundary and
the lands adjacent to the Tortolita Mountain Park. The Pima County CWPP analyses confirm a wildland fire
threat to the WUI from the heavily vegetated upland habitats along the foothills of the Catalina Mountains,
the xeroriparian corridor of Canada del Oro, and the associated drainages where heavy xeroriparian
vegetation associations occur in relation to higher slopes and southerly and southwesterly exposures
increase wildfire risk. The Pima County CWPP determined that 8 percent of the Golder Ranch WUI is at
high risk and 49 percent is at moderate risk for unwanted wildland fire. The lands within the Golder Ranch
Community WUI that are located within 5 miles of a Golder Ranch fire station have an ISO rating of 3.
The Catalina and Pinal County CWPPs outlined vegetative fuel reduction priorities, as well as wildfire
prevention priorities. The Golder Ranch Fire District, community members, and the CNF have been
working to complete fuel- reduction priorities within the WUI. The Golder Ranch Fire Department and
CWPP cooperators are not recommending revisions to the CWPPs' goals and objectives or fuel mitigation
and fire prevention strategies and priorities. The Pima County CWPP signatories support the priority
recommendations of the Catalina and Pinal County CWPPs.
The Pima County CWPP assimilates by reference the Catalina CWPP and that portion of the Pinal County
CWPP which includes the Golder Ranch Fire District and adjacent lands.
Kitt Peak WUl
The Kitt Peak WUI is identified as a "community at risk" with a "moderate WUI risk rating" in the 2009
Arizona State Forester's Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk for Pima County ( http://www.azsf.az.gov/ ).
The Kitt Peak WUI includes the National Observatory, visitor center, and picnic areas. Kitt Peak is located
56 miles southwest of Tucson, Arizona, in the Schuk Toak District on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The Kitt
Peak National Observatory is part of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory and supports the most
diverse collection of astronomical observatories on Earth for nighttime optical and infrared astronomy and
daytime study of the Sun ( http://www.noao.edu/kpno, ).
Kitt Peak has an elevation of 6,875 feet and is the highest point in the Quinlan Mountains. Major vegetation
associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub within the
lower elevations of the Quinlan Mountains. The higher elevations of Kitt Peak are composed of the
Madrean pine -oak woodlands. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located within the higher vegetative
fuel loads of the pine -oak woodlands. Wildfire ignitions within the Kitt Peak WUI are low but there have
been several large fires nearby. Public use within the WUI is considered high due to the high public
visitation and significant scientific values of the observatory. There is no formal fire protection for Kitt Peak;
therefore, the WUI is assigned an ISO rating of 10. The Pima County CWPP analyses of the 2,009 -acre
Kitt Peak WUI determined that 63 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate
wildfire risk, a low ignition history, and a high density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk
rating of the Kitt Peak Community WUI is moderate.
Lukeville Community WUl
The Lukeville Community WUI is composed of private and public lands within 1 -mile of developed areas of
the community of Lukeville, including the Lukeville Port of Entry border crossing into Sonoyta, Sonora,
Mexico. Lukeville is the terminus of SR 85 and is located entirely within the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 74
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Monument. SR 85 provides access to the community and existing services are located along the SR 85
corridor. The town of Ajo provides most services to the visitors of the Organ Pipe National Monument and
residents of Lukeville. The 2010 US census estimated a population of 39 residents occupying 24 housing
units within the community WUI. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 1,741 acres within the Lukeville
Community WUI for the potential risk to wildland fire. The Lukeville Community is not within a fire district
and is assigned an ISO rating of 10.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, creosote bush- bursage desert
scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub occurring in higher elevations to the west of the
community in the Sonoyta Mountains. The Lukeville Community WUI does include areas of high risk in
lower elevations to the north and east of the community during extreme rainfall years from increased light
fuels produced from winter annual and perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red
brome, and mustards. Wildfire ignitions within the Lukeville Community WUI are low. Public use within the
WUI is considered moderate due to the adjacent Organ Pipe National Monument and traffic associated
with the port of entry. The WUI is mostly composed of small developed private land parcels with traditional
home lots found in the community center. The combination of low housing density, intermixed with invaded
vegetative associations, and areas with a high ISO rating create areas of moderate risk to community
values. The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 3 percent of the Lukeville Community WUI is at
high risk and 87 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate wildfire risk, a low
ignition history, and a moderate density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the
Lukeville Community WUI is moderate.
Mescal -J6 Community WUI
The Mescal -J6 Community WUI is composed of private and public lands within and adjacent to the Mescal -
J6 Fire District, located in eastern Pima County adjacent to 1 -10 at the Pima County — Cochise County
border. The Mescal -J6 Fire District provides fire, rescue, and emergency services to the Mescal, J6,
Skyline, Empire Acres, and Salcido Acres communities. The Mescal -J6 Fire District also covers the Titan
and Dark Star road areas just west of the Benson City limits and 1 -10 from Mileposts 302 to 289 for fire
response. The Mescal -J6 Fire District covers approximately 14 square miles with a total response area of
approximately 225 square miles. The Mescal -J6 Fire District responds to wildland fires throughout
Southern Arizona in accordance with requests from ASLD, FS, and BLM. The Mescal -J6 Fire District still
operates in a strictly volunteer capacity with no full -time personnel employed. The Mescal -J6 Fire District
responded to 365 calls for service in 2011 and has responded to 288 calls for service as of September 4,
2012. The 2010 population of the Mescal -J6 Community WUI is estimated to be 9,464 residents occupying
5,049 housing units ( http://factfinder2.census , accessed March 2013). The Mescal -J6 Community WUI
is considered to have an ISO rating of 10. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 30,378 acres within the
Mescal -J6 Community WUI for the potential risk to wildland fire.
The primary transportation corridors in the WUI communities are 1 -10 traversing the WUI from the east and
west, Mescal Road to the north, and South J6 Ranch Road to the south providing a north -south corridor in
the WUI. The Union Pacific Railroad parallels 1 -10 to the north. The major business and community
services are located adjacent to the 1 -10 frontage road or to Mescal and South J6 Ranch roads.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 75
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, Apacherian - Chihuahuan
mesquite upland scrub, Apacherian - Chihuahuan semi - desert grasslands and steppe, and Chihuahuan -
creosotebush mixed desert and thorn scrub vegetations in lower elevations, with desert -oak transition
associations occurring in higher elevations toward the foothills of the Rincon Mountains to the northwest of
the WUI. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along the numerous desert washes and grassland
fan terraces originating from the mountain foothills. This portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk
in lower elevations during extreme rainfall years within the desert grasslands, particularly from increased
light fuels produced from winter annual and perennial native and invasive grasses. Areas with a high and
moderate history of wildfire ignitions occur along 1 -10 and within the northern portion of the WUI in the
eastern foothills of the Rincon Mountains within the vicinity of Happy Valley. Public use within the WUI is
considered low. The WUI is composed of a mix of large developed private land parcels and traditional
housing subdivisions of varied assessed value. The combination of mixed housing density, intermixed with
areas of vegetative associations with high fire potential, and some areas with a high ISO rating and high
wildfire ignition history create areas of high risk to community values. The Pima County CWPP analyses
determined that 23 percent of the Mescal -J6 Community WUI is at high risk and 71 percent is at moderate
risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of high- moderate wildfire risk, areas of high ignition history, and a low
density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the Mescal -J6 Community WUI is high.
Mt. Lemmon Community WUI
The Mt. Lemmon Community WUI is composed of private lands within the Mt. Lemmon Fire District
boundary and within FS lands managed by the CNF adjacent to and within the fire district boundary. The
community of Summerhaven, which includes the Loma Sabino Pines tract, comprises a majority of the
private land. The WUI portion on FS land includes Mt. Lemmon Ski Valley, recreation residence tracts
(Fern Ridge, Soldier Camp, Bear Wallow, Willow Canyon), organization camps (Organization Ridge),
observatories and communications sites (Radar Base /Radio Ridge, Mt. Bigelow), and CNF administrative
sites (Palisades, Sollers Point). There are also numerous national forest recreation areas along the
General Hitchcock Highway. The Mt. Lemmon Community WUI lies adjacent to and includes part of the
56,933 -acre Pusch Ridge Wilderness area. In 2004 the Mt Lemmon Wildland -Urban Interface Plan for
Forest Health Wildland Fire Management was developed and approved by the Pima County Board of
Supervisors.
The 2004 WUI Plan was a cooperative effort between the citizens of Mt. Lemmon, Mt. Lemmon Fire
Department, Trees for Mount Lemmon, Pima County, ASLD, and CNF. Subsequent to the adoption of the
2004 WUI Plan, Pima County adopted and has continued to adopt revised editions of the International WUI
Code that is applicable to a Rural Forest Village which under the Pima County Comprehensive Plan
included Summerhaven in this special land use designation. The goal of the 2004 WUI Plan "to create a
healthy, vigorous forest and simultaneously reduce potential for a return of catastrophic wildlife fire"
remains current. With the exception of the WUI boundary, revised vegetative landcover descriptions, and
associated fuel models, the goals and objectives of the 2004 WUI Plan are still valid have been included in
the Pima County CWPP by reference.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 76
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
The primary transportation corridor in the Mt. Lemmon Community WUI is the General Hitchcock
(Mt. Lemmon) Highway, which connects Summerhaven to the Tucson Basin. The major retail businesses
within the WUI are located in the community of Summerhaven. TRICO Electric Cooperative is the utility
provider for the community of Summerhaven and is included as a cooperator in the Mt Lemmon
Community WUI. The Pima County CWPP cooperators are supportive of the revision of the 2004 Mt.
Lemmon CWPP boundary that has been collaboratively developed by the 2004 Cooperators and the
Arizona FireScape project. The 2013 WUI is modified to follow topographic features and trails encircling the
community at approximately the 8,000 -foot mean sea level contour. The 2013 proposed Mt. Lemmon WUI
boundary is more logical because it follows the topography and developed features instead of a straight
line through rugged country. It follows access for firefighters and fuel maintenance crews so they can enter
the area and start action to more readily identify, suppress, or manage wildland fire. It also defines an area
for preventive treatment to better protect lives and property. Portions of the revised boundary are adjacent
to and within the northern and eastern sections of the Pusch Ridge Wilderness boundary. The approval
and concurrence of the Pima County CWPP will serve as revising the 2004 Mt. Lemmon WUI boundary to
the 2013 WUI boundary as depicted in Figure 2.8. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 12 square miles as
the Mt. Lemmon Community WUI, as depicted in Figure 2.8. The Mt. Lemmon Fire District provides fire
protection (both structure and wildland), emergency medical services, rescue, and public assistance to the
community WUI centered in the community of Summerhaven. Established in 1979 as a fully volunteer
agency, the district has grown into a combination department with a fire chief and a full -time staff of
officers, firefighters, and paramedics, as well as over a dozen volunteers. The 2010 estimated population of
the Mt. Lemmon census - designated place is 40 full -time residents; however, the community is estimated to
have 259 housing units. The Mt. Lemmon Fire District has an ISO rating of 5. Major vegetation
associations within the Mt. Lemmon WUI are derived from the ecological units developed by the FireScape
program ( http : / /www.azfirescape.org /catalina /landscape types Major vegetation associations include the
Madrean pine -oak, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer forest. The Mt. Lemmon Community WUI is the only
Pima County community WUI which includes the ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and Madrean pine -oak
forest vegetation associations. As evidenced by previous wildfires, these vegetation types can support
extreme fire behavior. Wildfire ignitions within the Mt. Lemmon Community WUI are common, with an
average of 13 fires per year. Public use within the WUI is considered high in residential areas, recreation
sites, and undeveloped areas of the WUI. The wildland fire risk influencing factor of housing density may
not accurately reflect community values risk due to the high recreation capacity, recreational development,
communication towers, and research facilities. Due to the complexity of wildland fuels, limited access,
intermixed recreation sites, communication and research facilities, and private residents, the Mt. Lemmon
Community WUI is rated at high risk for wildland fire.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 77
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Mt Lear m on 2013 DUI boundary
r .
Y
_
N
,. I .. i a .:.. a-;•_' .f. . ` ._ I . .. k�, F � c "�� � �,_
1,. � 1
Nr
a
r
!I :ice '41 •� _ _
N -
°
N
1 , l- 1r
y F
4 4i Y ° 5 • +i �y T I �•S� Y � -' F 1 - fi e : # ! d!
LW
� I * I•�. _ uN �� Yn� � -e �. .� • 4a ° �..a + 4 �° S 'ate c' N - .
m�
a •
f '
Jr
+ ; 7
I
■
eN� ,
40. A( _, _ c' i
lilt
dr
r �' Y I � _ 1 _ alb. — - °a , , � 1 N a.�_ -. •.
4 u !._ �• _ _ c9 _ 4 _
r
•
N _ kP 1
Pop IL
a
#•� `' - 3+- _ ° T 1� .—� _ _
L y u
g
14 . 4 4. L e —
ton
4.
� a
rl ,' F
1
Lw
0 5 rp
iib N
,`
r°
.. s. - • 1 — - —
.N F — , .� � G
Figure 2.8. Mt. Lemmon Community WUI Analysis Area
Northwest Community WUI
The Northwest Community WUI is composed of lands within the Northwest Fire District boundary and
public and private lands immediately adjacent the fire district boundary, including portions of the
communities of Oro Valley and Marana.
The primary transportation corridors in the Northwest WUI include 1 -10 from the northwest to southeast;
Tangerine Road in the northeast; Silver Bell Road paralleling 1 -10; and Avra Valley, Sanders, and Trico-
Marana roads in the west. These roadways include the major business corridors in the WUI . The Northwest
Community WUI is composed of 236 square miles and includes private and public lands that are located
within a fire district. Fire protection services in the Northwest Community WUI are provided by the
Northwest Fire District. The district currently provides emergency and community services to 110,000
residents and 3,300 commercial occupancies over a 140 - square -mile area. The district is composed of 10
fire stations that are staffed 365 days a year with 192 firefighters who are paramedics or EMTs, along with
a seasonal wildland team which responds locally as well as nationally to wildland fires. Full staffing for the
in- district brush trucks normally begins in April each year and is staffed through August or when sufficient
monsoon moisture has occurred. The wildland team has one or two trucks staffed daily, with at least one
full -time person and one or two seasonal employees. The wildland team responds to fires in the CNF, as
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 78
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
well as other agencies in southern Arizona if requested. In 2009, the in- district brush trucks responded to
42 public- assistance calls and 20 brush -fire calls and have assisted, when possible, with some of the
district's structure fires.
Major vegetation associations within the WUI community include the paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub,
with mesquite upland and chaparral associations occurring in higher elevations to the north of the
community. Portions of the riparian corridors of Canada de Oro, Rillito, and Santa Cruz rivers occur in the
WUI. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along xeroriparian corridors and the foothills of the
Tucson, Catalina, and Tortolita mountains. These areas of highest wildfire risk include desert
wash /xeroriparian corridors and creosote bush - bursage desert scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti
desert scrub and mesquite upland associations occurring in higher elevations of the Tucson, Catalina, and
Tortolita mountains. Parts of the Santa Cruz River riparian corridor and the Canada del Oro are heavily
infested with the highly flammable, nonnative tree saltcedar. This portion of the sub -WUI does include
areas of high risk along 1 -10 from Cortaro Road north to the Pima -Pinal county boundary, and the foothills
of the Tucson, Catalina, and Tortolita mountains have a moderate wildfire risk during extraordinary rainfall
years. Wildfire ignitions within the Northwest Community WUI are low with the exception of the area
adjacent to 1 -10 at the Pima -Pinal county boundary. However, the adjacency of the Northwest Community
WUI to the Ironwood National Monument and public use along the Santa Cruz River corridor is considered
as moderate to high human use in undeveloped areas of the sub -WUI. The Pima County CWPP analyses
classified 10 percent of the Northwest Community WUI at high risk and 44 percent at moderate risk for
wildland fire. Due to a moderate to high wildfire risk, a moderate ignition history, and a moderate to high
density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the sub -WUI is moderate.
Pascua Yaqui Community WUI
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe is located in Pima County on less than 2 square miles in the southwestern part of
the Tucson metropolitan area. Private lands within the communities of Drexel Heights and Valencia West
border the Pascua Yaqui Tribe on the north, east, and west, and the San Xavier Indian Reservation
borders the tribe on the south. The 2010 population estimate for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe is 4,247 residents
occupying 939 housing units (http: / /factfinder2.census.gov /census tract 9410). On September 18, 1978, the
Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona became a federally recognized Indian tribe. The tribe has a status similar to
other Indian tribes of the United States, making it eligible for specific services due to the federal trust
responsibility that exists between the United States and American Indian tribes. Fire protection services for
the tribe are provided by the Pascua Pueblo Fire Department. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe maintains one fire
station with three engines, consisting of two Type 1 engines and one Type 6 engine, for response to
wildland fires. In 2012, the BIA Salt River Agency developed a fire management plan (2012a) and a fuels
management plan (2012b) that included analyses of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. The 2012 Fuels Management
Plan shows the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to be an intermix of variable housing density primarily in the northern
portion of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and open lands composed of native vegetation in the southern portion.
Major vegetation associations within the Pascua Yaqui Tribe include desert wash and North American
warm - desert riparian systems (32 acres), Apacherian- Chihuahuan mesquite upland scrub (14 acres),
Sonoran mid - elevation desert scrub (10 acres), and Sonoran paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub
associations (665 acres). The 2012 Fuels Management Plan shows three fire - behavior fuel models that
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 79
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
represent the majority of predicted fire behavior within the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. These include Northern
Forest Fire Lab Fuel Model 1 (GR1), which is composed of grass and grass forb fuels; Fuel Model 2 (GS1),
which is composed of a mix of grass and shrubs; and Fuel Model 4 (SH5), which consists of dead and
down woody fuels under a tree canopy within the riparian corridors. All wildland fires on the Pascua Yaqui
Tribe are subject to initial- attack response with the desired tactics and strategies employed to meet land -
management direction. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 1,392 acres of WUI lands within and adjacent to
the Pascua Yaqui Tribe for the potential for wildland fire. The Pima County CWPP found that portions of
the WUI do include areas of high risk in lower elevations during extreme rainfall years from increased light
fuels produced from winter annual and perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red
brome, and buffelgrass. Wildfire ignitions within the Pascua Yaqui Tribe WUI are low. Public use within the
WUI is considered low to moderate in undeveloped areas. The combination of low to higher housing
density on large land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and proximity to expanding
private land developments creates areas of high risk to community values. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe WUI
analyses found 33 percent of the WUI to be at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to a moderate wildfire
risk, a low ignition history, and a relatively moderate density of community values, the overall wildland fire
risk rating of the sub -WUI is moderate to low.
Picture Rocks Community WUI
The Picture Rocks Community WUI is composed of lands within the Picture Rocks Fire District boundary
and public and private lands immediately adjacent to the fire district boundary, next to the west and north
boundaries of Saguaro National Park.
The primary transportation corridor in the Picture Rocks Community WUI is Belmont and Twin Peaks roads
west of Silverbell Road. Sandario, Anway, Trico, and Sanders roads provide north -south access to the
WUI, while Orange Grove and Twin Peaks roads provide east -west access. These roadways include the
major business corridors in the WUI. Fire protection services in the Picture Rocks Community WUI are
provided by the Picture Rocks Fire District. The 2010 estimated population of the Picture Rocks census -
designated place is 9,563 residents. However, the district currently provides emergency and community
services to these residents over a 33- square -mile area (http: / /picturerocksfire.org) including providing fire
protection services to Saguaro National Park via an IGA. In 2001 the Picture Rocks Fire Department began
staffing five personnel per shift. The Picture Rocks Fire District serves a population estimated to be over
9,000 residents and has an ISO rating of 5 in proximity of Station 120 and an ISO rating of 8 in outlying
areas of the district.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and creosote bush- bursage
desert scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub and mid - elevation desert shrub associations
occurring in higher elevations of the Tucson, Waterman, and Roskruge mountains. The areas of highest
wildfire risk are located along the foothills of the Tucson and Waterman mountains and along the Brawley
Wash xeroriparian corridor. This portion of the WUI does include areas of high risk in lower elevations
during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from winter annual and perennial invasive
grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, and buffelgrass. Wildfire ignitions within the Picture
Rocks Community WUI are low. Public use within the WUI is considered moderate in undeveloped areas
and high within the Saguaro National Monument. The WUI is mostly composed of large developed private
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 80
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
land parcels. The combination of low housing density on large private land parcels, intermixed with invaded
vegetative associations, and areas with a high ISO rating creates areas of high risk to community values.
The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 10 percent of the Picture Rocks Community WUI is at
high risk and 53 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate to high wildfire risk,
a low ignition history, and a relatively high density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating
of the Picture Rocks Community WUI is high.
Rincon Valley Community WUI
The Rincon Valley Community WUI is composed of lands within the Rincon Valley Fire District boundary
and public and private lands immediately adjacent the fire district boundary. The Rincon Valley Community
WUI lies mostly north of 1 -10, to the south and west of the Rincon Mountain Wilderness within the CNF and
adjacent to the south boundary of Saguaro National Park. The Rincon Valley Community WUI includes the
communities of Vail and Mountain View. The Rincon Valley Community WUI also includes the 2,000 -acre
Colossal Cave Mountain Park, which is administered for Pima County by the Pima County Parklands
Foundation and receives substantial public visitation. The primary transportation corridors in the Rincon
Valley Community WUI are 1 -10, which provides east -west access to the WUI, and Wentworth /Colossal
Cave Road leading north from 1 -10. The major retail businesses within the WUI are located in or near the
community of Vail. Fire protection services in the Rincon Valley Community WUI are provided by the
Rincon Valley Fire District. The Rincon Valley Fire District Wildland Fire Program is designed to promote
wildland fire safety within the district, while equipping and preparing fire crews for responding to wildland
fires. Every Rincon Valley Fire District firefighter has basic wildland firefighter training, as established by
the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Rincon Valley Fire District maintains a cooperative agreement
with the ASFD. This agreement allows Rincon Valley Fire District to call upon additional local, state, and
federal firefighting resources, including aircraft and firefighting hand crews, should a large wildfire threaten
the district. This agreement also obligates Rincon Valley Fire District to respond when requested to
wildland fires across Arizona and the United States, provided the district has adequate staffing. Rincon
Valley maintains a team of specialized firefighters who respond to these incidents on fire engines, water
tenders, and ambulances. Rincon Valley Fire District was formed in 1985 by residents of the southeast
metropolitan Tucson area to ensure that the community received consistent, high - quality emergency
services at a reasonable cost. The Rincon Valley Fire District currently provides emergency and community
services to 20,000 residents over a 50- square -mile area. The two stations are staffed 24 hours a day and
365 days a year with 37 full -time state - certified firefighters who are paramedics or EMTs. The 2010
estimated population of the Rincon Valley Community WUI is 21,753 residents occupying 8,308 housing
units, with 10,208 of these residents and 3,754 of these housing units located within the community of Vail
( http://factfinder2.census accessed March 2013). The Rincon Valley Fire District has an ISO rating
of 5. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 150 square miles as the Rincon Valley Community WUI.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, Sonora - Mohave creosote bush -
white bursage desert scrub, semi - desert grassland, mesquite uplands, paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub
and mid - elevation desert shrub associations occurring in the foothills of the Rincon Mountains. The areas
of highest wildfire risk are located along the foothills of the Rincon Mountains and within the numerous
xeroriparian areas flowing to the northwest and terminating in the Santa Cruz River, including Rincon
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 81
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Creek, Aqua Verde Creek, and Cienega Creek. Many of the major xeroriparian corridors in the Rincon
Valley Community WUI have at least locally become infested with saltcedar. The addition of saltcedar to
wildland fuels greatly increase fire intensity and behavior, increasing risk to public and fire fighters, and
may result impacts to native vegetation associations. Additionally portions of the WUI include areas of high
risk in lower elevations during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from winter annual
and perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, and buffelgrass. Areas of high
and moderate wildfire ignitions are found adjacent to 1 -10 at the Wentworth/ Colossal Cave Road
intersection and 1 -10 at SR 83 in the vicinity of Mountain View. Public use within the WUI is considered high
in the vicinity of Colossal Cave Mountain Park and in undeveloped areas of SNP and CNF. The WUI is
mostly composed of a mix of large developed private land parcels and traditional home lots present in the
community of Vail and Mountain View. The combination of mixed housing density, intermixed with invaded
vegetative associations, and areas of high ignition history with some areas of high ISO rating creates areas
of moderate risk to community values. The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that 17 percent of the
Rincon Valley Community WUI is at high risk and 66 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to
areas of high and moderate wildfire risk, areas of high ignition history, and a relatively high density of
community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the Rincon Valley Community WUI is high.
Sonoita -Elgin Community WUl
The Sonoita -Elgin Community WUI is composed of lands within and immediately adjacent to the Sonoita
Fire District boundary; the communities of Sonoita, Elgin, and Canelo; and lands immediately adjacent to
SR 83, SR 82, and the Elgin - Canelo Road. In 2007 the Sonoita -Elgin Firewise Team produced the Sonoita -
Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which the Pima County Board of Supervisors signed on July 5,
2007. The Pima County CWPP incorporates the 2007 Sonoita -Elgin CWPP by reference. The Sonoita -
Elgin CWPP was a collaborative effort of the communities of Sonoita, Elgin, Canelo, Santa Cruz, and
PCOEM, Sonoita -Elgin Fire District, BLM Gila District, CNF, ASFD, National Audubon Society Appleton -
Whittell Research Ranch, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, and local interested citizens. The
2007 CWPP analyzed 118,711 acres for potential risk to wildland fire and found that 57 percent of WUI
lands are at high risk of wildland fire. The 2007 CWPP identified 25,596 acres in Pima County, of which 93
percent is at high or moderate risk for wildland fire. The 2007 CWPP cooperators are not recommending
amendments to goals, objectives, analyses or the WUI boundary of the Sonoita -Elgin CWPP. Therefore,
the Pima County CWPP adopts the 2007 CWPP by reference without amendments. The Sonoita -Elgin Fire
District provides structural and wildland fire protection to the communities. The Sonoita -Elgin Fire District is
a combination department comprising about 54 volunteer, career, and auxiliary personnel serving a 350 -
square -mile district. The Sonoita -Elgin Fire District holds a Certificate of Necessity to provide ambulance
service that covers a 725 square miles of east Santa Cruz County. The Sonoita -Elgin Fire District provides
wildland firefighters, structural firefighters, rescue, prevention, emergency medical services, and hazardous
material first responders to the residents within the CWPP analysis area.
The 2010 estimated population of the Sonoita area is 1,268 residents occupying 719 housing units. The
2010 population estimate for the community of Elgin is 965 residents occupying 503 housing units. The
2010 population estimate of residents within the census tract which includes these communities is
5,304 residents occupying 2,107 housing units. ( http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav /jsf/
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 82
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
pages /index.xhtml /Census tract 46.09 The Sonoita -Elgin Fire District has an ISO rating of 8 for residents
within 5 miles of the fire station, an ISO rating of 9 for residents within 10 miles of the station, and an ISO
rating of 10 for those greater than 10 miles from the fire station. The Pima County CWPP estimates that
18 percent of the Pima County WUI acres are at high risk and 75 percent at moderate risk of wildland fire.
An area with a history of moderate wildfire ignitions is located along SR 83 north of the community of
Sonoita within Pima County. This Sonoita -Elgin Community WUI does include areas of high risk in lower
elevations and in grassland and mesquite vegetation associations during extreme rainfall years. Public use
within the WUI is considered high due to access roads leading to popular outdoor recreation sites (Box
Canyon, Gardner Canyon) on the CNF and visitors to the Sonoita Creek Preserve and the Las Cienegas
National Conservation Area. The WUI is mostly composed of large developed private land parcels and
residential lots within the communities. The combination of low housing density on large private land
parcels, intermixed with high risk vegetative associations, and areas with a high ISO rating creates areas of
high risk to community values. Due to areas of high wildfire risk, areas of moderate ignition history, and a
relatively high density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the Sonoita -Elgin WUI is
high.
Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI
The Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI is composed of private and public lands that are mostly
south and east of the city of Tucson, including the communities of Drexel Heights, Valencia West, Robles
Junction, and Three Points. The BANWR borders the WUI to the south. The Pima County CWPP analyzed
335,259 acres within the Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI for the potential risk for wildland
fire. The Three Points and Drexel Heights fire departments provide fire protection services to the
communities of the Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI. The primary transportation corridors in
the WUI communities are SR 86 and SR 286, which provide north, south and west access. The SR 86 and
SR 286 corridors are the major business corridors in the WUI. The 2010 estimated population of the Drexel
Heights census - designated place is 27,749 residents occupying 9,684 housing units. The 2010 estimated
population of the Three Points - Robles Junction area is 5,581 residents occupying 2,487 housing units
( http: / /factfinder2.census.gov/ faces /nav /isf /pages /index.xhtmI /L The Drexel Heights Fire Department's
present boundary includes 90 square miles of Tucson's southwest side; the department provides fire
protection services to approximately 50,000 residents from five stations, responding to more than 6,000
incidents a year. Drexel Heights maintains an ISO rating of 5. The department also participates in
automatic regional response agreements with other local fire departments. The Three Points Fire
Department provides fire protection services from three stations to approximately 10,000 people living in an
area of 209 square miles. The Three Points Fire Department maintains an ISO rating of 5 in areas adjacent
to the fires stations and an ISO rating of 8 in outlying areas.
Major vegetation associations include desert grasslands, desert wash /xeroriparian corridors, and creosote
bush- bursage desert scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub and upland mesquite
associations occurring in higher elevations toward the foothills of the Sierrita Mountains. The areas of
highest wildfire risk are located along the numerous desert washes originating from the Sierrita Mountains
in the east and the Coyote mountains in the west that drain to the Altar Valley Wash. Altar Valley Wash
bisects the WUI, draining to the north and terminating at the Santa Cruz River. The southeast portion of the
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 83
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
WUI does include areas of high risk in the foothills of the Sierrita Mountains during extreme rainfall years.
Wildfire ignitions within the Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI are low. Public use within the
WUI is considered moderate due to the adjacent BANWR. The WUI is mostly composed of large
developed private land parcels with traditional home lots found in the community center. The combination
of low housing density on large private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and
outlying areas with a high ISO rating creates areas of high risk to community values. The Pima County
CWPP analyses determined that 5 percent of the Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI is at high
risk and 64 percent is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of moderate to high wildfire risk, a low
ignition history, and a moderate density of community values, the overall wildland fire risk rating of the
Three Points — Drexel Heights Community WUI Community WUI is moderate.
Tohono O'odham Nation (Sells and San Xavier District Communities WUIs)
The Tohono O'odham Nation is located in western Pima County with the community of Sells serving as the
Nation's capital. The San Xavier District is located just south of Tucson. Fire protection services are
provided to these communities by the Tohono O'odham Fire Department. The Tohono O'odham Nation has
a fully staffed and operational wildland fire management program which meets national interagency
standards in all aspects of operations, training, qualifications, and safety. The Tohono O'odham Nation is a
participating agency in the Southeast Arizona Management Zone under a joint - powers agreement with the
BLM, CNF, NPS, and USFWS. The 2010 population estimate for the Tohono O'odham Nation within Pima
County is 10,201 residents occupying 3,677 housing units (Tohono O'odham Nation. No Date). The 2010
population estimate for the community of Sells is 2,495 residents occupying 760 housing units
( http: / /factfinder2.census.gov/ faces /nav /isf /pages /index.xhtm1 /) The Tohono O'odham Nation Fire
Management Plan (Tohono O'odham Nation 2004) defines the WUI zone as:
... a one -mile zone surrounding all major communities and on either side of State Highways 86 or
15. Kitt Peak Observatories, support structures and facilities are also designated as being within the
Wildland Urban Interface FMU. The WUI FMU delineation on the Tohono O'odham Nation is based
upon several factors. One of the most important factors is the concentration of structures in a single
area (community) such that a single fire could damage or destroy multiple structures. The second
factor is that areas around communities and along highways are areas where a large percentage of
human caused fires occur. Although fire occurrence statistics are incomplete, Tohono O'odham
Nation Fire Management Staff indicate that more than 60% of all fires occurring on the Nation are
located within the WUI. The third factor is the prolific amount of invasive grass species that create
hazardous fuel conditions around structures, communities and along highways.
The Tohono O'odham Nation Fire Management Plan lists 66 community WUIs, which include the
community of Sells and the entire San Xavier District. The major transportation corridors for the Tohono
O'odham Nation include SR 86 from Tucson, and Indian Reservation Route 15 south from 1 -8. Major retail
businesses are located within the San Xavier District and the community of Sells. Major vegetation
associations within the Tohono O'odham Nation include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and creosote
bush- bursage desert scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub associations occurring in
foothills and bajadas. The Tohono O'odham Nation WUIs do include areas of high risk in lower elevations
within and adjacent to communities during extreme rainfall years from increased light fuels produced from
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 84
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
winter annual and perennial invasive grasses such as Mediterranean grass, red brome, and mustards. In
some instances the presence of invasive winter annuals and perennial grasses is heavier in the
communities than in adjacent lands, creating greater potential risk for wildland fire occurring in the WUIs.
Areas of high wildland fire ignition history are found in the vicinity of Sells, and moderate ignition history
occurs within the communities of Artesa, Ali Molina, and Haivana Nakya. Public use within the WUIs is
considered moderate due to the vastness of the Nation's land and the number of connecting Indian
reservation routes that provide access to the Tohono O'odham Nation's communities. The Pima County
CWPP analyzed 7,820 acres for the potential risk of wildland fire within and adjacent to the community of
Sells and found that 6 percent of the WUI is at high risk and 34 percent of the WUI at moderate risk for
wildland fire. The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that the Sells Community WUI includes areas
of high community values, has a history of high wildland fire ignitions, areas of high wildfire risk, and areas
of limited fire response access. The overall wildland fire risk rating of the Sells community WUI is high. The
Pima County CWPP analyzed 69,965 acres within the San Xavier Community WUI for potential risk to
wildfire. The Pima County CWPP analyses determined that the San Xavier Community WUI contains areas
of high community values due to the number of visitors to the San Xavier del Bac Mission. The San Xavier
Community WUI has a low history of wildfire ignitions and includes areas of high wildfire risk. The Pima
County CWPP analyses determined that 3 percent of the WUI is at high risk and 75 percent is at moderate
risk for wildland fire. Due to the high community values and areas of high wildland fire risk, the overall
wildland fire risk rating of the San Xavier Community WUI is moderate.
Tucson —South Tucson Community WUI
The Tucson —South Tucson Community WUI is composed of private and public lands within the Tucson and
South Tucson Fire Department boundaries and includes the cities of Tucson and South Tucson and some
unincorporated lands. Tucson is the 32nd largest city in the United States, covering an area of 227 square
miles. Tucson sits at an elevation of 2,389 feet and is surrounded by five mountain ranges: the Tucson,
Santa Catalina, Rincon, Santa Rita, and Tortolita mountains. Fire protection is provided by the Tucson and
South Tucson fire departments. The Tucson Fire Department started in 1881 as an all volunteer force and
today is Arizona's second largest Fire Department. The Tucson Fire Department is organized into five
divisions: Headquarters, Operations, Code Administration, Support Services, and Training. The Tucson
Fire Department maintains an ISO rating of 2. The 2010 census estimated population for the city of Tucson
is 520,116 residents occupying 231,883 residential units ( http: / /factfinder2.census.clov/ accessed March
2013). The city of South Tucson covers an area of about 1.2 square miles and is completely surrounded by
the city of Tucson. It is located at the junction of 1 -19 and 1 -10 about 1 mile south of downtown Tucson and
is bounded by 1 -10, 1 -19, and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. The city of South Tucson incorporated in
1940; it is referred to as the "Pueblo within a City." The city of South Tucson is located within zones
designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the Empowerment Zone and
Tucson Pima Enterprise Zone, both of which are dedicated to revitalizing dilapidated areas in the greater
Tucson metropolitan area. The city of South Tucson has also been designated a rural `Colonic' by the
United States Department of Agriculture. A fire protection service is provided to residents by the City of
South Tucson Fire Department. The 2010 census estimated population for the City of South Tucson is
5,652 residents residing in 2,191 residential units http: / /factfinder2.census.gov / , accessed March 2013).
The Pima County CWPP included the cities of Tucson and South Tucson because they border open lands
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 85
Section 11. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
and are near mountain ranges that are composed of areas of high risk for wildland fire. Additionally, wildfire
threats within the municipalities include large riparian corridors such as the Santa Cruz River, Rillito, and
Tanque Verde creeks; Pantano Wash; and the Canada del Oro confluence at Rillito Creek. These riparian
corridors are heavily vegetated and include areas of infestations of nonnative heavy vegetation fuels such
as saltcedar and invasive perennial grasses such as buffelgrass. The potential spread of vegetative- driven
fires within the city of Tucson escalates with increasing spread of invasive woody and grass species,
particularly within the riparian corridors and neighboring open lands.
