2.1 Project Team

The RCI Project Team was composed of experts in the fields of fire behavior and suppression, geographic information systems (GIS), and natural resource ecology who collaborated to complete a Community Risk/Hazard Assessment for each of the listed communities in Esmeralda County. The RCI Field Teams included a Fire Specialist with extensive wildland fire experience in Nevada and a Resource Specialist experienced in the natural resource environment of the Great Basin.

The RCI Project Team used standardized procedures developed in accordance with the Draft Community Wildland Fire Assessment For Existing and Planned Wildland Residential Interface Developments in Nevada (Nevada’s Wildland Fire Agencies, Board of Fire Directors, April 2001; revised 2002). This approach incorporates values for hazardous fuels and landscape features, hazardous structural features, community design, and fire protection capabilities into an overall community rating.

2.2 Base Map Data Collection

Geographic information system (GIS) specialists on the RCI Project Team compiled and reviewed existing statewide geospatial data to create community maps for recording baseline data and data verification. Data sources for the maps included the Nevada Fire Safe Council, the Nevada Department of Transportation, the US Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Datasets and sources utilized are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Primary Datasets and Sources Utilized in the Esmeralda County Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment

Spatial Dataset	Data Source
Land Ownership	BLM Nevada State Office Mapping Services
Vegetation Communities	Nevada Gap Analysis Program Data, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University
Topography	US Geological Survey Digital Elevation Models and Topographic Maps
Fire Suppression Resources	Field and telephone interviews
Roads	“TIGER” Census data (2000)
Current Aerial Photographs	US Geological Survey Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (1994, 1996, or 1998)
Fire Hazard Classes	BLM Utah State Office Fire Hazard Potential Data
Fire History	BLM Nevada State Office Mapping Services US Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe Supervisor’s Office National Interagency Fire Center, Boise ID

The existing data were reviewed and the pertinent information was compiled on maps in GIS format. The RCI Project Team verified the GIS data during the field assessments. The GIS Specialist provided data management for quality assurance and accuracy of the statewide geospatial data and map production.

2.2.1 Wildfire History

Wildfire history information was mapped using Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service datasets and GIS databases that identify wildfire perimeters on federally managed lands from 1980 to 2003. This information was compiled by agency personnel using a global positioning system (GPS) and screen digitizing on source maps with a minimum detail level of 1:250,000. The dataset is updated at the BLM Nevada State Office at the end of each fire season, based on information provided by individual field offices and Forest Service Ranger Districts. The dataset is the central source of historical GIS fire data used for fire management and land use planning on federal lands.

In addition to the fire perimeter information, point data for fire ignitions within Nevada from 1980 to 2003 was obtained from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) database in Boise, Idaho. This dataset includes an ignition point coordinate and an acreage component for each ignition reported to NIFC through a variety of agencies. This data is summarized in Table 3-2 and provides ignition point locations for the maps in this report. In many cases the ignition point location is accurate only to the section. In such cases the point coordinate is mapped in the center of the section.

The wildfire history and ignition history data were used to formulate risk ratings and to develop recommendations specific to areas repeatedly impacted by wildland fires. Observations made by the RCI Project Team and comments from local fire agencies were used to develop recommendations for areas that lack recent wildfire activity, and where accumulations of fuels or urban development into the interface area presents a growing risk.

2.3 Community Risk/Hazard Assessment

The wildland-urban interface is the place where homes and wildland meet. This project focused on identifying hazards and risks in the wildland-urban interface areas countywide, assessing each community individually. Site-specific information for each community was collected during field visits to Esmeralda County during May of 2004. Predominant conditions recorded during these visits served as the basis for development of Community Risk and Hazard Assessment ratings.

2.3.1 Ignition Risk Assessment Criteria

The Fire Specialist on the RCI Project Team assigned an ignition risk rating of low, moderate, or high to each assessed community. This rating is based on the interpretation of historical ignition patterns; fire polygons provided by the National Interagency Fire Center, Bureau of Land Management, and US Forest Service databases; interviews with local fire department personnel and local Fire Management Officers; field visits to each community; and the judgment of fire specialists based on their professional experience with wildland fire ignitions in the state of Nevada.

2.3.2 Hazard Assessment Criteria

Community Risk/Hazard Assessments were completed using a methodology outlined in the Draft Community Wildland Fire Assessment For Existing and Planned Wildland Residential Interface Developments in Nevada. That methodology assigns hazard ratings of low through extreme based on the scoring system shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Hazard Rating Point System Utilized in the Nevada Community Wildfire Risk/Hazard Assessment Project

Hazard Category	Score
Low Hazard	< 41
Moderate Hazard	41-60
High Hazard	61-75
Extreme Hazard	76+

To arrive at a score for a community, five primary factors affecting potential fire hazard are assessed: community design, construction materials, defensible space, availability and capability of fire suppression resources, and physical conditions such as fuel loading and topography. A description of each factor and their importance in developing the overall score for a community is provided below. Point values assigned to each hazard assessment element were tabulated for each community. Photographs of representative Esmeralda County fuel types are provided in Appendix D.

