The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes-2018-158 Wildfire Protection Plan--BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -ll_f3 ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN FOR KITTITAS COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR'S SIGNATURE ON THE PLAN'S ADOPTION PAGE WHEREAS: The Board of County Commissioners approved having the Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) update the 2009 County Wildfire Protection Plan pursuant to Resolution 2017-200; and WHEREAS: The KCCD has completed the update and issued a final draft of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan; and WHEREAS: Adoption of the plan is a complimentary effort to updating the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan now being updated; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, does hereby adopt the September 2018 Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners does authorize the Chair's signature on the adoption page of the plan. DATED this 2nd day of October, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON L~hrunnan September 2018 Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for the Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition and Kittitas County Conservation District September 2018 Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for The Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition, Kittitas County Public Works, and the community of Kittitas County. Prepared by Kittitas County Conservation District 2211 W Dolarway Rd Ste #4 Ellensburg, Washington 98926-2887 Anchor QEA, LLC 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101 .Adoption of The Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the applicable local government, the local fire department(s), and the state entity responsible for forest management approve the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The Kittitas County CWPP was originally completed and signed in December 2006, and a revision was completed in April 2009. As directed by this CWPP, extensive fuels reduction and fire prevention activities have been completed on public and private lands. Recent wildland fires have also impacted the landscape and neighborhoods. Combined, these events have changed the priorities outlined in the previous documents. This plan is not legally binding, as it does not create or place mandates or requirements on individual jurisdictions. It is intended to serve as a planning tool for fire and land managers and residents to assess risks associated with wildland fire and identify strategies and make recommendations for Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue George Geissler, Washington State Forester Washington State Department of Natural Resources / Mitch Lon g\(;;hai r Kittitas Fire Adapted G:omtritlnit ies Coalition Date Date Date i/u/zo19 I Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... i Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Mission .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 History of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan ........................... .4 2.1 Recent Federal Initiatives and Legislation ............................................................................................... ..4 2.2 Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition ........................................................................................... 5 2.3 The Formation of the Kittitas CWPP Subcommittee .............................................................................. 6 2.4 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Process .......................................................................... 6 2.5 Additional State and Federal CWPP Guidelines lntegration ............................................................... 8 3 Kittitas County Local Environment ........................................................................................ 9 3.1.1 Overview ..................... _ ......... _ .................................................. _. .................... , ............................................ 9 3.2 Demographics ................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Local Economy ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Critical Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Terrain/Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Fire Adapted Landscape ................................................................................................................ 15 3.5.2 Climate and Temperature ............................................................................................................. 19 3.6 Wild land Urban Interface ........................................................................................................ _. ..... _ ....... _ ......... 20 3.6.1 History of Wild land Urban Interface Code in Kittitas County ........................................ , 20 3.6.2 Wild land Urban Interface Risk in the West.. ........................................................................... 21 3.6.3 Wild land Urban Interface Planning Areas ............................................................................... 21 4 Wildfire in Kittitas County .................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Fire History .......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.2 Change in Fire Regimes in Kittitas County ............................................................................. 29 4.2 Risk Assessment Evaluation Tools ............................................. : ............................................................... 31 4.2.1 Landscape Risk Assessments ....................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Wildfire Simulation and Mapping .............................................................................................. 32 4.2.3 Combining Landscape Risk and Model Simulation ............................................................. 33 Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 4.2.4 Improve Risk Assessment Information ..................................................................................... 35 4.2.5 Risk Assessment Summary ............................................................................................................ 36 5 Taking the Cohesive Strategy Approach .......................................................................... 37 5.1 Vision Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2 Goals ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.3 Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes in Kittitas County ............................................ 39 5.3.1 Ecology/Ecosystem-Based Fire Management ....................................................................... 39 5.4 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative ................................................................................................ 39 5.5 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments ........................ , ..................................................... , .. 42 5.5.1 Past Private Land Accomplishments and Challenges ......................................................... 42 5.5.2 Kittitas County Conservation District ........................................................................................ 42 5.5.3 Washington Department of Natural Resources ................................................................... 42 5.5.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................................................. 43 5.5.5 Manastash Taneum Resilient Land Restoration Project .................................................... 43 5.5.6 U.S. Forest Service ............................................................................................................................ 44 6 Promoting a Fire Adapted Kittitas County ....................................................................... 49 6.1 Fire Adapted Communities in Kittitas County ..... , ................................................................................ .49 6.2 Firewise USA Recognized Communities .................................................................................................. 50 6 .3 Increasing Wildfire Response throughout Kittitas County ............................................................... 52 6.4 Emergency Preparedness/Evacuation ...................................................................................................... 52 6.5 Ready, Set, Go! Program ................................................................................................................................ 53 6.6 Limited English Speaker Communication Plan ................................................................... _. ................. 54 6.7 Pre-Suppression Plans -Preparing Communities Before the Incident ....................................... 54 6.8 Post Fire Impacts and Response ................................................................................................................. 55 6.9 Long Term Recovery ....................................................................................................................................... 55 7 Putting the Community Wildfire Protection Plan into Action .................................... 57 7.1 Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 57 7.1.1 Residents and Homeowners ............ _. .................................. , ........................................... -............... 57 7.1.2 Fire and Emergency Responders ................................................................................................ 57 7.1.3 Civic and Community Leaders .................. -................................................................................... 57 7.1.4 Forest and Land Managers ........................................................................................................... 58 7 .2 Strategic Action Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 62 7.2 .1 Ready Action Plan ............................................................................................................................ 65 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of CWPP ........................................................................................................ 75 Community Wildfire Protection Plan il September 2018 8 References ................................................................................................................................ 76 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Wild land Urban Interface Planning Area Fire Coverage ....... -......... -.. -................................. 2-1 Kittitas County Recent Fire History ................................................................................................... 24 Fuels Reduction Projects .................... -... -.................... -....... _ ............. _ ....... _ .. -..................... ;, .......... 43 State and The Nature Conservancy Fuels Reduction Projects ........................................... -44 Federal (USFS) Projects .......................................................................................................................... 46 Fi rewise USA Recognized Communities in Kittitas County ........................ -...................... -.. 50 Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction Roles .............................................. 59 Strategic Action Plan ............................................................................................................................... 63 Ready Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 66 Land Ownership Map ............................................................................................................................. 11 Kitt itas County Demographic lnformation .................................................................................... 12 Vegetation Cover Map ........................................................................................................................... 17 Vegetation Type Map ............................................................................................................................. 18 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Areas Map ........................................ , .......... , ...................... 23 Wildfire History and Ownership ......................................................................................................... 26 Median Historic Regime Fire Interval .............................................................................................. 30 Maps Fire District and Department CWPP Survey Community Planning Area Risk Ratings (Based on Redmond CWPP) CWPP Local Planning Integration Communities at Risk Community Wildfire Protection Plan ii i September 2018 ABBREVIATIONS BLM CEMP Cohesive Strategy CWPP DNR DNRLOA FEMA FLAME HFI HFRA HIZ HOA HUC IWUIC KCCD KFACC MTRL-RP NEPA NRCS PNRA PNRS RAWS TNC USFS WAFAC WDFW WRIA WUI U.S . Bureau of Land Management Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan National Cohes ive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Washington State Department of Natural Resources DNR Landowner Assistance Program Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Healthy Forests Initiative Healthy Forests Restoration Act Home Ignition Zone homeowner association Hydrologic Unit Code International Wildland Urban Interface Code Kittitas County Conservation District Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition Manastash Taneum Resilient Land -Restoration Project National Environmental Policy Act Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Northwest Region Wildfire Risk Assessment Pacific Northwest Research Station Remote Automated Weather Stations The Nature Conservancy U.S. Forest Service Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resource Inventory Area Wildland Urban Interface Community Wildfire Protection Plan iv September 2018 1 Introduction This section (Section 1) provides the purpose and mission of the document, which include both the restoration of resilient fire adapted ecosystems as well as resilient, fire adapted communities . Section 2 provides a history of this living document and the stakeholders involved in its inception and this update. Section 3 looks at the factors influencing fire, probability, severity, and risk in Kittitas County including demographics, infrastructure, terrain, the location and conditions of all vegetation and other potential fuels, and the conditions specific to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Section 4 begins with a history of fire in Kittitas County and the fire regime before fire suppression efforts began . The section describes tools used by the authors to assess risk at the community level and the strategies that address those risks specifically. The section also includes an analysis of physical conditions, specific concerns, and risks related to ten individual communities (sub areas). Section 5 begins with the goals of a cohesive strategy for Kittitas The idea for community- based forest planning and prioritization is neither novel nor new. Kittitas County communities were reminded by the recent Jolly Mountain fire of the need to engage in comprehensive forest planning and prioritization. This document includes a review of Kittitas County's past fire history and current conditions affecting fire probability, severity, and risk. This plan addresses risks to health, safety and property, and a comprehensive strategy to imp rove resiliency to wildfire. County based on national strategy developed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).1 Section 5 also describes past accomplishments with regard to promoting an ecosystem-based fire management, promoting fire adapted communities, preparing communities for wildfire, increasing wildfire response, and responding after fires both in the short and long term. Section 6 describes how this plan will be implemented, monitored, and evaluated . 1 The USFS 's national strategy can be found online at: https ://www.fs.fed .u s/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtrnl . Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is to accomplish the following goals : • Protect lives and property from wild land fires • Instill a sense of personal responsibility for taking preventive actions regarding wildland fire • Increase public understanding of the risks associated with living in a fire-adapted ecosystem • Increase the community's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from wildland fires • Restore fire-adapted ecosystems • Create and maintain fire adapted communities • Improve the fire resilience of the landscape while protecting other social, economic, and ecological values 1.2 Mission The overall mission of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan is to protect against loss of life, property, and natural resources as the result of wildland fire . The CWPP has met its mission and continues to serve as the leading document providing direction and guidance to those seeking to protect the resources of Kittitas County. Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of forest ecosystems across the country. Central Washington is no exception. Historically, wild land fires have shaped the forests valued by residents and visitors. Forests and other wild lands in Kittitas County, however, are now significantly altered due to past forest management practices, fire prevention efforts, modern suppression activities, residential development, and a general lack of large-scale fires. These activities have resulted in overgrown forests-some with closed canopies and all with abundant ladder fuels that dramatically increase the chances of large wild land fires that burn intensely and cause catastrophic losses. Kittitas County has experienced decades of population growth and home building, which has led to increased residential development into forests and into the WUI. This has in turn led to increased risk of life and property presenting a challenge for fire protection, fire prevention, and law enforcement agencies. Although reducing risk of high intensity wildfire is the primary motivation behind this plan, managing the forests and wild lands for hazardous fuels reduction and fire resilience is only a part of the larger picture. Residents and visitors desire healthy, fire-resilient forests and wildlands that provide habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities, and scenic beauty. By establishing a more fire-adapted community through work on private property and a more fire resilient landscape, the fire response will be better integrated and successful. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2 September 2018 This update outlines the revised priorities, strategies, and action plan for fuels reduction treatments in the WUI and post fire recovery. This updated CWPP again addresses special areas of concern and makes recommendations for reducing structural vulnerability and creating defensible spaces in communities at risk . With this revision, the Kittitas County CWPP remains a living vehicle for fuels reduction, education, and other projects to decrease overall risks of loss from wildland fire. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 3 September 2018 2 History of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2.1 Recent Federal Initiatives and Legislation The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was established by the federal government in 2002 to improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of high intensity wildfire. This initiative allowed forest management agencies, for the first time, to expedite the documentation process for reducing hazardous fuels on public lands. The U.S. Congress passed historical bi-partisan legislation, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), in 2003 . This legislation expands the initial effort under the HFI and directs federal agencies to collaborate with communities in developing a CWPP, which includes the identification and prioritization of areas needing hazardous fuels treatment. It further provides opportunities and authority for federal agencies to expedite the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for fuels reduction projects on federal lands. The act also requires that 50% of funding allocated to fuels projects be used in the WUI. The development and implementation of this CWPP gives the communities of Kittitas County the opportunity to participate in determining where federal agencies place their fuels reduction efforts. With a CWPP in place, Kittitas County, Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD), community groups, and other stakeholder groups can apply for federal grants to treat hazardous fuels and address special concerns to reduce the risk of catastrophic loss as a result of wildland fire. Congress passed the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act in 2009 and called for a National Cohesive Wild land Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) to address wildland fire related issues across the nation in a collaborative, cohesive manner. The Cohesive Strategy was finalized in 2014 and represents the evolution of national fire policy: • To safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire • The primary, national goals identified as necessary to achieving the vision are: Community Wildfire Protection Plan 4 September 2018 -Resilient landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related disturbances in accordance with management objectives. -Fire-adapted communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. -Wildfire response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. 2.2 Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition In May 2017, a group of stakeholders convened at the Swauk-Teanaway Grange Hall to discuss the formation of a group later called the Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition (KFACC). This group discussed needs and goals to better address growing wildfire concerns and coordinate resources to efficiently increase resiliency in the Kittitas County community. Members of the KFACC include Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7, Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Southeast Region, USFS -Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Kittitas County, Army National Guard, Hidden Valley-Swauk Fire Adapted Community, Kittitas Conservation Trust, Suncadia, Washington Farm Forestry Association (WFFA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), KCCD, and private landowners. -~s··: , .. ,,. . . .......... ':'.'-·~·,,a.. ~ A°'M'· Kittitas County Conservation Distnc1 Formal formation of the KFACC has been initiated and expanded to include many more fire districts, Kittitas Chapter of Washington Farm Forestry Association, County Commissioner, local governments, Suncadia Resort, and others. KFACC has developed a charter, short-term and long-term goals for community wildfire resiliency, and meets monthly to share, learn, and coordinate efforts toward meeting established goals. Goals include updating this CWPP, mapping in GIS accomplishments and priority needs, modeling fire simulations for high priority neighborhoods as part of CWPP and GIS project, and community outreach that results in greater engagement and participation in risk reduction . KFACC participants have recognized the need to coordinate actions and work. Participants are dedicated to finding methods and approaches to obtaining higher density of participation and Community Wildfire Protection Plan 5 September 2018 treatment rather than a "shotgun" approach that result in more effective fire response and reduction of wildfire impacts including potential loss of human life, property, and natural resource damage. KFACC is being used as a platform for coordination between agencies, stakeholders, and landowners to have a coordinated approach to education and outreach for spreading awareness of wildfires before, during, and after they occur. 2.3 The Formation of the Kittitas CWPP Subcommittee The KFACC created the CWPP subcommittee to develop and complete this plan. The Kittitas County CWPP Subcommittee includes members of the public and representatives from local fire districts, DNR, Kittitas County, USFS, and KFACC. This CWPP was assembled in the true spirit of collaboration, and the following people are acknowledged for their participation and commitment which has resulted in this 2018 Kittitas County CWPP: The Nature Conservancy, Washington Farm Forestry Association, Suncadia, Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners, Kittitas County Public Works, Kittitas County Community Development Services, Kittitas County Fire Districts #1, 6, 7, 51, City of Cle Elum and City of Roslyn Fire Departments, Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue, United States Forest Service -Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, Washington State Department of Natural Resources -SE Region, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative, Yakima Training Center -Fire Department, Kittitas Conservation Trust, Kittitas County Conservation District, City of Cle Elum Council and Staff, US Army National Guard and several private landowners representing the areas of Lauderdale Junction, Liberty, Hidden Valley and Buffalo Springs. Building a collaborative and cooperative environment with the fire department(s), community-based organizations, local government, and the public land management agencies has been the first step in reducing the risk of loss from wildland fire. The CWPP Subcommittee pledges to maintain this cooperation with the public over the long term with the commitment of all the participants involved. The importance of collaboration with neighboring CWPPs is recognized by the Subcommittee and is referenced throughout this CWPP as documentation of collaborative efforts to maximize hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the area. The Subcommittee agrees that the Kittitas County CWPP will be a living document, intended to promote fuels reduction, education, and other projects to decrease overall risks of loss from wildland fire; it is intended to be revisited at least annually to address its purpose. 2.4 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Process The most recent revision of the Kittitas County CWPP was adopted in April 2009. Continued efforts have been made by local, state, and federal agencies to reduce the threat of high intensity wild land fires through landowner education as well as fuels reduction activities on both public and private lands. In addition, private landowners have responded enthusiastically to the defensible space and preparation guidelines and recommendations to reduce hazardous fuels on their own properties. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 6 September 2018 Although reducing the risk of high intensity wild land fire is the primary motivation behind this plan, managing the wild lands for hazardous fuels reduction and fire resilience is only one part of the larger picture. Residents and visitors desire healthy, fire-resilient wild lands that provide habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities, economic stimulation, and scenic beauty. In keeping with the strategy of the original Kittitas County CWPP, the Subcommittee revisited the planning outline in Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wild/and-Urban Interface Communities (Communities Committee et al. 2004). That document provides an eight-step process for updating a CWPP. Below are eight steps and the achievements of the Subcommittee in taking each of the steps outlined. • Step one: Convene the decision makers. The Kittitas County CWPP Subcommittee reconvened in April 2018 to review the work completed within and adjacent to the WUI boundary on public and private lands and to reevaluate the priorities for future fuels reduction treatments. The Subcommittee is comprised of the Program Director from Project Wildfire; Fire Marshals from local fire districts; representatives from DNR; representatives from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the Kittitas County Forester, other stakeholders, and members of the public. • Step two: Involve state and federal agencies. HFRA directed communities to collaborate with local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties in the development of a CWPP. The Subcommittee recognized the importance of this collaboration and involved not only members from the USFS, but DNR and Kittitas County representatives as well. Each agency brought a wealth of information about fuels reduction efforts planned and completed, along with educational information based on current research across the nation. • Step three: Engage interested parties. The Subcommittee included representatives from the Communities at Risk, members of local businesses, road districts, homeowner/neighborhood associations, and other organizations and individuals. The Subcommittee encouraged a collaborative environment for the stakeholders to accomplish the 2017 revision of the Kittitas County CWPP. Collaboration and coordination between agencies, community members, and landowners is the fundamental goal of the Cohesive Strategy. • Step four: Establish a community base map. The Subcommittee reviewed the previous maps and boundaries from the 2009 CWPP. The group approved the 2018 CWPP boundary, which now has nine rating areas that replaced the previous eight. The Subcommittee was able, with this change to the base map, to accurately assess the risk in two areas, which were in one rating area in the previous plan, each with two distinctly different vegetation types. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 7 September 2018 • Step five: Develop a community risk assessment. The Subcommittee relied on Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Analysis from USFS Pacific Northwest Region 6 and the Structural Vulnerability factors for each of the ten Communities at Risk. • Step six: Establish community hazard reduction priorities and recommendations to reduce structural ignitability. Based on the assessments, the Subcommittee produced items in the action plan for each rating area. The Subcommittee also made recommendations to reduce structural vulnerability based on information in the assessments and local knowledge. • Step seven: Develop an action plan and assessment strategy. The Subcommittee identified an action plan for key projects; roles and responsibilities for carrying out the purpose of the CWPP; potential funding needs; post fire recovery considerations; and the evaluation process for the CWPP itself. • Step eight: Finalize the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. A draft of the Kittitas County CWPP was available for public comment for 30 days prior to the final signing and approval of the plan. Interested parties provided comments during this period. The Kittitas County CWPP was mutually accepted and signed by local fire districts, the DNR State Forester, KFACC, and the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners as demonstrated in the Declaration of Agreement. 