Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
KittitasCountyCWPP_September2022_Amendment-combined
© Cheryl Barth Photography 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 reducing those risks. Jay Wiseman, Fire Chief Date Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue George Geissler, Washington State Forester Date Washington State Department of Natural Resources Laura Osiadacz, Chair Date Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Mitch Long, Chair Date Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition 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 reducing those risks. Jay Wiseman, Fire Chief Date Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue George Geissler, Washington State Forester Date Washington State Department of Natural Resources Laura Osiadacz, Chair Date Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Mitch Long, Chair Date Amendment of The Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Recent wildland fires, mitigation and planning efforts have impacted the landscape and neighborhoods. Planning efforts led by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources have changed the priorities outlined in the previous documents and are reflected in the amended Section 4 to better reflect the best available science products after the finalization of the CWPP in October 2018. 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 reducing those risks. , Fire Chief Date Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue George Geissler, Washington State Forester Date Washington State Department of Natural Resources Laura Osiadacz, Chair Date Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Brandon Schmidt, Chair Date Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan i September 2018 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 Integration............................................................... 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 Wildland Urban Interface .............................................................................................................................. 20 3.6.1 History of Wildland Urban Interface Code in Kittitas County ......................................... 20 3.6.2 Wildland Urban Interface Risk in the West ............................................................................. 21 3.6.3 Wildland 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 ............................................................................. 30 4.2 Risk Assessment Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................................. 32 4.2.1 Landscape Risk Assessments ....................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Wildfire Simulation and Mapping .............................................................................................. 33 4.2.3 Combining Landscape Risk and Model Simulation ............................................................. 34 Community Wildfire Protection Plan ii September 2018 4.2.4 Improve Risk Assessment Information ..................................................................................... 36 4.2.5 Risk Assessment Summary............................................................................................................ 37 5 Taking the Cohesive Strategy Approach .......................................................................... 38 5.1 Vision Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 38 5.2 Goals ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.3 Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes in Kittitas County ............................................ 40 5.3.1 Ecology/Ecosystem-Based Fire Management ....................................................................... 40 5.4 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative ................................................................................................ 40 5.5 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments ................................................................................. 43 5.5.1 Past Private Land Accomplishments and Challenges ......................................................... 43 5.5.2 Kittitas County Conservation District ........................................................................................ 43 5.5.3 Washington Department of Natural Resources ................................................................... 43 5.5.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................................................. 44 5.5.5 Manastash Taneum Resilient Land Restoration Project .................................................... 44 5.5.6 U.S. Forest Service ............................................................................................................................ 45 6 Promoting a Fire Adapted Kittitas County ....................................................................... 50 6.1 Fire Adapted Communities in Kittitas County ....................................................................................... 50 6.2 Firewise USA Recognized Communities .................................................................................................. 51 6.3 Increasing Wildfire Response throughout Kittitas County ............................................................... 53 6.4 Emergency Preparedness/Evacuation ...................................................................................................... 53 6.5 Ready, Set, Go! Program................................................................................................................................ 54 6.6 Limited English Speaker Communication Plan ..................................................................................... 55 6.7 Pre-Suppression Plans – Preparing Communities Before the Incident ....................................... 55 6.8 Post Fire Impacts and Response ................................................................................................................. 56 6.9 Long Term Recovery ....................................................................................................................................... 56 7 Putting the Community Wildfire Protection Plan into Action .................................... 58 7.1 Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 58 7.1.1 Residents and Homeowners ........................................................................................................ 