Community Design

Aspects of community design account for 26 percent of the total assessment score. Many aspects of community design can be modified to improve community fire safety. Factors considered include:

• Interface Condition Community safety is affected by the density and distribution of structures with respect to the surrounding wildland environment. Four condition classes are used to categorize the wildland-urban interface: Classic Interface, Intermix, Occluded, and Rural. A definition for each Condition Class is provided in Appendix A.
• Access. Roadway design aspects influence the hazard rating assigned to a community. A road gradient of greater than five percent can increase response times for heavy vehicles carrying water. Roads less than twenty feet in width often impede two-way movement of vehicles and fire suppression equipment. Hairpin turns and cul-de-sacs with radii of less than 45 feet can cause problems for equipment mobility. Adequately designed secondary access routes and loop roads can lower a community’s hazard rating. Visible, fire-resistant street and address identification and adequate driveway widths also reduce the overall community hazard rating.
• Utilities. Poorly maintained overhead power lines can be a potential wildfire ignition source. It is important to keep power line corridors clear of flammable vegetation as fires have been known to start from arcing power lines during windy conditions. Keeping flammable vegetation cleared from beneath power lines and around power poles reduces potential hazards from damaged power lines. Energized power lines may fall and create additional hazards for residents and firefighters, including blocked road access. Power failures are especially dangerous if a community lacks a backup energy source. Many communities rely on electric pumps to provide water to residents and firefighters for structure protection and fire suppression.

Construction Materials

Sixteen percent of the total assessment score is attributed to construction materials. While it is not feasible to expect all structures in the wildland-urban interface area to be rebuilt with non-combustible materials, there are steps that can be taken to reduce risks associated with hazardous construction in the interface area. Factors considered in this assessment include:

• Building Materials. The composition of building materials determines the length of time a structure can withstand high temperatures before ignition occurs. Houses composed of weathered wood siding and wood shake roofing are usually the most susceptible to ignition. Homes constructed with medium density fiberboard (MDF) siding are typically considered fire resistant. MDF siding burns only when exposed to high heat for a significant amount of time. Buildings with stucco exteriors can also withstand high temperatures. Houses with tile, metal or composition roofing are able to withstand high temperatures and long durations of heat exposure.
• Architectural Features. Unenclosed or unscreened balconies, decks, porches, attic vents, and eaves on homes provide areas where sparks and embers can be trapped, smolder, ignite, and rapidly spread fire to the home. The greater the number of houses within a wildland-urban interface that have such features, the greater the risk of wildfire to the community.

Defensible Space

Defensible space accounts for sixteen percent of the assessment score. The density and type of fuels around a home determine the potential fire exposure levels to the home. A greater volume of trees, shrubs, dry weeds and grass, woodpiles, and other combustible materials near the home will produce more intense heat during a fire, increasing the threat of damage or loss of the home. Defensible space is one of the most manageable factors in improving the chance that a home or other property will avoid being damaged or lost in a wildfire.

Suppression Capabilities

The availability and capability of fire suppression resources accounts for sixteen percent of the total assessment score. Knowledge of the capabilities or limitations of the fire suppression resources in a community can help the residents take action to maximize the effectiveness of the resources available. Factors considered in the assessment include:

• Availability, Number, and Training Level of Firefighting Personnel When a fire begins in or near a community, having the appropriate firefighting personnel available to respond quickly is critical to saving structures. Whether there is a local paid fire department, volunteer department, or no local fire department impacts how long it will take for firefighting personnel to respond to a wildland fire or a threatened community.
• Quantity and Type of Fire Suppression Equipment. The quantity and type of fire suppression equipment available has an important role in minimizing the effect of wildfire on a community. Effective wildland firefighting requires specialized equipment.
• Water Resources. The availability and location of water resources is critical to fighting a wildland fire. Whether there is a community water system with adequate fire flow capabilities, or local ponds or other drafting sites that firefighters must rely on will affect how easy or difficult it will be to protect the community.

