SOUTHWEST UTAH 
REGIONAL WILDFIRE  
PROTECTION PLAN 
Prepared by the
Five County Association of Governments 
1070 W. 1600 S., Bldg. B  
St. George, UT 84770 
In cooperation with the 
Color Country Interagency Fire Center  
1748 West Kitty Hawk Dr.  
Cedar City, UT 84720   
Adopted October 2007 

Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Table of Contents
Table of Contents
                      Page #
Executive Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Chapter One: Introduction 
1.1 Overview of Regional and Community Wildfire Protection Plans. . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Overview of Federal Programs for Wildfire Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.3 RWPP Planning Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.4 Project Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
1.5 Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
1.6 Definition of Wildland-Urban Interface in the Planning Region. . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
1.7 Communities At Risk (CARs).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22
1.8 Communities Values At Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-34
Chapter Two: Regional and County Background    
2.1 The Lands at Risk  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Current Vegetation Types and Fire Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.3 Beaver County Land Cover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.4 Garfield County Land Cover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.5 Iron County Land Cover  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.6 Kane County Land Cover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.7 Washington County Land Cover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.8 Cheatgrass Invasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.9 Southwestern Utah Regional Profile   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.10 Geography and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.11 Physical Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.12 Transportation Corridors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.13 Climate  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.14 Responsibility for Wildland Fire Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.15 Fire Response Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.16 Community Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.17 Contents of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2.18 Adopted Community Fire Plans in Southwest Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
Table of Contents
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Table of Contents
Chapter Three: Community Risk Assessment
3.1 Community Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Risk Assessment Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.3 Risk Assessment Methodology   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.4 Risk Assessment Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.5 Risk Assessment Residential Values By County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.6 Risk Assessment Residential Values By County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.7 Southwest Utah Risk Assessment Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Chapter Four: Regional Focus Area Recommendations
4.1 Focus Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Focus Areas Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3 Focus Areas Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
Chapter Five: Implementation & Monitoring Strategies
5.1 Steps to Implement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Chapter Six: Summary of the Plan
6.1  Summary of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Appendix A County Ownership Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B  Local Fire Department Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping Report. . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic 
Profiles by County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Appendix E Comments on draft document received from the public
and members of  Local Emergency Preparedness
Committees    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Southwest Utah Plants and Animals Habitat Maps . . . . . . F-1
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan i
Executive Summary
Wildland fires are a natural part
of the ecosystems of Southwest
Utah and over the years have
s h a p e d  t h e  f o r e s t s  a n d
rangelands.  However, the
forests and rangelands in
Southwest Utah have been
significantly altered, especially in
the last 50 years or so,  resulting
in increased forest fuels and
more closed forests that tend to
burn more intensely than in the
past. In addition, population
growth has led to residential
development occurring close to
the forests and rangelands in
what is called a wildland-urban
interface area or "WUI". 
To address these issues, a multi
jurisdictional group of agencies,
organizations, and individuals
have collaborated to develop the Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan,
hereinafter referred to as "SURWPP".  
The purpose of the SURWPP is to be a tool in the effort to protect human life and reduce
property loss due to catastrophic wildland fires in the communities and surrounding areas
located in the southwest Utah counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington. 
This plan has been created in recognition of firefighter safety and the existing potential for
personal harm and property damage to residents living in the WUI areas of Southwest Utah.
Although reducing the threat of wildland fires is the primary motivation behind this plan,
managing the forests and rangelands for hazardous fuel reduction and fire resilience is a
part of the larger picture. 
Residents and visitors alike want healthy, fire resilient forests that provide habitat for
wildlife, recreational opportunities, and scenic beauty.  As communities grow and as new
communities are developed, urban areas encroach upon wildland ecosystems to create a
situation where flammable wildland fuels are in close proximity to houses and community
structures. This problem creates conflicts between a community and its wildland
surroundings. 
This planning process represents a portion of the long term investment that local, state and
federal agencies are making to help protect  natural resources, critical infrastructure,
Recent wildland-urban interface fire near the town of New Harmony in
northern Washington County.   Photo source: Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and
State Lands.
Executive Summary
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan ii
community facilities, businesses
and residential structures, and
most importantly the lives of
firefighters and the public. 
This plan epitomizes a long-term
commitment based on cooperation
and communication between the
state of Utah Division of Forestry,
Fire and State Lands, federal
agencies, local governments, and
the interested public.
The SURWPP begins with an
overview that includes the forests
and associated lands at risk. This
also includes the people, the
Community Assistance Program,
and the principles advocated in
this plan. Each  county in
Southwest Utah is analyzed, together with
current fuel hazard reduction efforts. 
The serious problem of invasive cheatgrass is
discussed in detail in a report by Scott Tobler
which is presented in its entirety in Appendix
C.
The planning process includes convening of
the decision makers, development of a "core"
team of professionals, establishment of
regional base maps, with comprehensive
community risk assessments that include
communities at risk, and local firefighting
capabilities. The Plan concludes with an
action plan and assessment strategies. 
The most recent authority for community fire
planning comes under the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). Title III of
HFRA provides guidance for developing
Community Wildfire Protection Plans
(CWPP's). This project is developing a
regionally-based plan we are calling a regional
wildfire protection plan, or RWPP. 
Illustration showing the state of Utah with the general area of southwest
Utah highlighted.
Map of Utah illustrating the five geographical areas of the
state where regional wildfire protection plans have been
prepared.
Executive Summary
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan iii
Utah regions with a RWPP in place may receive significant benefits in the future should
funding be appropriated through HFRA for fuels reduction and fire prevention. HFRA
provides clear guidance for what should be developed in a Wildfire Protection Plan. The
SURWPP is designed to addresses the CWPP requirements, along with guidelines and
requirements in the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the National Fire Plan, and
other state and federal programs. 
The SURWPP identifies and prioritizes issues related to wildfire prevention and fuel
mitigation in the Wildland-Urban Interface areas of southwestern Utah on a large scale. The
intent of this plan is to capture landscape level information. This plan is not intended to
interfere with or take the place of state of Utah Community Fire Plan's process and results.
The SURWPP will result in defensible space reduction planning at a landscaping level. In
addition to providing oversight and guidance in planning objectives, the heart of this plan
is a collaborative effort to promote the interest, education, and long-term involvement
within the residents of Southwest Utah in realizing the danger of wildfire and identifying
strategies that will reduce the risk around their homes and in their communities.
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLANS
Wildland fires are a natural part of the ecosystems of Southwest Utah and over the years
have shaped the forests and rangelands.  However, the forests and rangelands in Southwest
Utah have been significantly altered, especially in the last 50 years or so, resulting in
increased fuels and fires that tend to burn more intensely than in the past. In addition,
population growth has led to residential development occurring close to the forests and
rangelands, in what is called the Wildland-Urban Interface or “WUI”. 
To address these issues, a multi jurisdictional group of agencies, organizations, and
individuals have collaborated to develop the Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection
Plan, hereinafter also referred to as "SURWPP".  
The purpose of the SURWPP is to be a tool in the effort to protect human life and reduce
property loss due to catastrophic wildland fires in the communities and surrounding areas
located in the Southwest Utah counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington.
This plan has been created in recognition of firefighter safety and the existing potential for
personal harm and property damage to residents living in the WUI areas of Southwest Utah.
Although reducing the threat of wildland fires is the primary motivation behind this plan,
managing the forests and rangelands for hazardous fuel reduction and fire resilience is a
part of the larger picture. 
Residents and visitors alike want healthy, fire resilient forests that provide habitat for
wildlife, recreational opportunities, and scenic beauty.  As communities grow and as new
communities are developed, urban areas encroach upon wildland ecosystems to create a
situation where flammable wildland fuels are in close proximity to houses and community
structures. This problem creates conflicts between a community and its wildland
surroundings. 
This planning process represents a portion of the long term investments that local, state and
federal agencies are making to help protect  natural resources, critical infrastructure,
community facilities, businesses and residential structures, and most importantly the lives
of firefighters and the public.  This plan epitomizes a long-term commitment based on
cooperation and communication between the State of Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands,
federal agencies, local governments, and the interested public. The SURWPP begins with
an overview that includes the forests and associated lands at risk. This also includes the
people, the Community Assistance Program, and the principles advocated in this plan. Each
county in Southwest Utah is analyzed, together with current fuel hazard reduction efforts.
The planning process includes convening of the decision makers, development of a “core”
team of professionals, establishment of regional base maps, with comprehensive community
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 2
risk assessments that include communities at risk, and local firefighting capabilities. The
Plan concludes with an action plan and assessment strategies. 
The most recent authority
f o r  c o m m u n i t y  f i r e
planning comes under the
H e a l t h y  F o r e s t s
Restoration Act of 2003
(HFRA). Title III of HFRA
provides guidance for
developing Community
Wildfire Protection Plans
(CWPPs). This project
developed a regionally-
based plan we have called
a  R e g io n al  W ild f i r e
Protection Plan, or RWPP.
 
Utah regions with an RWPP in place may receive significant benefits in the future should
funding be appropriated through HFRA for fuels reduction and fire prevention. HFRA
provides clear guidance for what should be developed in a Wildfire Protection Plan. The
Southwest Utah RWPP is designed to addresses the CWPP requirements, along with
guidelines and requirements in the FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the National
Fire Plan, and other state and federal programs. 
This Regional Wildfire Protection Plan for Southwest Utah identifies and prioritizes issues
related to wildfire prevention and fuel mitigation in the Wildland-Urban Interface areas on
a large scale. The intent of this plan is to capture landscape level information. This plan is
not intended to interfere with or take the place of state of Utah “Community Fire Plan”
process and results. The Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan will result in
defensible space reduction planning at a landscaping level. In addition to providing
oversight and guidance in planning objectives, the heart of this plan is a collaborative effort
to promote the interest, education, and long-term involvement within the residents of
Southwest Utah in realizing the danger of wildfire and identifying strategies that will reduce
the risk around their homes and in their communities.  
The Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan (SURWPP) is one of five regional
plans covering each of the wildfire planning and protection regions of Utah. The goal of
each RWPP is to assist the region and its counties, communities, and government agencies
in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires within that region. 
Wildland fires in Southwestern Utah are well documented; yet in the past there has been
limited awareness about the investment required to maintain sufficient fire protection.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 3
However, the scale of the community protection task is enormous. In short, many
communities in Southwestern Utah are surrounded by massive amounts of accumulated
fuel which must be removed or modified. Over the past decades, and updated by current
Community Fire Risk Assessments, it has become clear that the possibility of a major
disaster, in the form of uncontrollable wildfires has grown enormously. There is no other
time in the area’s recorded history with such a high potential for disaster.  
1.2 OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION
Summary of the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of
2003, and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The National Fire Plan of 2000 (NFP) was initiated by the Secretaries of the United States
Department of the Interior (USDI) and the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to address the needs of firefighters, private land and home owners, and
governmental land management agencies. The National Fire Plan (NFP) is not an actual
document, but a nationally coordinated effort to protect communities and natural resources
from the harmful effects of increasing wildland fire occurrences and severity in the United
States.  Acting as an umbrella the NFP established the purpose and goals, which are
articulated and carried forward through the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDA 2001),
the Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources (USDA
2001), and other supporting documents. The four primary goals of the National Fire Plan
are:
1. Improve fire prevention and suppression.   
2. Reduce hazardous fuels.
3. Restore fire adapted ecosystems.
4. Promote community assistance.
To provide a more detailed framework for accomplishing the goals of the National Fire Plan
the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy was prepared in 2001 by the USDI, USDA, and the
Western Governors Association. This strategy emphasizes a collaborative community-based
approach to address wildland fire issues and identifies guiding principles and management
actions for agencies to follow in implementing the National Fire Plan. The five guiding
principles of the Comprehensive Strategy include:
1. Public and firefighter safety is the first priority in all fire management operations.
2. Prioritize hazardous fuels reduction where the negative impacts of wildland fire are
the greatest.
3. Prevent invasive species and restore watershed function and biological communities
through short-term stabilization and long-term rehabilitation.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 4
4. Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize
uncharacteristically severe fires on a priority watershed basis through long-term
restoration.
5. Promote better fire prevention planning and action in local communities through
technical assistance and cost sharing incentives. 
As part of the NFP, the Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Natural
Resources was prepared in 2000 by the USDA. It projects the quantity and rate of fuel
reduction treatments required on a landscape scale to restore fire adapted ecosystems and
protect communities from increasing wildland fire. Under current conditions the Cohesive
Strategy estimates fuel reduction treatments needed to increase five-fold in order to achieve
the goals. It also concludes that treatments are needed both within and outside the
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas.
The NFP,  HFRA, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FEMA’s Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000, provided landmark legislation, guidance, and statutory incentives
to several agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service (USFS,) the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM,) and the Utah Division of Natural Resources through the Division of
Forestry, Fire and State Lands. These agencies have joined together to confront the urgency
of an unprecedented wildfire threat.
In  December of 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the HFRA of 2003. This
legislation encouraged ground floor public participation during the development and
assessment process and in working with state, federal and local leaders to decrease
hazardous fuels and maintain environmental principles. The Healthy Forests Initiative gives
guidance for the nation’s forests and rangelands through the use of scientific principles to
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires in or near communities, to help save the lives of
residents and firefighting personnel, and to protect wildlife and nature’s endangered
species.
The purpose of the HFRA is to:
•
Development of high priority forest health projects through public participation.
• Diminish complicated and involved environmental investigation procedures  thus
allowing federal land agencies to vigorously administer the land under their
stewardship by using the best scientific techniques.
• Plan for and provide a more adequate appeal procedure by encouraging initial public
participation near the beginning of the project planning process.
• Issue comprehensible directions for court conflicts aimed against forest health
projects.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 5
The HFRA builds on existing efforts to restore healthy forest conditions near communities
and essential community infrastructure by authorizing expedited environmental
assessment, administrative appeals, and legal review for hazardous fuels projects on federal
land. The act emphasizes the need for federal and state agencies to work collaboratively
with communities in developing hazardous fuel reduction projects, and it places priority on
treatment areas identified by communities in their Community Fire Plans.
The HFRA has received strong support throughout the Five County area of Southwest Utah,
at a local level, as well as from the State of Utah Forestry, Fires and State Lands; the Color
Country Fuels Committee; the U.S. Forest Service and the National Parks Service; and other
federal and state agencies. 
The HFRA provides communities with a tremendous opportunity to influence where and
how federal agencies implement fuel reduction projects on federal lands and how additional
federal funds may be distributed for projects under the Community Assistance Program for
projects on non federal lands. A Community Fire Plan (CFP) is the most effective way to
take advantage of this opportunity.
HFRA is also supported by the Southwest Utah Support Area (SUSA) representing the
Bureau of Land Management. SUSA’s purpose is to establish firefighter and public safety
as their priority in all fire management activities, along with a collaborative effort to reduce
wildfire risk to communities SUSA is a long-term commitment based on cooperation and
communication among federal agencies and state agencies, local governments, Native
American tribes, and interested private citizens. Included in the SUSA is a Fire Management
Plan (FMP).  Additional information on the Fire Management Plan is available through
http://fpa.nifc.gov 
This Fire Management Plan encompasses 5,141,154 million acres of Bureau of Land
Management administered lands within the SUSA. Because the boundaries of the SUSA
include federal, state, and private lands, an effective fire management program requires
close coordination among local and regional jurisdictions. Information available in the FMA
will help to refine and strengthen the ongoing fire management coordination efforts of the
BLM, Arizona Strip Field Office, the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), National Park Service, (NPS), and Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 6
1.3 RWPP PLANNING PROCESS
A variety of agreements are currently utilized to coordinate the fire management program
of the SUSA with the Dixie National Forest (DNF), Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands, National Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  The agencies jointly conduct
mutual interest projects, within their authority, to maintain and improve fire management
capabilities. The agencies and local governments are collaborating with the Five County
Association of Governments to initiate this SURWPP. These efforts are part of the
community assistance/protections planning efforts developed through public meetings
within the region’s Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Future projects may involve such
activities as prescribed by fire/fuels management personnel, a detailed pre-suppression
plan, preparedness preparations, rehabilitation of chemically and mechanically removed
fuel areas, prevention and education to communities involved, and public affairs news
releases.
Discussions prior to and during the development of the regional Fuel Management Plan
(FMP) included federal, state, county, public, and tribal groups within the Southern Utah
Support Areas (SUSA)which resulted in a coordinated FMP.  At the federal level, the BLM
conducted briefings and coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service and the USFWS.
Information sharing among all the interested parties was of high importance to the SUSA,
and has been a top priority since the preliminary and developmental stages of the Fire
Management Plans of 2001 and 2003.  
Several laws and Executive Orders exist to ensure that the BLM consults with federally
recognized Native American tribes when planning a project or activity. The Southern Utah
Support Areas invited the Paiute tribal staff to participate in the development of the
Southern Utah Support Areas Fire Management Plan. The SUSA will continue to meet the
federal trust guidelines. Government-to-government consultation with the BIA will be
initiated through the Southern Utah Support Area early in any project planning process.
Local sovereign Native American tribal governments and other interested groups will also
continue to be informed and consulted as the information and strategies in the Fire
Management Plan are updated.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements under Title 44 CFR
Part 201 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 have been adopted by the State of Utah and
each of the five southwestern counties. This legislation specifies criteria for state and local
hazard mitigation planning which require local and Native American tribal governments
applying for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funds to have an approved local mitigation
plan. These may include county-wide or multi-jurisdictional plans as long as all jurisdictions
adopt the plan. Eligible activities for funding include management costs, information
dissemination, planning and technical assistance, and mitigation projects.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 7
A public informational meeting was held on July 7, 2004, in Cedar City, Utah to discuss the
FMP and the planning process. Public comments were also solicited. The meeting helped
provide the groundwork that resulted in developing the processes through which this plan
was formulated.
To provide communities with guidance in developing a wildfire protection plan, the Society
of American Foresters, along with the National Association of Counties, National
Association of State Foresters, Western Governors' Association, and the Communities
Committee developed a “how to” handbook entitled "Preparing a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities". That
handbook outlined eight steps, shown in Table 1.1, for developing a CWPP, and provided
guidance in preparing this Southwest Utah RWPP. 
Table 1.1 - Eight Steps for Developing a CWPP
Step One:  Convene Decision-makers. Form a core team composed of representatives from the
appropriate local   governments, local fire authorities, and state agencies responsible for forest, fire, and
hazard management.
Step Two:  Involve Federal Agencies. Identify and engage local representatives of the USFS and BLM.
Contact and involve other federal land management agencies as appropriate. 
Step Three:  Engage Interested Parties. Contact a broad range of interested organizations and
stakeholders and encourage their active public involvement in plan development.
Step Four: Establish a Community Base Map. Work with decision-makers and stakeholders on a
baseline map of the region that depicts the communities' WUIs, other inhabited areas at risk, forested
areas that contain critical human infrastructure, and forested areas at risk of large-scale fire disturbance.
Step Five: Develop a Community Risk Assessment. Work with partners to develop a community risk
assessment that considers fuel hazards; risk of wildfire occurrence; homes, businesses, and essential
infrastructure at risk; other community values at risk (CVARs); and local preparedness capability. Rate
the level of risk for each factor and incorporate into the base map as appropriate.
Step Six:  Establish Community Priorities and Recommendations. Use the base map and risk assessment
to identify local priorities for fuels treatments, opportunities to reduce structural ignitability, and other
issues of interest. Clearly indicate whether priority projects are directly related to 1) protection of
communities and essential infrastructure or 2) reduction of wildfire risks to other CVARs.
Step Seven: Develop an Action Plan and Assessment Strategy. Develop a detailed implementation
strategy to accompany the CWPP, as well as a monitoring plan that will ensure its long-term success.
Step Eight: Finalize CWPP. Finalize the CWPP and communicate the results to regional and community
leaders, decision-makers, and key partners.
Source: Society of American Foresters, 2004
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 8
The Five County Association of Governments was contracted to help facilitate stakeholder
and Core Team meetings, undertake a risk assessment, facilitate public meetings and
compile public comments, and write the plan document. 
Step One – Involved Local, State, and Federal Agencies 
Stakeholders Advisory Committee 
The initial step in developing this regional wildfire protection plan was the formation of an
operating group with representation from local government, local fire authorities, federal
land management agencies, and the state agency (Forestry, Fire and State Lands)
responsible for wildland management. Together, these entities form the core decision-
making team that is responsible for the development of this RWPP.  The Stakeholder
Advisory Committee must mutually agree on the plan’s final contents.  The stakeholders for
this planning process are listed in Table 1.2. 
Table 1.2 - Stakeholder Advisory Committee 
Billie Dalton Beaver County Commission
Sheriff Mark Gower Iron County Sheriffs Office
Al Cooper Community Support Officer, Utah Dept. of
Emergency Services, Division of Homeland Security
Richard Holland Fire Chief, New Harmony Fire Protection District
Mayor Bruce Harris Glendale Town
Jim Hubble President, Rainbow Meadows Water Users Assoc.
Jeff Hunt Fire Chief, Enterprise City
Ken Johnson Fire Chief, Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District
Ken Olson Beaver City
Commissioner Clare Ramsey Garfield County Commission
John Schmidt Utah Forestry, Fire & State Lands
Brandon Smith Fire Chief, Panguitch Lake Fire Protection District
Commissioner Wayne Smith Iron County Commission
Anne Stanworth Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City Office
Vicki Tyler Coordinator, Color Country RC&D Council
Les Whitney Chair, Beaver County LEPC
Core Team
Members of the Core Team share perspectives, priorities, and other information relevant
to the planning process. Because of their on-the-ground experience, mapping capabilities,
and knowledge of natural resource planning, these local land management professionals
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 9
are key partners. In some landscapes, they are largely responsible for implementing the
priorities established in this RWPP.  The Core Team members are listed in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 - Core Team Members 
Susan Bailey State of Utah Foresty, Fire & State Lands
Paul Briggs Bureau of Land Management 
Walter Burdick F.M.O., Bureau of Land Management 
Bruce Fields F.M.O., U.S. Park Service, Bryce Canyon 
National Park
Al Cooper Community Support Officer, Utah Dept. of Emergency
Services, Division of Homeland Security
Joseph Fluder SWCA Environmental Consultants
Kevin Greenhalgh U.S.F.S. Dixie National Forest
George Humphries Beaver County Fire Warden
JoAnn Larsen U.S.F.S. Fuels Planner
Earl Lavanger Kane County Fire Warden
Susan Marzec Bureau of Land Management 
Mike Melton F.M.O., State of Utah Forestry, Fires and State Lands
Vacant F.M.O., U.S. Park Service, Zion National Park 
Ryan Riddle Iron County Fire Warden
John Schmidt State of Utah Foresty, Fire & State Lands
Vacant Washington County Fire Warden
Josh Soper Garfield County Fire Warden
Jeramie Ybright F.M.O., Southern Paiute Agency
Vicki Tyler Coordinator, Color Country RC&D Council
Step Three – Engaged Interested Parties
Step Three involved encouraging local participation from interested organizations and
stakeholders throughout the planning process. As early as possible, Core Team members
contacted and sought active involvement from key stakeholders and constituencies such as:
• Existing collaborative forest management groups
• City/County Council/Commission members
• Resource Advisory Committees
• Local and /or state emergency management agencies
• Watershed councils
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 10
Step Four – Developed GIS Maps
Using GIS technology and available data, as well as local expertise from the Core Team, a
base map for each county was developed. A general ownership map for the region is
presented as Map 1.2.  A more detailed ownership map for each county is presented in
Appendix A. The following were key outcomes of the digital mapping:
• Identified critical infrastructure at risk, i.e., major power lines, etc.
• Identified areas of extreme, high, medium or low wildfire risk by county.
• Identified, quantified and estimated values of residential structures when they were
within a WUI area.
Step Five – Developed a Risk Assessment
• In an interagency effort, assembled a risk assessment that considered fuel hazards,
risk of wildfire occurrences.
• Identified community values at risk.
• Identified local preparedness capability.
• Incorporated the risk levels into the maps where appropriate.
The risk assessment includes:
• Fuel Hazards: To the extent possible at a landscape scale, the Plan evaluated the
vegetative fuels on federal and non federal land within or near CARs and the WUI
areas.  The Plan identified general areas where the condition of vegetative fuels is
such that, if ignited, would pose a significant threat to the community or essential
community infrastructure. State and federal resource planning documents were used
as a valuable source of information on local forest and public land conditions.
• Risk of Wildfire Occurrence:  Using historical data and local knowledge, the Plan
identified common causes and relative frequency of wildfires in the regional area.
• Residential Units and Essential Infrastructure at Risk: The Plan categorizes all
identified WUI’s using risk rating of extreme, high, medium, or low on the base map.
The plan does not segregate the residential structures into separate tables for low,
medium, high or extreme risk.  The plan does, however, quantify the acreages and
percentage of each WUI that is in each level of risk.
• Local Preparedness and Firefighting Capability: The Plan contains information on
local/county/regional structural fire and wildfire fighting capabilities and
preparedness information.  These are presented in Appendix B.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 11
Step Six – Established Focus Areas and Recommendations
The regional assessment and the base maps were developed through participation of the
Core Team and local public participation.  A key objective of these discussions was the
development of focus areas for fuel treatment projects on federal and non federal lands in
the WUI, along with recommendations for potential treatment methods for those areas.
Recommended priorities of the SURWPP:
• Improve wildland fire prevention and suppression safety
• Reduce hazardous fuels
• Improve restoration of fire dependent ecosystems
• Provide community assistance
Step Seven – Developed an Action/Strategic Plan
• Prioritized the values to be protected, and develop strategies to accomplish desired
outcomes.
• Identified responsible parties and timetables to accomplish general goals.
Step Eight – Finalized the RWPP
The final steps in completing the Regional Plan will be to present the Plan to the
Stakeholders Committee for concurrence. The Plan was  presented to the Steering
Committee of the Five County Association of Governments, the Natural Resources
Committee and finally to each of the five County Commissions in southwest Utah for
adoption and signature.
The serious problem of invasive cheatgrass is discussed in detail in a report by Scott Tobler
which is presented in its entirety in Appendix C.
1.4 PROJECT BOUNDARY
Originally the State of Utah and the BLM planned on organizing the RWPP by Interagency
Fire Center coverage area. To better address county or community funding requests, the Core
Teams for each of the five regions were aligned by county boundaries.  Thus, the Southwest
Utah region encompasses the counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington.
Also, contained within the boundaries of the southwest district are lands belonging to several
recognized Bands of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. 
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 12
Map 1.1 illustrates the five county area of Utah comprising the area covered by this
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan that also identifies the County Seat of
each County.  Map 1.2 illustrates five county area of Utah and identifies the land ownership
in the area covered by this plan. 
1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A county commission meeting in each of the five counties was attended by staff of the Five
County Association of Governments. The presentation made by staff was designed to educate
the public about the goals of the plan and to solicit input from community leaders and the
general public regarding wildfire issues and concerns. These commission meetings were
conducted in the county seats of each of the counties covered by the RWPP. 
The SURWPP project was introduced to the elected officials and the public during county
commission meetings held during August and September of 2006 in each of the five
counties. The following were the specific dates of those meetings:
• August 15, 2006 - Washington County Commission meeting
• August 28, 2006 - Garfield County Commission meeting; Kane County Commission
meeting
• September 5, 2006 - Beaver County Commission meeting
• September 11, 2006 - Iron County Commission meeting
Throughout the process of developing this plan, the Core Team was involved. Numerous
meetings were held, mostly at the Color Country Interagency Fire Center in Cedar City. 
A public draft was presented by the staff of the Five County Association of Governments in
June 2007 at “Open House” presentations advertised locally in each of the five counties of
southwestern Utah.  These were held in the following locations:
• June 11, 2007 in Beaver City
• June 13, 2007 in Kanab City
• June 15, 2007 in Cedar City
• June 19, 2007 in St. George City
• June 28, 2007 at Ruby’s Inn in Garfield County
The draft was also available online at www.fcaog.state.ut.us/wildfire.html.   In addition to
the open houses, the plan was presented to the Local Emergency Planning Committees
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 13
(LEPC) in each of the five counties. The meetings of the LEPCs coincided with the dates of
the advertised open house meetings.  
Comments were solicited from attendees at the open house presentations as well as at the
LEPC meetings.  The aforementioned web site also solicited comments and provided an e-
mail address as well as alternatives to provide comments. Copies of comments received are
provided in Appendix E.
 