2.5 Additional State and Federal CWPP Guidelines Integration This CWPP includes compatibility with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for a Hazard Mitigation Plan, while also adhering to the guidelines proposed in the National Fire Plan, and HFRA. This CWPP has been prepared in compliance with: • The National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wild land Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDA 2006) • HFRA • The FEMA's Region 10 guidelines for a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations parts 201 and 206 and as related to a fire mitigation plan chapter of a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan • National Association of State Foresters -guidance on identification and prioritizing of treatments between communities (2003). The objective of combining these complementary guidelines is to facilitate an integrated wildland fire risk assessment, identify pre-hazard mitigation activities, and prioritize activities and efforts to achieve the protection of people, structures, the environment, and significant infrastructure in Kittitas County while facilitating new opportunities for pre-disaster mitigation funding and cooperation. Additional information detailing the state and federal guidelines used in the development of the Kittitas County CWPP. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 8 September 2018 3 Kittitas County Local Environment 3. 7. 7 Overview Kittitas County is located in central Washington and bound by the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Columbia River to the east. More than 70% of the County is publicly owned. Approximately two thirds of the public lands are managed by federal agencies including the USFS (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest) and the U.S . Army (Yakima Training Center). The remaining one third of publicly owned land is split primarily between DNR and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Private lands are highly influenced by the availability of irrigation water in Kittitas County. Like the rest of the Yakima River watershed, irrigation infrastructure including reservoirs and delivery systems, maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, irrigation districts, and companies, provide water to agricultural lands allowing for significant crop production. Additionally, private lands are influenced by significant winds, especially in the Kittitas Valley. Kittitas County includes portions of three watersheds, which are known as Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs). Most of Kittitas County is within the Upper Yakima (WRIA 39), which drains into the Yakima River, and a small portion of the eastern county is in the Alkali-Squilchuck (WRIA 40), which drains into the Columbia River. Additionally, a small portion of the county is within the Naches (WRIA 38). ;-... - K1llltas Cou11ly Conservatron Drstnct Community Wildfire Protection Plan 9 September 2018 The USFS manages the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Snoqualmie National Forest, and Alpine Lakes Wilderness (31 % of the County). Additionally, the Department of Defense manages 10% of the county as the U.S . Army Yakima Training Center located in the southeast. Only approximately half of this 327,000-acre military installation is in Kittitas County, with the other half in Yakima County. State owned lands (28% of the County) are managed primarily by the WDFW and DNR and include the Teanaway Community Forest, Naneum Ridge State Forest, Colockum Wildlife Area , and LT Murray Wildlife Area. Privately-held land comprises only 28% of the land base in Kittitas County, which includes a mixture of rural development, agriculture, and commercial forestry (Kittitas County et al. 2013). Rangelands are areas that are primarily kept in a natural or semi -natural state to facilitate grazing of livestock. These areas are essential for production of livestock, but also provide value to many wildlife species by preventing conversion to more intensive land uses . In Kittitas County, there are two types of rangeland practices, forested rangeland and shrub-steppe rangeland . Forested rangeland occurs mostly in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains and is characterized by livestock that graze on vegetation beneath the forest canopy. Grazing in these areas often has the additional benefit of reducing ladder fuels for forest fires. Shrub-steppe rangelands are located on the Columbia Plateau and often overlap with shrub-steppe habitat. Stewardship practices on these rangelands aim to support vegetation growth, maintain healthy soils, and reduce herbaceous fuel loading for wildland fires. These actions help protect ecological functions and values and maintain economic viability. 3.2 Demographics In the last few years, Kittitas County has experienced tremendous growth with approximately 11,355 new residents locating within the county from 2000 to 2016 (Headwaters Economics 2018). The most recent estimate of the Kittitas County population, from 2017, was 46,205 (U.S . Census Bureau 2018). Kittitas County has five incorporated communities: Ellensburg (est. pop. 20,326), Cle Elum (pop. 1,993), Kittitas (est. pop. 1,491), Roslyn (est. pop . 947) and South Cle Elum (est. pop. 560) (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). The remaining population lives within the unincorporated areas of the county (WA OFM 2017). While Kittitas County remains rural in comparison to its westerly neighbors, increased population and secondary home growth is projected to be significant (Berk Consulting 2016). Community Wildfire Protection Plan 10 September 2018 Figure 1 Land Ownership Map Lq1110 • l'r•Pll'I')' O'fl'ntrlhlp OtelrtVllli.ti In Ntnii.1 !;ounly --a.--,-~ _ _, . __ ....,.,. ,. .... !=::::~'..'~., ::::i~:~:.:· ,,.,,L.1,0~ ... .,, ..II•- '-~ r,.~,,,c,,,.,.,., •"' •.-ri -"'9tt'1 •-~ ........ , ..... 25 ii - 10 Community Wildfire Protection Plan _.,_..__ ..... , .. _..,. , ..... .,._,. ._.., ..... ..,~ .. 15 20 IM1k1 1 n 11 NOTES: 1 SlfUIT\$ ,no River, acqulled from KCCO 12012) 2 Public: land d11!1111cqult'td lrom USGS Gap An alysis Program (2016), and WA RCO Public Land& lnvenlary (20H) September 2018 Figure 2 Kittitas County Demographic Information KITTITAS ictl mu.ill Cle Elum El.,sburg ..... eee Ro~ 2,CM8 S~h a. Elum TolalPopulltlonChang1 J,816 Source: WA OFM 2017 Community Wildfire Protection Plan -1,875 18,SSO 1,500 ... "" -"·"" ~.385 )t,$45 2,297~7 18.•7 1111111 " ,. 22 • " 21 • 22 " , .. ~ ,., ..... m 12 205 ., ,., " 10 .. " "' ... Z2112 180 '" "' , .. .. ,., ,., ,. ,., ,., 1.7 ,., ,., ,,. ,. ,., ,., 2.0 ,., o• ... 0.4 ,., 1.0 ... , •• NhU! M-OlifXJRlt RRiWiXl&Uiiii~N"flEeirWJJ S;if 11:'20 -B1lllcfood CEAP Ol .. bihtyllfal1nt1 DivlfMlllColh MAC1d!Aulatwica ,.,~,._,, ... a..~:.,-, ... .... suffl ... 158,1&8 ...... "" ...... '"'"" . 6.021 6,103 -==-.;-:,;,;,;.,;_;:,:,;,,_~-~ = ~= t•"" •••• ,0-11, ·"';;· , o.«,,'1' 11 1M U1•3 33 Iii 0020 11 3 0007 211 t1 ... •= .... M-t ,Hl6,WI s.17,72<4,788 ~ ...... DfOp1r.tlng ··~-:~-=!~ -:~ ... •nstruc:UOl)a Prog.•1'::-=.~e [::~U T= =~~.t~I ~::::; ::~:._ '-Wt-, T,-nif)Orl•lion 2,2U,074 1~) Jm-.lll.f'M l&dts-lln..._t,.~~ .i_.~ i-:::~:::d~~~otlfuJ~::"Qtl ('Alin~-rc,.flll Nill LlctmedVthld11: P•__,Olf J.1..tilt Ol.l•r Tn.1;!,:11 w_q (:a-., R.aPllon1I '4--"'IO lwl c;qy"'ff"O,UUiioi.Wi'AOhl}lbw:.EJiti , .. ;Si lt'blif September 2018 3.2. 7 Local Economy Since 2000, the industry sectors with the largest numbers of jobs were government (4,224 jobs), services (3,958 jobs), retail trade (3,520 jobs), and farming (1,459 jobs) (Headwater Economics Socioeconomic Profile 2018). Kittitas County continues to have a large percent of total farm employment (6 .78%) compared nationally. Agricultural employment in most parts of the United States has been declining, largely as a result of mechanization and other efficiencies of scale, for most of the last century. However, this is not the case everywhere . In addition, not all geographies have lost or attracted farm employment at the same rate. Agricultural producers (primarily of hay) operate on approximately 13% of the unincorporated areas of Kittitas County. Private agricultural crop and pasture lands can be split into three categories, irrigated, dryland, and orchard/vineyard crops. Irrigated crop and pasture comprise 6.5% of the County, and both dryland crops and orchard and vineyard areas comprise less than 1 % of the County respectively. Kittitas County crop lands produce approximately 68% of the value of products sold in the county (USDA 2012). Rangelands account for 6.4% of county land, and county-wide livestock sales account for approximately 32% of the value of products sold (USDA 2012). There are approximately 1,000 farms in the county that vary in size ranging from relatively small, with agricultural product sales of less than $1,000, to large, with agricultural product sales of greater than $500,000. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Census of Agriculture (2012), Kittitas County produces approximately $68 million in market value from agricultural products statewide. Resource industries such as timber, have been a small percentage in comparison to agriculture 's strong presence . From 1998 to 2015, timber employment shrank from 106 to 79 jobs, a 25% decrease while non-timber employment grew from 6,801 to 11,007 jobs a 61% increase. Timber sectors such as harvesting and manufacturing have all decreased substantially; while mills grew from 6 to 34 jobs, a 466% increase from 1998 to 2015 (Headwaters Economics 2018). There are 914,469 forested acres in Kittitas County, mostly public and 2,600 small forest landowners accounting for 58,000 forest acres (UW State Forestland Database 2007). 3.3 Critical Infrastructure Critical facilities and infrastructure are those that are essential to the health and welfare of the population. These become especially important after a hazard event. Critical facilities typically include police and fire stations, schools, and emergency operations centers. Critical infrastructure can include the roads and bridges that provide ingress and egress and allow emergency vehicles access to those in need, and the utilities that provide water, electricity, and communication services to the community. Also included are "Tier II" facilities and railroads, which hold or carry significant amounts of hazardous materials with a potential to impact public health and welfare in a hazard event. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 13 September 2018 3.4 Terrain/Geomorphology Three distinct regions are found in the County which include the Cascades, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, and Columbia Plateau. The Cascade region is located in the western portion of the County and is characterized by glaciated valleys and high peaks. The Cascade region is mainly forested and within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills region comprises the majority of the central portion of the County and is characterized by open forests, mainly ponderosa pine. The Columbia Plateau region is located to the east of the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills and is characterized as the Yakima River Valley and the Columbia River Valley. Much of the area in the Yakima River Valley has been converted to irrigated agriculture. Shrub-steppe habitat is also prominent within the Columbia Plateau region. Soils in the mountainous areas in the county are characterized as basalt and glacial deposits. These soils are eroded and deposited in the Yakima River Valley as alluvium. Upland of the Columbia River, basalt forms steep talus slopes with large particle sizes (ranging from sand to boulders). The shoreline of the Columbia River is characterized by natural alluvium and sand dunes, but some areas have been modified by riprap and artificial fill (Kittitas County et al. 2013). Community Wildfire Protection Plan 14 September 2018 3.5 Vegetation 3.5. 7 Fire Adapted Landscape Historically Kittitas County has undergone frequent low-intensity fire, like much of the lower and mid-elevation forests, but resulting primarily from over 100 years of successful fire suppression activities, these areas have seen excessive fuel buildup, altering the historical fire regime intensity and severity. The most recent forest health assessment for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests found widespread susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks and large-scale severe wildfire (USFS 2004) The report found that climate and fire suppression were the primary drivers of this change. The health of shrub steppe habitat in the eastern county has also declined increasing the risk of range fire. 3.5.1.1 Forest Vegetation Woodland fuels are mostly present in the western half of the county. As you move west the forest transitions from wet deciduous and shade tolerant conifer through dry conifer (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) mid-elevation conifer (grand fir, western larch, western hemlock), to high elevation wet conifer (mountain hemlock, pacific silver fir). Wooded areas tend to be on steep terrain intermingled with grass and shrubs providing an abundance of ladder fuels which leads to horizontal and vertical fuel continuity. These factors, combined with arid and windy conditions characteristic of the river valleys in the region, can result in high intensity fires with large flame length and fire brands that may spot long distances. Rates of fire spread tend to be lower than those in the grasslands; however, intensities can escalate dramatically, especially under the effect of slope and wind. Such fires present significant control problems for suppression resources and often results in large wildland fires. Furthermore, exceptionally hot and dry summers, overcrowding, and unprecedented forest insect infestations are causing forested areas to become more and more susceptible to severe wildfire. 3.5.1.2 Rangeland Vegetation Sagebrush is found throughout the mid to eastern edge of Kittitas County and is of great concern as ladder fuel intermixed with stands of mixed conifers. Sagebrush is highly susceptible to fire and rarely re-sprouts. Under historic conditions, sagebrush took approximately 20 years to reach pre- burn densities following a wildfire event. Without periodic fire, sagebrush reaches an uncharacteristic old-growth form with increased height, woody stems, and thick accumulations of leaves -all highly flammable with fire behavior that is very similar to crown fires in larger conifers. Changes in fire occurrence along with fire suppression and livestock grazing have contributed to the current condition of sagebrush in the planning area. Introduction of annuals, especially cheat grass, has increased fuel loads so that fire carries easily, increasing the potential for significant and dangerous fire behavior. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 15 September 2018 3.5.1.3 Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds and cheat grass are found across the planning area and present yearly challenges for residents, agricultural users, and fire suppression agencies . Cheat grass, introduced invasive annuals and other noxious weeds typically occur where the ground has been disturbed to create roads, paths, or other plantings. Once established, they return perennially and can reach heights of three feet or more creating an easily ignitable fuel bed once they dry out during summer months. Fires that occur in this type of fuel spread quickly and can direct fire to other fuels such as trees or structures . Cheat grass provides a flammable link in the brush and forests vegetation types. It cures early in the fire season and ignites readily during dry periods because of its very fine structure that responds readily to changes in the atmospheric moisture, tendency to accumulate litter, and invasive nature. Cheat grass promotes more frequent fires by increasing the biomass and horizontal continuity of fine fuels that persist during the summer lightning season. Its expansion has dramatically changed fire regimes and plant communities over vast areas of western rangelands by creating an environment where fires are easily ignited, spread rapidly, cover large areas, and occur frequently. Fire in these habitats can have severe effects on native species of plants and animals. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 16 September 2018 Figure 3 Vegetation Cover Map • Community Wildfire Protection Plan 17 NOTES : 1 Slrum• and Rivara acquftd from KCCD (2012) 2 LANDFtRE Vegetalion C011er d111a acquired lrom LANDFIRE USFS (2014) 3 Pub~~,.~ dale acquil'@d from USGS GllpAnalyi,,is P1ogram (20115). end WA RCO Pub Nc Lands In ventory (20 14 ) September 2018 Figure 4 Vegetation Type Map Community Wildfire Protection Plan 18 September 2018 3.5.2 Climate and Temperature As is typical of areas in the lee of large coastal mountain ranges, the Yakima River Basin is generally arid . Precipitation varies with elevation and distance from the Cascades, from 150 inches annually at the Cascade crest to 10 inches at the Columbia River. Disparities in precipitation rates from one area to another affect runoff rates and the character of rivers in different drainages, which influence flooding and land-use potential. Summers in Kittitas County tend to be dry; approximately two-thirds of the county's precipitation occurs between October and April, with much in the form of snow. In the winter, considerable snow often accumulates in the higher elevations. In the Kittitas Valley, snow season generally ranges from November through February, with significant variation from one season to the next. Because of the variation in elevation, temperatures vary greatly in the Yakima River Basin . In the Kittitas Valley, summers tend to be hot, with wide divergent fluctuations, and mild to severe winters. Data are scarce for higher elevations; however, those areas are generally characterized by cool summers and cold winters. For example, in the Subalpine Fir forest zone, which extends from approximately 2,000 feet to the timberline, mean July temperatures in the range of 55°F to 65°F can be expected. 3.5.2.1 Wind During the summer, pressure is higher on the western side of the Cascades and lower over the heated basin of eastern Washington, with the pressure difference increasing during the day as temperatures soar over eastern Washington. Air accelerates from high to low pressure and it finds the weakest location called Stampede Gap, where the terrain is only 3,000 to 4,000 feet high. Air accelerates through the gap and spreads out over the Kittitas Valley, with northwest winds on many summer days gusting to 30 to 40 miles per hour (Mass 2009). The prevailing wind is from the northwest. The daily wind speed averages 8 to 10 miles per hour in the spring and summer, although wind speeds up to 20 to 30 miles per hour are not uncommon in the Kittitas Valley. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 19 September 2018 3.6 Wildland Urban Interface The Wildland Urban Interface in Kittitas County encompasses large areas of land . Within these areas is an increased risk of wildfire. There is also an increased risk structure to structure ignition or being wildfires inadvertently caused in more densely populated areas. Wildfire risk can be reduced using a number of different mitigation strategies like vegetation management and code development. Kittitas recently adopted new building and land use development rules to help ensure any new building or development in the WUI is adequately defensible from wildfire and fire resistant to avoid the spread of fire in and from the home. As Kittitas County population steadily increases in the WUI, risk management will need to include short-term and long-term strategies to increase community resiliency addressing developments, vegetation management and other facets of living in a wildfire prone landscape. This 2018 Kittitas County CWPP defines the concept of WUI as, "any area where the combination of human development and vegetation have a potential to result in negative impacts from wildfire on the community." The formal definition of WUI is rooted in the Code of Federal Regulations and describes conditions under which vegetation and structures meet or intermix. This definition uses levels of structure density or population density to subdivide WUI into Interface and Intermix categories. Interface refers to areas where structures directly abut wildland fuels, but there is a clear line of demarcation between developed and w i ldland areas . Intermix refers to areas where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area . While the Code of Federal Regulations guidelines for structure density are helpful, the definitions are still fairly vague in terms of geographically defining WUI with a set of mappable criteria. 3.6. 7 History of Wild/and Urban Interface Code in Kittitas County Kittitas County adopted the International Wild land Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) in January 2013 (no . 2013-013) with amendments located in Kittitas County Code Title 20 and Appendix B: Vegetation Management Plan as a tool to mitigate wild land fire risk as vacant private land is converted to the built environment. IWUIC was adopted shortly after the Taylor Bridge wildfire in 2012 which destroyed over sixty residential homes and cabins . In April 2018, the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners included the adoption of Appendix C of the IWUIC allowing for individual site analysis and removal of certain sprinkler requirements for building requirements . The intent of the IWUIC is to supplement adopted International building and fire codes and establish a minimum set of regulations for life and property from wildland fires and mitigate potential structure fires turning into wildfires. Communities in Kittitas County are faced with Wildland Urban Interface in two contexts that pertain differently to each constituent depending on their land objectives; the Community Wildfi re Protection Plan 20 September 2018 International Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) as it pertains to future construction development in the Kittitas County and the second distinction as part of the holistic strategy brought forth by the National Cohesive Strategy's three goals: resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities and safe and effective wildfire response. 3.6.2 Wild/and Urban Interface Risk in the West According to the Headwaters Economic WUI snapshot report (2018), Kittitas County was in the 85th and 89th percentile of existing WUI risk (amount of forested land where homes have already been built next to public lands), and future WUI risk (the area of undeveloped, forested private land bordering fire-prone public lands) in the West (there are a total of 413 western counties and the higher the percentile (100th percentile being the highest) the higher the risk) in 2010. Kittitas County is in the 44th percentile in Washington State when ranked by existing risk and 69th percentile for future potential risk according 2010 data. While home construction is not the only contributor to the rising cost of fighting fires, it is an important factor and one that is expected to rise with continued development, particularly in the absence of well thought-out land use planning . A warming climate will exacerbate the costs even further continuing the established risk rankings . 3.6.3 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Areas The Kittitas County CWPP is multi-jurisdictional and addresses all lands and all ownership within the boundaries of the plan area. The Swauk-Liberty Planning area overlaps the Swauk Basin Wildfire Protection Plan last updated in January 2005 . In all nine identified sub regions, the 1.5-mile WUI boundary follows the CWPP planning area boundary. For the purposes of this CWPP, the WUI boundary and the CWPP planning area are a similar geographical region; however, the planning boundaries are more general and include private property that may be isolated from the WUI boundary. The Kittitas County WUI boundary is approximately 1,018 square miles and covers 651,795 acres. Table 1 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Area Fire Coverage WUI Planning Area Name Acres Fire District Coverage Eastern Kittitas County 109,854 BLM, Yakima Training Center, DNR, Vantage Fire Department, Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue Kittitas Valley Upland 150,789 DNR, Kittitas Valley Fire & Rescue, USFS Swauk-Liberty 75,500 DNR, Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, USFS Manastash-Taneum 113,098 DNR, Kittitas Valley Fi re & Rescue, USFS Teanaway 22,332 Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR North Lake Cle Elum 23 ,170 Kittitas County Fire District No. 6, DNR, USFS Community Wildfire Protection Plan 21 September 2018 WUI Planning Area Name Acres Fire District Coverage Roslyn -Cle Elum 13,419 City of Roslyn FD, City of Cle Elum FD, Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS Domerie Flats 11,523 Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS West Kittitas County 94,084 Kittitas County Fire District No. 51, Kittitas County Fire District No. 8, Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS South Cle Elum 58,355 City of South Cle Elum Fire Department, Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS Community Wildfire Protection Plan 22 September 2018 Figure 5 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Areas Map """'..,.~w~,-,~u" ~, .... -,,g ,,Nff ~ .... r.:::,::t.:=,;,..._ ----.-.--··--'--·-_, •=:. ..... 0 2.5 5 --- N-u.'•Clll...,._ -~- 10 15 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 0 23 NOll:S: 1 Stre •ms•nd RIYflr& acqulled trom KCCD (2012) 2 Public. land dale acquired (rom U6GIS Gap A,nalyais Prog111m (2016), and WA RCO Public Land& Inventory (2014) ~~~~,!~~~:::• •rt PTOCtl!Cto4Pl-1.M Nut tt~l(C:C0~018) September 2018 4 Wildfire in Kittitas County 4.1. 7 Fire History The wildfire occurrence in Kittitas County has changed significantly since the 2009 CWPP plan . While the 2009 CWPP noted many occurrences and starts from 1972 to 2008, since 2008, Kittitas County has been faced with significant wildfires, both human and lightning caused . Table 2 Kittitas County Recent Fire History Fire Name Year Size County Structures Lost Reecer 2004 107 Kittitas Lauderdale 2004 247 Kittitas Elk Heights 2004 296 Kittitas Lick Creek 2005 734 Kittitas Polallie 2006 961 Kittitas Amabilis 2006 116 Kittitas Crow Creek 2007 83 Kittitas Easton Ridge 2007 401 Kittitas Ellensburg Pass 2007 452 Kittitas Ellensburg Pass 2007 452 Kittitas WDFW-Tarpiscan 2008 575 Kittitas Lemah 2009 649 Kittitas Umtanum Falls 2011 252 Kittitas MP 124 2011 450 Kittitas Taylor Bridge 2012 23,501 Kittitas 61 Trail Creek 2012 24 Kittitas Stafford Creek 2012 33 Kittitas Diamond Head 2012 1,055 Kittitas Gold Creek Springs 2012 31 Kittitas Old Blewett Pass 2012 22 Kittitas Moon Beam 2012 1 Kittitas Jack Creek Pass 2012 7 Kittitas French Cabin Creek 2012 42 Kittitas Peavine Canyon 2012 19,997 Kittitas Table Mountain Fire 2012 42,481 Kittitas 5 Quilomene 2012 156 Kittitas Little Parke Creek 2012 700 Kittitas Umtanum 2 2012 180 Kittitas Community Wildfire Protection Plan 24 September 2018 Fire Name Year Size County Structures Lost Burbank 2013 202 Yakima Colockum Tarps 2013 81 ,733 Chelan 5 Christensen 2013 175 Kittitas Manastash Ridge 2013 2,351 Kittitas Cottonwood 2014 8,942 Kittitas South Cle Elum Ridge 2014 887 Kittitas 1-82 Manastash 2014 1,994 Kittitas Saddle Mountain 2014 24,917 Kittitas 5 Bighorn 2014 265 Kittitas Snag Canyon 2014 12,599 Kittitas 22 Corral 2014 148 Kittitas Mile Post 9 2015 22 Kittitas Gingko 2016 124 Kittitas Rock Creek 2016 1,382 Kittitas 130 Vantage 2016 363 Kittitas MP 133 2016 570 Kittitas Hayward Firing Range 2016 167 Kittitas Ryegrass 2017 192 Kittitas Poison Springs 2017 353 Kittitas Jolly Mountain 2017 36,808 Kittitas Hult Butte 2017 138 Kittitas Teanaway River 2017 336 Kittitas Note: Fire s over 10,000 acres highlighted. Wildfires often cross jurisdictions and it is rare that one fire stays completely contained in one land ownership. Kittitas County has a mix of ownership that add to the complexity of land and wildfire management. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 25 September 2018 Figure 6 Wildfire History and Ownership ::.~~,--:::-,_..,. -.... r"''' ,_ 0 2 5 5 10 ,_NJ- 15 20 I MIies 0 J L Community Wildfire Protection Plan 26 September 2018 Forest Health Trends in a Changing Fire Re.gime is from DNR 's 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan for Ea stern Washington (2017 ) •. . "I . ·, -;t,: . i ' . he Scale of the FoL~sr~-~~I\ , . . . t .· ,. s~~r:~ ~~!!f~1,1 a e , n g .... ..,,.. ,. ·. ' , '. t ' ... . . . ,' .. ~-1 l ··~.,.:.,,I /· ,'.· '' . . >,. .·J ~_-'"",·' ,, . Washington State, fo'rest health has been in dediQe,for:severa'I decades. At a broad scale , ' " /~ ~;• 'i {,,,'< : • • . ( :. ~< •' r . • I r_. • • • :' 1 ' w ~ • I f the decline can be attributed ~o _.,pasn m~nag'ement practices , including past fire . , 1,//''•'. ; .. '/' i I f I management practices, t~s:it :.~aVe (resulted in uncharacteristically overstocked forests; and .. . - ... ~. ~ . . ~· .... ~'. • . , t . , .:/! . <,_i :_1••1!I . ,. ,£;,; episodic . droughts that have increased the competition among trees for .av~i.l~l;i}e · moisture-stressed forests have become less resistant to wildfi~es 'nd in~ects and disease -~· . , . ' . ' /. 6" ., •' outbreaks. Combined with record-setti n g summer dro'u-ghts /forest fires often burn.\vith ,: . ~ . ·. ,..:.• .. ' •· . ' . \ ,. i ~--. . .. uncharacteri ~~ic severi i/ and duration, ··in }~Jrt , bkcause of dense a~d continuous fuel '. _:·_· ~.. :'\ . '\. . . ':. . ·:, ' . accumulatio~s. Tree mortality rates associated with bark beetles and other inse~~s and . ,;~i ' ' '"'-·•' . · diseases have also increased substantially over large areas. Much of the 10 milli~l1 -a'c:res .. ,· .•.•. -. ' of foresti'and in eastern Washington faces serious threats to forest health. Deca_des of fire i,· suppression and past management practices have put these f(?rests at higher risk of damage by disease; insects and wildfire arid reduced ecosystem resilience jn th!=! face of climate change. An analysis by The Nature Conservancy _ and the U.S. Forest Service •~"':' of active management or disturbance to create forest stru.cture s°'.more .resilient against , . insects, diseases: and wildfires (H~ugo.-et al. 2015). The acr~s of tre~sthafhave been ki:lled ·., . /·." . : :_· .:··-l:;.,:·: ... : · .· . · or damaged in the first decade of the 2000s.was-150 percent greater .than the .1990s and ' • _;:( . • ••• . • . • I • • • .;• :,··-l .... '\ ~ _,.'. t ,,. .• • -!,, .• I -~' •~ ' :~_ ..... -;-.· ~-.J" -~,.. ,. ", \.. , .. ',,,,:·· .. Ali SZ 'VO percentgreater th-in,InIthe 1980s The National Insect and Disease Risk Map_(NI9.