Although the major landcover within the cities of Tucson and South Tucson is classified as "impervious,"
areas of moderate and high wildland fire risk are found in the vicinity of open lands adjacent to the Tucson
International Airport, to 1 -10 in the area of the Houghton Road intersection, and to areas of high risk in and
near the Pima County Fairgrounds. The major vegetation associations in these open areas include desert
wash /xeroriparian corridors, creosotebush -white bursage desert scrub, and paloverde -mixed cacti desert
scrub associations. The cities of Tucson and South Tucson are composed of a complex of interspersed
wildland interfaces at their borders; heavily vegetated municipal riparian corridors provide cover and shelter
for homeless persons and continued colonization of invasive woody and grass species. The complex of
vegetative fuels has created conditions that require Tucson Fire Department to response to an average
over 1,200 brush fires annually since 2000. Brush fires that are driven by invasive species such as
buffelgrass can spread, under some conditions, at a speed of 770 feet per minute, which equates to over 8
miles per hour (Grissom 2010). Vegetative- driven fires under these conditions have severe risk to public
and firefighter safety, property and loss of natural habitats prior to the arrival of firefighters. Although areas
of significant threat to public and firefighter safety exist within the cities of Tucson and South Tucson, the
overall wildland fire risk rating is low.
Why Community WUI
The Why Community WUI is composed of private and public lands within 1 mile of developed areas of the
community of Why. It lies near the western border of the Tohono O'Odham Nation and is due north of
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona. It is approximately 30 miles north of the
Mexican border near Lukeville, Arizona, and Sonoita, Sonora, Mexico, and 10 miles south of Ajo, Arizona.
The major transportation corridors in the Why Community WUI are SR 85 south from the community of Ajo
and SR 86 from the east from the Tohono O'Odham Nation and the Tucson Basin. The community of Why
provides retail services to individuals traveling to Sonora, Mexico especially to the resort town of Puerto
Penasco and to the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The Pima County CWPP analyzed 4,619
acres within the Why Community WUI for the potential risk of wildland fire. The Why Fire District provides
fire protection services to the community of Why. The Why Community WUI is assigned an ISO rating of
10. The SR 85 /SR 86 intersection is the major business corridor in the WUI . The 2010 estimated
population of the Why census - designated place is 167 residents occupying 102 housing units
( http: / /factfinder2.census.gov/ faces /nav /isf /pages /index.xhtmI /Census tract 46.09.
Major vegetation associations include desert wash /xeroriparian corridors and creosote bush - bursage
desert scrub types, with paloverde -mixed cacti desert scrub occurring in higher elevations of the Pozo
Redondo and Gunsight hills. The areas of highest wildfire risk are located along the foothills of the Pozo
Redondo and Gunsight hills to the east of the community of Why. This portion of the WUI does include
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 86
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
areas of high risk in lower elevations to the north and east of the community during extreme rainfall years
from increased light fuels produced from winter annual and perennial invasive grasses such as
Mediterranean grass, red brome, and buffelgrass. Wildfire ignitions within the Why Community WUI are
low. Public use within the WUI is considered moderate due to the adjacent Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument and holiday traffic to the resort community of Puerto Penasco. The WUI is mostly composed of
mobile home and traditional home lots found in the community center. The combination of high housing
density on small private land parcels, intermixed with invaded vegetative associations, and areas with a
high ISO rating creates areas of high risk to community values. The Pima County CWPP analyses
determined that 91 percent of the Why Community WUI is at moderate risk for wildland fire. Due to areas of
moderate wildfire risk, a low ignition history, and a moderate density of community values, the overall
wildland fire risk rating of the Why Community WUI is moderate.
F. Cumulative Risk Analysis
The cumulative risk analysis synthesizes the risk associated with fuel hazards, wildfire ignition points,
wildfire occurrence, and community values. These different components were analyzed spatially, and an
overall cumulative risk for the analysis area was calculated. Table 2.7 displays the results of the cumulative
risk analyses, identifying the areas and relative percentages of high, moderate, and low risk. Visual
representations of cumulative wildfire hazard are mapped in Figures 2.9a -2.9c.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 87
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
Table 2.7. Cumulative Risk Levels, by Percentage of the WUI Area
Pima County CWPP
Community Sub - Analysis Area
High
Risk ( %)
Acres
Moderate
Risk ( %)
Acres
Low Risk
N
Acres
Total
Acres
Ajo
2
561
55
13, 096
43
10
23
Arivaca - Sasabe
14
7,901
71
38,916
15
8,001
54,818
Avra Valley
4
5,926
74
103
22
30,476
139,630
Three Points - Drexel Heights
5
18,421
64
216,106
30
100728
335,255
Golder Ranch
8
2,561
49
15
42
13
31
Catalina Foothills
22
15,970
47
33
31
22,580
72,529
Corona de Tucson
3
2,204
87
69
10
8
79,880
Mt. Lemmon
99
7,408
1
51
0
0
7,459
Cascabel
2
340
51
6
46
6
13
Lukeville
3
200
11
1,516
0
3
1741
Green Valley- Elephant Head - Helmet Peak
3
6,525
66
137,134
31
64765
208,440
Kitt Peak
0
0
63
1,262
37
748
2
Mescal -J6
23
6,860
71
21
6
1,842
30
Pascua Yaqui
0
3
33
463
66
926
1
San Xavier
3
1,841
75
52,590
22
15,534
69
Picture Rocks
10
3,114
53
15,982
36
10,926
30,022
Rincon Valley
17
16
66
63,649
17
16,217
96
Tohono O'odham
0
0
10
1
90
9,049
10,101
Northwest
10
14,613
44
65,693
46
70,871
151,188
Sells
66
5,178
34
2,643
0
0
7
Tucson -South Tucson
1
1,078
23
42753
76
138,191
182,022
Why
0
0
91
4,209
9
410
4,619
Sonoita -Elgin
18
4
75
19
7
1,856
25,596
Total WU1 Acres
8
121511
59
926
34
531,189
1579
Source: Logan Simpson Design Inc.
*Treatment areas not equal to area risk assessment due to data - rounding errors.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 88
O
C)
UG
CD
0
0
(1)
0
0
Z3
C/)
(1)
0
CD
CT
C:)
CA)
Me
mn
0
rMIL
Z
(D
0
0
rMIL
CL
wh
=;m
(D
X
U T
%M
Z
0
mn�
rZ
=r
ArIzorya C[t
Toltec
Pfcacho
0 Frfen4l Corners I Golder Ranch
Rock
Junctia
rra Urfa I le 119
Final COUnt
Golder Ranch
Pima Count DOM
)Lcatalin
Avra V
R1111to Torto I it-a
SllvP.r Bell Avra Valle North West
Corte ro
M Icture Rocks Cos
&
Sa
Pic
National Ira rk'z,'..,
e St
Catalina F Dot h 111 S.
Catalina Foothills
19 n = j Tucwn
W
Er Tucson and
,r
.O.t
csd E
Tol-iono Oo South TLIcson South T AI
- Pip y ak
Three Points
Dre varnon
Valencia WL 5t
iia 19 L
Pas - Ya rexel Height Xavier
0 A 1- - 1 �
%fOD%-" VP
Cascabel
Z3
) erd-e I L)
m 1. L2
Mescal-J6
Rincon Valle
13IDel-orme
(ri 2009 ES Cop
Ta
Cumulative Risk
i Low
Moderate
I Hi
C UM U LATIVE COM M UNITY W1 LDF1 RE RIS K
Map index
r
t 3
2
op
:3
Jule
0 2-5 5 1 ()
C/)
(1)
0
0
C)
C)
0
rn (n
(n
(1)
(n
Q-
(n
(n
Mammoth
San Manuel
--- - - - - - w -----------------
E
M
E2
ummerhaven
10
Mt Lemmon
Redin
0
Catalina F Dot h 111 S.
Catalina Foothills
19 n = j Tucwn
W
Er Tucson and
,r
.O.t
csd E
Tol-iono Oo South TLIcson South T AI
- Pip y ak
Three Points
Dre varnon
Valencia WL 5t
iia 19 L
Pas - Ya rexel Height Xavier
0 A 1- - 1 �
%fOD%-" VP
Cascabel
Z3
) erd-e I L)
m 1. L2
Mescal-J6
Rincon Valle
13IDel-orme
(ri 2009 ES Cop
Ta
Cumulative Risk
i Low
Moderate
I Hi
C UM U LATIVE COM M UNITY W1 LDF1 RE RIS K
Map index
r
t 3
2
op
:3
Jule
0 2-5 5 1 ()
C/)
(1)
0
0
C)
C)
0
rn (n
(n
(1)
(n
Q-
(n
(n
_U
3
W
O
l J
O
3
i`
1<
rn
O
n
v
Cn
r-F
3
N
O
W
_71
ca
�D
N
F
0
M
0
O
rEPL
CL
�D
U )
I
O
S
Sa n
Coyote Field Tak
f,Ha Iva na N4kya r,
C W) Pea k
Kitt Pea
C:hluli *haik
Pitoi6m
} hachi Milluk
Robles Jun Won I
. Rir con Valley t
Three RoInts Sutra ladI ti
• Tucson and -
S outh Tucson b • Pa rata no
��UnCe'YIn 1�111P�
San XMier
I�uar
Three Paints ita Corona de Tucson
i`ast SahuaFita Mescal-
Carona De. Tucson nsorr
I
i
'Alr ivac2� asabe
I
Turbacaco r
Bu enos A i res
l g .�.. .�. �... t]ra Blanca
Rub
i
r�G reen �!a ey Grit I nental � I
Green Valley, Elephant Head, I
ant Helmet peak M t —
E I
Gi ill e o
one - Ita -Elgin
A Iwalc i un cfcnn Pima C ounty
AMado Santa Cruz County - - - -- � whetstone
Sono Ita t
Elgin 6
I Huachauca Clty
,rr Tubac
0 I�
Ca rme rs
i
VTUrnacaeo ri I Si er ra V i sta
iFFFJen•• I
Patagonia Ca nelo
ti, I
FRia Rico Northwest I
Calabasas, i�a co �H a rshaw
Rio Rico S6 uthwest
i
l 5u
i
Ueyerville C opyrig ht 2009 E SR 1, Copyright,@ 2013 De Lorrn
Cn
CD
O
C umulative Risk
C UM ULATIVE COMMUNITY WILDFI I I i
C
Low
Mode rate
Map Index
n
High
t
O
3
3
3
2
=3
(n
�' I�Iiles
0 _ 10
rn
r--F
Q
(n
- U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
CD
=:h
0
0
0
0
Cn
3
CT
C:)
W
71
can
to
0
0
rEDL
Z
M
0
0
rMIL
CL
h
U)
W
%A
U)
rMIL
Childs
Ch,arco
Wh ID
P'nal Count
I orth KOM e I i k
Ventana Pima Count
0 HickIwan Noipa K,%;n An-vigurn
Fy
Va Chi n
Sant.i
0 Pilo vc-i-dc, St-and
Sil Nak
Mak Havo� -'a Rol Oidakl
0
Narcho Santos
Quijoto a
Sd kul H Im im k
0
C.
Little Tucson San LOS Santa Cruz
Peach Pu crresna I can n Corn ob a hi
Nato Vayin
vai nom K U Kul Tatk
pis Ine MO Ptsin IrnG
�Kalhon Ku
Hall Murk
0
Sweetwater
a
a 44
0
) PIP Oik
LU kevi I I Lukeville
All Ak Chin
Sells
Ku Pk Gu Olda-k P11 Artesa)
0
C/)
CDWfiC (D
0
C o p ri g ht-.0 2009 ES R1 Co p ri ht -. 0 201 De ro rm e 1 0 =3
Curnulative Risk
Low
Moderate
Hi
C UM U LATIVE CC M M UNITY WI LDF1 RE RISK
Map Index
0
3
IE 3 3
C
=3
(n
(n
(D
(n
(n
6". 3
0 2-5 5 10 IN (D
=3
CL
(n
(n
Section II. CWPP Community Assessment and Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 92
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
III. COMMUNITY MITIGATION PLAN
This section outlines Pima County CWPP priorities for wildland fuels treatments, as well as the
recommended methods of treatment and management strategies for mitigating the potential spread of
catastrophic wildland fire throughout the community WUIs. This section also presents recommendations for
enhanced wildland fire protection capabilities and public education, information, and outreach.
A. Fuel Reduction Priorities
After determining the areas at greatest risk for wildland fire (see Section II of this CWPP), the Core Teams
developed a series of proposed actions, including residential treatments; a series of firebreaks appropriate
for the wildland fuel types; and fuel mitigation treatments for undeveloped landscape areas (Table 3.1). The
Core Teams have proposed wildland fire mitigation projects for at -risk public, tribal trust, and private lands.
These proposed actions are recommended to prevent wildfire spread from public lands onto private land
and, conversely, to reduce the risk of fires spreading from private land onto public lands by reducing
wildland fuels and creating a survivable space around your home to reduce the risk from wildfire
( http: / /www.firewise.org; http: / /www.fireadapted.org A primary goal of the Pima County CWPP is for
proposed treatments to be continuous across property boundaries, allowing for the most effective
protection from wildfires.
Hazardous fuels reduction recommendations on public lands vary by constituting either a single firebreak in
appropriate width and length within the WUI or broader land treatment applications of wildland fuel
reduction and habitat restorations within or adjacent to the WUI. Additional firebreaks or hazardous fuels
reduction projects may be developed over time and will conform to the types of treatment
recommendations developed by the Core Teams. The PCOEM, ASFD, CNF, NPS, USFWS, BLM, tribal
and local fire departments and districts, and the Core Teams' participating resource specialists developed
firebreak recommendations by vegetative fuel types. These recommendations are based on firebrand
movement during the peak fire season under normal seasonal weather conditions in relation to slope,
aspect, and fuel type. The recommended land treatments and fuelbreaks will enhance public and firefighter
safety, provide for community value protection, enhance restoration of native vegetation, and provide for
wildlife habitat needs. Designated wilderness areas and special- status lands within or adjacent to the Pima
County CWPP WUI include the Rincon Mountain, Pusch Ridge, the Saguaro Wilderness areas, and the
Ironwood Forest National Monument. Wildland fuel mitigation treatments within special- status lands will be
conducted by BLM, NPS, and CNF under appropriate wilderness regulations. The Core Teams may
recommend fuelbreaks along specific identified private in- holdings adjacent to wilderness boundaries to
allow BLM, NPS, and CNF to use appropriate response to wildland fire.
The wildland vegetative fuel and firebreak recommended treatments meet the Pima County CWPP goals of
enhancing firefighter and public safety, reducing hazardous wildland fuels on public and private lands;
improving fire prevention and suppression; restoring riparian, forest, and rangeland health; involving the
community; and expediting project implementation. To prioritize wildland fuel mitigation projects, the Core
Teams analyzed wildland fuel hazards, fire history, and community values. This combined risk assessment
was compiled in a single community base map depicting areas of low -, moderate -, and high -risk
evaluations (see Figures 2.8.a.- 2.8.c). These risk areas were further identified and categorized into a total
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 93
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
of 95 wildland treatment management units (TMUs) within 23 sub -WUI designations of the WUI. These
treatment units were analyzed and categorized according to potential risk for wildfire with an overall risk
value determined for each management unit (Figures 3.1a- 3.1c).
The Core Teams described the location of each treatment management unit in the WUI and then assigned
recommended treatments for each unit (Table 3.2).The management units listed in Table 3.2 do not always
coincide with fire department or fire district boundaries or lie within established fire departments and
districts. For example, the Avra Valley community sub -WUI is much larger than the fire district boundary,
and some treatment management units are not in any fire department or district or under federal jurisdiction
for fire protection; therefore, no fire departments or districts are responsible for those treatment
management units.
Private land treatments in the WUI typically occur on small land parcels near power lines, structures, and
other obstacles. In many cases, cut trees and slash cannot be piled and burned on small private land
parcels, or it is not the preferred slash treatment by the owner of a small residential lot or by the local fire
departments. Therefore, the Core Teams recommend that slash from wildland fuel reduction treatments on
small residential parcels be removed, whole or chipped, and transported to a disposal site. The Core
Teams do not oppose alternative vegetative treatments to achieve wildland vegetative fuel mitigation
objectives, such as an experimental grazing program using primary grazers within the WUI, adjacent to
state or federal lands. The Core Teams also recommend that fallow agricultural lands be restored through
the planting of native vegetation species in accordance with the National Conservation Practice Standards,
Range Planting, Code 550 (NRCS 2002). The Core Teams also recommend that firebreaks constructed on
public and private lands to restrict wildland fire movement be maintained in accordance with the above -
mentioned mitigation measures and stipulations on a rotating 2- or 3 -year interval, or as deemed necessary
to ensure the integrity of the firebreak through removal of fine and light vegetative fuels.
Treatment of wildland fuels within the WUI is expected to generate considerable slash and vegetative
waste material. Private individual use of wood products from fuel reduction treatments within the WUI is
primarily for fuelwood. Commercial use of the woody material from fuel reduction treatments is also
primarily limited to fuelwood, and any commercial value of treatment by- products will not significantly affect
land treatment costs. Recent costs of fuels mitigation treatment on BLM lands within the WUI include
mesquite grubbing at $525.00 per acre for stewardship contracting; $400.00 per acre for service
contracting; and $250.00 to $350.00 per acre in- house. If wildland fuel modification prescriptions require
follow -up pile burning or herbicide application after vegetation treatment, the total cost per acre could
include $21.00 for burning and $370.00 for foliar herbicide application (BLM, pers. comm. 2013).
Costs for herbicide applications to buffelgrass- invaded sites varies widely based on distance from roads
and trails, amount of buffelgrass and size of patches, method used, and other variables. In 2010 -2012,
costs for FS, BLM, and NPS have ranged from $30 to $370 per acre, averaging $200 —$250 per acre. Small
areas treated by private contractors may have a similar range of costs per acre.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 94
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.1. Fuel Modification and Treatment Plans
2 4
Treatment 1 Undeveloped Private Parcels Or 3 Oak/Pinyon /Juniper and Shrublands
No. Developed Private Parcels <2 Acres Single- Structure Parcels >2 Acres Grassland Firebreaks within the WUI
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Streambeds,
Treatment (0 -10 feet from (10 -30 feet from (30 -100 feet (100 -600 feet Channels, and Landscape Treatment
Category structures) structures) from structures) around home) Slopes <20% Slopes > -20% Slopes <20% Slopes > -20% Outside Firebreaks Firebreaks
Vegetation Remove ladder fuels by
Remove ladder fuels by
Remove ladder fuels by
For natural areas, thin
Remove ladder fuels by
pruning the lower third
pruning the lower third of
pruning the lower third of
selectively and remove
pruning the lower third of
of trees or shrubs up to
trees or shrubs up to a
trees or shrubs up to a
highly flammable
trees or shrubs up to a
a maximum of 10 feet to
maximum of 10 feet;
maximum of 10 feet;
vegetation.
maximum of 8 feet; remove
reduce flammable
remove and destroy
remove and destroy
See fuel modification
and destroy insect - infested,
vegetation.
insect - infested, diseased,
insect - infested, diseased,
plan (this section)
diseased, and dead trees.
Remove and destroy
and dead trees.
and dead trees.
developed to promote
Maximum density of trees
insect - infested,
Create separation
Maximum density of
forest health, to prevent
(whichever is greater:
diseased, and dead
between trees, tree
trees (whichever is
spread of fire to adjacent
60 square feet of basal area
trees and shrubs.
crowns, and other plants
greater: 60 square feet of
property, and to create
at 80 -100 trees /acre or
Grasses and forbs may
based on fuel type,
basal area at
defensible space with
average density of
be cut with a mower to a
density, slope, and other
80 -100 trees /acre or
considerations for
100 trees /acre)
4 -inch stubble
topographical features.
average density of
wildlife and groundwater
See fuel modification plan
Remove dead plant
Reduce continuity of fuels
100 trees /acre).
protection
(this section) developed to
material from ground;
by creating a clear space
Grasses and forbs may
Carefully space trees;
promote riparian health, to
prune tree limbs
around brush or planting
be cut with a mower to a
choose Firewise plants.
prevent spread of fire to
overhanging roof;
groups.
4 -inch stubble.
Remove non - irrigated
adjacent property, and to
remove branches within
Grasses and forbs may be
Remove non - irrigated
nonnative grasses
create defensible space with
10 feet of chimney;
cut with a mower to a
nonnative grasses
(especially buffelgrass).
considerations for wildlife and
remove flammable
4 -inch stubble.
(especially buffelgrass).
and move stands toward
groundwater protection.
debris from gutters and
Remove non - irrigated
grasses (especially red
potential natural vegetation
Single structure or structures
roof surfaces.
nonnative grasses
broom, cheatgrass, and
groups as described in the
on parcels exceeding 2 acres
Remove non - irrigated
(especially buffelgrass).
Mediterranean grass).
FRCC Interagency
should include Treatment 1 in
nonnative grasses
All snags and vegetation
Handbook (FRCC
Interagency Working
proximity to structures and
Treatment 2 for
(especially buffelgrass).
that may grow into
Group 2005a) or grazed to
remaining
overhead electrical lines,
like conditions. All trees
acres.
other ground fuels, ladder
>10 inches dre will be
See the fuel modification plan
fuels, dead trees, and
targeted as "leave trees"
(this section) developed to
thinning from live trees
unless removal is
prevent spread of fire to
must be removed.
necessary to achieve the
adjacent property and to
annual grasses (especially red
desired spacing.
create defensible space with
broom, cheatgrass, and
considerations for wildlife and
Mediterranean grass).
groundwater protection.
Remove dead, diseased,
Grassland types may be
Same as for slopes <20 %.
Spacing may be variable
Woodland and shrub trees
and dying trees. Fell dead
mechanically treated, including
Fuel treatments may require
with a 20- to 35 -foot
<8 inches dre will be thinned
trees away from stream
mowing, chopping, or
hand - thinning and hand-
minimum to promote (1)
to a spacing of 15 feet
channels with defined bed
mastication, to reduce or
piling or grazing in steep
wildlife habitat while
between trees, or Rx will be
and banks.
remove vegetation or may be
slopes. Rx may be used to
breaking horizontal fuel
applied to achieve I ke
Areas should be hand-
grazed to a stubble height.
reduce high fire potential
loading, which allows for
conditions. Shrub and tree
thinned and hand - piled;
Ensure that removal of
(see Treatment 5).
patches of closely spaced
trunks will be severed
inaccess ble areas may
vegetation within a designed
Designated firebreaks may
trees for adequate cover,
<4 inches from the ground.
be treated with periodic
firebreak of >1 chain (66 feet) in
be increased to no more
and (2) other habitat
Mechanical treatments, such
Rx.
width and length is sufficient to
than 2 chains in steep
components while
as crushing, chipping,
must be removed
protect federal, state, or private
slopes where herbaceous
incorporating openings to
mastication, and Rx, may be
Develop fuel modification
land values.
(fine fuels) and subshrub
increase herbaceous
used to create open stands
plan (this section) for
Fuel reduction treatments within
species fuel loads increase
forage production, to
that produce flame lengths of
treatments.
grassland vegetation types may
to pretreatment levels within
maximize edge effect, and
:54 feet to minimize crown -fire
Remove nonnative
include multiple -entry burns to
3 years.
to promote fire - resilient
potential and to produce
grasses (especially,
maintain stand structure and
Remove nonnative grasses
stands. Mechanical
vegetative fuel conditions
buffelgrass and
reduce fine fuels. Trees and
(especially buffelgrass,
thinning and Rx (see
conducive to suppression
fountaingrass).
shrubs >8 inch dre should be
fountaingrass and
Treatment 5) can be used
action. Herbaceous and
thinned to a variable distance of
Lehmann's lovegrass),
to reduce vegetative fuels
subshrub understory may be
15 -35 feet between trees.
including winter annual
and move stands toward
mechanically treated,
Trees and shrubs <8 inches dre
grasses (especially red
potential natural vegetation
including mowing, chopping,
should be removed.
broom, cheatgrass, and
groups as described in the
and masticating, or grazed to
Mechanical /chemical grazing
Mediterranean grass).
FRCC Interagency
limit fine -fuel loading while
treatment may be used d to
Handbook (FRCC
Interagency Working
protecting soil integrity from
rainfall runoff.
maintain firebreaks on private
Group 2005a) or grazed to
lands.
like conditions. All trees
Remove nonnative grasses
>10 inches dre will be
(especially buffelgrass,
targeted as "leave trees"
fountaingrass and Lehmann's
unless removal is
lovegrass), including winter
necessary to achieve the
annual grasses (especially red
desired spacing.
broom, cheatgrass, and
Mediterranean grass).
Slash /litter Remove or reduce
Control soil erosion from
Same as Zones 1 and 2. Slash may be burned,
All slash, snags, and
Clean dead and down
natural flammable
small waterflow channels
piled and burned, or
vegetation that may grow into
debris in channels where
material 2 -4 feet above
by using rock or
chipped and removed.
overhead electrical lines;
debris may be mobilized
the ground around
noncombustible velocity-
Slash from grassland
other ground fuels; ladder
in floods and thus create
improvements. Remove
reducing structures.
treatments may be
fuels; dead trees; and
downstream jams.
vegetation that may
Remove all leaf litter to a
burned, removed,
thinning from live trees must
Some slash and debris
grow into overhead
depth of 1 inch.
masticated, turned, or
be removed, mechanically
can be scattered and
electrical lines, ladder
grazed for like treatment.
treated (chipped, etc.), or
retained in small,
fuels, and dead trees.
piled and burned along with
ephemeral streambeds in
Thinning from live trees
existing fuels.
which slash can help
must be removed
retain runoff and
(chipped, etc.). Remove
sediment and provide
all leaf litter to a depth of
1 inch.
headcut stabilization.
Slash from grassland Same as for slopes <20 %; Slash may be burned, piled Slash may be burned, piled
treatments may be burned, however, slash may be and burned, or chipped and burned, or chipped and
removed, masticated, or turned hand -piled and ignited with and removed. Slash from removed. Slash from
(disked). Rx as the primary slash grassland treatments may grassland treatments may be
reduction treatment. be burned, removed, burned, removed,
masticated, or turned. masticated, or turned.
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 95
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.1. Fuel Modification and Treatment Plans
7 9
Escape and Resource 8 Conditional Suppression 10
Treatment 5 6 Transportation Corridors Riparian Areas Areas (federal and Saltcedar Removal (federal
No. Forest Types within or adjacent to the WUI Prescribed Fire (federal and nonfederal lands) (federal, nonfederal, and private lands) nonfederal lands) and nonfederal lands)
Federal, State, or Local
Treatment Federal, State, Government Where Firebreaks Federal, State, Federal, State,
Category Thinning Shaded Fuelbreaks or Private Lands Designated as Escape Route Federal or State Lands on Private Lands or Private Lands or Private Lands
Vegetation Lands may be thinned to create
vegetation structure, composition,
and fuel loadings that support low -
intensity surface fire to reduce the
impacts of wildfire on communities.
Residual stocking levels for private
land would be reduced to 20 -80
trees per acre ( :560 square feet of
basal area /acre).
Thinning treatments on Forest
Service land will enhance private
land treatments, but must comply
with the Forest Land Management
Plan and other associated rules
and regulations.
In general, treatments will favor
leaving larger trees and removing
ladder fuels. Tree spacing should
be random with some degree of
"clumpiness. "Refer to Treatment 1
for additional guidelines in areas
close to structures.
A fuel break is a natural or
manmade change to native
vegetation which affects fire
behavior so that fires burning into
them can be more readily
controlled. The size and type of fuel
break will depend on the vegetation
and topography.
Fuel break construction on Forest
Service land will enhance private
land treatments, but must comply
with the Forest Land Management
Plan and other associated rules and
regulations.
Rx will be used as a tool to
accomplish specific resource
management objectives in
accordance with ASLD, ASFD,
CNF, and /or BLM standards and
guides.
Rx on federal land is authorized if
part of an approved Rx burn plan.
As additional areas within the WUI
are identified, Rx may be used as a
treatment tool provided that a
wildland fire implementation plan is
in effect and that all conditions set
forth have been met.
Rx can occur at low, moderate, and
high intensity. High- intensity fire will
be used to create openings by
removing above ground vegetation.
Reduce fuel loading by thinning trees
<10 inches dre. Reduce trees to 15-
foot spacing. Shrub and tree trunks
will be cut no less than 4 inches from
the ground. Stands will be variable
across the landscape, such as
retention of bands of higher- density
vegetation with sufficient understory
to maintain functionality of important
wildlife movement corridors in areas
of low structure density.
Mechanical treatments may include
chipping, piling and burning, or
removal and Rx in the project area.
Trees may be left in clumps with fuel
ladders removed from below. Dead,
diseased, and dying trees of all sizes
will be emphasized for removal.
Some trees >8 inches dre may be cut
to reduce safety hazards or when
needed to reach desired 15 -foot
spacing.
Escape and resource transportation
corridors may serve as firebreaks in
all vegetative types.
Firebreaks for each vegetative type,
as described in this table, would be
implemented at appropriate distance
from the centerline of the escape and
resource transportation corridors to
produce fire - resilient stands and to
enhance evacuation and response
access.
Emphasis will be placed on removing
nonnative and flammable species.
Grasses and forbs may be cut with a
mower to 4 -inch stubble.
Riparian treatments will be limited in
scope. The majority of riparian areas
that fall within the WUI boundary will
be avoided unless deemed a fuel
hazard.
Clearing or cutting of any material by
mechanized equipment within 10 feet
of any stream on federal land may be
prohibited to prevent the risk of
accelerating erosion.
Treatments may include some
overstory removal of deciduous
riparian trees and shrubs in areas
where encroachment has increased
heavy woody fuels (emphasizing
removal and control of saltcedar and
other invasive trees).
Treatments will emphasize nonnative
species. Snags >8 inches may be
retained. All presettlement trees,
including snags, will be targeted for
retention.
Restricting the removal of the
vegetative overstory in the riparian
areas to the period of October 15—
March 31 will prevent the disturbance
of any nesting by neotropical migrant
bird species, including the
southwestern willow flycatcher. Fuels
reduction should occur October 15—
March 31 in riparian areas, as long as
fire danger is not extreme.
Herbicides can be used against
nonnative grasses, but it takes about
3 years to break fuel continuity. This
is not the best method for zones 1
and 2 unless coupled with mowing or
as a follow -up to pulling.
Emphasis will be placed on removing
species listed in Appendix A.
Private land treatment should
use hand tools, chain saws, or
mowers. Dead vegetation and
slash should be removed.
Ladder fuels, including limbs
and branches, should be
removed up to a maximum of
8 feet aboveground.
All mechanized equipment
must meet state and local fire -
department /district standards.
Perform treatments October —
March annually. Treatment of
annuals may be best when
annuals are green.
Herbicides can be used against
nonnative grasses, but it takes
about 3 years to break fuel
continuity. This is not the best
method for Zones 1 and 2
unless coupled with mowing or
as a follow -up to pulling.
This prescription includes
lands with desert shrub /scrub
vegetative types in which no
fuel modification treatments
have been identified as
necessary to provide
protection from wildland fire.
The threat from catastrophic
wildland fire is low or
nonexistent. This includes
areas in which fire never
played a historical role in
developing and maintaining
ecosystems. Historically, in
these areas, fire return
intervals were very long.
These are areas in the WUI in
which fire could have negative
effects unless fuel
modifications take place.
These include areas in which
the use of fire may have
ecological, social, or political
constraints and areas in which
mitigation and suppression are
required to prevent direct
threats to life or property.
Wildland fire growth within
these areas will be monitored
for private - property, ecological,
and cultural threats before
initiating suppression. Agency
and fire - department /district
policy provisions will determine
suppression response.
Response will be full
suppression when firefighter
and public safety, property,
improvements, or natural
resources are threatened
Areas of monotypic saltcedar or in
mix with mesquite or other riparian
tree species may be treated
mechanically or chemically or by
controlled burning and reburning to
reduce stem density, canopy, and
excessive fuel loading. Mechanical
removal for saltcedar by cutting
below the root collar during
November — January is preferred.
Mechanical whole -tree extraction has
achieved as high as 90% mortality on
initial treatments and may be
considered a preferred treatment.
Low - volume oil -based herbicide
applications in late spring through
early fall would be considered for
controlling small plants
( <2 inches dre). Low - volume cut -
stump herbicide applications will be
considered in combination with
mechanical treatment. Preferred
phenological stage for burning is
peak summer months and postavian
breeding months. Black lines and
appropriate headfires should be
initiated depending on site - specific
vegetative and burning conditions.
Maintenance, revegetation,
restoration, and monitoring should
follow as needed for each treatment
area.
Seedlings can effectively be pulled
by hand.
Slash /litter Refer to Treatment 1 for areas
Slash would be piled and burned or
Slash, jack piles, and down logs
Snags, slash, and down logs will be
After removal of heavy woody fuels,
Fuel treatments and woody
Fuel treatments and woody
Created slash will be made available
close to structures. In areas away
chipped and removed. Fuelwood
may be burned as appropriate in
removed in proximity to private land.
fine fuels may be maintained by cool-
material removal will occur on
material removal could occur
for woody biomass use. If not used
from structures, slash may be piled
and timber harvest are also viable
consideration of local conditions
Pile burning or broadcast burning can
season low- intensity Rx that moves
existing roads. Cool- season
on existing roads. Cool- season
for wood - related products, slash will
and burned, chipped and removed
means of removal.
and distance from private property.
be used to remove fuel. Snags and
slowly downslope or into prevailing
low- intensity Rx may be used
low- intensity Rx may be used
be piled with preexisting fuels and
or lopped and scattered to a
Pile or Rx can be used to remove
down woody material may be
winds to midslope. Large down woody
for maintenance of fine fuels.
for maintenance of fine fuels.
burned, or otherwise used for soil
noncompacted thickness of no
fuel from private land as
retained in areas where fire resilience
material and snags ( >_12 inches) may
Pile orjackpot burning will not
Pile orjackpot burning will not
stabilization. Disturbed areas should
more than 2 feet deep and be
designated. Snags and down woody
is not compromised. Vehicle pullouts
be retained in riparian areas.
occur in ephemeral,
occur in ephemeral,
be immediately revegetated with a
treated later as part of a broadcast
material may be retained in areas
should be planned in appropriate
intermittent, or perennial
intermittent, or perennial
native plant community that contains
burn. Fuelwood and timber harvest
where fire resilience is not
numbers and locations where
stream channels.
stream channels.
no invasive species and meets other
are also viable means of removal
compromised.
vegetation, slope, and terrain permit.
land use objectives, such as wildlife
in all areas.
habitat enhancements or
recreational -use benefits.