1.6 DEFINITION OF WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) IN THE PLANNING REGION
Wildland fires pose a threat to residents, homes, infrastructure and firefighters when they
occur near to and spread into the WUI, which is commonly defined as the geographic area
where residential development intermixes with wildland or vegetative fire.  Federal
legislation, such as the National Fire Plan and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, place a
priority on defining risk in the WUI area. Under the HFRA, at least 50% of all funds
appropriated for projects must be used within a defined WUI.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 14
Map 1.1 County Seat Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 15
Map 1.2 - Regional Ownership Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 16
The Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Core Team held several meetings and
agreed upon a description of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in southwestern Utah for
the purposes of this document.
All categories of WUI zones are based upon location of Communities At Risk (CARs) and
boundaries of "Level 12 Watersheds".  The description of the watersheds used for this Plan
(e.g. 12-digit HUC watershed) is based on the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system, which
is a standard watershed map system used by state and federal agencies.  Watersheds in each
mapping level are progressively subdivided into smaller watershed mapping levels, and with
each subdivision, two digits are added to maintain a unique identifier code for each
watershed. The 5  level (10-digit HUC) and 6  level (12-digit HUC) of watershed mappingth th
are most relevant to individual National Forests. This Plan uses the 12-digit HUC.  If  a  CARs
community is located on the edge of a watershed, a 1.5 mile radius from the community was
extended beyond the watershed boundary.
There are three categories (types) of WUI, the Interface, Intermix and Occluded.  The risk
assessment of specific Community at Risks (CARs) describes the category (Class) found at
each CAR.
WUI maps, which also identify the Communities At Risk, in each of the five counties, are
presented in Maps 1.3 through 1.7.
Category 1 – Interface
Structures directly abut wildland fuels.  There is a clear line of demarcation between residential,
business, and public structures & wildland fuels.  Wildland fuels do not generally continue into
the developed area.  The development density for an interface community is usually 3 or more
structures per acre, with shared municipal services.  Fire protection is generally provided by a local
government fire department with the responsibility to protect the structure from both an interior
fire and an advancing wildland fire.
Category II – Intermix
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 development density
in the Intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres.  Fire
protection districts funded by various taxing authorities normally provide life and property fire
protection and may also have wildland fire protection responsibilities.
Category III – Occluded
Generally exists in a situation, often within a city, where structures abut an island of wildland fuels
(e.g., park or open space).  There is a clear line of demarcation between structures and wildland
fuels.  The development density for an occluded community is usually similar to those found in
an interface community, but the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size.   
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 17
Map 1.3 - Beaver County WUI Boundary Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 18
Map 1.4 - Garfield County WUI Boundary Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 19
Map 1.5 - Iron County WUI Boundary Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 20
Map 1.6 - Kane County WUI Boundary Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 21
Map 1.7 - Washington County WUI Boundary Map
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 22
1.7 COMMUNITIES AT RISK (CARS)
Using National Fire Plan guidelines, the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands
(UDFFSL) has worked with national and local wildland fire officials to create a statewide
list of CARs. As of 2005, there were over 600 communities listed statewide and 148 are
located in the southwestern Utah region.
The Color Country Fuels Committee (CCFC), comprised of representatives from state and
federal fire management programs in southwest Utah, has been nationally recognized for
its work in hazardous fuel treatments. Beginning in 2000, the CCFC undertook an intensive
assessment of the 148 identified communities at risk (CARs) in the Color Country fire
management response area. These assessments have been the foundation for prioritizing
fuels treatments, determining focus areas, and targeting the development of Community
Wildfire Protection Plans within the Color Country Interagency Fire Management area. 
The CCFC compiled data that included standardized internal and external risk assessments,
digital photos, maps, and other information to prioritize hazardous fuels target areas and
to aid in suppression efforts. A large amount of data was generated through this process,
housed at local offices and at the Color Country Interagency dispatch center. In 2004, the
Committee chose to organize and centralize the data by creating a database which could be
accessible to all agency partners and all field offices in Color Country. The original
assessments and the Community Fire Plans that have been generated from them are housed
at the Interagency Dispatch Center in Cedar City.
Each CARs was given a score ranging from 0 (no risk) to 12 (extreme risk) based on the sum
of multiple risk factors (e.g., fire history, local vegetation, firefighting capabilities) analyzed
in every area. The scoring system allows Utah's fire prevention program officials to assess
the relative risk in a given area of the state and open communication channels with these
communities to help them better prepare for wildfire.  
A list of the CARs in  southwestern Utah region is presented in tables 1.4 through 1.8.  Maps
1.8 through 1.12 identify the general location of the Communities At Risk in each of the five
counties.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 23
Table 1.4 - Beaver County
Communities at Risk and Risk Score
(2005)
Adamsville 7
Baker Canyon 11
Eagle Estates 7
Elk Meadow 12
Greenville 8
High-Low 9
Minersville 7
North Creek 10
Puffer Lake 9
Sulpherdale 11
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 24
Map 1.8 - Communities At Risk in Beaver County
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 25
Table 1.5 - Garfield County Communities at
Risk and Risk Score (2005)
Antimony 8
Aspen Academy 8
Blue Spring 10
Boulder 9
Boulder Mtn. 7
Cannonville 7
Escalante 8
Forest Gardens 6
Hatch 8
Haycock 7
Henrieville 7
Main Canyon 9
Mammoth Creek 12
Panguitch 8
Panguitch Lake/Beaver
Dam/Clear Creek
10
Red Canyon 9
Ruby's Inn 9
Salt Gulch Ranch 7
Tropic 10
Upper Valley 8
Widtsoe Jct. 8
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 26
Map 1.9 - Communities At Risk in Garfield County 
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 27
Table 1.6 - Iron County Communities
at Risk and Risk Score (2005) 
Hamblin Valley 8
Braffits Creek/Red
Canyon
8
Brian Head 11
Bumblebee Ridge 10
Castle Valley 10
Cedar City 6
Cedar Highlands 10
Cedar Valley Estates 7
Chekshani 10
Comstock 11
Far West 11
Ireland Meadow 10
Iron Springs 11
Kanaraville 9
Meadow Lake 8
New Castle 8
Old Iron Town 11
Paragonah 8
Parowan  8
Quichapa 12
Rainbow Meadow 10
Summit 9
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 28
Map 1.10 - Communities At Risk in Iron County 
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 29
Table 1.7 - Kane County Communities
at Risk and Risk Score (2005) 
Best Friends 10
Bryce Woodlands 10
Deer Springs 9
Duck Creek Area 11
East Zion Estates 11
Elk Ridge 11
Glendale 10
Johnson Canyon 8
Kanab 7
Little Ponderosa 10
Mineral Wash 9
North Fork Drainage 11
Orderville 8
Sky Haven 10
Spencer Bench 10
Spencer Cliff Estates 10
Stout Canyon 11
Sylvin Canyon 10
Zion View 11
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 30
Map 1.11 - Communities At Risk in Kane County
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 31
Table 1.8 - Washington County
Communities at Risk and Risk Score
(2005)
Anderson Jct. 9
Apple Valley 7
Black Ridge Ranches 10
Bloomington 9
Blue Springs 10
Brookside 11
Central 11
Dammeron Valley 10
Diamond Valley 10
Enterprise 8
Grass Valley 7
Gunlock 9
Harrisburg 7
Hilldale 7
Hurricane 7
Ivins 6
Kolob Terrace 10
Laverkin 8
Leeds 8
Motoqua 10
Mountain Meadow 10
New Harmony 10
Pine Valley 11
Pinto 10
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 32
Pintura 11
Rockville 9
Santa Clara 9
Shivwits 10
Silver Reef 9
Springdale 9
St. George 7
Toquerville 9
Veyo 10
Virgin 9
Washington 8
Winchester Hills 9
Zion Panarama 11
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 33
Map 1.12 - Communities At Risk in Washington County
Chapter 1. Introduction
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 1 Pg. 34
1.8 COMMUNITY VALUES AT RISK
Community Values At Risk (CVAR) is  a way to measure people, property, natural
resources, and other resources that, if lost in a wildfire event, would be a collective loss to
the community. Examples of CVARs include the following: 
• Housing
• Infrastructure
• Natural resources (including wildlife and water resources)
• Cultural resources
• Tribal concerns and values
• Recreation areas and open space
• Scenic resources (including significant landscapes) 
This plan focuses primarily on the risk to residential properties as these are the most
prevalent in the WUI area.  As this is a landscape level plan covering large areas, a more
detailed assessment of resources that may be lost in a wildfire should be determined when
completing community-level wildfire protection plans.
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 1
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
2.1 THE LANDS AT RISK
This area was used by aboriginal Indian tribes for more than 10,000 years. It was traversed
and mapped by early explorers, such as Father Escalante, in the seventeenth century. This
area was populated by Mormon settlers beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. From
alpine mountain area to sweeping desert expanses, this land is populated by a vast array of
human cultural backgrounds along with a wide variety of wildlife.
The values at risk in the Southwest Region, also referred to as the Five County section of
Utah are countless. Representing the convergence of the high plateaus of Utah, the Great
Basin and Mojave Desert and bordered by Nevada and Arizona, southwest Utah is a major
tourism and travel destination.  Bordered on the east by the Colorado River and enjoying
the attention from visitors from around the globe, the area is home to national and state
parks, national monuments, national forests, and millions of acres of public and private
land, with a host of historical, recreational, and cultural sites. The region includes two
commercial passenger airports, an interstate freeway and federal highway, major state
highways and a major Union Pacific Railroad thoroughfare.  Educational opportunities are
provided through Southern Utah University, Dixie State College and at applied technology
centers in the region. There are also many communications, business, and manufacturing
centers providing employment to this rapidly growing area. The total combined population
of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington counties was estimated at 195,817 persons
in 2006 (source: Utah Population Estimates Committee). 
The region covers more than 17,000 square miles of valleys, mountains, and high desert
terrain. With a wide variety of elevations and types of vegetation, much of the southwest
Utah area includes Wildland/Urban Interface Communities at Risk (CARS). Whether
occurring on grass, shrub, or forest lands, all the residents of the Five County area need to
be prepared for wildfire, as fire has been and will continue to be a fact of life in
southwestern Utah. This plan addresses ways to minimize wildfire risks and better prepare
residents by creating defensible space in Southwest Utah. 
Dispelling the old notion that all wildfires are bad, over the centuries wildfires have played
a significant role in the management and the enhancement of our ecosystem environments.
Occurring as you would expect in nature, wildfires occur in both forested areas and on
rangeland. Permitting wildfires to simply take their course after decades of suppression and
encroachment would likely be catastrophic and would allow little flexibility for
communities. With high summer temperatures and relatively low humidity levels, wildfire
has been a continuing challenge throughout southwest Utah's history. Weather and
temperature conditions create an environment conducive to wildfire. Winters are typically
wet and cold; summers are characterized by long drought periods often punctuated with
lightning caused wildfires. Historically, summer lighting occurs from May to September and
results in wildfires. Lightning strikes are frequent across most of the region during the
summer and generally ignite numerous fires. Along with a serious bark beetle infestation
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 2
creating large areas of dead trees, the invasion of cheatgrass after multiple years of severe
drought has made today's conditions much more dangerous. 
Efficient fire suppression, environmental litigation with lawsuits from certain groups
wanting a pristine and natural environment, and modern management practices have each
contributed to a huge understory and abnormally large accumulation of hazardous fuels on
both public and private lands.  This large volume of fuel coupled with the rapid advance of
housing developments and cabin construction within the WUI lands of southwest Utah, has
created the potential for disaster. Dramatic wildfire losses to natural and cultural resources,
real property, watersheds, wildlife, and endangerment to human life, may be eminent. 
Over the years, the vistas of Southwest Utah were sculptured by fire. In 2005, the state of
Utah identified almost 600 communities and their surrounding natural resources as “at
risk” from wildland fire.  In southwest Utah there are 109 wildfire-endangered communities
listed on that list. The entire statewide list of CARs is presented in Appendix E.   The idea
for community-based woodland planning and a continued need for prioritizing risk through
ongoing assessments by fire professionals is nothing new. The safety of the citizens of any
community is a shared responsibility between the citizens, land owners, developers, and
home owners’ associations along with the local, county, state and federal governments. The
primary responsibility, however, of creating "defensible space" in and around these CARs
remains at the citizen/owner and homeowner association level.
A major concern in this region is the
changing characteristics of the
environment following a wildfire. In
the past a cyclical repopulation of
native vegetation occurred resulting in
similar fire occurrences many years
separated. Invasive non-native species,
especially cheatgrass,  now quickly
becomes the  dominant vegetation
after a wildfire event or other ground
disturbances, such as development,
and is a fuel source of repetitious
events almost on an annual basis.  This
has completely changed the fire regime
in many locations resulting in annual
fire occurrences, with little or no
resulting vegetation diversity.  A report
on Cheatgrass and Green Stripping is
presented in Appendix C.  
Invasive Cheatgrass shown moving into a disturbed sagebrush
community. (Photo used with permission of Summer C. Olsen,
SageSTEP.org). 
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 3
2.2 CURRENT VEGETATION TYPES AND FIRE ECOLOGY 
In determining the likelihood of and type of wildfire in the Southwest Utah RWPP project
area, an essential task was to identify general types and extent of vegetation coverage using
Southwest Regional GAP (ReGAP) Analysis data. Maps produced by the Five County
Association of Governments GIS provide an overview of the vegetation types found in the
Southwest Utah region. In keeping with a broad, landscape-level presentation in this plan,
some cover types treated as separate types under ReGAP have been grouped together for
facilitating presentation. 
2.3 BEAVER COUNTY LAND COVER/LAND USE
Beaver County is almost exclusively covered in Forest and Shrub/Rangelands with 95% of
the land area in that category (1,574,720 acres). Grass/Pasture/Haylands make up 3% of the
County’s land area (46,463 acres). Water/Wetlands (16,576 acres) and Urban/Developed
(16,576 acres) each comprise about 1% of the County’s land area.  Most of the forest and
rangeland in Beaver County is found on federal USFS and BLM lands.
Grass/Pasture/Haylands  areas in the County may include cheatgrass, fescue, sedges, yucca,
wheatgrass and bluegrass.   A portion of Beaver County is comprised of Farmland.
Grass/Pasture/Haylands includes approximately 7,000 acres of Grass Pasture and/or grass
hay in the Beaver City area.  Shrub/Rangelands consist of oak savannas, juniper/pinion
pine and other open areas.
Map 2.1 shows the generalized land cover of Beaver County. This map was produced by the
Five County Association of Governments GIS. 
2.4 GARFIELD  COUNTY LAND COVER
Garfield County is almost exclusively covered in Forest and Shrub/Rangelands.
Shrub/Rangelands accounts for 65.7% of the land area (2,139,677 acres). Forest area
accounts for 31.8% of the County (1,036,581 acres).  Grass/Pasture/Haylands make up 0.6%
of the County’s land area (20,300 acres). Water/Wetlands (32,150 acres) comprises 1% of
the County’s land area while Urban/Developed (27,000 acres) comprises only 0.8% of the
County’s land area.   Only 4% of Garfield County land area is in private ownership. 96% of
Garfield County land area is non-private land. 
Map 2.2 shows the generalized land cover of Garfield County and was produced by the Five
County Association of Governments GIS. 
2.5 IRON COUNTY LAND COVER
Iron County is primarily covered in Forest and Shrub/Rangelands, accounting for 93% of
the area.  Shrub/rangelands accounts for 50% of the land area (1,064,773 acres).  Forest
area accounts for 43% of the County (907,610 acres).  Grass/Pasture/Haylands/Croplands
makes up 4% of the County’s land area (75,000 acres).  Urban/Developed (42,214 acres)
comprises 2% of the County’s land area. Water/Wetlands (21,107 acres) comprises 1% of
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 4
Iron County’s land area.   Shrub/Rangelands consist of oak savannahs and pinon/juniper
areas.  Grass/Pasture/Haylands includes approximately 71,900 acres of Hayland/Cropland.
 3,100 acres of Hayland/Cropland. 
Map 2.3 shows the generalized land cover of Iron County and was produced by the Five
County Association of Governments GIS. 
2.6 KANE COUNTY LAND COVER
Kane County is almost exclusively covered in Forest and Shrub/Rangelands accounting for
97% of the area. Shrub/rangelands accounts for 75% of the land area (1,890,058 acres).
Forest area accounts for 22% of the County (548,016 acres).  Water/Wetlands (32,049
acres) and Developed (22,510 acres) each comprise about 1% of the County’s land area.  
Grass/Pasture/Haylands/Croplands make up less than 1% of the County’s land area (11,817
acres).  Shrub/Rangelands consists of oak savannahs and sagebrush flats. 85% of Kane
County land area is federally owned and 10% is state owned.  Only 5% of Kane County land
area is privately owned.  
Map 2.4 shows the generalized land cover of Kane County and was produced by the Five
County Association of Governments GIS. 
2.7 WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND COVER
Washington County is primarily covered in Forest and Shrub/Rangelands, accounting for
84% of the area.  Shrub/Rangelands accounts for 74% of the land area (1,149,428 acres).
Forest area accounts for 10% of the County (155,328). Zion National Park accounts for 8.2%
(126,720 acres) of the County.   Urban/Developed (69,120 acres) comprises 4.5% of the
County’s land area.  Grass/Pasture/Haylands makes up 2.3% of the County’s land area
(35,900 acres).  Water/Wetlands (15,533 acres) comprises 1% of Washington County’s land
area.  Shrub/rangelands consist primarily of oak savannahs and pinon/juniper, mesquite
and blackbrush areas. Much of the county consists of federal National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management owned lands. 
Map 2.5 shows the generalized land cover of Washington County and was produced by
the Five County Association of Governments GIS. 
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 5
Map 2.1 - Beaver County Land Cover
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 6
Map 2.2 - Garfield County Land Cover
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 7
Map 2.3 - Iron County Land Cover
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 8
Map 2.4 - Kane County Land Cover
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 9
Map 2.5 - Washington County Land Cover
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 10
2.8 CHEATGRASS INVASION
A major concern in this region is the changing characteristics of
the environment following a wildfire. In the past a cyclical
regrowth of the same type of vegetation occurred resulting in
similar fire occurrences many years separated.  Invasive,
non-native, cheatgrass is now quickly becoming the dominant
vegetation after a wildfire event and the source of repetitious
wildfire events almost on an annual basis. 
Greenstripping is the practice of establishing or using patterns
of fire resilient vegetation and/or material to reduce wildland
fire occurrence and size. Greenstripping also breaks up
monocultures such as cheatgrass areas, and creates some
biodiversity. 
For full details on Cheatgrass invasion and greenstripping,
please see the report completed by Scott Tobler presented in
Appendix C.
2.9 Southwestern Utah Regional Profile
This Regional Wildfire Protection Plan was developed for southwestern Utah. This 17,481
square mile area is bordered by the neighboring states of Nevada on the west and Arizona
on the south and encompasses five Utah counties - Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and
Close-up photograph of
invasive Cheatgrass.  (Courtesy of
Summer C. Olsen, SageSTEP.org).
Remnant patch of sagebrush following landscape-scale conversion to cheatgrass and other
non-native annual grasses. (Photo by M. Wisdom, Courtesy of Summer C. Olsen, SageSTEP.org).
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 11
Washington. This area is also often referred to as the Five County District.  The Five County
District contains 37 incorporated cities and towns. Figure 1.4.1. and Figure 1.4.2 in Chapter
1 are maps identifying the physical location of the five counties of southwestern Utah and
the respective county seats, as well as a map showing land ownership. Demographic,
Housing and Socioeconomic profiles of each county are provided in Appendix D.  
Many residential areas in the WUI areas in this region consist of disperse, small enclaves
of houses, more or less defined villages and subdivisions, or remote single dwellings. The
five county area covered by this Regional Wildfire Protection Plan is 17,481 square miles in
size. Most of the land in these counties is owned and managed by the federal or state
government. The ownership in each of the counties is shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 
County Land Ownership (in Square Miles of Land Area) 
and Percentage of Total Area
County Federal
Area
Federal
Percent
State
Area
State
Percent
Private
& Local
Govern-
ment
Area
Private &
Local
Govern-
ment
Percent
Tribal
Area
Tribal
Percent
Water
Covered
Area
Water
Covered
Percent
Beaver 2,002 77.3% 264 10.2% 321 12.4% 0 0.0% 3 0.1%
Garfield 4,631 89.5% 248 4.8% 264 5.1% 0 0.0% 31 0.6%
Iron 1,887 57.2% 221 6.7% 1,187 36.0% 3 0.1% 0 0.0%
Kane 3,317 83.1% 160 4.0% 403 10.1% 0 0.0% 112 2.8%
Washington 1,813 74.7% 141 5.8% 427 17.6% 44 1.8% 2 0.1%
Region 13,650 78.1% 1,034 5.9% 2602 14.9% 47 0.3% 148 0.8%
Source: Utah County Fact Book 2002
2.10 GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENT
The geography and environment of a region play important roles in planning. As this region
develops, the towns, cities, and counties must consider the "lay of the land" and many
environmental issues that come with it. It is now more important than ever that we
understand the land on which we develop and its accompanying limitations and potential
problems. The Five County District is no exception and has many unique issues pertaining
to its distinct geography and environment. Among these issues is the risk to human
development by wildfire, especially in the WUI areas.
2.11 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The Five County District is located at the southwest corner of Utah near the heart of the
Intermountain west. The five counties are contained in two major physiographic provinces.
Most of Beaver, Iron, and Washington Counties lay within the Basin and Range
physiographic province, which generally consists of north-south trending mountain ranges
separated by broad arid valleys with interior drainage and vegetated with sagebrush and
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 12
other plants of the Great Basin. Garfield and Kane counties are located in the Colorado
Plateau physiographic province, which consists of uplifted sedimentary rock strata
vegetated with desert sage scrub.
On a more localized scale, the area is also speckled with a variety of geologic features. Some
of this area has experienced a great amount of volcanic activity which is evident in extinct
volcanoes, mountains, great lava fields, and mesas. Geologic forces have uplifted huge
portions of the land, and have created great rifts in others. Of particular notoriety are the
erosional features of the area including the great canyons and cliffs carved by water and
wind that make up the national and state parks such as Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, and Snow Canyon State Park.
The soil in this area consists mostly of aridisols, an iron-rich desert soil that can be quite
productive if cultivated. Aridisols are used mainly for range, wildlife, and recreation.
Because of the dry climate in which they are found, they are not used for agricultural
production unless irrigation water is available. Native to the valleys throughout most the
region is a variety of grasses, junipers, and pinion pines, while xerophytes and desert scrub
are native to the lower elevations. Farming has produced a diversity of crops, including
barley, alfalfa, hay, and cotton (which earned the southern region the name of "Dixie").
Much of the region has also been prime land for cattle and sheep ranching.
2.12 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
There are two major federal highways in southwestern Utah. Interstate 15 traverses
northeasterly as you enter the state from the southern border with Arizona. This highway,
which begins in California and ends in Montana, generally traverses the center of
Washington County and the eastern portions of Iron and Beaver counties. U.S. 89, a federal
highway, is a major north-south corridor that is located in western Garfield and Kane
counties. Numerous state highways and county roads are located in the five southwestern
Utah counties.  
2.13 CLIMATE
Because of its general location, the Five County District is mostly semiarid. As moist air
moves in from the Pacific Ocean, it is forced to rise over the Sierra Nevadas mountain range,
which causes it to cool and drop its precipitation, leaving very little moisture for this region.
This phenomenon is known as a “rainshadow effect” where the precipitation drops out as
air masses rise. While all of the Intermountain West is generally dry due to this
phenomenon, the aridity in the Five County District is accentuated by its lower latitude,
which makes it warmer than most regions to the north. Much of this area is also
characterized by a lower elevation, which also increases the mean annual temperature.
For example, the area near St. George City has a warm climate unique to the state of Utah
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 13
which can be attributed to the fact that it has the lowest elevation of any Utah city, with
most of the city around 2,800 feet, and that it lies at the very southern end of the state.  In
fact, this area, also known as Utah's Dixie, has the highest mean annual temperatures in
Utah, averaging, on an annual basis around 62 degrees Fahrenheit. It also boasts the
highest maximum temperature ever recorded in Utah, 117 degrees Fahrenheit, measured
on July 5, 1985.
Though scholars classify most of the region as "desert," only the areas with lower elevations
are considered "hot" deserts, or regions where the winters average above 32 degrees
Fahrenheit. This would include most of Washington County. This region usually does not
have snow in the winter and has extremely warm summers. The rest of the region, which
consists of higher elevations, is considered to be a "cool" desert, with snowy winters and
warm summers. Some exceptions exist over the highest elevations and mountainous
regions,  such as Brian Head, which are classified as "undifferentiated highlands" since they
experience cooler temperatures and higher humidity than the rest of the area.  These
regions generally have very cold, snowy winters and cool summers. Like the rest of the
Intermountain West during the winter, most precipitation results from the passage of
mid-latitude cyclones, while in the summer, convection from localized heating can trigger
isolated thunderstorms. Without moderating effects of a nearby ocean with its associated
cloud cover from water vapor in the air, this region experiences great daily and yearly
fluctuations in temperature.
The nature of the climate in this region leaves it susceptible to a few hazardous weather
recurrences. Although most of the country is subject to flash floods, they are particularly
damaging in this region since the soil is dry, somewhat non vegetated, and easily eroded.
Threats to human lives and damage to property are not only a result of rapidly rising waters,
but of catastrophic mud slides as well. This area is also subject to tornadoes, although they
are a rare occurrence. More common in the warmer regions are wind storms which can
approach or reach hurricane strength at times and dust devils which are rarely severe
enough to damage property. The higher elevations always have the potential for blizzards,
dangerous low temperature conditions, and avalanches in the winter. This entire region is
susceptible to wildfires resulting from either lightning caused or human actions.
2.14 RESPONSIBILITY FOR WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION 
Most wildland fires outside the city limits in Southwest Utah fall under the direction and
coordination of the Color Country Interagency Fire organization, which consists of the state
and federal agencies with the state representing the interests of the counties. The Color
Country Interagency Fire Dispatch Center coordinates the firefighting resources and
logistical support of the agencies. The center is located at 1750 West Kitty Hawk Drive in
Cedar City. Telephone (435) 865-4600. 
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 14
Under the concept of "closest forces" and using the Incident Command System (ICS) during
the initial attack phase of a wildland fire, volunteer fire departments close at hand along
with appropriate government fire agencies are initially called to respond. At the conclusion
of the initial attack phase of the fire and during the mop-up stages, if not available
beforehand, the agency having jurisdiction would then take charge. This may result in the
replacement of the "Incident Commander" (the leader in charge with the responsibility of
controlling the fire.) In more complex ongoing fire situations, a Type III, Type II or Type
I "Incident Management Team" may be ordered and delegated authority to manage an
incident while locally based firefighting resources focus on initial attack, keeping new fires
small. The management team is given instructions by the local jurisdictions on the latitude
they have to manage the fire. This could be in the form of cost containment, trying to keep
the daily costs at a preset level, or resource management objectives, and/or the methods
used in the suppression of the fire in certain areas. 
Other reasons for the Incident Command System (ICS) are for personnel accountability for
safety reasons,  to ensure all responding agencies know their duties and responsibilities, and
for the proper chain of command can be established much faster, eliminating the
freelancing of fire resources. The ICS system is used by both the structural fire agencies and
wildland agencies, as well as law enforcement. In the event of needing National Guard
forces at the fire, a standardized command structure is in place to work with their command
system.  ICS  will also integrate common terminology for all responders.
2.15 FIRE RESPONSE CAPABILITIES
In the past, the responsibilities and priorities of wildfire protection for both the
communities and valued natural resources, watersheds and lands located within the
wildland areas,  appeared to belong to the local volunteer fire departments, the state, and
the federal wildland firefighters. The responsibility of the individual citizens living in the
wildland interface was merely to report wildfire ignitions to the dispatch center and in
modern times to dial 9-1-1, and run for safety. This tradition continues on  today. However,
with increasing incidents of wildfires and the modern ecological tendency of huge buildups
of fuel understory, the propensity for large, catastrophic fires is far more evident. With the
introduction of new scientific designations and wildland firefighting definitions amd
procedures, such as the WUI and the ICS across the United States, there is a new
recognition and commitment that everyone must become involved in the protection of
human lives, personal property, property values, wildlife, watersheds, and natural resources
from wildfire. This new wildland management philosophy means there is a new role for
property owners, homeowners’ associations, land developers, community planners, public
officials, insurance agents, firefighters, and everyone involved in the WUI area. The
immense job of wildland fire protection should begin long before ignition occurs. This
requires that planning and participation must be carried out by everyone who is potentially
affected. 
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 15
Below is listed all forty-one fire departments located throughout the Southwest Region of
Utah. The fire departments are listed by county:
Beaver County
• Beaver County Fire District #1
• Beaver County Fire District #2
Garfield County
• Antimony
• Boulder Fire Department
• Cannonville
• Escalante
• Hatch Fire Department
• Henrieville
• Mammoth Creek Fire Department
• Panguitch Fire Department
• Panguitch Lake Fire Department
• Tropic Fire Department
• Ticaboo
Iron County
• Beryl Fire Department
• Brian Head Fire Department
• Cedar City Fire Department
• Hamblin Valley Fire Department
• Kanarraville Fire Department
• Modena Fire Department
• New Castle Fire Department
• Paragonah Fire Department
• Parowan Fire Department
Kane County
• Alton Fire Department
• Big Water Fire Department
• Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District Fire Department
• Church Wells Fire Department
• East Zion-Zion Ponderosa Fire Department
• Glendale Fire Department
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 16
• Kanab Fire Department
• Orderville Fire Department
• Quin View Fire Department
Washington County
• Central Fire Department
• Brookside Fire Department
• Dammeron Valley Fire Department
• Diamond Valley Fire Department
• Enterprise Fire Department
• Gunlock Fire Department
• Harmony Valley Fire District Fire Department
• Hilldale/Colorado City Fire Department
• Hurricane Fire Department
• Ivins Fire Department
• LaVerkin Fire Department
• Leeds Fire Department
• Pine Valley Fire Department
• Santa Clara Fire Department
• Smithsonian Fire Department/Apple Valley
• St. George Fire Department
• Springdale-Rockville Fire Department
• Veyo Fire Department
• Virgin Fire Department
• Washington County Fire Department
• Winchester Hills Fire Department
A comprehensive firefighting Capabilities Assessment was completed in August 2006 for
each of these fire departments. The assessment was based upon either a telephone survey
or personal contact by staff of the Five County Association of Governments. The Fire
Department Capabilities Assessment is presented in Appendix C.
2.16 COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
At-risk local communities are encouraged to form homeowner fire councils and write a
Community Fire Plan. These plans are designed to educate the community on how they may
protect life and property through community-based planning. The communities are
educated on how to identify strategies to reduce the risks to homes, infrastructure  and
other facilities and businesses prior to a wildfire and how to implement individual and
community-based fuel reduction projects to minimize the effects of a wildlfire. The
mitigation of risks and hazards facing highly vulnerable Communities At Risk (CAR'S) is
crucial to the short-term and long-term goals of the National Fire Plan. 
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 17
Education and long-term involvement of residents in reducing wildfire risk around their
homes and in their community is the goal of the Community Assistance Program.
Educating citizens and providing tools and resources that enable people to prepare for
wildfires can have a lasting effect building resilience to wildfires, increasing capacity for
communities to work together toward common goals, and provide a means of developing
their own localized versions of a community fire plan.  Local plans and actions are valuable
and necessary to effectively implement the goals of this RWPP. 
It is realized that much of the Wildland-Urban Interface in Southwest Utah is at high
wildfire risk.  Citizens who live, work, or enjoy recreation in its environs, whether on grass,
shrubs, or forested lands, must be prepared for wildfire. 
This Community Assistance Program is intended to lend a hand to homeowners in creating
defensible space and increasing their property’s resistance to wildfires. The community fire
plans offer ways to minimize risk and thereby reduce the undesirable effects of wildfire on
lives, property, water supplies, economics, and aesthetics.  In some cases, even the best
planned defense will not be effective against a given wildfire.  The intensity and pattern of
a wildfire in a given area can, in most cases, be modeled as to what could likely happen
under given set of conditions. It should be remembered that these are in fact just that, a
model, and only after an major event where the “real world” lessons learned and unforseen
variables have been analyzed can they be utilized to help improve the science of wildland
fire modeling in the future. 
A Utah Community Fire Plan must be collaboratively developed by a local community at
risk with the guidance of state government's representatives, in consultation with federal
agencies and other interested parties. Community Fire Plans are written under the
Community Assistance part of the National Fire Plan.
2.17 CONTENTS OF A COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Each Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) should include the following:
1. Plan must address the ways and means in which the community fire council plan to
educate their local residents in reference to wildland fires.
2. With the help of fire professionals, the community will complete an Infrastructure
Risk Assessment within the jurisdiction of the fire plan. A risk assessment will
contain the following information:
a. Risk: Potential and frequency for wildfire ignitions based on past history.
b. Hazard: Condition that may contribute to wildfires (fuel, slope, etc.).
c. Values: People, property, natural, and other potential wildfire losses.
d. Protection Capability: Ability to prepare for, mitigate, and suppress fire.
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 18
e. Structural Vulnerability: Vulnerability of structures during a wildfire.  
3. With help from the local Emergency Services Support Officer, the CWPP will contain
an Emergency Management Response Plan (EMRP) with a Fire Evacuation Strategy.
This plan will provide detailed information on issues related to communications,
ingress and egress, construction of roads suitable for use of emergency equipment,
the design of loop road systems that allow for emergency evacuation in areas of rural
development, monitoring of evacuation with some variety of a call-down system,
maps of evacuation routes and safe areas, fire services, law enforcement, shelter and
mass care, and a wide range of other information prepared by the emergency
management committee of the local community fire council.
4. The CWPP will contain a Prioritized Fuel Reduction Strategy for creating defensible
space inside the at-risk community boundaries. The plan must identify and prioritize
areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and, where possible, recommend the
types and methods of treatment that will protect the at-risk communities, including
the essential infrastructure and, where necessary, the local watershed. Along with
the possible recommendation of introducing fire-adaptive species into the
ecosystem, the plan will include a wide variety of strategies for fuel reduction and
sensible precautions against catastrophic wildfire. 
5. Where necessary, the community will work with the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S. Forest Service, and the Utah Forestry, Fire and State Land fire experts to
develop and implement a perimeter fuel break plan, in and around their community.
This process is used to safeguard the watershed, forest health, and prevent home
losses.
6. The CWPP will include a local “Fire Equipment and Infrastructure Evaluation”. The
firefighting facilities, water supply, and infrastructure of the at-risk community will
be evaluated, maintained, and updated where possible.  
7. The CWPP addresses Regulatory Issues. Communities located in the unincorporated
areas of the counties are subject to WUI building ordinances adopted by the
counties. This requires any homes constructed in the community after January 2007
meet the new WUI fire building codes for fire protection,  Rule 652-122. The rule
applies only to unincorporated areas of the counties, municipal areas are not
included at this time. The Rule also addresses minimum training and equipment
standards for the fire departments that respond to the unincorporated areas.
Incorporated cities are encouraged, but not required to, adopt this code.
8. Evaluate, Update, and Maintain the CWPP. After the plan his been approved the
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 19
community fire council will continue to meet, at least on a quarterly basis, to
evaluate the work accomplished and plan new projects and maintenance for the
future.
2.18 ADOPTED COMMUNITY FIRE PLANS IN SOUTHWEST UTAH
Listed below, by county, are the completed community fire plans in Southwestern Utah.
Each community plan was submitted prior to November 1, 2005, and all were approved by
the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. Only a small review of each community
fire plan his been listed here. Additional information on these adopted community fire plans
can be obtained by contacting the Cedar City field office of Utah Forestry, Fires and State
Lands. For information concerning how your community can participate in the community
assistance program of the National Fire Plan, contact the UFFSL Cedar City office or visit
the State of Utah website:  www.utahfireinfo.gov
Beaver County
• Manderfield/Last Chance/Indian Creek 
• Beaver Grove
• High-Low  
Garfield County
• Panguitch Lake
• Boulder Town/Salt Gulch
• Mammoth Creek
• Ruby's Inn
Iron County
• Rainbow Meadows
• Brian Head
• Far West/Comstock
• Cedar Highlands
• Quichipa
• New Castle
• Old Irontown
Kane County
• Glendale
• Duck Creek
• Zion Ponderosa
• Zion View
• Bryce Woodlands
Chapter 2. Regional and County Background
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 2 Pg. 20
Washington County
• New Harmony 
• Shivwits Band of Paiutes Indian Tribe Reservation 
(Note: not considered an active plan as this is a federal entity).
• Dammeron Valley
• Winchester Hills
• Leeds
• Gunlock
• Central, Brookside/Mountain Meadow
• Kolob Terrace
• Kolob M.I.A. Camp
• Pine Valley
• Diamond Valley
• Enterprise
• Veyo
• Apple Valley
• Hildale City
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 1
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
3.1 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
One of the core elements when creating the SURWPP is developing an understanding of the
risk of potential losses during a wildfire. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the National
Fire Plan, and the National Association of State Foresters all provide guidance on
conducting a hazard and risk assessment for wildfire.
The Color Country Fuels Committee Risk Assessment Teams approached the Wildfire Risk
Assessment with a comprehensive review of potential risk from the CARS list throughout
the Southwest Utah region. These risk assessments have been reviewed and are presented
in this section. Attention has been focused on the most current and up to date information
and data for this report. Efforts of fire managers, fire employees, and trained subdivision
member volunteers, along with the Color Country Fuels Committee,  resulted in a standard
methodology for wildfire risk assessment used for this report.
3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
• Identify each of the Communities At Risk to wildfire within the Southwest
Utah Wildland-Urban Interface. 
• Develop and conduct a wildfire risk assessment of all Wildland-Urban
Interface lands within Southwest Utah.
• Identify and prioritize hazardous fuels landscape treatment projects for all
land in the Southwest Utah Region.
3.3 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 
The SURWPP wildfire risk assessment is an analysis of the potential loss to life, property,
and natural resources within Southwest Utah. The analysis takes into consideration a
combination of factors defined below:
• Risk: The potential and frequency for wildfire ignitions (based on past
occurrences).
• Hazard: The conditions that may contribute to wildfire (fuels, slope, aspect,
vegetation, elevation and weather). The Risk Assessment Map takes these
criteria into consideration.
• Values: Residential Property values and other infrastructure that may suffer
losses in the advent of a wildfire. The Risk Assessment Valuation Tables are
provided in Section 3.4.
• Protection Capacity: The ability to mitigate losses, prepare for, respond to and
suppress wildland and structural fires. A complete Fire Department
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 2
Capabilities profile has been conducted in Southwest Utah and is presented
in Appendix B.
This risk assessment is based on an extensive literary review of many different methods
developed over the years to evaluate wildfire and other natural hazards. The assessment is
intended as a tool to illustrate the relative level of risk to life, property and other natural
hazards within any area in the country. Emergency management and fire prevention
projects are implemented through the SURWPP. The maps and priorities developed
through the assessment will change, but they will always point to areas identified as having
the highest relative ranking for risk and hazard. 
The assessment considers several categories in determining the relative severity of fire risk.
When considering how to prioritize treatment projects, other considerations include
identifying where there are planned fuels reduction projects on federal, state, or county
land. Categories in determining relative severity risk assessments include the following:
• Hazard - Fuels, Slope, Aspect, and Fire History
• Risk - Ignition Density
• Values - Residential (derived from 2006 county property tax assessment data
provided by County Assessors in each of the five counties)
• Protection Capability - Geographic coverage of the fire department, facility
information, fire equipment, manpower, training, certification(s), etc.
(derived from Fire Department Capabilities Survey)   
3.4 RISK ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS 
The risk assessment was based on the best available data combined with the Core Team's
professional knowledge of field conditions in the project area. Also at the scale of the
project, the available data does not provide resolutions necessary for detailed analysis.
Some of the limitations include the following:
• Weather conditions, wind speed, and directions that were not considered in
this risk assessment. 
• Vegetation mapping layers had limitations. Available vegetation data
depicting the distribution of various vegetation types were at scales of
1:100,000 or smaller. While this was adequate for characterizing vegetation
over large areas, such as a county, the data is much less accurate when viewed
for smaller focus areas.  In addition, dead and downed fuels are not factored
into the landscape maps.
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 3
• While residential and infrastructure Community Values at Risk (CVAR) are
included in the Risk Assessment, this assessment does not measure risk to
watersheds, recreation areas, or other CVARs. These values should be taken
into account when agency’s are developing specific fuels reductions projects.
3.5 RISK ASSESSMENT RESIDENTIAL VALUES BY COUNTY
The risk assessment was based upon the June, 2006 County Property Tax data provided by
each County Assessor’s office. The values shown are based upon utilizing the average
market value for residential structures in each WUI area.  Residential structures were
mapped by analyzing aerial photographs which were layered and utilized in digitizing those
structures as a separate layer in the regional GIS.  The GIS then quantified the number of
units in each WUI area.  
   