� projects continued etevated levels of damage will occur how insects and discs Ali S F et al. 2014). NIDRM estimates that 2 7 MONO p acres of Wa;huigton stlt ore I� cT,: s. riskto suffer severE, damage from m=,acts antY diseased �6'om 2013,20 / luaiq logiy lat ,�' a & A.; r - and expensive wildfire , have led othzr Mates to �dc4itlfy"pathway`. to �tceleYa'tth } Y and scale offorest health management and restgi'ation and take anions to iedv ` f t ,z v� y risk In.convnmiIties. h1 2075, more that 500 wildfires burned over olir mif" '. l� P er' 4 230 homes across Washington St7e Wiltlflre5 cost state taKpayersS m TW which is almost three'tiroes the 10 }ea�ani u3l average-of $34 ipillio,I In 2 .... " IP3Yres represented the second largest suiTjle carbon emitter in the st.cAor4only to thr transportation sector Intotal;agenuesandlandownersdpller�.welysnAntmoi n 319 million on fire. supprmion activities that year in Washi gton. While the -1015' wildfire Sq season broke 7ltany �:I'e4ords, pi edictions indicate -Yft 'the PaaLcA"Northwest may experience four fimes more acrgs,burped'anipually in the 24os compIned m the medrill annual $ren burned trptp i97,fi. 2,006 f{,�t al. 2010 m thouiAsctwe resloraLbn ,uul manageiTien , including changes .;a 'filch and t,ibds Eft. treaunq bloari forest t + f�k Ia�dScapes;'forest.health will. t• edlne 4oF5UfA6r(Ce of unehararteristic wiI will continue to injp ,+�. `� + 7� �v'r".^. pry �'^?+a � f• �^�.. ' +t• , fit} QPyriij 017Sohn F-Marshall ":1 Historic fire seasons occurred between July and September, with the middle to end of August being the period of the most extreme fire conditions. Cheat grass matures by July, while most native species it replaces mature in late August. With cheat grass dominant, wildfires tend to occur earlier in the season, when native perennials are more susceptible to injury by burning. These fires are larger and more uniform, with fewer patches of unburned vegetation remaining within burns. Cheat grass thrives in grounds that have been disturbed by activities such as recreation or building. There are many areas within Kittitas County that have cheat grass invading the landscape, in some cases creating ladder fuel adjacent to homes in the WUI. Cheat grass is not recognized as a noxious weed in Kittitas County, however the flammability of the annual invasive species poses a risk to homes and infrastructure. Other noxious weeds like Scotch Broom and Gorse, although not present in Kittitas County but located in bordering counties, create dense thickets of highly flammable, dry woody material escalating the intensity of wildfire and increasing the risk and damage to nearby properties. 4. 7.2 Change in Fire Regimes in Kittitas County Changes in climate patterns, land management strategies and other factors have contributed to changes in vegetation and forest structure. Fire frequency and severity has responded to these changes. Historical fire regimes ranged from over 900 years to as frequent as every 20 years or so. Generally, the changes in the fire regime trend toward larger, hotter, and less frequent fires in much of the county. Fire suppression, timber management, and the buildup of fuels in the forest have had a combined effect that can only be mitigated with a comprehensive strategy, such as the one laid out in Section 5. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 29 September 2018 Figure 7 Median Historic Regime Fire Interval 0 275 5,5 11 16 5 .,.._- Community Wildfire Protection Plan Median Historic Regime Fire Interval 22 !Miles 30 DalaNolu: 1 Strum, an d River& aoqu tr•d from KCCO ('20 12 ) 2 Pubk /arid elate acquired rrom USGS GapAn1ly111 Program (2018), and WA RCO Public. Land& lnvenlory (2014) 3 MIUI dai. acquired from USFS LANOFIAE (2014) n 1111, September 2018 4.2 Risk Assessment Evaluation Tools Wildfire risk is a measure of both the probability and consequences of uncertain future wildfire events. For any location within Kittitas County, wildfire risk depends on the chances of a fire occurring there, the likely intensity of the fire, and the vulnerability of something of value at that location. Scientists describe these three components of risk using a triangle where the sides are likelihood, intensity, and susceptibility. These three factors, and the resultant wildfire risk, vary across the county. In this section, we describe tools currently available to assess this risk in Kittitas County. This provides spatial context for where different wildfire management and mitigation strategies will be most effective. By understanding the components that contribute to wildfire risk and engaging in a coordinated and collaborative planning effort, the county can take steps to influence each side of the risk triangle in different ways. For example, prevention measures that reduce human-caused fires can reduce the likelihood of fire occurrence, particularly in areas of human activity. Vegetation treatments focused on reducing fuel loads can reduce the Assets are human-made features, such as commercial structures, critical facilities, and housing that have a specific importance or value . Resources are natural features, such as wildlife habitat and federally threatened and endangered plant or animal species. These also have a specific importance or value. I Generally, the term "values at risk" has previously been used to describe both assets and resources. For PNRA, the term Highly Valued Resources and Assets is used to describe what has previously been labeled values at risk. There are two reasons for this change in terminology. First, resources and assets are not themselves "values" in any way that term is conventionally defined-they have value (importance). Second, while resources and assets may be exposed to wildfire, they are not necessarily "at risk"-that is the purpose of the assessment. intensity of fires that do occur, and efforts to reduce the flammability of building materials and increase defensible space around structures and communities can reduce susceptibility of homes and other structures to wildfire. 4.2. 7 Landscape Risk Assessments The assessment used for risk analysis is a combination of local and landscape scales. The landscape risk analysis has been provided by Pyrologix LLC via the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station in a report, Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Method and Results (Pyrolog ix 2018) The report covers 1.5 million acres of USFS land in Kittitas County and over 100 million acres in all. The report documents the methodology and results of the USFS Pacific Northwest Region Wildfire Risk Assessment (PNRA). This assessment tool provides foundational information about wildfire hazard and risk to Highly Valued Resources and Assets across the geographic area. This information is used to support decisions related to wildfire suppression, fuel management planning, and resource allocation decisions. It is also critical for developing land and resource management plans. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 31 September 2018 Developing, to the greatest degree possible, accurate data on wildfire risk data is critical for effective fire management strategies. The PNRA analysis uses a software package called FlamMap. FlamMap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that computes potential fire behavior characteristics such as spread rate, flame length, and fire line intensity. These outputs are resolved spatially across the region to estimate the following: • Likelihood of a fire burning • Intensity of a fire if one should occur • Exposure of assets and resources based on their locations • Susceptibility of those assets and resources to wildfire The outputs and comparisons of Flam Map can be used to identify hazardous combinations of fuel and topography, aiding in prioritizing fuel treatments (e.g., prescribed fire and mechanical fuel treatments). In addition, the risk data can be used to support fire operations in response to wildfire incidents by identifying those assets and resources most susceptible to fire . This can aid in decision making for prioritizing and positioning of firefighting resources. FlamMap does not include a temporal scale and does not simulate the growth and spread of fire in the way that wildfire simulation tools are intended to do. While landscape tools are useful in planning and risk reduction, additional tools are key to preparing effective fire response strategies during the preparation phase and in effectively distributing resources during a wildfire response. 4.2.2 Wildfire Simulation and Mapping Computer simulation modeling of hypothetical wildfires provides a robust and scientifically defensible means of mapping wildfire likelihood and potential intensity. Fire models use weather data from long-term stations in the county, along with detailed spatial data depicting topography and aspects of vegetation that characterize wildland fuels to simulate fire spread across the landscape from semi-random ignition points. Simulations can be run for an entire suite of statistically possible weather scenarios across thousands of iterations of a whole fire season using a model called FSim . The outputs from FSim include maps of the annual probability of fire occurrence and the most likely intensity at a very fine scale. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 32 Both the Landscape Risk Assessment (PNRA) and computer simulation (FSim) efforts used input data representing landscape fuel conditions as of 2015, and weather data from Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) in and around Kittitas County. Additional details about the two projects are described in a comparison report mutually produced by Headwaters Economics and PNRS (Headwaters Economics 2014). September 2018 Simulations from FSim that cover the entire county were completed in 2018. This effort in FSim modeling was undertaken by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNRS) as part of a wildfire risk assessment for the larger, Pacific Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington boundaries). 4.2.3 Combining Landscape Risk and /V1odel Simulation The combined utility of working at multiple scales of analysis is greater than that of either tool used alone. The outputs from both modeling efforts are integrated and summarized here to provide an overview picture of spatial variation in wildfire risk components in Kittitas County. The raw outputs from modeling are raster, or pixel-based, datasets that divide the landscape into evenly-sized square cells. For the FlamMap modeling, these cells were 30 meters (97 feet) on a side. The increased complexity of FSim modeling required larger cells, each 180 meters (583 feet) on a side. Summarizing results at a slightly coarser scale makes them more easily interpretable, and allows for broad-scale patterns to emerge that may not be immediately visible in the pixel datasets. Therefore, outputs of wildfire likelihood and intensity are summarized below using fine-scale watershed polygons, referred to as catchments. There are 2,751 catchment polygons that intersect Kittitas County, ranging in size from about 40 to 9,900 acres (average of 697 acres). We calculated the average likelihood and intensity values for each catchment, as well as the integrated wildfire hazard, which combines likelihood and intensity into a single index. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 33 September 2018 4.2.3.1 Likelihood The model output which best represents wildfire likelihood in Kittitas County is the burn probability output from the FSim modeling done for the Pacific Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington boundaries) risk assessment. It represents a true annual burn probability that considers all possible weather scenarios. This provides a long-term perspective on the relative likelihood of fire for any location in the county in any given year. To produce a map of relative likelihood for the county, the average burn probability for each catchment was calculated, and those averages were classified into four classes of low, moderate, high, and very high. The classes are relative to the distribution of catchment averages only within Kittitas County and are based on quartiles. Therefore, the high and very high classes represent all catchments with an average burn probability value above the county median. The average burn probabilities for watersheds range from O to 0.025, with a mean of 0.01. This means, on average, any specific location (i.e ., 180-meter pixel) has about a 1 in 100 chance of burning in any given year. 4.2.3.2 Susceptibility and Risk Information about susceptibility (or vulnerability) of specific assets is more difficult to map. Neither the Pyrologix nor the PNRS work in Kittitas County provides enough information to adequately represent the susceptibility of communities to wildfire. While the Pyrologix analysis included some datasets that could address community-level susceptibility (e.g., distance to roads, fire stations, water sources, golf courses , etc.), their assessment did not integrate this information with likelihood and intensity data into standard, accepted metrics of risk. The PNRS analysis for the Pacific Northwest Region Quantitative Risk Assessment report did develop abstract estimates of susceptibility (known as response functions) for a variety of natural resources and built assets, but the focus of that assessment was on setting land management and wildfire management priorities on national forest lands. The response function for communities developed in that analysis estimated negative impacts to communities at all levels of fire intensity, but these impacts are vaguely defined and not specific for different types of structures. While information from both assessments provides some insights into wildfire risk, neither facilitates a thorough mapping of risk across the county. Moving forward, susceptibility could be evaluated at multiple scales to facilitate calculation of wildfire risk metrics in and around developed areas in the county. At a community or neighborhood scale, factors similar to those used in the Pyrologix assessment could be used to develop community-level susceptibility ratings. The rating areas could be watersheds, like the catchments used here, but may be more meaningful if they represent specific community or neighborhood boundaries used for planning and fire response purposes . Within each rating area, factors such as ingress/egress, distance to nearest fire station (or average response time), local water supply (e.g., streams, lakes, cisterns), and structure density could inform integrated ratings of community susceptibility to wildfire of different intensities. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 34 September 2018 At the parcel level, assessments of individual structures that evaluate factors such as building materials, defensible space, and fuel loads on the property can inform susceptibility at a much finer scale . At the community scale, susceptibility ratings at the parcel scale should consider wildfire of different intensity levels . Combined with susceptibility information at either of the scales described above, the likelihood and intensity data can be used to calculate relative wildfire risk to entire communities or individual parcels. With spatial data for all three sides of the wildfire risk triangle, a metric called Net Value Change can be calculated that accounts for the risk posed by wildfire at different intensities for any location on the landscape. At the community or landscape scale, the Net Value Change metric, and the component information used to calculate it, can support the prioritization and planning of specific community-level mitigation through vegetation management and local land use planning and policy. At the parcel scale, the same information can support landowners in making the right decisions to make their property fire safe. 4.2.4 Improve Risk Assessment Information The importance of high quality, current risk assessment information is critical to the success of this planning effort. Data used in the risk assessment must have adequate quality and resolution to facilitate accurate modeling of the risks . Recent trends in the region include localized, rapid declines in forest health due to pests and disease, as well as the introduction of new vegetation species that have different fuel characteristics. Assessment of wildfire risk also requires detailed, accurate information on development patterns in the WUI, changes in fire suppression resources and methods, and the effects of recent fires . The following steps should be taken in order to improve risk assessment analysis and information. 1. Update the Kittitas County risk assessment and include a WUI identification map. Resulting landscape changes from the 2017 and upcoming 2018 wildfire season should be incorporated into an updated wildfire risk assessment. This will require extensive field work and data analysis . 2. Compile parcel-level assessment data to inform and complete risk assessment, increase first responder information, encourage public engagement. Parcel-level assessment data will not only provide the susceptibility information required for a complete risk assessment, but will also provide valuable information for fire districts and residents to guide private property mitigation efforts. 3. Integrate agricultural practices and infrastructure as part of an updated assessment to better reflect the economy and livelihood of this area . Kittitas County's agricultural economy relies heavily on Kittitas Reclamation District and other Irrigation Districts' infrastructure and landscape to continue to have viable agricultural outcomes in the Kittitas Valley. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 35 September 2018 4.2.5 Risk Assessment Summary The 2015 wildfire season was one of the worst fire seasons in Washington history, while Kittitas County remained fairly fortunate and did not experience a major wildfire that season, it is a matter of when that will occur. In August 2017, the Jolly Mountain Wildfire was ignited by a lightning strike and could not be contained at initial attack due to firefighter safety. The 2009 wildfire risk assessments currently available to the county will require updating to reflect the changed landscape. This will require field data collection, fuels mapping, and an updated analysis of the risk based on this new information. Once this initiative is undertaken, it will take several months to complete. In order to continue the forward momentum of this CWPP update, the plan will be completed ahead of the new risk assessment and mapping. The analysis from PNRS will be included in this CWPP, and the locally updated risk assessment will be added later which will include specific information to Kittitas County. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 36 September 2018 5 Taking the Cohesive Strategy Approach While meeting the needs of local citizens and recognizing the significance wildfire can have to the regional economy, the CWPP uses the best and most appropriate science from all partners as well as local and regional knowledge about wildfire risks and fire behavior. The goals of the planning process include integration with the National Fire Plan, HFRA, Disaster Mitigation Act, and Cohesive Strategy, all of which promote local collaborative processes. Goals for restoring resilient landscapes, improving wildland fire response, and creating fire adapted communities must work within the bounds of local budgets, personnel, and equipment. The efforts and success of the Kittitas County CWPP hinge on the funding and expertise of the local fire management districts and agencies as well as the cooperative efforts of landowners to empower local communities and citizens to pursue and implement projects that protect people, property, and infrastructure from wildland fire without diminishing the private property rights of land/asset owners within Kittitas County. 5.1 Vision Statement Our combined focus on preparedness through education by engagement, training, planning, and implementation will provide for the protection of people, structures, infrastructure, livestock, fish and wildlife priority species and habitats, and unique ecosystems that contribute to our way of life and the growth and sustainability of the local and regional economy. It is critical that this process supports the continuation and development of strong partnerships; empowers each person to take responsibility for their role in their community to prepare before, during, and after wildfire; and encourages new approaches to living with fire that protect community values and reduce identified threats and costs. The guiding principle: to engage Kittitas County residents, communities, businesses, non-profits, and local, tribal, state, and federal governments to empower each other to prepare for wildfire through : • Community engagement and development awareness of community roles in preparing for wildfire Community Wildfire Protection Plan 37 September 2018 • Effective administration of wildfire hazard mitigation grant programs that leverage additional resources for implementation • Hazard risk assessments • Strategic, efficient, and effective fuels treatments 5.2 Goals 1. Engage citizens in the unique challenges of wildfire preparedness in Kittitas County using the tools and guiding principles set forth by the Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network (:NAFAC) and Fire Learning Network. 2. Seek out, encourage, and empower local community leaders in the wildfire preparedness roles of business, fire response, homeowners, land managers, and local government at multiple scales across Kittitas County. 3. Determine areas at risk to wildfire and establish/prioritize mitigation projects, without regard to ownership, and recommend both conventional and alternative treatment methods to protect people, homes, infrastructure, state and federal listed species, and natural resources throughout Kittitas County. 4. Improve the ability of the fire departments to provide emergency fire response for the residents of Kittitas County through improved resources, training, and equipment. 5. Through strategic planning, develop and implement policies or protection measures that deter further unmitigated development in high fire risk areas . 6. Implement vegetation management and other types of projects that promote the natural fire regime appropriate to the location for the benefit of the ecosystem and to lessen the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire occurrences. 7. Collaborate with all participants in the KFACC in order to integrate the visions and goals of each entity involved with fire protection and/or management for greater good of Kittitas County. 8. Recognize the existing CWPPs in order to inform the Kittitas County CWPP, empower local leadership, and help leverage resources and opportunities to achieve shared goals without reducing the autonomy of the individual community or its purpose . 9. Provide direction through specific wild land fire prevention or protection action items to all members of the community to encourage individual responsibility including residents and homeowners, fire and emergency responders, forest and land managers, civic and community leaders, and designers and developers. Elements of the Cohesive Strategy are already visible in Washington State and in Kittitas County. In May 2017, the KCCD organized a local workshop received promote the Fire Adapted Communities framework, highlight the Cohesive Strategy, and spark collaboration amongst entities in diverse roles surrounding wildfire issues . The workshop motivated stakeholders to revise their CWPPs and implement fire adapted community actions. One regional strategy under the Fire Adapted Community Wildfire Protection Plan 38 September 2018 Communities umbrella was to expand the Fire Adapted Community learning networks through funding of workshops and peer learning opportunities. The Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition is a pilot under this program in Leavenworth through the WAFAC. Hidden Valley-Swauk Fire Adapted Community and KCCD secured funding facilitated by WAFAC from federal funding sources like the Fire Learning Network and BLM to help promote Fire Adapted Communities in the Kittitas County area. Through the KFACC group, partners and members continue to meet regularly and move projects forward promoting fire adapted efforts locally including this CWPP update. 5.3 Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes in Kittitas County Through fire suppression and human development, the changing climate, the terrestrial ecosystem, and the role of wild land fire have been significantly altered over time. Restoring landscapes to a resilient state and promoting fire's natural role in ecosystems where appropriate must be an integral part of increasing the county's resilience to wildfire and becoming fire adapted. To achieve this, an ecosystem-based approach to fire management that incorporates prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and other vegetation management practices in overall land management planning objectives is important in achieving desired fire effects and mitigating undesirable fire effects on the ecosystem and the built environment. Finally, post wildfire recovery is an important component in resiliency to ensure that any negative fire effects that impact the ecosystem and the community can be addressed to minimize their impact. With the diverse ownership of land, restorative land management will require a collaborative effort among multiple stakeholders. 5.3.1 Ecology/Ecosystem-Based Fire /Vlanagement Restoration and maintenance strategies should align with the Cohesive Strategy, as outlined below, and integrate the following goals: • Where allowed and feasible, manage wildfire for resource objectives and ecological purposes to restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems and achieve fire-resilient landscapes, including the importance of the high-intensity fire regime component. • Restore forest processes that are currently under-represented in the landscape, compared to historical conditions, including low-and mixed-severity fire regimes. • Maintain and promote the growth of specific large tree species, which are also under- represented, across the landscape. • Control and eradicate invasive and noxious weeds. 5.4 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative The Manastash-Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project document (Haugo et al. 2016) provides the following background information on the Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative: Community Wildfire Protection Plan 39 September 2018 The eastern Cascades of Washington State is an incredibly diverse and complex ecoregion that supports abundant fish and wildlife, a wide range of forest communities, and provides an array of critical ecosystem services including water, wood products, forage for grazing, and recreational opportunities. Ranging from the crest of the Cascades down to the shrub- steppe of the Columbia Basin, the variability in the forests and rangelands of the east Cascades are driven by the interplay of topography, precipitation, soils, and disturbances such as fire, insects, flooding, and wind (Hessburg et al. 1999; Stine et al. 2014). Similar to forests across western North America, a history of wildfire suppression , intensive timber harvesting, and grazing throughout the 20th century has caused widespread degradation of forest, rangeland, and stream habitats and increased the risks of uncharacteristically severe wildfire (Hessburg et al. 2000; Bunting et al. 2002; Lehmkuhl et al. 2013; Hessburg et al. 2015). The resulting shifts in tree species composition and increases in forest density have resulted in decreased resilience of forests to drought and fire for many of the region's forests, and this occurs at a time when climate change is projected to increase drought stress and wildfire risks (Hessburg et al. 2000; Haugo et al. 2015; Littell et al. 2010). Twentieth century forest management also led to the building of extensive forest road networks which have dramatically altered watershed hydrology, increased sediment delivery i nto streams, reduced floodplain functioning, and fragmented aquatic habitats (Bisson et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2010). These aquatic habitat stressors have and will continue to be further exacerbated by the increases in stream temperatures and decreases in snowpack as a result of climate change (Mote 2003; Mantua et al. 2009; Isaak et al. 2010, 2012). Across western North America and within the eastern Cascades, the challenges currently facing our forested ecosystems from past management and future climate change have prompted a wide scale shift in land management to focus on "ecological restoration" (Rieman et al. 2010; Gaines et al. 2012; USFS 2013; Hessburg et al. 2015). Ecological restoration is defined as "the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed" (SER 2004). However, efforts to conserve and restore the ecosystems of the eastern Cascades are further complicated by a diverse patchwork of private, state, tribal, and federal land ownership, each with different forest management emphases and objectives. In response to these challenges the Community Wildfire Protection Plan 40 September 2018 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative2 was officially formed in 2007 through a Memorandum of Understanding between major landowners in the eastern Cascades of south-central Washington State, including the USFS, Yakama Nation, DNR, WDFW, and TNC. The Tapash collaborative provides a framework for cooperation and coordination between Tapash partners to restore ecosystems' resistance and resilience to climate change across 3 million acres in the eastern Cascades of south-central Washington State. In the fall of 2014, the Tapash Collaborative launched the Manastash-Taneum Resilient Landscape Restoration Project as a flagship effort to demonstrate cross-ownership, integrated terrestrial and aquatic landscape scale ecosystem restoration. The USFS, WDFW, DNR, and TNC all have significant ownership within the Manastash-Taneum project area, comprising nearly 80,000 acres. These subwatersheds were selected by the Tapash Collaborative because they contain a variety of significant aquatic and terrestrial resources and conservation values in addition to the diverse land ownership. These conservation values include, but are not limited to, habitat for federally listed steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; NMFS 2008; YBFWRB 2009), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus; USFWS 2015), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina; USFWS 2011). Additionally, in recent years these subwatersheds have received substantial conservation investments to protect former industrial timberlands, restore stream flows for fish passage, and replenish in-stream large wood to enhance aquatic habitat quality and floodplain functioning. Manastash-Taneum objectives were adapted from the Tapash Sustainable Forests Collaborative mission statement, the Okanogan- Wenatchee Forest Restoration Strategy (USFS 2012), Hessburg et al. (2015) Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles, and Yeager (2015) Summary of Aquatic Resource Objectives and Recommended Design and Implementation Elements for the Mid and Upper Columbia Anadromous and Bull Trout Producing Watersheds of Eastern Washington. 