Physical Conditions

The physical conditions that influence fire behavior account for 26 percent of the hazard rating. Physical conditions include slope, aspect, topography, fuel type, and fuel density. With the exception of changes to the fuel characteristics, the physical conditions in and around a community cannot be altered to make the community more fire safe. An understanding of how these physical conditions can influence fire behavior is essential to planning effective preparedness measures, such as fuel reduction treatments. Physical conditions considered in this assessment include:

• Slope, Aspect, and Topography. In addition to local weather conditions, slope, aspect, and topographic features are used to predict fire behavior. Steep slopes greatly influence fire behavior. Fire usually burns upslope with greater speed and longer flame lengths than on flat areas. Fire will burn downslope, but it usually does so at a slower rate and with shorter flame lengths than in upslope burns. East aspect slopes in the Great Basin may experience downslope winds in the afternoon. These winds may rapidly increase downhill burn rates. West and south facing aspects are subject to more intense solar exposure, which preheats vegetation and lowers the moisture content of fuels. Canyons, ravines, and saddles are topographic features that are prone to higher wind speeds than adjacent areas. Fires pushed by winds grow at an accelerated rate compared to fires burning in non-windy conditions. Because the surrounding topography is more wind-prone, homes built mid-slope, at the crest of slopes, or in saddles are more at risk in the event of a wildfire.
• Fuel Type and Density. Vegetation types, fuel moisture values, and fuel densities around a community affect potential fire behavior. Areas with dense, continuous, vegetative fuels carry a higher hazard rating than communities in areas of irrigated, sparse, or non-continuous fuels. Several consecutive years of above normal precipitation will result in excessive cheatgrass growth and ground litter. These conditions, in combination with steep slopes or high winds, can create a situation in which the worst-case fire severity scenario can occur. Under worst-case conditions, flame lengths in cheatgrass fuels can range between twelve and sixteen feet high.

2.3.3 Fuel Hazard Mapping

Fuel hazard maps were initially generated by the Bureau of Land Management (Nevada and Utah State Offices) using wildfire hazard delineations derived from vegetation data (Nevada GAP Analysis Program satellite dataset at 30-meter resolution). A total of 65 vegetation cover types were mapped statewide and reclassified into four wildfire hazard categories (low, moderate, high, and extreme) based on anticipated fire behavior. For example, pinyon-juniper cover types were generally rated as having an extreme fuel hazard, while sparse shadscale cover types were rated as having a low fuel hazards.

The RCI Project Teams visited high and extreme fuel hazard communities and verified the BLM hazard information by comparing the hazard ratings on the existing fuel hazard map to observed vegetation, slope, and aspect conditions. Where necessary, changes to the ratings were drawn on maps and used to update the wildfire hazard potential layer of the project database. Photo points were established in high and extreme fuel hazard areas to monitor future changes in fuel hazard conditions. In Esmeralda County fuel hazard mapping was reviewed and updated for Lida and is included in this report for that community.

2.3.4 Fire Behavior Worst-Case Scenario

The Fire Specialist on the RCI Field Teams described the worst-case wildfire scenarios included in this report based on an analysis of the severe fire behavior that could occur given a set of weather conditions, observed fuel load conditions, slope, aspect, and minimal fire suppression resources. Dry vegetation combined with steep slopes or high winds during drought conditions can create situations in which the worst-case wildfire scenario might occur. These scenarios describe a maximum potential for loss of property and, in some cases, human lives. The worst-case scenario does not describe the most likely outcome of a wildfire in the interface but illustrates the potential for damage if a given set of conditions were to occur simultaneously. Worst-case scenarios were developed to serve two purposes: to assist in public education efforts and to be considered during development of fuel reduction recommendations.

2.4 Interviews with Fire Personnel

The RCI Project Team interviewed local fire department personnel and regional agency Fire Management Officers to obtain information on wildfire training, emergency response time, personnel and equipment availability, evacuation plans, pre-attack plans, and estimates of possible worst-case scenarios. Local fire personnel reviewed maps showing the history of wildfires to ensure that available, local information on wildland fires was included. Refer to Appendix C for a list of persons contacted.

2.5 Recommendation Development

A wide variety of treatments and alternative measures can be used to reduce ignition risks, to mitigate fire hazards, and to promote fire safe communities. Proposed recommendations typically include physical removal or reduction of flammable vegetation, increased community awareness of the risk of fires and how to reduce those risks, and coordination among fire suppression agencies to optimize efforts and resources. The RCI Project Team met repeatedly to review community risks, treatment alternatives, and treatment benefits. Treatment recommendations were formulated based on professional experience, quantitative hazard assessment, and information developed in conjunction with the National Fire Plan, FIREWISE resources (National Fire Plan website; FIREWISE website; Nevada Cooperative Extension publications). See Section 11.0 for a comprehensive listing of references used in the compilation of this report.The recommendations included in this report are considered high priorities for individual communities and are presented in a relative order of importance.