Table 3.1 - Beaver County Residential Structures and Values at Risk 
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 4
Table 3.2 - Garfield County Residential Structures and Values at Risk 
Table 3.3 - Iron County Residential Structures and Values at Risk
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 5
Table 3.4 - Kane County Residential Structures and Values at Risk 
Table 3.5 - Washington County Residential Structures and Values at Risk 
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 6
3.6  RISK ASSESSMENT INFRASTRUCTURE VALUES BY COUNTY 
The  Five County Association of Government’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP)
was formally approved by FEMA on February 22, 2005.  
The NHMP identified over 122 miles of railroad, 423 miles of major roadways and 626 miles
of utility powerlines in the five county region that are at risk from wildfire.  Table 3.6 shows
the miles for each of these categories, by county.
TABLE 3.6  -  Infrastructure at Risk from Wildfire By Type
(miles rounded)
Location Miles of Major
Roadways
Miles of Railroad
Track
Miles of Utility
Powerlines
Beaver County 60 5 87
Garfield County 104 0 154
Iron County 110 117 180
Kane County 59 0 50
Washington County 80 0 155
Pauite Indian Lands 10 0 0
Region Totals 423 122 626
3.7  SOUTHWEST UTAH RISK ASSESSMENT MAPS  
The  Five County Association of Governments GIS, utilizing available data, developed a risk
assessment map for each of the five southwest Utah counties which are presented on the
following five pages. These maps identify the relative risk level of wildfire in each county
based upon a scale of 1=Low Risk, 2=Moderate Risk, 3=High Risk and 4=Extreme Risk. 
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 7
Map 3.1 - Beaver County Risk Assessment Map
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 8
Map 3.2 - Garfield County Risk Assessment Map
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 9
Map 3.3 - Iron County Risk Assessment Map
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 10
Map 3.4 - Kane County Risk Assessment Map
Chapter 3. Community Risk Assessment
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 3 Pg. 11
Map 3.5 - Washington County Risk Assessment Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 1
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations
The two primary goals of this Regional Wildfire Protection Plan are to:
1) Provide general recommendations for the southwest Utah region;  
2) Provide guidelines and direction for the preparation of county and local CWPPs. 
Although county guidelines are included, specific recommendations for each community
were not designed to be part of this process as the needs for each community will vary
depending on local fuels, topography, organization, public knowledge of the issues, and the
desire to address those issues. 
4.1 FOCUS AREAS
The Color Country Interagency Fire Center Fuels Committee has identified the general
location of  ten “Focus Areas” within the southwest Utah region. These focus areas are
identified in Table 4.1.   The selection of these specific areas was based on the need for fuels
reductions as understood by fuels specialists and fire wardens, risk levels in the Regional
Wildfire Protection Plan risk assessment, values at risk in the area, firefighting concerns
including access and evacuation routes, the presence of Communities At Risk (CARs), and
local interest in the community documented by having a Community Wildfire protection
Plan in place.   
The complete list of Communities At Risk (CARs), by county, was presented in Chapter One.
The list of CARs contains additional areas not focused on in this chapter.   In addition, it is
recommended that more detailed analysis should be accomplished on all of the CARs.
The Color Country Interagency Fire Center Fuels Committee has not prioritized these ten
focus areas.  The Committee determined that to do so would have the effect of minimizing
the fact that every one of these areas is in need of treatment and all are of concern. 
Section 4.2 contains descriptive information about the focus area boundaries and general
description of each of the ten focus areas including vegetation, known values at risk, and
firefighting/access concerns. Each focus area also includes a list of general goals resulting
from activities and treatments for the area.
Goals common to all treatment areas include fuels reduction, public education, and
increases in equipment and training available to firefighting personnel. 
Goals that are generally applicable to all of the focus areas include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Protection of human life, firefighter and public safety as the highest priority.
• Public education and partnerships with citizens or community-centered approaches
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 2
to manage fire risks and hazards in WUI areas located in the focus area, including
effort aimed towards the implementation and maintenance of defensible space
projects to reduce risk to homes and personal property. 
• Protection of high value resources and watersheds through fuels reduction
treatments as determined locally.
• Restoration and maintenance of ecosystems consistent with land uses and historic
fire regimes. Restoration of vegetation to the appropriate Condition Classes and Fire
Regimes. 
• Maintenance and/or improvement of fire prevention and road/structure
identification signage. Dissemination of fire restriction information through
appropriate signage and/or visitor contacts when necessary. 
• Improvement of wildland firefighting equipment, training and information for
volunteer fire departments located in the focus area, including the improvement of
GIS and road data.
There are five region-wide priorities that were determined by the Core Team to apply to all
focus areas.  These are:
1. Protect human life 
2. Firefighter and public safety
3. Equipment access
4. Protection of infrastructure
5. Reduce cheatgrass occurrence after wildfire  
Also presented are recommendations for potential treatments in each of the focus areas.
These recommendations were developed by the Color Country Interagency Fire Center
Fuels Committee.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 3
TABLE 4.1 - SOUTHWESTERN UTAH REGIONAL FOCUS AREAS
Focus Area Name Watershed Area Community At Risk
Name(s)
 Within Focus Area
Lead Agency
Central Dixie Deer Upper Santa Clara River
Watershed (HUC5)
Brookside/Central
Mountain Meadows
Pine Valley
U.S. Forest Service
New Harmony Ash Creek Watershed (HUC5) New Harmony/New
Harmony Heights
Bureau of Land
Management
Kolob Terrace North Fork Virgin River (HUC5) Kolob Terrace/Blue Springs National Park
Service
Duck Creek Asay Creek Watershed (HUC5) Duck Creek Area
Ponderosa Estates
Ponderosa Village
U.S. Forest Service
Ruby’s/Bryce Upper East Fork Sevier River
Watershed (HUC5)
Ruby’s Inn/Bryce
Canyon/Pines/Foster
U.S. Forest Service
East Zion North Virgin River Watershed
(HUC5)
[southeast portion]
East Zion Estates
Little Ponderosa
State of Utah
Comstock/Farwest Shurtz Creek-Quichapa Lake,
Iron Springs Creek, Escalante
Valley-Pinto Creek
(HUC 5)
Newcastle
Old Iron Town Far
West/Comstock/Quichapah
Bureau of Land
Management
Cedar/Parowan Front Jack Rabbit Wash/Rush Lake
Watershed, and Little Salt Lake
Watershed  (HUC5)
Cedar Highlands
Cedar/Parowan Front
Brian Head
U.S. Forest Service
Mammoth Creek Mammoth Creek Watershed
(HUC5)
Mammoth Creek
Ireland Meadow
Castle Valley
Rainbow Meadow
Meadow Lakes
U.S. Forest Service
Bryce Woodlands/
Sunset Cliffs
Pass Creek - Sevier River
Watershed (HUC5)
Bryce Woodlands
Long Valley/Canyon
Bureau of Land
Management 
4.2  FOCUS AREAS DESCRIPTIONS
The following list describes the ten Focus Areas presented in Table 4.1 in detail.  The Color
Country Interagency Fire Fuels Committee developed the descriptions for the ten focus
areas, as well as the firefighting concerns and recommend potential treatment(s) for each
focus area.   
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 4
Central/Dixie Deer:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows:
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed (HUC5) lands consist of mixed ownership, representing
BLM, Forest, State and Private.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Brookside, Central, Dixie Deer, Pine Valley, Veyo
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
This lower reaches within this watershed are composed of drought stressed and closed
canopy pinyon-juniper, interior chapparal, live oak and sagebrush. Cheatgrass continues
to increase and is the primary understory within the pinyon-juniper woodland and
sagebrush/steppe communities. Mountain brush, ponderosa and mixed conifer are
common in the upper reaches of the watershed. 
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Expanding cheatgrass increases the risk for fast moving fires, especially in dry, windy
conditions. Many subdivisions have limited ingress/egress, especially the Pine Valley area,
which accesses the Pine Valley Wilderness area.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $204,000.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreational resources
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Continue interagency fuel treatments that are adjacent to and within
communities at risk. Such projects could include community fire plans, fuels
reduction projects, and fuel breaks.
• Develop cheatgrass focus areas, to include fire tolerant vegetation and
strategic fuel breaks to protect resources and communities at risk.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 5
Representative view of terrain and vegetation in much of the
Central/Dixie Deer focus area. Note the homes in the wildland
urban interface. Photo courtesy Color Country Interagency Fire Center.
View of a portion of the Dixie Deer community located in the
Central/Dixie Deer focus area. Photo Courtesy Color Country Interagency
Fire Center.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 6
New Harmony: 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Ash Creek Watershed (HUC5), composed of State, Private, BLM and Forest Service lands.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Chekshani, Kannaraville, Black Ridge Ranches, New Harmony, New Harmony Heights,
Pintura.
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
Fuels are primarily composed of pinyon-juniper woodlands, chaparral, and grasslands
interspersed with agricultural lands. 
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Strong diurnal winds along the Black Ridge, fueled by dense stands of pinyon-juniper,
chaparral and oak along steeper slopes can increase rapid fire spread. Continual growth in
urban interface areas increases human caused fire potential. Ingress/egress into developed
subdivision is limited, with many individual properties having only a single dead-end road
Representative example of wildland urban interface concern in
the Central/Dixie Deer Focus Area. Photo courtesy of Color Country
Interagency Fire Center.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 7
with little or no turnaround. 
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $222,755.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreational resources
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Continue ongoing mechanical fuels treatments and maintenance of existing
fuel breaks through interagency fuels committee coordination.
• Work with new communities and volunteer fire departments to identify risks
in WUI areas.
• Encourage landowner mitigation and defensible space work
• Increase fuels reduction along I-15 to decrease fire starts off the interstate.
Such measures could include mowing and establishing fuel breaks/green
stripping.
Representative example in the New Harmony focus area of
treatment techniques to reduce fuel available for wildfires. 
Photo courtesy Color Country Interagency Fire Center.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 8
Kolob Terrace:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
North Fork Virgin River (HUC5), generally consisting of Private, BLM and state lands.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Kolob Terrace
Blue Springs
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
This area is composed of the northwestern portion of the North Fork Virgin River
Watershed. Vegetation in the upper reaches of the watershed is composed primarily of
mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, oak brush, chaparral, and decadent aspen. Much of the
white fir within the mixed conifer vegetation type is dead or dying. Development within the
focus area is increasing, with many smaller subdivisions being built within the general focus
area boundary.
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Most of the area consists of slopes greater than 20%. The steep slopes, combined with many
different aspects, create extreme fire behavior and risk to firefighters. Distance to
incorporated subdivisions is remote, with access from both the north and south over steep,
winding roads. There are numerous narrow one-way roads into single residences. There are
also several youth camps which are utilized heavily throughout the summer. Homes within
this focus area are utilized almost entirely by part-year residences, many of which owners
live out of state. 
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Zion National Park 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $94,892.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreational resources
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 9
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Reduce hazardous fuels within the mixed conifer and oak brush, especially on
private lands
• Develop a community fire plan for the Kolob Terrace and Blue Springs area
• Continue ongoing mechanical fuels treatment project and maintenance in
conjunction with the interagency fuels committee.
• Work with individual subdivisions/communities to identify risks in WUI
areas.
• Encourage landowner mitigation and defensible space work
• Educate landowners regarding ecosystem health
• Utilize stand inventory assessments to determine total biomass on potential
disposal methods for fuels on private lands.
• Coordinate with Zion National Park to use prescribed fire for ecosystem
restoration projects adjacent to private lands. 
Duck Creek:
 
