Catron County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
PLANNING PROCESS

• Home page
• CWPP Title Page
• Table of Contents
• Declaration of Agreement and Concurrence
• Preface & Introduction
• Planning Process
• Community Profile
• Planning for the Future
• Monitoring & Evaluation
• Appendix 1 - data
• Appendix 2 - maps
• Downloads

Collection and Preparation of Data

An Information Needs Assessment (INA) was done to outline the information needed to accomplish the desired analysis. A copy of the INA is in the project record. Geospatial data was acquired from many sources including the Gila and Cibola National Forests, Catron County, BLM, The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project, SWNM Interagency FRCC, electric power companies and telephone companies. Over 100 maps of data were collected and processed to produce 20 input maps for the main model and 9 input maps for the WUI model. Without the cooperation of many agencies and individuals it would have been impossible to assemble the data needed for this analysis.

Analysis Model Development

Extensive testing of trial designs were involved in developing the modeling portion of the analysis. The analysis concepts were first modeled in a spreadsheet environment. The results of these tests received extensive peer review by wildlife biologists, foresters, fire management specialists and geographic information systems experts involved in this project.

The actual model was developed in the GIS program ArcView and is in two parts. The first is a model to determine the treatment priorities at the County and HUC 6 watershed levels. The second part is an adaptation of the "initial priority" portion of the first model and was used to determine the treatment priorities at the WUI level of the analysis. A full explanation of the model can be found in the appendix. Appendix Volume 2 Data (page 26) Also the electronic copy of the model can be accessed for detailed documentation and information about weighting constants and calculations used.

Weighting constants as explained in more detail in the Appendix were based on public priorities of concerns and were used to give appropriate weight to the various components of the analysis outlined above. See Appendix Volume 2 Data (page 51)

Treatment Priority Determination by WUI and HUC6 Watersheds

The final treatment priorities for HUC 6 watersheds and WUI areas were determined by a weighted average of model calculations for individual cells as shown in the Final Priority maps for HUC 6 watersheds and WUI areas. See Appendix Volume 2 Data (page 30-33)

Model Validation

Model validation is an ongoing process.  As planning of individual communities and projects develops, the results of the analysis will be checked in detail on the ground.

The model for this plan summarizes data about existing conditions into relative ratings of high, medium and low for fire threat and treatment prioritiesl and is quite simple as models go. The most complicated part of the math is about 8th grade level and most is simple addition and multiplication. The model is not predictive, i.e. it does not predict future condition or behavior resulting from the existing conditions and variables such as weather and/or different methods of treatment. Validation of a model such as used for this plan is very different from the validation of the accuracy of a predictive model.

The validation of the model used for this plan was built into the planning process so that there would not be "last minute" validation to be done after the analysis was completed. The initial test modeling was done in a spreadsheet where the various factors to be considered, their assigned values and the weighting of those factors were arranged to determine ratings for fire threat, values at risk, risk of occurrence and treatment priority. Test calculations in this spreadsheet enabled easy checking of the math due to the small scale, for example: the maximum and minimum possible for each numerical rating was calculated to determine the full range possible for each rating. This spreadsheet model was developed, revised and perfected through discussions about the factors, values and their relative importance with the analysis team, core group members and with fire management and fire ecology specialists (some of which have advanced degrees, all of which have extensive experience). Also public input on the factors and weighting (relative importance) of the factors was used to revise and validate the proposed process.

The GIS model (using model builder) in ArcView was then built by simply entering the calculations developed in the spreadsheet and appropriate GIS data sources. Test runs of the model confirmed that the model calculation results were the same as in the spreadsheet tests. Then full scale runs of the model gave map and data results that were reviewed and compared with maps and data of the existing conditions and with available Gila NF modeling of Fire Regime Condition Class. The model results were presented at various core group and public meetings across the County and some outside the County such as before the New Mexico Task Force for Fire Planning in Santa Fe. A technical review of the model was made by the Gila Nat. Forest Fire Ecologist and a certified ESRI (ArcView, etc) instructor (USFS Contractor). To date no unexpected anomalies have been found in the results. The model is now receiving further validation during the planning of individual community and wildland projects where the data is be reviewed in greater detail. Should problems become apparent, the model can be easily modified to reflect corrected fire threat and treatment priorities.

Second Stage Public Involvement

The second stage of the public involvement community meetings took place after the data analysis was complete. The purpose of these meetings was to solicit one last round of review of the process used and recommendations to be made in the draft plan. More specifically these meetings presented the analysis results, reviewed the fuels treatment accomplishments to date, sought input on types of treatments to be recommended and laid out the work plan for carrying the plan through to actual accomplishment of on-the-ground work. A series of 8 meetings around the County were held during this stage.

Draft Plan

An existing Action Plan written by the 20 Communities group was "rolled over" into this Plan. Almost from the beginning it was agreed the CWPP would have two basic parts: a summary and appendices. The summary was envisioned to be brief and easily understood by the public. The appendices on the other hand would contain detailed, technical explanations of the process, analysis and results.

Once the Draft Plan was completed, it was presented for review to the Catron County Commission, and was made available to the public at the Commission office and online for a 30 day comment period.

Public Comment

All comments will be available in the Appendix after the 30 day review period. See Appendix Volume 2 Data (page 81)

Final Plan

The Final Plan was presented to the Catron County Commission at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Upon approval by the Commission , this CWPP was presented to the New Mexico State Forestry Department and the Catron County Rural Fire Department for signatures of approval.

Copies of this CWPP have been provided to the partner agencies with solicitation of letters of approval; these letters are incorporated into the Appendix of this document.

Contact Catron County Commission office for a CD. ArcView capability is required. (505) 533-6423 or ccommiss3@gilanet.com