Note: R = prescribed fire, dre = diameter at root collar.
a List of Firewise plants can be found in the Firewise literature listed in Appendix C, Educational Resources.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 96
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management
Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal
Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit
ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Ajo
AJ 1
M
Lands on SR 85 north of
112131719
1
1
NA
1
NA
Ajo at Ajo airport
AJ2
L
Lands on SR85 north of
112131779
2560
2
NA
415
NA
Ajo south of Ajo airport
AJ3
L
Lands within the town of
112131779
14
7
32
7
NA
Ajo
AJ4
H
Lands on SR 85
112131779
5
3,984
NA
1
NA
immediately south of Ajo
Arivaca - Sasabe
See the Arivaca-Sasabe CWPP for description of the 29 Arivaca and 9 Sasabe treatment management units
Avra Valley
AV1
L
Lands immediately west
1,2,3,8,9
4
NA
NA
4
NA
of 1 -10 west of Santa
Cruz River
AV2
M
Central WUI Pinal County
1,2,3,8,9
16
1
5
9
NA
south to AV4 and AV3
AV3
M
Central WU 1 south of AV2
112737819
13
45
1
11
NA
north of AV9
AV4
M
Central WU 1 south of AV2
112131819
10
1
1
7
NA
north of AV8
AV5
M
Central WU 1 Pinal County
1,2,3,8,9
16
11
4
1
NA
south to Tohono
O'odham boundary
AV6
H
Northeast WUI bordering
1,2,3,8,9
28
16
4
7
NA
Tohono O'odham and
Pinal County
AV7
L
Eastern WU 1 bordering
172737879
12
3
310
5
3
Tohono O'odham
AV8
L
Southeast WUI bordering
1,2,3,8,9
12
4,481
1
6
NA
Tohono O'odham
AV9
M
Lands immediately north
1,2,3,8,9
23762
4
2,001
17
2
of Tohono O'odham
including Brawley Wash
Cascabel
CB1
M
San Pedro River corridor
1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10
13
NA
9
3
NA
community of Redington
Catalina Foothills
CF1
H
Northwest WUI in CNF
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10
3
2
NA
650
NA
buffer west of Sabino
Canyon
CF2
H
North - central WUI in CNF
1727374757778,10
5
4
NA
1
NA
buffer east of Sabino
Canyon
CF3
H
Northeast WU 1 in CNF
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10
6
4
NA
1
NA
buffer
CF4
L
South of CF1 adjacent to
1,2,7,8,10
12
1
3
12
NA
the Rillito River corridor
CF5
M
South of CF2 adjacent to
1,2,7,8,10
11
58
NA
11
NA
Tanque Verde and
Pantano creek corridors
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
97
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management
Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal
Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit
ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
CF6
M
South of CF3 adjacent to
1,2,7,8,10
12
NA
4
12
NA
Tanque Verde and
Pantano creek corridors
CF7
H
Northeast WU I at
1727375777879110
11
6
NA
5
NA
Redington Pass adjacent
to Saguaro National Park
CF8
H
Southeast WU I adjacent
1
4
4
NA
944
NA
to Saguaro National Park
CF9
L
Southwest WUI west of
1,2,7,8,10
4
90
NA
4
NA
CF8
Corona
CDT1
M
Northwest WU 1 south of
1,2,3,5,7,8,9
8
1
2
4
NA
de Tucson
Sahuarita Road
CDT2
M
North - central WU 1
1727375171879
12
NA
11
799
NA
immediately south of 1 -10
CDT3
L
Central WUI south of
1127375777879
6
NA
3
3
NA
CDT2
CDT4
H
Northeast WU I south of
1727375777879
3
NA
716
2
NA
1 -10
CDT5
M
Southern WU 1 north of
1,2,3,5,7,8,9
19
5
7
5
NA
Santa Rita Experiment
Range
CDT6
M
Eastern WU I adjacent to
1,2,3,5,7,8,9
29
2,971
18
8
NA
CN F Santa Rita
Mountains
Golder Ranch
See the Catalina CWPP for description and risk ratings of G1 through G32
G33
H
Southeast WUI in the
1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10
2,993
2,993
NA
NA
NA
CN F buffer
G34
M
Northeast WU 1 in the
1727374777879110
2
2
1
1
NA
CN F buffer
G35
M
Northwest WU 1 at Pinal
1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10
3
203
1
1
NA
County boundary
Green Valley
GV1
H
South central WU 1 on
172737719
11
NA
1
10
NA
1 -19 corridor north of
Santa Cruz County south
of Green Valley
GV2
L
Central WU 1 on 1 -19
112131719
11
NA
86
10
NA
corridor including Green
Valley
GV3
H
Southeast WUI north of
1727374151719
16
4
6
4
NA
Santa Cruz County on
Santa Rita Mountains
foothills
GV4
L
Eastern WU 1 on Santa
1127314151779
31
8
19
2
NA
Rita Mountains foothills
and Santa Rita
Experimental Range
GV5
L
Central WUI grasslands
17273757779
39
51
34
5
NA
east of 1 -19 corridor east
of Green Valley
GV6
M
Northeast WU I on City of
1,2,3,5,7,9
16
NA
14
1
NA
Tucson border
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
98
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management
Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal
Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit
ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
GV7
L
North central WU 1 1 -19
17273757779
17
NA
3
14
NA
corridor at Sahuarita
GV8
M
North WUI immediately
11213157779
3
NA
589
3
10
south of San Xavier
District
GV9
L
Northwest WU 1
1,2,3,5,7,9
38
2
4
31
64
immediately south of San
Xavier District east of
ridge line of the Sierrita
Mountains
GV10
L
Southwest WUI east from
1,2,357,9
22
122
14
8
NA
ridge line of the Sierrita
Mountains
Kitt Peak
KT1
H
WUI surrounding Kitt
172737415171
2
NA
NA
NA
2
Peak Observatory
Lukeville
LV1
M
WUI surrounding the
1121319
1
1
NA
353
NA
community and Lukeville
Port of Entry
Mescal -J6
M 1
H
Isolated northern
1,2,3,4,5,7,9
3,017
2,395
NA
622
NA
treatment management
unit on Cochise County
border, in Happy Valley
south of Rincon Mountain
Wilderness
M2
M
Northeast WU I on
1727374757779
5
1
1748
2
NA
Cochise County border
north of 1 -10
M3
H
1 -10 and Union Pacific
17273771819
8
NA
6
1
NA
Railroad corridor
immediately east of
Cochise County border
M4
M
South of 1 -10 from
1,2,3,5,7,8,9
6
NA
6
1
NA
Cochise County to
Cienega Creek Natural
Preserve
M5
L
Southeast WU I west of
1,2,3,5,7,8,9
6
564
4
1
NA
Cochise County
boundary north of Las
Cienegas National
Conservation Area
Mount Lemmon
MT1
H
Community of
17274757677
7
7
NA
309
NA
Summerhaven and
adjacent private and
CN F lands
Northwest
NW1
H
Southeast WU I CN F
1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10
5
3
1
NA
NA
buffer south of Golder
Ranch WU I
NW2
L
Central portion of WUI
1727374171879110
46
27
47
46
NA
from southeastern fire
department boundary
including Casa Adobes,
Canada del Oro, and
portions of the city of
Oro Valley
NW3
M
North - central WUI east of
1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10
20
NA
3
14
NA
1 -10 to northern fire
department boundary
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
99
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal
Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
NW4
M
1 -10 corridor from
172737718710
5
NA
196
4
NA
southern fire department
boundary to immediately
south of Avra Valley
Road, including Santa
Cruz River
NW5
L
Immediately south of
172737719
14
19
3
14
NA
Santa Cruz River from
southern fire department
boundary to Avra
Valley Road
NW6
H
Southern WUI boundary
1,2,3,7,9
2
NA
NA
2
NA
in Tucson Mountains at
Starr Pass north to
immediately north of
Gates Pass
NW7
H
Southwest WUI boundary
1,2,3,7,9
5
240
158
4
NA
from Gates Pass to
immediately north of
Sweetwater Drive
foothills of Tucson
Mountains
NW8
H
Western WUI Tucson
17273751719
8
4
948
2
NA
Mountains from Wasson
Peak north to northern
boundary of Saguaro
National Park
NW9
M
Central WUI from
172737779
3
42
6
3
NA
northern boundary of
Saguaro National Park
north to immediately
above Avra Valley Road
NW10
H
1 -10 corridor north from
172737779
22
882
12
9
NA
Avra Valley Road east to
foothills of the Tortolita
Mountains
NW11
L
Northwest WUI Twin
1,2,3,7,8,9,10
16
743
8
7
NA
Peaks Road north to
north of Marana Road,
including Marana
Regional Airport and
portions of the Santa
Cruz River corridor
Pascua Yaqui PY1
NA
Pascua Yaqui tribal land
See the Pascua Yaqui's Fire Management Plan and Fuels Management Plan
Picture Rocks PR1
L
Northwest WUI boundary
1,2,3,5,7,8
17
3,032
4
9
NA
south to Saguaro
National Park northern
boundary
PR2
H
Northeast WU I in
17273757718
5
3
686
1
NA
northern Saguaro
National Park
PR3
H
Southwest WU I west of
1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10
6
3
900
1
NA
Saguaro National Park,
including portions of
Brawley Wash
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
100
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management
Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit
ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres Acres
Acres
Acres
Rincon Valley
RV1
H
Northwest WU1
1,2,3,7,8,9
4
NA 3
1
NA
immediately south of 1 -10
Davidson Canyon west to
Wentworth Road
RV2
L
South of RV1 east to
17273777879
4
NA 3716
316
NA
Davidson Canyon
RV3
M
Immediately south of
11273171819
4
NA 4
22
NA
1 -10 at Davidson Canyon
east to Las Cienegas
Conservation Area
RV4
H
North WUI 1 -10 Union
17273771819
14
NA 6
7
NA
Pacific corridor from fire
department boundary
east to eats of Las
Cienegas Conservation
Area, including the
community of Vail
RV5
H
North of RV5 foothills of
1,2,3,7,8,9
6
NA 3
2
NA
the Rincon Mountains
RV6
M
East - central WUI foothills
1,2,3,7,8,9
5
205 2
2
NA
of Rincon Mountains
portion of Agua Verde
Creek
RV7
H
Northeast WUI, including
1,2,3,7,8,9
4
3 62
976
NA
southern portion of
Rincon Mountain
Wilderness
RV8
L
Central WUI south of
1,2,3,7,8,9
5
14 3
2
NA
Rincon Mountain
Wilderness, including
portions of Agua Verde
Creek
RV9
H
North - central WUI west
1,2,3,7,8,9
6
1 281
4
NA
from city of Tucson
boundary east to CNF
boundary, including
portions of Cienega
Creek Natural Preserve
RV10
L
North - central WUI at city
1,2,3,7,8,9,10
21
11 7
13
NA
of Tucson boundary east
along Old Spanish Trail
to Colossal Cave Park
RV11
H
Northwest WU I at city of
1,2,3,7,8,9,10
19
8 1
8705
NA
Tucson boundary east at
south boundary of
Saguaro National Park
San Xavier
SX1
M
San Xavier District
69
See Tohono Obdham Nation Fire
69
Management Plan
Sells
Sells1
H
Northwest of community
2
See Tohono Obdham Nation Fire
2
Management Plan
Sells2
M
Community center
1
See Tohono Obdham Nation Fire
1 1 152
Management Plan
Sells4
H
South and northeast of
4
See Tohono Obdham Nation Fire
4
community
Management Plan
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
101
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Table 3.2. Identified Treatment Management Units
Treatment
State
Management Map
Risk
Location and
Recommended
Total
Federal
Trust
Nonfederal
Tribal
Unit ID
Value
Description
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Sonoita -Elgin
See the Sonoita -Elgin CWPP for description and risk ratings of the 79 treatment management units
Three Points TP1
H
Northeast WUI, including
1,2,3,7,9
25
5
929
19
NA
Tucson Mountain Park
TP2
H
Northeast WUI Tucson
112131719
7
62
58
7
6
Mountain Park along SR
86 south to San Xavier
District on city of Tucson
boundary
TP3
L
Central WU 1 north of
112131719
19
1,927
2
15
7
Pascua Yaqui tribal land
north to Tucson Mountain
Park
TP4
M
Central WUI, including
172737719
17
931
4
12
17
Ryan Airfield
TP5
M
West - central WU 1 Avra
1,2,3,7,8,9,10
28
1,273
13
14
10
Valley south of Tohono
O'odham Nation,
including portions of
Brawley Wash
TP6
M
West - central WUI east of
1,2,37,8,9,10
49
1,248
28
17522
1925
Tohono O'odham Nation,
including portions of
Brawley Wash, Altar
Valley, and the
community of Three
Points
TP7
M
East - central WUI south of
1,2,37,8,9,10
39
2
23
13
33
community of Three
Points east to Sierrita
Mountains and south to
McGees Settlement
TP8
M
West central WU 1
17273777879710
47
2
33,382
11
NA
including Brawley Wash,
SR286, and Altar Wash
TP9
M
Southwest WU I south of
1,2,3,7,8,9,10
46
4
32
8
NA
TP8 on SR286 along
Altar Wash to Buenos
Aires National Wildlife
Refuge
Tohono O'odham TO1
L
Tohono O'odham Nation
See Tohono
10
5
NA
14
10
in Avra Valley
Obdham Nation
Fire Management
Plan
Tucson and South TUC1
L
Municipal boundaries of
1,2,7,8,9
172
10
37
124
15
Tucson
cities of Tucson and
South Tucson
TUC2
M
1 -10 corridor from
112131719
6525
NA
6
365
NA
approximately Rita Road
interchange to Vail
interchange
TUC3
H
Pima County Fairgrounds
1,2,3,7,9
3
NA
19
3
NA
and Southeast Regional
Park
Why W
M
Community of Why
1121317
4
2
643
495
1
Note: L = low, M = moderate, H = high.
a See Table 3.1 for recommended treatments.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
September 2013
102
Sv
O
C)
UG C
0
(D
0
(D
0
0
C/)
(D
0
r-4.
(D
CT
(D
C:)
CA)
C:)
CA)
mn
CB•
r.
CA)
M
0
0
rMIL
0
rMIL
B
rMIL
Z
cc
rMIL
C
U)
Z
0
M%
rMIL
=r
Tool tpc
Arizona City Elo
(% ON
I I
Picach-0 V ntirn #>i
Friendl Corners Oran le
San Manuel
Red Rock
racl Junct [on
Pirial Co m
Map lndex
- - - -- I
Pima Count
I I AV I
Dob spn
0
(335 r 3
c.� at a
0
2
AV ,2:
NW1 0
mmerhaven
0
AVra I tey
=lMiles
AVS
�'R
T I I lito NV Tortolita
0 6 le
AW AV
AV7
o� %,
NW2 NWI..
Cortaro
Caa sas Ad ob es CE
Pfd
�AVra
Plima
AV8 Picture
PMR2 CF4 Cat alina Foo
Rocks Flow n We Its
AVO
cps
PR3
CF(3
NW7
C
I
A.
Tucson
0
fianque v end
T01
st ates th Tucson
Pipyak
TUC1
CFO ['F
T F13 Orexel•Alvp.rnan
...
TP4
cy aleficia We-st Litt letown
� 7 7
Dr x i q
&
4
RV10
C
Lk
0
E
M
'6-
>1
Cascabel
0
0C)
E
0
1 1, Cop DeLorme
V1 — I
Treatment Ma na ment Unit
Cumulative Risk
Low
Moderate
Hi
TREATM MA N ENT UNITS
Map lndex
C/)
(D
0
3
P
0
2
0
=lMiles
13 5 5 10
0
_U
3
W
0
0
0
3
3
C:
1<
=:h
rn
0
0
0
0
in
3
CT
C:)
W
C:)
-0.1
M
can
a
M1
(D
Fr
0
0
rEPL
0
(D
2)
rMIL
B
(D
rMIL
(D
B
(D
rMIL
C
rMIL
to
%A
Cn
0
r.
rMIL
=r
Co Field
,r" P-an Tali
-,Hafvana Nik
K[tt P�"� Kift Peak
PiMa MUM Shalk
Pito%m
'-Kahachii Milluk
R%? 10 I I
Rincon Valle
it R . -.I\— -
__!_ RY7
RV8
RV6
a tano
V1 4 A
'BA tai 4
6;r4 'RV3
Wn RV2 M4
�6
De Tucson Benson
n7 q I
Greein Valli Continenta I -D
TP9 GV4
Green-Vall Elephant Head,
F r
GV110 a'nJ.Helmet Peak E
teate Me a- 0
TP11 Son ita-El
Ivacajunction Pima County
I Santa Cruz CoLinl I YY at one I
Tubac
Carmen
ri c
Tumacatorl
Tu rha cacorii-Car me rM
Buenos Aires
r Rio RICO NaFthwest
Sasalbe 4 re Blanco C
0 0 CD
Ric RICO
Ru b Calabas&S)
Riot eo Southwest
ti
Son ofta
0
Ei n I
Huachuca Cit
Sierra 'Vista
P;Rta Cane 101
H a rshaw
C
k
Sunn I'd e
Be le Cop 2009 ESRI, Cop 2013DeLorme
Treatment Mana Unit
Cumulative Risk
Low
Moderate
Hi
Rob le s Ju nct I on 7 UCI
Three Points Summit
San Pedro TP6 0 San Xavier
Tucson and _uC
SX1
South Tucson
San Xavler V CDT2
P oint
0 Sahu%at T1
Three s Ea' $ DT
TP7
TP8 GV7
GVS GV6 Corona
TREATM MA NA GM ENT UNITS
Map Index
rn
0
0
:3
2
0
3
3
=i Miles
C
=3
0 2,5 5 10
1<
Sv
0
=3
Sv
O
C)
0
(D
0
(D
0
0
C/)
(D
0
r-4-
(D
CT
(D
C:)
CA)
C:)
(;1
mn
CB•
r.
CA)
M
.L
0
M
0
0
rMIL
0
rMIL
B
rMIL
Z
cc
rMIL
C
U)
U)
rMIL
Chfids
P'nal Count
.North lKamelik
-----------------
Ventana irna Count
IL Y- M Hic kiwa n Ane
Noipa Kam
va Chi ri
AJO4
Santa Rosa
(% kl
Palo Verde Stand
Charco
Wh
Sil Nal(
M a k H avo ka H oi Oidakj
NarcLho Santos
Sikul Hlmatk
C"
Uttle Tucson San Luls Santa Cruz
Peach Pu UFresnall Can*bn Comoba b I
p[ato Vaya Vainorn K
P[sinerno p tn imo "�Kui Tatk
rl�)
Q) Ha I I Murk (afhon Kt
0
Sweetwater
k
Lukeville Pia Olk
-W kev I I I e
L I
All A Chi n
Sells
Kupk Gu Oidak :S qC17 it s Artesa)
kj SE LLS2—+— --*7�',
cowl it
0
C o p ri g ht-,@ 2009 E S R 1 . C o p r-I ht -1 OU 201 De.Lao rm e
—.a- -
Treatment Mana Unit
Cumulative Risk
Low
Moderate,
Hi
TREATM MA N ENT UNITS
Map Index
3
=Wfles
0 1'. 5 10
C/)
(D
0
0
C)
0 •
0
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
The Core Teams recommend that when available, wildland fuel modification projects be contracted to
ASFD to ensure that treatments are conducted in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. The estimates
of daily costs, which include a 20- person inmate labor crew and a chipper for a 100 -mile roundtrip to the
project site by an ASFD crew carrier, are as follows:
• 10 -hour day $1,400.00
• 12 -hour day $1,580.00
Cost estimates for treatments in the WUI are based on the estimates provided by the ASFD for the Fire
and Fuels Crew costs for both federal and nonfederal land treatments (see Table 3.3). The ASFD Inmate
Fire and Fuels Crews do not remove hazard trees or provide "climbers" for pruning or segmented tree
removal that is sometimes required on private lands. The Core Teams do support and encourage local
business development that will complement wildland fuel mitigation needs within federal and nonfederal
lands of the WUI. Vegetative fuel mitigation costs for this CWPP are estimated to be $350.00 per acre,
which is comparable to the estimated cost of the ASFD Inmate Fire and Fuels Crews and to estimated fuel
mitigation costs on adjacent federal lands. However, the availability of federal, state, and local funding for
mitigation of wildland fire risk, enhanced response, and public education will drive the ability of the Core
Teams to meet the goals of the Pima County CWPP.
Table 3.3. Acres of Wildland Fuels Mitigation Treatment Conducted by ASFD Fire and
Fuels Crew during a 10 -Hour On -Site Workday
Vegetation Association Average Acres per Day Treated
Ponderosa pine /mixed conifer 0.5 to 1 acre per day
Pinyon /juniper 1 to 2 acres per day
Mesquite woodland 3 to 4 acres per day
Oak woodland 3 to 4 acres per day
Riparian 1 to 2 acres per day (depending on fuel loading)
Grassland 2 to 4 acres per day (depending on grass type and fuel loading)
The Core Teams recommend that private landowners who wish to adopt fuel modification plans other than
those described in Table 3.1 have the plan prepared or certified by a professional forester, by a certified
arborist, by other qualified individuals, or in conjunction with local fire department or fire districts
recommendations that reference Firewise or fire safe guidelines. Fuel modification plans for federal and
state lands within 0.5 mile of private land may be prepared for wildlife and watershed benefits including
the retention of large snags or vegetative patches of high wildlife value in areas more than 600 feet from
private lands in which desired vegetative objectives are not impaired and will not compromise public or
firefighter safety from unwanted wildland fire. A fuel modification plan should identify the actions necessary
to promote rangeland, wildlife, or watershed health and to help prevent the spread of fire to adjacent
properties by establishing and maintaining survivable space. The action identified by the fuel modification
plan should be completed before development of the property or identified during project initiation on
federal and state lands.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 106
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
Alternate Federal, State, or Private Land Wildland Fuel Modification Plan
A fuel modification plan for federal and state lands will follow agency procedures, standards, and
guidelines. Fuel modification treatment plans for private land parcels should at least include the following
information:
• A copy of the site plan
• Methods and timetables for controlling, changing, or modifying fuels on the properties in a timely
and effective manner
• Elements for removal of slash, snags, and vegetation that may grow into overhead electrical lines;
removal of other ground fuels, ladder fuels, and diseased, dying, and dead trees; and thinning of
live trees
• Methods and timetables for controlling and eliminating diseased or insect - infested vegetation
• A plan for the ongoing maintenance of the proposed fuel reduction and control measures for
disease and insect infestations
• A proposed vegetation management plan for groupings of parcels under multiple ownership that
has been accepted by all individual owners (subject to compliance with this section)
The recommended treatments within the Pima County CWPP have been developed to be consistent with
federal land- management action alternatives and are intended to be compliant with and facilitate efficient
planning and decision making concerning fuels mitigation treatments or habitat rehabilitation of areas so as
to reduce risks to communities caused by severe fires and to restore fire - adapted ecosystems
(USDA FS 2000).
B. Prevention and Loss Mitigation
The Pima County CWPP will be used as a resource to help coordinate long -term interagency mitigation of
catastrophic wildfire events in at -risk communities within Pima County. The Pima County CWPP Core
Teams established specific goals for wildland fire prevention and loss mitigation as follows:
• Improve fire prevention and suppression for firefighter and public safety and to protect
private property
• Promote community collaboration, involvement, and education
• Work with organizations such as SABCC who promote public awareness and activism for
management of high -risk vegetation such as buffelgrass
• Recommend measures to reduce structural ignitability in the Pima County CWPP WUI
• Preserve the aesthetics and wildlife values within native habitats
• Identify funding needs and opportunities
• Expedite project planning through partnerships with ASFD, BLM, CNF, NPS, and private and public
entities in managing wildland fire risk within the WU I
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 107
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
The Pima County CWPP will be reviewed and updated as needed. Successful implementation of this plan
will require a collaborative process among multiple layers of government entities and a broad range of
community interests. The PCOEM and Core Teams have also discussed the advantage of working
cooperatively with Tucson Electric Power (TEP), and Salt River Project (SRP) utility companies to maintain
acceptable wildland fuel conditions within TEP and SRP existing utility corridors, rights -of -way, easements
and other utility -owned lands within high -risk areas of the WUI. The Core Teams, TEP, and SRP also
recognize the benefits of working cooperatively to achieve acceptable wildland fuel conditions adjacent to
the utility companies' easements, rights -of -way, and other utility -owned lands. The Core Teams recognize
existing agreements between TEP, SRP, land- management agencies, and private landowners for
vegetative treatments within rights -of -way and easements, and agree that the Pima County CWPP does
not bind or obligate TEP or SRP in the maintenance of vegetative fuels outside their rights -of -way or
easements. The Core Teams believe that these agreements and resultant vegetative treatments are
complementary to the objectives of the Pima County CWPP.
The Core Teams and collaborators have made the following action recommendations to meet the goals of
the Pima County CWPP.
1. Establish Pima County CWPP Administration and Implementation
• Establish a countywide community CWPP Working Group composed of Pima County fire chiefs,
PCOEM, ASFD, BLM, CNF, NPS, USFWS, SABCC, TEP, and SRP concurring agencies, and
members of the Core Teams to coordinate individual agency implementation of the
recommendations for fuel modification, public outreach, protection capability, and structural
ignitability within the Pima County CWPP WUI, including fuel hazards removal on private lands
within the WUI.
2. Improve Protection Capability and Reduce Structural Ignitability
The Pima County CWPP considers the risks of wildland fire igniting and spreading throughout the WUI a
serious threat. The Core Teams and collaborators believe that actions to reduce fire risks and promote
effective responses to wildland fires must be undertaken. The following are recommendations to enhance
protection capabilities for at -risk communities within Pima County:
Obtain fully functional Type 6 engines and fully functional Type 3 engines for wildland fire response
by local fire departments and districts.
Obtain a medium -size water tender for local use by fire departments and districts.
Strategically locate additional water - storage tanks, wells, or other water sources for tender filling
throughout the fire departments and districts.
• Maintain helicopter landing sites.
Update mapping capabilities of local fire departments and districts.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 108
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
• Encourage fire departments and districts to participate in annual multi- agency wildland fire safety
training conducted prior to the fire season.
• Encourage fire departments and districts to report responses to brushfires and fuel type to SABCC
for incorporation into the SABCC database.
• Obtain a chipper /shredder, tub grinder, air curtain destructor, and other equipment necessary for
treatment and processing of vegetative slash for use by local fire departments and districts for
wildland fuel mitigation projects.
• Obtain multi - purpose utility vehicle with attachments for chipping, brush cutting, and mini water
tending, such as the Bobcat Toolcat.
• Implement GIS and GPS (Global Positioning System) software and laptops to update mapping
capabilities of local fire departments and districts.
• Arrange for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of a green -waste disposal site within
reasonable proximity to the citizens and encourage the use of the disposal site for all vegetative
material removed during wildland fuel treatments on private lands within the WUI.
• Provide enhanced and coordinated firefighting training and equipment, such as personal protective
equipment and second - generation fire shelters, for newly certified wildland firefighters and volunteer
firefighters.
• Develop and maintain mutual -aid agreements with neighboring fire departments or districts for
wildland and structural fire response support and other emergency response.
• Meet annually with representatives from SRP and TEP to mutually identify locations of needed
vegetative treatments within rights -of -way in high -risk areas of the WUI, and support the Core Team
in obtaining grants and agreements necessary to implement vegetative fuel reduction projects
adjacent to rights -of -way.
• Develop a pre- suppression plan with BLM, NPS, ASFD, CNF, USFWS, PCOEM, and local fire
departments along the boundary of the WUI.
• Develop additional wildland fire preplans for all high- hazard locations across Pima County where
they have not been adopted.
• Develop IGAs with Pima County on nuisance - abatement projects located in high- hazard
communities.
• Meet annually before the fire season to coordinate early suppression deployment and to determine
training and equipment needs.
3. Promote Community Involvement and Improve Public Education, Information, and Outreach
Pima County, BLM, CNF, NPS, USFWS, ASFD, SABCC, local fire departments and districts, and the Core
Teams will continue developing and implementing public outreach programs to help create an informed
citizenry. The Core Team recognizes the significance of partnering with organizations such as SABCC in
public involvement, volunteer management, and wildland fuel treatment data keeping. The goal is to have
residents support concepts of Firewise and fire -safe landscaping and naturally functioning wildland
systems through restoration management, invasive species management, and rapid response to wildland
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 109
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
fire. There are groups, such as SABCC, who are currently promoting wildfire and vegetation management
awareness through their programs. Developing working relationships and sharing information would
strengthen the message and benefit all parties involved. The Pima County CWPP is intended to be a long-
term strategic plan containing prescriptive recommendations to address hazardous fuels. A grassroots
collaborative structure of individual citizens, supported by local governments as full partners, will provide
the most effective long -term means to achieve these goals and to maintain community momentum. The
components of such a structure include the following recommendations:
• Assist in implementing a Firewise Communities /USA Recognition program in communities where
the program is supported by the local fire departments and districts. The Firewise Communities
approach emphasizes community and individual responsibility for safer home construction and
design, landscaping, and maintenance. The Core Teams will also help identify high - priority
communities that would most benefit from a Firewise Communities program.
• Expand the use of current public information tools for fire -safe residential treatments as an
immediate action step. This will be accomplished through information mailers to homeowners,
presentations by local fire departments and districts, and the development of specific promotional
materials by Pima County.
• Coordinate with SABCC in encouraging public reporting of buffelgrass distribution, abundance, and
fire response information.
• Collaborate with SABCC to develop duel use outreach /education materials which promote wildfire
awareness and the benefits of vegetation management, specifically for high- fire -risk buffelgrass.
• Assist with SABCC in developing the Integrated Brushfire Database that will be used to map current
and historical brushfires within the WUI to promote awareness of the dangers of brushfires and
buffelgrass and for identifying high -risk areas.
• Place fire - danger information signs on major access roads throughout the WUI. Community
bulletins and other public service announcements concerning wildfire threat and preparedness
should be developed with assistance from ASFD, BLM, NPS, CNF, USFWS, and Pima County.
• Place and maintain bilingual wildfire caution signs within camping areas and access routes in some
areas of the WU I.
• Complete wildfire home assessments through the use of Redzone software, or an equivalent
software system, and submit wildfire hazard mitigation strategies to landowners for each private
property assessed within highest risk communities.
• Replace and maintain fencing adjacent to high -use and illegal off - road - vehicle use areas within or
adjacent to the WUI.
4. Encourage Use of Woody Material from WUI Fuel Mitigation Programs
The Core Teams and their collaborators will continue to support and promote private contractors who
perform Firewise mitigation work. The County will continue to support and promote new businesses
involved in the wildland fuel reduction market. Pima County, CNF, NPS, BLM, USFWS, and local fire
departments and districts are committed to encouraging, as appropriate, the use of vegetative by- products
from the WUI fuel management program for commercial or community - service organization use. Possible
by- product uses encouraged by the Core Teams include the following:
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 110
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
• Bagged mesquite wood for sale to visitors and larger- community markets as "campfire cooking" for
commercial or personal culinary uses
• Firewood marketed to local residents, visitors, and adjacent communities
• Mesquite, pinyon pine, and juniper wood marketed for artwork, furniture, and other specialty wood
products
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 111
Section III. Community Mitigation Plan
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 112
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
IV. PIMA COUNTY CWPP PRIORITIES:
ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Core Teams have developed action recommendations (see Section III of this CWPP) necessary to
meet the plan's objectives. A series of recommendations for reducing wildland fuels and structural
ignitability, improving fire prevention and suppression, and enhancing public outreach have been
developed by the Core Teams. A unified effort to implement this collaborative plan requires timely decision
making at all levels of government. However, the Core Teams recognize that countywide recommendations
do not impinge on or interfere with the fire departments' and districts' rights to independently seek funding
for projects within their jurisdictions without CWPP Working Group support.
To meet Pima County CWPP objectives, the Core Teams have developed the following action
recommendations. At the end of each year, projects implemented from these action recommendations will
be monitored for effectiveness in meeting Pima County CWPP objectives. For the life of the Pima County
CWPP, recommendations for additional projects will be made for each future year on the basis of project
performance from the previous implemented projects.
A. Administrative Oversight
Generally, the most efficient way to manage the mitigation of wildland fire threat in the WUI is through
identifying, delegating, implementing, and monitoring the action recommendations of the Pima County
CWPP. Establishing a unified effort to collaboratively implement the Pima County CWPP embraces
adaptive management principles that enhance decision making and reduce inconsistency at all levels of
government.
The Core Teams recommend the establishment of a countywide community CWPP Working Group (CWPP
Working Group) composed of the fire chiefs from Pima County or their representatives, PCOEM, SABCC,
ASFD, CNF, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and BLM to work with the Core Teams and concurring agencies
to accomplish the recommendations for outreach and structural ignitability within the Pima County CWPP
WUI area, which include fuel hazards removal on private lands within the WUI. The CWPP Working Group
should consist of interested community members; local fire departments and districts; and, as needed,
additional representatives from the PCOEM, SABCC, ASFD, ASLD, CNF, NPS, BLM, and other concurring
agencies. PCOEM will be the lead agency responsible for coordinating the CWPP Working Group and
producing the monitoring reports and future updating of the CWPP.
The CWPP Working Group will prioritize wildland fuel modification, structural ignitability, protection
capability, and public outreach projects listed in the approved Pima County CWPP on a countywide basis,
and will review these priority recommendations for possible reprioritization subsequent to approval of the
Pima County CWPP by ASFD. Fuel modification and community planning, outreach, and wildfire threat
warning programs will be prioritized by the CWPP Working Group as a whole; other projects involving
firefighter training, equipment, communications, facilities, and apparatus will be recommended by the fire
chiefs from Pima County or their representatives in the CWPP Working Group.
The CWPP Working Group is expected to be an advocate for and provide support to fire departments and
districts or other agencies in the submittal of grant applications and the solicitation of other funding
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 113
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
opportunities to implement wildland fuel modification, structural ignitability, protection capability, and public
outreach projects established as priorities by the CWPP Working Group. Additionally, individual agencies
will be able to seek letters of support from the CWPP Working Group or partner agencies in applying for
funding for projects identified as priorities by the Working Group.
The CWPP Working Group will also compile monitoring and report data from cooperating agencies to
provide information on additional measures necessary to meet Pima County CWPP goals, including
additional future recommendations from fire departments and districts and other agencies for inclusion in
the priority recommendations. The CWPP Working Group may also act as an advisory group to Pima
County Planning and Zoning and to developers in outlying areas to ensure adequate fire response access
and to provide vegetation mitigation and landscaping recommendations, water supplies for emergency
services, and recommendations for establishing and funding fire services and equipment in residential and
commercial developments.
The following general criteria will be used for prioritizing proposed projects and action items:
1. Geographic /fuel -load /residential density:
a. The Mt. Lemmon Community WUI will remain a high priority for wildland fuel modifications, public
education and outreach, and enhanced wildland fire response due to heavy fuel type such as
ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and Madrean pine -oak forest vegetation associations which, as
evidenced by previous wildfires, can support extreme fire behavior. Wildfire ignitions within the
Mt. Lemmon Community WUI and public use within the WUI are considered high risk
b. The Catalina Foothill Community WUI will remain a high - priority area for wildland fuel modifications,
public education and outreach, and enhanced wildland fire response. Specific high -risk areas
include desert washes originating from the foothills of the Santa Catalina and terminating at Tanque
Verde and Rillito Creeks and heavy fuel loads associated with the foothills of the Santa Catalina
Mountains. Public use within the WUI in Sabino Canyon and other community and CNF trails in the
WUI is also considered high risk. The WUI is mostly composed of large developed private land
parcels of high assessed value and some areas with a high ISO rating.
c. The San Pedro, Santa Cruz River, and urban riparian corridor including Canada del Oro, Rillito,
and Pantano will receive long -term priority due to high vegetative fuel risk, infestations of
saltcedar, high ignition history, and threatened structures and infrastructures.
d. Areas with high infestation of invasive species, especially buffelgrass in proximity to high
community values, are considered high risk.
e. Fuel breaks to be established and maintained in the front range of the Catalina and Rincon
Mountains bordering the CNF and Saguaro National Park East will receive long -term priority due to
high wildland fire threat potential, invasive species, and high community values at risk.
f. In any given year, the CWPP Working Group will evaluate countywide weather, vegetation, and
fuel -load conditions and projections, as well as current residential and commercial densities, to
determine short -term priority adjustments for projects in all WUI areas of the county for that year.
g. In any given year, the CWPP Working Group will evaluate the progress of new developments and
increasing residential and commercial densities to determine potential needs and priorities within
the WUI for 3 years following that given year.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 114
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
2. Categorical /functional criteria priorities will generally be established in the order listed below; these
priorities are subject to review and change by the CWPP Working Group on an ongoing basis:
a. Prioritize fuel modification projects that are within fire - department and fire - district, CNF, NPS, BLM,
or ASFD jurisdictions within the Avra Valley and Rincon Valley sub -WUls
b. Enhance wildland firefighter training and acquire personal protection equipment
c. Acquire wildland -fire suppression equipment and tools, including brush engines and water tenders
d. Develop water - storage sites and supply facilities
e. Develop community planning and outreach activities, including warning signs /systems and
identification and improvement of evacuation routes
f. Designate and develop helicopter pads for firefighter deployment or evacuation
g. Construct fire stations in areas with sufficiently high threat and population densities as determined
annually by the CWPP Working Group
The agencies involved in the formation of this plan support local community efforts and will work with the
communities as needed to accomplish action items. BLM, CNF, NPS, ASFD, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, PCOEM,
and fire departments and districts will coordinate fuel mitigation projects on state, public, and National Park
and Forest Systems lands and also within TEP and SRP utility corridors within the WUI in coordination
with the CWPP Working Group when established. The Core Teams and the proposed CWPP Working
Group will be responsible for submitting grants and soliciting other opportunities to implement wildland fuel
mitigation projects on private lands and to support public information, education, and outreach within the
WUI. Successful award of grant funds will be used to implement the action recommendations for private
land treatments, mitigation features for reduced structural ignitability, firefighting response, and public
outreach. BLM, CNF, NPS, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, ASFD, PCOEM, fire departments and districts, and the
Core Teams will pursue funding to construct and maintain firebreaks as well as broader applications of
wildland fuel mitigation projects within the WUI. Monitoring and reporting compiled by the CWPP Working
Group will provide information on additional measures necessary to meet Pima County CWPP goals. Some
projects may require Endangered Species Act or State Historic Preservation Officer consultations.
B. Priorities for Mitigation of Hazardous Wildland Fuels
Table 4.1 displays the priority for constructing firebreaks and landscape wildland fuel treatments within the
WUI as recommended by the Core Teams. These action recommendations will reduce wildfire potential to
the community and have high valuations for reducing wildland fire risk. The Core Teams recognize that not
all acres within a high -risk landscape can be treated. Site - specific analysis will determine treatment acres
and methods that produce a fire - resilient vegetative stand appropriate for the habitat.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 115
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
Table 4.1. Action Recommendations for Wildland Fuel Modification
Management Location Project Estimated
Area and Description Partner Treatment Cost
NW1 Southeast WUI CNF buffer PCOEM, ASFD, and Northwest 5,524 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
south of Golder Ranch WUI Fire Department treated over 3 years estimated to be 550
acres /year in FY 2014 -16 = $221,000.00 /year;
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
G33
Southeast WUI in the CNF
PCOEM, CNF, ASFD, and
2.993 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
buffer
Golder Ranch Fire Department
treated over 3 years estimated to be 300
acres /year in FY 2014 -16 = $120,000.00 /year;
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
CF2
North - central WUI in CNF
PCOEM, CNF, Rural Metro Fire
5,400 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
buffer east of Sabino
Department, Hidden Valley,
treated over 3 years estimated to be 540
Canyon
and Tanque Verde Fire
acres /year in FY 2014 -16 = $216,000.00 /year;
Department
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
RV11
Northwest area of the WUI
PCOEM, ASFD, CNF, NPS,
19,072 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
adjacent to the city of
BLM, and Rincon Valley
treated over 5 years estimated to be 1,150
Tucson boundary along the
acres /year in FY 2013 -16 = $458,000.00 /year;
western and southern
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
boundary of Saguaro
federal, ASLD, and private lands
National Park
TP1
Northeast WUI including
PCOEM, NPS, BLM, ASFD,
25,706 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
Tucson Mountain Park
and Three Points Fire
treated over 10 years estimated to be 775
Department
acres /year in FY 2013 -16 = $310,000.00 /year;
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
M3
1 -10 and Union Pacific
PCOEM, BLM, ASFD, and
8,223 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
Railroad corridor
Mescal -J6 Fire Department
treated over 5 years estimated to be 595
immediately east of
acres /year in FY 2013 -16 = $198,000.00 /year;
Cochise County border
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
GV1
South central WUI on 1 -19
PCOEM, ASFD, and Green
11,167 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
corridor north of Santa
Valley Fire Department
treated over 5 years estimated to be 670
Cruz County south of
acres /year in FY 2014 -16 = $268,000.00 /year;
Green Valley
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
federal, ASLD, and private lands
MT1
Mt. Lemmon WUI —Areas
CNF, MLFD, ASFD, MLWD,
7,459 high -risk acres, 30% of lands to be
within and surrounding the
UA, organization camps,
treated over 5 years estimated to be 445
Mt. Lemmon WUI boundary
communications site permit
acres /year in FY 2014 -16 = $178,000.00 /year;
which includes the
holders, privates landowners,
cost estimated to average $400.00 /acre on
community of
recreational residence permit
federal, and private lands
Summerhaven, focusing
holders
southwest of and downhill
from development to
include the following:
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013
116
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
Table 4.1. Action Recommendations for Wildland Fuel Modification
Management Location Project Estimated
Area and Description Partner Treatment Cost
1. Spencer Bigelow
Project —Mt. Bigelow to
Spencer Peak including
Palisades, Lower Soldier's
Camp
1. CNF, ASFD, RRM,
communications site permit
holders, UA, recreational
residence permit holders
843 acres
2. Loma II —USFS land 2.CNF, MLFD, ASFD, private
south of Summerhaven and landowners, recreational
adjacent private land residence permit holders
3. Firebreak — Southwest of
Summerhaven
3. CNF, MLFD, ASFD, UA,
private landowners,
recreational residence permit
holders
4. Organization Ridge
Permitted areas for
organizations along
Organization Ridge Road
5. Bear Wallow and
Hunter's Ridge —Area
along Bear Wallow Road
generally west of Mt.