2 http://www.tapash.org Community Wildfire Protection Plan 41 September 2018 5.5 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments 5.5. 7 Past Private Land Accomplishments and Challenges Since 2009, collaborators and partners have recognized the growing frequency of wildfires in the state and county and have taken action to mitigate wildfire risk through educational resources, financial incentives, and fuels reduction programs for private landowners. Private lands fuels reduction has been steadily increased due to frequency of wildfire and residential development. The result of past treatments has been fairly minimal when compared to the scale and pace of treatments that need to occur on the landscape to effectively minimize risk to private property. Looking to the future, advancing private land treatments that offer more effective benefits to communities by reducing risk to residential, economic, and recreational areas will be prioritized in the landscape. 5.5.2 Kittitas County Conservation District KCCD has engaged private landowners in Lower and Upper Kittitas County since the early 2000s . In 2009, the KCCD was asked by the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners to facilitate the initial CWPP . After the adoption of the CWPP in April 2009, KCCD continued to work with private landowners participating in fuels reduction programs with funding from DNR, FEMA and other public sources. During that time, the KCCD has served as the first point of contact for almost all Firewise Communities, and worked with many landowners on a voluntary basis. Since 2015, KCCD has worked with over 26 Firewise Communities (see Section 6.2) and helped facilitate recognition status of approximately ten new communities and with 350 landowners who participated in the Roving Chipper program resulting in treatment of 81 acres in 2016 to 2017 alone . From 2016 to 2017, using $199,750 of state capital funds thru lnteragency Agreements with DNR, KCCD worked with private landowners to treat 156 acres and use a local Fire District Chipping Crew to work with 247 voluntary private landowners. The local Fire District Chipping Crew worked in many communities, providing Ready, Set, Go! (see Section 6.5) and Firewise literature and sharing information regard i ng local resources for fuels reduction cost-share, site visits from the KCCD, local fire districts, DNR, and other partners depending on each landowner's interests and concerns. 5.5.3 Washington Department of Natural Resources DNR Landowner Assistance Program (DNR LOA) has provided technical and financial assistance to many private landowners throughout Kittitas County since the early 2000s. KCCD and DNR LOA have also developed a partnership and adapted the private lands Fuels Reduction programs and delegated different tasks to one another, finding better ways to leverage money and increase the program efficiency, pace, and scale of private land fuels reduction . Community Wildfire Protection Plan 42 September 2018 Table 3 Fuels Reduction Projects Program Name Acres Status Year DNR/KCCD Joint Chiefs Fuels Reduction 100 Planned 2018 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 109 Planned 2018 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 232 Complete 2011 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 35 Complete 2012 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 82 Complete 2014 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 205 Complete 2015 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 34 Complete 2016 DNR Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 13 Complete 2017 KCCD Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 52 Complete 2017 KCCD Fire District Chip Crew 27 Complete 2017 KCCD Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 43 Complete 2016 KCCD Fire District Chip Cr ew 40 Complete 2016 KCCD Fuels Reduction Cost-Share 20 Complete 2015 KCCD Fire District Chip Crew 41 Complete 2015 , Completed Private Lands Fuels Reduction 824 Planned Private Lands Fuels Reduction 209 5.5.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers and non-industrial private forest landowners in order to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water, forest health and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, or improved or created wildlife habitat. From 2015 to 2018 NRCS completed 100 acres of pre-commercial thinning treatments by non-industrial private landowners. 5.5.5 fv1anastash Taneum Resilient Land Restoration Project DNR, WDFW, and TNC have been coordinating activities on the Manastash Taneum Resilient Land - Restoration Project (MTRL-RP) since 2015 . Other projects, including Pre -Commercial Thinning Treatments and reforestation efforts, have benefited this landscape. TNC completed Pre-Commercial Thinning in early 2017 in the Morgan Creek area, benefiting the communities below it and having a positive impact on the landscape during the Jolly Mountain wildfire event. Other efforts from DNR and WDFW have been occurring, including DNR's Pre-Commercial Thinning in the Naneum State Forest. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 43 September 2018 Table 4 State and The Nature Conservancy Fuels Reduction Projects Project Name Project Type Acres Status Vear Location Owner Big Creek Pine Planting 148 Complete 2016 Tapash-MTRL-RP TNC Reforestation Cle Elum Ridge-Commercial Thinning 245 Complete 2016 Tapash-Cle Elum TNC Morgan Ridge South Cle Elum Replant 40k Ponderosa Ridge Replanting Pine in South Cle Elum 900 Complete 2016 TNC Ridge Fire Burned area Colockabou 02 U1 Precommercial Thinning 40 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Brushy Precommercial Thinning 56 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR New Double High Precommercial Thinning 175 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Clockum Pocket U2 Precommercial Thinning 13 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Clockum Pocket U3 Precommercial Thinning 85 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Bacon Ridge U2A Precommercial Thinning 1S Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Wheelbarrow Precommercial Thinning 76 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Cle Elum Ridge Commercial Thinning 66 Planned TBD Tapash-Cle Elum TNC (Shaft) Ridge Robinson Units Prescribed Burn 728 Planned TBD Tapash-MTRL-RP WDFW Hutchins Units Prescribed Burn 793 Planned TBD Tapash-MTRL-RP WDFW Taneum, Wild Plum Cedar Creek and Forest Enhancement 2,810 Planned TBD Tapash-MTRL-RP DNR Plumback Taneum Forest Enhancement 507 Planned TBD Tapash-MTRL-RP WDFW Robinson Commercial Thinning 1,099 Planned TBD Ta pash-MTRL-RP WDFW - Planned : 6,003 Completed ; 1,753 5.5.6 U.S. Forest Service While there are many challenges for the USFS to actively manage the landscape, advancements have been made in the NEPA process to increase scale and pace of treatments. By using cross boundary treatments, state and TNC planning, and coordinating treatments in the MTRL-RP, USFS can use the NEPA process to have a larger impact on landscape. The timeframe of the NEPA in this area is expected to be complete in June 2019 . While the NEPA is continuing, several smaller treatments on USFS lands have been completed. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 44 September 2018 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 45 September 2018 Table 5 Federal (USFS) Projects Bum-Burn- Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Y/N Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Y/N Handplles Blue Hurl ey 30 8 T21, R18, S18 20 y Last Ch ance 22 10 T19N R15E S16 20 Blue Hurl ey 33 16 T21 R1 8 S7,8 32 y Last Chance 17 12 T19N R15E S18 40 Blu e Hurley 5 8 T21N R17E S10/15 16 Last Chance 18 14 T19N R15E S18 55 Blue Hurley 63 13 T21N R17E S29/30 26 Last Chance 3 7 T19N R15E S18 21 Boundary 14 5 T19N R15E S16 15 Last Chance 8 4 T19N R15E S18 16 Caveman 1 102 T19N R13E S1 220 Last Chance 9 3 T19N R15E S18 12 Caveman 4 43 T19N R13E 51 99 Liberty 228 48 T21N R17E S36 161 Drop Kick 8 9 T21N R18E S35 -36 18 Liberty 230 5 T20N R17E S2 2 Fa wn Thin 6 12 T20N R17E 513 24 Liberty 235 7 T21N R17E S35 14 Grand Goose 4 2 T19N R15E 525 5 Liberty 258 2 T20N R17E 51 10 Grand Lion 11 3 T21N R18E 519 6 Liberty 269 2 T20N R17E 51 10 Grand Lion 9 6 T21N R18E 519 12 Liberty 271 7 T20N R17E S1 23 Gran ite 1 138 T19N R14E 510 414 Liberty 272 1 T20N R17E S1 2 Granite 3 147/52 left T19N R14E 54 384 Liberty 284 16 T20N R17E S12 54 Granite 7 154 T20N R14E S31,32 493 Liberty 290 2 T20N R17E S11 7 Gre en Top 3 4 T20N R17E 525 10 Liberty 295 10 T20N R17E S12 34 Green Top 7 1 T20N R1 7E S25 2 Liberty Fis Stwd. 217 5 T21N R17E S25 10 Last Chan ce 2 4 T19N R15E S16 10 Liberty Fis Stwd. 14 21 T20 R18 S6, T20, R17 S1 42 Last Chance 20 7 T19N R15E S16 15 Liberty Fis Stwd. 242 1 T21N R17E S36 2 Last Chance 21 3 T19N R15E S16 12 Liberty Fis Stwd . 254 10 T21N R17E 536 20 Martin 10 13 T21, R12, S36 28 Liberty Fis Stwd. 254A 2 T21N R17 S36 4 Moonbeam 10 15 T21N R16E S12 45 Liberty Fuels 13 45/7 left T20N R18E S6 75 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 46 September 2018 Burn-Burn- Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Y/N Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Y/N Moonbeam 16 19 T21 /22 R1 6E S36/1 60 Liberty Fuels 14 13 T20 R18 S6 , T20 , R17 S1 26 Moonbeam 17 39 T21N R16E S1 117 Liberty Fuel s 24 9 6 T21N R18E S31 12 Moonbeam 18 9 T21N R16E S12 27 Liberty Fu els 255 3 T21 , R17, S36 6 Moonbeam 19 2 T21/22 R16E S36/1 6 Liberty Fuels 265 12 T20N R17E S1 24 Moonbeam 6 7 T21N R16E S1/12 21 Liberty Fuels 272 1 T20N R17E S1 2 Osborn Pt. 13 6 T19N R15E S24 18 Liberty Fuels 278 6 T20, R18, S6 15 Osborn Pt 23 17 T19N R16E S28 60 Liberty Fuel s 9 9 T20N R17E S12 18 Osborn Pt 25 12 T19N R16E S28 30 Tamarack 26 9 T19N R15ES36 24 ReecerWUI 7 45 T20N R1 BE S30 135 Tamarack 27 16 T19N R15E S36 43 Roaring Thin 201 N 6 T21N R11ES2 24 Upper Granite 3 7 T19N R14E S10 19 Roaring Thin 202 2 T21N R11E S12 6 West Iron 5 30 T21, R17, S10 65 Roaring Thin 209 2 50 WF Naneum 146 8 T21, R18, S22 20 Roaring Thin 210 1 50 WF Naneum 150 4 T21N R18E S22 8 Snow Boulder 33 1 T20N R17E S1 2 Willie 12 16 T20N R 18E S27 32 Sn ow Boulder 36 3 T20N R17E S1 6 Willie 17 24 T20, R18, S32 80 Sn ow Boulder 4 4 T20N R17E S12 8 Wilson Ridge 16 3 T20, R18, S14&15 12 T20,R17,S12 & Snow Boulder 6 13 T20,R18,S7 26 Wilson Ridge 21 3 T20, R18, S14 9 Swauk Discovery Trail 3 T21, R18, S9 6 Wilson Ridge 7 4 T20, R18 S23 16 Swauk Meadows 7 15 T21, R18, S9&16 34 South Cle Elum Ridge 11 43 T19N R15E S16 94 Swauk Pass 19 31 T21 , R17, S2 50 South Cle Elum Ridge 2 25 T19N R15E S20 68 Swauk Pa ss 7 6 T21N R18E S5 12 South Cle Elum Ridge 3 16 T19N R15E S20 43 Tamarack 22 7 T19N R15E S36 19 South Cle Elum Ridge 4 44/8 left T19N R15E S16 96 South Cle Elum Ridge 5 11 T19N R15E S16 30 South Cle Elum Ridge 9 29 T19N R15E S13-14 78 Community Wildfire Prot ection Plan 47 September 2018 Bum-I Acres I Legal Location I I Bum- Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons V/N Unit Name Tons V/N Machine Piles Liberty 8 7 T20N R17E S12 17 Teanaway 7 185 T22, R16, S30 555 a Teanaway 9 25 T22, R 16, S18 75 b Total 1,510 Acres 4,147 Notes: a. Teanaway 7 has accomplished 8 acres. b. Teanaway 9 has accomplished 12 acres. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 48 September 2018 6 Promoting a Fire Adapted Kittitas County Promoting fire adapted communities focuses on preventing, preparing for, and protecting lives and properties during wildfire events and ensuring a full recovery . A fire adapted community considers all aspects of its built environment, including homes, businesses, infrastructure, main streets, critical facilities, cultural sites, hospitals, and more. There are many paths to becoming fire adapted, such as through education, mitigation, policies, and regulations. Fire adapted communities may implement established national programs, such as Firewise Communities/USA (Section 6.2) and Ready, Set, Go! (Section 6.5), develop a CWPP, enhance local capacity, conduct fuel reduction and forest management activities, and use codes and ordinances to regulate development in fire-prone areas . The more actions a community takes, the more fire adapted it becomes. However, because communities have limited resources, strategic identification of actions is necessary to best leverage fire adaptation at the local level. Promoting a fire adapted Kittitas County also requires alignment with activities for restoring resilient landscapes and improving wildfire response. 6.1 Fire Adapted Communities in Kittitas County The Hidden Valley -Swauk neighborhood was heavily impacted by the Taylor Bridge wildfire in 2012 . After that experience, many residents convened and took action on their own properties and area. Since that time, the Hidden Valley -Swauk Fire Adapted Community has completed $6,000 in fire adapted work. In 2016 through 2017, the Hidden Valley-Swauk Fire Adapted Community has participated in cost-share funding for 20 acres of fuels reduction treatment, residents removed 60 yards of vegetation and six residents used the Roving Chipper Program for chipping. Hidden Valley-Swauk residents spent 239 hours of labor in the following perimeters: 0-to 5- foot Home Ignition Zone (HIZ), 5-to 30-foot Community Wildfire Protection Plan 49 September 2018 HIZ, and 30-to 100-foot HIZ equaling $6,867 .83 of in-kind contributions. Additional efforts included a newsletter to Kittitas County residents regarding living in the Kittitas County WUI and development support for an educational video regarding the Jolly Mountain Fire, and wildfire community meetings and local workshops to help engage people and residents to be prepared for emergencies and evacuation. Using Hidden Valley -Swauk as a framework, efforts have been taken to educate and connect other neighborhoods and provide educational resources for individuals and homeowner association (HOA) communities . Through education, Fire Adapted Communities realize that living with wildfire is an ongoing process, not an event, and continually work in their areas to manage vegetation, improve response for first responders, and be ready to evacuate at any time. 6.2 Firewise USA Recognized Communities Ci.I NFPJf FIREWISE USA " Residents reducing wildfire risks The Firewise Communities USA program is a national recognition program which highlights communities that have chosen to complete and maintain defensible space; ensure adequate access, water, and signage; promote ongoing fire prevention education; and build or retro-fit structures with non-combustible building materials such as siding, decks, and roofing. Adequate water availability and access are also required. Firewise USA Recognized Communities is used as a tool to raise the level of landowner awareness in their neighborhood. Firewise Communities USA now recognizes 25 communities in the Kittitas County CWPP area (Table 6). The Firewise Communities program recognizes communities who have demonstrated their commitment to wildfire preparedness . Through these steps, the Firewise Communities in the Kittitas County have fostered collaboration between neighbors and increased awareness and their communities' ability to respond to wildfire. Table 6 Firewise USA Recognized Communities in Kittitas County Name Area Year Created 2017 Investments Banti Creek Cle Elum 2015 $48.28 Buffalo Springs Cle Elum 2013 $3,992 .00 Goat Peak Ranch HOA Cle Elum 2016 $13,608 .00 Green Canyon Ellensburg 2015 $1,931 .20 Hidden Valley Terrace Cle Elum 2014 $6,035 .00 Hidden Valley Vistas-Hidden Valley Meadows Cle Elum 2012 $6,867.83 Hyak Snoqualmie Pass 2016 $3,526.96 Kachess Ridge Easton 2013 $20,316.90 Kachess Village Easton 2013 $8,376.58 Community Wildfire Protection Plan so September 2018 1 1 Name Area Vear Created 2017 Investments Lauderdale Ridge HOA Cle Elum 2016 $1,427.64 Morgan Creek Ronald 2015 $20,253.46 Pine Loch Sun Ronald 2013 $6,947.82 Ski Tur Valley Snoqualmie Pass 2014 $2,790.56 Sky Meadows Ranch Cle Elum 2009 $24,308.98 Sun Country Cle Elum 2012 $4,000.00 Suncadia Cle Elum 2012 $250,000.00 Sunlight Waters Cle Elum 2012 $1,086.30 Swauk Pines Cle Elum 2013 $2,703.68 Teanaway Terrace Cle Elum 2013 $4,369.64 Vistas at Cle Elum Cle Elum 2013 $1,448.40 Wagon Wheel Teanaway 2010 $1,520.82 Wildwood Roslyn 2016 $2,157.04 Tillman Creek Cle Elum 2017 $1,448.40 Upper Manastash Canyon Ellensburg 2017 $193.12 Liberty Mountain Development Liberty 2017 $5,000.00 Tot.II 2017 Investments $3~~1358.61 Average $ Investment per Firewise Community $15,774.34 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 51 September 2018 6.3 Increasing Wildfire Response throughout Kittitas County The multiple agencies responsible for fire suppression have developed an excellent network of interagency support and cooperation. Generally, suppression resources have been able to respond to wildland fire occurrences with adequate resources using this system. However, some concern is expressed over the ability of this system to sustain itself in the face of climate change and the current trend of decreasing volunteer capacity, aging firefighters, and decreasing budgets. In addition to fire suppression resources available within the fire protection districts, seasonal wildland firefighters are available through USFS, DNR, and BLM. These resources are trained and equipped to fight wildland fire only; unlike the fire protection district resources, they are not trained or equipped to fight a structure fire. The USFS, DNR, and BLM also offer access to national incident and area command teams and resources, when required. 6.4 Emergency Preparedness/Evacuation Emergency evacuation procedures are the responsibility of the Kittitas County Sheriff's Office. During a wildfire, the Incident Commander (in coordination and with the approval of the agencies having jurisdiction) will recommend evacuation. Routes and locations of shelters/centers depend on fire location and numbers of affected individuals, and so must be made on a case-by-case basis at the time of the incident. Kittitas County has an Evacuation Plan. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 52 The Closest Forces Concept When an unwanted wildland fire (wildfire) is discovered in Kittitas County, a fire response crew from a local fire response jurisdiction, a USFS ranger district, BLM and/or DNR fire unit may respond, depending on its location. Local Dispatch KITTCOM and the Northwest lnteragency Coordination Center use the "closest forces" concept in wildland fire dispatch. This allows for the closest suppression resource to be sent, regardless of boundaries or jurisdictional responsibilities. This arrangement is particularly helpful at either end of the federally recognized fire season (typically mid-June through mid-September). When wildfires start early, as they did in 2000 (the first wildfire occurred on March 15), federal fire crews are not yet employed so it is the community-based firefighter who is often first on scene. Through pre-established mutual aid agreements, fire suppression resources in Kittitas County are authorized to leave their jurisdictional boundaries to aid a requesting agency partner. In addition, Washington statute allows these resources to assist throughout the state when needed/possible. Mutual aid agreements are also used between most Kittitas County agencies sharing boundaries. These agreements are triggered by verbal request, typically at the time of first dispatch. September 2018 6.5 Ready, Set, Go! Program The Ready, Set , Go! Program seeks to develop and improve the dialogue between fire departments and the residents they seNe. The program helps the fire service teach individuals who live in high risk wildland fire areas-and the WUl-how to best prepare themselves and their properties against wildland fire threats. Wildland fire preparedness in partnership with your local fire department Rf ADY, SH, (;OI ~""JP • ._~q ... -,,. ~-Be ready. Tall< to local fire department personnel about preparing your homo forwildland nm lhrnal. Work lo prepare your property by creating defensible space. 0 Clean up or relocate combustible material trorn around your home 0 Keep grass rnowe{1 short 1;;,111irn lroos and bushos. lo allowing amplo spaco bolwoo,, your homo and landscape vegetation ; ." -Be alert. Pref)are: a 'go kit' anrl i11chid<1 Items such as 71 PrC'.SCriplion rnodlcalion rn Emergency supplies [?1 Important documents Create your own action plan li) F~an a11c:l pracliC(l rm1lliplo (JXil roule-'l from your home and neighborhood i 11 Assign a meeting place In case you are separated 171 Make sure you're 1arnlliar with your local arnc-i rgency notillcalion and ovac, 1ation systoms ~1 -Act early! 1'1 Remain alert and koop yoursolt informed of the situation. 0 Gel your 'go kit' and if',ave wt1II before the Impending tl1reat reaches your community or neigtibortiood 1ollowing a planne,j, aGC(~<.-sible roul(l. Pl Cooporalo with local aulhorilios during evacuation and re-enlry procesSf'~'l. The program 's tenets help residents be Ready with preparedness understanding, be Set with situational awareness when fire threatens, and to Go early when necessary. The Ready, Set, Go! Program works in complementary and collaborative fashion with the Fire Adapted Communities Coalition and existing wildland fire public education efforts (e.g., Firewise) and amplifies their message to individuals about emergency preparedness and evacuation . Ready, Set, Go! provides educational and outreach materials to limited English speakers, standardizing the message and ensuring that information is accurate across languages . Washington State Emergency Management Division provides additional resources for educational outreach to limited English speakers. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 53 September 2018 6.6 Limited English Speaker Communication Plan Non-English speakers have been underserved in this area, and the goal is to identify the best communication method to share emergency messages with at-risk groups before and during a disaster. The Kittitas County Sherriff's department translates evacuation and communication messages into Spanish on Facebook, but more proactive messages can be done through KFACC. In an emergency, messages must inform, educate, and mobilize people to follow public health directives. Messages can be delivered through television, radio, newspaper, bill inserts, flyers, word-of mouth, social and community networks, and other channels. As outreach continues, KFACC plans to develop help facilitate messages for emergency preparedness plan to non-English speakers that would benefit their preferred messaging platform. 6.7 Pre-Suppression Plans -Preparing Communities Before the Incident A Pre-Suppression Plan is an intelligence packet that assists incident commanders, operations section chiefs, structural protection specialists, division supervisors, group supervisors, taskforce leaders, and strike team leaders in formulating a plan based on current conditions, forecasted weather conditions, and available resources. The main objectives of the plans, is to have a well thought out strategy based on the conditions and deployment of resources before the fire occurs, because a wildfire will start, regardless of the level of planning preparation. It should not be thought of as a cookbook of what must be done, but what could be done. Wild land firefighting and structural protection/defense requires judgment based on many years of actual firefighting experience, and must be responsive to actual, on the ground conditions. No amount of classroom training or simulations can prepare an individual for the leadership required during large, fast-moving fires, but preparing the available information in ways that can facilitate that leadership is key to effective wildfire response. Pre-suppression plans include maps of resource placements, but these placements should not be thought of as static, as resources must remain mobile and available to go where needed . Resources may be deployed to prepare structures, construct hand lines, or conduct a burn out operation. Once the flaming front engages the edge of the city or structure fires begin to occur and firefighters are actively engaged in firefighting, additional resources will likely need to be pulled from other areas to assist. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 54 September 2018 6.8 Post Fire Impacts and Response A number of post-fire impacts can result from either wildfire or prescribed fire occurrence. Prescribed fire planning goals and objectives are typically driven by desired ecosystem, or hazard reduction outcomes. These goals and objectives should be clearly stated in the prescribed fire plan and a monitoring program should be in place to measure the post-fire effects. Wildfire events can result in significant post-fire impacts-both positive and negative. Risk assessments can provide guidance in anticipating post-wildfire impacts mitigating these impacts before a fire occurs and increasing recovery efficiency. The development of a post-wildfire recovery plan, based on the anticipated impacts, can help the communities affected become more resilient to wildfire. 6.9 Long Term Recovery Integrating post-fire response and long-term recovery strategies before wildfire occurs is imperative to limiting the scope of damage across the landscape whether it is ecological, social, or infrastructure. While it is not feasible to be able to Community Wildfire Protection Plan 55 The Jolly Mountain Fire In August 2017, Jolly Mountain wildfire started by a lightning strike. The wildfire burned over more than 36,000 acres was transferred to a Type 4 command and the Central Washington Burned Area Emergency Response team was deployed to conduct analysis on the values at risk (assets and resources). While the burned area occurred on mostly state and federal land, the identified values at risk, especially threats to property and human life and safety, were not confined to within the burned perimeter and extended to the Hidden Valley priority areas. Risk of private property spanning the North Cle Elum ridge to the Middle Fork Teanaway River have been identified as Major-High Possible risk. Increased flows, ash, sediment, and debris from burned slopes upslope of recreation residences may cause damage to drinking water and its delivery system and pose a risk of water contamination. Accordingly, these critical values have been identified as Moderate, Very High Very Likely. Jolly Mountain is an example of a significant wildfire that did not burn structures, yet the community still faced extreme risk. Wildfires know no bounds, and as partners we must provide incentives to improve participation and implement more aggressive approaches in order to decrease risks before a fire and impacts after a fire. September 2018 respond and put every wildfire out at Initial Attack, limiting the impact of the post-fire impact will benefit the economy, residents, and landscape alike. Lessons learned from previous wildfires continue to be difficult obstacles to overcome since there has not been a permanent solution and changes will need to be made at the statewide policy level. Continual engagement and discussion of long-term recovery is integral to change policy and effectively put in place recommended strategies and actions to mitigate the impacts of long-term recovery, since post-fire impacts range from a multitude of natural resource risks and concerns, including post-fire to flood and debris flow scenarios. Burn Scars are a During Fire After Fire U1tl'!'I nrt~.Jn : n .. ,1. 11 )! "" I, ., .. r1,•1•.J .. , li:,\V'I \, r• ,I',,, 11,~.i U,_ tu•~ W•lt-r RofHJ)lr,nt SOit\ 1Mm• iJ wli, !r ill~: ~IH I m.d••;. 1J r,UI ~\ _, •• h••n ., IIJl,•, r•l,U.1\ ,~1.1S ldl.-t t1•.1m .1: lilt::h 1n1--rnil'(, w.11l': ,,. f"'""nl tnmp1,.,,n1~,. JI•· \.'.~pnri ,r,.t .:.r11 1 o-,w j.;•n•,f• •"f• .f•Jr,1, .. , ~•ii 1:iy,•1\. 1',: h,,.i,· \yt, .. rJ. 1,u..,,•··r,I •. ,,,..I :1n<11 ,-,t,·,rirt1!!':.;: lft·Jh, Community Wildfire Protection Plan 56 During Heavy Rain W•ll'ier Hrt.."O~ u11ttn•.-w•1f'r rit4),tll~n .t t.01l t1~1. io h ri,,M Gti JI~ S,O"fln'\911, *tiJr'1 ,t-1 ,AH-rJanct-rm11o : f ln,h loo dln s £ Mud & Dc br ~Flawi ,~. Muthlldll ~ •• September 2018 7 Putting the Community Wildfire Protection Plan into Action The effective implementation of this plan is based on three key elements: stakeholder engagement, strategic management, and monitoring and evaluation. 7 .1 Stakeholder Engagement Each stakeholder in the CWPP shares a role, whether it be agency-, landowner-, or nongovernmental organization-affiliated . The success of this CWPP requires the participation of all stakeholders to engage in understanding of their role and taking appropriate actions . 7. 7. 7 Residents and Homeowners Kittitas County Fire Districts cannot always protect everyone from wildfire, especially if homeowners haven't taken responsibility for ensuring firefighters can safely work in the area. By creating a defensible space around individual homes and communities, reducing hazardous fuels in the surrounding area, and ensuring that access routes will support fire apparatus, homeowners can greatly increase the likelihood that their property will survive a wild land fire event. It is imperative that homeowners work with their neighbors and communities to increase safety and reduce risk for the greater protection of all. 7. 7.2 Fire and Emergency Responders There are a number of resource and capability enhancements identified by the fire and emergency responders in Kittitas County that are related to response and treatment of defensible space, egress/ingress, capacity, equipment, and planning efforts. Implementation of response action items will rely on either the isolated efforts of the rural fire districts or a concerted effort by Kittitas County or KFACC to achieve equitable enhancements across all districts. Given historic trends, individual departments competing against neighboring departments for grant monies and equipment will not achieve countywide equity. 7. 7.3 Civic and Community Leaders Wildfire mitigation efforts must be supported by a set of policies and regulations, where appropriate, as well as guidelines at the county and community levels that maintain a solid foundation for safety and consistency. They must also be supported by the public infrastructure, economy, and value Community Wildfire Protection Plan 57 September 2018 system. Critical infrastructure refers to the communications, transportation, power lines, and water supply that service a region or a surrounding area. All of these components are important to central Washington and to Kittitas County specifically. These networks are, by definition, a part of the WUI in the protection of people, structures, infrastructure, and unique ecosystems. Without supporting infrastructure, a community's structures may be protected, but the economy and way of life lost. 7. 