Focus Area Boundary:
Asay Creek Watershed (HUC5), primarily composed of private, state and Forest Service
lands.
Communities at Risk:
Duck Creek Area, Ponderosa Estates, Ponderosa Village, Swains Creek, Zion View,
Strawberry Valley
Focus Area Description and Vegetation:
This area is composed primarily of mixed conifer and aspen. A recent spruce beetle
outbreak has resulted in a huge mortality in the spruce vegetation component. There is a
large component of heavy, downed ladder fuels. Highway 14 is a primary recreation
corridor, with over 3 million annual visitors to area national parks. 
Firefighting and Access Concern:
A primary concern is the potential for long-range spotting due to downed and standing dead
fuels. Such fuels result in long duration fires, extensive fire crew needs, and long-term
evacuation needs within communities. This may also result in long-term air quality impacts
within south-central Utah airsheds, both from smoke and area emergency crews traveling
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 10
on dirt roads. Heavy recreation traffic could also impede emergency response times.
Community and resource values at risk include, but are not limited to:
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $96,987.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreational resources
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Interagency  fuels projects, education and mitigation should continue
throughout the focus area. 
• Continued implementation of the Duck Creek Fuels Treatment Analysis will
reduce fuel loads within the watershed.
Representative example of a residential structure located in the
Duck Creek focus area. Note the lack of defensible space. 
Photo courtesy Color Country Interagency Fire Center. 
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 11
Ruby's/Bryce:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Upper East Fork Sevier River Watershed (HUC5), composed of private, state, Forest
Service, BLM and National Park Service Lands. The primary concern within this focus area
is located within the east-central portion of the watershed, located along Highway 12 and
Highway 63 toward Bryce Canyon National Park.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Ruby’s Inn, Bryce Canyon, Pines, Fosters
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
This area is primarily composed of ponderosa pine, sagebrush and grasslands.
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
The Bryce Canyon area is classified as a Class 1 airshed. Firefighting and access concerns are
related to heavy seasonal tourist traffic. 
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Ruby’s Inn and Bryce Canyon National Park – a primary employer for
Garfield County residents
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in
this focus area is approximately $96,987.
• Watershed 
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation 
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Compliment fuels reduction work being done by the Park Service and Forest
Service onto Private Lands.
• Prevent fires on private lands which may spread onto federal lands.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 12
East Zion:
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
North Virgin River Watershed (HUC5). This focus area is located in the southeast portion
of the North Virgin River Watershed and is composed of state, private, BLM, National Park
Service, and Forest Service lands. 
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
East Zion Estates, Little Ponderosa
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
Vegetation is composed primarily of oakbrush, ponderosa pine and grasslands. It is
bordered on the west by Zion National Park. This area is considered a Class 1 airshed.
Growth continues with small subdivisions occurring throughout the area.
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Distance to incorporated subdivisions and individual residences’ is remote, with access off
Highway 9 along dirt roads. There are narrow one-way roads into most residences. Brush
limits visibility along roads and to individual structures. Access to this area, when wet,
makes travel almost impossible.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Zion National Park
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $125,857.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Increase ingress/egress into private property/subdivisions.
• Work through the interagency fuels committee to strategically place fuel
breaks.
• Coordinate the work being done by private land owners with the work being
done by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 13
• Complete demonstration Community Wildfire Protection Plan project on
planned community within the Chamberlain Ranch Area.
Comstock/Far West:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Shurtz Creek-Quichapa Lake, Iron Springs Creek, Escalante Valley-Pinto Creek (HUC 5).
This focus area encompasses those areas along Highway 56, generally composed of private,
Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and state lands.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Newcastle, Old Iron Town, Far West/Comstock/ Quichapah
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
Vegetation is comprised primarily of pinyon/juniper woodlands and sagebrush/steppe
areas with little or no understory. The primarily travel corridor is along Highway 56. 
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
One of the primary concerns in this focus area is the many side roads leading to individual
residences that are not clearly marked. Additionally, many subdivisions and single
residences have limited access with one-way, dead-end, ingress/egress. Potential for crown
fire exists within the pinyon/juniper ecotype. Visibility is limited along some travel corridors
due to heavy tall brush along roads.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $138,099.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Increase visibility and create a fuel break along the Pinto Road.
• Maintain existing chainings within the watershed.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 14
• Continue work on individual lot assessments, wildland urban interface
education and defensible space within area communities at risk.
• Continue fuel breaks and fuels reduction work along Highway 56.
Cedar/Parowan Front:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Jack Rabbit Wash/Rush Lake Watershed, and Little Salt Lake Watershed  (HUC5). This
area encompasses the east benches along the I-15 corridor, and is composed of state,
private, Forest Service and BLM lands.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Cedar Highlands, Cedar/Parowan Front, Brian Head
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
Vegetation in this area ranges from pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush/steppe
grasslands in the lower elevations, to mixed-conifer spruce-fir aspen in the upper elevations.
Representative example of residential structures located in the
wildland urban interface area without defensible space. These
structures are located in the Old Iron Town area which is within
the Comstock/Farwest focus area. Photo courtesy of the Color Country
Interagency Fire Center.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 15
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Many of the residences within this focus area consist of permanent, year-long homeowners.
Many are accessed only by narrow one-way roads. Steep slopes and dangerous topography
increases the potential for extreme fire behavior. This area has high ATV use and is easily
accessed from incorporated towns.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $89,457.
• Watershed 
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Continue to place strategic fuel breaks throughout the area.
• Encourage landowner mitigation and defensible space work.
• Implement Community Fire Plan for Parowan Front Area.
Representative example of a residential structure located within
the Cedar/Parowan Front focus area. Need for adequate
provision of defensible space around structures such as this is a
concern of area fire management officials. Photo courtesy of Color
Country Interagency Fire Center. 
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 16
Mammoth Creek:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Mammoth Creek Watershed (HUC5), composed primarily of private and Forest Service
Lands.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Mammoth Creek, Ireland Meadow, Castle Valley, Rainbow Meadow, Meadow Lakes
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
Vegetation is composed primarily of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and aspen. Area
homeowners are mostly part-year residence.
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
This area has recently experienced a wide-spread spruce beetle outbreak. The high number
of dead spruce increases fire severity, spotting and high fire intensity. Ingress/egress into
residences and small subdivisions is limited by narrow one-way roads.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $100,175.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Continue to place strategic fuel breaks throughout the area.
• Encourage landowner mitigation and defensible space work.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 17
Bryce Woodlands/Sunset Cliffs:
 