Bigelow (Rd 2 and Rd 34)
including Upper Soldier's
Camp
6. Firewise Treatments —
Areas to be treated or
maintained include but are
not limited to
Summerhaven, Greater
Soldier's Camp,
Organization Ridge, Willow
Canyon, communication
sites, and research sites
4. CNF, MLFD, ASFD, Camp
Lawton (BSA), Whispering
Pines (GSA), First Southern
Baptist Church, Sycamore
Canyon Academy -Rite of
Passage, Camp Zion, Amphi
Camp, St. Marks Presbyterian
Church, Pima County Sheriff's
Department, RRM
5. CNF, MLFD, ASFD, UA,
recreational residence permit
holders
6. CNF, MLFD, ASFD, UA,
private landowners,
recreational residence permit
holders, communication site
permit holders
135 acres
1 chain fuelbreak
Area has been identified as a priority using fire
modeling and local knowledge. Acreage is
unknown at this time.
Area has been identified as a priority using fire
modeling and local knowledge. Acreage is
unknown at this time.
Area has been identified as a priority using fire
modeling and local knowledge. Acreage is
unknown at this time.
Firebreak 1- to 3 -year rotating ASLD, ASFD, NPS, CNF, 1,200 acres /year of light understory
maintenance maintenance of fine and light PCOEM, and participating fire fuel treatments in excess of
fuels in firebreaks departments and districts 4 acres treated /10 -hour day at $1,400.00 /day
costs = $420,000.00 /year
a NW = Northwest, MT = Mount Lemmon, GV = Green Valley, RV = Rincon Valley, M = Mescal -J6, TP = Three Points, CF = Catalina Foothills,
G = Golder Ranch.
b MLFD = Mount Lemmon Fire District, MLWD = Mount Lemmon Water District, UA = University of Arizona, RRM = Recreation Resource
Management, BSA = Boy Scouts of America, GSA = Girl Scouts of America.
Total acres to be treated during the life of the plan; one -third of acres estimated to be treated based on site - specific analysis, which will determine
actual acres available for treatment in each area.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 117
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
C. Identified Action Items for Protection Capability and Reduced Structural Ignitability
The Core Teams and collaborators will evaluate; maintain; and, where necessary, upgrade community
wildfire preparation and response facilities, capabilities, and equipment. Table 4.2 lists the identified action
items proposed by the Core Teams for consideration by individual fire departments and districts for
structural ignitability and public outreach within their respective jurisdictions.
The CWPP Working Group will meet subsequent to the ASFD's final approval of the Pima County CWPP
to prioritize projects on a countywide basis for the upcoming year and, thereafter, at least annually to
reevaluate projects and reallocate priorities as needed. Such countywide prioritization will not impinge on
or interfere with the fire departments' and districts' rights to independently seek funding for projects within
their jurisdictions without CWPP Working Group support.
Table 4.2. Action Recommendations for Structural Ignitability and Public Outreach
Project
Partner
Project
Specific
Recommendation
Estimated
Cost
Timeline
PCOEM and
E1— Wildland Fire
Purchase one Type 3 fire
New acquisition with
Begin grant applications
Northwest Fire
Protection and
engine for use by Northwest
standard equipment
in 2014; purchase in
Department
Reduced Ignitability
Fire Department
$320
2015
PCOEM and Green
E1— Wildland Fire
Purchase one Type 6 fire
New acquisition with
Begin grant applications
Valley Fire District
Protection and
engine for use by Green
standard equipment
in 2013/2014; purchase
de Tucson Fire
Reduced Ignitability
Valley Fire District
$131
in 2014/2015
PCOEM, CNF, NPS,
A1— Wildland Fire
Construct a series of
Install water - storage
Locate and install
ASFD, ASLD, and
Protection and
5,000 - gallon water - storage
facilities /year:
one water - storage
associated fire
Reduced Ignitability
facilities located strategically
$5,000.00 /facility
facility in 2013
departments and
throughout residential areas
districts
PCOEM and Corona
A2— Enhanced
Develop wildfire public
Produce and publish
Begin grant applications
de Tucson Fire
Public Education,
education brochures
community- specific wildfire
in 2013; continue on an
Department
Information, and
informational brochures
ongoing basis in 2014
Outreach
PCOEM and
E2— Wildland Fire
Obtain one Type 6 brush truck
New acquisition with
Begin grant applications
Rural /Metro and
Protection and
for wildland fire response
standard equipment
in 2014; purchase in
Tucson Fire
Reduced Ignitability
within the Catalina Foothills
$131
2015
Departments
community WUI
PCOEM, CNF, NPS, A2— Enhanced
ASFD, ASLD, and Public Education,
associated fire Information, and
departments and Outreach
districts
Work with land agencies for
the acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of a green -waste
disposal site within
reasonable proximity to
community
Locate and coordinate with
land management agency;
excavate pit and fence:
$20
Begin planning with
agencies in FY 2013/14;
implement in
FY 2014/15
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 118
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
Table 4.2. Action Recommendations for Structural Ignitability and Public Outreach
Project Specific Estimated
Partner Project Recommendation Cost Timeline
PCOEM, CNF, NPS, A3— Enhanced Develop a fire - safety
ASFD, ASLD, and Public Education, awareness program for
associated fire Information, and community groups
departments and Outreach
districts
PCOEM, CNF, NPS, A4— Enhanced Create fire - safety and
ASFD, ASLD, and Public Education, fire - awareness posters for
associated fire Information, and public places
departments and Outreach
districts
PCOEM and Rincon E4— Wildland Fire Obtain one Type 3 interface
Valley Fire District Protection and engine and a tactical water
Reduced Ignitability tender for wildland fire
response within the Rincon
Valley Community WUI
Promote and conduct
a community fire -
awareness day at local fire
departments and districts:
$2
Development, printing, and
distribution costs:
$5,000.00
New acquisition with
standard equipment
$350,000.00; 1,500- gallon
tactical water tender,
4 -wheel drive: $186,000
Solicit funds for
promotion, brochures,
and event materials in
2013; conduct in 2013
Solicit funds for
production and printing
in 2013; publish and
post in 2013
Begin grant applications
in 2013; purchase in
2014
a Projects are designated by project type (E = equipment, A = administrative) but not ranked in order of importance.
D. Priorities for Promoting Community Involvement through Education, Information, and Outreach
The PCOEM and the Core Teams will implement public outreach and education programs for residents to
heighten awareness and understanding of the threat that wildland fire poses to the communities.
Table 4.3 displays the Pima County CWPP priority recommendations to promote community involvement.
Additional programs that could be used or developed to enhance community outreach and education may
be proposed and implemented in the future. The Core Teams will use the resources of the local fire
departments, SABCC, ASFD, NPS, CNF, and BLM for additional public education programs and
community outreach. Community bulletins and other public service announcements concerning wildfire
threat and preparedness should be developed with assistance from local fire departments, SABCC, ASFD,
NPS, CNF, and BLM.
Table 4.3. Action Recommendations for Enhanced Public Education, and Information
Project
Partner Project Equipment /Expense Timeline
PCOEM, CNF,
NPS, BLM, ASFD,
SABCC, and
associated fire
departments and
districts
A7— Establish and maintain roadside Construction and placement
fire - danger warning signs and other $5
informational and directional road signs
along major roads as determined by the
Pima County Fire Chiefs Association
A8— Create and distribute community Development, printing, and
bulletins on annual fire season distribution costs: $5,000.00
preparedness
Construct and implement
in FY 2013/14
Develop in FY 2013;
distribute continually
Continued
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 119
Section IV. CWPP Priorities: Action Recommendations and Implementation
Table 4.3. Action Recommendations for Enhanced Public Education, and Information
Project
Partner Project Equipment /Expense Timeline
A9— Collaborate in developing public
education and outreach materials by
providing data, graphics or text that will
help promote coinciding goals
12— Acquire Redzone, or equivalent
software, and field data recorders or
PDAs (personal digital assistants) to
complete home fire assessments and
implement fire -safe recommendations
13— Encourage private businesses to
perform Firewise land treatments;
encourage market development of WUI
by- products from vegetative fuel
mitigation programs
14— Replace and maintain fencing
adjacent to high OHV (off- highway
vehicle) use areas
Development of data reporting
process by SABCC for
Integrated Bushfire Database
and public information material
Software and data recorder:
$1
Assessment completion:
$2
Marketing plan to be developed
Assess in 2013, initial plan for Estimate $6,000.00m
1 mile of new or repaired fencing per mile of standard
4 -wire fencing
Develop in FY 2013
Acquire software and
complete assessments in
FY 2013/14; implement
recommendations in
FY 2015
Initiate community
marketing planning
meetings in FY 2014
a Projects are designated by project type (A = administrative, I = infrastructure) but not ranked in order of importance.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 120
Section V. Monitoring Plan
V. MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring is essential to ensure that Pima County CWPP goals are met. The Pima County CWPP
administrators, the local fire departments and districts, PCOEM, ASFD, CNF, NPS, BANWR, Pascua Yaqui
Tribe, and BLM will actively monitor the progress of the Pima County CWPP action recommendations to
determine the effectiveness of ongoing and completed projects in meeting Pima County CWPP objectives,
as well as to recommend future projects necessary to meet Pima County CWPP goals.
In accordance with Section 102.g.5 of HFRA, Pima County CWPP communities will participate in any
multiparty monitoring program established by state and federal agencies, or other interested parties, to
assess progress toward meeting Pima County CWPP objectives. This authority to participate in multiparty
monitoring will be vested in the CWPP Working Group. The Core Teams believe that participation in
multiparty monitoring will provide effective and meaningful ecological and socioeconomic feedback on
landscape and site - specific fuel reduction projects and watershed enhancements and will also help BLM,
NPS, BANWR, CNF, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, ASFD, ASLD, PCOEM, local municipalities, and fire
departments and districts with land- management planning.
The CWPP Working Group will request participation in any post - wildfire analysis and burned area
emergency response (BAER) planning with lead state or federal agencies. Immediate post - wildfire analysis
and planning is essential to Pima County to enhance public safety from possible flood and debris flows,
municipal watershed pollution, and other post - wildfire habitat and community impacts.
This section details the performance measures that will be used to assess the effectiveness of
implementing the Pima County CWPP action recommendations. Monitoring will include assessing and
evaluating the success of individual Pima County CWPP project implementation and a given project's
effectiveness in furthering Pima County CWPP objectives.
A. Administrative Oversight, Monitoring, and Pima County CWPP Reporting
The CWPP Working Group, composed of Pima County fire chiefs, PCOEM, SABCC, NPS, CNF, BANWR,
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, ASFD, and BLM, will be mutually responsible for implementing and monitoring Pima
County CWPP action recommendations in coordination with a future established CWPP Working Group.
The CWPP Working Group should identify appropriate grant and other funding mechanisms necessary to
implement the action recommendations of the Pima County CWPP. Grant information should be routinely
searched to identify updated grant application cycles. Potential grant and funding resources are listed in
Appendix C of this CWPP.
As needed, the PCOEM, in coordination with the future - established countywide community CWPP Working
Group, will produce a report detailing the success of Pima County CWPP project implementation and
overall progress toward meeting Pima County CWPP goals. The CWPP Working Group should report
successful grant awards received for implementing the Pima County CWPP action recommendations to the
Pima County CWPP signatories. The CWPP Working Group's report will also include recommendations to
the signatories for updating the Community Mitigation Plan and the Prevention and Loss Mitigation Plan
portions of the Pima County CWPP, through the use of the principles of adaptive management. This
information will ensure timely decision making for all levels of government and will provide input necessary
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 121
Section V. Monitoring Plan
for developing future work plans and for prioritizing project recommendations over the life of the Pima
County CWPP. Appendix D provides information on the data used in the analysis of the Pima County
CWPP and the appropriate contacts for updating the Pima County CWPP. Once the Pima County CWPP is
updated, it will be submitted to the PCOEM, the Arizona State Forester, all cooperating fire departments
and districts, municipal governments, NPS, CNF, BANWR, and BLM for their concurrence. Once
concurrence is achieved, the action recommendations of the updated Pima County CWPP are to be
forwarded for funding through HFRA and other appropriate funding sources.
B. Effectiveness Monitoring
Table 5.1 outlines the performance measures that the CWPP Working Group will use to assess status in
meeting Pima County CWPP performance goals. In addition to monitoring the listed performance
measures, Pima County CWPP administrators should assess the current status of wildland fuel hazards
and look for any new or developing issues not covered by the Pima County CWPP. As new issues arise,
such as new invasive species infestations, further risks and recommendations for treatment should be
identified, and the Pima County CWPP should be updated or amended as necessary to meet the Pima
County CWPP goals. To help track fuel treatments being planned and completed through local, state, and
federal programs, the Pima County CWPP administrators will cooperate by providing requested detailed
mapping information to the Arizona State Forester's office.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 122
Section V. Monitoring Plan
Table 5.1. Performance Measures to Assess Pima County CWPP Progress
Goal Performance Measure
Improve fire Reduction of wildland fire occurrence and acres burned (unplanned) in the WUI:
prevention and 0 Green -waste disposal sites available in high -risk communities.
suppression
• Type 3 fire engine acquired by Northwest Fire Department.
• Type 6 brush truck acquired for use in Green Valley community WUI.
• Type 6 brush truck acquired for use in Catalina Foothills community WUI.
• Effectiveness monitoring of fire prevention and suppression will include the following:
—Acres burned and degree of severity of wildland fire
— Percentage of wildland fire controlled on initial attack
— Number of homes and structures lost to wildland fire
• Integrated Brushfire Database implemented and managed by SABCC
• New water sources developed in key areas.
• Consistent fire training in use.
• Wildland firefighter personal protection equipment acquired as needed.
Reduce hazardous Effective treatment of high -risk areas by acre:
vegetative fuels Number of treated acres of nonfederal WUI lands that are in Condition Class 2 or 3 are identified
as high priorities by the Pima County CWPP and should be moved to Condition Class 1 or
another acceptable level of wildland fuel loading and continuity.
• Acres treated to acceptable fuel levels within priority treatment management areas.
• Total acres treated through any fuel- reduction measures, including prescribed fire, that are
conducted in, or adjacent to, the WUI. The change of condition class should be determined for
small projects or treatment areas through the use of the LANDFIRE database.
• Acres of buffelgrass invaded areas treated by agencies and volunteers.
Restore Acres of fuel reduction or watershed enhancement treatments that meet restoration treatment guidelines
watershed health for riparian habitats:
• Coordination with and support of PCOEM, ASFD, ASLD, NPS, CNF, and BLM in implementing
and determining social, economic, and environmental effects of riparian restoration treatments
(Treatments 7 and 9; see Table 3.1 in mitigation plan).
• Acres of saltcedar- invaded riparian areas identified and undergoing restoration treatments.
Promote community Initiation of public outreach programs:
involvement and fire Countywide community CWPP Working Group initiated.
prevention
• Public outreach programs and promotions implemented to enhance volunteer efforts to reduce
hazardous fuels.
• Number and areas (community or dispersed residents) of private landowners supporting and
implementing fuel reduction projects.
• PCOEM and local fire departments and districts developed and implemented evacuation plans
for identified high -risk areas.
• Roadside fire - danger warning signs in English and Spanish installed at strategic points within
the WUI .
• Green -waste disposal and processing site secured and operational.
• Fire - awareness articles printed in local newspapers.
• Fire - safety awareness program, posters, and information available in public places.
Encourage economic Wood - products industry growth and diversification to use all sizes of material removed by fuel -
development reduction treatments:
• Number of value -added wood products developed by the community.
• Number of new markets (local firewood sales) for local products created.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 123
Section V. Monitoring Plan
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 124
Section VI. Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence
VI. DECLARATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONCURRENCE
The following partners in the development of the Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan have
reviewed and do mutually agree or concur with its contents:
Agreement
Pima County Board of Supervisors
Date
City of Oro Valley
Date
City of Sahuarita
Date
Town of Marana
Date
City of South Tucson
Date
City of Tucson
Date
President, Altar Valley Conservation Alliance
Date
Executive Director, Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center
Date
Salt River Project
Date
Chief, Avra Valley Fire District
Date
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013
125
Section VI. Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence
Chief, Picture Rocks Fire District
Date
Chief, Northwest Fire District
Date
Chief, Mountain Vista Fire Department
Date
Chief, Golder Ranch Fire District
Date
Chief, Hidden Valley Fire Department
Date
Chief, Tanque Verde Valley Fire Department
Date
Chief, Sabino Vista Volunteer Fire Department
Date
Chief, Tucson Fire Department
Date
Chief, South Tucson Fire Department
Date
Chief, Rincon Valley Fire District
Date
Chief, Mescal -J6 Fire District
Date
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013
126
Section VI. Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence
Chief, Cascabel Volunteer Fire Department
Date
Chief, Ajo- Gibson Volunteer Fire Department
Date
Chief, Rural Metro Fire Department
Date
Chief, Corona De Tucson Fire Department
Date
Chief, Sonoita -Elgin Fire Department
Date
Chief, Green Valley Fire Department
Date
Chief, Elephant Head Volunteer Fire Department
Date
Chief, Helmet Peak Volunteer Fire Department
Date
Chief, Three Points Fire District
Date
Chief, Arivaca Fire District
Date
Chief, Drexel Heights Fire District
Date
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 127
Section VI. Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence
Chief, Why Fire Department
Chief, Mount Lemmon Fire District
Chief, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fire Department
Concurrence
Date
Date
Date
Arizona State Forester
Date
Arizona State Forestry Division
Gila District Manager
Date
Bureau of Land Management
Forest Supervisor
Date
Coronado National Forest
Chairman
Date
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Superintendent
Date
Saguaro National Park
Refuge Manager
Date
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 128
Section VII. References
VII. REFERENCES
Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to D etermining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire B ehavior. INT -122. N ational
Wildlife Coordinating Group, Washington, DC.
Arivaca Fire Department. 2007. Arivaca-Sasabe Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Arizona State Forester. 2004. Arizona Wildland Urban Interface Assessment. http://www.azstatefire.
State Forester. 2007. Identifying Arizona's Wildland /Urban Interface Communities at Risk: A Guide
for State and Federal Land Managers.
Arizona State Forester. 2009. AZ Fires 1990 — 2008. Spreadsheet.
Arizona State Forester. 2009. Arizona - Identified Communities at Risk. http://www.azstatefire. orq
Arizona State Forestry Division (ABED). 2010a. Arizona Forest Resource Assessment. June 18.
ASFD. 2010b. Arizona Forest Resource Strategy. June 18.
Arizona W ildlands Invasive Plant Working G roup (AZ- WIPWG). 2005. Invasive N on- Native P lants t hat
Threaten Wildlands in Arizona: A Categorized List Developed by the Arizona Wildland Invasive Plant
Working Group. August.
Blonski, K. S. M. E. Morales, and T. J. Morales. 2002. Community -Scale Fire Spread. In Proceedings of
the California's 2001 Wildfire Conference: Ten Years after the 1991 East Bay Hills Fire, 10 -12 October,
Oakland C alifornia, 126 —139. T echnical R eport 35. 01.462. U niversity of C alifornia Fo rest P roducts
Laboratory, Richmond.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Salt River Agency. 2012a. Pascua Yaqui Tribe Wildland Fire Management
Plan. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Salt River Agency; Salt River Pima - Maricopa Indian Community; Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation; Pascua Yaqui Tribe. September.
BIA Salt River Agency. 2012b. Pascua Yaqui Tribe Fuels Management Plan. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Salt
River Agency; S alt R iver P ima- Maricopa I ndian Community; Fort M cDowell Yavapai N ation; P ascua
Yaqui Tribe.
Burgan, R. E. 1988. 1988 Revisions to the 1978 National Fire Danger Rating System. Research Paper SE-
273. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Brooks, M. L. 2008. Plant Invasions and Fire Regimes. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative
Invasive Plants, eds. K. Zouhar, J. K. Smith, S. Sutherland, and M. L. Brooks, 33 -46. General
Technical Report RM RS- GTR- 42 -vol. 6. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.,
Ogden, UT.
Brooks, M. , and M. Lus k. 2008. Fire Management and I nvasive Plans: A Handbook. US F ish a nd Wildlife
Service, Arlington VA.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 129
Section VII. References
Brooks, M. L., and J. R. Matchett. 2006. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Wildfires in the Mojave Desert.
1980 -2004. Journal of Arid Environments 67:148 -164.
Brown, D. E., Minnich, R. A. 1986. Fire and Changes in Creosote Bush Scrub of the Western Sonoran
Desert, California. American Midland Naturalist 116(2): 411 -422.
Cascabel Fire Department. 2006. Cascabel Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Cohen, J. 2008. The Wildland Urban Interface Fire Problem: A Consequence of the Fire Exclusion
Paradigm. Forest History Today. http: / /www.ForestHistory.org
Communities Committee of the Seventh American Forest Congress, Society of American Foresters, the
National Association of State Foresters (NASF), the National Association of Counties, and the Western
Governors Association (WGA). 2004. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for
Wildland -Urban Interface Communities.
Communities Committee of the Seventh American Forest Congress, Society of American Foresters, the
National Association of State Foresters (NASF), the National Association of Counties, and the Western
Governors Association (WGA). 2008. Community Guide to Preparing and Implementing a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan. A supplemental guide to Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A
Handbook for Wildland -Urban Interface Communities.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Interagency Working Group. 2005a. Fire Regime Condition Class
(FRCC) Interagency Handbook Reference Conditions. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Potential
Natural Vegetation Group (BpS) Descriptions. http:// www .frcc.gov /pnvgSummaries.html.
FRCC Interagency Working Group. 2005b. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Fire
Regime Condition Class Version 1.2. http: / /www.frcc.gov /docs /1.2.2.2 /Complete Guidebook V1.2.pdf.
FRCC Interagency Working Group. 2010. FRCC Guidebook, Version 3.0, p 15. September.
http: / /www.fire.org /niftt/released /FRCC Guidebook 2010 final.pdf.
Golder Ranch Fire Department. 2007. Catalina Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Gori, D. F., and C. A. F. Enquist. 2003. An Assessment of the Spatial Extent and Condition of Grasslands
in Central and Southern Arizona, Southwestern New Mexico and Northern Mexico. The Nature
Conservancy, Arizona Chapter.
Governor's Forest Health Councils, State of Arizona. 2007. The Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona's
Forests, ed. E. Aumack, T Sisk, and J. Palumbo. Arizona Public Service, Phoenix. June.
Grissom, P. 2010. Memorandum Fuel Models and buffelgrass spread modeling. Saguaro National Park,
Fire Ecologist. May 17.
Hauser, A. S. 2008. Pennisetum ciliare. Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http: / /www.fs.fed.us /database /feis /.
Hendricks, D. M. 1985. Arizona Soils. College of Agriculture, University of Arizona. Tucson.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 130
Section VII. References
Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo and T. C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, NY.
McDonald, C. 2009. Management of Non- Native Perennial Grass in Southern Arizona: Effects of
Prescribed Fire and Livestock Grazing. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Mount Lemmon Fire District. 2004. Mt. Lemmon Wildland -Urban Interface Plan for Forest Health Wildland
Fire Management. July 2004.
National Association of State Foresters. 2003. Field Guidance: Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at
Risk. http: / /www.stateforesters.org /field - guidance - identifying- and - prioritizing- communities - risk -june-
2003
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. National Conservation Practice Standards,
Range Planting. Code 550. http:// www. nres. usda. aov/ wps/ portal /nres /detailfull /national /technical/
NRCS. 2008. Altar Valley Fire Management Plan. USDA NRSC, Phoenix, AZ. September 18.
NRCS. 2011. MLRA Explorer Custom Report. D- Western Range and Irrigated Region 41- Southeastern
Arizona Basin and Range 40- Sonoran Basin and Range 38- Mogol /on Transition. USDA Agriculture
Handbook 296. http : / /soils.usda.giv /MLRAExplorer (accessed June 2011).
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2012. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. National Wildfire
Coordinating Group, Program Management Unit. http: / /www.nwcq.gov /pms /pubs /pubs.htm.
NatureServe. 2004. Southwest ReGAP Analysis Project- Land Cover Data Legend Descriptions.
http: / /earth.gis.usu.edu /swregap/legend desc.html.
Olsson, A. D., J. Betancourt, M. P. McClaran, and S. E. Marsh. 2012. Sonoran Desert Ecosystem
Transformation by a C4 Grass without the Grass /Fire Cycle. Diversity and Distributions 18:10 -21.
Pima County. 2012. Adopting by Reference the 2012 International Wildland -Urban Interface Code with
Local Amendments (Applicable Only to Areas Designated Rural Forest Village under the Pima County
Comprehensive Plan and Areas Encircled Thereby). Pima County Ordinance No. 2012 -34.
Pima County Office of Emergency Management. 2012. Pima County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan.
Presidential Policy. 2002. Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities.
Presidential Policy. August 22.
Rehm, R. G., A. Hamins, H. R. Baum, K. B. McGrattan, D. D. Evans, 2002. Community -Scale Fire Spread.
NIST Report NISTIR 6891. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Rogstad, A. (ed.). 2008. Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Strategic Plan. Buffelgrass Working Group and
Arizona - Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson. February 15.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 131
Section VII. References
Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of Coarse -
Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. RMRS -87. USDA Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Schmid, M. K. and G. F. Rogers. 1988. Trends in Fire Occurrence in the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the
Sonoran Desert, 1955 to 1983. Southwestern Naturalist 33:437 -444.
Scott, J. H., and R. E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use
with Rothermel's Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR -153. USDA, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Sonoita Fire Department. 2007. Sonoita -Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center (SABCC). 2008. Losing Ground: The War on
Buffelgrass in the Sonoran Desert. Buffelgrass Fire Behavior Video.
SABCC. 2010. Tucson Basin Buffelgrass Assessment. http:// www .buffelgrass.org /content/risk- assessment
Southwest Strategy. 2004. Southwest Community Wildfire Protection Plan Guide.
http : / /fire.az.gov /UserFiles /PDF /wildfire plan quide.pdf
Stevens, J., and D. Falk. 2009. Can Buffelgrass Invasions Be Controlled in the American Southwest?
Using Invasion Ecology Theory to Understand Buffelgrass Success and Develop Comprehensive
Restoration And Management. Ecological Restoration 27:417 -427.
Tohono O'odham Nation. 2004. Tohono O'odham Nation Fire Management Plan. September.
Tohono O'odham Nation. No Date. Demographic Analysis of the Tohono O'odham Nation Using 2010
Census and 2010 American Community Survey Estimates. Department of Planning and Economic
Development, Tohono O'odham Nation Tribe, Sells, AZ.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Climate Change and Agriculture in the US: An Assessment of
Effects and Potential for Adaption. Technical Submission to the National Climate Assessment 2012.
USDA Forest Service (FS). 1983. The 1978 National Fire - Danger Rating System: Technical
Documentation. General Technical Report INT -169. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. July.
USDA FS. 1988 as amended. Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA
Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ.
USDA FS. 2000. USDA Forest Service Handbook 1909. Washington, DC.
USDA FS. 2010. Coronado National Forest Fire Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Coronado
National Forest. May 18.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 132
Section VII. References
USDA FS. 2011. Landscape Conservation and Restoration Strategic Action Plan. USDA Forest Service,
Southwest Region. January 31.
USDA FS and US Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002. A
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment — 10
Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. Western Governors' Association. August 2002.
USDA and USDI. 2001 a. Federal Register. 2001 a. 66(3): 751 -777. January 4.
USDA and USDI. 2001 b. Federal Register. 2001 b. 66(160): 43383 - 43435. August 17.
USDA and USDI. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
February 13. http: / /www.nifc.gov /policies /policies documents /GIFWFMP.pdf
USDI BLM. 2004x. Approved Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality
Management and Decision Record.
USDI BLM. 2004b. Wildland Fire Suppression (Including Wildland Fire Use) and Rehabilitation in Riparian
and Aquatic Habitats (RA).
USDI BLM. 2013. Arizona BLM Gila District Fire Management Plan.
USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2007. Saguaro National Park Fire Management Plan.
USDI and USDA 2005. Wildland Fire Use Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. May.
US Geological Survey (USGS) National GAP Analysis Program. 2005. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis
Project Land Cover Data Legend Descriptions. RS /GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources,
Utah State University. http: / /ftp.nr.usu.edu /swgap/legend desc.html.
Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and Earlier Spring
Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science 313(5789): 940 -943.
Western Governors' Association. Forest health Advisory Committee. 2010. Forest Health Landscape -scale
Restoration Recommendations December. http: / /www.westgov.org /initiatives /foresthealth.
Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC). 2002. Resources: Polices and Guidelines. In National Fire Plan.
http: / /www.fireplan.gov /resources /policies. accessed 2013
WFLC. 2012. A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy -Phase ll National Report.
Washington, DC.
Zouhar, K. 2003. Tamarix spp. Fire Effects Information System. USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http: / /www.fs.fed.us /database /feis/ (accessed
May 6, 2013).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 133
Section VII. References
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 134
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
VIII. GLOSSARY OF FIRE MANAGEMENT TERMS
A
Aerial Fuels: All live and dead vegetation in the forest canopy or above surface fuels, including tree
branches, twigs and cones, snags, moss, and high brush.
Aerial Ignition: Ignition of fuels by dropping incendiary devices or materials from aircraft.
Air Tanker: A fixed -wing aircraft equipped to drop fire retardants or suppressants.
Agency: Any federal, state, county, or city government organization participating with jurisdictional
responsibilities.
Anchor Point: An advantageous location, usually a barrier to fire spread, from which to start building a fire
line. An anchor point is used to reduce the chance of firefighters being flanked by fire.
Appropriate Tools: Methods for reducing hazardous fuels including prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and
various mechanical methods such as crushing, tractor and hand piling, thinning (to produce commercial or
pre - commercial products), and pruning. They are selected on a site - specific case and are ecologically
appropriate and cost effective.
Aramid: The generic name for a high- strength, flame- resistant synthetic fabric used in the shirts and jeans
of firefighters. Nomex, a brand name for aramid fabric, is the term commonly used by firefighters.
Aspect: Direction toward which a slope faces.
B
Backfire: A fire set along the inner edge of a fireline to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire and /or
change the direction of force of the fire's convection column.
Backpack Pump: A portable sprayer with hand -pump, fed from aliquid- filled container fitted with straps,
used mainly in fire and pest control. (see Bladder Bag)
Bambi Bucket: A collapsible bucket slung below a helicopter, used to dip water from a variety of sources for
fire suppression.
Basal area: The cross - sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast
height and expressed per unit of land area. (http://dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/basal-area)
Behave: A system of interactive computer programs for modeling fuel and fire behavior that consists of two
systems: BURN and FUEL.
Bladder Bag: A collapsible backpack portable sprayer made of neoprene or high - strength nylon fabric fitted
with a pump. (see Backpack Pump)
Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology, at http: / /www.nwcg.gov /pms /pubs /pubs.htm (National Wildfire Coordinating Group Program
Management Unit, 2012).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 135
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Blow -up: A sudden increase in fire intensity or rate of spread strong enough to prevent direct control or to
upset control plans. Blow -ups are often accompanied by violent convection and may have other
characteristics of a fire storm. (see Flare -up)
Brush: A collective term that refers to stands of vegetation dominated by shrubby, woody plants, or low
growing trees, usually of a type undesirable for livestock or timber management.
Brush Fire: A fire burning in vegetation that is predominantly shrubs, brush and scrub growth.
Bucket Drops: The dropping of fire retardants or suppressants from specially designed buckets slung below
a helicopter.
Buffer Zones: An area of reduced vegetation that separates wildlands from vulnerable residential or
business developments. This barrier is similar to a greenbelt in that it is usually used for another purpose
such as agriculture, recreation areas, parks, or golf courses.
Bump -up Method: A progressive method of building a fire line on a wildfire without changing relative
positions in the line. Work is begun with a suitable space between workers. Whenever one worker
overtakes another, all workers ahead move one space forward and resume work on the uncompleted part
of the line. The last worker does not move ahead until completing his or her space.
Burnable Acres: Any vegetative material /type that is susceptible to burning.
Burned Area Rehabilitation: The treatment of an ecosystem following fire disturbance to minimize
subsequent effects. (1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy.)
Burn Out: Setting fire inside a control line to widen it or consume fuel between the edge of the fire and the
control line.
Burning Ban: A declared ban on open air burning within a specified area, usually due to sustained high fire
danger.
Burning Conditions: The state of the combined factors of the environment that affect fire behavior in a
specified fuel type.
Burning Index: An estimate of the potential difficulty of fire containment as it relates to the flame length at
the most rapidly spreading portion of a fire's perimeter.
Burning Period: That part of each 24 -hour period when fires spread most rapidly, typically from 10:00 a.m.
to sundown.
Burn Intensity: The amount and rate of surface fuel consumption. It is not a good indicator of the degree of
chemical, physical and biological changes to the soil or other resources. (see Fire Severity)
C
Campfire: As used to classify the cause of a wildland fire, a fire that was started for cooking or warming
that spreads sufficiently from its source to require action by a fire control agency.
Candle or Candling: A single tree or a very small clump of trees that is burning from the bottom up.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 136
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Catastrophic: Fire that burns more intensely than the natural or historical range or variability, thereby
fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and /or rare or threatened
species /habitats, or causing unacceptable erosion [definition added from the Proposed Statewide Land
Use Plan for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004)]. (see
Severe Wildland Fire)
Chain: A unit of linear measurement equal to 66 horizontal feet.
Closure: Legal restriction, but not necessarily elimination of specified activities such as smoking, camping,
or entry that might cause fires in a given area.
Cold Front: The leading edge of a relatively cold air mass that displaces warmer air. The heavier cold air
may cause some of the warm air to be lifted. If the lifted air contains enough moisture, the result may be
cloudiness, precipitation, and thunderstorms. If both air masses are dry, no clouds may form. Following the
passage of a cold front in the Northern Hemisphere, westerly or northwesterly winds of 15 to 30 or more
miles per hour often continue for 12 to 24 hours.
Cold Trailing: A method of controlling a partly dead fire edge by carefully inspecting and feeling with the
hand for heat to detect any fire, digging out every live spot, and trenching any live edge.
Command Staff: The command staff consists of the information officer, safety officer and liaison officer.
They report directly to the incident commander and may have assistants.
Community Impact Zone (CIZ): The zone around a community that may be impacted by wildfire. Similar to
Defensible Space, but on a community level.
Complex: Two or more individual incidents located in the same general area, which are assigned to a
single incident commander or unified command.
Condition Class: Based on coarse scale national data, Fire Condition Classes measure general wildfire risk
as follows:
Condition Class 1. For the most part, fire regimes in this Fire Condition Class are within historical
ranges. Vegetation composition and structure are intact. Thus, the risk of losing key ecosystem
components from the occurrence of fire remains relatively low.
Condition Class 2. Fire regimes on these lands have been moderately altered from their historical
range by either increased or decreased fire frequency. A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem
components has been identified on these lands.
Condition Class 3. Fire regimes on these lands have been significantly altered from their historical
return interval. The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Fire frequencies have
departed from historical ranges by multiple return intervals. Vegetation composition, structure and
diversity have been significantly altered. Consequently, these lands verge on the greatest risk of
ecological collapse. (Cohesive Strategy 2002, in draft)
Contain a Fire: A fuel break around the fire has been completed. This break may include natural barriers or
manually and /or mechanically constructed line.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 137
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Control a Fire: The complete extinguishment of a fire, including spot fires. Fireline has been strengthened
so that flare -ups from within the perimeter of the fire will not break through this line.