58 7.1.2 Fire and Emergency Responders ................................................................................................ 58 7.1.3 Civic and Community Leaders ..................................................................................................... 58 7.1.4 Forest and Land Managers ........................................................................................................... 59 7.2 Strategic Action Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 63 7.2.1 Ready Action Plan ............................................................................................................................ 66 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of CWPP ........................................................................................................ 76 Community Wildfire Protection Plan iii September 2018 8 References ................................................................................................................................. 77 TABLES Table 1 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Area Fire Coverage ......................................................... 21 Table 2 Kittitas County Recent Fire History ................................................................................................... 24 Table 3 Fuels Reduction Projects ....................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4 State and The Nature Conservancy Fuels Reduction Projects ............................................. 45 Table 5 Federal (USFS) Projects .......................................................................................................................... 47 Table 6 Firewise USA Recognized Communities in Kittitas County ................................................... 51 Table 7 Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction Roles .............................................. 60 Table 8 Strategic Action Plan ............................................................................................................................... 64 Table 9 Ready Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 67 FIGURES Figure 1 Land Ownership Map ............................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2 Kittitas County Demographic Information .................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 Vegetation Cover Map ........................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4 Vegetation Type Map ............................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Areas Map .......................................................................... 23 Figure 6 Wildfire History and Ownership ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7 Median Historic Regime Fire Interval .............................................................................................. 31 APPENDICES Appendix A Maps Appendix B Fire District and Department CWPP Survey Appendix C Community Planning Area Risk Ratings (Based on Redmond CWPP) Appendix D CWPP Local Planning Integration Appendix E Communities at Risk Community Wildfire Protection Plan iv September 2018 ABBREVIATIONS BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Cohesive Strategy National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy CWPP Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DNR LOA DNR Landowner Assistance Program FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FLAME Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement HFI Healthy Forests Initiative HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act HIZ Home Ignition Zone HOA homeowner association HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IWUIC International Wildland Urban Interface Code KCCD Kittitas County Conservation District KFACC Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition MTRL-RP Manastash Taneum Resilient Land – Restoration Project NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PNRA Pacific Northwest Region Wildfire Risk Assessment PNRS Pacific Northwest Research Station RAWS Remote Automated Weather Stations TNC The Nature Conservancy USFS U.S. Forest Service WAFAC Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WUI Wildland Urban Interface Community Wildfire Protection Plan 1 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 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.us/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtml. 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 improve resiliency to wildfire. Teanaway River Fire, 2017; Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2 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 wildland 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 Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of forest ecosystems across the country. Central Washington is no exception. Historically, wildland fires have shaped the forests valued by residents and visitors. Forests and other wildlands 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 wildland 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 wildlands 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. 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 3 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. Fuels Reduction Crew, 2017; Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 4 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 Wildland 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: Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 5 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. 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 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 6 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 wildland 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 7 September 2018 Although reducing the risk of high intensity wildland fire is the primary motivation behind this plan, managing the wildlands for hazardous fuels reduction and fire resilience is only one part of the larger picture. Residents and visitors desire healthy, fire-resilient wildlands 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 Wildland-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 8 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 Wildland 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 9 September 2018 3 Kittitas County Local Environment 3.1.1 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). Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 10 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 11 September 2018 Figure 1 Land Ownership Map Community Wildfire Protection Plan 12 September 2018 Figure 2 Kittitas County Demographic Information Source: WA OFM 2017 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 13 September 2018 3.2.1 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 14 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). © The Nature Conservancy| John Marshall Community Wildfire Protection Plan 15 September 2018 3.5 Vegetation 3.5.1 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 16 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. Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 17 September 2018 Figure 3 Vegetation Cover Map Community Wildfire Protection Plan 18 September 2018 Figure 4 Vegetation Type Map Community Wildfire Protection Plan 19 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 55ºF to 65ºF 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. Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 20 September 2018 3.6 Wildland Urban Interface 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 wildland 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. 3.6.1 History of Wildland Urban Interface Code in Kittitas County Kittitas County adopted the International Wildland 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 wildland 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 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 21 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 Wildland 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 Fire & 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 22 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 23 September 2018 Figure 5 Wildland Urban Interface Planning Areas Map Community Wildfire Protection Plan 24 September 2018 4 Wildfire in Kittitas County 4.1.1 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 25 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 I-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: Fires 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 26 September 2018 Figure 6 Wildfire History and Ownership Community Wildfire Protection Plan 27 September 2018 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 28 September 2018 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 29 September 2018 Amendment to the 2018 CWPP 1.Since 2018, planning efforts led by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) have been leading efforts across Washington State to establish current conditions, prioritize and collaborate on restoring forest conditions to historic disturbance levels and reduce risk to communities. In Kittitas County, four watersheds (Manastash-Taneum, Cle Elum, Teanaway and Upper Swauk) have been prioritized statewide as “high” or “medium” for forest restoration and wildfire risk reduction by the WADNR. These watersheds have had Landscape Evaluations produced and agreed upon as a collective and collaborative approach across all land ownerships to take action to restore forest conditions and reduce future wildfire intensity and damages to communities. From 2019-2020, WA DNR has also led the effort to establish Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) and Potential Control Delineations (PCLs). Both PODs and PCLs have been vetted and discussed at the county level with consensus from Kittitas County Fire Chief’s Association, Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition and others. PCLs have been prioritized in Cle Elum, Upper Swauk and other watersheds, to better implement fuels reduction and wildfire mitigation efforts in a strategic and efficient manner. Many members of the firefighter community and Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition participated in HB 1784 statewide technical committee which provided feedback on WADNR products, adjustment of geospatial information based on institutional knowledge. PCLs in Upper Kittitas County provide focal areas for prioritizing and implementing fuels reduction and forest restoration work, but also provide dual benefit of improving evacuation routes. In an effort to update and collaborate across land ownerships, agencies and municipalities, an online map has been developed that is updated as needed to reflect current and past implementation of projects, POD and PCL delineations and other geospatial information as needed. For purposes of this amendment, static maps have been created to display evacuation routes, PODs and PCLs in addition to landscape evaluations produced by WADNR. 1.Summary of Amendment (Page 29) 2.Landscape Evaluations 3.Static Maps of Evacuation Routes, PODs and PCLs (online map available) 20 Year Plan Landscape Goals Overarching: Improve safety and fire protection for people and homes. Increase resilience to drought and wildfire by creating open canopy forest with resistant tree species and a large tree component. Maintain large tree, dense forest in the least fire and drought prone areas to sustain dense forest dependent wildlife species. Reduce wildfire risk: Fire risk is high to very high along most of the northern and southern ridges that encompass the valley (Fig. 1). As fires are most likely to come from the north, the highest priority treatments are on the lower to upper slopes of Cle Elum ridge (northern ridge), and along the lower to mid slopes of the southern ridge. In the central part of the valley, the agricultural lands and extensive floodplain forests along the Yakima river provide a natural fire break. Treatments to reduce fire risk are low priority along the north facing, upper slopes of the southern ridge, where dense forest is sustainable. Some areas are predicted to burn as low-intensity ground fires, which will have beneficial effects by consuming fuels. Most of these areas are recently treated areas on DNR and private land. Prepare for climate change: Projected warming will increase moisture stress and thus probability of wildfire and insect outbreaks. By mid-century, 45% of the planning area is projected to have moisture stress levels currently associated with woodland and shrub-steppe (Fig. 2). Treatments to aggressively reduce density and shift to drought- tolerant species on currently high, and future ex- treme, deficit areas will help maintain forest cover on sites for as long as possible. Sustain wildlife habitat: Large patches of white headed wood pecker habitat exist on the south facing slopes of Cle Elum Ridge and in the far eas tern portion the planning area. Treatments on dry sites will increase this habitat if prescriptions incorporate habitat considerations. Ha bitat for moderate to closed canopy dependent species exists on north facing