Focus Area boundaries are generally defined as follows: 
Pass Creek - Sevier River Watershed (HUC5). Consisting of private, BLM and state lands.
This area within Kane County is composed of the emerging interface area along the Long
Valley, Highway 89 corridor.
Communities at Risk in the Focus Area: 
Bryce Woodlands
Long Valley/Canyon
Focus Area Description and Vegetation: 
This area is composed of pinyon/juniper woodlands, sagebrush grasslands, mixed conifer
and Ponderosa Pine. 
Firefighting and Access Concerns: 
Seasonal recreational travel along the Highway 89 corridor may impede emergency
response crews. Single residences have limited access, with one-way, dead-end
Representative example of a residential structure located within
the Mammoth Creek focus area. The need for adequate provision
of defensible space around structures such as this is a concern of
area fire management officials. Photo courtesy of Color Country
Interagency Fire Center.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 18
ingress/egress. Potential for crown fire exists within the pinyon/juniper ecotype. There is
greater response time from firefighters due to the proximity of established fire districts.
Community values at risk include, but are not limited to, the following: 
• Residential Structures. The average market value of a residential structure in this
focus area is approximately $85,051.
• Watershed
• Wildlife resources
• Cultural resources
• Recreation
Potential Treatment Recommendations:
• Work to increase ingress/egress into establishing communities. 
• Continue to work with federal agencies and the interagency fuels committee
to complete landscape level pinyon/juniper treatments.
• Continue to place strategic fuel breaks throughout the area.
• Encourage landowner mitigation and defensible space work.
4.3 FOCUS AREAS LOCATIONS
Map 4.1 shows the general location of each of the ten focus areas in southwestern Utah
described in Section 4.2.
Chapter 4. Regional Focus Area Recommendations 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 4 Pg. 19
Map 4.1 - Focus Areas Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 5 Pg. 1
Chapter 5. Implementation & Monitoring Strategies 
5.1 STEPS TO IMPLEMENT PLAN
Implementation and monitoring of this RWPP will be the responsibility of the Color
Country Interagency Fuels Committee. Updates to the plan should occur annually or on and
"as needed" basis as determined by the Fuels Committee. 
Additionally, a specific project implementation plan will be developed for each of the ten
focus areas that were described in detail in Chapter Four of this plan.   
Specific NEPA- type plans should be developed for each of the ten focus areas that identify
timeframes, goals, and measurable criteria.
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan Ch. 6 Pg. 1
Chapter 6. Summary of the Plan
6.1 SUMMARY OF THE PLAN
The Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan (SURWPP) was developed to
essentially meet the general requirements of a CWPP as specified in HFRA The Southwest
Utah RWPP is one of five regional plans completed in the state of Utah and the primary goal
of the plan is to assist Utah regions, counties, and communities, and government agencies
in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire within the region. 
The Southwestern Utah RWPP used a collaborative process involving federal agency and
local government representatives to identify the highest risk areas in southwest Utah and
to make recommendations of actions designed to reduce the risk to life and property due
to catastrophic wildland fire, with focus specifically in the WUI areas containing state of
Utah identified "communities at risk" (CARs). 
Federal agency and local government representatives established a core planning team to
guide the development of the plan and process. The Core Team helped develop a regionally
appropriate definition of the WUI area and established parameters of the base map. The
team also provided data necessary to developed a community risk assessment that
considered fuel hazards, risk of wildfire occurrence and location of communities at risk (as
identified by the state of Utah). 
A cooperative planning process was utilized during the development of this plan and should
be encouraged to be continued as the identified priority projects are implemented. RWPP
implementation and monitoring will be the responsibility of the Color Country Interagency
Fuels Committee. The plan should be updated annually or as deemed necessary by the Fuels
Committee. 
Individual project implementation plans will be developed by the appropriate agencies for
each of the ten focus areas described in Chapter Four, and will include specific timeframes,
goals, and measurable criteria. 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan A-1
APPENDIX A - County Ownership Maps
Map A.1 - Beaver County Ownership Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan A-2
APPENDIX A - County Ownership Maps
Map A.2 - Garfield County Ownership Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan A-3
APPENDIX A - County Ownership Maps
Map A.3 - Iron County Ownership Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan A-4
APPENDIX A - County Ownership Maps
Map A.4 - Kane County Ownership Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan A-5
APPENDIX A - County Ownership Maps
Map A.5 - Washington County Ownership Map
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-1
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
The fire department capabilities data that follows was collected from various sources, including in-
person and telephone interviews conducted by a plan development consultant during in 2006. This
information should only be considered as a relative snapshot in time reflecting the general
preparedness of local fire fighting entities.  Thus, what is listed, may or may not reflect the current
situation as of the Plan adoption date. Because of the difficulty in obtaining and updating data, no
warranty of completeness is made. You are advised to contact the specific entity you are concerned
about to confirm the current details and state of readiness of that fire department.
BEAVER COUNTY
Beaver County Fire District #1
Extent of Service Area:  Running North to South, from the top of the Mineral Mountains running   
                         West to the Nevada State line.
Fire Station Address:  Firehouse  (1)  1110 No. Main Street, Beaver, Utah,84713 
                                   Firehouse  (2)  50 No. 100 East, Beaver, Utah, 84713
Name of Chief / Phone:  George Humphries (590-4713 or 438-5870)
Square footage of Station:  (1)  3750 sq. ft.  (2)  3200 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  (1)  6 bays – 14 trucks    (2)  3 bays – 6 trucks     
Training Facilities:  Station Number  1
I.S.O. Rating:  6  -  9
Number paid Firefighters:  0
Number “Red Carded”Firefighters:  10
Truck #1:     (4) Type 1 - Engines
Truck #2:     (2) Type 6 - Engines
Truck #3:     (2) Type 3 - Engines
Truck #4:     (3) Watertenders (1- 2700 gal, 1 – 5000 gal, 1 – 1200 gal)
Truck #5:     (1) Rescue Truck
Truck #6:     (1) HAZMAT Operations Trailer W/2 Chase Rigs
Truck #7:     (1) Mobile Incident Command Bus
Miscellaneous notes/comments:    None 
Beaver County Fire District #2
Extent of Service Area: From middle of Minersville Reservoir/ West of lake. 
                                      (West of the Pinto Mountain range.)
Fire Station addrress:    (1) Milford, 241 S. Main, Milford, Ut. 84751
   (2) Minersville, 60 W. Main, Minersville, Ut 84752                             
               (3) Circle 4 Station, 1350 W. Thermal Rd. Milford, Utah,  84751         
Name of Chief / Phone:  Les Whitney (387-2107 ext. 104)
Square footage of Station: Undetermined
Number of Truck Bays:   (1)  6 bays    (2)  4 bays    (3)  2 bays
Training Facilities:  In MilfordStation    
I.S.O. Rating:   5
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /  18 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0
Truck #1:   (4) Engines     
Truck #2:   (4) Wildland Trucks
Truck #3:   (2) Brush Trucks
Truck #4:   (2) 6X6 Tenders
Miscellaneous notes / comments: Future plans include an addition to the Minersville (#2) Fire
Dept. 
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-2
GARFIELD COUNTY
Boulder Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:   Boulder Town,  The Draw, Salt Creek
Fire Station address:   140 East Main, Boulder, Utah  48716 (next to the Post Office)
Name of Chief, phone:  Katie Austin ( 335-7379)                                     
     Square footage of Station:  3960  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   4
Training Facilities: Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  6  -  if within five miles of Firehouse,  9 -  outside
Number paid Firefighters:  14
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   Some taking training
Truck #1:    (1) Type 1 - Structure Truck
Truck #2:    (1) Type 2 - Wildland
Truck #3:    (1) Type 3 - Wildland  (deuce and a half)
Truck #4:    (1) Ambulance     
Miscellaneous notes/comments:      None
Hatch Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Highway 12 to county line
Fire Station address: 100 North 150 East, Hatch, Utah,  84735
Name of Chief, phone:  Kelly Dix   phone: 735-4364
Square footage of Station:  90  X  90        8100 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   2  double bays
Training Facilities:  large area in fire house with classroom
I.S.O. Rating:  9
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /   8 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  2
Truck #1:     (1) Type 1 - Engine 
Truck #2:     (1) Type 6 - Brush Truck
Truck #3:     (1) Type 3 - Brush Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments:     None 
Mammoth Creek Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:   Mammoth I,II,III, Big Pine, and all surrounding subdivisions
Fire Station address:  Big Pines Subdivision
Name of Chief/Phone:   John Miller (682-2717),  Station ( 682-2700)
Square footage of Station:  60 X 80 -  4800 sq.ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  3
Training Facilities:    Inside Firehouse and at Duck Creek
I.S.O. Rating:  10
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  12 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  5
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-3
Truck #1:    (2) - Type 1 Engine
Truck #2:    (2) - Type 6 Brush Trucks
Miscellaneous notes/comments:      None
Panguitch Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Ten miles in every direction of Panguitch 
Fire Station address:  50 East 100 North, Panguitch, Utah  84759
Name of Chief/Phone:  David Dobbs ( 676-3419)
Square footage of Station:   90 X 100 -  9000 sq. ft.                           
Number of Truck Bays:   2 Doubles
Training Facilities:  Inside fire house
I.S.O. Rating:   6
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  15 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   3
Truck #1:    (2) Type 1 Engines
Truck #2:    (1) Type 3 Engines
Truck #3:    (2) Type 2 Tender 
Truck #4:    (1) Watetender 1200 gallon
Miscellaneous notes/comments:      None
Panguitch Lake Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Panguitch Lake community area only     
Fire Station address:  Rustic Lodge, 186 West Shore Road, Panguitch, Utah 84759
Name of Chief, phone:  Brandon Smith (676-2627)
Square footage of Station:  no station
Number of Truck Bays:   no bays
Training Facilities:  none     
I.S.O. Rating:  8
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  5 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0
Truck #1:   (1)  TFEPP Brush Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: The Panguitch Lake home owners have approached the
US Forest Service to donate forest ground for a Firehouse.
Tropic Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  All the Pines, Rubies Inn, Henryville, Cannonville
Fire Station address:   210 West 100 North, Tropic, Utah  84776
Name of Chief, phone:  Ron Harris   phone: 679-8834     Station: 679-8696
Square footage of Station:  100  X  100 - 10,000 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   3
Training Facilities:  Large space inside fire Firehouse
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /  16 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters: 5
Truck #1:    (2)  Type1 Engines
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-4
Truck #2:    (1)  Type 6 Brush Truck
Truck #3:    (1)   water tender 1200 gallon
Miscellaneous notes/comments:    None  
IRON COUNTY
Beryl Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: Beaver County Line, Nevada State Line, Washington
                                      County Line, Town of New Castle                                                        
Fire Station address:  1466 West 2450 North,  Beryl,  Utah,  84714
Name of Chief, phone:  Nyal Bosshardt
Square footage of Station:  2100 Sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  5
Training Facilities: At Firehouse
 I.S.O. Rating:  9  -  within five miles of station
Number paid Firefighters: 0 / 12 regular Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  6
Truck #1:    (2) Structure Trucks
Truck #2:    (2) Wildland Trucks -1500 gallon
Truck #3:    (2) Brush Trucks (One-ton) 300 gallon & 400 gallon
Truck #4:    (3) Water tenders w/ 3500 gallon tanks
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Beryl Fire Department oversees three Fire Trucks at the     
Vince Rice residence in Modena.
Beryl Fire Department - Modena
Extent of Service Area:   From Beryl and Beryl Junction West to State Line
Fire Station address: Vince Rice residence,  Modena,  Utah,  84753
                                  Phone 439-5212
Name of Chief/Phone:   Nyal Bosshardt
Square footage of Station:  no station, vehicles parked outside
Number of Truck Bays:  none
Training Facilities:  none
I.S.O. Rating:  9
Number pail :  0  / 2 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:      0
Truck #1:   (1)  5000 gallon structure truck
Truck #2:   (1)  6 X 6 duce and one half FEPP 1000 gallon truck  
Truck #3:   (1)  older Ford F350 with 500 gallon tank and pump     
Miscellaneous notes/comments: These truck are under the control of the Beryl Fire
Department but are parked in Modena at the Vince Rice    
residence.
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-5
Brian Head Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Brian Head Town and Resort, Navajo Ridge,
                                       Steamboat Springs, Crystal Mountain
Fire Station address:  535 South Brian Head Blvd,  Brian Head, Utah 84719
Name of Chief, phone:  Chief Gary Bullock (cell 990-1001)  
                                     Brian Head Town Hall     phone:  677-2029  
Square footage of Station:   5000  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays: 3 Double Bays
Training Facilities:  Inside firehouse and adjoining rooms in city offices
I.S.O. Rating:   9
Number paid Firefighters:  5 – Full- time Fire & Public Safety Captains.    
                                          11 Volunteers   =  16 total Firemen.
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   14    
Truck #1:    (2) Structure trucks with w-wheel drive wildland capability
Truck #2:          one 1250 gpm – 500 gallons,  one 800 gpm 400 gallons
Truck #3:    (2) Type 6 - Brush Trucks
Truck #4:    (1) Ambulance
Miscellaneous notes/comments:    None
Cedar City Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: 1500 sq. miles. Milepost 68 to 42 north to south. 
                                        East and west to county lines.     
Fire Station address:  (1)  129 North 800 West, Cedar City,Utah  84720
                                   (2)  2599 Commerce, Cedar City, Utah  84720
Name of Chief/ Phone: Paul Irons                                    I.S.O.
Rating:   4
Number paid firefighters: 4   paid,   35 active Volunteers      
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:  18
Truck #1:   (4) Engines
Truck #2:   (1) Ladder Truck
Truck #3:   (5) Type 6 Trucks
Truck #4:   (2) Watertenders  (1 – 2500 gallon, 1  -  4000 gallon) 
Truck #5:   (1) Heavy Rescue Truck
Truck #6:   (1) Light Rescue Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Planned 6500 sq. ft. addition to # 1. Planned West Station
firehouse #3, 6500 sq. ft. on 1600 N. Lund Hyw    
 
Hamblin Valley Fire Department   
Extent of Service Area:Hamblin Valley extending along Hamblin Valley Rd. 
Fire Station address: Hack Horner Home, Hamblin Valley, Utah
Name of Chief, phone:  Wayne Peterson   439-5374, 439 - 5300
Square footage of Station:  Inside caretaker Jack Horner’s personal garage
Number of Truck Bays:    0    
Training Facilities:  Training with Newcastle Department at NC Firehouse 
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-6
I.S.O. Rating:  10
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  3 volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:        0 
Truck #1:   (1) Type 6 - Brush Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Hamblin Valley FD is under the direction of Chief Wayne
Peterson and Iron County Fire Warden Ryan Riddle. The
engine is located at the private home of Hamblin Valley
resident Jack Horner who has training and acts as the fire
equipment caretaker.  
Kanarraville Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:     Kanarraville town and surroundings
Fire Station address:     100 South 108 East, Kanarraville, Utah 84743
Name of Chief, phone:     Hesse Hisrchi    phone  865-1866
Square footage of Station:   40 X  58              2320 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:      3
Training Facilities:     Inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:          6
Number paid firefighters:     0 / 11 volunteers   Number “Red Carded” firefighters:     0
Truck #1:    2  -  engines
Truck #2:    1  -  wildland truck
Truck #3:    1  -  ¾ ton Dodge brush truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: The Kanarraville Fire Department owns several trucks that
may be put back in service if needed in the future.
Newcastle Fire Department 
Extent of Service Area: Pinto on south,  Bench road to county line on south, MP 28 to Antelope
Springs Road on north, MP 4 to 42 east and west on Highway 56
Fire Station address:   75 West Highway 56, Newcastle, Utah  84756
Name of Chief, phone:   Wayne Peterson         phone  439-5374,    439-5300 
Square footage of Station:  35  X  100   3500 sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  4 plus office and classroom     
Training Facilities:   Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  Newcastle Town  =  6,  five miles from firehouse  =  9
Number paid firefighters:       0  /  12 volunteers on roster
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:        10    
Truck #1:    (1)  Type 1   Engine    1750gpm - 750 gallon tank
Truck #2:    (1)  Type 3   Engine      400 gpm - 400 gallon tank 
Truck #3:    (1)  Type 6   Engine      250 gallon brush truck
Truck #4:    (1)  Type 6   Rescue      250 gallon tank
Truck #5:    (1)  Deuce and ½         150 gpm - 1200 gallon tank
Truck #6:    All trucks have water extending (foam) capabilities
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Newcastle Fire Dept. is searching for a Water tender
                                                     