Control Line: All built or natural fire barriers and treated fire edge used to control a fire.
Cooperating Agency: An agency supplying assistance other than direct suppression, rescue, support, or
service functions to the incident control effort; e.g., Red Cross, law enforcement agency, telephone
company, etc.
Coyote Tactics: A progressive line construction duty involving self- sufficient crews that build fire line until
the end of the operational period, remain at or near the point while off duty, and begin building fire line
again the next operational period where they left off.
Creeping Fire: Fire burning with a low flame length and spreading slowly.
Crew Boss: A person in supervisory charge of usually 16 to 21 firefighters and responsible for their
performance, safety, and welfare.
Critical Ignition Zones: Those areas that are likely to be key in the formation of large wildfires if ignition
occurs at that location. These include locations such as at the bottom of a hill, or in fuels that will ignite
easily and sustain growth of fire with increasing flame lengths and fire intensity.
Crown Fire (Crowning): The movement of fire through the crowns of trees or shrubs more or less
independently of the surface fire.
Curing: Drying and browning of herbaceous vegetation or slash.
D
Dead Fuels: Fuels with no living tissue in which moisture content is governed almost entirely by
atmospheric moisture (relative humidity and precipitation), dry -bulb temperature, and solar radiation.
Debris Burning: A fire spreading from any fire originally set for the purpose of clearing land or for rubbish,
garbage, range, stubble, or meadow burning.
Defensible Space: An area either natural or manmade where material capable of causing a fire to spread
has been treated, cleared, reduced, or changed to act as a barrier between an advancing wildland fire and
the loss to life, property, or resources. In practice, "defensible space" is defined as an area a minimum of
30 feet around a structure that is cleared of flammable brush or vegetation. (see Survivable Space)
Deployment: See Fire Shelter Deployment.
Detection: The act or system of discovering and locating fires.
Diameter root collar: The diameter at the location on a plant where the primary vascular anatomy changes
from that of a stem to that of a root. ( http:// dictionaryofforestry.org /dict/term /root collar
Diameter breast height: A standard height from ground level, generally 4.5 ft (1.37 m),
for recording diameter, circumference (girth), or basal area of a tree.
( http:// dictionaryofforest [y.org /dict/term /breast height
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 138
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Direct Attack: Any treatment of burning fuel, such as by wetting, smothering, or chemically quenching the
fire or by physically separating burning from unburned fuel.
Dispatch: The implementation of a command decision to move a resource or resources from one place to
another.
Dispatcher: A person employed who receives reports of discovery and status of fires, confirms their
locations, takes action promptly to provide people and equipment likely to be needed for control in first
attack, and sends them to the proper place.
Dispatch Center: A facility from which resources are directly assigned to an incident.
Division: Divisions are used to divide an incident into geographical areas of operation. Divisions are
established when the number of resources exceeds the span -of- control of the operations chief. A division is
located with the Incident Command System organization between the branch and the task force /strike
team.
Dozer: Any tracked vehicle with a front - mounted blade used for exposing mineral soil.
Dozer Line: Fire line constructed by the front blade of a dozer.
Drip Torch: Hand -held device for igniting fires by dripping flaming liquid fuel on the materials to be burned;
consists of a fuel fount, burner arm, and igniter. Fuel used is generally a mixture of diesel and gasoline.
Drop Zone: Target area for air tankers, helitankers, and cargo dropping.
Drought Index: A number representing net effect of evaporation, transpiration, and precipitation in
producing cumulative moisture depletion in deep duff or upper soil layers.
Dry Lightning Storm: Thunderstorm in which negligible precipitation reaches the ground. Also called a dry
storm.
Duff: The layer of decomposing organic materials lying below the litter layer of freshly fallen twigs, needles,
and leaves and immediately above the mineral soil.
E
Ecosystem: A spatially explicit, relative homogeneous unit of the Earth that includes all interacting
organisms and components of any part of the natural environment within its boundaries. An ecosystem can
be of any size, e.g., a log, pond, field, forest, or the Earth's biosphere (Society of American Foresters,
1998).
Ecosystem Integrity: The completeness of an ecosystem that at geographic and temporal scales maintains
its characteristics diversity of biological and physical components, composition, structure, and function
(Cohesive Strategy, 2000).
Energy Release Component (ERC): The computed total heat released per unit area (British thermal units
per square foot) within the fire front at the head of a moving fire.
Engine: Any ground vehicle providing specified levels of pumping, water and hose capacity.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 139
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Engine Crew: Firefighters assigned to an engine. The Fireline Handbook defines the minimum crew
makeup by engine type.
Entrapment: A situation where personnel are unexpectedly caught in a fire behavior - related, life -
threatening position where planned escape routes or safety zones are absent, inadequate, or
compromised. An entrapment may or may not include deployment of a fire shelter for its intended purpose.
These situations may or may not result in injury. They include "near misses."
Environmental Assessment (EA): EAs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) of
1969. They are concise, analytical documents prepared with public participation that determine if an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a particular project or action. If an EA determines an
EIS is not needed, the EA becomes the document allowing agency compliance with NEPA requirements.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): EISs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969. Prepared with public participation, they assist decision makers by providing information,
analysis and an array of action alternatives, allowing managers to see the probable effects of decisions on
the environment. Generally, EISs are written for large -scale actions or geographical areas
Equilibrium Moisture Content: Moisture content that a fuel particle will attain if exposed for an infinite period
in an environment of specified constant temperature and humidity. When a fuel particle reaches equilibrium
moisture content, net exchange of moisture between it and the environment is zero.
Escape Route: A preplanned and understood route firefighters take to move to a safety zone or other low -
risk area, such as an already burned area, previously constructed safety area, a meadow that won't burn,
natural rocky area that is large enough to take refuge without being burned. When escape routes deviate
from a defined physical path, they should be clearly marked (flagged).
Escaped Fire: A fire that has exceeded or is expected to exceed initial attack capabilities or prescription.
Extended Attack Incident: A wildland fire that has not been contained or controlled by initial attack forces
and for which more firefighting resources are arriving, en route, or being ordered by the initial attack
incident commander.
Extreme Fire Behavior: "Extreme" implies a level of fire behavior characteristics that ordinarily precludes
methods of direct control action. One of more of the following is usually involved: high rate of spread,
prolific crowning and /or spotting, presence of fire whirls, strong convection column. Predictability is difficult
because such fires often exercise some degree of influence on their environment and behave erratically,
sometimes dangerously.
F
Faller: A person who fells trees. Also called a sawyer or cutter.
Field Observer. Person responsible to the Situation Unit Leader for collecting and reporting information
about an incident obtained from personal observations and interviews.
Fine (Light) Fuels: Fast - drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area -to- volume ratio,
which are less than 1/4 -inch in diameter and have a timelag of one hour or less. These fuels readily ignite
and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 140
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Fingers of a Fire: The long narrow extensions of a fire projecting from the main body.
Fire Behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather and topography.
Fire Behavior Forecast: Prediction of probable fire behavior, usually prepared by a Fire Behavior Officer, in
support of fire suppression or prescribed burning operations.
Fire Behavior Specialist: A person responsible to the Planning Section Chief for establishing a weather
data collection system and for developing fire behavior predictions based on fire history, fuel, weather and
topography.
Firebreak: A natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that may occur or to provide a control
line from which to work.
Fire Cache: A supply of fire tools and equipment assembled in planned quantities or standard units at a
strategic point for exclusive use in fire suppression.
Fire Crew: An organized group of firefighters under the leadership of a crew leader or other designated
official.
Fire Defense System: The cumulative effect of the fire suppression system of a community, including fuels
reduction programs, fire breaks, defensible space, and the response capabilities of emergency personnel.
Fire District: A special taxing district organized for community fire protection under Arizona Revised
Statutes Chapter 5 Fire Districts, Article 1 General Provisions, 48 -805.
Fire Frequency: The natural return interval for a particular ecosystem.
Fire Front: The part of a fire within which continuous flaming combustion is taking place. Unless otherwise
specified the fire front is assumed to be the leading edge of the fire perimeter. In ground fires, the fire front
may be mainly smoldering combustion.
Fire Hazard Reduction Zone: Home ignition zone area, where fuel reduction and home fire resistant
projects should take place to reduce the risk of a wildfire damaging a structure.
Fire Intensity: A general term relating to the heat energy released by a fire.
Fire Line: A linear fire barrier that is scraped or dug to mineral soil.
Fire Load: The number and size of fires historically experienced on a specified unit over a specified period
(usually one day) at a specified index of fire danger.
Fire Management Plan (FMP): A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed
fires and documents the Fire Management Program in the approved land use plan. The plan is
supplemented by operational plans such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire
plans, and prevention plans.
Fire Management Planning: A generic term referring to all levels and categories of fire management
planning, including: preparedness, prevention, hazardous risk assessment, and mitigation planning.
Fire Management Unit (FMU): A land management area definable by objectives, management constraints,
topographic features, access, values to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, major fire regime
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 141
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
groups, etc. that set it apart from the characteristics of an adjacent FMU. The FMU may have dominant
management objectives and pre - selected strategies assigned to accomplish these objectives.
Fire Perimeter: The entire outer edge or boundary of a fire.
Fire -prone ecosystem: Ecosystems that historically burned intensely at low frequencies (stand replacing
fires), those that burned with low intensity at a high frequency (understory fires), and those that burned very
infrequently historically, but are not subject to much more frequent fires because of changed conditions.
These include fire - influenced and fire - adapted ecosystems (Cohesive Strategy, 2000).
Fire Regime: A generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. It is characterized by fire
frequency, predictability, seasonality, intensity, duration, scale (patch size), as well as regularity or
variability. Five combinations of fire frequency, expressed as fire return interval in fire severity, are defined:
Groups I and II include fire return intervals in the 0 -35 year range. Group I includes Ponderosa
pine, other long needle pine species, and dry site Douglas fir. Group II includes the drier grassland
types, tall grass prairie, and some Pacific chaparral ecosystems.
Groups 111 and IV include fire return internals in the 35 -100+ year range. Group III includes interior
dry site shrub communities such as sagebrush and chaparral ecosystems. Group IV includes
lodgepole pine and jack pine.
Group V is the long interval (infrequent), stand replacement fire regime and includes temperate rain
forest, boreal forest, and high elevation conifer species.
Fire - Return Interval: The number of years between successive fire events at a specific site or an area of a
specified size.
Fire Risk Reduction Zone: A zone targeted for risk reduction, including measures such as fuels reduction,
access protection, and construction of structures to minimize the risk of ignition from wildfire.
Fire Season: (1) Period(s) of the year during which wildland fires are likely to occur, spread, and affect
resource values sufficient to warrant organized fire management activities. (2) A legally enacted time
during which burning activities are regulated by state or local authority.
Fire Severity: The amount of heat that is released by a fire and how it affects other resources. It is
dependent on the type of fuels and the behavior of the fuels when they are burned. (see Burn Intensity)
Fire Shelter: An aluminized tent offering protection by means of reflecting radiant heat and providing a
volume of breathable air in a fire entrapment situation. Fire shelters should only be used in life- threatening
situations, as a last resort.
Fire Shelter Deployment: The removing of a fire shelter from its case and using it as protection against fire.
Firestorm: A fire of great size and intensity that generates and is fed by strong inrushing winds from all
sides; the winds add fresh oxygen to the fire, increasing the intensity.
Fire Triangle: Instructional aid in which the sides of a triangle are used to represent the three factors
(oxygen, heat, fuel) necessary for combustion and flame production; removal of any of the three factors
causes flame production to cease.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 142
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Fire Use Module (Prescribed Fire Module): A team of skilled and mobile personnel dedicated primarily to
prescribed fire management. These are national and interagency resources, available throughout the
prescribed fire season, that can ignite, hold and monitor prescribed fires.
Fire Use: The combination of wildland fire use and prescribed fire application to meet resource objectives.
Fire Weather: Weather conditions that influence fire ignition, behavior and suppression.
Fire Weather Watch: A term used by fire weather forecasters to notify using agencies, usually 24 to 72
hours ahead of the event, that current and developing meteorological conditions may evolve into
dangerous fire weather.
Fire Whirl: Spinning vortex column of ascending hot air and gases rising from a fire and carrying aloft
smoke, debris, and flame. Fire whirls range in size from less than one foot to more than 500 feet in
diameter. Large fire whirls have the intensity of a small tornado.
Firewise: A public education program developed by the National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group that
assists communities located in proximity to fire -prone lands. (For additional information, see
http://www.firewise.org)
Firefighting Resources: All people and major items of equipment that can or potentially could be assigned
to fires.
Flame Height: The average maximum vertical extension of flames at the leading edge of the fire front.
Occasional flashes that rise above the general level of flames are not considered. This distance is less
than the flame length if flames are tilted due to wind or slope.
Flame Length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the
flame (generally the ground surface); an indicator of fire intensity.
Flaming Front: The zone of a moving fire where the combustion is primarily flaming. Behind this flaming
zone, combustion is primarily glowing. Light fuels typically have a shallow flaming front, whereas heavy
fuels have a deeper front. Also called fire front.
Flanks of a Fire: The parts of a fire's perimeter that are roughly parallel to the main direction of spread.
Flare -up: Any sudden acceleration of fire spread or intensification of a fire. Unlike a blow -up, a flare -up
lasts a relatively short time and does not radically change control plans.
Flash Fuels: Fuels such as grass, leaves, draped pine needles, fern, tree moss and some kinds of slash,
that ignite readily and are consumed rapidly when dry. Also called fine fuels.
Forb: A plant with a soft, rather than permanent woody stem, that is not a grass or grass -like plant.
Fuel: Combustible material. Includes, vegetation, such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs and
trees, that feed a fire. (see Surface Fuels)
Fuel Bed: An array of fuels usually constructed with specific loading, depth and particle size to meet
experimental requirements; also, commonly used to describe the fuel composition in natural settings.
Fuel Loading: The amount of fuel present expressed quantitatively in terms of weight of fuel per unit area.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 143
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Fuel Model: Simulated fuel complex (or combination of vegetation types) for which all fuel descriptors
required for the solution of a mathematical rate of spread model have been specified.
Fuel Moisture (Fuel Moisture Content): The quantity of moisture in fuel expressed as a percentage of the
weight when thoroughly dried at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
Fuel Reduction: Manipulation, including combustion, or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition
and /or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. Incorporated within this are treatments to
protect, maintain, and restore land health and desired fire cycles.
Fuel Type: An identifiable association of fuel elements of a distinctive plant species, form, size,
arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of fire spread or difficulty of control
under specified weather conditions.
Fusee: A colored flare designed as a railway- warning device and widely used to ignite suppression and
prescription fires.
G
General Staff: The group of incident management personnel reporting to the incident commander. They
may each have a deputy, as needed. Staff consists of operations section chief, planning section chief,
logistics section chief, and finance /administration section chief.
Geographic Area: A political boundary designated by the wildland fire protection agencies, where these
agencies work together in the coordination and effective utilization of firefighting resources.
Ground Fuel: All combustible materials below the surface litter, including duff, tree or shrub roots, dried out
dead wood, peat, and sawdust that normally support a glowing combustion without flame.
H
Haines Index: An atmospheric index used to indicate the potential for wildfire growth by measuring the
stability and dryness of the air over a fire.
Hand Line: A fire line built with hand tools.
Hazard Reduction: Any treatment of a hazard that reduces the threat of ignition and fire intensity or rate of
spread.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction: "Fuel Reduction" is defined as the manipulation or removal of fuels, including
combustion, to reduce the likelihood of ignition and /or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control.
Incorporated within this are treatments to protect, maintain, and restore land health and desired fire cycles.
"Hazard Reduction" is defined as any treatment of a hazard that reduces the threat of ignition and fire
intensity or rate of spread.
Head of a Fire: The side of the fire having the fastest rate of spread.
Heavy Fuels: Fuels of large diameter such as snags, logs, large limb wood, that ignite and are consumed
more slowly than flash fuels.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 144
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Helibase: The main location within the general incident area for parking, fueling, maintaining, and loading
helicopters. The helibase is usually located at or near the incident base.
Helispot: A temporary landing spot for helicopters.
Helitack: The use of helicopters to transport crews, equipment, and fire retardants or suppressants to the
fire line during the initial stages of a fire.
Helitack Crew: A group of firefighters trained in the technical and logistical use of helicopters for fire
suppression.
Holding Actions: Planned actions required to achieve wildland prescribed fire management objectives.
These actions have specific implementation timeframes for fire use actions but can have less sensitive
implementation demands for suppression actions.
Holding Resources: Firefighting personnel and equipment assigned to do all required fire suppression work
following fireline construction but generally not including extensive mop -up.
Home Ignitability: The ignition potential within the Home Ignition Zone.
Home Ignition Zone: The home and its immediate surroundings. The home ignition zone extends to a few
tens of meters around a home not hundreds of meters or beyond. Home ignitions and, thus, the WUI fire
loss problem principally depend on home ignitability.
Hose Lay: Arrangement of connected lengths of fire hose and accessories on the ground, beginning at the
first pumping unit and ending at the point of water delivery.
Hotshot Crew: A highly trained fire crew used mainly to build fireline by hand.
Hotspot: A particular active part of a fire.
Hotspotting: Reducing or stopping the spread of fire at points of particularly rapid rate of spread or special
threat, generally the first step in prompt control, with emphasis on first priorities.
Incendiary: Causing or capable of causing fire.
Incident: A human - caused or natural occurrence, such as wildland fire, that requires emergency service
action to prevent or reduce the loss of life or damage to property or natural resources.
Incident Action Plan (1AP): Contains objectives reflecting the overall incident strategy and specific tactical
actions and supporting information for the next operational period. The plan may be oral or written. When
written, the plan may have a number of attachments, including: incident objectives, organization
assignment list, division assignment, incident radio communication plan, medical plan, traffic plan, safety
plan, and incident map.
Incident Command Post (/CP): Location at which primary command functions are executed. The ICP may
be co- located with the incident base or other incident facilities.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 145
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Incident Command System (ICS): The combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedure and
communications operating within a common organizational structure, with responsibility for the
management of assigned resources to effectively accomplish stated objectives pertaining to an incident.
Incident Commander: Individual responsible for the management of all incident operations at the incident
site.
Incident Management Team: The incident commander and appropriate general or command staff
personnel assigned to manage an incident.
Incident Objectives: Statements of guidance and direction necessary for selection of appropriate
strategy(ies), and the tactical direction of resources. Incident objectives are based on realistic expectations
of what can be accomplished when all allocated resources have been effectively deployed.
Indigenous Knowledge: Knowledge of a particular region or environment from an individual or group that
lives in that particular region or environment, e.g., traditional ecological knowledge of American Indians (FS
National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaskan Native Relations, 1997).
Infrared Detection: The use of heat sensing equipment, known as Infrared Scanners, for detection of heat
sources that are not visually detectable by the normal surveillance methods of either ground or air patrols.
Initial Attack: The actions taken by the first resources to arrive at a wildfire to protect lives and property,
and prevent further extension of the fire.
J
Job Hazard Analysis: This analysis of a project is completed by staff to identify hazards to employees and
the public. It identifies hazards, corrective actions and the required safety equipment to ensure public and
employee safety.
Jump Spot: Selected landing area for smokejumpers.
Jump Suit: Approved protection suite work by smokejumpers.
K
Keech Byram Drought Index (KBDI): Commonly used drought index adapted for fire management
applications, with a numerical range from 0 (no moisture deficiency) to 800 (maximum drought).
Knock Down: To reduce the flame or heat on the more vigorously burning parts of a fire edge.
L
Ladder Fuels: Fuels that provide vertical continuity between strata, thereby allowing fire to carry from
surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help initiate and assure the
continuation of crowning.
Large Fire: (1) For statistical purposes, a fire burning more than a specified area of land, for example,
300 acres. (2) A fire burning with a size and intensity such that its behavior is determined by interaction
between its own convection column and weather conditions above the surface.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 146
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Lead Plane: Aircraft with pilot used to make dry runs over the target area to check wing and smoke
conditions and topography and to lead air tankers to targets and supervise their drops.
Light (Fine) Fuels: Fast - drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area -to- volume ratio,
which are less than 1/4 -inch in diameter and have a timelag of one hour or less. These fuels readily ignite
and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry.
Lightning Activity Level (LAL): A number on a scale of 1 to 6 that reflects frequency and character of cloud -
to ground lightning. The scale is exponential, based on powers of 2 (i.e., LAL 3 indicates twice the lightning
of LAL 2).
Line Scout: A firefighter who determines the location of a fire line.
Litter: Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the fermentation layer,
composed of loose debris of dead sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles, little
altered in structure by decomposition.
Live Fuels: Living plants, such as trees, grasses, and shrubs, in which the seasonal moisture content cycle
is controlled largely by internal physiological mechanisms, rather than by external weather influences.
M
Micro - Remote Environmental Monitoring System (Micro- REMS): Mobile weather monitoring station. A
Micro -REMS usually accompanies an incident meteorologist and ATMU to an incident.
Mineral Soil: Soil layers below the predominantly organic horizons; soil with little combustible material.
Mobilization: The process and procedures used by all organizations, federal, state and local for activating,
assembling, and transporting all resources that have been requested to respond to or support an incident.
Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS): A manufactured unit consisting of five interconnecting
tanks, a control pallet, and a nozzle pallet, with a capacity of 3,000 gallons, designed to be rapidly mounted
inside an unmodified C -130 (Hercules) cargo aircraft for use in dropping retardant on wildland fires.
Mop -up: To make a fire safe or reduce residual smoke after the fire has been controlled by extinguishing or
removing burning material along or near the control line, felling snags, or moving logs so they won't roll
downhill.
Multiagency Coordination (MAC): A generalized term that describes the functions and activities of
representatives of involved agencies and /or jurisdictions who come together to make decisions regarding
the prioritizing of incidents and the sharing and use of critical resources. The MAC organization is not a
part of the on -scene ICS and is not involved in developing incident strategy or tactics.
Mutual Aid Agreement: Written agreement between agencies and /or jurisdictions in which they agree to
assist one another upon request, by furnishing personnel and equipment.
N
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA is the basic national law for protection of the
environment, passed by Congress in 1969. It sets policy and procedures for environmental protection, and
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 147
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
authorizes Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments to be used as analytical
tools to help federal managers make decisions.
National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS): A uniform fire danger rating system that focuses on the
environmental factors that control the moisture content of fuels.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG): A group formed under the direction of the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior and comprised of representatives of the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Association of State Foresters. The group's purpose is to facilitate coordination and effectiveness of
wildland fire activities and provide a forum to discuss, recommend action, or resolve issues and problems
of substantive nature. NWCG is the certifying body for all courses in the National Fire Curriculum.
Nomex: Trade name for afire- resistant synthetic material used in the manufacturing of flight suits and
pants and shirts used by firefighters. (see Aramid)
Normal Fire Season: (1) A season when weather, fire danger, and number and distribution of fires are
about average. (2) Period of the year that normally comprises the fire season.
O
Operations Branch Director: Person under the direction of the operations section chief who is responsible
for implementing that portion of the incident action plan appropriate to the branch.
Operational Period: The period of time scheduled for execution of a given set of tactical actions as
specified in the Incident Action Plan. Operational periods can be of various lengths, although usually not
more than 24 hours.
Overhead: People assigned to supervisory positions, including incident commanders, command staff,
general staff, directors, supervisors, and unit leaders.
P
Pack Test: Used to determine the aerobic capacity of fire suppression and support personnel and assign
physical fitness scores. The test consists of walking a specified distance, with or without a weighted pack,
in a predetermined period of time, with altitude corrections.
Paracargo: Anything dropped, or intended for dropping, from an aircraft by parachute, by other retarding
devices, or by free fall.
Participating Agency: 1) an agency that has an interest in, is consulted about, and has the opportunity to
become involved in a project or program; or 2) an agency invited to be included in the production, review,
development of plans or process for a project without authority to act or does not intent to act with respect
to the project
Peak Fire Season: That period of the fire season during which fires are expected to ignite most readily, to
burn with greater than average intensity, and to create damages at an unacceptable level.
Performance Measures: A quantitative or qualitative characterization of performance (Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993).
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 148
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): All firefighting personnel must be equipped with proper equipment
and clothing in order to mitigate the risk of injury from, or exposure to, hazardous conditions encountered
while working. PPE includes, but is not limited to, 8- inch -high laced leather boots with lug soles, fire shelter,
hard hat with chin strap, goggles, ear plugs, aramid shirts and trousers, leather gloves, and individual first
aid kits.
Preparedness: Condition or degree of being ready to cope with a potential fire situation.
Prescribed Fire: Any fire ignited by management actions under certain, predetermined conditions to meet
specific objectives related to hazardous fuels or habitat improvement. A written, approved prescribed fire
plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met, prior to ignition.
Prescribed Fire Plan (Burn Plan): This document provides the prescribed fire burn boss information needed
to implement an individual prescribed fire project.
Prescription: Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited, guide
selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required actions. Prescription criteria
may include safety, economic, public health, environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal
considerations.
Prevention: Activities directed at reducing the incidence of fires, including public education, law
enforcement, personal contact, and reduction of fuel hazards.
Project Fire: A fire of such size or complexity that a large organization and prolonged activity is required to
suppress it.
Pulaski: A combination chopping and trenching tool, which combines a single- bitted axe -blade with a
narrow adze -like trenching blade fitted to a straight handle. Useful for grubbing or trenching in duff and
matted roots. Well- balanced for chopping.
R
Radiant Burn: A burn received from a radiant heat source.
Radiant Heat Flux: The amount of heat flowing through a given area in a given time, usually expressed as
calories /square centimeter /second.
Rappelling: Technique of landing specifically trained firefighters from hovering helicopters; involves sliding
down ropes with the aid of friction - producing devices.
Rate of Spread: The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as a
rate of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or as rate of
increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Usually it is expressed in chains or
acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history.
Reburn: The burning of an area that has been previously burned but that contains flammable fuel that
ignites when burning conditions are more favorable; an area that has reburned.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 149
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Red Card: Fire qualification card issued to fire rated persons showing their training needs and their
qualifications to fill specified fire suppression and support positions in a large fire suppression or incident
organization.
Red Flag Warning: Term used by fire weather forecasters to alert forecast users to an ongoing or imminent
critical fire weather pattern.
Rehabilitation: The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildland fires or the fire
suppression activity.
Relative Humidity (Rh): The ratio of the amount of moisture in the air, to the maximum amount of moisture
that air would contain if it were saturated. The ratio of the actual vapor pressure to the saturated vapor
pressure.
Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS): An apparatus that automatically acquires, processes, and
stores local weather data for later transmission to the GOES Satellite, from which the data is re- transmitted
to an earth- receiving station for use in the National Fire Danger Rating System.
Resiliency: The capacity of an ecosystem to maintain or regain normal function and development following
disturbance (Society of American Foresters, 1998).
Resources: (1) Personnel, equipment, services and supplies available, or potentially available, for
assignment to incidents. (2) The natural resources of an area, such as timber, grass, watershed values,
recreation values, and wildlife habitat.
Resource Management Plan (RMP): A document prepared by field office staff with public participation and
approved by field office managers that provides general guidance and direction for land management
activities at a field office. The RMP identifies the need for fire in a particular area and for a specific benefit.
Resource Order: An order placed for firefighting or support resources.
Response Time: The amount of time it takes from when a request for help is received by the emergency
dispatch system until emergency personnel arrive at the scene.
Retardant: A substance or chemical agent that reduces the flammability of combustibles.
Restoration: The active or passive management of an ecosystem or habitat toward its original structure,
natural compliment of species, and natural functions or ecological processes (Cohesive Strategy, 2000).
Run (of a fire): The rapid advance of the head of a fire with a marked change in fire line intensity and rate
of spread from that noted before and after the advance.
Running: A rapidly spreading surface fire with a well- defined head.
Rural Fire Assistance: The Department of the Interior Rural Fire Assistance program is a multi - million dollar
program to enhance the fire protection capabilities of rural fire districts. The program will assist with
training, equipment purchase, and prevention activities, on a cost -share basis.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 150
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
S
Safety Zone: An area cleared of flammable materials used for escape in the event the line is outflanked or
in case a spot fire causes fuels outside the control line to render the line unsafe. In firing operations, crews
progress so as to maintain a safety zone close at hand allowing the fuels inside the control line to be
consumed before going ahead. Safety zones may also be constructed as integral parts of fuel breaks; they
are greatly enlarged areas, which can be used with relative safety by firefighters and their equipment in the
event of a blow -up in the vicinity
Scratch Line: An unfinished preliminary fire line hastily established or built as an emergency measure to
check the spread of fire.
Severe Wildland Fire (catastrophic wildfire): Fire that burns more intensely than the natural or historical
range of variability, thereby fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and / or rate
or threatened species /habitat, or causing unacceptable erosion (GAO / T- RCED- 99 -79) (Society of
American Foresters, 1998).
Severity Funding: Funds provided to increase wildland fire suppression response capability necessitated by
abnormal weather patterns, extended drought, or other events causing abnormal increase in the fire
potential and /or danger.
Single Resource: An individual, a piece of equipment and its personnel complement, or a crew or team of
individuals with an identified work supervisor that can be used on an incident.
Size -up: To evaluate a fire to determine a course of action for fire suppression.
Slash: Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning or brush cutting; includes logs, chips, bark, branches,
stumps and broken understory trees or brush.
Sling Load: Any cargo carried beneath a helicopter and attached by a lead line and swivel.
Slop -over: A fire edge that crosses a control line or natural barrier intended to contain the fire.
Slurry: A mixture typically of water, red clay, and fertilizer dropped from air tankers for fire suppression.
Smokejumper: A firefighter who travels to fires by aircraft and parachute.
Smoke Management: Application of fire intensities and meteorological processes to minimize degradation
of air quality during prescribed fires.
Smoldering Fire: A fire burning without flame and barely spreading.
Snag: A standing dead tree or part of a dead tree from which at least the smaller branches have fallen.
Spark Arrester: A device installed in a chimney, flue, or exhaust pipe to stop the emission of sparks and
burning fragments.
Spot Fire: A fire ignited outside the perimeter of the main fire by flying sparks or embers.
Spot Weather Forecast: A special forecast issued to fit the time, topography, and weather of each specific
fire. These forecasts are issued upon request of the user agency and are more detailed, timely, and
specific than zone forecasts.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 151
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Spotter: In smokejumping, the person responsible for selecting drop targets and supervising all aspects of
dropping smokejumpers.
Spotting: Behavior of a fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and start new fires
beyond the zone of direct ignition by the main fire.
Staging Area: Locations set up at an incident where resources can be placed while awaiting a tactical
assignment on a three - minute available basis. Staging areas are managed by the operations section.
Strategy: The science and art of command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of an incident.
Strike Team: Specified combinations of the same kind and type of resources, with common
communications, and a leader.
Strike Team Leader: Person responsible to a division /group supervisor for performing tactical assignments
given to the strike team.
Structure Fire: Fire originating in and burning any part or all of any building, shelter, or other structure.
Suppressant: An agent, such as water or foam, used to extinguish the flaming and glowing phases of
combustion when direction applied to burning fuels.
Suppression: All the work of extinguishing or containing a fire, beginning with its discovery.
Surface Fuels: Loose surface litter on the soil surface, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles,
twigs, bark, cones, and small branches that have not yet decayed enough to lose their identity; also
grasses, forbs, low and medium shrubs, tree seedlings, heavier branchwood, downed logs, and stumps
interspersed with or partially replacing the litter.
Survivable Space: The distance between vegetational fuels and a structure necessary to protect the
building from radiant heat and its ignition mechanics. The separation distance was formerly called
"defensible space" due to the implication that the fire department could intervene. The term "survivable
space" eliminates the dependence on manual suppression and implies that the distance alone provides the
protection. (see Defensible Space)
Swamper: (1) A worker who assists fallers and /or sawyers by clearing away brush, limbs and small trees.
Carries fuel, oil and tools and watches for dangerous situations. (2) A worker on a dozer crew who pulls
winch line, helps maintain equipment, etc., to speed suppression work on a fire.
T
Tactics: Deploying and directing resources on an incident to accomplish the objectives designated by
strategy.
Tanker. Either a tank truck used to deliver water from a water source to the scene of a fire, or a fixed wing
aircraft used for fire suppression by dropping slurry on the flank or head of a fire.
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR): A restriction requested by an agency and put into effect by the
Federal Aviation Administration in the vicinity of an incident that restricts the operation of nonessential
aircraft in the airspace around that incident.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 152
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
Terra Torch: Device for throwing a stream of flaming liquid, used to facilitate rapid ignition during burn out
operations on a wildland fire or during a prescribed fire operation.
Test Fire: A small fire ignited within the planned burn unit to determine the characteristic of the prescribed
fire, such as fire behavior, detection performance and control measures.
Timelag: Time needed under specified conditions for a fuel particle to lose about 63 percent of the
difference between its initial moisture content and its equilibrium moisture content. If conditions remain
unchanged, a fuel will reach 95 percent of its equilibrium moisture content after four timelag periods.
Torching: The ignition and flare -up of a tree or small group of trees, usually from bottom to top.
Two -way Radio: Radio equipment with transmitters in mobile units on the same frequency as the base
station, permitting conversation in two directions using the same frequency in turn.
Type: The capability of a firefighting resource in comparison to another type. Type 1 usually means a
greater capability due to power, size, or capacity.
U
Uncontrolled Fire: Any fire that threatens to destroy life, property, or natural resources and
(a) is not burning within the confines of firebreaks or (b) is burning with such intensity that it could not be
readily extinguished with ordinary tools commonly available [Parts a and b of definition added
from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group's Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology,
http://www.nwcq.qov/pms/pubs/glossary (see Wildfire)
Underburn: A fire that consumes surface fuels but not trees or shrubs. (see Surface Fuels)
Unplanned and Unwanted Wildland Fires: An unplanned and unwanted fire is one burning outside the
parameters as defined in land use plans and fire management plans for that location (including areas
where the fire can be expected to spread) under current and expected conditions. Unplanned and
unwanted fires include fires burning in areas where fire is specifically excluded; fires that exhibit burning
characteristics (intensity, frequency, and seasonality) that are outside prescribed ranges, specifically
including fires expected to produce severe fire effects; unauthorized human caused fires (arson, escaped
camp fires, equipment fires, etc.); and fires that occur during high fire dangers, or resource shortage, where
the resources needed to manage the fire are needed for more critical fire management needs. Unplanned
is not the same as unscheduled. The time of a lightning fire ignition is not known; however, a lightning -
caused fire could still be used to meet fuels and ecosystem management objectives if that type of fire is
expected to burn within the parameters of an approved plan; the fire is burning within the parameters for
the area; is not causing, or has the potential to cause, unacceptable effects; and funding and resources to
manage the fire are available.
1T1
Vectors: Directions of fire spread as related to rate of spread calculations (in degrees from upslope).
Volunteer Fire Department (VFD): A fire department of which some or all members are unpaid.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 153
Section VIII. Glossary of Fire Management Terms
W
Water Tender: A ground vehicle capable of transporting specified quantities of water.
Weather Information and Management System (WIMS): An interactive computer system designed to
accommodate the weather information needs of all federal and state natural resource management
agencies. Provides timely access to weather forecasts, current and historical weather data, the National
Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS), and the National Interagency Fire Management Integrated Database
(NIFMID).
Wet Line: A line of water, or water and chemical retardant, sprayed along the ground, that serves as a
temporary control line from which to ignite or stop a low- intensity fire.
Wildfire: An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human - caused fires, escaped
wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fire where the objective is
to put the fire out [definition added from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group's Glossary of Wildland
Fire Terminology, http: / /www.nwcg.gov /pms /pubs /glossary]. (see Uncontrolled Fire; Wildland Fire)
Wildland: Wildland is an area of land where plants and animals exist free of human interference. Ecologists
assert that wildlands promote biodiversity, that they preserve historic genetic traits and that they provide
habitat for wild flora and fauna [definition added from Wikipedia, http:// en.wikipedia.org /wikiMildland].
Wildland Fire: Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.
Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP): A progressively developed assessment and operational
management plan that documents the analysis and selection of strategies and describes the appropriate
management response for a wildland fire being managed for resource benefits.
Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA): A decision - making process that evaluates alternative suppression
strategies against selected environmental, social, political, and economic criteria. Provides a record of
decisions.
Wildland Fire Use: The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific, planned
resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in Fire Management Plans.
Wildland fire use is not to be confused with "fire use," which includes prescribed fire.
Wildland Urban Interface (WU1): The line, area or zone where structures and other human development
meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels (Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology,
1996).
Wind Vectors: Wind directions used to calculate fire behavior.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 154
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTIONS OF VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS
The following vegetation information was adapted from the Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project—
Land Cover Data Legend Descriptions (USGS 2005) and was used to analyze vegetation associations
composing the WUI of the Pima County CWPP. The following descriptions are for abroad -scale mapping
effort, and refer to areas within the WUI as well as areas outside Pima County. For additional information,
see the Southwest Regional Landcover Data Web site ( http:// ftp. nr .usu.edu /swgap /landcover.html).
Desert Shrub -Scrub Associations
S070 Sonora - Mohave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
Concept Summary: This system includes extensive open- canopied shrublands of typically saline basins in
the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. Stands often occur around playas. Substrates are generally fine - textured
saline soils. Vegetation is typically composed of one or more Atriplex species such as Atriplex canescens
or Atriplex polycarpa along with other species of Atriplex. Species of Allenrolfea, Salicornia, Suaeda, or
other halophytic plants are often present to codominant. Graminoid species may include Sporobolus
airoides or Distichlis spicata at varying densities.