7.4 Forest and Land Managers There are many land management issues associated with wildfire that can have lasting effects on natural resources as well as communities and local economy. In addition to the immediate responsibility of wildfire suppression, land managers at all levels; local, state, Tribal, and Federal, must also be aware of and plan for the long-term impacts and implications of wildland fire on the landscape . Undeveloped private and public lands serve many purposes and are highly valued for their ability to provide habitat for animals, recreational and hunting opportunities, timber resources, etc. Wildfire affects each of these values in different ways some of which are very direct such as the loss of timber assets, but some are subtle and take place over long periods of time such as the loss of native seed sources due to repeated burning. Increasing cohesiveness of land management across boundary jurisdictions will reduce risk and increase efficiency. Table 7 shares roles that community members at local, state, and federal levels play in Kittitas County's wildfire resilience and risk reduction . Community Wildfire Protection Plan 58 September 2018 Table 7 Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction Roles Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles City, County, and Local Partners . Board of County Commissioners has juris diction and power to represent the county and has care of the county property, management, and business concerns. Elected Officials . Kittitas County Sheriff is an elected position that has responsibility of the enforcement of state and co unty laws and statutes. . The Ellensburg , Cle Elum, and Roslyn city councils and mayors are elected to represent citizens of those areas. . Responsible for developing and administering plans and regulations, including zoning and subdivision, Kittitas County Community and Planning growth policy, regional plans, and land use code enforcement Services . Responsible for fire life safety in Kittitas County administered through the Kittitas County Fire Marshal's office Fire Departments and Fire Districts . Responsible for community response and protection services for areas across Kittitas County . Nonprofit association with members from city, county, rura l, state, and federal agencies including fire Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association departments and districts, Kittitas County Emergency Management DNR, USFS, and other Fire District organizations . Coordinates fire prevention and resp o nse activities Kittitas County Emergency Management . Coordinates emergency response components in the geographical area of Kittitas County Kittitas County Health Department . Responsible for air quality monitoring . Responsible for personal property and engaging in community projects Kittitas County residents, landowners, and . Community councils participate in planning process by facilitating communication between communities community councils and local government. . Includes private landowners such as citizens and entities with large landholdings (e.g., TNC) . Includes stakeholders from Central Washington Homebuilders Association, realtors, and other industry Nongovernmental Stakeholders professionals . Volunteer organizations, KCCD, local chapters of Chamber of Commerce, utilities, university partners, and other businesses Kittita s County Fire Adapted Communities . Includes federal , state, and local ownership committed to improving landscape and community resiliency for Coalition all who live, work, and p lay in Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 59 September 2018 Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles State Partners . State agency providing fire resources and information, including burn permits, air quality updates, current DNR fire restrictions, and historical fire information . Co-land manager of the Teanaway Community Forest, a high recreational use area in Kittitas County that is culturally and ecologically sensitive . State agency that is a landowner/land manager in Kittitas County WDFW . Co-manager of the Teanaway Community Forest, a high recreational use area in Kittitas County that is culturally and ecologically sensitive Washington Department of Ecology . State agency that monitors and reports air quality conditions and establishes burn ban regulations and burn permits . Network of practitioners that provides communities with resources to develop innovative solutions, work WAFAC with local partners, engage with other member communities, and increase local capacity to work and live better with wildfire • Non-profit organization that provides resources for facilitation, planning, coordination, and implementation of natural resource conservation and community development initiatives such as the WAFAC, Yakima Basin Washington Resource Conservation and Clean Water Partnership, and Yakima Tributary Habitat & Access Program Development Council • Fiscal sponsor for the Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition, KFACC, Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative, and the South Central Washington Coordinated Weed Management Area . Forest manager of the Central Cascades Forest The Nature Conservancy . Member of the Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative and Manastash -Taneum Resilient Landscapes - Restoration Project among many other local and statewide landscape and community resiliency projects . Federal, state, and local agencies and non-profit organizations working in partnership to improve ecosystem Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative health and natural functions of the eastern Cascades lands..,,pe through the use of best available science, community input, and adaptive management Federal and Tribe Partners .I . Manages Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest and Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest USFS . Local support and resources also include Cle Elum Ranger District Yakama Nation . Maintains a culturally sensitive site inventory for lands on and off the reservation and in Kittitas County has a significant role in fish habitat restoration and cultural value BLM . Manages public lands out of the Wenatchee Field Office Community Wildfire Protection Plan 60 September 2018 Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles . Administers environmental stewardship programs and services to guide conservation, development and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management of fish and wildlife resources . Issues permits under various wildlife laws and treaties U.S. Army Yakima Training Center . Manages Yakima Training Center that stretches between the most southern and eastern portion of Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 61 September 2018 7 .2 Strategic Action Plan There are three main categories of the strategic action plan identified by members of the KFACC CWPP committee. These categories correspond to the three emphasis areas of the Cohesive Strategy. Categories include 1) fire adapted communities; 2) fire resilient landscapes; and 3) response . Natural vegetation and habitat restoration activities are incorporated into fuels reduction projects . As part of the Cohesive Strategy and intent of the CWPP, two additional categories were added 4) Risk Assessment; and 5) Post-Fire Risk Reduction. Recommendations are organized into categories and listed in order of priority. Projects that address human safety issues will be of a higher priority than projects that benefit homes. No home is worth a life. Creation of a proactive knowledgeable community through education and outreach was identified as one of the most important tools to be included in the plan. The objective of this portion of the plan is to provide information to landowners and visitors to increase knowledge and understanding of fire related issues. The creation and maintenance of landscapes both around homes and across the landscape was the second priority of the landowner committee. Implementing defensible space around homes was identified as the first priority for fuels reduction, and the second priority was the general landscape. The following Strategic Action Plan (Table 8) captures actions listed throughout this CWPP. Each action has a proposed lead(s) responsible for advancing the action, a priority level for implementation, a desired timeframe for completion, and any additional notes relevant to support the action. Many actions may relate to one another. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 62 September 2018 Table 8 Strategic Action Plan Strategic Action Plan Lead(s) I Priority Timeframe ] Notes Risk Assessment 1. Update the Kittitas County Risk Assessment and include a WUI USFS, County, KFACC High 2019 ~entification map. 2. Compile parcel-level assessment data to inform and complete risk assessment, increase first-responder information and encourage Fire Districts, County High 2019/Ongoing public engagement. Washington Resource 3. Continue the KFACC. Conservation & Development High Ongoing Council, KCCD, TNC Resilient Landscapes 4 . Review and identify priority landscapes and potential treatment KFACC High Fall 2018/Spring 2019 options. 5. Advance Prescribed Fire Activities. KFACC Medium Fall 2018/Ongoing 6. Implement post-fire recovery activities. KFACC Medium to High Ongoing Fire Adapted Communities 7. Update County Growth Policy and land use map and local area Kittitas County Community plans, as needed and appropriate, using wildfire hazard area High 2019 information to steer growth away from more hazardous areas. Development Services 8. Implement land use map updates using zoning to guide growth to Kittitas County Community Medium 2019 more appropriate areas and away from more hazardous areas. Development Services 9. Use land conservation tools such as open space to buffer Kittitas County Community High Ongoing developed areas from wildfire . Development Services 10. Enforce WUI code and development regulations that require best possible hazard mitigation to protect communities, neighborhoods, fire professionals, and properties/structures in the Kittitas County Community High Ongoing event of wildfire. Propose development regulations that Development Services incorporate best practices, including changes to building code, zoning code, and subdivision regulations. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 63 September 2018 Strategic Action Plan Lead(s) Priority Timeframe Notes -'-- 11. Engage with indust,y professionals on mitigation programs, activities, and opportunities to improve public education and KFACC Ongoing outreach across neighbor hood; and communities. 12. Update county and other websites with wildfire education, Kittitas County Community High 2019 resources, and materials. Development Services, KFACC -13. Promote neighborhood and community development activities and evacuation plans through programs such as Firewise KFACC High Ongoing Commu nlty USA, Ready Set Go! Improved Response 14. Promote and support fire departments to increase capacity, Kittitas County Fire Chief's funding opportunities, and volunteer firefighter recruitment and Association, Kittitas County Fire High Ongoing retention. Marshal 15. Establish wildland fire response agreements between the county, Kittitas County Emergency local fire districts, and state and federal agencies. Management, Local Fire Districts, Medium DNR Community Wildfire Protection Plan 64 September 2018 7.2. 7 Ready Action Plan Critical to implementation of this CWPP are the identification and implementation of ready project action items targeted at achieving a reduction in the number of unplanned human caused ignitions and fires, as well as the negative impacts of wild land fires in Kittitas County. This section of the plan identifies and prioritizes mitigation actions, including treatments that can be implemented in the county to pursue its fire management goals. As there are many land management agencies and thousands of private landowners in Kittitas County, it is reasonable to expect that differing schedules of adoption will be made and varying degrees of implementation will be accomplished across various ownership. The primary land management agencies in Kittitas County, USFS, the State of Washington, and TNC are participants in this planning process and have contributed to its development. Where available, their schedules of land treatments have been considered in this planning process to better facilitate a correlation between their identified planning efforts and the efforts of Kittitas County. Kittitas County encourages the building of disaster resistance in normal day-to-day operations. By implementing plan activities through existing programs and resources, the cost of mitigation is often a small portion of the overall cost of a project's implementation. All risk assessments and subsequent recommendation were made based on 2017 conditions. In addition, the CWPP subcommittee does not intend restrict funding to projects identified as high priority. A project that may be a high priority for a specific community may not be a high priority at the county level. Regardless, the project may be just what the community needs to mitigate a disastrous outcome. The flexibility to fund a variety of diverse projects based on applicable criteria is a necessity for a functional mitigation program at the county and community level. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 65 September 2018 Table 9 Ready Action Plan Project Name I Project Goal I Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Risk Assessment Every winter, hold a KFACC Requiring an annual risk stakeholder group that assessment review requires Annual Risk reviews new data and Fire Districts, the CWPP be reviewed and development of the WUI and High Coordination, Annual amended to reflect a living Assessment Update past wildfire season and County, KFACC Capacity Meeting document nature. Providing updates new priorities of risk an annual scheduling is in Kittitas County. required to ensure that this occurs. Encourage public Currently being done in engagement by providing Chelan County as part of the assessment data to individuals Database, Community Planning Individual Risk and compile assessment data Fire Districts, Coordination, Updated Ass istance for Wildfire grant Assessment Database done by KFACC partners into County, KFACC Medium Capac ity, Information process. Once this process is a single accessible location to Funding Distributed to completed and finalized for first responders and fire Stakeholders Chelan County, Kittitas adapted practitioners. County will use the format and replicate. Resilient Landscapes Based on NEPA review of the Assessment of NEPA Manastash-Taneum (expected recommendations and USFS NEPA Review -completion Fall 2019), reevaluation of priorities and Manastash-Taneum coordinate and reevaluate USFS, KFACC High Coordination TBD treatments will be needed to private lands activity and identify and ensure private management of best lands treatment management practices, recommendations are consistent Community Wildfire Protection Plan 66 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Continue the momentum of # Acres Joint Chief's Private Lands current Joint Chief's Private Treated ,# of Treatment Phase I is currently Lands Grant to create Landowners being implemented and Joint Chief's Phase II contiguous and effective KFACC High Funding Participating, # incentivizes private treatments across North Cle of Residents landowners to work with Elum and South Cle Elum Benefited (1 to neighbors to increase pace, Ridge. 2-mile radius) scale, and size of treatments. # Acres Implement (200 feet from Treated, # of Shaded Fuel Break road edge or use topography) Landowners Priority area s: South and Corridors shaded fuel breaks from KFACC High Funding Participating ,# North Cle Elum Ridges , private to public property to of Residents Teanaway, and Lib erty Areas establish effective fuel breaks Benefited (1 to 2-mile radius) # acres Implement effective fuel Treated, # of Pr iority areas : WUI Strategic Fuel Breaks breaks around co mmunities Landowners Communities (South Cle for Community Risk t o minimize impact of high KFACC High Funding Participating, # Elum, Cle Elum, Ro slyn, Reduction intensity wildfire adjacent to of Residents Ronald, Liberty, Ea ston, and communities. Benefited (1 to Vantag e) 2-mile radius) 20 Year Eastern Align priority watersheds with DNR SE Region, Funding, # of Acres Washington Strategic the guiding fore st health TNC, KCCD, High Coordination, Treated in 2018 : Manastash-Taneum Forest Health Plan document and coordinate KFACC Capacity Priority 2020: Teanaway Watershed timeframes. Watersheds Community Wildfire Protection Plan 67 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes DNR SE Region, Fire Districts and In 2017, a wildfire smoke Departments, # of vehicle fatality occurred on 1-90. It is Transportation Contain vehicle fires from BLM, YTC, Funding, fires, # of acres imperative for public life and Corridor Vehicle Fire spreading along Interstates Private High Coordination treated, # of safety that measures be taken and State Highways in Kittitas Landowners, fatalities Risk Reduction County. KCCD and Capacity caused by to protect users and private Washington wildfire smoke property owners along major State transportation systems. Department of Transportation # Acres Continue and encourage Treated, # of Use current grant funding Fuels Reduction participation in cost-Share DNR SE Region, Medium to Landowners sources. KCCD is pending Treatments Fuels Reduction Programs for KCCD, TNC High Coordination Participating,# grant award for fuels of Residents reduction cost-share from private landowners. Benefited (1 to FEMA 2-mile radius) Coordinate public education # of and outreach through Washington Educational Prescribed Fire Washington Prescribed Fire State Prescribed Workshops, # Educational Outreach Council to encourage public Fire Council, Capacity, of Field Tours, to learn more about Medium and Prescribed Fire prescribed fire. Help private DNR, USFS, Liability # of Flyers Coalitions KFACC, Distributed, # landowners with resources to Landowners of Social Media coordinate prescribed fire "Likes" operations Community Wildfire Protection Plan 68 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Local landscape level applications are currently happening on a small scale; Fall 2017: private landowner participated Prescribed Fire Washington Learning Exchange (TREX) State Prescribed # Acres learning exchange and 14 Implement and advance Fire Council, Capacity, Treated, # of acres were burned using #GOODFIRE prescribed fire activities on DNR, USFS , Medium Liability Stakeholders prescribed fire. Fall 2018: the landscape . KFACC, Involved, # of Prescribed Fire Training Landowners Participants Exchange (TREX) will be based in upper Kittitas County, coordinated by Washington Prescribed Fire Council/TN( working closely with Cle Elum Ranger District (USFS) and KFACC members. Fire Adapted Communities # of Videos One video has been Develop two additional Created and produced and distributed on educational videos Released, # of Social Media and YouTube #FIREENVIRONMENT highlighting emergency KFACC High Funding Social Media describing the events of Jolly Video Series preparedness and technical Likes on KFACC Mountain, Kittitas County as how-to approach to Firewise Members a fire environment and principles and fuels reduction. Distribution raising landowner awareness to wildfire. # of Encourage Firewise USA Participating Communities to continue Landowners Landowners have expressed Roving Chipper mitigation activities on their KFACC High Funding and this program has been Program own by providing a Fire Communities,# integral part of their District Crew and equipment of Flyers mitigation activities. to chip materials on site, Distributed to Residents Community Wildfire Protection Plan 69 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes KFACC, Washington Improve relationships and Encourage agricultural State Farm partnerships between practices that benefit the Bureau, Kittitas agricultural community, Rangeland and forest and range, discourage Reclamation Policy, # of infrastructure, and fire District, Bureau Capacity, Participating response. Identify and Agriculture in a Fire development of open space of Reclamation, High Coordination, Farmers and protect values at risk that Landscape land, and identify agricultural Washington Funding Ranchers have impact agricultural infrastructure for protection Cattleman's economies and rangeland and proactive treatments. Association, quality from wildfire and Local Fire wildfire response. Districts Continue providing KFACC, # of Markets For the 2018 farmer's market season, KFACC will be at each Farmers Market information about KFACC Washington Attended, # of farmers market the first Public Education & partners and mission at Farm Forestry Medium Capacity Educational weekend of the month. The Outreach Ellensburg and Roslyn farmers Association Material effectiveness will be markets. Volunteers Distributed evaluated at the end of 2018. # of HOA meetings, # of Educational Workshops, # Operating at a minimal level Continue providing of Educationa I through the KCCD, uses local Neighborhood neighborhood assessments, Material Education, Outreach action plans, and education to KFACC Medium Funding Distributed, # assessment funds to provide this service. DNR SE region & Engagement HOAs and communities in the of Assessments does provide assistance when Kittitas County area. Updated/ available. Created, # of Action Plans Updated/ Created Community Wildfire Protection Plan 70 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Develop a learning exchange # of Learning program that engages communities from across the Exchange Communities Helping state that em powers Funding, Events,# of Use Podio Workspace and WAFAC, KFACC Medium Local Communities community members to take Capacity Sparkplugs, # cultivate local sparkplugs. action in their own community and share lessons of Podio learned. Participants In spring 2018, coordinated with Kittitas Environmental Education Network for 4th # of Field Trips, grade field trip integrating Coordinate with existing Funding, # of Artwork fire ecology concepts. Youth Education & educational programs to KFACC Medium Staffing, Participation, # Community Wildfire Outreach integrate fire adapted Capacity, of Artwork Preparedness Day artwork concepts. Expertise Displayed project in partnership with Gallery One, and local schools in Ellensburg i ncreasing awareness i n grade schools about wildfire. Encourage and cultivate fuels reduction contractors who are #of Fuels Reduction familiar with Firewise Complexity, Participating principles, wildlife friendly KFACC Medium Contractors in Contractors fuels reduction, and forest Capacity Kittitas County health best management Area practices. Encourage the economic Small Wood Markets infrastructure to develop TNC, KFACC Medium Complexity, TBD small diameter woody debris Capacity markets. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 71 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Improved Response KFACC # of Pre-Engage motivated Firewise or Improve response by planning Kittitas County Suppression Fire Adapted Communities to take the next step in their Fire Pre Suppression wildfire suppression tactics, Fire District No. Funding, Plans Created, Adapted efforts . Develop a Action Plan first responder and 7 High Staffing, # of Pre-neighborhood level wildfire community safety and Kittita s County Capacity Suppression pre-suppression plans for preparedness. Fire Marshall, Plans Given to Incident Command teams DNR IMT and local Fire Response Develop neighborhood plans Kittitas County Neighborhood Emergency that integrate county level Preparedness plans are to be Neighborhood planning efforts such as Emergency used as a living document to Emergency Natural Hazards, CWPP, and Management, Funding, # of Plans resources for pre, during, and KFACC, Local High Staffing, Preparedness CEMP and implement tactics Response, Capacity Created after wildfires as well as other Planning and strategies to build Neighborhoods, natural resource concerns economic, ecological, and Communities that would impact residents social resiliency. and their resources . # of Roads Improved,# of Identify communities' Improve response by Roads egress/ingress on a case by widening and/or resurfacing Communities, Funding, Identified, # of case basis and recommend Road Access roads or adding second KFACC, Local High Capacity, Secondary actions to improve road egress to communities that Response Landowners Accesses access and provide safer have only one egress/ingress. Improved, Created, and/or response . Maintained # of Address Improve response by Communities, Plates KFACC, Local Requested, # of Emergency Address & implementing addressing and Response, High Coordination Evacuation Signage evacuation signage at a Kittitas County Signage neighborhood level. Public Works Installed in Communities Community Wildfire Protection Plan 72 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes # of Wild land Firefighter training includes Volunteers, # Improve response by of Trainings values of risk that have not standardizing equipment and Local Fire Offered to All been traditionally recognized wildland/WUI training across Districts, DN R, Policy, Fire Districts i.e., ecological values (sage Local WUI Response local fire districts. Cultivate USFS, High Coordination, and# of grouse and other critical volunteer recruitment and Washington Capacity, Training habitat) and cultural values retention for strategic local Prescribed Fire Funding Participants,# and economic values Council (fencing, livestock, public response. of Standardized works, and energy Equipment infrastructure) Some Fire Departments do Improve response by Local Fire Data Collection not have the capacity or Improved Data providing centralized Districts and Coordination, and Unified funding to collect data. Collection and Data geodatabases and data Departments, High Capacity, Multi-Reduce redundancies in data DNR, Jurisdictional collection across first Sharing collection of county wildland Communities, Funding Sharing responders and use a central urban interface KFACC, KCCD Platform coordination data collection and sharing platform. Post-Fire Response, Stabilization, and Long-Term Rehabilitation Local communities need Coordinate local Burned Area coordinated response that Emergency Response Strike Washington # of Team models Incident Command Rapid Response-Team assessments on state State Policy, Members, # of System structure to use long Burned Area and private land to assess Conservation High Funding, Team term recovery and restoration Emergency Response needs for restoration and Commission, Capacity, Deployments,# efforts on all land ownership Strike Team long-term community DNR, KFACC Coordination of Assessments and form long term partnerships to obtain recovery. restoration and recovery project funding. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 73 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes # of Incident Management Team Meetings Use incident meetings during Attended, # of Most incident meetings are response to provide post-fire Flyers well attended. While people Post Fire Coordinated Coordination, Distributed are at those meetings, Education & education and recovery KFACC High Capacity, About Post-Fire educate the public on post-information to landowners, Outreach residents, business owners, Funding Risk,# of fire risk since education and Educational outreach after the incident and farmers/ranchers. Workshops for has less attendance. Post-Fire Before Wildfires Occur Use Burned Area Emergency Coordinating rapid response Response Strike Teams to # of Best to water quality issues using Policy, restoration will better Water Quality and assess conditions after wildfire Funding, Management improve wildlife habitat and and coordinate water quality KFACC High Practices Watershed Protection and watershed protection by Capacity, Installed on potable water sources and using the all hands all lands Coordination Watersheds limit impact on quality of life approach. and ecological system functions. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 74 September 2018 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of CWPP The KFACC, working through the CWPP Subcommittee will ensure the continued maintenance of the CWPP. The steering committee recommends that the Kittitas County CWPP be reviewed at least annually at special meetings of the KFACC, open to the public and involving all municipalities /jurisdictions, where action items, priorities, budgets, and modifications can be made or confirmed. The components of risk and the preparedness of the county's resources are not static. It will be necessary to regularly adjust for changes in the components of risk, population density changes, infrastructure modifications, and other factors. Amendments and updates to the plan should be documented and attached to the CWPP. Re-evaluation of this plan should be made on the 5th anniversary of its acceptance, and every 5-year period following, in keeping with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Annual Review of the Kittitas County CWPP is located on the Project Ready Action Table (Table 9) and the scheduled review of the CWPP will be in Winter 2018/2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 75 September 2018 8 References Berk Consulting, 2016 Kittitas County Population Projection Review and Analysis. Prepared for Kittitas County. July 2016. Bisson, P.A., B. E. Rieman, C. Luce, P. Hessburg, D. Lee, J. L. Kershner, G. Reeves, and R. Gresswell, 2003. "Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems of the Western USA: Current Knowledge and Key Questions." Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):213-229. Bunting, S. C., J. L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R. A. Gravenmier, and W. J. Hann, 2002. Altered Rangeland Ecosystems in the Interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-553. September 2002 Communities Committee, Society of American Foresters, National Association of Counties, Western Governors' Association, and National Association of State Foresters, 2004. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities. March 2004. DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources), 2017. 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan Eastern Washington. Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/pu bl ications/rp _forest_hea lth_20_yea r _strateg ic_pla n. pdf?kzzucv. Gaines, W. L., D. W. Peterson, C. A. Thomas, and R. J. Harrod, 2012. Adaptations to Climate Change: Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-862. October 2012. Haugo, R., W. Gaines, J. Begley, J. Robertson, D. Churchill, J. Dickinson, R. Lolley, and P. Hessburg, 2016. fv1anastash-Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project: Landscape Evaluations and Prescriptions. May 2016. Haugo, R., C. Zanger, T. DeMeo, C. Ringo, A. Shlisky, K. Blankenship, M. Simpson, K. Mellen-McLean, J. Kertis, and M. Stern, 2015. "A New Approach to Evaluate Forest Structure Restoration Needs Across Oregon and Washington, USA." Forest Ecology and Management 335: 37-50. Headwaters Economics, 2014. Local Responses to Wildfire Risks and Costs: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. May 2014. Available at: http://headwaterseconomics.org/wp- co ntent/u p loads/western_ case_stu d ies_repo rt. pdf. Headwaters Economics, 2018. Economic Profile System. Accessed May 8, 2018. Available at: https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 76 September 2018 Hessburg, P. F., D. J. Churchill, A. J. Larson, R. D. Haugo, C. Miller, T. A. Spies, M. P. North, N. A. Povak, R. T. Belote, P. H. Singleton, W. L. Gaines, R. E. Keane, G. H. Aplet, S. L. Stephens, P. Morgan, P.A. Bisson, B. E. Rieman, R. B. Salter, and G. H. Reeves, 2015. "Restoring Fire-Prone Inland Pacific Landscapes : Seven Core Principles." Landscape Ecology 30(10):1805-1835. Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. Salter, C.H. McNicoll, and W. J. Hann, 1999. Historical and Current Forest and Range Landscapes in the Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins . Part 7: Linking Vegetation Patterns and Landscape Vulnerability to Potential Insect and Pathogen Disturbances. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458. September 1999. Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, R. B. Salter, R. D. Ottmar, and E. Alvarado, 2000 . "Recent Changes (1930s- 1990s) in Spatial Patterns of Interior Northwest Forests, USA." Forest Ecology Management 136(1-3)53-83. Isaak, D. J., C. H. Luce, B. E. Rieman, D. E. Nagel, E. E. Peterson, D. L. Horan, S. Parkes, and G. L. Chandler, 2010. "Effects of Climate Change and Wildfire on Stream Temperatures and Salmon id Thermal Habitat in a Mountain River Network." Ecological Applications 20(5):1350-71. Isaak, D. J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler, 2012. "Climate Change Effects on Stream and River Temperatures Across the Northwestern US from 1980-2009 and Implications for Salmonid Fishes." Climatic Change 113: 499-524. Kittitas County, City of Cle Elum, Town of South Cle Elum, and City of Ellensburg, 2013. Kittitas County Regional Shoreline Master Program Update -Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Ecology Grant No. 1200054. May 2013. Krist Jr., F. J., J. R. Ellenwood, M. E. Woods, A. J. McMahon, J. P. Cowardin, D. E. Ryerson, F. J. Spaio, M . 0. Zweifler, and S. A. Romero, 2014. 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team-14-01. January 2014. Lehmkuhl, J. F., A. L. Lyons, E. Bracken, J. Leingang , W. L. Gaines, E. K. Dodson, and P. H. Singleton, 2013. "Forage composition, productivity, and utilization in the eastern Washington Cascade Range." Northwest Science 87(4):267-291. Littell, J. S., E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J. A. Hicke, J. A. Lutz, R. A. Norheim, and M. M. Elsner, 2010. "Forest Ecosystems, Disturbance, and Climatic Change in Washington State , USA." Climatic Change 102(1-2):129-158. Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet, 2009 . "Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State." Climatic Change 102(1-2):187-223. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 77 September 2018 Mass, C., 2009. "Windy Ellensburg." Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog. Last modified June 30, 2009 . Available at: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2009/06/windy-ellensburg.html. Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W . S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover, 2003. "Preparing for Climatic Change : The Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest." Climatic Change 61 (1-2):45-88. National Association of State Foresters, 2003. Field Guidance: Identifying and Prioritizing Communities at Risk. Available at: http://www.stateforesters.org/node/1951 . June 2003 . NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2008. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan . November 30, 2009 . Pyrologix, 2018. Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and Results. Prepared for the U.S . Forest Service . April 10, 2018. Rieman, B. E., P. F. Hessburg, C. Luce, and M . R. Dare . 2010. "Wildfire and Management of Forest and Native Fishes: Conflict or Opportunity for Convergent Solutions?" Bioscience 60(6):460-468. SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International), 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration, Version 2. Science and Policy Working Group. October 2004. Stine, P., P. Hessburg, T. Spies, M. Kramer, C. J. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. Lehmkuhl, K. O'Hara, K. Polivka, P. Singleton, S. Charnley, A. Merschel, and R. White, 2014. The Ecology and Management of Moist Mixed-Conifer Forests in Eastern Oregon and Washington : A Synthesis of the Relevant Biophysical Science and Implications for Future Land Management. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-897. September 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 ." 2017 Population Estimates. Retrieved September 12, 2018. Available at: https:/ /factfi nder.census.gov /faces/nav /jsf /pages/community _facts.xhtml. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2006. The National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. December 2006. USDA, 2012. Census of Agriculture County Profile: Kittitas County Washington. Available at: https://www.agcen sus.u sda .gov /Pub lications/2012/On line_Resources/County _Profiles/Wash in gton/cp53037.pdf. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 78 September 2018 USFS (U.S. Forest Service), 2004. Forest Health Assessment for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests . August 2, 2004. USFS, 2012 . The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: Adaptive Ecosystem Management to Restore Landscape Resiliency. November 2012 . USFS, 2013 . Restoration of Fire-Dependent Forests: A Sense of Urgency. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/I nternet/FSE_DOCUM ENTS/stelprdb5423599.pdf. May 2013 . USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). June 2011 . USFWS, 2015. Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). September 2015 . UW (University of Washington) State Forestland Database, 2007. Version 2007, Release 2.0. Accessed May 8, 2018. Available at: http://www.ruraltech.org/projects/wrl/fldb/data.asp. WA OFM (State of Washington Office of Financial Management), 2017. Data Book. Available at: https://www. of m .wa .gov/wash i ngto n-data-resea rch/statewid e-d ata/wa shin gto n-state-d ata- book. YBFWRB (Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board), 2009. Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan. Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan with updates. Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board. August 2009. Yeager, J., 2015 . Summary of Aquatic Resource Objectives and Recommended Design and Implementation Elements for the fvlid and Upper Columbia Anadromous and Bull Trout Producing Watersheds of Eastern Washington . Community Wildfire Protection Plan 79 September 2018 Appendix A Maps Lr-otnd . Propirrty owneriitup 0)w!rl b~l1on ,n 1(11111.~, eounlr ,~,..-.,,.,c ,,--,,.., Fu11,110-. 8U\t lando,..,e,1Mi,- .r •,•-~-•P c<c •,:. .. t~~•-}••;c..,,~,,_ ~~·-· ~. 0 2 5 5 10 15 20 Miles -------0 NOTES: 1 Sueams and Rivers acqwed from KCCO (2012) 2 Public land data ac:quired from USGS Gap Analysis Program (2016) !!lml WA RCO Public Lends Inventory (201') ., NOTES: 1 Slreams and Rivers acquired from KCCO (2012) 2, LANDFIRE VegeleUon Cover dais eequlred from LANOFIRE USFS (2014) 3 Public land data acQulred from USGS Gap Analysis Program (2018}. and WA RCO Public Lands Inventory (2014) ·-··--:lltl·---.: --~__ _: __ ·. _:_:: --~=-=-::: ==--=-~=::--;;.~-" _:=:..:._-== -----·-__ .. __ _ ___ ,. __ ., -...... 1-. __ ,,...__ l---·•· t::-~•-••---~ --· ---------·------·-------· ------· .. , __ -·-....... ----- l •OUld. Community WNdnr• Pttlle<:lh:tn ,1,nnlngArwH ~--~~~W','il.lfu a-:--• .. ~.-,q,,,_..,-, •• , -~lllnllll'M'llh<I/ -E-Klt ... ,C ... ni, -15w.,.,n,t11Nt-<1 -..Yar'JU,o.91~ -~T.-,...,,, 0 2.5 5 I N I • ~-(•£.tt,.. 10 15 20 MIies ---------() NOTES: 1 Slreame and River, acquired from KCCO (2012) 2 Public land data acquired from USGS Gap Analysis Program (2016), end WA RCO Public Le.nd& Inventory (2014) 3. Community \Mldftre Prottcllon Planning Areat ere for pjannlng purpoeee only. communKy \Mldfire Protection Plannlng ~as aquired rrom KCCD (2D18) 20 , .. 11 ... ·•-.-- LAt•ul .WllatlttltllkTlmb«& ·-o -..;.:o:_ 0 2.75 5.5 11 Median Historic Regime Fire Interval 16.5 D.at• Notea: 1 Slream11 and Rivera acquired rror'n KCCO (2012) 2 Public lend data acquired from USGS Gap Analysis ProgrJ.m (2019), and WA RCO Public Landi lnYentory (2014) 3 MRFI dala acquired rrom USFS LANDFIRE (2014) () 22 Miles --------Thn data 1JSed for this m•~/u1thib1t 15 pro't'ideC ~as 11' w1tt,0ut warranty of any kind Further, the 1C,tt11~County Coni11rv11llon D1J.tnct 1Kl11n not werr11rrt , gua r•nlee ---r•g:P"I•• 1he UH ~ Ol' fHUll!. (Ulm tha UH of lh~ Ditta 'fl tt lffl ~~C.,f ~ Appendix B Fire District and Department CWPP Survey The Purpose of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) A CWPP provides value to a community by identifying and implementing mitigation and response strategies that reduce the wildland fire risk and enable a community to withstand a wildfire event without loss of life or preventable resource or property damage. Kittitas County is in the process of updating the 2009 CWPP. 1 In collaboration with stakeholder groups and the public Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) has been contracted to assist and develop the updated county wide, community based CWPP, which will identify various forms of risk assessment, modeling and strategic action planning. At the conclusion of this process, the goal will be to develop a uniquely suited and feasible document that achieves the goals of our responders, planners, land owners and the public while preparing the response environment for safe and effective suppression activities. Please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire below so that we can accurately capture information from your Fire District Organization or Agency, which will be included in the newest update of the Kittitas County CWPP. CWPP KEY COMPONANTS- • Developing community based priorities and partnerships, while fostering and maintaining community resilience. • Preparing for and safely coexisting with wildland fire • Supports healthy forests and rangelands DESIRED OUTCOME - • Reduced Occurrence of Catastrophic Wildfires • Reduction in Loss of Life, Property and Resources. • Overall Resilience to the Effects of Wildland Fires to Communities. 2018 KITT ITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUEST IONA IRE VALUES AT RISK- Residential Areas -Structures; (Example-40 Homes on Johnson Road. 3 Businesses, 4 commercial.) 0 Estlmated number of residential homes in your district-? bee -7 •sc,\~(r.Nj. 'afoO re..~'. ~fJ\~:, 0 Estimated number of commercial buildings, businesses-___ !_:). ___ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE o, Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No l&1 e /{j1,j,Ji,<I 2 Community Safety Area -Potential Evacuation Sites; (Example-Old Circleville Flat, School Field etc.) 0 Estlmated number of safety areas within district-__,·f.._lw_-_,r Pc-~5_·1._,1_·\.-0_• _Is _____________ _ 0 Estimated Size and Locations-Do 1,J ., Jo"J •'.\ 1 J.,,r, r f' Have locations been Mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes O No 00 Community Water System; (Example-Crawford Creek provides water to 40 Homes on Johnson Road) 0 1s there sufficient water storage capacity to meet domestic and fire suppression needs? Are hydrants, stand pipes or storage tanks located adequately to support suppression operations? Yes D Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D • S-o A e_ Historic Sites -Sensitive or Unique Areas; (Example-Circleville Cemetery, Johnson Road Grange) c Land features, historical, cultural, habitat, conservation or reserve areas? Yes ~ No D Number of sites-;, _______ ..,,...,..--:----,--,,-.-,,-+-----,,-,--r-:---~---------- Description of sites and lo.catio ns; 1 /1 ofe Mi I I -N fh -cr_e /-I~ r'. Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No ~- 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 3 Others- 01nfra_str_ucture ~Utilities, Co~municatio,: Pow r,1Water). Grazing, Ag'. ~mb ~r,. Recr_eat\<:m? Yes tKJ Description of sites and locatmns; W , o, Ii 5h'.• 1 (\"\ -/fr, t ..., ,.,_, ef rJ I t\ i~ d 7 No • Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No 181 EMERGENCY ACCESS / EGRESS ROUTE S Safe access to properties by first responders as well as egress by residents is a high priority. 0 1s there sufficient width on the majority of roads (primary-county or state) within your protection boundary that are able to support two way traffic in an emergency, for safe evacuation of the population served? Yes llS No D Explain; __ 0Estimate -what percentage of secondary roads or driveways in your district that are not accessible to emergency responders and apparatus, for safe access and egress? (Poor condition, locked gates, uncooperative owners) s% .Iii 10% • 1s%• 20%• 2s%• 30%• 35%• 45% • so%+ ________ _ Description of sites and locati o ns;, __________________________ _ Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No IRJ 0 Are roadside fuel breaks adequate or maintained? Yes ~ No D Comments; __________________________________ _ 0 1n your jurisdiction, are roads well marked and current road signage in good condition? Yes ~ No D Com m ents;,_ _________________________________ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0 Are street address and home/ business numbers posted and visible from the main access routes? If so, please estimate what percentage are. 4 5 % • 10% • 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% l&l so%+ Co mmen ts; Mro.:i {; r-t pweJ i.,J~,.I / . l~y /,.,}-0 . J~~-.-t-y;-,,,-c.-e_S __ i _./ ___ o_6_<$ __ l -.... -,-t.l Or l\,i $.$ ~ f 1-..c .-.rJ..s -' HIG H RISK ARE AS - Fire risk is defined as the fuel types and loading in an area combined with factors (i.e. ignition sources, slope, aspect and elevation) Fire history can also be used to establish potential risk. ~Current Mitigation Strategies/ Measures? Education J8l Manual Fuels Reduction Projects D Prescribed burn D Grazing o Harvest D Defensibl~pa ~e D Fire Adapted Community D Building Cod~ ~ Home Assessme~ts •_ E)(plai n; ]. n-/.o !) ' ti"\ 0~ 1:}.h.e C"'-9 ,, he.,.,(' 110,1 t ".) .{it<, l.i' .,-€ 1 llp9er, e,+,. 7 Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes O No ~ ()44 I 0 Have Fireworks starts been a r occu rring problem/ concern in your jurisdiction? Yes O No ~ Gom rn ents; h h, .J 0 Has there been concerns or issues regarding other types of human caused starts/ fires within your Jurisdiction? Debris Burning • Children • Railroad • Equipment l&l Logging • Recreation D Smoking • Arson/Incendiary • Exp l all");,~------.-~-------e-..---=----------i--------..J •, 0 Do you have any Fire Wise or Fire Adapted Communities within your jurisdiction? Yes D Number __ No l&l 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE •Has there been or are there plans for any fuel reduction work in your community, utilizing DNR, Conservation Districts, hired contr~c_t~rs ltc.: Yes D Number __ No l&J ~ Explain ; N evJ l h, t.. h ,,~· ·toot ,J\,,.e\ vv V' I c,X 1 r-l I -9 '.)J:: ,;Ii ~,J. '/l! J- 0 Describe what you consider to be your highest values at risk in your jurisdiction/ ownership for catastrophic wildfire. s E plalnf·-~-'--,---,-----;~-.,_._-,+---='-1-~'-------'-:-~-r---;-,--'r+.;,,-,-=----~~~:---------: A LI; 4 i/1 RESPONSE CAPABILITIES- 0 1s your current staffing capability adequate in meeting your distri~t responses needs? Yes ~ Explain; .S;nt }ooa rL. r};-$Jr.i. f vt,,1'J t½. IOtJ c-s @ dsffdsfed ' No • 1.h h ,m }-fe1.J , -f.J~v-vJ--/-J0 de -,,-, 1 -e--t-~-J.-1-,-------------------- 0 Are your current equipment capabilities adequate In meeting your district responses needs? Challenges? Yesi&I ~.!.,_~___.L__!, __ ....1...,_~-r--=,,=1-r-->-.t..=-.;:......-=-,pd,,+~;____J....LJ...L.4-____jL..=....:.~-'--....u..L=-r-....!.4.:...~~...!...J-..Y CO !J"• I L/;,cy.l J-5'0 .9,:d 0 Response drills, community evacuation and preparedness planning, disaster response and recovery planning? Yes IZI 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE •Are collaborative relationships and cooperative agreements being maintained/ enhanced? Yes jBI No 0 (I.e. local respo nse agree ments, mutual aid, co perative etc.) Exp lain; t 11 '-• W-"- What is it that is most Important to you, that you would like to see included as a priority In the 2018 Kittitas County CWPP Update? What is your opinion of the wildland fire threat in your community? 6 ,'h.c/t,.},!'J fr,,Jar ~,·c:f~ J L.l.J 4 F: rt. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS? 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAlRE PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE TO; Rose Shriner, Kittitas County Conservation District rose-shri n r@conservewa .ne! 1509)925-33 5 2 ext 202 OR; WADNR -Attention: Al a n Lawson (509) 859- 2641 glan.Jowson@dnr .wa.gov 'WADNR SE Region Office 713 Bowers Ro ad Ellensburg WA. 98926 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 7 4/16/2018 Washington State Conservation Network Mail -cwpp cwpp 1 message Kittitas County Fire District 1 <kcfd1@elltel.net> To: rose-shriner@conservewa.net Rose Shriner <rose-shriner@conservewa.net> Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:40 PM Good afternoon. I have filled out the questionnaire and added a couple of updates on apparatus and personnel incase it's needed. Let me know if you need anything else . E111-750 gallons , 1250 gpm E112-1000 gallons, 1000 gpm E121-500 gallons, 1000 gpm 8111-500 gallons, 130gpm, 4x4 8112-300 gallons, 120gpm, 4x4 8121-600 gallons, 120gpm, 4x4 21 volunteers Brandon Schmidt Chief Kittitas County Fire District 1 509 964 2435 509 679 8328 cell ~ CWPP 2018.pdf 2079K Ch11 (Chief's vehicle) 250 gal, 120gpm, 4x4 R111-Rescue, 4x4 A 111-BLS Aid unit, 4x4 T111-2615 gallons, 800gpm T121-3000 gallons, 750gpm S111-Support/Command vehicle, 4X4 https:l/mall.g oo gte:com/mall/u/0l?u l=2&11--3o49f78bdr&Jsver ::z8JB61B0LO .en .&v lew=pt&$earctr-=l nbox&(h =162d0Jfo5b5f90c7f&s irril=162dQ~5b_5f90c7f&mb=1 1 The Purpose of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) A CWPP provides value to a community by identifying and implementing mitigation and response strategies that reduce the wildland fire risk and enable a community to withstand a wildfire event without loss of life or preventable resource or property damage. Kittitas County is in the process of updating the 2009 CWPP . In collaboration with stakeholder groups and the public Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) has been contracted to assist and develop the updated county wide, community based CWPP, which will identify various forms of risk assessment, modeling and strategic action planning. At the conclusion of this process, the goal will be to develop a uniquely suited and feasible document that achieves the goals of our responders, planners, land owners and the public while preparing the response environment for safe and effective suppression activities . Please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire below so that we can accurately capture information from your Fire District Organization or Agency, which will be included in the newest update of the Kittitas County CWPP. CWPP KEY COMPONANTS- • Developing community based priorities and partnerships, while fostering and maintaining community resilience. • Preparing for and safely coexisting with wildland fire • Supports healthy forests and rangelands DESIRED OUTCOME - • Reduced Occurrence of Catastrophic Wildfires • Reduction in Loss of Life, Property and Resources . • Overall Resilience to the Effects of Wild land Fires to Communities. 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE FIRE DISTRICT #:_·..L.------.......--- AGENCY or ORGINAZATION:,_.=s...kl.!..a..q..,~~.1..1o4,~q_....u...J.=..__LL..,~.u...1-..1...--'----- CONTACT IN FORMATION: Phone_~"-"-___;_.z..i.~~~__i.;::u.:t.;-ma ii )'1Ajt 1-cl« Ma@ (~ -1 &<t,-v-l,,1,e;:ev(/ +!Al!..re ?(..u ~ • fl/' VALUES AT RISK- Residential Areas -Structures; (Example-40 Homes on Johnson Road. 3 Businesses, 4 commercial.) 0 Estimated number of residential homes in your district -:Z .-_,,'Jr ~ • r 0 Estimated number of commercial buildings, businesses-___ ._;; ___ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 2 Community Safety Area -Potential Evacuation Sites; (Example-Old Circleville Flat, School Field etc.) a Estimated number of safety areas within dlstrlct-~/-'-----------------.-~ 'Estimated Stze and ?:~ons-:pg..,.,,,, .. ,.~k,) :5 /0-Zf/ t/cl?/ld .I 114;~ ~f!i:!27/l~ce:t;;~~ Bt:;'?;zef!:f:~, ~A,,~ Have locations been Mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No tJ. Community Water System; (Example-Crawford Creek provides water to 40 Homes on Johnson Road) a1s there sufficient water storage capacity to meet domestic and fire suppression needs? Are hydrants, stand pipes or storage tanks located adequately to support suppression operations? YesO zd~ ..;QJ.~~~la-~'1µ.~IO.J:.--,--i.,,l.~~~~+t-L::!...;..:-:.:.z_L:.;.L;.~~~--=--) AJ::.~L:t:Ja:.~~¥d:~~-==="-U.~!ll.£:.~Jfi4~'.f.L#.~~~~../,,dB.~~~vt.d/J Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordlnates, legal description?) Yes ~o D Historic Sites -Sensitive or Unique Areas; (Example-Circleville Cemetery, Johnson Road Grange) a Land features, historical, cultural, habitat, conservation or reserve areas? Yes pi.. No D Number of sltes; _____________ ~--.,.--........,...--=------.------:-:C"T"":"7-r" Description of sites and locatlons; T"a~f4' 4:-:~. ~ YAl(_foitlA- ;;n, ,tLtMt\i fttN H.J,J.JM~~~·~ ~'f: ~Vo' Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes ~ No D 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE-QUESTI0NAIRE 3 Others- 111nfrastructure (Utilities, communication, Power, Water). Grazing, Ag, Timber, Recreation? Yes& No D D~ of Put i£;',;;,?!'%;::::tv~$ ;2!;"1 :tt'h-a--nL iiJ:ilijj.fA .;i;...;?-·I'll" d-fr-rz "-bj,'('. t-: Have locations been mapped? {GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes O No >4..._ EMERGENCV ACCESS / EGRESS ROUTgs Safe access to properties by first responders as well as egress by residents Is a high priority. 11 1s there sufficient width on the majority of roads (primary-county or state) within your protection boundary that are able to support two way traffic In an emergency, for safe evacuation of the population served? Ye~ No • Explaln;w ~ , 11 Estlmate -what percentage of secondary roads or driveways In your district that are not accessible to emergency responders and apparatus, for safe access and egress? (Poor condition, locked gates, uncooperative owners) 5 % 5',10%-• 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% • so%+ I --------- 0 es c r Ip ti On of sites and locatlons; --ttw . MO; 4' Jtrb()) $'-< -· : ""t ! \ ... { . (" I I Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes O No "'1_ 11 Are roadside fuel breaks adequate or maintained? Yes D No 3- Comments; A.,JOT I N 4-l l .A;:/1 Ra...() 11 1n your jurisdiction, are roads well marked and current road signage in good condition? Yes~ No D Comments;. ______________________________ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE· QUESTIONAIRE . l a Are street address and home/ business numbers posted and visible from the main access routes? If so, please estimate what percentage n. 4 s % 0 10% 0 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% ~o % + C:012Jl: J✓9A/?1j'"2_ Comments; ______________________________ _ HlGH RISK AREAS - Fire risk is defined as the fuel types and loading in an area combined with factors (i.e. ignition sources, slope, aspect and elevation} Fire history can also be used to establish potential risk. acurrent Mitigation Strategies/ Measures? Educatlon~anual Fuels Reduction Project~Prescrlbed bur~razlng o Harvest D Defensible Space~re Adapted Communl~lldlng Codes D Home Assessments D Explaln;'-----fR----'t--"T"""--.-,,.-----,,--,,,-----------.---,.......,.--::--=---------::----,--,,----'' iv, 1$iu)F , V~'.1.lt (l.L,t:JL/L iw r/1l..t/Jn4UA15 FJM..u.lh~ ~ 4iip-tiW-43m~ Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes 0 ( aHave Fireworks starts been a reoccurring problem/ concern in your jurisdiction? Yes O N~ Comments; ______________________________ _ a Has there been eoncerns or issues regarding other types of human caused starts/ fires within your jurisdiction? Debris ~urnins}'-children• Railroad • Equipment D Loggin~ecreatlon D Smoking• Arson/Incendiary• Explain; •· ,,u 0 tiM-&'£ ,°':ittf!£_;f:!:d:i:/~~;:z,r1e bwus ik 1u ~645' ).>. J .. ~ ~f "Do you have any Are Wise or Are Adapted Communities -In vour Jurisdiction? Yes ~Number ( No D 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 5 •Has there been or are there plans for any fuel reduction work In your community, utilizing ONR, Conservation Yes ~m er __ No D •Describe what you consider to be your highest values at risk In your jurisdiction/ ownership for catastrophic wildfire. ~ ~ 2-IJdl:C. Explain; ~(4=, ~bJ< <'.'A'-#! k,_ RESPONSE CAPABILITIES- 0 ts your curre~fflJIP capablllty adequate In meeting your district resp~nses needs? Ye! • Noa ~plain; IAAV (ki~~~~ dBffdsfed0L ~4} f ~ ~ ~0--. .~ 0 Are your current equipment capabilities adequate In meeting your district responses needs? Challenges? Yes'il_ No D 7_ •£A " -.Li_ E>Cplaln;. _ __,....,. __ UM.--"-_[L __ .:..,_/.at..XJJIJ....:::..--:L.:..::../)_~_~-~lo:......;(,_'A'7:"-=-'----=.a/=:....--=~=--.::;;..,K.- '17141,J 0 Are your current PPE and training needs being met? Challenges? Yes~ No~ Explaln; ~-40 ~ !JZ----J:::~'--.« 1!2h t11CMcVl ' t4.;" ~t: '7~ , 0 Response drills, community evacuation and preparedness planning, disaster response and recovery planning? Yes ~o D ~ _ .../-:-A)/ E,cplaln; ___ -L..>}~ .... t"--'Tfic...:..1..;..;...»t.:...,f _ __.~=zz:a...a,c..-=-.:;..:-.....+---=~......;.___;;__-#--~~~;._._,c_-~----£-....,_,- 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE· QUESTIONAIRE DAre collaborative relationships and cooperative agreements being maintained/ enhanced? Yes}j{_ _ _No 0 (I.e. local response agreements, mutual aid, cooperative etc.) 6 Explain; _____________________________ _ What is it that is most important to you, that you would like to see included as a priority In the 2018 Kittitas County CWPP Update? What Is your opinion of the wildland fire threat In your community? Explain; wd\JL. tu1tif ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS? Explain; 2018 KlmTAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE PLEASE RETURN COMPLmD QUESTIONAIRE TO; Rose Shriner, Kittitas County Conservation District rose-shrlner@conservewa.net (509)925-3352 ext 202 OR; WADNR -Attention: Alan Lawson (509) 859- 2641 alan.lawson@dnr.wg .gov WADNR SE Region Office 713 Bowers Road Ellensburg WA. 98926 2018 KlmTAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 7 The Purpose of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan {CWPP} A CWPP provides value to a community by identifying and implementing mitigation and response strategies that reduce the wildland fire risk and enable a community to withstand a wildfire event without loss of life or preventable resource or property damage. Kittitas County is in the process of updating the 2009 CWPP. 1 In collaboration with stakeholder groups and the public Kittitas County Conservation District (K CCD) has been contracted to assist and develop the updated county wide, community based CWPP, which will identify various forms of risk assessment, modeling and strategic action planning. At the conclusion of this process, the goal will be to develop a uniquely suited and feasible document that achieves the goals of our responders, planners, land owners and the public while preparing the response environment for safe and effective suppression activities. Please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire below so that we can accurately capture information from your Fire District Organization or Agency, which will be included in the newest update of the Kittitas County CWPP. CWPP KEY COMPONANTS- • Developing community based priorities and partnerships, while fostering and maintaining community resilience. • Preparing for and safely coexisting with wildland fire • Supports healthy forests and rangelands DESIRED OUTCOME - • Reduced Occurrence of Catas~rophic Wildfires • Reduction In Loss of Life, Property and Resources . • Overall Resilience to the Effects of Wild land Fires to Communities. 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE VALUES AT RISK- Residential Areas -Structures; (Example-40 Homes on Johnson Road. 3 Businesses, 4 commercial.) 8CJ U I \ ' \" C I (-:-_ -:I V\. (.._. _v c> .fl 5 z,_' .I\ '-, • o_ ~ 0 Estimated number of commercial buildings, businesses-_-----''-"'--.______ :-,.,._ l r, -J I \--c:.--1 '\-c,""' l-l-.... ..1 ·\)15.\J ,c 0 Estimated number of residential homes in your district - 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE ( $111./ ~;:;. \w1: R i O'-"-'....v..: \ ~ A\~.,~,,_ k \ ') 2 i Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D r::· Jo .. .'~\ k"'-0(.J Community Safety Area -Potential Evacuation Sites; (Example-Old Circleville Flat, School Field etc.) Have locations been Mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No ~ Community Water System; (Example-Crawford Creek provides water to 40 Homes on Johnson Road) 0 1s there sufficient water storage capacity to meet domestic and fire suppression needs? Are hydrants, stand pipes or storage tanks located adequately to support suppression operations? Yes m No • Expl~!n; _t t,l c::,5? vu\,.,..,...~ tr v>C ~ S ~-(( \'~ f:. M, Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes ~ No D Historic Sites -Sensitive or Unique Areas; (Example-Circleville Cemetery, Johnson Road Grange) 0 Land features, historical, cultural, habitat, conservation or reserve areas? Yes D No D Number of sites; j 1 ., \c 0"-'-1-'\ • Description of sites and lo catlol:ls; _________________________ _ Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 3 Others- 01nfrastructure (Utilities, Communication, Power, Water). Grazing, Ag, Timber Recreation? Yes '6LJ No D " Descriptio l'\ of si t es al')d lo cations; G £.I==~ '~ .v\\,~ ..... LC'A. --"'C9 S -::::>(')· ... ....) "/ L.; t" 'So tf o ... ~ \ ."V.H} '-:S:,....A,\_,,,•s .:,,.~ qo 5 ~' r .. S Q.r\::: I I f Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes F:5/,~ No D EMERGENCY ACCESS / EG RE SS ROUTES Safe access to properties by first responders as well as egress by residents is a high priority. 