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-7
Paragonah Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: I-15 MP 80 – 100, Parowan to county line     
Fire Station address:   88 West Center, Paragonah, Utah   84760
Name of Chief, phone:  Royce Barton  home(477-3420),  cell (559-3430)
Square footage of Station:  20 X 50  1000 sq. ft. plus new addition
Number of Truck Bays:  3 
Training Facilities:  Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:   7
Number paid:   0  /  15 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:     10
Truck #1:    (1)   New 2006 Central States 1250 gmp 1000 gallon number
Truck #2:    (1)   Structure Pumper
Truck #3:    (1)   FMC 2000 gpm 1000 engine
Truck #4:    (2)   Type 6 Brush Truck w/ utility rescue bed
Truck #5:    (1)   Wildland Brush Truck
Truck #6:    (1)   2500 gallon Watertender 
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Breaking ground for new addition to fire house. A 30’ X 60’
building being added to the Paragonah Fire Department.
Parowan Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: Kane Springs Rd. to county line on west, I-15  MM 69 to 80 north and
south, SR30 to Summit Canyon on east
Fire Station address:  280 West 200 South, Parowan, Utah  84761
Name of Chief, phone:  Albert Orton (477-3641)
Square footage of Station:  100  X  50    5000 sq. ft.              
Number of Truck Bays:  5
Training Facilities:  In Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:    6 ½
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /   25 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  13
Truck #1:      (3)   Engines
Truck #2:      (4)   Type 5 and 6 Brush Trucks
Miscellaneous notes/comments:      None
KANE COUNTY
Alton Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: Town of Alton
Fire Station address:  60  South Main,  Alton, Utah  84710
Name of Chief / Phone:  Stacey (684-2635)  Ken Johnson ( 691-0747)
Square footage of Station:  840  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  2
Training Facilities:  Inside firehouse
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-8
I.S.O. Rating:  unrated
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /   2 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  0
Truck #1:   (1) Type 2 - Engines
Truck #2:   (2) Type 6 - Engines
Truck #3:   (1) Watertender (under construction)
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Alton Firehouse due for remodel summer of 2007
Big Water Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Big Water
Fire Station address: 15 Aaron Burr, Big Water, Utah  84741
Name of Chief, phone:  John Althedir ( 675-9160)
Square footage of Station:  2400  sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  2 (new station under construction)
Training Facilities:  Inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  9
Number paid Firefighterss: 0  / 10  volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  2
Truck #1:    (1) Type 1 - Engine
Truck #2:    (1) Type 6 - Engine
Truck #3:    (1) Watertender  800 gallons
Miscellaneous notes/comments: A new firehouse is under construction in Big Water which
will be an addition to the current one.
Church Wells Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: Church Wells area
Fire Station address:  Church Wells, Utah  84742
Name of Chief, phone:   Currently no Chief
Square footage of Station:  30  X  40 - 1200 Sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  2
Training Facilities: in Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:    Unrated
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  4 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  2
Truck #1: (1) Type 2 - StructureTruck
Truck #2: (1) Type 6 - Brush Truck     
Miscellaneous notes/comments:  None
Glendale Town Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Mount Carmel on South to Alton on North
Fire Station address:  50 South 100 East, Glendale, Utah  84730
Name of Chief / Phone:  Sherman Cox (private  648-2019)
Square footage of Station:  3600 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  2 Doubles
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-9
Training Facilities:  Inside Firehouse
Number paid Firefighters:    0  /  5 Volunteers
Number "Red Carded" Firefighters:   0  -  3 Volunteers ready for pack test
Truck #1: (1)  Structure engine
Truck #2: (1)  Deuce and one half FEPP Brush Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments:    None
Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District Fire Dept.
Extent of Service Area:  Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District
Fire Station address:  10 Mammoth Creek Road, Duck Creek Village  84762
Name of Chief, phone: Ken Johnson -  cell (691-0747), Station( 682-3225)
Square footage of Station:  40  X  80   3200  sq.  ft. 
Number of Truck Bays:  3   w/ foyer, office, large meeting room
Training Facilities:   Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  Swains Creek  -  5    Duck Creek Village  -  9
Number paid firefighters: 1 full time, 2 part-time/ 20 volunteers
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:   9
Truck #1:   (2)  Structure Engines    one 1000 gallon,  one 500 gallon
Truck #2:   (1)  Type 4 Windland, 750 gallon  1 -  type 5 wildland  375 gallon
Truck #3:   (1)  Type 3 Windland 600 gallon   1  -  40k portable generator
Truck #4:   (3)  Type 3Pumpertenders 1000 gallon each
Truck #5:   (1) Rescue Truck 180 gallons, (1) Chase Truck   
Truck #6:   (2) First Response & Medic Trucks (1) Engine Rescue Truck  
Miscellaneous notes/comments: 2 double bay addition next year to firehouse 
Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District Sub-Station  - Zion View
Extent of Service Area:  Zion View
Fire Station address:  Zion View
Name of Chief, phone: Ken Johnson, cell ( 691-0747)
Square footage of Station:  29  X  49  1160  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   3
Training Facilities:   Inside forestation or a Duck Creek (Mammoth)
I.S.O. Rating:   10
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /  2 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0
Truck #1:    (1)   Type 3 Wildland  600 gallon
Truck #2:    (1)   Type 2 Windland  6 X  6   -  750 gallon (deuce and one half)
Truck #3: RMTEXT     
 Miscellaneous notes/comments: None   
Kanab Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  MP 79 to State Line and wherever needed
Fire Station address:  601 South 100 East, Kanab, Utah  84741
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-10
Name of Chief / Phone:  Alan Aldridge ( 644-2718)
Square footage of Station:   600 sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  4 Double Bays /  8 doors
Training Facilities: Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  6
Number paid Firefighters: 1 half-time/ 15 (Volunteer Firemen Association)
Number "Red Carded" Firefighters:   2 (both Federal Firefighters)
Truck #1:    (2) Type 1 - Engines
Truck #2:    (1) Type 2 - Engines
Truck #3:    (2) Type 6 - Engines
Truck #4:    (1) Type 5 - Engines
Truck #5:    (1) Type 7 - Rescue Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
Orderville Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:   Mt. Carmel to Kanab  MP 82  -  88
Fire Station address:  415 East State Street, Orderville, Utah   84758
Name of Chief, phone: Earl Levanger (689-0425)
Square footage of Station:  28  X  40  1130  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   4
Training Facilities: Inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  9
Number of paid Firefighters:  0  /   5  volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  2
Truck #1:    (1) Type 4 Engine
Truck #2:    (2) Type 2 Engine
Truck #3:    (1) Support Truck
Truck #4:    (1) Ambulance
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None 
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Brookside Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Northwest Special Services District
Fire Station address:  Brookside,  Utah,   84782
Name of Chief, phone:   Captain Dan Tanasy (574-35360
Square footage of Station:  40  X  20  800 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:    3
Training Facilities:   Inside station or at Central Fire Department
I.S.O. Rating:   9
Number paid firefighters: 0  / 6 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0
Truck #1:      (1) Engine
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-11
Truck #2:      (1) Brush Truck
Truck #3:      (1) Tender
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None     
Central Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Northwest Special Services District
Fire Station address:  P.O. Box 121, 411 North Main, Central, Utah   84722
Name of Chief, phone:  Bill Becker / Captain (574-3183 or 632-4743)
Square footage of Station:  3200 Sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  4  plus meeting room
Training Facilities:   Inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  7  -  9
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  10 – 12 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   3
Truck #1:     (2) Engines
Truck #2:     (1) Brush Truck
Truck #3:     (1) Water tender     
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
Enterprise Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: Under Mutual Aid Agreement all of Washington   
                                       County and norther sections of Iron County
Fire Station address:      246 East 200 South, Enterprise, Utah  84725
Name of Chief, phone:    Wayne Hunt,  work 878-2221, home 878-2770
                                        Cell 231-9016
 Square footage of Station:           30  X  80                 2400  sq.  ft.
 Number of Truck Bays:     4 single, additional ambulance added to 1 bay   
Training Facilities:      Classroom and office inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:             6   
Number paid firefighters:  1  /  15 structure volunteers, 5 red card wildland
                                         only – 5 of structure volunteers are recorded  
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:        10 
Truck #1:    2  -  type 1 structure engines w/ 500 gallon tanks
Truck #2:    2  -  type 4 tactical tender engines 1000 tanks
Truck #3:    2  -  type 6 engines w/ 250 gallon tanks
Truck #4:    1  -  ambulance
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Under cooperative agreement with Utah Forestry, Fire &
State Lands, EFD purchasing new type 6 engine next year   
Gunlock Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Northwest Special Services District
Fire Station address:  P.O. Box 121, 411 North Main, Gunlock,  Utah  84733
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-12
Name of Chief, phone:   Mike Joyner ( 574-4894)
Square footage of Station: 20 X 20  400  sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:  1
Training Facilities:  Gunlock Fire House and in Central
I.S.O. Rating:  10
Number paid firefighters:   0  /  4 volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Fire Fighters:     1
Truck #1:     (1)  Pumper Engine
Truck #2:     (1) BrushTruck
Miscellaneous notes/comments:    
Harmony Valley Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  I-15 MM 36 – 42.  Mutual Aid First Responders 
                                        MM 44 to Chekshoni development
Fire Station address:  1 - 133 East Center, New Harmony, Utah 84757
                                   2  -POBox 650, 1388 S. Old Hyw 91, New Harmony
Name of Chief/ Phone:  Dick  Holland ( 865-1672)
Square footage of Station:    1  -  2000 sq. ft.
                                             2  -  64 X 100     6400 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   (1)   2 bays with kitchen, office, and classroom
                                       (2)   3 double stack bays w/classroom, lobby, male and female bath     
 and showers
Training Facilities: classrooms in both fire stations
I.S.O. Rating:   7  if structure is within 200 feet of a fire hydrant
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /  22 Volunteers on roster
Number “Red Carded” firefighters:       7
Truck #1:     4  -  class I engines
Truck #2:     1  -  new 2006 brush truck
Truck #3:     2  -  rescue squads w/ brush truck capablity
Truck #4:     1  -  quad 4-wheeler fully decked for fire
Truck #5:     1  -  fire trailer
Truck #6:     1  -  2200 gallon tender with pump and hoses
Miscellaneous notes/comments: 5 new 3 story homes ladder truck next    
Hildale City
Extent of Service Area: Hilldale city limits, will respond further of necessary
Fire Station address:  350 E. Newel Avenue, Hildale, Utah, 84780
Name of Chief, phone:  Joseph I. Barlow, Jr.   874-2753
Square footage of Station:   1540
Number of Truck Bays:   3
Training Facilities:   Upstairs training facility
I.S.O. Rating:   3
Number paid Firefighters:    0
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   41
Truck #1: (1)  HME – 1750 gpm pump, 2500 gallon tank
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-13
Truck #2: (1)  5000 gallon water tender w/1000 gpm pump
Truck #3: (2)  Type 1 Engines
Truck #4: (3)  Type 6 Engines
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Depending upon manpower available at the station at any given
time, the Hildale/Colorado City Fire Department will respond to fires past Apple Valley.    
Hurricane City Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Apple Valley & Zions on East, Washington on West 
Fire Station address:  3 Main Street, Hurricane, Utah  84737 (next to Police Station)  
Name of Chief / Phone:  Ed Campbell (Fire Station 635-9562, City Office 635-2811)  
Square footage of Station:  (1)  8 Bays - 8 Doors
                                           (2)  4 Double Bays
                                           (3)   3 Double Bays 
Number of Truck Bays: See above   
Training Facilities: Firehouse (1)
I.S.O. Rating:  5   
Number paid Firefighters:   0  /  34 Volunteers 
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   11
Truck #1:   (4)  Type 1 - Structure Engines
Truck #2:   (3)  Type 3 - Wildland Engines
Truck #3:   (3)  Type 6 - Wildland Engines
Truck #4:   (1)  Rescue Truck
Truck #5:   (2)  Ambulance     
Miscellaneous notes/comments: 
Leeds Fire Department  
Extent of Service Area:    Leeds Area Special Service District (LASSD.) 
                                         Will extend further under Mutual Aid agreement.
Fire Station address:  730 North Main, Leeds, Utah  84746
Name of Chief, phone:  Steve Lewis  879-2220,  cell 467-2911.  Fire station  
 (Full-time chief)   office  879-2881.  Leeds City Offices 879-2447 
Square footage of Station:   68  X  50   3400  sq  ft               
Number of Truck Bays:   3 double bays plus classroom      
Training Facilities: Classroom inside firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:   5  
Number paid Firefighters:  1 full time  / 18 volunteers 
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  10 red carded, 13 certified EMT’s  
Truck #1:    (2)   Type 2 Structure Engines
Truck #2:    (2)   Type 6 Brush Engines
Truck #3:    (2)   Ambulance
Miscellaneous notes/comments: 3 Volunteer Firemen are certified  HAZMAT Operations,
remainder are Firefighter 1 trained and certified. 
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-14
Pine Valley Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:   All Pinto geographical area and all Pine Valley 
                                        geographical area. EMS 1st responders also
                                         to Central, Brookside, & Mountain Meadows 
Fire Station address:    680 East Main St.  Pine Valley, Utah  84781
Name of Chief, phone: Steve Robinson  home (574-3755), cell ( 668-3050)
                                     Station (574-2126)
Square footage of Station: 120  X  80   9600  sq.  ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   3  singles plus classroom, office, and showers   
Training Facilities:   Inside firehouse 
I.S.O. Rating:   6
Number paid Firefighters:  1 part-time  /  18 volunteers  
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0  /  9 classroom trained no pack tests     
Truck #1:    (1)   Type 1 Engine  -   2006 International w/ compressed full 
                                                        foam, 500 gallon tank.
Truck #2:    (1) Type 1 Engine  -  American LeFrance with 500 gallon tank
Truck #3:    (2) Type 6 Brush Trucks w/ 250 gallon tanks
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
Santa Clara Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Shivwits on West, St. George on North.
Fire Station address:  (1)  2827 Rachel Drive, Santa Clara, Utah  84765
                                   (2)  2365 No, Circle Drive, Santa Clara, Utah  84765                                
Name of Chief/Phone:  Robert Hansen ( 673-6712)
Square footage of Station:  (1)  6000 sq. ft., Classroom, 2 Offices
                                           (2 ) 2000 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   (1)  6 Bays and 6 Doors
            (2)  2 Bays 
Training Facilities:   Firehouse (1)
I.S.O. Rating:  6
Number paid Firefighters:   2  /  32 Volunteers 
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   5 
Truck #1:    (2) Type 1 Structure Engines
Truck #2:    (2) Type 4 Wildland Engines
Truck #3:    (1) Type 6 Brush Truck
Truck #4:    (1) Rescue Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None  
Smithsonian Fire Department of Apple Valley
Extent of Service Area:    Little Creek to Hurricane
Fire Station address:  6802 Meadowland Drive, Apple Valley, Utah  84737
Name of Chief, phone:    Louis Ford ( 467-1044)
Square footage of Station:   60 X 88   4899 sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:   3 double bays
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-15
Training Facilities:   Inside the firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:   6
Number paid Firefighters:    0  /  14 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:    6
Truck #1:   (1) Engine
Truck #2:   (3) Brush Trucks
Truck #3:   (1) Rescue Vehicle
Truck #4:   (1) Watertender
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
Springdale - Rockville Fire Department  
Extent of Service Area:  Special Service District that covers both Springdale and Rockville
Fire Station address:  118 Lion Blvd, Springdale, Utah  84767                                              
Name of Chief / phone:   Jim Hansen ( 722-3434)
Square footage of Station:   2400  sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays:    (4) Drive through with 4 doors
Training Facilities: Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating: 7
Number paid Firefighters:  1  /  12 Volunteers  (6 active) 
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   0
Truck #1:  (2)  Type 1 - Structure Engines
Truck #2:  (1)  Type 4 - Wildland Engine
Truck #3:  (1)  Ambulance     
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
St. George Fire Department   
Extent of Service Area:  From Leeds on the North to Ivins on the South 
Fire Station address:   (1)  51 South 100 East, St. George,Utah  84770
                                    (7)  1912 West 1800 North, St. George    84770Name of Chief, phone: 
Robert Stoker (cell 435-703-0921)       
Square footage of Station: There are 7 Fire Stations in St. George.  (1) & (7) are manned by          
                                        Full- time Firemen, # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, are Satellite Volunteer.
Number of Truck Bays:   Minimum two or more bays in each station.                                
                                       Station (2)(6)  have no Type 6 engines.  
Training Facilities:   (1) Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  St. George City  =  4       
Number paid Firefighters:  19 Full-time Firemen / 76 Active Volunteers 
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   6 - 10    
Truck #1:    (7) Type 1 - Structure Engines
Truck #2:    (2) ReserveType1 - Structure Engines
Truck #3:    (5) Type 6- Brush Trucks
Truck #4:    (1) Ladder Truck
Miscellaneous notes/comments:  St. George Fire Department has the only  trained and certified    
                                      HAZMAT Team in the 5-County area.   
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-15
Veyo Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Northwest Special Services District
Fire Station address:   59 East Center, Veyo, Utah  84782
Name of Chief, phone:  District Chief Mike Johnson (home) 574-2441, (work) 673-1764 ext.574
                   Captain Chris Larsen  574-2341
Square footage of Station:  4000  sq. ft.
Number of Truck Bays: (1) Double Bay (2) 20ft. Bay
Training Facilities:  Inside Firehouse
I.S.O. Rating:  7  -  8
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  15 Volunteers
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  6  
Truck #1:    (1) Type I  - Engine
Truck #2:    (1) Type 6 - Brush Truck
Truck #3:    (1) Type 1 - Water tender
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None
Virgin Valley Fire Department
Extent of Service Area: 16 sq. miles of Virgin Valley and upon request; all 
                                      over Washington County
Fire Station address:   Wilcox Lane & Kolob Terrace Road, Virgin Valley, 84779
Name of Chief, phone:   Chief Gary (635-7524)                                                                         
Square footage of Station: Converted old pump station 25 X 30 = 750 sq.ft.                         
Number of Truck Bays:  2 inside w/ electric heater,  2 outside 
Training Facilities:        
NI.S.O. Rating:  9
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  12 volunteers
Number “Red Carded”Firefighters:  5    
Truck #1:     (2)   Type 6 Structure Engine 1 – 750 gallon,  1  -  500 gallon
Truck #2:     (1)   Type 6 Brush Truck  -  125 gallon
Truck #3:     (1)   1000 gallon Watertender:
Miscellaneous notes/comments:   None
Washington City Fire Department
Extent of Service Area:  Washington City
Main Firehouse address (1):  250 W. Buena Vista Rd. Washington City,  84738
Fire Station address (2):  875 E. Washington Blvd.Washington City,  84720                                
Name of Chief / Phone:  Chuck  Pandy (673-4788)
Square footage of Station: (1) 10.000 sq, ft,
        (2)   5,000 sq. ft.  
Number of Truck Bays:  (1)  3 Double Bays  w/ drive through, office, 
                                             classroom, and sleeping rooms
                                       (2)  3 Bay’s, 1 Drive-through 
Training Facilities:  Inside Firehouse (1)
APPENDIX B - Fire Department Capabilities 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan B-15
I.S.O. Rating:  6  -  9
Number paid Firefighters:  3  /  39 Volunteers on roaster     
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:  20    
Truck #1:    (3) Type 1 - Structure Trucks
Truck #2:    (3) Type 6 - Brush Trucks
Truck #3:    (2) Rescue Vehicles  
Miscellaneous notes/comments: Two new Full-time Firemen will be hired in April 2007.
Winchester Hills Fire Department     
Extent of Service Area:  Winchester Hills community to Diamond Valley 
Fire Station address: 1090 West 5830 North, Winchester Hills, Utah 84770
Name of Chief, phone:  Don Ruesch ( 673-5946)
Square footage of Station: 40  X  60   2400  sq  ft     
Number of Truck Bays:   2      
Training Facilities: Inside firehouse 
I.S.O. Rating:   6    
Number paid Firefighters:  0  /  9 volunteers  
Number “Red Carded” Firefighters:   2
Truck #1:    (1)   Type 1 Structure Engine
Truck #2:    (1)   Type 6 Brush Engine
Miscellaneous notes/comments: None  
   
                                                      
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-1
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Cheatgrass: A Weedy Annual on Great Basin Rangelands
by Scott Tobler
Introduction
Cheatgrass is pre-evolved to fill niches created by humans through concentrations of
their domesticated livestock (Young and Allen, 1997).  This adaptability of cheatgrass allows
it to out compete native vegetation in the semi-arid areas of the U.S. where it has been
introduced.  In the Great Basin, cheatgrass readily invaded overgrazed and deteriorated
rangelands reaching its present distribution by the 1930’s.  Once established, cheatgrass
changes the fire frequency by creating an easily ignited, continuous fine fuel between native
shrub and bunchgrass species.  The forage quality of cheatgrass is low, and as it forms a
monoculture there can be irreversible damage to the native plant and animal communities.
Rehabilitation of cheatgrass ranges requires intensive methods that are very expensive.  A
recent, more cost effective approach to rehabilitating cheatgrass infested rangelands is
greenstripping.  Established greenstrips will reduce the cheatgrass fire frequency and give
native vegetation a chance to recover.  
Cheatgrass Physiology
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an exotic Mediterranean winter annual.  The life
history of this grass was preadapted to the wet, cold winters and dry, hot summers of the
Great Basin (Mack, 1981).  Cheatgrass typically germinates in the fall and forms numerous
roots that occupy the soil surface.  These roots continue to elongate during the winter while
small dormant leaves are maintained.  When spring moisture becomes available it “cheats”
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-2
other vegetation out of the moisture because it has already established a root system and can
begin growing at lower temperatures than most other plants.  Cheatgrass grows rapidly,
ripens and dries out in, or even before June.  If conditions in the fall do not allow cheatgrass
to germinate, it will germinate in the spring and complete its lifecycle by early summer.
When moisture is deficient, total height growth may be only 5 to 8 cm.  In a wet year it can
reach 60 cm or more.  Cheatgrass is a prolific seed producer, and even in a dry year produces
enough of a seed crop to provide for the next year’s plants.  In fact, one plant/m  can2
produce as many seeds as 10,000 plants/m  (Stewart and Hull, 1949, Yensen, 1981, Young2
and Allen, 1997).  Seeds are short-lived (less than 3 years) in most situations, and most
control strategies for this weed are driven by the principle of depleting the soil seed bank
(Ogg, 1994).
Pre-Cheatgrass Invasion Grazing History
The cheatgrass problems now being experienced on Great Basin rangelands are a
result of practices that began back in the mid-1800’s.  The Mormons first filled the Utah
ranges with stock they drove across the plains, beginning in 1847.  By about 1880, the ranges
in northern and central Utah were occupied by about 160,000 head of cattle (Stewart, 1936).
Strong cattle markets in the late seventies and early eighties, as a result of gold and silver
discovered in the Rocky Mountains, carried grazing onto most of the accessible ranges as
cattle were raised and driven annually to the mines (Mack, 1981).  Spurred by strong
markets, the accumulated forage of many years was mined by too early and too continuous
grazing.  Then harsh winters and severe droughts in the mid-to-late 80’s wiped out many
stockmen making the necessity of providing a dependable forage supply evident.  But just
when security in the ownership of cattle was becoming established there was a tremendous
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-3
and rapid increase in sheep.  In Utah, sheep numbers increased from a few hundred
thousand in the early eighties to nearly 2.9 million by 1901 (Stewart, 1936).  These vast
numbers of sheep arriving on fully used cattle ranges, further exhausted the range forage.
The mindset of the time was that the only way to prevent another outfit from obtaining a
given range on public lands was to strip it clean.  Homesteading also rapidly increased in the
early 1880’s (Mack, 1981), and crop growing had the effect of decreasing the range area and
added the settlers’ farm stock to the shrinking ranges.  Alien weeds also started appearing
with the advent of agriculture (Mack, 1981).  War demands created high prices, and by 1918-
19, the number of animal units in the nation was the highest ever attained (Stewart, 1936).
These record numbers of livestock further speeded up range depletion.   In Utah, there were
reported to be 344,000 cattle and 2,926,000 sheep in 1931 (Pickford, 1932), going into the
drought of 1930-35, further setting back any range recovery.  As perennial range grasses
were depleted throughout this history of grazing and land use, they were replaced by annuals
that had originally only been able to gain a hold in disturbed areas along roadways, railways,
and deserted agricultural fields.
Cheatgrass Invasion and Spread
Cheatgrass glumes are covered with short strong barbs that cause the spikelets to
work into wool, hair, and clothing and aids in the dispersal of seed (Stewart and Hull, 1949).
Cheatgrass is thought to have arrived in Idaho from awns carried in the coats of sheep trailed
from California through Nevada to Southern Idaho (Yensen, 1981, Young and Allen, 1997).
Another way cheatgrass was dispersed throughout the west was probably in contaminated
seed grain (Mack, 1981).  Cheatgrass is also often a contaminant of alfalfa seed (Young and
Allen, 1997).    Billings (1994) traced the introduction of cheatgrass to eastern North America
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-3
Fig. 1.  Plot of area occupied by cheatgrass
verses time (Mack, 1981). 
from ships bringing settlers of the 17  and 18  centuries and from there it moved west as ath th
seed grain contaminant.  Cheatgrass was being collected repeatedly on ballast dumps at
Portaland, Oregon in 1902, and was also spread in discarded straw packed with dry goods
(Mack, 1981).  Cheatgrass is now widely distributed in the United States, occurring in all
areas except for the coastal southeast.
Cheatgrass was first collected in Pennsylvania in 1864, Washington in 1893, Utah in
1894, Colorado in 1895, and Wyoming in 1900 (Stewart and Hull, 1949, Mack, 1981).  In the
first few years of the 1900’s, cheatgrass gained a foothold on disturbed areas like railroad
right-of-ways, road shoulders, orchards, and fallow fields.  The most spectacular occupations
were on abandoned farms (Stewart and Hull, 1949).  By 1915 to 1920, cheatgrass started to
colonize overgrazed rangelands (Stewart and Hull, 1949, Young and Allen, 1997).  Cheatgrass
increased very rapidly, especially when fire was
combined with overgrazing, which was often the case.
Figure 1 characterizes the spread of cheatgrass. 
Aldo Leopold (1941) portrayed the expansion
of cheatgrass well when he said, “One simply woke up
one fine spring to find the range dominated by a new
weed . . .  cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).”  
Some stockmen, in search of new forage for depleated rangelands, aided the spread
of cheatgrass by enthusiastically and deliberately introducing it to new areas (Young and
Allen, 1997, Yensen, 1981).  As it invaded rangelands, cheatgrass started to fill the
interspaces between shrubs, where perennial grasses had been before being lost through
overgrazing.  Pickford (1932) did a study to determine the changes that had taken place on
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-5
the Utah spring-fall range type as a result of grazing, fire, or other human induced factors
and paints a pretty clear picture of the trend toward the annualization of rangelands as it was
beginning in the early 1930’s.  The density of perennial grasses on grazed plots was only 38
percent as great as on protected plots, and sagebrush density was about 2.25 times higher on
the grazed plots.  Sagebrush had been practically eliminated on the burned plots and
cheatgrass constituted 22 percent of the vegetation with the density of perennial grasses
being 32 percent lower on the burned plots than on protected plots.  On plots both burned
and grazed, cheatgrass was the dominant species, and the density of perennial grasses was
only 16 percent as great as that of protected plots. 
Cheatgrass and Fire
Cheatgrass is extremely flammable.  Cheatgrass range is 500 tim es more likely to
burn than any other rangeland type (Yensen, 1981).   Because of the lifecycle of cheatgrass, it
can burn 4 to 6 weeks earlier in the summer than perennials do and remains susceptible to
fall fires for 1 to 2 months later.  The Forest Service estimates that five times more men and
equipment are needed for standby crews on cheatgrass ranges than if these same ranges
were in perennial grasses (Stewart and Hull, 1949).  These characteristics of cheatgrass
change the fire regime of the ranges they have invaded by creating a continuous fuel that
carries wildfires to more widely spaced shrubs. 
 Much of the Great Basin can be characterized by three general range types: low-
elevation with playas, greasewood (Sarcobatus verticulatus), or saltgrass (Distichlis stricta)
habitat, mid-elevation shrub dominated upper valleys and foothills with big sagebrush
(Artimesia tridentate) and bunchgrass species, and high-elevations donminated by juniper
(Juniperous osteosperma) habitat (Sparks et al., 1990, Rogers, 1982).  Fire was not a driving
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-6
variable in the low-elevation salt-desert shrub ecosystems (West, 1994).  The natural fire
frequency of mid-elevation sagebrush-grass vegetation is 32 to 70 years, and in the driest
sagebrush communities the fire frequency could have been as low as 100 years (Wright and
Baily, 1982).  Until about the 1950’s, cheatgrass had not invaded juniper woodlands to any
serious extent.  Since then, fires have become much more common in this woodland
ecosysetem fueled by dry cheatgrass and once started by the resins of the trees themselves.
This woodland is being replaced after fire by great expanses of annual grassland dominated
by even more cheatgrass (Billings, 1994).  Cheatgrass is fire tolerant and is perpetuated by
fire, causing large areas of the salt-desert shrub, sagebrush-bunchgrass, and juniper
ecosystems to burn as often as every 3 to 5 years (Whisenant, 1994).  Pickford (1932) noted
that on burned-over areas of the Great Salt Lake District, cheatgrass had replaced sagebrush
as a dominant and often occupies these sites in dense stands.  Today, millions of hectares of
rangelands in the Great Basin are characterized by cheatgrass in a conversion from native
vegetation that has occurred at an accelerated rate during the 20  century (Young and Allen,th
1997).
Cheatgrass as Forage  
Cheatgrass produces a relatively large amount of herbage and on many ranges it is
the most important forage plant, especially for spring use.  However, the period during
which the herbage is fresh and green is several weeks shorter than for wheatgrasses.  Forage
quality decreases as plants mature and the protein content drops to about 3 percent (Nesse
and Ball, 1994).  The palatability of cheatgrass is often lower than that of associated
perennial grasses and long slender awns on the seed head can limit feed intake by irritating
and puncturing the soft tissues inside the mouth of grazing animals.  Herbage production of
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-7
cheatgrass also fluctuates greatly year-to-year due to weather variations as compared to
perennial grasses.  Perennial grasses produce twice as much herbage as cheatgrass in a moist
year and 12 times as much herbage in a drought year (Roberts, 1991, Stewart and Hull,
1949).
Cheatgrass and the Environment
The long-term implications of the cheatgrass invasion and its effects in relation to
fires and their cumulative repetitive impacts will be a loss of biological and genetic diversity.
The native plant and animal species in ecosystems that are now prone to widespread
wildfires are at considerable risk of going extinct at the population level locally or even
regionally.  Worse, this conversion of native ecosystems to simplistic annual grasslands
could alter the energy flow, water cycling, and nutrient balance, causing ecosystemic
destruction that could be irreversible (Billings, 1994).  
Revegetating Cheatgrass Infested Rangelands
The presence of cheatgrass makes it very difficult to reestablish perennial grasses.
The efficient root system of cheatgrass simply overwhelms and starves out new seedlings by
absorbing all of the moisture from the soil.  As few as four cheatgrass plants per square foot
can out-compete crested wheatgrass seedlings and the seedlings of native bunchgrasses are
even less competitive (Young et al, 1987).  However, once established, species like crested
wheatgrass will out-compete cheatgrass in the following years.  Weed control revegetation
techniques involving furrowing during seeding have been developed that permit the
establishment of desirable species in areas dominated by cheatgrass.  James DeFlon (1986)
describes a revegetation procedure that has been successful on the Promontory Ranch, about
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-8
40 miles west of Ogden, Utah, for replacing cheatgrass.  In August or September when
conditions are dry, the old stand of cheatgrass is burned.  This is followed by running a brush
beater over the ground to remove all remnants of brush and other vegetation.  When the
cheatgrass starts to sprout, usually around the first of October, the area is tilled with a chisel
plow equipped with sweeps to suppress any sprouting cheatgrass and remove any surface
roots left from the brush.  A deep furrow drill equipped with shoes spaced 14 inches on the
center followed by packer wheels is used to plant the seed of perennial grass species about
one-half inch deep. 
A chemical fallow technique was used by Eckert et al. (1967) to establish perennial
grasses on cheatgrass infested rangelands in eastern California and in central Nevada.  Six by
six meter plots were treated with Atrazine in the fall and then seeded with perennial grasses
the next fall.  There was a significant decrease in cheatgrass density during the fallow year.
Treated plots produced significantly more herbage than did the check, and seeding in
furrows resulted in about twice as many, and also more vigorous seedlings than did surface
seeding.  The success of the Atrazine fallow technique on the study plots led Eckert et al.
(1974) to apply the technique to sites in central and eastern Nevada of 20 to 65 hectares.
Very high spring precipitation in the seedling year masked some of the treatment effects, but
seedling height, vigor, and survival were better in the Atrazine fallow and furrowed areas.
Deep furrowing tended to remove more of the Atrizine residue from the vicinity of the
seeded plants as well as create a more moist and weed free microenvironment for the seeded
species.
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-9
Greenstripping  
The costs of rehabilitating cheatgrass infested rangelands, using an aggressive
approach, can exceed the appraised value of the land.  The cost of rehabilitation has
influenced how much land can be treated and prohibits it on marginally productive sites.  An
alternative to seeding entire areas that are dominated by cheatgrass being implemented
mostly in southern Idaho is greenstripping.    Greenstripping is the practice of establishing
or using patterns of fire resilient vegetation and/or material to reduce wildfire occurrence
and size (USDI, 1987).  The Idaho BLM has put strips of fire resilient vegetation up to 91
meters wide, mainly along roads and railways to reduce human-caused fire starts and create
a wider fire barrier.  It is hoped that these greenstrips will protect fire-susceptible vegetation
types (sagebrush/grass and salt-desert shrubs) by reducing the cheatgrass induced fire
frequency and give native plants a chance to reestablish (Pellent, 1990).  For greenstrips a
relatively small area of land is treated compared to the amount of land that will be protected,
therefore, the cost of an aggressive approach for seedling establishment may be justified.
Plant materials suitable for greenstrips need to be adapted to persist on semiarid sites,
capable of establishing and persisting in competition with annual weeds, fire resistant
throughout much of the wildfire season, fire tolerant (to survive occasional burns), and
palatable to herbivores (to reduce fuel buildup) (Pellant, 1990; Pellant, 1994; Monsen, 1994).
Two widely adapted and uniformly establishing possibilities that the Idaho BLM has had
success with are crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) and forage kochia (Kochia
prostrata).  Few other species demonstrate the broad adaptability, establishment, or
competitive attributes of these two species (Monsen, 1994).
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-10
Conclusion
Cheatgrass is also a problem in agricultural crops, especially winter wheat where 10
cheatgrass plants per square foot will give a 27 % reduction in wheat yield (Young et al.,
1987).  However, crop rotations, tillage practices, and many herbicides have been developed
to com bat cheatgrass in agricultural settings, but there are not the financial incentives to
pursue such practices on public rangelands.  Many herbicides do exist, however, that can be
used on rangelands.  Ogg (1994) lists the herbicides registered for cheatgrass control (Table
1) and Whitson et al. (1988) tested some of them on cheatgrass infested rangelands with the
results shown in table 2.  Much research is still needed to develop more efficient means of
rehabilitating the cheatgrass infested rangelands of the Great Basin.  Aldo Leopold (1941)
summed it up well when he said, “The cheat problem reminds me, again, how difficult a task
has been laid upon the coming generation of technical men.”
Table 1.  Herbicides registered for control of downy brome (Ogg, 1994).
Amitrole Hexazinone Pronamide
Atrizine Metribuzin Propham
Bromacil Napropamide Sethoxydim
Diuron Norflurazon Simazine
Ethofumesate Oryzallin Sulfometuron-methyl
Fluazifop-butyl Paraquat Terbacil
Glyphosate Prometon Trifluralin
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-11
Table 2.  Herbicides applied April 1987 (Whitson et al., 1988).
Herbicide lbs ai/a % downy brome
control
% perennial grass
damage
atrazine 0.25 0 0
atrazine 0.5 3 0
atrazine 1.0 17 0
atrazine 2.0 83 38
metribuzin 0.25 6 0
metribuzin 0.5 27 0
Sethoxydim + crop
oil conc.
0.25 +
1%
0 3
Sethoxydim + crop
oil conc.
0.5 + 1% 10 7
Fluazifop-P + crop oil
conc.
0.25 +
1%
100 Suppressed seed heads
Fluazifop-P + crop oil
conc.
0.5 + 1% 100 Suppressed seed heads
ethyl metribuzin 0.5 3 0
ethyl metribuzin 1.0 7 0
quizalofop 0.25 100 Suppressed seed heads
quizalofop 0.5 100 Suppressed seed heads
terbacil 0.5 17 33
terbacil 1.0 90 83
terbacil 2.0 98 95
check -------- 0 0
Literature Cited
Billings, W.D.  1994.  Ecological impacts of cheatgrass and resultant fire on ecosystems in the
western Great basin. In; Monsen, S.B., Kitchen, S.G.; comps.  1994.  Proceedings –
symposium on ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID:
Gen. Tech. Rep.  INT-GTR- Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station: 22-30.
DeFlon, James G.  1986.  The case for cheat grass.  Rangelands.  8(1):14-17.
Eckert, Richard E.  Asher, Jerry E.  Christensen, M. Dale.  Evans, Raymond A.  1974.
Evaluation of the Atrazine-fallow technique for weed control and seedling establishment.
Journal of Range Management.  27:288-292.
Eckert, Richard E. and Evans, Raymond A.  1967.  A chemical-fallow technique for control of
downy brome and establishment of perennial grasses on rangeland.  Journal of Range
Management. 20:35-41.
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-12
Leopold, Aldo.  1941.  Cheat takes over.  The Land.  1(4):1-4.
Mack, Richard N.  1981.  Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western north America: an
ecological chronical.  Agro-Ecosystems.  7:145-165.
Monsen, Stephen B.  1994.  Selection of plants for fire suppression on semiarid sites.  In;
Monsen, S.B., Kitchen, S.G.; comps.  1994.  Proceedings – symposium on ecology and
management of annualrangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID: Gen. Tech. Rep.  INT-GTR-
313.  Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 363-373.
Monsen, Stephen B.  1994.  The competitive influences of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) on
site restoration. .  In; Monsen, S.B., Kitchen, S.G.; comps.  1994.  Proceedings – symposium
on ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID: Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-GTR-313.  Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A.  Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station:
43-50.
Ogg, Alex G.  1994.  A review of the chemical control of downy brome. In; Monsen, S.B.,
Kitchen, S.G.; comps.  1994.  Proceedings – symposium on ecology and management of
annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID: Gen. Tech. Rep.  INT-GTR-313.  Ogden, UT:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 194-196. 
 