S129 Sonoran Mid - Elevation Desert Scrub
Concept Summary: This transitional desert scrub system occurs along the northern edge of the
Sonoran Desert in an elevational band along the lower slopes of the Mogollon Rim /Central Highlands
region between 750 -1,300 m. Stands occur in the Bradshaw, Hualapai, and Superstition mountains among
other desert ranges and are found above Sonoran Paloverde -Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub (CES302.761) and
below Mogollon Chaparral (CES302.741). Sites range from a narrow strip on steep slopes to very broad
areas such as the Verde Valley. Climate is too dry for chaparral species to be abundant, and freezing
temperatures during winter are too frequent and prolonged for many of the frost - sensitive species that are
characteristic of the Paloverde Mixed -Cacti Desert Scrub such as Carnegiea gigantea, Parkinsonia
microphylla, Prosopis spp., Olneya tesota, Ferocactus sp., and Opuntia bigelovii. Substrates are generally
rocky soils derived from parent materials such as limestone, granitic rocks, or rhyolite. The vegetation is
typically composed of an open shrub layer of Larrea tridentata, Ericameria linearifolia, or Eriogonum
fasciculatum with taller shrubs such as Fourqueria splendens, Canotia holacantha (limestone or granite), or
Simmondsia chinensis (rhyolite). The herbaceous layer is generally sparse.
S063 Sonoran Paloverde -Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub
Concept Summary: This ecological system occurs on hillsides, mesas, and upper bajadas in southern
Arizona and extreme southeastern California. The vegetation is characterized by a diagnostic sparse,
emergent tree layer of Carnegiea gigantea (3 -16 m tall) and /or a sparse to moderately dense canopy
codominated by xeromorphic deciduous and evergreen tall shrubs Parkinsonia microphylla and Larrea
tridentata with Prosopis sp., Olneya tesota, and Fouquieria splendens less prominent. Other common
shrubs and dwarf- shrubs include Acacia greggii, Ambrosia deltoidea, Ambrosia dumosa (in drier sites),
Calliandra eriophylla, Jatropha cardiophylla, Krameria erecta, Lycium spp., Menodora scabra, and
Simmondsia chinensis and many cacti including Ferocactus spp., Echinocereus spp., and Opuntia spp.
(both cholla and prickly pear). The sparse herbaceous layer is composed of perennial grasses and forbs
with annuals seasonally present and occasionally abundant. On slopes, plants are often distributed in
patches around rock outcrops where suitable habitat is present.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 155
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
S062 Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert, and Thorn Scrub
Concept Summary: This widespread Chihuahuan Desert land cover type is composed of two ecological
systems the Chihuahuan Creosotebush Xeric Basin Desert Scrub (CES302.731) and the Chihuahuan
Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub (CES302.734). This cover type includes xeric creosotebush basins and
plains and the mixed desert scrub in the foothill transition zone above, sometimes extending up to the
lower montane woodlands. Vegetation is characterized by Larrea tridentata alone or mixed with thorn scrub
and other desert scrub such as Agave lechuguilla, Aloysia wrightii, Fouquieria splendens, Dasylirion
leiophyllum, Flourensia cernua, Leucophyllum minus, Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera, Mortonia
scabrella (= Mortonia sempervirens ssp. scabrella), Opuntia engelmannii, Parthenium incanum, Prosopis
glandulosa, and Tiquilia greggii. Stands of thornscrub dominated by Acacia constricta, Acacia
neovernicosa, or Acacia greggii are included in this system, and limestone substrates appear important for
at least these species. Grasses such as Dasyochloa pulchella, Bouteloua curtipendula, Bouteloua
eriopoda, Bouteloua ramosa, Muhlenbergia porter, and Pleuraphis mutica may be common but generally
have lower cover than shrubs.
S069 Sonoran Mohave Creosotebush -White Bursage Desert Scrub
Concept Summary: This ecological system forms the vegetation matrix in broad valleys, lower bajadas,
plains, and low hills in the Mojave and lower Sonoran deserts. This desert scrub is characterized by a
sparse to moderately dense layer (2 % -50% cover) of xeromorphic microphyllous and broad - leaved shrubs.
Larrea tridentata and Ambrosia dumosa are typically dominants, but many different shrubs, dwarf- shrubs,
and cacti may codominate or form typically sparse understories. Associated species may include Atriplex
canescens, Atriplex hymenelytra, Encelia farinosa, Ephedra nevadensis, Fouquieria splendens, Lycium
andersonii, and Opuntia basilaris. The herbaceous layer is typically sparse but may be seasonally
abundant with ephemerals. Herbaceous species such as Chamaesyce spp., Eriogonum inflatum,
Dasyochloa pulchella, Aristida spp., Cryptantha spp., Nama spp., and Phacelia spp. are common.
Shrublands Associations
S058 Apacherian- Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub
Concept Summary: This ecological system occurs as upland shrublands that are concentrated in the
extensive grassland- shrubland transition in foothills and piedmont in the Chihuahuan Desert. It extends into
the Sky Island region to the west and the Edwards Plateau to the east. Substrates are typically derived
from alluvium, often gravelly without a well - developed argillic or calcic soil horizon that would limit
infiltration and storage of winter precipitation in deeper soil layers. Prosopis spp. and other deep- rooted
shrubs exploit this deep soil moisture that is unavailable to grasses and cacti. Vegetation is typically
dominated by Prosopis glandulosa or Prosopis velutina and succulents. Other desert scrub that may
codominate or dominate includes Acacia neovernicosa, Acacia constricta, Juniperus monosperma, or
Juniperus coahuilensis. Grass cover is typically low. During the last century, the area occupied by this
system has increased through conversion of desert grasslands as a result of drought, overgrazing by
livestock, and /or decreases in fire frequency. It is similar to Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub
(CES302.734) but is generally found at higher elevations where Larrea tridentata and other desert scrub
are not codominant. It is also similar to Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub
(CES302.737) but does not occur on eolian- deposited substrates.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 156
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
Grasslands Associations
S077 Apacherian - Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi - Desert Grassland and Steppe
Concept Summary: This ecological system is a broadly defined desert grassland, mixed shrub - succulent,
or xeromorphic tree savanna that is typical of the borderlands of Arizona, New Mexico, and northern
Mexico [Apacherian region] but that extends west to the Sonoran Desert, north into the Mogollon Rim, and
throughout much of the Chihuahuan Desert. It is found on gently sloping bajadas that supported frequent
fire throughout the Sky Islands and on mesas and steeper piedmont and foothill slopes in the Chihuahuan
Desert. It is characterized by typically diverse perennial grasses. Common grass species include Bouteloua
eriopoda, B. hirsuta, B. rothrockii, B. curtipendula, B. gracilis, Eragrostis intermedia, Muhlenbergia porteri,
Muhlenbergia setifolia, Pleuraphis jamesii, Pleuraphis mutica, and Sporobolus airoides; succulent species
of Agave, Dasylirion, and Yucca; and tall shrub /short tree species of Prosopis and various oaks (e.g.,
Quercus grisea, Quercus emoryi, Quercus arizonica). Many of the historical desert grassland and savanna
areas have been converted, some to Chihuahuan Mesquite Woodlands Vegetation Associations.
Woodlands Associations
S057 Mogollon Chaparral
Concept Summary: This ecological system occurs across central Arizona (Mogollon Rim), western New
Mexico, southwestern Utah, and southeast Nevada. It often dominates along the mid - elevation transition
from the Mojave, Sonoran, and northern Chihuahuan deserts into mountains (1,000 -2,200 m). It occurs on
foothills, mountain slopes, and canyons in drier habitats below the encinal and Pinus ponderosa
woodlands. Stands are often associated with more xeric and coarse - textured substrates such as limestone,
basalt, or alluvium, especially in transition areas with more mesic woodlands. The moderate to dense shrub
canopy includes species such as Quercus turbinella, Quercus toumeyi, Cercocarpus montanus, Canotia
holacantha, Ceanothus greggii, Forestiera pubescens (= Forestiera neomexicana), Garrya wrightii,
Juniperus deppeana, Purshia stansburiana, Rhus ovata, Rhus trilobata, and Arctostaphylos pungens, and
Arctostaphylos pringlei at higher elevations. Most chaparral species are fire adapted, resprouting
vigorously after burning or producing fire - resistant seeds. Stands occurring within montane woodlands are
seral and a result of recent fires.
S051 Madrean Encinal
Concept Summary: Madrean Encinal occurs on foothills, canyons, bajadas, and plateaus in the Sierra
Madre Occidentale and Sierra Madre Orientale in Mexico, extending north into Trans -Pecos Texas,
southern New Mexico, and sub - Mogollon Arizona. These woodlands are dominated by Madrean evergreen
oaks along a low -slope transition below Madrean Pine -Oak Forest and Woodland (CES305.796) and
Madrean Pinyon- Juniper Woodland (CES305.797). Lower elevation stands are typically open woodlands or
savannas where they transition into desert grasslands, chaparral, or, sometimes, desert scrub. Common
evergreen oak species include Quercus arizonica, Quercus emoryi, Quercus intricata, Quercus grisea,
Quercus oblongifolia, Quercus toumeyi, and, in Mexico, Quercus chihuahuaensis and Quercus albocincta.
Madrean pine, Arizona cypress, pinyon, and juniper trees may be present but do not codominate.
Chaparral species such as Arctostaphylos pungens, Cercocarpus montanus, Purshia spp., Garrya wrightii,
Quercus turbinella, Frangula betulifolia (= Syn Rhamnus betulifolia), or Rhus spp. may be present but do
not dominate. The graminoid layer usually prominent between trees is grassland or steppe that is
dominated by warm - season grasses such as Aristida spp., Bouteloua gracilis, Bouteloua curtipendula,
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 157
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
Bouteloua rothrockii, Digitaria californica, Eragrostis intermedia, Hilaria belangeri, Leptochloa dubia,
Muhlenbergia spp., Pleuraphisjamesii, or Schizachyrium cirratum; these species are typical of Chihuahuan
Piedmont Semi - Desert Grassland (CES302.735). This system includes seral stands dominated by shrubby
Madrean oaks typically with strong graminoid layer. In transition areas with drier chaparral systems, stands
of chaparral are not dominated by Madrean oaks; however, Madrean encinal may extend down along
drainages.
S112 Madrean Pinyon- Juniper Woodland
Concept Summary: This system occurs on foothills, mountains, and plateaus in the Sierra Madre
Occidentale and Sierra Madre Orientale in Mexico, in Trans -Pecos Texas, in southern New Mexico, and in
southern and central Arizona from the Mogollon Rim south to the Sky Islands. Substrates are variable, but
soils are generally dry and rocky. The presence of Pinus cembroides, Pinus discolor, or other Madrean
trees and shrubs is diagnostic of this woodland system. Juniperus coahuilensis, Juniperus deppeana,
Juniperus pinchotii, Juniperus monosperma, and /or Pinus edulis may be present to dominant. Madrean
oaks such as Quercus arizonica, Quercus emoryi, Quercus grisea, or Quercus mohriana may be
codominant. Pinus ponderosa is absent or sparse. If present, understory layers are variable and may be
dominated by shrubs or graminoids
S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna
Concept Summary: This Madrean ecological system occurs in lower foothills and plains of southeastern
Arizona, southern New Mexico, and extending into west Texas and Mexico. These savannas have widely
spaced mature juniper trees and moderate to high cover of graminoids ( >25% cover). The presence of
Madrean Juniperus spp. such as Juniperus coahuilensis, Juniperus pinchotii, and /or Juniperus deppeana is
diagnostic. Juniperus monosperma may be present in some stands, and Juniperus deppeana has a range
that extends beyond this Madrean system into southern stands of the Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper
Woodland and Savanna (CES306.834). Stands of Juniperus pinchotii may be short and resemble a
shrubland. Graminoid species are a mix of those found in the Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie
(CES303.672) and the Apachierian- Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi - Desert Grassland and Steppe
(CES302.735), with Bouteloua gracilis and Pleuraphisjamesii being most common. In addition, these areas
include succulents such as species of Yucca, Opuntia, and Agave. Juniper savanna expansion into
grasslands has been documented in the last century.
Evergreen Forest Types
S036 Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland
Concept Summary: This very widespread ecological system is most common throughout the cordillera of
the Rocky Mountains. It is also found in the Colorado Plateau region, west into scattered locations in the
Great Basin, and north into southern British Columbia. These woodlands occur at the lower
treeline /ecotone between grassland or shrubland and more mesic coniferous forests typically in warm, dry,
exposed sites. Elevations range from less than 500 m in British Columbia to 2,800 m in the New Mexico
Mountains. Occurrences are found on all slopes and aspects, however, moderately steep to very steep
slopes or ridgetops are most common. This ecological system generally occurs on igneous, metamorphic,
and sedimentary material derived soils, with characteristic features of good aeration and drainage, coarse
textures, circumneutral to slightly acid pH, an abundance of mineral material, rockiness, and periods of
drought during the growing season. Pinus ponderosa is the predominant conifer; Pseudotsuga menziesii,
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 158
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
Pinus edulis, and Juniperus spp. may be present in the tree canopy. The understory is usually shrubby,
with Artemisia nova, Artemisia tridentata, Arctostaphylos patula, Arctostaphylos uva -ursi, Cercocarpus
montanus, Cercocarpus ledifolius, Purshia stansburiana, Purshia tridentata, Quercus gambelii,
Symphoricarpos oreophilus, Prunus virginiana, Amelanchier alnifolia, and Rosa spp. common species.
Pseudoroegnena spicata and species of Hesperostipa, Achnatherum, Festuca, Muhlenbergia, and
Bouteloua are some of the common grasses. Mixed fire regimes and ground fires of variable return interval
maintain these woodlands, depending on climate, degree of soil development, and understory density.
S032 Rocky Mountain Montane Dry -Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
Concept Summary: This is a highly variable ecological system of the montane zone of the Rocky
Mountains. It occurs throughout the southern Rockies, north and west into Utah, Nevada, western
Wyoming and Idaho. These are mixed - conifer forests occurring on all aspects at elevations ranging from
1,200 to 3,300 m. Rainfall averages less than 75 cm per year (40 -60 cm) with summer "monsoons" during
the growing season contributing substantial moisture. The composition and structure of overstory is
dependent upon the temperature and moisture relationships of the site, and the successional status of the
occurrence. Pseudotsuga menziesii and Abies concolor are most frequent, but Pinus ponderosa may be
present to codominant. Pinus flexilis is common in Nevada. Pseudotsuga menziesii forests occupy drier
sites, and Pinus ponderosa is a common codominant. Forests dominated by Abies concolor occupy cooler
sites, such as upper slopes at higher elevations, canyon sideslopes, ridgetops, and north- and east - facing
slopes which burn somewhat infrequently. Picea pungens is most often found in cool, moist locations, often
occurring as smaller patches within a matrix of other associations. As many as seven conifers can be found
growing in the same occurrence, and there are a number of cold- deciduous shrub and graminoid species
common, including Arctostaphylos uva -ursi, Mahonia repens, Paxistima myrsinites, Symphoricarpos
oreophilus, Jamesia americans, Quercus gambelii, and Festuca arizonica. This system was undoubtedly
characterized by a mixed severity fire regime in its "natural condition," characterized by a high degree of
variability in lethality and return interval.
S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon- Juniper Woodland
Concept Summary: This southern Rocky Mountain ecological system occurs on dry mountains and
foothills in southern Colorado east of the Continental Divide, in mountains and plateaus of northern New
Mexico, and extends out onto limestone breaks in the Great Plains. These woodlands occur on warm, dry
sites on mountain slopes, mesas, plateaus, and ridges. Severe climatic events occurring during the
growing season, such as frosts and drought, are thought to limit the distribution of pinyon - juniper
woodlands to relatively narrow altitudinal belts on mountainsides. Soils supporting this system vary in
texture ranging from stony, cobbly, gravelly sandy loams to clay loam or clay. Pinus edulis and /or
Juniperus monosperma dominate the tree canopy. Juniperus scopulorum may codominate or replace
Juniperus monosperma at higher elevations. In transitional areas along the Mogollon Rim and in northern
New Mexico, Juniperus deppeana becomes common. Understory layers are variable and may be
dominated by shrubs, graminoids, or be absent. Associated species include Artemisia tridentata,
Cercocarpus montanus, Quercus gambelii, Achnatherum scribneri, Bouteloua gracilis, Festuca arizonica,
or Pleuraphis jamesii.
S035 Madrean Pine -Oak Forest and Woodland
Concept Summary: This system occurs on mountains and plateaus in the Sierra Madre Occidentale and
Sierra Madre Orientale in Mexico, in Trans -Pecos Texas, in southern New Mexico, and in southern and
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 159
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
central Arizona from the Mogollon Rim southeastward to the Sky Islands. These forests and woodlands are
composed of Madrean pines ( Pinus arizonica, Pinus engelmannii, Pinus leiophylla or Pinus strobiformis)
and evergreen oaks (Quercus arizonica, Quercus emoryi, or Quercus grisea) intermingled with patchy
shrublands on most mid - elevation slopes (1,500 -2,300 m elevation). Other tree species include Cupressus
arizonica, Juniperus deppeana, Pinus cembriodes, Pinus discolor, Pinus ponderosa ( with Madrean pines or
oaks), and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Subcanopy and shrub layers may include typical encinal and chaparral
species such as Agave spp., Arbutus arizonica, Arctostaphylos pringlei, Arctostaphylos pungens, Garrya
wrightii, Nolina spp., Quercus hypoleucoides, Quercus rugosa, and Quercus turbinella. Some stands have
moderate cover of perennial graminoids such as Muhlenbergia emersleyi, Muhlenbergia longiligula,
Muhlenbergia virescens, and Schizachyrium cirratum. Fires are frequent, with perhaps more crown fires
than ponderosa pine woodlands, which tend to have more frequent ground fires on gentle slopes.
Deciduous Southwest Riparian Associations
S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque
Concept Summary: This ecological system consists of low- elevation ( <1,100 m) riparian corridors along
intermittent streams in the valleys of southern Arizona and New Mexico and adjacent Mexico. Dominant
trees include Prosopis glandulosa and Prosopis velutina. Shrub dominants include Baccharis salicifolia,
Pluchea sericea, and Salix exigua. Vegetation, especially the mesquites, tap groundwater below the
streambed when surface flows stop. Vegetation depends on annual rise in the water table for growth and
reproduction.
S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
Concept Summary: This ecological system consists of low- elevation ( <1,200 m) riparian corridors along
medium to large perennial streams throughout canyons and the desert valleys of the southwestern United
States and adjacent Mexico. The vegetation is a mix of riparian woodlands and shrublands. Dominant trees
include Acer negundo, Fraxinus velutina, Populus fremontii, Salix gooddingii, Salix lasiolepis, Celtis
laevigata var. reticulate, and Juglans major. Shrub dominants include Salix geyeriana, Shepherdia
argentea, and Salix exigua. Vegetation depends on annual or periodic flooding and associated sediment
scour and /or annual rise in the water table for growth and reproduction.
D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrub/and
Description: Tamarix spp. Semi - Natural Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance (A842), or Elaegnus
angustifolus Semi - Natural Woodland Alliance (A3566).
Tamarix spp. Semi - Natural Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Translated Name: Saltcedar species, Semi - natural Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
Unique Identifier: A.842
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification
Concept Summary: This alliance is composed of shrublands that form moderately dense to dense thickets
on banks of larger streams, rivers, and playas across the western Great Plains, interior and southwestern
United States, and northern Mexico. Stands are dominated by introduced species of Tamarix, including
Tamarix ramosissima, Tamarix chinensis, Tamarix gallica, and Tamarix parviflora. Introduced from the
Mediterranean, Tamarix spp. have become naturalized in various sites, including salt flats, springs, and
especially along streams and regulated rivers, often replacing Salix or Prosopis spp. shrublands or other
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 160
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
native vegetation. A remnant herbaceous layer may be present, depending on the age and density of the
shrub layer. These species have become a critical nuisance along most large rivers in the semi -arid
western United States. Because of the difficulty to remove, Tamarix spp. may have irreversibly changed
the vegetation along many rivers.
Classification Comments: This broadly defined alliance is composed of vegetation communities from a
wide variety of environments that are dominated by diverse Tamarix spp. Common species of Tamarix
include Tamarix ramosissima, Tamarix chinensis, and Tamarix parviflora, but other species are reported
from the western United States, such as Tamarix africana, Tamarix aphylla, Tamarix aralensis, Tamarix
canariensis, Tamarix gallica, and Tamarix tetragyna.
Other Cover Types and Nonvegetated Associations: Altered, Disturbed, and Developed
N21 Developed, Open Space —Low Intensity
Concept Summary: Developed Open Space includes areas with a mixture of some construction materials
but mostly includes vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20
percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large -lot single - family housing units, parks, golf
courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic
purposes. Developed, Low Intensity includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation.
Impervious surfaces account for 20 -49 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single -
family housing units.
N22 Developed, Medium —High Intensity
Concept Summary: Developed, Medium Intensity includes ncludes areas with a mixture of constructed
materials and vegetation. Impervious surface accounts for 50 -79 percent of the total cover. These areas
most commonly include single - family housing units. Developed, High Intensity includes highly developed
areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses,
and commercial /industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 -100 percent of the total cover (National
Land Cover Data, draft legend, July 25, 2003).
N31 Barren Land Types, Non - Specific
Concept Summary: (Rock/Sand /Clay) Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides,
volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulation of earthen
material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15 percent of total cover.
N80 Agriculture
Concept Summary: Agriculture unable to make distinction between N81 and N82.
S013 Inter- Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinderland
Concept Summary: This ecological system occurs in the Intermountain western United States and is
limited to barren and sparsely vegetated volcanic substrates (generally <10% plant cover) such as basalt
lava (malpais), basalt dikes with associated colluvium, basalt cliff faces and uplifted "backbones," tuff,
cinder cones, or cinder fields. It may occur as large- patch, small - patch, and linear (dikes) spatial patterns.
Vegetation is variable and includes a variety of species depending on local environmental conditions, for
example, elevation, age, and type of substrate. At montane and foothill elevations scattered Pinus
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 161
Appendix A. Descriptions of Vegetation Associations
ponderosa, Pinus flexilis, or Juniperus spp. trees may be present. Shrubs such as Ephedra spp., Atriplex
canescens, Eriogonum corymbosum, Eriogonum ovalifolium, and Fallugia paradoxa are often present on
some lava flows and cinder fields. Species typical of sand dunes such as Andropogon hallii and Artemisia
filifolia may be present on cinder substrates.
D03 Recently Mined or Quarried
Concept Summary: 2 hectare or greater; open -pit mining or quarries visible on imagery.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 162
Appendix B. National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Model Selection Key
APPENDIX B. NATIONAL FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEM
FUEL MODEL SELECTION KEY
I. Mosses, lichens, and low shrubs predominate ground fuels
A. Overstory of conifers occupies more than one -third of the site
Model Q
B. No overstory, or it occupies less than one -third of the site
Model S
II. Marsh grasses and /or reeds predominate
Model N
III. Grasses and /or forbs predominate
A. Open overstory of conifer and /or hardwoods
Model C
B. No overstory
1. Woody shrubs occupy more than one -third but less than two - thirds of the site
Model T
2. Woody shrubs occupy less than two - thirds of the site
a. Grasses and forbs are primarily annuals
Model A
b. Grasses and forbs are primarily perennials
Model L
IV. Brush, shrubs, tree reproduction, or dwarf tree species predominate
A. Average height of woody plants is 6 feet or greater
1. Woody plants occupy two - thirds or more of the site
a. One - fourth or more of the woody foliage is dead
(1) Mixed California chaparral
Model B
(2) Other types of brush
Model F
b. Up to one - fourth of the woody foliage is dead
Model Q
c. Little dead foliage
Model O
2. Woody plants occupy less than two - thirds of the site
Model F
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 163
Appendix B. National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Model Selection Key
B. Average height of woody plants is less than 6 feet
1. Woody plants occupy two - thirds or more of the site
a. Western United States
Model F
b. Eastern United States
Model O
2. Woody plants occupy less than two - thirds but greater than one -third of the site
a. Western United States
Model T
b. Eastern United States
Model D
3. Woody plants occupy less than one -third of the site
a. Grasses and forbs are primarily annuals
Model A
b. Grasses and forbs are primarily perennials
Model L
V. Trees predominate
A. Deciduous broadleaf species predominate
1. Area has been thinned or partially cut, leaving slash as the major fuel component
Model K
2. Area has not been thinned or partially cut
a. Overstory is dormant; leaves have fallen
Model E
b. Overstory is in full leaf
Model R
B. Conifer species predominate
1. Lichens, mosses, and low shrubs dominate as understory fuels
Model Q
2. Grasses and forbs are the primary ground fuel
Model C
3. Woody shrubs and /or reproduction dominate as understory fuels
a. Understory burns readily
(1) Western United States
Model T
(2) Eastern United States
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 164
Appendix B. National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Model Selection Key
(a) Understory is more than 6 feet tall
Model O
(b) Understory is less than 6 feet tall
Model D
b. Understory seldom burns
Model H
4. Duff and litter, branch wood, and tree boles are the primary ground fuel
a. Overstory is over mature and decadent; heavy accumulation of dead debris
Model G
b. Overstory is not decadent; only a nominal accumulation of debris
(1) Needles are 2 or more inches long (most pines)
(a) Eastern United States
Model P
(b) Western United States
Model U
(2) Needles are less than 2 inches long
Model H
VI. Slash predominates
A. Foliage is still attached; little settling
1. Loading is 25 tons /acre or greater
Model l
2. Loading is less than 25 tons /acre but greater than 15 tons /acre
Model J
3. Loading is less than 15 tons /acre
Model K
B. Settling is evident; foliage is falling off; grasses, forbs and shrubs are invading
1. Loading is 25 tons /acre or greater
Model J
2. Loading is less than 25 tons /acre
Model K
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 165
Appendix B. National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Model Selection Key
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 166
Appendix C. Educational Resources
APPENDIX C. EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Firewise Information and Web Sites
Firewise Communities /USA National Recognition Program. http: / /www /Firewise.org /USA.
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Arizona Firewise Resources http : / /cals.arizona.edu /firewise/
Arizona State Forestry Division Firewise Information
http: / /www.azsf.az.gov /fire managment /firewise communities/
MyFireCommunity Arizona Firewise Resources
http://www.myfirecommunity.net/Neighborhood.aspx?ID=367
Arizona Interagency Fire Prevention and Information Resources http: / /wildlandfire.az.gov/ &
http: / /wildlandfire.az.gov /links.asp #Firewise
Ready- Set -Go Personal wildfire Action Plan. Describes defensible space, pre -fire preparation planning,
approaching fire and evacuation planning.
http: / /www. iafc. org /associations /4685 /files /wild readysetGoWildfireActionPlan. pdf
Best- Management Practices and Tools for Collaboration
The Collaboration Handbook, Red Lodge Clearinghouse. http://www.rlch.org/content/view/261/49.
Ecosystem management Initiative at the University of Michigan.
http: / /wwwsnre. umich .edu /ecomgt.collaboration.htm.
Western Collaborative Assistance Network. http: / /www.westcanhelp.org.
BLM Partnership. http: / /www.blm.gov /partnerships /tools.htm.
Forest Service Partnership Resource Center. http: // www.partnershipresourcescenter, org /index.shtml.
International Association of Fire Chief's Leader's guide for Developing a Community Wildfire Protection
Plan. http: / /wwwcsfs.colostate. edu /librar /.pdfs /cwpp /CWPP_LG.pdf.
Joint Fire Sciences Collaboration and CWPP Presentation. http: / /www.ofsP .fortlewis.edu /KTWorkshops.asp
Fire Adapted Communities. http: / /www.fireadapted.org/
Grant Web Sites
Southwest Area Forest, Fire, and Community Assistance Grants. This Web site lists grants that are
available to communities to reduce the risk of wildfires in the urban interface.
http : / /www.SouthwestAreaGrants.org.
Department of Homeland Security. This Web site lists granting opportunities for Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Services (SAFER) grants and provides other useful information.
http : / /www.firegrantsupport.com.
ESRI Grant Assistance program for GIS users. http: / /www.esri.com /grants.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 167
Appendix C. Educational Resources
US Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
http: / /www.usfa.fema.gove /dhtmI /inside- usfa /grants.cfm.
National Association of State Foresters Listing of Grant Sources and Appropriations.
http://www/stateforesters.org/S&PF/FY
Stewardship and Landowner Assistance Financial Assistance Programs.
http: / /www.na.fs.fed.us /spfo /stewardship /financial.htm.
The Fire Safe Council. http: / /www.FireSafeCouncil.org.
Pre - disaster Mitigation Program. http: / /www /cfda /gov/ public /viewprog.asp ?progid =1606.
Firewise. http: // www .firewise.org /usa /funding.htm.
Environmental Protection Agency. http: / /cfpub.epa.gov /fedfund.
Rural Fire Assistance and other State Forestry Grants. http: // www .azsf.az.gov /grant — information.
Grant opportunities. http: / /www.grants.gov.
Arizona Wildfire and the Environment Series
Firewise publications from the University of Arizona: Forest Home Fire Safety; Fire - Resistant Landscaping;
Creating Wildfire - Defensible Spaces for Your Home and Property; Homeowners' ' Inside and Out" Wildfire
Checklist; Firewise Plant Materials for 3000 Feet and Higher Elevations; Soil Erosion Control After a
Wildfire; Recovering from Wildfire; A Guide for Arizona's Forest Owners; Wildfire Hazard Severity Rating
Checklist for Arizona Homes and Communities. http: / /cals.arizona.edu; http: / /cals.arizona.edu /pubs.
Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center. http: / /www.buffelgrass.org/ The Center's mission is to
provide a regional information center that emphasizes an integrated management approach to control
buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) in Southern Arizona.
Monitoring and Evaluation Resources
US Forest Service Collaborative Restoration Program Multiparty Monitoring Guidelines.
http : / /www.fs.fed.us /r3 /spf /cfrp /monitoring /index.shtml.
Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition — Multiparty Monitoring Issue Paper.
http: / /www.ri.uoregon.edu/ programs/ CCE /communityfireplanning.htm1.
Other
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) State Hazard Mitigation Offices.
http : / /www.floods.org /shmos.htm.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards: NFPA 299 (Standard for Protection of Life and
Property from Wildfire); NFPA 295 (Standard for Wildfire Control); NFPA 291 (Recommended Practice for
Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants); NFPA 703 (Standard for Fire Retardant Impregnated Coatings
for Building Materials); NFPA 909 (Protection of Cultural Resources); NFPA 1051 (Standard for Wildland
Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications); NFPA 1144 (Standard for Protection of Life and Property from
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 168
Appendix C. Educational Resources
Wildfire); NFPA 1977 (Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting).
http:Hwww.nfpa.org; http: / /www.nfpa.org /Catalog.
National Fire Lab. http: // www .firelab.org /fbp /fbresearch/WUI /home.htm.
Protect Your Home from Wildfire, Colorado State Forest Service. Publications to help assist you with
wildfire prevention. http: // www. colostate .edu /Depts /CSFS /homefire.html.
US Fire Administration, FEMA, US Department of Homeland Security. http: / /www.usfa.fema.gov;
http: / /www.fema.gov /regions /viii /fires /shtm; http : / /www.fema.gov /kidswldfire.
Fire Education Materials. http: / /www.symbols.gov.
National Interagency Fire Center, National Park Service fire Web site. http: / /www.nifc.nps.gov /fire.
"Fire Wars," PBS NOVA. http: / /www.pbs.org /wgbh /nova /fire.
D'Goat Ranch, LLC. Jason Garn. (801) 440 -2149. Leasing and goat herding for vegetative mitigation
projects.
Woody Biomass Utilization Desk Guide.
http: / /www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ woody_ biomass / documents /biomass_deskguide.pdf.
Pamphlets
Saving Homes from Wildfires: Regulating the Home Ignition Zone, American Planning Association, May
2001. This issue of the American Planning Association's Zoning News examines the wildfire threat to the
wildland -urban interface zone and shows how development codes can be used to save residential areas.
Books
Everyone's Responsibility: Fire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface, NFPA, 1994. This National Fire
Protection Association book shows how three communities dealt with interface problems.
Firewise Construction Design and Materials Publication, sponsored by the Colorado State Forest Service
and FEMA. This 38 -page booklet details home construction ideas to make a home Firewise. Various other
publications are available from the Colorado State Forest Service on wildland -urban interface issues.
Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? A Homeowner's Guide to Wildfire Retrofit, Institute for
Business and Home Safety, 2001. This book provides homeowners with guidance on ways to retrofit and
build homes to reduce losses from wildfire damage.
Stephen Bridge, Road Fire Case Study, NFPA, 1991. Provides information to assist planners, local
officials, fire service personnel, and homeowners.
Wildland Fire Communicator's Guide. This is a guide for fire personnel, teachers, community leaders, and
media representatives.
CD -ROMs
Arizona Firewise Communities Educator's Workshop, Payson, AZ, February 18 -19, 2003.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 169
Appendix C. Educational Resources
Burning Issues, Florida State University and the US Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interactive
multimedia program for middle and high school students to learn about the role of fire in the ecosystems
and the use of fire managing rural areas.
Wildland Fire Communicator's Guide. This interactive CD -ROM compliments the book.
http: / /www.nifc.gov /prevEdu /prevEdu communicatorGuide.html
Other Publications
It Can't Happen to My Home! Are You Sure? A publication by the US Forest Service, Southwestern
Region, 12 page document.
Wildfire Strikes Home! (Publication no. NFES 92075); It Could Happen to You, How to Protect Your Home!
(Publication no. NFES 92074). Homeowners' handbooks from the US Bureau of Land Management, the
US Forest Service, and state foresters.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 170
Appendix D. Information Data Sheet and Contacts
APPENDIX D. INFORMATION DATA SHEET AND CONTACTS
D.1. CWPP Base Information Data Source
Name Type Source Contact / Web address
Wildland Fuel Hazards Shapefile Logan Simpson Design Inc. Roy Baker (480) 967 -1343;
rbaker @logansimpson.com
Wildland -Urban Interface (WUI) Shapefile
Vegetation Zones Raster
Land Ownership
Land Parcel Data
Ignition History
Logan Simpson Design Inc. Roy Baker (480) 967 -1343;
rbaker@ logansimpson.com
Southwest Regional
http: / /earth.gis.usu.edu /swgap/
Gap Analysis Project
(USGS 2005)
Arizona State Land Department
Land Resources Information System
Published October 29, 2007
Gary Irish, (602) 542 -2605
Pima County Assessor's
(602) 506 -3406
http://www.pimacounty.gov/Assessor
Bureau of Land Management
http: // wildfire .cr.usgs.gov /firehistory/
Shapefile
Shapefile
Shapefile
All final - analysis GIS data including flammability analysis, fuel hazards analysis, ignition history and
density, community values analysis, cumulative risk analysis, and treatment management units are
located at the Pima County Department of Emergency Management and at Logan Simpson Design Inc.
D.2. Pima County CWPP Contacts
Jeff Guthrie, CEM, MEP
Deputy Director
Pima County Office of Emergency Management
3434 E. 22nd St. Suite A
Tucson, Arizona
Office (520) 351 -3200
On -call (520) 351 -3211
Jeff.Guthrie @pima.gov
Richard Remington
Senior Project Manager
Logan Simpson Design Inc.
33 N. Stone Ave., Suite 1460
Tucson, Arizona 85701
(520) 884 -5500
rremington @logansimpson.com
Roy Baker
GIS Analyst
Logan Simpson Design Inc.
51 W. Third Street, Suite 450
Tempe, Arizona 85281
(480) 967 -1343
rbaker @logansimpson.com
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 171
Appendix D. Information Data Sheet and Contacts
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 172
Appendix E. Invasive Species
APPENDIX E. INVASIVE SPECIES
The following information is presented by the Core Teams to assist municipal, state, and federal land
managers with basic recommendations for the management of invading saltcedar, red brome, cheatgrass,
buffelgrass, and Mediterranean grass within Pima County. Information about invading saltcedar tree
species is excerpted from the USDA's online Fire Effects Information System (Zouhar 2003 and Hauser
2008), the Strategy for Long -Term Management of Exotic Trees in Riparian Areas for New Mexico's Five
River Systems, 2005 -2014 (USDA FS and New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources
Department, Forestry Division 2005), and the San Juan Basin Watershed Management Plan (San Juan
County Watershed Group 2005). Information for red brome, cheatgrass, and buffelgrass is excerpted from
the USDA's online Fire Effects Information System (Hauser 2008). Additional information is available from
Invasive Non - Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in Arizona: A Categorized List Developed by the
Arizona Wildlands Invasive Plant Working Group (AZ-WIPWG 2005) and from the Southern Arizona
Buffelgrass Strategic Plan (Buffelgrass Working Group 2008).
Saltcedar
The continued degradation of native riparian plant communities from invading tree species is a significant
concern to the citizens of Pima County.