01s there sufficient width on the majority of roads (primary-county or state) within your protection boundary that are able to support two way traffic in an emergency, for safe evacuation of the population served? Yes 1):1 No D I "" 0Estlmate -what percentage of secondary roads or driveways in your district that are not accessible to emergency responders and apparatus, for safe access and egress? (Poor condition, locked gates, uncooperative owners) 5 % 0 10% pQ 15%0 20%• 25%• 30%0 35%0 45% • so%+ ________ _ Description of sites and locati on s; _________________________ _ Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No 'j?J 0Are roadside fuel breaks adequate or maintained? Yes D No © Comments;. ________________________________ _ 01n your jurisdiction, are roads well marked and current road signage in good condition? Yes 81. No D Co m m ents; ________________________________ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0 Are street address and home/ business numbers posted and visible from the main access routes? If so, please estimate what percentage ili· 5% 0 10% 0 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% ~ 50%+ _________ _ 4 Comments; _________________________________ _ HIGH RISK AREAS - Fire risk is defined as the fuel types and loading in an area combined with factors (i.e. ignition sources, slope, aspect and elevation) Fire history can also be used to establish potential risk. 0 current Mitigation Strategies/ Measures? '(. Education ·~ Manual Fuels Reduction Projects Vi Prescribed bum • Grazing • Harvest • I Defensible Spac e~Fire Adapted Comm unity Vl)uildlng Codes ~ome Assessments D Explai n ; __________________________________ _ Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordlnates, legal description?) Yes 0 No ® ' 0 Have Fireworks starts been a reoccurring problem/ concern in your jurisdiction? Yes O No 't?J- . ~ ! Comments ; \J6w .:! 0 ~.,r +\\~ s. \;. .;.,~ ~""' ea,"' 1 :S~\.J ~ cJ.._,, •. .,,,_:) o ✓,.,, oc."1 .\;-'{•=-t.·J· s I 0 Has there been concerns or issues regarding other types of human caused starts/ fires within your jurisdiction? Debris Burning'¢ Children • Railroad • Equipment • Logging'¢ Recreation 'fl Smoking• Arson/Incendiary• Explai n; __________________________________ _ 0 Do you have any Fire Wise or Fire Adapted Communities within your jurisdiction? Yes pZI Number ~ No 0 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 5 0 Has there been or are there plans for any fuel reduction work in your community, utilizing DNR, Conservation Districts, hired contractors etc.? Yes D Number __ No pl Expla in; ___________________________________ _ 0 Describe what you consider to be your highest values at risk in your jurisdiction/ ownership for catastrophic wildfire. Exp laln;,....::::S~Y:.::..:;__.....!..,;:..:....::..:=....:::.-----___...,_t.<.1,, ,....._.__,__...._.~....L>,"'---.:.,::.,..,:..:....,__,.,,...:.,,,o-=-"r"-........_-=~~-"--+~---9....!...::0::_. __ ,A ~ .._,t) c,._ ,._ RESPONSE CAPABILITIES - 0 1s your current staffing capability adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Yes ~ No D Exp la In; / ______ dsffdsfed _____________________________ _ 0 Are your current equipment capabilities adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Challenges? Yes p No D Explain; ___________________________________ _ 0 Are your current PPE and training needs being met? Challenges? Yes ~ No D Explain;, ___________________________________ _ 0 Response drills, community evacuation and preparedness planning, disaster response and recovery planning? Yes D No t'\I Explai n;, ___ r _________________________________ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE What is it that is most important to you, that you would like to see included as a priority in the 2018 Kittitas County CWPP Update? What is your opinion of the wildland fire threat in your community? Explain; \ I -£0 ~ S f -e-d 0C ) t;. ,."\. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS / CONCERNS? Explain; 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 6 PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE TO; Rose Shriner, Kittitas County Conservation District rose-shriner@conservewa.net (509)925-3352 ext 202 OR; WADNR-Attention: Alan Lawson (509) 859- 2641 alan.lawson@dnr. wo.qov WADNR SE Region Office 713 Bowers Road Ellensburg WA. 98926 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 7 The Purpose of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) A CWPP provides value to a community by identifying and implementing mitigation and response strategies that reduce the wildland fire risk and enable a community to withstand a wildfire event without loss of life or preventable resource or property damage. Kittitas County is in the process of updating the 2009 CWPP. 1 In collaboration with stakeholder groups and the public Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) has been contracted to assist and develop the updated county wide, community based CWPP, which will identify various forms of risk assessment, modeling and strategic action plann i ng. At the conclusion of this process, the goal will be to develop a uniquely suited and feasible document that achieves the goals of our responders, planners, land owners and the public while preparing the response environment for safe and effective suppression activities. Please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire below so that we can accurately capture information from your Fire District Organization or Agency, which will be included in the newest update of the Kittitas County CWPP . CWPP KEY COMPONENTS- • Developing community based priorities and partnerships, while fostering and maintaining community resilience. • Preparing for and safely coexisting with wildland fire • Supports healthy forests and rangelands DESIRED OUTCOME - • Reduced Occurrence of Catastrophic Wildfires • Reduction in Loss of Life, Property and Resources . • Overall Resilience to the Effects of Wild land Fires to Communities. 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAlRE FIRE DISTRICT #: __ 2;a.._-=-=-KV.=..,;Fc..:.R-=-____ FIRE CHIEF:_Sinclair ______ _ AGENCY or ORGINAZATION:_KVFR _________________ _ CONTACT INFORMATION: Phone_509-933-7233_emai1_e11iottr@kvfr.org __ _ VALUES AT RISK- Residential Areas -Structures; (Example-40 Homes on Johnson Road. 3 Businesses, 4 commercial.) 0 Estimated number of residential homes in your d istrict -___ 8300 ____ _ 0 Estimated number of commercial buildings, businesses-__ 350 / 950 ___ _ 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0 Locat ions of areas of most concern -explain (see example above) Manastash (anvon. Yakima Canyon, Secret Canyon, Coleman Canyon, Green Canyon._ Cooke Canyon Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes X No D Community Safety Area -Potential Evacuation Sites; (Example-Old Circleville Flat, School Field etc.) 0 Estimated number of safety areas within district-200 -throughout district -agri cu ltura l are.as_and urban area s, Have locations been Mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes X No D Community Water System; (Example-Crawford Creek provides water to 40 Homes on Johnson Road) 2 0 1s there sufficient water storage capacity to meet domestic and fire suppression needs? Are hydrants, stand pipes or storage tanks located adequately to support suppression operations? Yes D NoX Explain ; We.have a tender fleet that can.maintain fire. flow for mostwildland incidents. Other than the City ·of Ellensburg, we generally do not rely o.h water.sources oth er than tender shuttle. Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes X No D Historic Sites -Sensitive or Unique Areas; (Example-Circleville Cemetery, Johnson Road Grange) • Land featu r es, historical, cultural, habitat, conservation or reserve areas? Yes X No D Number of sites; state park, h isto r lca l b u ildings, critica l a reas Description of sites and locations; multi le Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes X No D Others - 0 1nfrastructure (Utilities, Communication, Power, Water). Grazing, Ag, Timber, Recreation? Yes X No D Description of sites and locations; gas and electrical distribution./ generation. M ajority of district is agricultural Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes X No D EMERGENCY ACCESS/ EGRESS ROUJES Safe access to properties by first responders as well as egress by residents is a high priority. 0 1s there sufficient width on the majority of roads (primary-county or state) within your protection boundary that are able to support two way traffic in an emergency, for safe evacuation of the population served? Yes D NoX 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 3 Explain; No -ro.ad waivers have been granted a·nd development has occurred in areas at risk for wildfi re with only 1 Ingress/egress r oad . Road grades ha ve been exceeded and significant number of u npos ted br1dges are in the county 0 Estimate -what percentage of secondary roads or driveways in your district that are not accessible to emergency responders and apparatus, for safe access and egress? (Poor condition, locked gates, uncooperative owners) 5 % • 10% X 15%0 20%• 25%• 30%D 35%D 45% • 50 % + ----------- Description of sites and locations; __ .:..;A:,ill=oc:..v=er'---=pr'""im~arc.cil,.,_y-"inc:..:.:.fr.:.:.in""g=e-=a"-'re=a=s'--__ Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes • No • -Some 0 Are roadside fuel breaks adequate or maintained? Yes D No X Comments; mostly non-existent 0 In your jurisdiction, are roads well marked and current road signage in good condition? Yes X No D Comm ents; __________________________________ _ 0 Are street address and home/ business numbers posted and visible from the main access routes? If so, please estimate what percentage are . 5 % D 10% D 15%0 20%D 25%D 30%D 35%D 45% X 50 % + almost al l are --=c:..:.:.::.=....;:..;.a'-='--=--- HIGH RISK AREAS - Fire risk is defined as the fuel types and loading in an area combined with factors (i.e. ignition sources, slope, aspect and elevation) Fire history can also be used to establish potential risk. ~Current Mitigation Strategies/ Measures? Education X Manual Fuels Reduction Projects D Prescribed burn X Grazing o Harvest X Defensible Space • Fire Adapted Community X Building Codes • Home Assessments • Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D 0 Have Fireworks starts been a reoccurring problem/ concern in your jurisdiction? Yes D No X Comments; mostly no-banned in city an d county. ha s been limited issue . 0 Has there been concerns or issues regarding other types of human caused starts/ fires within your jurisdiction? Debris BurningX Children • Railroad • Equipment D Logging • Recreation X SmokingX Arson/Incendiary• Explain; Most of the human ca used starts relate to outdoor burning that gets beyond control parameters . 0 Do you have any Fire Wise or Fire Adapted Communities within your jurisdiction? Yes D Number __ No X 0 Has there been or are there plans for any fuel reduction work in your community, utilizing DNR, Conservation Districts, hired contractors etc.? Yes X Number_unknown _ No D 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0 Describe what you consider to be your highest values at risk in your jurisdiction/ ownership for catastrophic wildfire. Explain; Mana-stash Canyon -largest_number of homes and re creators w ith inadequate egress and no safety zones RESPONSE CAPABILITIES- 0 1s your current staffing capability adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Yes D No D Explain; Most of the time -yes -occasiohally .no . Fo r wildfire-we rely: on Integrated respoAse with other jurisdictions 0 Are your current equipment capabilities adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Challenges? YesX No D 0 Are your current PPE and training needs being met? Challenges? YesX No D 0 Response drills, community evacuation and preparedness planning, disaster response and recovery planning? Yes D NoX Explain; re'lated to wild fire -no . 0 Are collaborative relationships and cooperative agreements being maintained/ enhanced? Yes X No D (I.e. local response agreements, mutual aid, cooperative etc .) What is it that is most important to you, that you would like to see included as a priority in the 2018 Kittitas County CWPP Update? What is your opinion of the wildland fire threat in your community? 4 Explaini I would like to see the cod e application process become more consistent, fire .c hiefs be involved in all variance decisions and code ·enforcement / inspection occur on a regular schedule. PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE TO; Rose Shriner, Kittitas County Conservation District rose-shriner@conservewa.net (509)925-3352 ext 202 OR; WADNR -Attention: Alan Lawson (509) 859- 2641 alan.lawson@dnr.wa.gov WADNR SE Region Office 713 Bowers Road Ellensburg WA. 98926 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE The Purpose of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) A CWPP provides value to a community by identifying and implementing mitigation and response strategies that reduce the wildland fire risk and enable a community to withstand a wildfire event without loss of life or preventable resource or property damage. Kittitas County is in the process of updating the 2009 CWPP. 1 In collaboration with stakeholder groups and the public Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) has been contracted to assist and develop the updated county wide, community based CWPP, which will identify various forms of risk assessment, modeling and strategic action planning. At the conclusion of this process, the goal will be to develop a uniquely suited and feasible document that achieves the goals of our responders, planners, land owners and the public while preparing the response environment for safe and effective suppression activities. Please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire below so that we can accurately capture information from your Fire District Organization or Agency, which will be included in the newest update of the Kittitas County CWPP. CWPP KEY COMPONANTS- • Developing community based priorities and partnerships, while fostering and maintaining community resilience. • Preparing for and safely coexisting with wildland fire • Supports healthy forests and rangelands DESIRED OUTCOME - • Reduced Occurrence of Catastrophic Wildfires • Reduction in Loss of Life, Property and Resources. • Overall Resilience to the Effects of Wildland Fires to Communities. 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE FIRE DISTRICT#: City of Roslyn Fire Department FIRE CHIEF: Skye Osiadacz AGENCY: City of Roslyn CONTACT INFORMATION: Skye: Phone 509-674-6274 email roslyntowing@icloud.com Or Chris Martin, Emergency Management Coordinator, 509-699-1163 chm.martin@gmail.com VALUES AT RISK- Residential Areas -Structures; (Example-40 Homes on Johnson Road. 3 Businesses, 4 commercial.) 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0Estimated number of residenti al homes i n your district-580 0Estimated number of commercial buildings, businesses-52 0Locations of areas of most concern -explain (see example above) : 2 The downtown commerclal core including the City center of City Hall/Library and the Fire Departme nt are areas of greatest co ncern . The enti re Cify of Roslyn is a N ational Historic District so we would like p roactive measu res to reduce fire risk to ,the City as a whale. Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No XX Community Safety Area -Potential Evacuation Sites; (Example-Old Circleville Flat, School Field etc.) 0Estimated number of safety areas within district-None. The City of Roslyn would rely on county designated safety areas. Have l ocations been Mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Unknown Community Water System; (Example-Crawford Creek provides water to 40 Homes on Johnson Road) 0Is the r e sufficient water storage capacity to meet domestic and fire suppression needs? Are hydrants, stand pipes or storage tanks located adequately to support suppression operati ons? Yes XX No D Explain : The City of Roslyn w ater system stores over 1,300,000 gallons. We have the ability to set up a raw water fill station 1.2 mile from town Within 4 h ours. Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D Unknown Historic Sites -Sensitive or Unique Areas; (Example-Circleville Cemetery, Johnson Road Grange) • Land features, historical, cultural, habitat, conservation or reserve areas? Yes XX No D The entire City of Roslyn is a National Historic District Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D Unknown Others- 01nfrastructure (Utilities, Communication, Power, Water). Grazing, Ag, Timber, Recreat i on? Yes X No D Description of sites and locations The City of Roslyn's watershed in Domerie Creek and related infrastructure. We are concerned about fire in the watershed and silting . Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No D Unknown 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 3 EMERGEI\ICV ACCESS/ EGRESS ROUTES Safe access to properties by first responders as well as egress by residents is a high priority. •Is there sufficient width on the majority of roads (primary -county or state) within your protection boundary that are able to support two way traffic in an emergency, for safe evacuation of the population served? Yes XX No 0 Explain; SR 903 is able to accommodate evacuation traffic -traffic control may be needed at key intersections . •Estimate -what percentage of secondary roads or driveways in your district that are not access ible to emergency responders and apparatus, for safe access and egress? (Poor condition, locked gates, uncooperative owners) 5 % X 10% o 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% o 5o % + ----------- Descr iption of sites and locations : We have a few alleys that are a challenge but are accessible by small engines. Have locations been mapped? (GIS-Coordinates, legal description?) Yes O No X •Are roadside fuel breaks adequate or maintained? Yes O No X Comments : The City and State DOT could do a better job of clearing brush on road sholders. •In your jurisdiction, are roads well marked and current road signage in good condition? Yes X No 0 Comments; __________________________________ _ •Are street address and home/ business numbers posted and visible from the main access routes? If so, please estimate what percentage are . 5 % 0 10% 0 15%0 20%0 25%0 30%0 35%0 45% X5o % Almost all homes have city provided address numbers. HIGH RISK AREAS - Fire risk is defined as the fuel types and loading in an area combined with factors (i.e. ignition sources, slope, aspect and elevation) Fire history can also be used to establish potential risk. •current Mitigation Strategies/ Measures? Education X Manual Fuels Reduction Projects X Prescribed burn • Grazing • Harvest D Defensible Space • Fire Adapted Community • Building Codes • Home Assessments • 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 4 Roslyn is in the process of thinning our Urban Forest and clearing brush from right of ways. We are also working to educate residents on how to firewise their homes. Have locations been mapped? (GIS -Coordinates, legal description?) Yes D No X 0 Have Fireworks starts been a reoccurring problem/ concern in your jurisdiction? Yes D No X Fireworks are illegal in Roslyn except on New Year's Eve and Winter Solstice. We had one wildfire start last year as a result of kids playing with fireworks. 0 Has there been concerns or issues regarding other types of human caused starts/ fires within your jurisdiction? Debris Burning • Children • Railroad • Equipment D Logging • Recreation D Smoking • Arson/Incendiary • No . 0 Do you have any Fire Wise or Fire Adapted Communities within your jurisdiction? Yes D Number __ No X 0 Has there been or are there plans for any fuel reduction work in your community, utilizing DNR, Conservation Districts, hired contractors etc.? Yes X Number __ No D Explain DNR has conducted firewise activity around town. 0 Describe what you consider to be your highest values at rfsk in your jurisdiction/ ownership for catastrophic wildfire. Historic Downtown Core including City Center. RESPONSE CAPABILITIES- 0 1s your current staffing capability adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Yes X No D Roslyn Fire is generally able to provide initial attack. We have mutual aid agreements with neighboring districts for additional man power. 0 Are your current equipment capabilities adequate in meeting your district responses needs? Challenges? Yes No X Roslyn Fire has a structural engine that needs replacement . Ideally would like a WUI Engine. 0 Are your current PPE and training needs being met? Challenges? Yes D No X We need additional wild/and PPE, SCBA gear for structural protection during ember showers, and training for work in the WUI. 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 0 Response drills, community evacuation and preparedness planning, disaster response and recovery planning? Yes D NoX We are hoping KFAC will assist on this front. 0 Are collaborative relationships and cooperative agreements being maintained/ enhanced? Yes X No D We have Mutual Aid in place with all neighboring districts . What is it that is most important to you, that you would like to see included as a priority in the 2018 Kittitas County CWPP Update? What is your opinion of the wildland fire threat in your community? We would like a 2 mile radius around Roslyn thinned and prescribed burned on a regular schedule. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/ CONCERNS? Thanks for the hard work! PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE TO; Rose Shriner, Kittitas County Conservation District rose-shriner@conservewa.net (509)925-3352 ext 202 OR; WADNR -Attention: Alan Lawson (509) 859- 2641 a/an.lawson@dnr.wa.gov WADNR SE Region Office 713 Bowers Road Ellensburg WA. 98926 2018 KITTITAS CWPP UPDATE -QUESTIONAIRE 5 Appendix C Community Planning Area Risk Ratings (Based on Redmond CWPP) What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Eastern Kittitas County Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 10 0.1 -l. l (moderate) l 0 points I 1.1+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < 1 /3 present 0 points 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total points: 25 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points = Low I 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points = High Ratine:: Moderate Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammables, fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S, SW, SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV 1 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 5 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Total points: 68 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10-40 points= Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 points = Extreme Ratine:: Hie:h HV 1 -produces flame len g th up to 5 feet with very bll.le spottmg, torchmg or crownmg. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. I 3. Protection Capabilities Fire ,.· pan$ rga nl ~ s1ruc,niral r~spqn e < 10 nti1m1 ~n!.1dc lire dilltriot , re~pons >' t·O minutes rnrcuiritl protecti0u, 0nl wild land r:esp ns o [true uralor-wildland , rotecuon mmunlf.y Prepnredne.~ 'O point ·.s p ints I p<;>ints 6 io Eastern Kittitas County 8 • rganized tokeholde r group , c. · nnnun1ty fire plan phone tree. or miLignt1on ffl1 ft 0 pC:lints ·Prfomil agen~y efflltS (ri1ail'inA~ Firewise · o e'ffo11 Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10-16 points= Moderate 17-40 oints = Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1-5 (suburban) 5.1 + urban) 2 points 15 points 30 · ihts omm1;111it:y lnfi,astru tur t>ne n· ptes ·01 MON? tl11Ut · ne Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16-30 points= Moderate 31 -50 oi nt = J-fj h o poims 10 p ints .. O eiat . e to. 2 point 4 Oint Total Rnun Total >Oiul : 10 Moderate 2 20 25 Rntin : Moderate ommunity infraslrucrurc -Power substotions and corridors, transp1>rw 1i n <:or r1dors, municipal watersheds, water storage and di s1rlbu!ion, fuel storage , hei,llh cu facllilics, lundOlls untl Wl\S l l' treaummt , schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Kittitas Valley Upland Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .l (low) 5 points 10 0.1-1.1 (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk-Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 10 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < 1 /3 present 0 points 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points >2/3 present 10 points Total points: 30 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points= Low 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points= High Ratin2: Hi2h Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammables, fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road , camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S,SW,SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet l point 0 -3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV l 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High l O points Total points: 72 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low IO -40 points = Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 points = Extreme Rating: Extreme HV I -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spottmg, torchmg or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. I 3. Protection Capabilities Kittitas Valley Upland 0 p0int fire-pl~ Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points= Moderate 17 -40 oints = Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1 -5 (suburban) 5.1 + urban 2 points 15 points 30 oints Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16-30 points= Moderate 31 -50 ~oints = Hi ft 0 p•oinis • etc. 2 point:1 4 oints 'fQtul )oints: Ratio Total oints: Ratin : Hi h 10 Moderate 30 20 50 Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Manastash -Taneum Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .I (low) 5 points IO 0.1 -1.1 (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < 1/3 present 0 points 10 l /3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total points: 25 Risk category rating: 0-13 points= Low 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points = High Ratin2: Moderate Other factors: power line s or stations, logging , construction , debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammables, fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping . I. Hazards Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points - Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S,SW,SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet I point 0-3500 feet 2 bOlnts Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV l 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 -20 r.ioints Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points IO Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Total POin.ts: 72 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points = Moderate 41 -60 points= High 61 -80 points= Extreme Ratin2: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spottmg, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HY 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. I 3. Protection Capabilities Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points= Moderate 17 -40 ,oints = Hi ,h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1 -5 (suburban) 5 .1 + (urban) 2 points 15 points 30 oints 1,1lues Protected Category Rating: 0-15 points= Low 16 -30 points= Moderate 31 -50 oints = High Manastash -Taneum 8 oint: 10 Ratin Moderate 15 Totnl Joint : 35 Ratin : Hi h Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities , landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Swauk-Liberty Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 20 0.1 -1.1 (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ ,(high) 20 points Ignition Risk-Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 0 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 p0int$ Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < 1 /3 present 0 points 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total points: 30 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points = Low 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points = High R11ttna: Hi2h Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammables , fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson , cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards II Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points I 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 oointS' Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S, SW, SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet I point 0 -3500 feet 2 IJ0tlltS Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV I 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Totnl points: 73 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points = Moderate I 41-60 points= High 61 -80 points= Extreme R11ting: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very httle spottmg, torchmg or crownmg. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. \I I 3. Protection Capabilities Swank -Liberty Fire re.sp _1>nsc 1-goniu;:d -!>tl'I.IC-tutal r.(?Sp ns• < 10 minule In ide lire dhrict, re pons > IO minutes -o s,ruo~ural protection , onl y .wildl 11d r~ pon n Q tructural or:wildland r0le lion mmunit Prcpa-rednes. 0 poiu1s 8 pai.nt, I • p int 6 ·n~· Organized stnkebol er' gi•aup , comm'uniJ.y Or:e plan. phon tree. br niit1gati : n 1iffcm:s 0 pµint A,,crc . 2 points Primaril. agem.:y e'ffmitS mail,irtgs; Pitcwtse . o eflb.its . Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10-16 points= Moderate 17 -40 oi111s = 1-:li h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1 -5 (suburban) 5.1 + (urban 2 points 15 points 30 infs Values Protected Category Rating: 0-15 points= Low 16-30 points= Moderate 31-50 oints =Hi h 4 oints: Ratin Total 1omt : Ratio : 8 8 Low 2 20 22 Moderate Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Teanaway Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0.1 (low) 5 points 20 0.1-1.1 (moderate) 10 points I.I+ (high) 20 paints Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 0 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present - < l /3 present 0 points 10 1 /3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total poin ts: 30 Risk category rating: 0-13 points= Low 13 -27 points= Moderate 27 -40 points = High Rating: High Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction , debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammable s, fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson , cultural activities, railroad, highway s, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. I. Hazards I I Weather Zone3 30 points Topography :-· Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points SJ SW, SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV I 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Total points: 73 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points = Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 points = Extreme Rating: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spotting, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. 