Nesse, P.E. and Ball, D.A.  1994.  Downy brome.  Pacific Northwest Extension Publication.
Oregon. Idaho.  Washington.  PNW-474.
Pellant, Mike.  1994.  History and applications of the intermountain greenstripping program.
.  In; Monsen, S.B., Kitchen, S.G.; comps.  1994.  Proceedings – symposium on ecology and
management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID: Gen. Tech. Rep.  INT-GTR-
313.  Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 63-68.
Pellant, Mike.  1990.  The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle – are there any solutions?  In; McArthur,
E.K.; Romney, E.M.; Smith, S.D.; Tueller, P.T., comps.  1990.  Proceedings-symposium on
cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management;
1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV.  Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276.  Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 11-18.
Pickford, G.D. 1932.  The influence of continued heavy grazing and of promiscuous burning
on spring-fall ranges in Utah.  Ecology.  13:159-171.
Roberts, Thomas C.  1991.  Cheatgrass: management implications in the 90’s.  Rangelands.
12(2):70-72.
Rogers, G.  1982.  Then and now: a photographic history of vegetation change in the central
Great Basin Desert.  Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.  152p.
APPENDIX C - Cheatgrass Invasion & Greenstripping
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan C-13
Sparks, S.R.; West, N.E.; Allen, E.B.  1990.  Changes in vegetation and land use at two
townships in Skull Valley, Western Utah.  In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan; Smith,
Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T.  comps.  Proceedings-symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub
die-off, and other aspects of Shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 26-36.
Stewart, G.  1936.  A history of range use.  Pages 119-134 in USDA Forest Service.  74 th
Congress, 2  session.  Senate Document #199.nd
Stewart, George and Hull, A.C.  1949.  Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)-an ecologic intruder in
southern Idaho.  Ecology.  30(1):58-74.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land management.  1987.  Greenstripping
handbook.  Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho
State Office.  80 p. 
West, Neil E.  1994.  Effects of fire on salt-desert shrub rangelands.  1994.  Proceedings –
symposium on ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID:
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313.  Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station: 71-74. 
Whitson, T.D., Reynolds, D.A., Lauer, Arthur.  1988.  Downy brome (Bromus tectorum (L.))
control in rangeland with various herbicides.  Res. Prog. Rep. West Soc. Weed Sci.
   
Wisenant, Steven G.  1990.  Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake river Plains:
ecological and management implications. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan; Smith,
Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T.  comps.  Proceedings-symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub
die-off, and other aspects of Shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276.  Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research  Station:  4-10.
Wright, Henry A. and Bailey, Arthur W.  1982.  Fire ecology: United States and southern
Canada.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  New York.
Yensen, Dana L.  1981.  The 1900 invasion of alien plants into southern Idaho.  The Great
Basin Naturalist. 41:176-183.
Young, James A. and Allen, Fay L.  1997.  Cheatgrass and range science: 1930-1950.  Journal
of Range Management.  50:530-535.
Young, James A., Evans, Raymond A., Eckert, Richard E., Kay, Burgess L.  1987.  Cheatgrass.
Rangelands.  9(6):266-270.
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-1
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and
Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Beaver County
 
Demographic Profile
Beaver County, Utah had a total estimated population of 6,204 for the year
2005. The total population has increased, since the population in 2000 of
6,018. This growth shows an increase of 3.1 percent. Beaver ranks 19 of 29
counties when calculating total change in population for Utah and the
county ranks 1,673 of 3,141 counties by growth in county population in the
United States.
Beaver County, Utah has a population that is made of 89.1 percent White,
0.3 percent African American, 0.9 percent Asian, and 8.4 percent Hispanic. This area can be
considered to have a modest amount of racial and ethnic diversity, with 9.6 percent of the
population being minorities. This is less than the State of Utah percent of 13.5. Since 2000, Beaver
has increased the percent of minority population when 6.5 percent of the population was made up
of minorities.
When measuring the total land area, Beaver spans a total area of 2590 square miles. The county has
a very low population density of 2 persons per square mile.
In 2005, the Population Division of U.S. Census Bureau estimates the median age in Beaver County,
Utah to be 30.3 years of age. The median in Beaver is greater than the median in Utah of 28.5. Since
the year 2000, the area has witnessed a decline in this median, when at that time it was 30.7 years
old. With a total of 31.8 percent of the population in 2005 being comprised of children and youth
younger than 18, Beaver can be described as being made up of a relatively high proportion of youths.
The working age population group (18-64) has a relatively low representation within the population,
making up 55.4 percent of the population within the age group. People 65 and older make up 12.7
percent of the total population in the area. Compared to other counties in the US, this represents
a medium-low proportion of the population.
Since 2000, a medium-high amount of people have migrated to Beaver internationally. The
migration from outside the US into Beaver makes up 0.1 percent of all immigration into Utah. This
level of international migration can be considered medium-high when analyzed against the base
population in the year 2005 and compared to other counties across the US.
Datasource: Population Estimates Program, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Housing Profile
In 2000, Beaver County had an owner-occupied dwelling median value of $89,200, according to
the Decennial Census. This median is less than the overall State of Utah 2000 home value of
$146,100 and less than median home value of $119,600 for the rest of the nation in that year.
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-2
When compared to other counties in Utah, Beaver County is positioned 26 of 29 in terms of growth
of new housing structures between 2001 and 2005. The county stands 1,334 of 3,141, when
comparing thee change in housing structures in counties throughout the nation.
In Beaver County, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of 2,791
housing structures in 2005. The area has seen growth in housing units, adding all together 85
residential units since 2001, or 3.1 percent.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Employment - Industry Summary 2005 
Transportation and Warehousing from 2001-2005 had the highest increase in employment in
Beaver County, changing a total of 111.4 percent. This is greater than the change in industry
employment in the United States of -1 percent. The State of Utah faced a industry job change of 1.4
percent, in the period of time since 2001.
Beaver County is ranked at 24 of 30 total Counties throughout Utah by total number of jobs in 2005.
This position has moved up during the time of 2001 and 2005. The County, in the year 2001, was
ranked 23 of 30 Counties.
In Beaver County, Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, Mining and Utilities industries have
the highest United States location quotient (LQ). The Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
sector has a United State LQ of 28.49. The level of employment in the Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting sector is 28.49 times the percent of the national average, This signifies that Beaver
County may specialize, or be an exporter of Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.
In Beaver County, Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, Retail Trade, and the Construction
industries are the largest employment industries. The Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting is
the largest employment industry and makes up 30 percent of all the jobs in the county. This makes
up 482 individuals. The Retail Trade and Construction industries total 18 and 5.4 percent of the total
jobs, respectively.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting has the largest employers in Beaver County, averaging 48
workers per each place of employment, being greater than the industry's average in the United
States of 12 and greater than the State of Utah establishments size average of 12 for the Agriculture,
forestry, fishing and hunting industry.
Datasource: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
People Quick Facts Beaver County  Utah 
Population, 2005 estimate  6,204 2,469,585 
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005  3.3% 10.6% 
Population, 2000  6,005 2,233,169 
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000  26.0% 29.6% 
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004  9.2% 9.7% 
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004  32.0% 31.0% 
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004  13.5% 8.7% 
Female persons, percent, 2004  48.5% 49.8% 
 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-3
White persons, percent, 2004 (a) 96.8% 93.8% 
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.3% 0.9% 
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.2% 1.3% 
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.1% 1.9% 
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004 (a) 0.0% 0.7% 
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004  0.6% 1.3% 
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b) 7.5% 10.6% 
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004  89.8% 83.8% 
 
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000  58.4% 49.3% 
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000  4.4% 7.1% 
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000  8.3% 12.5% 
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000  83.2% 87.7% 
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000  12.1% 26.1% 
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000  966 298,686 
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000  17.1 21.3 
 
Housing units, 2004  2,776 848,737 
Homeownership rate, 2000  79.0% 71.5% 
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000  11.2% 22.0% 
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000  $89,200 $146,100 
Households, 2000  1,982 701,281 
Persons per household, 2000  2.93 3.13 
Per capita money income, 1999  $14,957 $18,185 
Median household income, 2003  $37,969 $46,709 
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003  10.1% 10.0% 
Business QuickFacts  Beaver County Utah 
Private nonfarm establishments, 2003  144 60,3241 
Private nonfarm employment, 2003  1,232 900,6051 
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003  -4.0% -1.8%(1) 
Nonemployer establishments, 2003  329 154,097 
Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)  NA 25,104,045 
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)  63,100 23,675,432 
Retail sales per capita, 2002  $10,344 $10,206 
Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 5.1% 
Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 24.8% 
Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004  20 24,267 
Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)  38,070 13,683,623 
Geography QuickFacts Beaver County Utah 
Land area, 2000 (square miles)  2,590 82,144 
Persons per square mile, 2000  2.3 27.2 
FIPS Code  001 49 
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area  None   
(1) Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data 
NA: Not available 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-4
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information 
X: Not applicable 
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 
F: Fewer than 100 firms 
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County
Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments 
Last Revised: Thursday, 08-Jun-2006 
Garfield County 
Demographic Profile
Garfield County, Utah had a population of 4,470 in the year 2005. The
population has decreased sharply, since the population in 2000 of 4,750.
The decline denotes a decrease of -5.9 percent. Garfield ranks 28 of 29
counties when analyzing total population change in Utah and the county
ranks 2,475 of 3,141 counties when analyzing total county population change
across the nation.
From 2000, a very low amount of people migrated to Garfield
internationally. The migration from outside the US into Garfield accounts for 0 percent of all
immigration into Utah. This percent of international migration is very low when comparing levels
of immigration per population in 2005.
The population division of the Census Bureau estimates in 2005 a median age in Garfield County,
Utah to be 36.7 years old. The median in Garfield is greater than the median age for the State of
Utah of 28.5. Since 2000, the area has experienced an increase in the median, when the median age
was 33.8 years old. With 28.4 percent of the population in the year 2005 being made up of
individuals less than 18 years old, Garfield can be understood as being made up of a relatively high
proportion of youths. The 18 to 64 years old population group has a relatively low representation
within the estimated 2005 area population, making up 55.4 percent of the population within the age
group. People 65 and older make up 16.2 percent of the total population in the area. Compared to
other counties in the US, this represents a medium-high proportion of the area population base.
By measuring total land area, Garfield covers a total land area of 5174 total square miles. The area
has a very low average area density of 1 persons per square mile.
Garfield County, Utah has a population that is made up of 94.7 percent White, 0.2 percent African
American, 0.3 percent Asian, and 3.1 percent Hispanic. The area population base can be described
as having a very modest level of diversity in terms of race and ethnicity, with 3.6 percent minorities.
This is less than the State of Utah percent of 13.5. Since 2000, Garfield has increased the percent
of minority population when 3.5 percent of the total population were minorities.
Datasource: Population Estimates Program, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-5
Housing Profile 
In Garfield County, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of 3,146
housing structures in 2005. The area has seen growth in housing units, adding a sum of 289
residential units since 2001, or 10.1 percent.
Garfield County recorded median owner-occupied home value in the year 2000 of $90,500,
accounted by the Decennial Census. This is less than the overall Utah 2000 home value of $146,100
and less than median home value of $119,600 for the rest of the nation in that year.
In the State of Utah, Garfield County is positioned 12 of 29 in terms of percentage growth in new
housing structures. The county ranks 296 of 3,141, compared to change in residential structure
growth in counties throughout the Unities States.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Employment - Industry Summary 2005
In Garfield County, Retail Trade, Manufacturing, and the Construction industries have the largest
percent of jobs of all industries. The Retail Trade produces the largest number of jobs in the area
accounting for 10.6 percent of all the jobs in the county. This makes up 174 jobs. The Manufacturing
and Construction sectors provide 5.2 and 4.4 percent of industry employment.
In Garfield County, Utilities, Retail Trade and Construction industries have the highest United
States location quotient (LQ). The Utilities industry has an LQ of 3.42. The level of employment in
the Utilities sector is 3.42 times greater than the US average, showing signs that Garfield may be an
exporter of products or services of Utilities.
Manufacturing (sawmills) are the largest employers in Garfield County, with the industry averaging
17 workers per each place of employment, being less than the industry's national average of 39 and
less than the Utah average establishment size of 31 for the Manufacturing industry.
The Accommodation and food services sector has decreased the most in local industry presence in
Garfield County since the year 2001.
Retail Trade has had the highest level of job growth from 2001-2005 in Garfield County, moving a
total of 5.5 percent. This is greater than the industry job change at the national level of 0.5 percent.
The State of Utah went through a industry job change of 3.8 percent, since the year 2001.
Datasource: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
People QuickFacts Garfield County Utah 
Population, 2005 estimate  4,470 2,469,585 
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005  -5.6% 10.6% 
Population, 2000  4,735 2,233,169 
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000  19.0% 29.6% 
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004  7.1% 9.7% 
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004  29.1% 31.0% 
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004  15.0% 8.7% 
Female persons, percent, 2004  48.5% 49.8% 
  
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-6
White persons, percent, 2004 (a) 97.4% 93.8% 
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.2% 0.9% 
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.8% 1.3% 
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.4% 1.9% 
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004 (a) 0.0% 0.7% 
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004  0.2% 1.3% 
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b) 3.3% 1 0.6% 
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004  94.5% 83.8% 
  
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000  61.7% 49.3% 
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000  0.8% 7.1% 
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000  3.5% 12.5% 
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000  85.8% 87.7% 
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000  20.3% 26.1% 
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000  630 298,686 
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000  13.9 2 1.3 
 
Housing units, 2004  3,057 848,737 
Homeownership rate, 2000  79.1% 71.5% 
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000  1.4% 22.0% 
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000  $90,500 $146,100 
 