Saltcedar is one of the most widely distributed and troublesome nonnative invasive plants along
watercourses in the southwestern United Sates. Saltcedar reduces recreational usage of parks and riparian
areas for camping, hunting, fishing, and agriculture. Since its escape from cultivation, saltcedar has spread
primarily in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, although its distribution extends into
many parts of North America. It is especially pervasive in, and has dominated, many low areas
bordering the channel of the Southwest river systems since the 1940s. More than 50 percent of
the area covered by floodplain plant communities was dominated by saltcedar by 1970
( http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants, ). Saltcedar- dominated communities are often monotypic, though
cottonwood and willow are common associates. Several studies in Arizona and New Mexico suggest that
saltcedar communities do not support as high a density of native bird species as do native plant
communities; however, saltcedar provides habitat for a number of bird species including white - winged and
mourning doves, summer tanager, yellow - billed cuckoo, and the endangered southwestern willow
flycatcher. Saltcedar communities can trap and stabilize alluvial sediments, reducing the width, depth, and
water - holding capacity of river channels. This can subsequently increase the frequency and severity of
overbank flooding. These stands can have extremely high evapotranspiration rates when water tables are
high but not necessarily when water tables are low or under drought conditions. Because saltcedar stands
tend to extend beyond the boundaries of native phreatophytes and to develop higher leaf area index, water
use by saltcedar on a regional scale might be substantially higher than for other riparian species. While the
natural flood disturbance regime seems to promote native species and discourage saltcedar, consistent
natural river -flow conditions through riparian areas is rarely sustained in the Pima County CWPP.
There is little quantitative information on prehistoric frequency, seasonality, severity, and spatial extent of
fire in North American riparian ecosystems. Fires in low- to mid - elevation southwestern riparian plant
communities dominated by cottonwood, willow, and /or mesquite are thought to have been infrequent.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 173
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Increases in fire size or frequency have been reported for river systems in recent decades. Fire appears to
be less common in riparian ecosystems where saltcedar has not invaded. Increases in fire size and
frequency are attributed to a number of factors including an increase in ignition sources, increased fire
frequency in surrounding uplands, and increased abundance of fuels. The structure of saltcedar stands
may be more conducive to repeated fire than that of native vegetation. Saltcedar can contribute to
increased vertical canopy density that creates volatile fuel ladders, thereby increasing the likelihood of
negative impacts of wildfire. Saltcedar plants can have many stems and high rates of stem mortality,
resulting in a dense accumulation of dead, dry branches vertically within the canopy as well as within the
fuel bed. Large quantities of dead branches and leaf litter are caught in saltcedar branches above the
ground surface, enhancing the crowns' flammability. In summary, the likelihood of fire in southwestern
riparian ecosystems is greatest with the combination of flood suppression, water stress, and saltcedar
presence. The presence of saltcedar in southwestern riparian ecosystems may favor its own propagation
by further altering the natural disturbance regime, thereby further decreasing the already
limited extent of native cottonwood and willow communities. Additionally, in the absence
of flooding, regeneration of native trees is impeded and organic matter accumulates,
thus increasing chances for future fires that may further alter the species composition and structure of
southwestern riparian systems and promote the spread of saltcedar and other fire - tolerant species
( http://www.fs.fed.us/database/fesi/pIants/tree/tamspp/fire ecology
Once established in large stands, saltcedar can rarely be controlled or eradicated with a single method,
and many researchers and managers recommend combining physical, biological, chemical, and cultural
control methods. Removing saltcedar must also be accompanied by an ecologically healthy plant
community that is weed resistant and that meets other land use objectives such as wildlife habitat or
recreational use benefits. The best phenological stage to burn and reburn saltcedar to reduce density,
canopy, and hazardous fuel loads is during the peak of summer, presumably due to ensuing water stress.
Use of fire alone to control saltcedar, however, is generally ineffective, only killing aboveground portions of
the plant and leaving the root crown intact and able to produce vigorous sprouts. Saltcedar stands can burn
hot with erratic fire behavior with numerous firebrands transported downwind from the headfire. Prescribe
fire setup requires poorly receptive fuels downwind from the headfire. Saltcedar in dense stands that have
not burned in 25 -30 years exhibit extreme fire behavior and crowning due to closed canopy at any time of
the year. They can have flame lengths exceeding 140 feet, resulting in near - complete fuel consumption.
Stands reburned after 5 to 6 years show vastly different fire behavior, carrying fire only if there is adequate
fine -fuel load and continuity. Due to the ability to transport fire brands at least 500 feet downwind,
blacklines should be at least 700 feet wide, and headfires should be installed with temperatures of 65
95 0 F, relative humidity of 25 -40 percent, and wind speeds less than 15 miles per hour.
Managers must be prepared for extreme fire behavior in old decadent stands. Where high - intensity fire is
not preferred due to the presence of less fire - resistant vegetative species, fuel reductions through
mechanical and chemical controls are recommended. Ignited prescribed fire can be used to thin
dense saltcedar stands to follow -up applications of mechanical and chemical controls
(http: / /www.fs. fed. us / database /feis /plants /tree /tamspp /fire effects). Mechanical and chemical methods are
commonly employed for saltcedar control (Low - Impact, Selective Herbicide Application for Control of Exotic
Trees: Saltcedar, Russian Olive and Siberian Elm A preliminary Field Guide by Doug Parker and Max
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 174
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Williamson, USDA May 2003). November through January is the most effective time to achieve first time
kills of saltcedar by cutting below the root collar, probably because the plants are entering dormancy at that
time and translocating resources into their roots. Whole tree extraction through use of equipment such as
the patented Boss Tree Extractor ( http: / /www.bossreclamation.com) has achieved 90 percent mortality
subsequent to initial treatment. In areas where native riparian vegetation species or other habitat issues
create a need for agile specific treatment designs, whole tree removal may be considered as the preferred
treatment. Herbicide application is most effective when applied immediately after cutting. Full- strength
application of Garlon painted on cut stumps within 15 minutes of cutting or applied with a backpack sprayer
using 20 -30 percent mix of Garlon with Ag. Oil has been successful with the exception of spring months
when sap is moving up from the root mass (Parker and Williamson 2003). Extraction and mulching of
saltcedar will require treatments of resprouts by mechanical or chemical control methods. Changes in
nature of disturbance from fire (frequency, intensity, and severity) have been affected by both saltcedar
invasion and by other changes in the invaded communities. Fire frequency and fire behavior in saltcedar-
invaded communities are thought to be different than in native plant communities. In the absence of
flooding to remove debris, accumulation of woody material can increase to levels that may have a profound
effect on the ecology of the system.
Red Brome
In general, red brome initiation and establishment is a direct response to fall rains. Initial growth is relatively
slow, followed by a rapid increase in vegetative growth coinciding with warming spring temperatures.
Flowering and fruiting generally occur in April and May. Seeds are disseminated in summer.
Red brome is commonly an early to mid -seral species in California chaparral. It is usually sparse in early
succession chaparral systems of northern California but may increase rapidly in areas of low soil fertility
and moisture. Peak population numbers require several years for seed dispersal into burns or buildup from
on -site producers. Continued disturbance such as grazing and repeated low- severity fires favor red brome
over native early - seral chaparral species.
Red brome generally shortens fire return intervals. The increased presence of red brome has promoted
fires in areas where fire was previously infrequent due to insufficient fuels. Once established, red brome
may increase fire frequency by enhancing potential for start and spread. In general, red brome produces an
abundant and continuous cover of persistent fine fuels, promoting fast and "hot" fires. Desert scrub -shrub
and grasslands dominated by red brome are more susceptible to fire than areas dominated by native forbs.
Dead red brome culms and blades are persistent (commonly 2 years); herbage of most desert annual
species usually lasts 1 year or less. Red brome produces high amounts of persistent flammable fuels in
perennial plant interspaces, promoting ignition and spread.
Heat generated by burning red brome is sufficient to ignite and consume dead stems of native desert forbs.
Flames may also consume small shrubs such as white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia lanata), white burrobush, and Anderson wolfberry (Lycium andersonii). However,
flames fueled by red brome are generally insufficient to ignite large shrubs such as creosotebush. See
Cheatgrass section below for additional information.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 175
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Within the Sonoran Desert, dead and dry red brome is easily ignited, supporting fast - moving surface fires.
Fire return intervals are also shortened, changing the vegetal composition through increase of nonnative
components and loss of native plant species. Arizona interior chaparral communities are composed of
varying plant species compositions, enhanced by the predominant bimodal rainfall patterns of Pima
County. Soils in this type are mostly shallow decomposed granite complexes that may hinder
establishment of annual grasses. Red Brome can become a wildlife fire enhancing component in down
slope desert scrub /shrub types in years of extraordinary rainfall.
Cheatgrass
Cheatgrass is most widespread in sagebrush - steppe communities of the Intermountain West. Many of the
ecosystems that cheatgrass has invaded are seriously altered, and no longer support the vegetation of the
potential natural community. Cheatgrass can maintain dominance for many years on sites where native
vegetation has been eliminated or severely reduced by grazing, cultivation, or fire. The concept of potential
natural communities based only on native species is seriously challenged by cheatgrass. Where
cheatgrass is highly adapted, it might have to be recognized as a component of the potential plant
community. In these situations, cheatgrass may remain the de facto climax dominant, regardless of site
potential. The following discussion focuses primarily on component species of potential natural
communities that cheatgrass has invaded, from low - elevation salt- desert shrub communities in the
southern Great Basin into higher - elevation juniper (Juniperus spp.), pinyon - juniper (Pinus- Juniperus spp.),
pine woodlands, and the coniferous forest zone of the Rocky Mountains.
According to Stewart and Hull in 1949 and Beatley in 1966, (Hauser 2008) only a few cheatgrass plants
were found in black greasewood- shadscale (Sarcobatus vermiculatus- Atriplex confertifolia) and salt- desert
shrub associations. Today, cheatgrass is common in these communities, especially in wet years.
Associated species may include budsage (Artemisia spinescens), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus
elymoides), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum
hymenoides). Cheatgrass also occurs with blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), galleta (Pleuraphis
jamesfi), and many other salt- desert species.
In the Intermountain West, and most specifically the sagebrush - steppe and bunchgrass zones, cheatgrass
occurs in and often dominates large acreages of rangeland where native dominants include big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegnena spicata), Thurber needlegrass
(Achnatherum thurberianum), needle- and - thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), western wheatgrass
(Pascopyrum smithii), basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), rough fescue (F.
altaica), bottlebrush squirreltail, low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), and
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.). Cheatgrass often co- occurs with Sandberg bluegrass and /or
bottlebrush squirreltail and, on some Nevada sites, has replaced Indian ricegrass or blue grama (Bouteloua
gracilis). By 1932 cheatgrass had replaced big sagebrush on burned -over areas in the Great Salt Lake
region of Utah, and occupied these sites in dense stands associated with cutleaf filaree (Erodium
cicutarium), rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and several other relatively
unpalatable species and annual weeds. Cheatgrass invades sites dominated by silver sagebrush (A. cana)
and blue grama in Wyoming.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 176
Appendix E. Invasive Species
In pinyon - juniper and mountain brush lands, cheatgrass can be found growing among Rocky Mountain
juniper (J. scopulorum), western juniper (J. occidentalis), singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), Utah
juniper (J. osteosperma), Colorado pinyon (P. edulis), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), Emory oak (Q.
emoryi), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), curlleaf mountain - mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius),
skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier pallida),
and mountain big sagebrush.
Disturbance
Often the critical factor opening niches for cheatgrass invasion is a heightened disturbance regime.
Cultivation and subsequent land abandonment, excessive livestock grazing, overstory removal, and
repeated fires can interact, or act singly, to proliferate cheatgrass. Excessive grazing and frequent fires can
damage biological soil crusts and many perennial plants, thus encouraging cheatgrass establishment,
survival, persistence, and dominance. Where fires have occurred at higher elevations, bunchgrasses have
recovered vigorously with little cheatgrass invasion. Cheatgrass is less invasive in mesic environments,
where it does not compete as effectively with established perennial grasses.
Fire Adaptations
Cheatgrass establishes from soil- stored and transported seed after fire. It has long been known that
cheatgrass is highly adapted to a regime of frequent fires. Cheatgrass has a very fine structure, tends to
accumulate litter, and dries completely in early summer, thus becoming a highly flammable and often
continuous fuel. By the time of burning most cheatgrass seeds are already on the ground, and those not
near the heat of burning shrubs can survive and allow cheatgrass to pioneer in the newly burned area.
Even if fire comes when cheatgrass plants are still green and kills them before they can set seed, there
may be enough viable cheatgrass seed in litter and upper layers of soil for plants to reestablish.
Cheatgrass is a strong competitor in the postfire environment, where it takes advantage of increased
resource availability and produces an abundant seed crop. A cheatgrass population may average around
1,000 plants per square foot (10,750 per m 2 ) prior to burning. During a wildfire, most of the cheatgrass
seeds beneath a shrub canopy may be killed by the heat associated with the burning of the shrub. Some
cheatgrass seeds located in the interspaces among shrubs are also consumed, while those that are buried
or lying in cracks in the soil will likely survive. The next season, surviving seeds germinate and establish at
a density of about 1 plant per square foot (11/m These plants are released from competition, and have
more water and nutrients available to them. The cheatgrass plants in this sparse population can produce
abundant tillers, each supporting many flowers, thus producing a large seed crop.
Fire facilitates cheatgrass dominance on some sites by interrupting successional trajectories of postfire
plant communities, and cheatgrass facilitates fire and can thus shorten the interval between fires. This
grass /fire cycle is a serious ecological threat on sites where most native plant species are poorly adapted
to fire and is recognized in many ecosystems worldwide. This cycle has been documented in the Great
Basin since the 1930s, and has been reported in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts beginning in the early
1980s. The result is a type conversion from native shrub and perennial grasslands to annual grasslands
adapted to frequent fires.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 177
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Fire Regimes
Cheatgrass expansion has dramatically changed fire regimes and plant communities over vast areas of
western rangelands by creating an environment where fires are easily ignited, spread rapidly, cover large
areas, and occur frequently. Cheatgrass promotes more frequent fires by increasing the biomass and
horizontal continuity of fine fuels that persist during the summer lightning season and by allowing fire to
spread across landscapes where fire was previously restricted to isolated patches. Fire in these habitats
can have severe effects on native species of plants and animals, although the impact of fire regime
changes may differ by region and ecosystem type due to differences in the composition and structure of
the invaded plant communities and to climatic differences such as occurrence of summer thunderstorms.
Postfire desert scrub -shrub plant communities are typically dominated by nonnative annual grasses, so
burned areas are likely to be more susceptible to fire than unburned areas. Repeated fires stress and kill
native perennials. Eventually wind and water erosion may occur, removing and diluting soil organic matter
and attendant nutrient concentrations and safe sites around shrubs. After fire has eliminated native
perennials, essential mycorrhizae may also be eliminated. Biological soil crusts are also killed by severe
fire, and the unusually large, frequent fires associated with cheatgrass dominance can preclude crust
species recolonization and succession.
Cheatgrass Fire Regime
Cheatgrass often dominates postfire plant communities, and once established, cheatgrass- dominated
grasslands greatly increase the potential and recurrence of wildfires. Cheatgrass fires tend to burn fast and
cover large areas, with a fire season from 1 to 3 months longer than that of native rangeland. The average
fire - return interval for cheatgrass- dominated stands is less than 10 years. This adaptation to and promotion
of frequent fires is what gives cheatgrass its greatest competitive advantage in ecosystems that evolved
with less frequent fires. The cheatgrass -fire cycle is self - promoting, as it reduces the ability of many
perennial grasses and shrubs to reestablish and furthers the dominance of cheatgrass. Moisture availability
can affect cheatgrass productivity and thus affect fuel loads on a site. Drought years may reduce the
dominance of cheatgrass in both recently burned and unburned areas, thus decreasing fuel loads and the
chance of fire.
Immediate Fire Effect on Cheatgrass
Live cheatgrass plants are susceptible to heat kill, as with a flame thrower or handheld propane torch,
though they are difficult to burn when green. When cheatgrass plants are dry enough to burn, they are
already dead and have already set seed. Fire will then reduce cheatgrass plants to ash.
Cheatgrass seeds are also susceptible to heat kill, but can survive fires of low severity if the entire litter
layer is not consumed or if seeds are buried deeply enough to be insulated from the heat. The amount of
litter or ash left on a site is a good indicator of the amount of cheatgrass seed surviving on that site. Low
density of cheatgrass immediately following fire indicates either low numbers of cheatgrass seed in the
seed bank, or poor survival of seeds during fire.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 178
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Discussion and Qualification of Fire Effect
The effects of fire on cheatgrass plants and seeds vary with timing and severity of fire and the composition
and density of the prefire plant community. If fire occurs when seed remains in panicles aboveground, most
seeds will be killed and cheatgrass density will decline immediately following fire. The chances of seed
surviving fire are enhanced once they have dispersed onto or beneath the soil surface. The woody biomass
of some desert shrub, plus litter accumulations, provide sufficient fuel to elevate temperatures high enough
for a long enough period to consume cheatgrass seeds on these microsites. Some cheatgrass seeds in the
interspace zones are also consumed by fire, but many survive even though the cheatgrass herbage is
completely consumed. Fire from herbaceous fuel alone is not usually hot enough to consume cheatgrass
seeds. Although fires in pure cheatgrass stands, without woody fuel, are less severe, cheatgrass seed
banks can be substantially reduced after fire.
Discussion and Qualification of Plant Response
Cheatgrass response to fire depends on plant community and seed bank composition, density, and spatial
distribution; season of burning; fire severity, frequency and patchiness; scale of consideration; postfire
management; and climatic conditions. Generalizations are difficult because each combination of climate,
vegetation, and soil must be considered separately, as well as considerations of environmental differences
both at the time of burning and during subsequent plant reestablishment.
Timing of Fire
If burned during a crucial time during seed ripening, fire can greatly reduce the density of the succeeding
cheatgrass stand; however, postfire seed production may equal or exceed that of the prefire population,
resulting in increased density the following year. Timing of fire is important also because of variable
damage to potential competitors in the native community. For example, cool- season perennial grasses
such as bluebunch wheatgrass and western wheatgrass may be less damaged by late- summer wildfires
than by fires earlier in the growing season.
Fire Size and Frequency
Nonnative invasive grasses generally benefit from fire and promote recurrent fire. Fire kills biologic soil
crusts, thereby allowing more germination sites for cheatgrass for several years or even decades, as crusts
are slow to recover. Recurrent fires also tend to enhance cheatgrass dominance because native species
cannot usually persist under a regime of frequent fires. Native plant assemblages are thus converted to
nonnative annual grasslands. Frequency and size of fires is then further increased.
Fire - Management Considerations
As a management tool, fire can be used to either kill unwanted species or to simulate historical fire regimes
and promote desired species. Historical fire regimes did not occur in the presence of many invasive plants
that are currently widespread, and the use of fire may not be a feasible or appropriate management action
if fire - tolerant invasive plants are present. For example, while fire may be an important natural component
of the Great Basin ecosystem, its reintroduction by land mangers is complicated by the presence of
invasive plants such as cheatgrass. Fire management should be conducted in ways that prevent
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 179
Appendix E. Invasive Species
establishment of invasive species, and the management of fire and invasive plants must be closely
integrated for each to be managed effectively.
Rasmussen presents considerations (e.g., species composition, fuel load, fuel continuity, and weather) to
be addressed when using prescribed fire in sagebrush steppes, and general prescriptions that could be
used. When precipitation is below 12 inches (300 mm), caution should be used to ensure desired plant
response. If the objective is to maintain the perennial herbaceous vegetation, prescribed burning is most
effective when used before sagebrush dominates the site and effectively excludes perennial herbaceous
plants. Such timing reduces the need for seeding following a burn. If the objective is to maintain the
sagebrush, prescribed burning has very limited applicability.
Cheatgrass Fuels
In the absence of grazing, grass biomass during the fire season may represent 2 years of fuel
accumulation, which appears to be optimal for grassland fires. Abundant, continuous cover of cheatgrass
can lead to rapid spread of wildfires so that under conditions of high temperatures, low humidity, and wind,
the fires are very difficult to suppress.
Brooks compared the roles of nonnative annual grasses and other annual plants in facilitating the spread of
fires in the Mojave Desert. Landscapes dominated by nonnative annual grasses, especially annual bromes
(Bromus spp.), are more flammable than those dominated by native forbs. Possible explanations for this
include higher surface -to- volume ratio of grasses compared to forbs; more continuous vegetative cover;
and the ability of alien annual grasses to remain rooted and upright longer than native forbs, allowing them
to persist as flammable fuels into the summer when the threat of fire is highest. Thick layers of annual plant
litter accumulate, and litter decomposes especially slowly in desert regions. Accumulations of litter led to
particularly hot temperatures, long flame- residence times, and continuous burn patterns in experimental
fires in the Mojave Desert.
Cheatgrass provides a flammable link between open grasslands and forests. It cures early in the fire
season and ignites readily during dry periods because of its finely divided stems and pedicels, and it
responds readily to changes in atmospheric moisture because of its fine structure. Moisture content is the
single most important factor influencing cheatgrass flammability, and it varies with plant phenology and
color change as follows:
Plant color Moisture content ( %)
Green >100
Purple 30 -100
Straw <30
Since there is considerable variation in plant coloration in a stand, close inspection is necessary to
determine the predominant coloration. Cheatgrass is not readily ignitable until it reaches the straw - colored
stage. The time required for the moisture content to drop from 100 to 30 percent ranged from 8 days on a
northern exposure in western Montana to 23 days on a southern exposure in different years, with an
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 180
Appendix E. Invasive Species
average of 14 days. The onset of purple coloring forewarns of hazardous fire conditions within about
2 weeks.
Cheatgrass ignites and burns easily when dry, regardless of quantity, and can support rapid rate of fire
spread. Flammability of cheatgrass fuels depends primarily on moisture content, weight, and porosity.
Fuel Management/Fire Prevention
On areas where cheatgrass is abundant, special measures may be necessary to prevent recurrent fires,
and thus prevent the elimination of fire - sensitive perennial grasses and forbs and other potential adverse
impacts. Fire suppression can discourage invasion and spread of cheatgrass. Grazing management to
reduce fuel loads and greenstripping are 2 methods employed to prevent large recurrent fires in areas
dominated by cheatgrass. Additionally, herbicides are being tested for effectiveness in creating fuelbreaks
in cheatgrass- dominated range.
Cattle grazing can reduce the accumulation of cheatgrass litter and thus lessen the fire hazard on a site.
Grazing cheatgrass in winter can reduce cheatgrass herbage and seeds while protecting the dormant
perennial grasses.
Greenstripping is a method of establishing fuel breaks to impede the flow of wildfires and thereby increase
the fire -free interval on a site dominated by cheatgrass. These fuel breaks are 30 to 400 feet (10 -120 m)
wide and are seeded with fire - resistant vegetation. As of 1994, 451 miles (16,280 acres) of experimental
and operational greenstrips had been established in Idaho. The effectiveness of greenstrips, or any fuels
modification project, in reducing wildfire spread is enhanced by 3 factors: (1) disrupting fuel continuity (e.g.,
by replacing cheatgrass with caespitose grasses such as crested wheatgrass, which have large spaces
between individual shrubs); (2) reducing fuel accumulations and volatility (e.g., shrub stands are thinned to
maintain a minimum distance of 10 feet [3 m] between plants); and (3) increasing the density of plants with
high moisture and low volatile oil content, thus reducing both the potential for ignition and rate of fire
spread. Plants used in greenstrips remain green and moist into late summer, making the greenstrip area
less flammable for a longer time. Wildfire speed may slow when entering a greenstrip, thus allowing fire-
suppression crews to extinguish the fire. Some wildfires burn into greenstrips and extinguish. Native plants
in the Great Basin generally do not meet firebreak criteria. Crested wheatgrass and forage kochia are
effective in retarding wildfire spread, compete well
successful species in greenstrips. Both plants can,
cheatgrass is being managed with prescribed fire.
in a weedy environment, and have been the most
however, be invasive and spread into areas where
Revegetation after Cheatgrass Fires
After wildfires or when planning prescribed burning in areas where cheatgrass is present, managers must
decide whether the burned area should be seeded or whether sufficient perennial grasses are present to
revegetate a site and successfully compete with cheatgrass. Seeding may not be necessary or desirable if
native plant species are able to recover after fire. Cheatgrass- dominated communities tend to have
extremely sparse perennial seed banks, however, and the cheatgrass seed bank generally recovers by the
second post -fire year. In Utah, natural revegetation (no seeding) is most effective at higher elevations
where sufficient moisture and a diverse population of perennial vegetation exist, especially on north- and
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 181
Appendix E. Invasive Species
east - facing slopes. Below 6,000 feet (1,820 m) and in much of Utah's arid environment, cheatgrass and
other weedy species readily invade and dominate burned areas. Seeding following fire may be needed to
prevent cheatgrass dominance in Wyoming big sagebrush and pinyon - juniper communities but not in
mountain big sagebrush communities.
Revegetation of burned areas is desirable to ensure forage for livestock and wildlife and to minimize the
potential for erosion and /or invasion by nonnative species. Ideally, wildfire rehabilitation should enhance
the recovery of native vegetation through the seeding of native plants adapted to local environmental
conditions. Early seral species may provide managers with native plant materials that can successfully
germinate and establish in the presence of invasive annuals and do well after subsequent fire. Bottlebrush
squirreltail deserves consideration as a post - wildfire revegetation species because in greenhouse
experiments, it has substantially greater growth in post - wildfire soil compared with unburned soil, and
exhibits relatively higher growth rates in post - wildfire soil compared to cheatgrass. Restoration projects
using native species mixes to provide a variety of above- and belowground growth forms, and sowing at
high densities, may increase establishment of desirable plants while providing adequate competition
against invasive plants. Federal policy currently encourages the use of native plant materials on public
lands; but because the primary objective of wildfire rehabilitation on public lands is not ecological
restoration but rather prevention of erosion and invasion by undesirable nonnative species, and because of
the limited availability of native seeds, the use of native species is not mandatory for revegetation. Because
of difficulties related to cost, handling, and reliability of native seed supplies in wildfire rehabilitation
situations, many managers prefer nonnative plant materials and traditional seeding methods.
Many large areas have been seeded with nonnative, herbaceous forage species including crested
wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum), Russian wildrye
(Psathyrostachysjuncea), smooth brome, alfalfa, and yellow sweetclover (Mefflotus officinalis). Seeds for
these species are readily available and responsive to standard seeding methods; plants establish and grow
rapidly, and have wide environmental tolerances. Many cultivars are also drought tolerant, grazing tolerant,
and competitive against other, less desirable nonnative species. The most reliable and persistent grass for
low- elevation, drought -prone areas of the Intermountain West is crested wheatgrass. It establishes rapidly
even under relatively dry conditions and tends to persist for many years, although some sites seeded to
crested wheatgrass return to cheatgrass dominance over time. Grasses that are most competitive against
cheatgrass include `Hycrest' crested wheatgrass, `Luna' intermediate wheatgrass, `Bozoisky' Russian
wildrye, and smooth brome. The competitive advantage for establishment of crested wheatgrass seedlings
is lost if burned areas are not seeded the year of the fire. Forbs such as alfalfa tend to have low
persistence in rehabilitation seedings. Current goals of making wildfire rehabilitation objectives compatible
with other management objectives on public lands may require careful planning of treatments and some
modifications of standard practices, such as greater use of native plants. The identification and use of
competitive native perennial plants for arid -land rehabilitation has become a priority for managers and
researchers. In big fire years such as 1996, when millions of acres burned the scale of the demand for
seed greatly exceeds the supply of native plant seed, especially of local genotypes. The competitive ability
of nonnative species and the relatively low cost and high availability of their seed will continue to appeal to
those faced with large -scale burns in cheatgrass -prone areas. If managers are able to predict large fires in
advance, perhaps more efforts could be made to have more native seed available for specific sites.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 182
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Buffelgrass
Buffelgrass is native to Africa, India, and western Asia. It was introduced into Texas in the 1940s to
stabilize overgrazed rangelands and provide livestock forage. It was introduced into Arizona in the 1930s
and 1940s to control erosion. Buffelgrass also established in Arizona from seed dispersed from Sonora,
Mexico, where over 1,000,000 acres (400,000 hectares) of native desert and thornscrub vegetation was
converted to buffelgrass pasture. Buffelgrass was first collected on the island of Hawaii in 1932. It was
intentionally planted on Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii in 1988 and 1990. The literature does not describe how
buffelgrass arrived in other areas of the United States. Buffelgrass has also been introduced into Australia,
where it is considered highly invasive.
Buffelgrass occurs in the southern United States from California to Florida (with the exception of Alabama,
Georgia, and the panhandle of Florida), with outlying populations in Oklahoma, Missouri, and New York. It
also occurs in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. In North America, buffelgrass is most prominent in the Sonoran
Desert of southern Arizona and northern Mexico and in the Chihuahuan Desert of southwestern Texas.
Buffelgrass occurs in desert and thornscrub communities in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. It
occurs in communities dominated by brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), acacia (Acacia spp.), Arizona mimosa
(Mimosa distachya var. laxiflora), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) creosotebush
(Larrea tridentata), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), bursage (Ambrosia spp.), desert ironwood (01neya tesota),
yellow paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla), and /or saguaro (Camegiea gigantea).
The two greatest impacts of buffelgrass in the United States are the alteration of plant communities and fire
regimes in the Sonoran Desert. In a news article, United States Geological Survey researcher Julio
Betancourt describes the establishment and spread of buffelgrass in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona as
"one of the most impressive ecosystem conversions happening in North America." Williams and Baruch
describe buffelgrass as "one of the world's most notorious invaders." Buffelgrass was introduced into
Arizona by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the late 1930s and early 1940s. On the plains of
Sonora, buffelgrass distribution has expanded from 19,000 acres (7,700 ha) in 1973 to over 350,000 acres
(140,000 ha) in 2000. As of 2006, as much as 4 million acres (1.6 million ha) has been seeded to
buffelgrass in Sonora. Between 1990 and 1998, the Mexican government subsidized cattle ranchers to
convert native desert and thornscrub to buffelgrass pastures. The vast conversion of native communities to
buffelgrass pasture may facilitate the spread of buffelgrass not just into native communities in the Sonoran
Desert of Mexico and Arizona, but also into the Mojave and Sonoran Desert of California and Baja
California. Buffelgrass persistence and spread can lead to reduced richness and diversity in invaded
communities in the Sonoran Desert. When native trees are replaced by buffelgrass, a large guild of
associated plants and animals also disappears from the area. Unpublished data cited by Burquez and
others indicate severe reductions of native plant richness and diversity and less vertical complexity in
buffelgrass grasslands compared to native desert scrub. Large reductions in standing crop biomass were
also calculated: from 5 to 20 Mg /ha in native vegetation, to 1 to 4 Mg /ha in buffelgrass. Most native
vegetation that is removed for the establishment of buffelgrass pastures is burned, resulting in substantial
losses of carbon from these ecosystems as carbon dioxide. Thus, the widespread conversion (both active
and passive) of native desert scrub to buffelgrass grasslands may have implications for climate change.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 183
Appendix E. Invasive Species
Buffelgrass establishment and spread are associated with a reduction or loss of native plant species in the
Sonoran Desert, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Hawaii, and Australia. In areas where buffelgrass occurs, it
often outcompetes native species for limited water and nutrient resources by germinating earlier, growing
faster, and creating denser stands than native plants. Buffelgrass can negatively affect native plant species
richness in areas where it is dominant.
According to the Buffelgrass Working Group (2008), buffelgrass impacts on native plant communities are
greatest in the Sonoran Desert. In the Sonoran Desert of northwest Mexico, buffelgrass invasions in
columnar cactus (Pachycereus pecten- aboriginum) stands severely affect cactus reproduction. While
buffelgrass does not affect cactus seed production, seedlings fail to establish in buffelgrass stands.
Buffelgrass established in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, during the 1970s and
1980s. By 1994 it occupied 20 to 25 square miles (50 -65 km of the monument and was spreading
rapidly. At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, buffelgrass reduces abundance of native shrubs such
as creosotebush, saltbush, and bursage, as well as abundance of associated native grasses and forbs.
Buffelgrass is described as a fire - adapted species. Fire adaptations vary with reproductive morphology,
which varies among forms. Buffelgrass may establish, persist, and spread following fire. Buffelgrass may
establish from on -site seed sources after fire. However, in Botswana, no buffelgrass seeds survived
prescribed burning when harvested from a savanna and sown on the soil surface in a curlyleaf (Eragrostis
rigidior) plant community before burning. It is possible that buried or protected buffelgrass seed may
survive and germinate following fire. Buffelgrass seed is dispersed by multiple sources, so it may establish
on burned sites via offsite seed sources. More information is needed on seed banking and heat tolerance
of buffelgrass seeds.
Buffelgrass can persist after fire by sprouting from rhizomes, tillers, or buds that survive fire. Sources
describe buffelgrass as simply "sprouting" or "rapidly resprouting" after fire, without indicating the source of
sprouts. Esque and others state that buffelgrass resprouts rapidly from the root crown after fire. New
buffelgrass growth can appear as soon as 5 -10 days following complete top -kill by summer fires; however,
postfire response of buffelgrass may depend on season of burning and postfire weather conditions.
Buffelgrass fine fuel loads are generally much higher than fine fuel loads from native plants in desert
environments. Thus, fires in buffelgrass stands may have longer flame lengths, greater rates of spread,
and higher temperatures than fires in native desert vegetation, and cause high mortality in native flora and
fauna. Buffelgrass stands burn "very hot" and can burn when green. In the Sonoran Desert, buffelgrass -
fueled fires can reach temperatures so hot that the soil is scorched and the bedrock cracked. Headfires in
buffelgrass stands can reach temperatures of 1,090 to 1,300 °F (585 °C - 700 °C). Esque and others state
that buffelgrass grows into an "almost -woody subshrub," accumulating flammable material over several
years, "in effect unlinking fire frequency from annual climatic variability and increasing the fire intensity."
Buffelgrass fuel loads in Saguaro National Park are large enough to carry fire and were found to be high in
comparison to fine fuels from annuals in warm desert biomes of North America. Fine fuels from annuals
(natives and nonnatives combined) typically range from 0 to greater than 625 lb/acre in warm deserts. In
June 2003, buffelgrass fuel loads on 14 plots in 2 areas of Saguaro National Park (4 at Javelina Picnic
Area and 10 at Panther Peak) were measured. During the year of the study, sites received less than 10.5
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 184
Appendix E. Invasive Species
inches (267 mm) of rain and buffelgrass moisture content was very low (3.6 %). Nevertheless, buffelgrass
dry, aboveground biomass averaged 2,523 lb/acre and 2,213 lb/acre on the 2 sites.
Buffelgrass growth and spread are greatest in wet years. In northwestern Sonora, Mexico, buffelgrass
production was measured in summers of below- and above - average precipitation. On northwestern
Mexican rangelands, peak growth is in August. Production ranges from 1,000 Ibs /acre in dry years to 6,000
Ibs /acre in wet years. Average summer (July- September) precipitation in Sonora is 7.56 inches (192 mm).
During the summer of 1987, precipitation was 5.75 inches (146 mm) below average and buffelgrass
biomass production was 465 kg /ha. During the summer of 1986, precipitation was above average by 14.1
inches (358 mm), and buffelgrass biomass production was 3,025 kg /ha. On the Desert Laboratory grounds
of Tucson, Arizona, buffelgrass "greatly" expanded its range following 2 unusually wet summers.
Buffelgrass had been on the site since 1968.
Although buffelgrass has been in North America for many decades, in the last couple of decades it has
spread to the point of altering fuel characteristics and impacting fire regimes of native desert communities.
Research regarding its impacts on native fire regimes is limited at the time of this writing (2008), although
abundant anecdotal evidence is available. A 2001 review article by Brooks and Pyke describes how
buffelgrass and other nonnative plants are beginning to alter fire regimes in the Sonoran Desert. Brooks
and Esque warn that shortened fire - return intervals caused by invasive grasses, including buffelgrass, pose
a serious threat to plants and animals in the Sonoran Desert.
While buffelgrass occurs in many of the southern States, the majority of buffelgrass fire ecology information
comes from areas in the Sonoran Desert, including central and northern Sonora, Mexico, and southern
Arizona. In these areas, buffelgrass invasion can increase the biomass and continuity of fine fuels,
resulting in large and frequent fires. Buffelgrass also fuels frequent fires in Hawaii and Australia. In central
Australia, buffelgrass produces 2 to 3 times as much flammable material as native grasses on some sites.
Historically, watercourses were natural firebreaks, but the expansion of buffelgrass in watercourses from
water - dispersed seed have turned these areas into "wicks" for fire.
Historically, fires were rare in the Sonoran Desert because fine fuels were sparse and discontinuous and
rarely carried fire. The primary carriers of contemporary fires in the Sonoran Desert are introduced
perennial plants. In contrast to native species, buffelgrass produces a large amount of continuous, fine fuel,
thereby increasing the potential for frequent, intense, and large fires. The buffelgrass fire season in the
Sonoran Desert begins at the end of the summer rainy season in late September and continues until the
following July when the summer rains return. During winter rains and the cool- season growth period,
however, buffelgrass- fueled fires are fewer than in the warm, dry months.
The fire hazard caused by buffelgrass in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona and northern Mexico is increasing.