3. Protection Capabilities Fir e rt~pon ~c Qrg~nized tnmtu ra:l res p onse <. I , minute O P.Oin t In ide fire dis trict res ponse-> lO ml nu ((l 8 poiots No · structu ral protectl6ri. ou t .TTdl!llld r · ,pon il 1 pain~ · o trilot ural or wiJd llllld rot.ectioll J ti oi nt s- 9mmua i t Pre par edneil Organ i7.e'd stakeho lder g • ~p. co.m mun 'it ti re plan. pl1one 11.ee, o.r n1H1g~tion -fifo Pl'imaril~ agenc. ,rna'ili ngs .1\'ir e is o effort_. Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10-16 points= Moderate 17-40 int s =Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Protected Category Rating : 0 -15 points= Low 16-30 points= Moderate 31-50 oints "' High Teanaway 8 2 _oin t : 10 Rntin Moderate 2 22 RlltilJ : Moderate 1>mmunil y infra tructtu·c -Power sull uuio n:; und corridor . tra11spo1tslion corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution. fuel 10mg hcnUh care fncili tlcs, lnndliJls and\ aste trcmme nt, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Roslyn -Cle Elum Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 10 0.1 -1.1 (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 10 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < 1 /3 present 0 points 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total points: 30 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points = Low 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points = High Ratin2: Hi2h Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use , flammables, fireworks , dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use , target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm , lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S, SW, SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV 1 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 ~ 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Total ooints: 73 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low IO -40 points = Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 points= Extreme Ratin2: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spotting, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning . I 3. Protection Capabilities Roslyn -Cle Elum 0 ~i'iiiuts 8pm iht 'pCrj e l p~fatti 56 .1 ilit ' Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points= Moderate 17 -40 oints = Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1-5 (suburban) 5.1 + urban int pe[i11 10 fl(tftl~ 20 ofou. Rntin Total >oint . : Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16 -30 points = Moderate 31 -50 oints = Hi h (ii 8 Low 30 50 Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores . What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Suncadia -Domerie Flats - Fire occurrence (per I 000 acres per IO years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 10 0.1-1.1 (moderate) 10 points I.I+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk-Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5 .1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < l /3 present 0 points 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present IO points Total poh1L'I: 25 Risk category rating: 0-13 points= Low 13 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 points = High Ratine:: Moderate Other facto rs: ptiwer llnc or s1ui io n~ logging, o ,rwuclio,,, dcbri . bnrning, mining . di por sed or developed camping, off-road veh icle tase, ll om mob lc , Are, rks , di· gras~ mow in g, woodcutting. eq uipm ent us .111.r •et .ho tin ~ rni1ital), truining, or:i' n. cu llu rnl a tiv ilies, railroad. hi ghwoy:., cHunty ur public nccc 8 rood, camp~rcs<>r~stabl s, :;choo l~, busiii~., rnnc:h or fnr,n, li ghtning prone, dump ine,. 1. Hazards l .II Ill Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 5 W,E 3 points S,SW,SE 5 t>Oints Topography• Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 3 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV 1 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 oaints Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 po ints Total points: 71 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low IO -40 points = Moderate I 4 I -60 points = High 61 -80 points = Extreme Ratine:: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spotting, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame length s 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crownin g. HV 3 -produces flame length s ove r 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. 3. Protection Capabilities F11:e rt_ ·poo ~ Orga rJi,ze'd ;strtrcrµral .resp,9_nse < IO 111i1mtes In Ide ire dt triot, res pon e > JO minut es tructu ral p~oteeti on . o n!)' w lldl and r spon·se o stmetural or wild land ro tc'coon om111unit Brc11arcdncss () point 8 point lS poi111 6 ojn f$. Suncadia -Domerie Flats O rgani zed ' stnkeholde~ Ti up , communi t~ fl phone . tree .. ot" n1it iga li on effor · plan , 'PrirnariJ .agenc e'ff.ons 111 iliogs , Fire.wise effbA.S Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points = Moderate 17 -40 oints = .Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 2 points 1 -5 (suburban) 15 points 5.1 + (urban) 30 ooints Co mmwdty ln(i,estructur: 6ne 0 pmini One pre'~fll 10 poin t M~,ie than ())1_e p)·escnr 20 p0ints· Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16 -30 points= Moderate 31 -50 points= High o point e1 2 p0 nt:1 ~ ui nts Tota l 10ints: Ratio Total points: Ratin2: .o 8 Low 30 20 50 Hi2h Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? South Cle Elum Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 10 0.1 -I.I (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ (high) 20 points Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factors Present < l /3 present 0 points IO 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total points: 25 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points= Low 13 -27 points= Moderate 27 -40 points = High Rating: Moderate Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use , flammables , fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping . 1. Hazards Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points I 5 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 points Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 3 W,E 3 points S, SW. SE 5 points Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 2 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 points Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV I 5 points I 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points Independent -High 10 points Total points: 70 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points = Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 points= Extreme Ratin2:: Extreme HV 1 -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spotting, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning . HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning . 3. Protection Capabilities South Cle Elum Ffr r ponse Ortani1e:d cs~ruetu~al respon. e < l'O mioute In de fire disttiet , re p(:)nse > JO minutes · o truct1;1ua l pmtection. o nl wlldJa11d ,·espeos 'LO trllClU£a1 OT~ jfdl11nd tection oo,munity Pnpatcdn~s Organi:r.ed stakeholder r.oup rnmuni1 fire pllln . phM 1ree. er m1tlgatJQn 1:'lforts 'J>rimaril .agency etlfert (rnalll_og_s , ·ir wis 1 No ffon Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low IO -I 6 points = Moderate 17 -40 oints = Hi , 1 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) I -5 (suburban) 5.1 + (urban) 2 points 15 points 30 oints Values Protected Category Rating: 0-15 points= Low 16 -30 points= Moderate 31 -50 oints = Hi h 0 points A etc. p@int 4 01111 Total 1oit:1ts: Ratin : 2 25 15 lW 35 High Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores, What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? Northern Lake Cle Elum - Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0 -0 .1 (low) 5 points 10 0.1-I.I (moderate) 10 points 1.1+ (hi!!.h) 20 points Ignition Risk -Home-Density (homes per 10 acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk-Other Factor IP11 :e nt < 1/3 present 0 p int 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 points Total l)o ints: 25 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points = Low 13 -27 points= Moderate 27 -40 00ints = Hiith Rating: Moderate Other factors: power lines or stations, logging, construction, debris burning, mining, dispersed or developed camping, off-road vehicle use, flammables, fireworks, dry grass mowing, woodcutting, equipment use, target shooting, military training, arson, cultural activities, railroad, highways, county or public access road, camps/resorts/stables, schools , business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards I Weather Zone 3 30 points Topography -Slope - 0-25% 0 points 3 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 pQims Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 8 W,E 3 points S. SW, SE 5 poi nts Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 3 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0-3500 feet 2 pC>ims Vegetation (SB 360 definition) Non-forest 0 points HV I 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 points Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points 10 Active -Moderate 5 points I ndeoendenl -Hicl1 10 points Total noinfs : 74 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points= Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 ooints = Extreme Ratin2: Extreme HV J -produces flame lengths up to 5 feet with very little spotting, torching or crowning. HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame lengths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. I 3. Protection Capabilities Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points= Moderate 17 -40 oints = Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1-5 (suburban) 5.1 + (urban) 2 points 15 points 30 oints Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16-30 points= Moderate 31 -50 oints = Hi h Northern Lake Cle Elum 2 25 Ratio Hie;h 2 22 Ratio : Moderate Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. What is the likelihood of a fire occurring? West Kittitas County Fire occurrence (per 1000 acres per 10 years) 0-0 .1 (low) 5 points 5 0.1 -1.1 (moderate) l O points 1.1+ (hi ~h) 20 points 2.24 Ignition Risk -Home Density (homes per IO acres) 0 -0 .9 (rural) 0 points 0.0 5 1-5 (suburban) 5 points 5.1+ (urban) 10 points Ignition Risk -Other Factor; Pr ~\?nt < 1/3 pre ¢nt 0 p9int 10 1/3 -2/3 present 5 points > 2/3 present 10 poi nts Total noints: 30 Risk category rating: 0 -13 points = Low I 3 -27 points = Moderate 27 -40 Poi nt s = 1-l iah Ratin11:: Hi11:h Olhc1· ractors: power lin e or tarions , -loggi ng, c n truc tion, debris burning, mining, di spersed or deve loped onm 1>ing; off-road vehi ·le 11 S1:, fl 11 rnmable • llr works , dry gra s mowing, wo0dcut1ing !?CJ uipm ent use , targe,t shooti hg, military train ing. ;irson, cu llurul ctivilics, railroad. highw:i county or p ubli c ncces ro :i d, cu mp ~/re:;o rt st I le s, schools, business, ranch or farm, lightning prone, dumping. 1. Hazards Weather Zone 3 20 points Topography -Slope 0-25% 0 points 2 26-40% 3 points 41%+ 5 DOints Topography -Aspect N,NW,NE 0 points 5 W,E 3 points S, SW. SE 5 p(lints Topography -Elevation 5001 feet+ 0 points 3 .11 3501 -5000 feet 1 point 0 -3500 feet 2 ooirus · Vegetation (SB 360 delini11011} II Non-forest 0 points HV 1 5 points 20 HV2 15 points HV3 20 ooints Crown Fire Potential Passive -Low 0 points JO Active -Moderate 5 points r nd e pe nd ent -High 10 po ints Total uoims: 58 Risk category rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -40 points= Moderate 41 -60 points = High 61 -80 oo .int s = Extreme Ra th111:: Hi11:h HV 1 -produces flame length s up to 5 fe et with very little s potting, torching or crowning . HV 2 -produces flame lengths 5-8 feet high with sporadic spotting, torching or crowning. HV 3 -produces flame le ngths over 8 feet with frequent spotting, torching and crowning. 3. Protection Capabilities Fire respon 'e 0 11ganit~d tru lllhil rt~t? .. ti e < IO min\Ut}S ln_sid me di trict , res~c:>n e :> IO minutes o truerura 'I proteorion 1 only wildlan<l respons o nu~tura1 or wJl<lland rorcotion ommuoi\ rrep1nednc~s Q points 8 point 1 points 6 ints West Kittitas County Orga nized takeholcler group. c mmunit . fire plan , phone tree. or mitigatil.'>n effort" I ri m ri'ly gen • etfo n m, !lings, i1'ewis , o effor:t Protection Capability Category Rating: 0 -9 points = Low 10 -16 points = Moderate 17 -40 oints = Hi h 4. Values Protected: Human and economic Homes (density per 10 acres) 0.1 -0.9 (rural) 1-5 (suburban) 5.1 + (urban 2 points 15 points 30 oints Values Protected Category Rating: 0 -15 points= Low 16 -30 points = Moderate 31 -50 oints = High 0 p,Gint.-i 2 , ei . 2 pijirus II ints: 17 Hi h 0.0 2 22 Ratio : Moderate Community infrastructure -Power substations and corridors, transportation corridors, municipal watersheds, water storage and distribution, fuel storage, health care facilities, landfills and waste treatment, schools, churches, community centers, and stores. Appendix D CWPP Local Planning Integration Local Planning Integration During development of this CWPP, several planning and management documents were reviewed in order to avoid conflicting goals and objectives. Existing programs and policies were reviewed in order to identify those that may weaken or enhance the mitigation objectives outlined in this document. The following sections identify and briefly describe some of the existing Kittitas County planning documents and ordinances considered during development of this CWPP. Kittitas County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan As a requirement to receive certain types of federal non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for hazard mitigation projects, Kittitas County and the cities and towns of Ellensburg, Cle Elum, Roslyn, and South Cle Elum are required to develop and maintain an up-to-date local hazard mitigation plan. The jointly developed Kittitas County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazards Mitigation Plan was approved by FEMA in 2011 and contains multiple short and long-term action items that directly or indirectly support the goals and guiding principles of the CWPP. Kittitas Countv Comprehensive Emergency Management Plar1 (CEMPJ The Kittitas County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) provides a framework from which mitigation efforts occur in response to large scale incidents or a combination of incidents in Kittitas County. The CEMP describes functions and activities necessary to implement the four phases of Emergency Management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The plan uses Emergency Support Functions, which identify primary and support agencies responsibilities and activities that County and local jurisdictions may need in order to implement all-hazard mitigation. It provides policies, information, recommendations, and guidance to assist responsible officials making operational decisions. Emergency Support Functions are Transportation; Emergency Communications; Public Works & Engineering; Fire Protection; Information Analysis & Planning; Mass Care; Resource Management; Health & Medical Services; Search & Rescue; Hazardous Materials; Food & Water; Energy & Utilities; Military Support; Recovery & Restoration; Law Enforcement; and Damage Assessment. CEMP updates will include support of initiatives and action items outlined in the Kittitas County CWPP. 2009 Kittitas Countv Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan . The 2009 version of the Kittitas County CWPP was used as the basis for the 2018 CWPP Update. Much of the background information, risk evaluation, and action items were integrated into the Update. However, the updated CWPP incorporates new data, mapping, and analysis tools and uses a more refined framework for the presentation of material. Furthermore, the 2018 CWPP includes a larger cross-section of stakeholders and public input due to the recent efforts of the KFACC. Kittitas County Zoning Ordinance This ordinance does not identify hazard areas in great detail although there are a few zoning districts that prohibit new residences within the floodplain . Critical Areas Ordinance This ordinance identifies protected and hazardous areas. Protected areas are fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, and wetlands . Hazardous areas are frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, mine hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, and volcanic hazard areas . Designated Forestland and Open Space The Designated Forestland and Open Space/Open Space Plans could be affected by some fuel reduction practices . The effects are more beneficial than hazardous if handled appropriately. Designated Forestland requires the sustenance of healthy commercial-grade timber. Fuels reduction has been shown to increase timber health . Open Space/Open Space requires the sustenance of priority resources other than timber. Landowners must ensure that fire-safety practices do not damage priority resources that keep them in a program where they receive a property tax reduction. Kitti tas County Sh oreline Managemen t Shoreline Management outlines allowed/prohibited uses within specific shoreline zoning designations. Non-forestry related mitigation actions would be looked at individually, anticipating that these actions will either be allowed or allowed by permit. Most identified action items would have no effect on the shoreline areas such as road signs , evacuation plan, public education, fire -safe building materials, etc . The shoreline ordinance is currently being revised and will conform to all existing regulations and plans . Upon approval of the Kittitas County All Hazard Mitigation and CWPPs, the revised shoreline plan will acknowledge and support their adoption. Appendix E Communities at Risk Communities at Risk HFI and HFRA define a "community at risk" from wildland fire by the following parameters: • Is a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to federal land • Has conditions conducive to large-scale wildland fire • Faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of a wildland fire As noted, the KFACC CWPP subcommittee approved the existing boundaries of the Communities at Risk to identify these ten Community Planning Area Boundaries at Risk. Table E-1 Community Planning Area Boundaries at Risk Community at Risk Total Acreage Residential Residential Estimated Acreage Structures Population Eastern Kittitas County 145,839 3,336 513 1,295 Kittitas Valley Upland 167,157 11,691 6,767 16,918 Manastash -Taneum 129,867 5,314 1279 3,197 Swauk -Liberty 93,091 6,605 872 2,180 Tean away 40,764 1,717 293 740 Roslyn -Cle Elum 21,371 1,160 1,479 3,698 Domerie Flats 22,734 3,569 1,077 2,692 South Cle Elum 71,133 7,035 2,147 5,367 North Lake Cle Elum 40,320 1,319 1,243 3,107 West Kittitas County 110,629 1,749 1,252 3,130 Total 842,905 43,495 16,922 42,324 Note: The estimated population of each area is based on Kittitas County's estimate formulated as 2.5 x the number of homes. Community Planning Areas Public and Private Ownership (Acres) West Kittitas County North Cle Elum South Cle Elum Domerie Flats Roslyn -Cle Elum Teanaway Swauk -Liberty Manastash -Taneum Kittitas Valley Upland Eastern Kittitas County 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 • Total Community Planning Area (acres) • Public Ownership (acres) • Private Ownership (acres) Eastern Kittitas County Eastern Kittitas County Community Planning Area follows the Lower Parke Creek, Lower Wilson - Cherry, Umtanum Creek-Yakima River, and Alkali-Squilchuck watersheds . The boundary delineates areas where there is a presence of private land. There are two fire districts in this boundary, Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2) and Kittitas County Fire District No. 4 (Vantage). Due to multiple public land ownership (State Parks and Recreation, WDFW, DNR, BLM, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), fire protection in unincorporated areas of fire districts are present. Significant areas of concern of this area include critical fish and wildlife habitat, biological corridors, cultural resources, transportation (Interstate 82/90 and State Route highways), recreation (John Wayne Trail), rangeland and agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands for sheep and cattle), historical structures and utilities. Eastern Kittitas County Land Distribution 0.17% Residential • Transportation • Public Recreation & Trade 4 .62% ~ fD 2 .77% ,. 6 .65% I~, I ~ Ag ricu ltu re • Undeveloped 51'.22% • Open Space Kittitas Valley Upland Kittitas Valley Community Planning Area follows Reecer Creek to the northern Wilson-Cherry portion subwatersheds. The boundary delineates areas of private lands, but does contain areas of the Naneum State Forest (DNR). This area is within one fire district: Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat and biological corridors, egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, and lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents, historical structures, and recreational users. This area is heavily irrigated below the high line canal benefiting rural and urban areas near Ellensburg. Irrigation may be shut off due to water shortages (e.g., during the 2015 drought) and agricultural lands may be more at risk than normal. • Residential • Commercial, Recreation & Trade • Transportation Public · Agriculture • Designated Forest • Undeveloped 1.26% 0.10% 47.12~ fVlanastash -Taneum Manastash -Taneum Community Planning Area follows the Manastash-Taneum subwatershed . The boundary delineates areas of private lands, but does contain significant amount of public land due to the presence of private holdings within the forest boundary. TNC, DNR, WDFW, and private landowners all hold ownership in this community planning area. This area is within two fire districts: Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2) and Kittitas County Fire District No. 1. Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, biological corridors, cultural resources, egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, and lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents, and recreational users. Manastash -Taneum Land Distribution • Residential • Commercial, Services & Recreation • Public • Agriculture Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped • Open Space Swauk Liberty Swauk Liberty Community Planning Area follows the Swauk Creek subwatershed to the Reecer Creek watershed and includes parts of the Yakima River. This area is inclusive of Elk Heights, Thorp, Liberty, Lookout Mountain, Lauderdale Junction, and Highway 10 and Highway 970 Junction. This area contains three Fire Districts, Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7, Kittitas County Fire District No.1, and Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2). With landownership including WDFW, DNR, and USFS Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, there are many areas that are under fire district protection. Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, biological corridors, cultural resources, transportation (major state highway routes), egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents and recreational users, historical structures, and narrow canyons. Many wildfires have occurred in this area (Peavine Canyon, Table Mountain, Snag Canyon, Taylor Bridge, among others) resulting in structure loss, property threatened, and evacuations. • Residential • Commercial, Trade & Services Transportation • Public Agriculture • Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped • Open Space Swauk Liberty Land Distribution 1.70% 0.78% 111 ~,1~~ ~ I 3:1 ;6~% ~ ~- 1.12% Teanaway Teanaway Community Planning Area follows the Teanaway subwatersheds and follows the mainstem Teanaway River. This area is inclusive the Teanaway Valley and Teanaway River's upper forks. This area contains one Fire District: Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7. With landownership including WDFW, DNR, and USFS Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, there are many areas that are under fire district protection . Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors; transportation (borders major state highway routes); egress/ingress; recreational users; agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and leased grazing lands); utilities; lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents, and recreational users; and narrow canyons . Previous mitigation activity from past active land management of this area helped reduce some wildfire risk; however, vegetation conditions and weather are major contributing factors driving risk in this area. • Residential - Single Family • Residential - Vacation & Cabin • Trad e • Public Roslyn -Cle Elum Teanaway Land Distribution 4.84% \..__ 0 .60% 1~ . 0.003% ,., f I I. ,A~ ,, ,~-~-~ Roslyn-Cle Elum Community Planning Area follows the North Cle Elum ridge and private parcels including and surrounding the towns of Roslyn -Cle Elum . This area contains several fire districts: Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No. 6 i n unincorporated Kittitas County and City of Roslyn and City of Cle Elum Fire Departments, respectively in their municipality boundaries. Land ownership is mainly private. Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, transportation (borders interstates and major state highway routes), egress/ingress, recreational users, economy (businesses that rely on tourist economies among some resource industries), Burlington -Northern Santa Fe railroad corridor, utilities, lack of safety zones for firefighters, historical structures, residents, and recreational users . Roslyn -Cle Elum Land Distribution • Residential • Commercial, Trade Services & Recreation • Public • Agriculture Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped 59.7 1% Domerie Flats Domerie Flats Community Planning Area follows the Domerie Flats area between Lake Kachess and Lake Cle Elum between Roslyn and Cle Elum city boundaries. This community planning area includes mostly private parcels and some USFS ownership. The private parcels are inclusive of recreational and seasonal use closely tied to the Suncadia and Tumble Creek master planned resorts with golf courses, trail systems, eating and drinking, and lodging surrounding this area. Domerie Flats is within Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 boundaries. Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and biological corridors, transportation (borders interstates and major state highway routes), egress/ingress, recreational users, economy (businesses that rely on tourist economies among some resource industries), utilities, historical structures, residents, recreational users, and the Roslyn Watershed -Drinking Water boundary. • Residential • Transportation • Public • Recreation Agriculture • Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped • Open Space South Cle Elum Domerie Flats Land Distribution 0.38 % South Cle Elum Community Planning area extends from the South Cle Elum Ridge from Easton to the southern portion of Elk Heights Interstate 90 exit. This area contains many new residential developments since 2009 and is expanding rapidly. Most development in this area consists of secondary/vacation homeowners. There are two fire districts present in this area: Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No. 3 (Easton). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, transportation (borders interstates), egress/ingress, recreational users, utilities, communication infrastructure, railroad corridors, residents and recreational users, irrigation infrastructure, and tourism and recreational economy. South Cle Elum Land Distribution • Residential • Commercial, Trade Services and Recreation Public Ag ri culture , Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped • Open Space 043% 10.21% 694%_!,/ 0.77% ' ~~~% I ~7.-" North Lake Cle Elum North Lake Cle Elum extends from the Northern portion of Cooper and Fish Lakes, since there is significant recreational cabin use along the Cle Elum River, along Lake Cle Elum to the Ronald Area. This area contains many new residential developments since 2009 and is expanding rapidly, but also includes areas that have been developed since the late 1960s. Most roads in this area do not meet adequate egress/ingress or current public road standards. Most development in this area consists of secondary/vacation homeowners There are two fire districts present in this area: Kittitas Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No. 6 (Ronald). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, egress/ingress, communication infrastructure, residents and recreational users, tourism, and recreational economy. The Northern part of Lake Cle Elum was exposed to wildfire in 2017; however, the communities were fortunate enough that no structures were lost to the Jolly Mountain Wildfire. The Jolly Mountain wildfire exposed a lot of risk that had not been visualized by many stakeholders and landowners. Previous mitigation activity from private landowners and prior mechanical thinning on TNC property helped improve the outcome of this wildfire by mitigating fuels and active land management. North Cle Elum Land Distribution " Res idential • Commercial Public • Agriculture Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped 11 Open Spac e 0 .10% West Kittitas County 2.93 % 0.08% 3.29% / 4 .56% -.1 ,, ' I :;!4.22% ~~ West Kittitas County extends from the western-most border of Kittitas County to approximately Easton, including Hyak, Lake Kachess, and some of Easton. This area contains many new residential developments since 2009 and is expanding rapidly. Most development in this area consists of secondary/vacation homeowners and condominiums for ski areas near Snoqualmie Pass. There are two fire districts present in this area: Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue (No. 51) and Kittitas County Fire District No. 3 (Easton). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, transportation (borders interstates), egress/ingress, recreational users, utilities, communication infrastructure, railroad corridors, residents and recreational users, and tourism and recreational economy. If this area experiences wildfire, it is most likely that major transportation corridors will be disrupted, resulting in significant economic loss and posing a threat to safety since wildfire smoke would heavily impede traffic. West Kittitas County Land Distribution 1.65 % 1.84% OSS% ,,,i .. 031% • Residential • Trade & Recreational • Transportation Public Designated Forest Land • Undeveloped • Open Space m m ' . . I \ M ~.,,