Households, 2000  1,576 701,281 
Persons per household, 2000  2.92 3.13 
Per capita money income, 1999  $13,439 $18,185 
Median household income, 2003  $34,847 $46,709 
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003  10.0% 10.0% 
Business QuickFacts Garfield County Utah 
Private nonfarm establishments, 2003  153 60,3241 
Private nonfarm employment, 2003  928 900,6051 
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003  -13.3% -1.8% (1) 
Nonemployer establishments, 2003  313 154,097 
Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)  NA 25,104,045 
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)  16,145 23,675,432 
Retail sales per capita, 2002  $3,502 $10,206 
Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 5.1% 
Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 24.8% 
Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004  95 24,267 
Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)  41,463 13,683,6231 
Geography QuickFacts Garfield County Utah 
Land area, 2000 (square miles)  5,174 82,144 
Persons per square mile, 2000  0.9 27.2 
FIPS Code  017 49 
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area  None   
(1) Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data 
NA: Not available 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-7
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information 
X: Not applicable 
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 
F: Fewer than 100 firms 
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County
Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments 
Last Revised: Thursday, 08-Jun-2006 
Iron County
Demographic Profile
Iron County, Utah has a population that is made up of 89.9 percent White,
0.3 percent African American, 1.2 percent Asian, and 5.1 percent Hispanic.
The population mix can be considered to have a modest level of diversity in
terms of race and ethnicity, with 6.6 percent minorities. This is less than the
State of Utah percent of 13.5. Since 2000, Iron has increased the level of
diversity when 5.3 percent of the population was made up of minorities.
In 2005, the Census Bureau estimated the median age in Iron County, Utah
to be 26.0 years of age. The median age in Iron is less than the median age in Utah of 28.5. Since
2000, the area has experienced an increase in the median age, at that time the median was 24.3
years of age. With a total of 29.1 percent of the 2005 population being made up of children and
youth younger than 18, Iron can be described as having a relatively high proportion of youths. The
18 to 64 years old population group has a medium-low representation within the population, making
up 61.5 percent of the population falling in this age category. The retirement (65 and over) group
makes up 9.4 percent of the total population in the area. Compared to other counties in the US, this
represents a relatively low percent of the population.
In terms of total land area, Iron encompasses a total area of 3298 square miles. The land areas has
a very low population density of 12 persons per square mile, in 2005.
Iron County, Utah had a population of 38,311 for the year 2005. The total population has increased
sharply, since the 2000 total population of 33,966. This growth denotes an increase of 12.8 percent.
Iron ranks 9 of 29 counties when calculating total change in population for Utah and the county
ranks 543 of 3,141 counties in terms of population growth in the United States.
Since the year 2000, a medium-high amount of people migrated to Iron from another country. The
international migration into Iron totals 0.7 percent of the total international migration into the State
of Utah. This level of international migration can be considered medium-high when analyzed against
the base population in the year 2005 and compared to other counties across the US.
Datasource: Population Estimates Program, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Housing Profile
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-8
In Iron County, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of 16,137 homes
in 2005. The county has experienced a growth in housing units, adding in all 1,953 residential
structures since 2001, a change of 13.8 percent.
Iron County recorded median owner-occupied home value in the year 2000 of $112,000, reported
by the Decennial Census. This median is less than the overall Utah 2000 home value of $146,100
and less than median owner-occupied dwelling value of $119,600 across the nation during that year.
When compared to other counties in Utah, Iron County is positioned 6 of 29 in terms of percentage
growth in new housing structures. The county ranks 144 of 3,141, in terms of residential real estate
percentage change change in the United States.
Iron County may be be described as having a small, but present proportion of high-valued homes.
In 2000, the Decennial Census counted that 0.3 percent of the homes were valued over $500,000.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Employment - Industry Summary 2005
The Administrative and waste services has seen the largest decrease in industry presence in Iron
County, from the year 2001 to 2005, accounting for 13.8 percent of total employment in 2001 to 7.7
percent of total employment in the year 2005.
Administrative and waste services between the years 2001 and 2005, saw the greatest loss in
employment in Iron County. The sector dealt with a loss of 500 jobs, or 35.5 percent of industry's
employment. The industry declines made up 62.3 percent of the total jobs loss in the County.
In Iron County, Construction, Arts, entertainment, and recreation and Accommodation and food
services industries, in terms of United States location quotient, are the most dominant in the region.
The Construction industry has a US LQ in the county of 1.84. This means the percent of total
employment in the Construction industry is 1.84 times greater than the national average, signifying
that Iron may be an exporter of products or services of Construction.
Arts, entertainment, and recreation saw the biggest increase in jobs since the year 2001 in Iron
County, with an industry growth of 411.3 percent. This is greater than the rate of employment
change across the nation of 4.7 percent. The State of Utah had an industry job change of 1.6 percent,
in the recent period of 2001-2005.
In Iron County, Retail Trade, Manufacturing, and the Accommodation and food services industries
are the largest employment industries. The Retail Trade is the largest employment industry and
makes up 17.9 percent of the total county employment. This totals 2,115 employees. The
Manufacturing and Accommodation and food services sectors provide 14.4 and 13 percent of all
employment.
Manufacturing has a largest number of employee per establishment in Iron County. The industry
averages 23 jobs per place of business. This is less than the industry's average in the United States
of 39 and less than the State of Utah typical size of 31 for the Manufacturing industry.
Datasource: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-9
People QuickFacts Iron County Utah 
Population, 2005 estimate  38,311 2,469,585 
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005  13.4% 10.6% 
Population, 2000  33,779 2,233,169 
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000  62.5% 29.6% 
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004  10.0% 9.7% 
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004  30.0% 31.0% 
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004  9.4% 8.7% 
Female persons, percent, 2004  50.4% 49.8% 
 
White persons, percent, 2004 (a) 94.9% 93.8% 
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.4% 0.9% 
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 (a) 2.2% 1.3% 
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.1% 1.9% 
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004 (a) 0.4% 0.7% 
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004  1.0% 1.3% 
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b) 4.8% 10.6% 
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004  90.6% 83.8% 
 
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000  42.1% 49.3% 
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000  2.9% 7.1% 
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 7.5% 12.5% 
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000  88.6% 87.7% 
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000  23.8% 26.1% 
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000  4,123 298,686 
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000  15.0 21.3 
 
Housing units, 2004  15,257 848,737 
Homeownership rate, 2000  66.2% 71.5% 
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000  24.2% 22.0% 
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000  $112,000 $146,100 
 
Households, 2000  10,627 701,281 
Persons per household, 2000  3.11 3.13 
Per capita money income, 1999  $13,568 $18,185 
Median household income, 2003  $35,793 $46,709 
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003  14.5% 10.0% 
Business QuickFacts Iron County Utah 
Private nonfarm establishments, 2003  970 60,3241 
Private nonfarm employment, 2003  9,891 900,6051 
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003 -0.9% -1.8%(1) 
Nonemployer establishments, 2003  2,335 154,097 
Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)  358,909 25,104,045 
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)  361,548 23,675,432 
Retail sales per capita, 2002  $10,228 $10,206 
Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  8.1% 5.1% 
Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  26.8% 24.8% 
Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004  631 24,267 
Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)  183,200 13,683,6231 
Geography QuickFacts Iron County Utah 
Land area, 2000 (square miles)  3,298 82,144 
Persons per square mile, 2000  10.2 27.2 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-10
FIPS Code  021 49 
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area  Cedar City Micro Area   
(1) Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data 
NA: Not available 
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information 
X: Not applicable 
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 
F: Fewer than 100 firms 
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County
Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments.
Last Revised: Thursday, 08-Jun-2006 
Kane County
Demographic Profile
In 2005, the Census Bureau estimated the median age in Kane County, Utah
to be 40.6 years of age. The median in Kane is greater than the median age
for the State of Utah of 28.5. Since the year 2000, the area has witnessed an
increase in the median, when the median age was 39.2 years old. With a
total of 24.6 percent of the 2005 population being comprised of individuals
under the age of 18, Kane can be understood as having a medium-high
percent of people under 18. The 18 to 64 years old population group has a
medium-low presence of the population, with 58.2 percent of the population
makes up this age category. The retirement (65 and over) age group comprises 17.3 percent of the
population in the area. When compared to other counties throughout the United States, this
represents a medium-high proportion of the area population base.
In terms of total land area, Kane encompasses a total area of 3992 total square miles. The area has
a very low average population density of 2 persons per square mile.
Since the year 2000, a low number of individual migrated to Kane County from outside the country.
The immigration into Kane accounts for a negligible percent of immigration into the State of Utah.
This percent of international migration is low when analyzed against immigration per population
in 2005.
Kane County, Utah has a population base that is comprised of 95.6 percent White, 0.1 percent
African American, 0.3 percent Asian, and 2.6 percent Hispanic. This area can be considered to have
a very modest amount of racial and ethnic diversity, with 3.0 percent of the population being
minorities. This is less than the State of Utah percent of 13.5. Since 2000, Kane has increased the
percent of minority makeup when 2.9 percent of the total population were minorities.
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-11
Kane County, Utah had a population that was estimated at 6,202 in 2005. The total population has
increased, since the 2000 total population of 6,080. This growth denotes an increase of 2 percent.
Kane ranks 20 of 29 counties when calculating total change in population for Utah and the county
ranks 1,765 of 3,141 counties when calculating the total change in county population across the US.
Datasource: Population Estimates Program, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Housing Profile 
In Kane County, the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division accounted for a total of 4,374 housing
units in the year 2005. This represents a growth in housing units, adding in all 492 housing units
since the year 2001, or 12.7 percent.
Kane County had a median home value in the year 2000 of $103,900, according to the Decennial
Census. This is less than the Utah 2000 home value of $146,100 and less than median
owner-occupied dwelling value of $119,600 across the nation during that year.
Throughout the State of Utah, Kane County ranks 10 of 29 in terms of percentage growth in new
housing structures. The county ranks 181 of 3,141, when comparing thee change in housing
structures in counties throughout the nation.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Employment - Industry Summary 2005
Kane County is ranked at 22 of 30 Counties throughout the State of Utah in terms of total 2005
employment. The County’s employment ranking has moved up during the time of 2001 and 2005.
The County, in the year 2001, was ranked 20 of 30 Counties.
In Kane County, Arts, entertainment, and recreation, Other services, except public administration
and Accommodation and food services are the three industries with the highest location quotients.
The Arts, entertainment, and recreation sector has a United State LQ of 7.08. The percent of
employment in the Arts, entertainment, and recreation industry is 7.08 times the percent of the
national average, This signifies that Kane specializes in Arts, entertainment, and recreation.
Finance and insurance is the industry that has grown the most in terms of employment from
2001-2005 in Kane County, growing in new jobs by 129.7 percent. This is greater than the rate of
industry employment change in the United States of 4.8 percent. The State of Utah experienced a
sector employment shift of 6.4 percent, during the time since 2001.
In Kane County, Accommodation and food services, Retail Trade, and the Other services, except
public administration industries have the largest percent of jobs of all industries. The
Accommodation and food services is the largest employment industry and makes up 26.2 percent
of total employment in the county, making up 556 jobs. The Retail Trade and Other services, except
public administration industries total 16.6 and 16.6 percent of all employment.
Arts, entertainment, and recreation has a largest number of employee per establishment in Kane
County, with the industry averaging 21 workers per each place of employment, being greater than
the industry's national average of 16 and greater than the State of Utah average of 18 for the Arts,
entertainment, and recreation industry.
Datasource: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-12
People QuickFacts Kane County Utah 
Population, 2005 estimate  6,202 2,469,585 
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005  2.6% 10.6% 
Population, 2000  6,046 2,233,169 
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000  17.0% 29.6% 
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004  6.8% 9.7% 
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004  26.2% 31.0% 
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004  17.7% 8.7% 
Female persons, percent, 2004  50.2% 49.8% 
 
White persons, percent, 2004 (a) 97.8% 93.8% 
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.0% 0.9% 
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.5% 1.3% 
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.3% 1.9% 
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004 (a) 0.0% 0.7% 
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004  0.3% 1.3% 
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b) 2.3% 10.6% 
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004  95.7% 83.8% 
 
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000  57.4% 49.3% 
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000  2.9% 7.1% 
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 6.1% 12.5% 
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000  86.4% 87.7% 
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000  21.1% 26.1% 
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000  954 298,686 
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000  18.9 21.3 
 
Housing units, 2004  4,228 848,737 
Homeownership rate, 2000  77.9% 71.5% 
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000  3.2% 22.0% 
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000  $103,900 $146,100 
 
Households, 2000  2,237 701,281 
Persons per household, 2000  2.67 3.13 
Per capita money income, 1999  $15,455 $18,185 
Median household income, 2003  $36,050 $46,709 
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003  9.0% 10.0% 
Business QuickFacts Kane County Utah 
Private nonfarm establishments, 2003  225 60,3241 
Private nonfarm employment, 2003  1,565 900,6051 
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003  9.6% -1.8%(1) 
Nonemployer establishments, 2003  515 154,097 
Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)  NA 25,104,045 
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)  35,812 23,675,432 
Retail sales per capita, 2002  $5,931 $10,206 
Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 5.1% 
Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  F 24.8% 
Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004  153 24,267 
Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)  38,162 13,683,6231 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-13
Geography QuickFacts Kane County Utah 
Land area, 2000 (square miles)  3,992 82,144 
Persons per square mile, 2000  1.5 27.2 
FIPS Code  025 49 
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area  None   
(1) Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data 
NA: Not available 
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information 
X: Not applicable 
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 
F: Fewer than 100 firms 
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County
Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments 
Last Revised: Thursday, 08-Jun-2006 
Washington County
Demographic Profile
Washington County, Utah had a total estimated population of 118,885 in
2005. The estimated population has increased very sharply, from the
population in the year 2000 of 91,234. This growth represents an increase
of 30.3 percent. Washington ranks 4 of 29 counties when analyzing total
population change in Utah and the county ranks 119 of 3,141 counties by
growth in county population in the United States.
When measuring the total land area, Washington extends a total area of
2427 square miles. The county has a low population density of 49 persons per square mile.
Washington County, Utah has a population that is made up of 89.7 percent White, 0.3 percent
African American, 0.6 percent Asian, and 6.6 percent Hispanic. The area can be described as having
a modest amount of racial and ethnic diversity, with 7.5 percent of the population made up of
minorities. This is less than the State of Utah percent of 13.5. Since 2000, Washington has increased
the percent of minority population when 5.9 percent of the people were minorities.
The U.S. Census Bureau, in the year 2005, estimated a median age in Washington County, Utah to
be 30.1 years old. The median in Washington is greater than the median age in Utah of 28.5. Since
2000, the area has experienced a decline in this median, when at that time it was 31.0 years of age.
With 28.1 percent of the population in the year 2005 being made up of individuals less than 18 years
old, Washington can be understood as being made up of a relatively high proportion of youths. The
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-14
18 to 64 years old population group has a relatively low presence of the 2005 population base, with
54.9 percent of the population within the age group. People 65 and older make up 17 percent of the
total population base. Compared to other counties throughout the nation, this represents a
medium-high proportion of the population.
From 2000, a medium-high amount of people migrated to Washington from outside the country.
The immigration into Washington accounts for 1.9 percent of all immigration into Utah. This
percent of international migration is medium-high when analyzed against immigration per
population in 2005.
Datasource: Population Estimates Program, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Housing Profile
In Washington County, there were a total of 48,777 housing units in the year 2005. This represents
a growth in housing units, adding in all 10,335 housing units since the year 2001, or 26.9 percent.
The residential real estate values in Washington County, Utah have seen large increases since the
Census values accounted for in the year 2000. The values have increased by $63,600, or 45.5
percent, since 2000 when they were valued at $139,800.
In the State of Utah, Washington County stands 1 of 29 in terms of percentage growth in new
housing structures. The county ranks 15 of 3,141, in terms of residential real estate percentage
change change in the United States.
Washington County recorded median owner-occupied home value in the year 2005 of $203,400,
according to the American Community Survey. This home value is greater than the Utah 2005 home
value of $167,200 and greater than median owner-occupied dwelling value of $167,500 across the
nation during that year.
Washington County is made up of a relatively high percentage of homes that are high in price. In
2005, the American Community Survey reports that 7.2 percent owner-occupied dwelling are valued
over a half a million dollars.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Employment - Industry Summary 2005
Transportation and Warehousing is the industry with the largest establishments in Washington
County, averaging 22 workers per each place of employment, being greater than the industry's
average at the national level of 19 and greater than the Utah average of 19 for the Transportation and
Warehousing industry.
In Washington County, Construction, Transportation and Warehousing and Accommodation and
food services industries have the highest United States location quotient (LQ). The Construction
sector in the county has a location quotient of 2.65. The percent of employment in the Construction
industry is 2.65 times the percent of the national average, This signifies that Washington County
may specialize, or be an exporter of Construction.
In Washington County, Retail Trade, Construction, and the Health care and social assistance
industries are the largest employment industries. The Retail Trade produces the largest number of
jobs in the area accounting for 17.5 percent of the total county employment. This totals 7,211
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-15
individuals. The Construction and Health care and social assistance industries make up 17.4 and
14.6 percent of the total jobs, respectively.
Construction from 2001-2005 had the highest increase in employment in Washington County,
increasing by 72.5 percent. This is greater than the change in industry employment in the United
States of 7.3 percent. The State of Utah felt a shift in employment in the industry of 14 percent, in
the duration of 2001 to 2005.
Management of companies and enterprises saw the largest loss of employment between the years
2001-2005 in Washington County. The sector dealt with a loss of 105 employees during the period,
or 59.7 percent of industry's employment. The industry declines made up 94.6 percent of all
employment losses in the county.
Datasource: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
People QuickFacts Washington County Utah 
Population, 2005 estimate  118,885 2,469,585 
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005  31.6% 10.6% 
Population, 2000  90,354 2,233,169 
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000  86.1% 29.6% 
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004  8.7% 9.7% 
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004  28.9% 31.0% 
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004  17.0% 8.7% 
Female persons, percent, 2004  50.7% 49.8% 
 
White persons, percent, 2004 (a) 96.0% 93.8% 
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.4% 0.9% 
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004 (a) 1.5% 1.3% 
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a) 0.5% 1.9% 
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004 (a) 0.5% 0.7% 
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004  1.2% 1.3% 
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b) 6.2% 10.6% 
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004  90.2% 83.8% 
 
Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000  42.5% 49.3% 
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000  4.1% 7.1% 
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 7.6% 12.5% 
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000  87.6% 87.7% 
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000  21.0% 26.1% 
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000  13,688 298,686 
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000  17.2 21.3 
 
Housing units, 2004  44,909 848,737 
Homeownership rate, 2000  73.9% 71.5% 
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000  13.2% 22.0% 
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000  $139,800 $146,100 
 
Households, 2000  29,939 701,281 
Persons per household, 2000  2.97 3.13 
Per capita money income, 1999  $15,873 $18,185 
Median household income, 2003  $39,738 $46,709 
APPENDIX D - Demographic, Housing and Socioeconomic Profiles By County
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan D-15
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003  11.4% 10.0% 
Business QuickFacts Washington County Utah 
Private nonfarm establishments, 2003  2,992 60,3241 
Private nonfarm employment, 2003 31,468 900,6051 
Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003  18.1% -1.8% (1) 
Nonemployer establishments, 2003  8,540 154,097 
Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)  281,772 25,104,045 
Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)  1,156,928 23,675,432 
Retail sales per capita, 2002  $11,615 $10,206 
Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  3.2% 5.1% 
Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997  21.4% 24.8% 
Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004  3,792 24,267 
Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)  476,665 13,683,6231 
Geography QuickFacts Washington County Utah 
Land area, 2000 (square miles)  2,427 82,144 
Persons per square mile, 2000  37.2 27.2 
FIPS Code  053 49 
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area  St. George, Metro Area   
(1) Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. 
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data 
NA: Not available 
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information 
X: Not applicable 
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 
F: Fewer than 100 firms 
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County
Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated
Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments 
Last Revised: Thursday, 08-Jun-2006 
APPENDIX E - Comments on draft document received
from the public and members of  Local Emergency
Preparedness Committees 
A public draft was presented by the staff of the Five County Association of Governments in June
2007 at “Open House” presentations publically announced and advertised locally in each of the five
counties of southwestern Utah. These were held in the following locations:
• June 11, 2007 for Beaver County held in Beaver, Utah.
• June 13, 2007 for Kane County held in Kanab, Utah.
• June 15, 2007 for Iron County held in Cedar City, Utah.
• June 19, 2007 for Washington County held in St. George, Utah.
• June 28, 2007 for Garfield County held in both Panguitch, Utah at the Panguitch City Office
and at Ruby’s Inn near Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah.
Comments, both written and verbal were solicited during each of the Public Open Houses.
The following comments were received:
Beaver County Open House
Comment: “There are additional areas, including east of Beaver, such as the Puffer Lake area, that
should have consideration for inclusion as focus areas.”
Response: The Color Country Interagency Fuels Committee determines the regional focus
areas. Those areas are a dynamic list which will and should change from time
to time as fuels projects are undertaken or other circumstances warrant changes
in the list of areas. When this plan document is updated local involvement in
the process should address this concern.  
Kane County Open House
No comments received. 
Iron County Open House
No comments received. 
Washington County Open House
Comment: “There were obvious solutions to the fire hazard problems that were not addressed in
the plan:  1) Allow cattle to graze on hazardous areas. Ranchers keep roads and trails
open. Cattle eat the tinder grasses.  2) Allow wood gathering, lumber harvesting of dead
wood.  3) Harvest beetle infested trees to prevent dead wood.  4) Fight the fires!  5) Use
the resources instead of leaving them to burn. ”
Response: These concerns expressed are outside the scope and realm of this landscaped-
level regional plan and are issues that would be better addressed in another
forum. 
Garfield County Open House
Comment: “Why are additional areas not shown as focus areas. A good portion of the county has
fire risk concerns of one sort or another?”
Response: Again, as above, it is the Color Country Interagency Fuels Committee that
determines the regional focus areas that are identified in this document. 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan E-1
APPENDIX F - Southwest Utah Plants and Animals
Habitat Maps 
The following pages contain habitat maps for selected plant and animal species in the five
counties of southwestern Utah.  They were obtained from the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, Conservation Data Center. 
Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-11
F-12
F-13
F-14
F-15
F-16
F-17
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-24
F-25
F-26
F-27
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-40
 F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
F-45
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51