In a news article, a fire inspector in Tucson, Arizona, said, "buffelgrass is like taking a kiddie pool, filling it
with gas, and putting it in your front yard." He claimed that buffelgrass fires can go from 4 -foot (1 m) flames
to 30 -foot (10 m) flames in 20 seconds. He described the desert surrounding Tucson as formerly "fire
resistant ", but 15 to 20 buffelgrass- fueled fires occurred within a 6 -week period during the summer of 2007.
Similarly, in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, fires were virtually unknown prior to the establishment of
buffelgrass in the 1940s. By the 1960s, sporadic buffelgrass- fueled fires were reported. By the late 1990s,
buffelgrass- fueled fires had increased to 1 fire every 2 days during the dry summer months.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 185
Appendix E. Invasive Species
If buffelgrass continues to spread in the Sonoran Desert, it is likely to lead to a grass /fire cycle, negatively
impacting the persistence of native vegetation. While some Sonoran Desert plants can establish or sprout
following fire, many cannot. Native plant establishment via seed may take 20 or more years after fire to
return to prefire vegetative cover. Buffelgrass can sprout quickly after fire and "outcompete" or even
replace native plants. Cacti in the Sonoran Desert may be able to survive a single fire; however, a second
fire within 10 years may be "catastrophic" to cacti. Buffelgrass- fueled fires may lead to decline of saguaro,
yellow paloverde, and other native Sonoran Desert plants. In a review, West and Nabhan reported that
buffelgrass burns so hot in the Sonoran Desert Biological Reserve that desert ironwood (01neya tesota)
trees are completely consumed, and the native desert vegetation is replaced by a dry grassland with no
recruitment of native perennials. Esque and others also describe buffelgrass- fueled fires near El Batamote,
Mexico completely incinerating desert ironwood and fragrant bursera (Bursera fagaroides) trees.
Fire in the Sonoran Desert negatively affects bird habitat quality. Buffelgrass fuels frequent and intense
fires that remove native vegetation crucial for some bird species. Buffelgrass fires in national parks and
national wildlife refuges in Texas and Arizona threaten desert tortoises, jaguarondis, and ocelots, and other
animals that depend upon woody plants or dense litter. Clearing native vegetation and replacing it with
buffelgrass in southern Sonora, Mexico, has caused a decline in the Tarahumara frog. The conversion of
desert scrub and foothill thornscrub to buffelgrass pastures in the Sonoran Desert is "devastating" to the
Sonoran Desert tortoise. Fires that generally follow the transformation of native vegetation to buffelgrass
are converting vast areas of tortoise habitat into tracts of nonnative grasslands. In Australia, the expansion
of buffelgrass is associated with a decrease in vertebrate and invertebrate diversity.
Control
Given that buffelgrass has only become a problematic species in the United States within the last 10 to 20
years, research on its control is limited. At the time of this writing (2008), physical removal of buffelgrass
seems to be the best control method available. Some research suggests that buffelgrass can be controlled
by herbicide applications. Physical removal may be the best method of controlling buffelgrass. Based on
research by Ward and others, manual removal of buffelgrass should take place at least 4 days after
periods of precipitation that exceed roughly 0.67 inch (17 mm).
Physical removal of buffelgrass can be successful if sites are treated for at least 2 years. In year 2,
seedlings need to be removed prior to maturity. In 1994, physical removal (hand pulling and digging with a
shovel) of buffelgrass at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was initiated in a test plot. The following
winter, many buffelgrass seedlings were removed from the site. By 1996, seedlings were not found at the
site. At west Quitobaquito Springs, physical removal of buffelgrass resulted in almost no reestablishment.
Large -scale physical removal of buffelgrass in the monument has proven successful. Sites where
buffelgrass is most likely to reestablish following physical removal include burned sites, buffelgrass stands
at least several years old, areas near a seed source, areas where vehicles or humans move through a site,
areas with white - throated woodrat middens, or areas with topsoil loss due to erosion or bulldozing.
There is very little information on the prevention of buffelgrass establishment and spread. Further
information on this topic is needed. On Tumamoc Hill, Arizona, a group known as the "Weedwackers" has
initiated a program of revegetating disturbed areas with native species to prevent buffelgrass
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 186
Appendix E. Invasive Species
establishment. The program has been successful at eliminating buffelgrass stands in washes; leading to
the reestablishment of native vegetation.
An integrated management program at two sites on the island of Hawaii successfully removed buffelgrass,
allowing the establishment of native pili grass. Burns were conducted in February 1998, then reburned
once or twice in the next 4 years. On some plots, burning was combined with hand pulling or glyphosate
treatment. All sites were seeded with pili grass 3 weeks after the first burn, and watered to counteract
effects of drought. In 2002, 4 years after the initial treatments, pili grass cover was less than 10% on
unburned and burn -only plots, but was approximately 34 percent on plots from which buffelgrass had been
removed.
Beginning around 2000, the group "Weedwackers" physically removed 4,600 tons (4,200 t) of buffelgrass
and other exotic species from roadsides, vehicle pullouts, and washes in Tucson Mountain Park, Arizona.
Using National Park Service funding, volunteers removed over 40 tons (40 t) of buffelgrass from Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument between 1994 and 2004.
Buffelgrass has been found to range from less than one ton per acre to over 5 tons per acre in undisturbed
desert that has been invaded by buffelgrass. Fire behavior in these infested areas would be similar to a tall
grass prairie where flame lengths can reach over 18 feet, in buffelgrass at an experimental burn in Avra
Valley in 2008, and fire rate of spread exceeded 155 feet /minute in relatively mild conditions (SABCC
2008).
Mediterranean Grass
Two similar species are known as Mediterranean grass, Schismus barbatus and Schismus arabicus.
Mediterranean grass is a low growing tufted grass (under 20 cm tall) that is abundant in many areas of the
desert southwest. According to Invasive Non - Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in Arizona (AZ -WIPWG
2005), both species of Schismus are ranked as a medium threat level for Arizona's wildlands. A medium
ranking means that these species have a substantial impact on Arizona's ecosystems; have invasive
attributes that are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, often enhanced by ground disturbance;
and are found with a diversity of ecosystems and the distribution with those ecosystem can range from
limited to widespread. Schismus has been noted, along with red brome, in the conversion of the Sonoran
and Mojave Deserts to flammable grassland (Brown and Minnich 1986, Brooks and Matchett 2006).
Other Species
Additional non - native species are causing fire problems in localized areas and have the potential to spread
to other areas. Some recent invaders show rapid expansion rates and can form thick growth that indicates
potential fire problems in the future. They are mainly grasses and winter - annual mustard species.
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) are already present along
roads and in some washes. Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) is present in some pant
associations and can form dense monocultures with heavy fuel loads in the desert grassland association.
The new, potential problem species include tickgrass (Eragrostis en chino chloidea), soft - feather
pappusgrass (Enneapogon cenchroides), Malta star - thistle (Centaurea melitensis), Sahara mustard
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 187
Appendix E. Invasive Species
(Brassica tourniforti), and stock (Matthiola parviflora). Cooperators must monitor conditions in their
jurisdiction and be ready to take action on emerging fire problems.
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 188
Appendix F. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
APPENDIX F. GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 189
Appendix F. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Pima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2013 190
FO REST
SE
US
�'�lf11TL�FA
d15. EPEFARTWNI W 9fl INMIDN
*'JrE&U Or LUMP WAAWO
I L82
OFF
a
OP YN D0
U. �.
FISH &W1LDL11
SE R VI C E
' ATt1V
PARK
SERVICE
Guidance
for
Implementation
of
Federal
W Fire Management
Policy
Jaw
A014
r _
�
Ll
p
_
r
4P i
February 13, 2009
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 1
Foreword
The Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (January 2001)
is the primary interagency wildland fire policy document. The Interagency Strategy for the
Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (June 20, 2003) was developed
and approved under the authority of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) to set forth
direction for consistent implementation of the federal fire policy. It has been used since that time.
On May 2, 2008, the WFLC issued a memorandum entitled Modification of Federal Wildland
Fire Policy Guidance. This memorandum directed federal agencies to test and implement new
guidelines for wildland fire management. The modifications were tested in a number of field
units in the 2008 fire season.
In 2009 the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) issued a memorandum to the
NWCG executive board (NWCG #001 -2009, January 7, 2009) that 1) affirms the soundness of
the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (January 2001),
2) reiterates the policy changes stated in the May 2, 2008 WFLC memorandum entitled
Modification of Federal Wildland Fire Policy Guidance, 3) states that the Wildland Fire
Decision Support System (WFDSS) will replace existing analysis and decision processes, and 4)
confirms that the Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy (June 20, 2003) will be replaced in 2009.
This document, Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
(February, 2009), is that replacement.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U. S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) prohibit
discrimination in all of their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,
age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of
program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)
720 -5964 (voice and TTY) and/or the USDOI at (202) 652 -5165.
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 -W, Whitten
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250 -9410 or call (202) 720 -5964 (voice and
TTY). Or write to the Director, Office for Equal Opportunity, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street,
NW, MS -5221, Washington, DC 20240.
USDA and USDOI are equal opportunity providers and employers.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 2
Fire Executive Council
February 13, 2009
Memorandum
To: Chief, USDA Forest Service
Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
Director, National Park Service
From: Chair, Fire Executive Council
Subj ect: Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Policy
On February 13, 2009, the Fire Executive Council (FEC) approved Guidance for the
Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. This Guidance provides for
consistent implementation of the 1995/2001 Federal Fire Policy, as directed by the Wildland Fire
Leadership Council.
Successful implementation of the Guidance requires that each of the federal wildland fire
agencies work together through development of unified direction and guidance for
agency /bureau manuals, directives, handbooks, guidebooks, plans agreements and other pertinent
documents to complete final implementation of this guidance.
In approving the Guidance the FEC :
directs the National Wildfire Coordinating Group to adopt the guidance and review and
revise, as appropriate, all interagency training courses, operational guides, standards,
terminology, reporting requirements, skill/ competency /qualification/certification
requirements and other pertinent documents.
directs the federal fire directors to work collaboratively with state, local and tribal fire
managers and public and nongovernment organizations to communicate direction stated
in the guidance with internal and external audiences to foster understanding and support
for the complexity of wildland fire management.
directs the federal fire directors to revise or develop accountability standards,
performance measures and tracking systems to assess if resource and protection
objectives are met during the course of management on all wildland Tres.
We thank the interagency team that produced this implementation guidance and extend special
appreciation to the National Association of State Forest, International Association of Fire Chiefs,
National Association of Counties, The Wilderness Society, and The Nature Conservancy for the
support and commitment in completing the document.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 3
APPROVAL
The Guidance for Implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy (February, 2009) is
hereby approved by the Fire Executive Council. Implementation actions are to begin
immediately.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Date
Forest Service, Fire & Aviation Management
Tom Harbour, Director
B v J - eau of La r6d Ma rY M gem ani D ate
Fire and Aviation Management - Directorate
Jim Douglas, Assistant Director
Department of the Interior Date
Office of Wildland Fire Coordination
Kirk Rowdabaugh, Director
National Park Service Date
Visitor and Resource Protection
Karen Taylor- Goodrich, Associate Director
4� 2- /.?0/0,9
la7
Fish and Wildlife Service Date
National Wildlife Refuge System
Division Natural Resource and Conservation
Planning
Andy Loranger, Chief
Department of the Interior Date
National Business Center —
Aviation Management Directorate
Mark Bathrick, Associate Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs Date
Trust Services
Vicki Forrest, Deputy Director
National Wildfire Coordinating Group Date
Ex officio
Brian McManus, Chair
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 4
Table of Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................ ..............................2
Introduction....................................................................................................... ............................... 6
Guidancefor Implementation ............................................................................ ..............................7
Implementation.................................................................................................. ..............................7
Federal Wildland Fire Policy - Guiding Principles and Policy Statements ....... ..............................8
GuidingPrinciples ................................................................................. ..............................8
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy ........................................... ..............................9
Appendices........................................................................................................ .............................16
AppendixA: Glossary ........................................................................... .............................16
Appendix B: Wildland Fire Flowchart ................................................. .............................18
Appendix C: What Changed 2004 to 2009 ........................................... .............................19
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 5
Introduction
The Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (January 2001)
remains sound and presents a single cohesive federal fire policy for the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture. However, some issues associated with implementation of this policy
need closer attention and clarification to fully achieve the intent of the policy.
One such policy area is the Wildland Urban Interface (WLTI). WLJI is more complex and
extensive than previously considered in the 1995 and 2001 Federal Fire Policy reviews. Fire
management activities affecting WLTI areas require closer coordination and more engagement
between with federal, state, local and tribal land and fire managers to ensure firefighter and
public safety and mitigate property loss from wildland fire.
A key finding of the 2001 review of the 1995 policy was that "multiple terms for various
management options to respond to wildland fire have confused agency managers and employees,
operators, partners, and the public, and have perpetuated multiple fire management program
elements ". This important communications issue will be resolved only through federal, state,
local and tribal engagement in building a foundation for common terms (see Appendix A) with
understanding and support by all.
The current policy clearly states that wildland fire analysis will carefully consider the long -term
benefits in relation to risks both in the short and long term:
"Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource management
plans and activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries. Response to
wildland fire is based on ecological, social, and legal consequences of fire. The
circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences on firefighter and
public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected
dictate the appropriate management response to fire."
199512001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
The intent of this framework is to solidify that the full range of strategic and tactical options are
available and considered in the response to every wildland fire. These options are to be used to
achieve objectives as described in Land and Resource Management Plans and /or Fire
Management Plans, subject to clear processes defined to manage fire that crosses jurisdictional
boundaries. Mutually developed objectives with adjoining jurisdictions for managing fires that
crosses jurisdictional boundaries will also be recognized.
This guidance also calls for increased dialogue and collaboration between federal agencies and
tribal, local, and state agencies as plans are updated and implemented to manage wildfires in
order to accomplish resource and protection objectives.
This document, Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
(February 2009), replaces the Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy (June 20, 2003). This updated guidance consolidates and clarifies
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 6
changes that have occurred since the 2003 strategy document was issued, and provides revised
direction for consistent implementation of the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy (January 2001)
Guidance for Implementation
The following guidelines should be used to provide consistent implementation of federal
wildland fire policy. Further guidance is provided in the Federal Wildland Fire Management
Policy section Table 1.
1. Wildland fire management agencies will use common standards for all aspects of their
fire management programs to facilitate effective collaboration among cooperating
agencies.
2. Agencies and bureaus will review, update, and develop agreements that clarify the
jurisdictional inter - relationships and define the roles and responsibilities among local,
state, tribal and federal fire protection entities.
3. Responses to wildland fire will be coordinated across levels of government regardless of
the jurisdiction at the ignition source.
4. Fire management planning will be intergovernmental in scope and developed on a
landscape scale.
5. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non - structure fire that occurs in the
wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two distinct types:
a. Wildfires — Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires
b. Prescribed Fires - Planned ignitions.
6. A wildland fire may be concurrently managed for one or more objectives and objectives
can change as the fire spreads across the landscape. Objectives are affected by changes in
fuels, weather, topography; varying social understanding and tolerance; and involvement of
other governmental jurisdictions having different missions and objectives.
7. Management response to a wildland fire on federal land is based on objectives
established in the applicable Land/ Resource Management Plan and /or the Fire
Management Plan.
8. Initial action on human - caused wildfire will be to suppress the fire at the lowest cost
with the fewest negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public safety.
9. Managers will use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire
management decisions. The process will provide situational assessment, analyze hazards
and risk, define implementation actions, and document decisions and rationale for those
decisions.
Implementation
Each of the departments or agencies participating in the review will adopt the Guidance for
Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) and review and
revise, as appropriate, all manuals, handbooks, guidebooks, plans, agreements and other
pertinent documents.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 7
The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) will adopt the Guidance for
Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) and review and
revise, as appropriate, all interagency training courses, operational guides, standards,
terminology, reporting requirements, skill / competency /qualification/certification requirements
and other pertinent documents.
The federal fire directors, in collaboration with state, local and tribal fire managers and public
and nongovernment organizations, will communicate direction stated in the Guidance for
Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) with internal and
external audiences to foster understanding and support for the complexity of wildland fire
management.
The federal fire directors will revise or develop accountability standards, performance measures
and tracking systems to assess if resource and protection objectives are met during the course of
management on all wildland fires.
Federal Wildland Fire Policy - Guiding Principles and Policy
Statements
The following guiding principles and policy statements are excerpted from the Review and
Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (January 2001). These remain
the foundational principles for Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.
Guiding Principles
1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management
activity.
2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change
agent will be incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency land and
resource management plans set the objectives for the use and desired future condition
of the various public lands.
3. Fire Management Plans, programs, and activities support land and resource
management plans and their implementation.
4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities.
Risks and uncertainties relating to fire management activities must be understood,
analyzed, communicated, and managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not
doing an activity. Net gains to the public benefit will be an important component of
decisions.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 8
5. Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based
upon values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management
objectives. Federal agency administrators are adjusting and reorganizing programs to
reduce costs and increase efficiencies. As part of this process, investments in fire
management activities must be evaluated against other agency programs in order to
effectively accomplish the overall mission, set short- and long -term priorities, and
clarify management accountability.
6. Fire Management Plans and activities are based upon the best available
science. Knowledge and experience are developed among all federal wildland fire
management agencies. An active fire research program combined with interagency
collaboration provides the means to make these tools available to all fire managers.
7. Fire Management Plans and activities incorporate public health and
environmental quality considerations.
8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and
cooperation are essential. Increasing costs and smaller work forces require that
public agencies pool their human resources to successfully deal with the ever -
increasing and more complex fire management tasks. Full collaboration among
federal wildland fire management agencies and between the federal wildland fire
management agencies and international, State, tribal, and local governments and
private entities result in a mobile fire management work force available for the full
range of public needs.
9. Standardization of policies and procedures among federal wildland fire
management agencies is an ongoing objective. Consistency of plans and operations
provides the fundamental platform upon which federal wildland fire management
agencies can cooperate, integrate fire activities across agency boundaries, and provide
leadership for cooperation with State, tribal, and local fire management organizations.
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Each of the seventeen policy areas are assessed in depth in the following table (Table 1). The
policy area's guiding principle is restated first. The left column provides statements to help
clarify the Management Intent of the policy statement. The right column specifies actions
needed to implement the policy statement.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 9
Table 1— Policv Clarification of Management Intent and Implementation Actions
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
1. Safety
Firefighter and public safety is the first priority. All Fire Management Plans and activities must reflect
this commitment.
No natural or cultural resource, home, or item of
Agency administrators will develop and establish
property is worth a human life. All strategies and tactics
process, procedures and objectives that ensure
should seek to mitigate the risk to firefighters and the
firefighter and public safety.
public.
Incident Commanders will develo p and establish
incident objectives, strategies and operational tactics
that ensure firefighter and public safety.
2. Fire Management and Ecosystem Sustainability
The full range of fire management activities will be used to help achieve ecosystem sustainability,
including its interrelated ecological, economic, and social components.
"Full range of fire management activities" may include
Land /Resource Management Plan's (L /RMP) will be
any vegetative management treatment tool.
developed consistent with both ecological conditions,
Ecosystem sustainabilit ides a supply of goods,
y y provides pp y g
and fire regime dynamics, and consider the short and
,
services, social values, and natural processes in
long term effects of both action and no action
perpetuity.
alternatives for planned vegetation management
activities as well as responses to wildfire.
Economic intent is to provide for sustainable supplies of
Agencies will exploit the full range of fire management
goods, services, and social values through
options to sustain healthy ecosystems within acceptable
implementation of appropriate fire management
risk levels as identified in the L /RMP, or Fire
activities.
Management Plan (FMP).
Fire management activities will be based on planning
and decision analysis processes that address current and
anticipated situational conditions.
3. Response to Wildland Fire
Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource management plans and
activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries. Response to wildland fires is based on
ecological, social and legal consequences of the fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and
the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and,
values to be protected, dictate the appropriate response to the fire.
The L /RMP will define and identify fire's role in the
FMP's assist in developing the management response to
ecosystem. The response to an ignition is guided by the
meet L /RMP objectives in designated Fire Management
strategies and objectives outlined in the L /RMP and /or
Units (FMU).
the Fire Management Plan.
Fire management strategies will consider current
g g
Values to be protected from and /or enhanced by
landscape conditions and spatial and temporal
wildland fire are defined in the L /RMP and /or the Fire
components of the fire regime.
Management Plan.
Responses to wildland fires will be coordinated across
L /RMP and fire management planning is coordinated
jurisdictional boundaries.
across jurisdictional boundaries.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 10
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
4. Use of Wildland Fire
Wildland fire will be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as possible, be
allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Use of fire will be based on L /RMP and associated Fire
Management Plans and will follow specific prescriptions contained in operational plans.
Use planned and unplanned ignitions to achieve land
Incident objectives will identify resource objectives for
and resource management goals. Fire management is
wildfires managed to achieve resource objectives.
one tool in the restoration process and should be
Beneficial row accomplishments will be measured through
p g
integrated with other land management activities.
specific quantified objectives.
Preference will be given for natural ignitions to be
managed in meeting the role of fire as an ecological
process.
Decision support process encourages strategies to
manage fire to restore and maintain the natural fire
regime where safe and possible.
5. Rehabilitation and Restoration
Rehabilitation and restoration efforts will be undertaken to protect and sustain ecosystems, public health
and safety, and to help communities protect infrastructure.
Conduct emergency stabilization of burned areas such
Burned areas will be assessed to determine suitable and
that no further harm is done.
effective emergency stabilization and rehabilitation
Probabilit of success will be evaluated for
y
needs to meet current and anticipated environmental
rehabilitation and restoration efforts.
conditions.
Rehabilitation and restoration activities will be
evaluated to assess effectiveness of treatments.
6. Protection Priorities
The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human
communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural
resources will be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of
protection. Once people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest
value to be protected.
Resources are allocated nationally, geographically, and
NMAC establishes national protection priorities
locally based on protection priorities.
considering maintenance of initial attack capability;
Protection of human life overrides all other riorities
p
protection of communities, infrastructure, property,
should response capability limits be reached.
cultural and natural resources; costs; local agency
objectives; and national response framework and
Local protection priorities are established in the L /RMP
tasking.
and /or FMP.
Geographic and local area coordination groups will
establish a process to set protection priorities.
The Agency Administrator will convey protection
priorities, based on the L /RMP and FMP, to the
geographic and national groups through an incident
status report and ensure that protection priorities are
known and carried out by the incident commander(s).
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 11
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
7. Wildland Urban Interface
The operational roles of federal agencies as partners in the Wildland Urban Interface are wildland
firefighting, hazard fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and education, and technical assistance.
Structural fire suppression is the responsibility of tribal, state, or local governments. Federal agencies
may assist with exterior structural protection activities under formal Fire Protection Agreements that
specify the mutual responsibilities of the partners, including funding. (Some federal agencies have
structural protection authority for their facilities on lands they administer and may also enter into formal
agreements to assist state and local governments with structural protection).
Prevent the movement of wildfires from the wildlands
Agreements will be developed to clarify jurisdictional
into the WUI area, out of the WUI area into the
inter - relationships and define roles and responsibilities
wildlands, and improve efficiency of wildfire
among local, state, tribal, and federal fire protection
suppression in WUI situations.
entities, based on each organization's enabling
The ma p ri responsibility for protecting private
� p y p g p
protection authorities and assistance /mutual aid
property and rural communities lies with individual
responsibilities.
property owners and local governments.
Agencies will support the development and
Recognize that many states have wildland fire
implementation of Community Wildfire Protection
responsibility while rural fire districts have structural
Plans (CWPP).
responsibility.
The Federal wildland agencies will collaborate with
tribal, state and local fire management organizations to
identify and reconcile gaps in protection responsibility.
8. Planning
Every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved Fire Management Plan. Fire Management
Plans are strategic plans that define a program to manage wildland Tres based on the area's approved land
management plan. Fire Management Plans must provide for firefighter and public safety; include fire
management strategies, tactics, and alternatives; address values to be protected and public health issues;
and be consistent with resource management objectives, activities of the area, and environmental laws
and regulations.
Promote interagency and inter - governmental planning.
The FMP should be interagency or intergovernmental in
Encourage landscape scale planning across jurisdictional
g p p g
scope and developed on a landscape scale, where
practical to take advantage of efficiency, reduce conflict
boundaries.
and provide understanding and cooperation.
L /RMP and /or FMPs will address the location and
conditions under which resource benefits and protection
objectives can be met.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 12
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
9. Science
Fire Management Plans and programs will be based on a foundation of sound science. Research will
support ongoing efforts to increase our scientific knowledge of biological, physical, and sociological
factors. Information needed to support fire management will be developed through an integrated
interagency fire science program. Scientific results must be made available to managers in a timely
manner and must be used in the development of land management plans, Fire Management Plans, and
implementation plans.
Increase the body of scientific knowledge and
Agencies will integrate science in planning and
understanding about fire management programs through
monitoring processes.
the development of management tools and transfer of
Agencies will coordinate fire- related research to
g
knowledge to practitioners and decision makers.
improve fire management program capability.
Social sciences are a part of the research need.
Agencies will emphasize applied science including fire
g p pp g
and fuels, physics, social science, and operations
research areas.
Agencies will seek to improve decision support tools
through updated data sets and advances in technology.
10. Preparedness
Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe, cost - effective fire management programs in support of land
and resource management plans through appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment, and management
oversight.
Recognize that particular budget processes and external
Agencies will identify and realign organizational
influences will affect capability and capacity.
staffing and equipment mixes to implement a safe and
Size the organization to meet realistic and sustainable
g
cost effective fire management program that meets the
management objectives by effective preparedness
fire management guidance identified in the L /RMP.
planning on an interagency basis.
Agencies will develop a common process for
Realize efficiencies b i oratin other federal,
y nco � g
determining budget needs and cost sharing for all
tribal, state, and local agencies and nongovernmental
aspects of fire management operations.
organizations to meet peak demands for resources.
Implement training program to meet staffing levels
Preseason agreements are an integral art of
g g p
(qualification requirements) with the emphasis on
preparedness.
managing fires for both protection and resource
management objectives.
Agencies will develop agreements to efficiently utilize
other federal, state, local, and non governmental
resources.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 13
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
11. Suppression
Wildland fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety, benefits, and
values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives.
Suppression considerations will be addressed in L /RMP
Use a decision support process to assess conditions,
and FMP's.
analyze risk and document decisions.
Notwithstanding protection of life, the cost of
Predictive services products will be used to support pre -
suppression, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation
positioning resources.
must be commensurate with values to be protected.
Agencies will coordinate staffing levels through
g g g
common trend analysis of environmental indicators
12. Prevention
Agencies will work together and with their partners and other affected groups and individuals to prevent
unauthorized ignition of wildfires.
Prevention focuses on the activities needed to reduce
Agencies will work with all partners to develop and
human - caused ignitions.
implement risk assessment, prevention, and mitigation
Prevention includes mitigating risks and loss to
g g
plans to reduce the frequency of wildfires due to
ecosystems and communities.
human — caused ignitions..
13. Standardization
Agencies will use compatible planning processes, funding mechanisms, training and qualification
requirements, operational procedures, values- to -be- protected methodologies, and public education
programs for all fire management activities.
All processes are compatible and transparent so that
To the extent possible, agencies will use common
individuals from cooperating agencies (federal, tribal,
standards in all aspects of fire management programs so
state, and local) can more effectively work together.
that planning and budgeting methodologies applied in
Enhance blic and u cooperator understanding of
p p g
one situation will provide the same results in similar
wildland fire management processes.
circumstances.
Agencies will develop and implement common
operational field guidance and operational procedures to
deal with all aspects of fire management operations.
Agencies will streamline interagency transfer of funds to
reduce fiscal inconsistencies.
14. Interagency Cooperation and Coordination
Fire management planning, preparedness, prevention, suppression, fire use, restoration and rehabilitation,
monitoring, research, and education will be conducted on an interagency basis with the involvement of
cooperators and partners.
Involve all participating agencies, federal, tribal, state,
Ensure that fire management program actions are
local, and non - governmental organizations in fire
implemented in collaboration with cooperators and
management activities.
affected partners with due consideration of all
Get everyone working in concert, rather than in
management objectives.
opposition to each other.
Agencies will engage cooperators and affected partners
at the strategic, and program planning levels, as well as
the tactical, program implementation level.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 14
Policy Statement
Management Intent
Implementation Actions
15. Communication and Education
Agencies will enhance knowledge and understanding of wildland fire management policies and practices
through internal and external communication and education programs. These programs will be
continuously improved through the timely and effective exchange of information among all affected
agencies and organizations.
Knowledge and understanding reach all personnel in the
Develop a consistent and uniform message using
field, across agencies.
common terminology on importance and role of
Develo p and provide consistent communication,
wildland fire in natural resource management.
education and outreach with shared messages for the
Develop understanding with the public on what we're
public and internal staff.
trying accomplish with fire management.
Have a public that understands the risk, benefits and
Build understanding with the public on their role when
complexity of wildland fire management.
living and recreating in fire prone ecosystems.
16. Agency Administrator and Employee Roles
Agency administrators will ensure that their employees are trained, certified, and made available to
participate in the wildland fire program locally, regionally, and nationally as the situation demands.
Employees with operational, administrative, or other skills will support the wildland fire program as
necessary. Agency administrators are responsible and will be held accountable for making employees
available.
Employees participate in wildland fire operations to
Agency administrators will train, qualify, and certify
obtain understanding, expand capabilities, and increase
available personnel for local fire needs and interagency
organizational capacity.
fire management priorities.
Assure that we maximize use of the local workforce for
Agencies will consider adjustment of annual
efficiencies of knowledge, cost and involvement.
performance expectations based on employee and
Maintain a ca competent and able workforce to
p p
program contribution to the fire effort.
implement the wildland fire management program to
include fuels, aviation, suppression, planning,
monitoring, research, communication, finance, etc.
17. Evaluation
Agencies will develop and implement a systematic method of evaluation to determine effectiveness of
projects through implementation of the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. The evaluation will assure
accountability, facilitate resolution of areas of conflict, and identify resource shortages and agency
priorities.
Use adaptive management process to evaluate and
Conduct interagency, internal and periodic reviews of
improve the fire management program at all levels.
the fire management program (all agencies) to
Provide a formal review rocess to monitor and evaluate
p
determine: 1) consistency of policy implementation; 2)
performance, suggest revisions, and make necessary
effectiveness of interagency coordination; 3) progress
adaptations to the implementation guidance at all
towards ecosystem sustainability; 4) cost management;
organizational levels on a regular basis.
g g
5) safety.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 15
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary
The hierarchy of terminology will be those defined in law, those defined in policy, those defined
in this guidance and then all other agency and interagency documentation. The NWCG Glossary
of Wildland Fire Terminology will be maintained as the source of record.
Controlled burn – synonymous with Prescribed Fire.
Escaped Prescribed Fire – a prescribed fire that has exceeded or is expected to exceed
prescription parameters or otherwise meets the criteria for conversion to wildfire. Criteria is
specified in "Interagency Prescribed Fire – Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference
Guide ".
Fire Management Plan (FMP) – a plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire
management and related activities within the context of approved land /resource management
plans. It defines a program to manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed fire). The plan is
supplemented by operational plans, including but not limited to preparedness plans, preplanned
dispatch plans, prescribed fire burn plans and prevention plans. Fire Management Plan's assure
that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated.
Initial Action – the actions taken by the first resources to arrive at a wildfire.
Land /Resource Management Plan (L /RMP) – a document prepared with public participation
and approved by an agency administrator that provides general guidance and direction for land
and resource management activities for an administrative area. The L /RMP identifies the need
for fire's role in a particular area and for a specific benefit. The objectives in the L /RMP provide
the basis for the development of fire management objectives and the fire management program in
the designated area.
Planned Ignition –the intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand -held, mechanical or aerial
device where the distance and timing between ignition lines or points and the sequence of
igniting them is determined by environmental conditions (weather, fuel, topography), firing
technique, and other factors which influence fire behavior and fire effects (see prescribed fire).
Prescribed Fire —is a wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific
objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements
(where applicable) have been met prior to ignition (see planned ignition).
Protection - the actions taken to limit the adverse environmental, social, political, and
economical effects of fire (FEC Briefing Paper, 3/14/2008).
Response to wildland fire - the mobilization of the necessary services and responders to a fire
based on ecological, social, and legal consequences, the circumstances under which a fire occurs,
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 16
and the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural
resources, and values to be protected.
Suppression - all the work of extinguishing a fire or confining fire spread.
Unplanned Ignition —the initiation of a wildland ire by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and
accidental human - caused fires (see wildfire).
Use of Wildland Fire - management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource
objectives specified in Land /Resource Management Plans.
Wildfire — unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes,
unauthorized and accidental human - caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires.
(See unplanned ignition and escaped prescribed fire).
Wildland Fire — a general term describing any non - structure fire that occurs in the wildland.
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) —The line, area, or zone where structures and other human
development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels.
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 17
Appendix B: Wildland Fire Flowchart
This chart depicts, in general, the process to be taken given an ignition, regardless of source. Management actions depend on the
provisions in the approved Land, Resource and Fire Management Plan and /or Fire Management Plan for an area. This chart is
generally applicable to most agencies' fire management programs. However, specific exceptions may exist.
it 1 n Fir
Wildland e
Identify
I ni i n
g to
Situation/Objectives
St ateg c
Strategic
Implementation
m R r is
Outcome Reports
Response
Unplanned
= L /RMP or =
= Implement =
Objectives =
Preplanned
Ignition
-
FMP allows
-
Response
-
Response to
-
Achieved
-
=
protection
=
=
Wildfire
=
_
"Wildfire"
=
objectives
=
only
_
Develop
=
=
Objectives
=
_
=
Response
-
=
Not Met
=
Fire
_
=
through
=
_
=
Report
=
L /RMP or
=
decision
=
FMP allows
=
support
=
resource and
=_
process
protection
Planned
-
objectives
J
Ignition
g
-
"Prescribed
_ _
= =
Prescribed
=
=
Implement
Prescribed
=
=
_
Objectives =
J
Fire"
_ =
Fire Plan
=
Fire Plan
=
Achieved
=
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 18
Appendix C: What Changed 2004 to 2009
The following provide some of the significant modifications that were made to the guidance in
the "Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
(2004)" in drafting the "Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management
Policy (2009)." To simplify the discussion the "Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2004)" will be referred to as "Strategy" and the
"Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2009)" will be
referred to as "Guidance ".
Strategy: Provided seven operational clarification statements
Guidance: Provides nine statements of guidance for implementation.
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 1) "Only one management objective will be applied
to a wildland fire. Wildland fires will either be managed for resource benefits or suppressed. A
wildland fire cannot be managed for both objectives concurrently. If two wildland fires
converge, they will be managed as a single wildland fire."
Guidance: "A wildland fire may be concurrently managed for one or more objectives and
objectives can change as the fire spreads across the landscape. Objectives are affected by
changes in fuels, weather, topography; varying social understanding and tolerance; and
involvement of other governmental jurisdictions having different missions and objectives."
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 2) "Human caused wildland fires will be
suppressed in every instance and will not be managed for resource benefits.
Guidance: "Initial action on human - caused wildfire will be to suppress the fire at the
lowest cost with the fewest negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public
safety."
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 3) "Once a wildland fire has been managed for
suppression objectives, it may never be managed for resource benefit objectives."
Guidance: "A wildland fire may be concurrently managed for one or more objectives and
objectives can change as the fire spreads across the landscape. Objectives are affected by
changes in fuels, weather, topography; varying social understanding and tolerance; and
involvement of other governmental jurisdictions having different missions and objectives."
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 4) "The Appropriate Management Response
(AMR) is any specific action suitable to meet Fire Management Unit (FMU) objectives.
Typically, the AMR ranges across a spectrum of tactical options (from monitoring to intensive
management actions). The AMR is developed by using FMU strategies and objectives identified
in the Fire Management Plan."
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 19
Guidance: The term Appropriate Management Response is removed from
implementation guidance with "Response to Wildland Fire" as the policy area defining
the actions for managing a wildland fire.
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 5) "The Wildland Fire Situation Analysis process is
used to determine and document the suppression strategy from the full range of responses
available for suppression operations. Suppression strategies are designed to meet the policy
objectives of suppression."
Guidance: "Managers will use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire
management decisions. The process will provide situational assessment, analyze hazards
and risk, define implementation actions, and document decisions and rationale for those
decisions.
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 6) "Wildland fire use is the result of a natural
event. The Land /Resource Management Plan, or the Fire Management Plan, will identify areas
where the strategy of wildland fire use is suitable. The Wildland Fire Implementation Plan
(WFIP) is the tool that examines the available response strategies to determine if a fire is being
considered for wildland fire use."
Guidance: "Managers will use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire
management decisions. The process will provide situational assessment, analyze hazards
and risk, define implementation actions, and document decisions and rationale for those
decisions."
Strategy: Operational Clarification statement 7) "When a prescribed fire or a fire designated for
wildland fire use is no longer achieving the intended resource management objectives and
contingency or mitigation actions have failed, the fire will be declared a wildfire. Once a
wildfire, it cannot be returned to a prescribed fire or wildland fire use status."
Guidance: "Managers will use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire
management decisions. The process will provide situational assessment, analyze hazards
and risk, define implementation actions, and document decisions and rationale for those
decisions."
Strategy: Policy Implementation Flowchart
Guidance: Updated Appendix F: Wildland Fire Flowchart from Review and Update of
the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001) to reflect implementation
terminology of planned and unplanned ignitions. (See Appendix B)
Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
Page 20