slopes of the southern ridge and in the northwest corner. Treatments are not recommended in most of this area. Fires that burn at characteristic severity in all forest types can benef it habitat by creating snags and stimulating higher understory plant abundance and diversity. Enhance rural economic development: Reducing fire risk will help maintain recreational opportunities and associated economic activity. Commercial treatments are possible on many of the recommended acres. However, the small size of many parcels, the high number of vacation homes, and limited roa d access on Forest Service land make commercial treatments difficult in many areas. Non -commercial treatments will require major investments and will provide a major source of work for local contractors. Warming trends will make it increasingly difficult to sustain long term timber production in the eastern and northern portions of the planning area. Landscape Highlights The Cle Elum planning area combines high fire risk along the northern and southern ridges with extensive development in the valley and foothills. Ownership of forestland is dominated by small private landowners (56%), along with Forest Service (19%), the N ature Conservancy (14%), and the DNR (8%). Based on current conditions data from 2017, treating an estimated 15,500 - 23,000 acres of dense forest is recommended to reduce fire risk to communities and move the move the landscape into a resilient condi- tion. Community wildfire preparedness efforts are currently scaling up to address the large need to treat parcels with homes . Creating additional defensible space on Nature Conservancy, USFS, and undeveloped private land near communities is also a priority. Ma inte- nance treatments on existing open forest are needed on 2,500 -5,500 acres. In sum, treating 27-43% of the forested acres is recom- mended. This planning area will be expanded to include the Cle Elum Lake watershed in the 2020 planning cycle. Cle Elum Planning Area Landscape Evaluation Summary Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) 89,479 66,811 18,000 - 28,500 Definitions (see Appendix for data sources and methods): Dry: Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated forests that historically supported ground fires every 5-25 years. Moist: forests that historically had mixed severity fires and were dominated by fire resistant species on sites with more frequent fire (~30 -80 years) and fire intolerant species such as grand fir on sites with less fire. Cold: Upper elevation mixed conifer forests with high severity fires every 80-200+ years. Woodland/Steppe: Grass and shrublands that may have oak woodlands or up to 10% cover of conifer trees. Size classes: Large: overstory diameter (OD) > 20”; Medium: OD 10-20”; Small: OD <10”. Canopy cover classes: Open: <40%; Dense: >40%. Fuels: shrubs, grasses, small trees, duff, & dead woody material. Current Years 1981-2010 Future Years 2041-2070 Figure 1. Wildfire risk to homes, infrastructure & forests. Figure 2. Current and future moisture deficit levels. Moisture deficit is a measure of water stress faced by plants. Risk is a combination of fire probability, fire intensity, and susceptibility to fire. Overall treatment needs: Treating an estimated 15,500 to 23,000 acres of dense forest is recommended (Table 1). A combi- nation of treatments will be needed to accomplish this goal, and may include commercial and non -commercial thinning, prescribed fire, regeneration harvests, and mechanical fuel reduction. Based on tree size class, many of the acres are commercially viab le. However, road access, logging systems, habitat requirements, aquatic impacts, timber markets, and other considerations will d eter- mine treatment type. Maintenance treatments on 2,500-6,000 acres are also recommended. Individual landowners (Fig. 5) will con- duct their own field assessments, planning, and decision making processes to determine acres and types of treatments they can carry out to achieve the overall landscape goals while meeting their own management objectives and regulatory requirements. Figure 5. Land Ownership Large-Medium Dense Medium Open Small Dense Treatment Needs: Cle Elum Planning Area Pre-treatment forest structure types Post-treatment forest structure types Large Open Open forest with small trees growing in Open forest after maintenance treatment Figure 4. Current & post treat- ment percent of forest types. * mid-point of treatment range (Treatment type) Dry forest: Treating 8,000 - 11,000 acres of dense, dry forest acres (Table 1, Fig. 3) is recommended to flip the dry portion of the landscape from being dominated by dense conditions to open forest (Fig. 4. Extensive firewise treatments on parcels with homes are the highest priority. On public and private forestland without homes, creating larger patches of open canopy, fire resistant forest will reduce the current fragmentation of the dry for- est area and facilitate fire protection for communities. The priority treatments are on the north and south slopes of the valley to create defensible space zones. Moist and Cold forest: Treating 7,500-12,000 acres of dense, moist and cold forest is recommended to break up large patches of dense, multistory forest. This will reduce risk of a large crown fire and help current moist forests adapt to a warming climate. Shifting species composition toward ponderosa pine and wester larch is also recommended to increase fire, insect, and drought resistance. Treatments in large, medium and small diameter forest are needed. Post treatment, more than 1/2 of moist and cold forest will still be in a dense condition, leaving sufficient buffer for when characteristic fires burn dense forest habitat. Figure 3. Potential Treatment Areas. Total area of target structure classes is shown. Only a portion needs to be treated. See Table 1. Maintenance treatments: A portion of existing open forests on dry sites need prescribed fire or mechanical methods to maintain open conditions by reducing ground fuels and excessive small trees that have grown in. An estimated 2,500 - 5,500 acres of treatments is currently recommended. Many of these areas have been recently treated, but will fill in over the next 10-15 years. Table 1. Forest Health Treatment Need Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Summary Addendum (2020) | Page 1 Figure 2. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. It is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Figure 1. Landscape treatment priority is based on three metrics of forest health – forest fire risk, drought vulnerability, overabundant forest structure – as well as wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 2). Update from 2018 Landscape Evaluation This summary updates the landscape evaluation completed in 2018 to incorporate landscape treatment priority and wild- fire response benefit priority. This planning area was part of the WA HB 1784 pilot project to incorporate prioritization for dual benefits (forest health and wildfire response benefit) into the Forest Health Assessment and Treatment Framework. Landscape Treatment Prioritization Prioritizing for forest health & to reduce fire exposure of homes Landscape treatment priority integrates three metrics of for- est health – fire risk, drought vulnerability, and presence of overabundant forest structure types – with wildfire transmis- sion to homes. To ensure that habitat for closed canopy de- pendent wildlife is incorporated into the prioritization, we recommend overlaying the large dense forest sustainability layer when selecting treatment locations. Wildfire transmis- sion is highest in the northern and eastern portions of the planning area (Fig. 2), indicating that wildfires starting in these locations are expected to expose homes in Cle Elum and Thorp. Treatment priorities Landscape treatment priority is highest in the west- central portion, south of South Cle Elum Ridge (Fig. 1). Some moderate and low priority areas may need treat- ment to address species composition, insect and dis- ease risk, or other issues. The eastern part of the planning area is sparsely forested but contains private land, agriculture, and homes in the wildland-urban in- terface. Fuel reduction treatments, defensible space, and home hardening are needed on private parcels to protect homes in Thorp and along the Interstate 90 corridor (Fig. 1). MANASTASH-TANEUM PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2020) Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Summary Addendum (2020) | Page 2 Definitions (continued) Wildfire response benefit: Any tactical advantage gained for wildfire response activities from actions on the landscape, including identifying and consoli- dating existing anchor points and control lines and reducing potential fire behavior. Wildfire response benefit is not restricted to any specific fire manage- ment strategy; it is centered on conditions that im- prove fire operations safety and efficacy during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire. Potential Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of Po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.g. roads, ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) for wildland fire: Landscape containers whose bound- aries are potential control lines (PCLs). PODs are useful for planning strategic response to unplanned ignitions, strategic fuel planning, and prioritizing fuel treatments within PODs. Commercially managed lands: Commercially managed forestlands include: DNR Trustlands, tribal forests, industrial forests, non-industrial pri- vate forests, and US Forest Service forests where timber is a primary management objective. Figure 3. Wildfire response benefit (WRB) integrates multiple fire risk and forest health components. It includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources – risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands – as well as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 2). Combined, these account for 75% of the wildfire re- sponse benefit. Landscape treatment priority (Fig. 1) accounts for the remaining 25%. Also shown are PODs: units bounded by PCLs (open black lines). One use of the WRB metric is to prioritize Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 4). Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response It is necessary to conduct treatments to both improve for- est health and reduce fire risk to communities as well as provide conditions where firefighters can safely and effi- ciently conduct fire operations (e.g. suppression, pre- scribed burning, and managed wildfire). The wildfire response benefit metric (WRB; Fig. 3) identifies and prior- itizes locations where values at risk that are more likely to be the focus of fire operations (homes, infrastructure, sources of drinking water, and commercially managed lands) coincide with areas likely to transmit wildfire to homes and generate severe fire behavior. Because there are positive feedbacks between healthy, resilient forests and safe, effective fire operations, the WRB metric also integrates the landscape treatment priority map (Fig. 1). Where WRB is highest, actions may be needed to create and maintain conditions that provide a tactical advantage for fire operations. These actions will vary with the local context and can include landscape-level forest health and fuel treatments, treatments along escape routes, resident and community fire mitigation activities (e.g. defensible space, home hardening), and improving signage and road conditions. The WRB metric provides a high-level prioriti- zation, and additional work at the local level will be re- quired to identify appropriate actions and assess their feasibility. WRB is useful for prioritizing Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 4). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 3. In the Manastash-Taneum planning area, wildfire re- sponse benefit is highest in the southeastern end of the planning area where there is risk to homes (Thorp) and infrastructure (Interstate 90). Wildfire response benefit is also high in the central portion on parcels of commercially managed lands, and it is relatively lower in the western portion of the planning area. Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Summary Addendum (2020) | Page 3 Figure 4. Landscape prioritization of dual benefits using PODs as a spatial framework to summarize treatment priorities. Both maps display landscape treatment priority within PODs and wildfire response benefit within PCLs. The map on the left shows the datasets at the raster level, while the map on the right shows the same information summarized and ranked within PODs and PCLs. Gray within planning area denotes locations without substantial forest cover. PCL width is inflated to display spatial patterns. PODs shown here are part of an ongoing process towards an all-lands delineation; POD boundaries are sub- ject to change following on-the-ground vetting and continued dialogue among wildfire agencies and stakeholders. LEARN MORE CONTACT This landscape evaluation was updated in 2020. Amy Ramsey More details about DNR’s priority planning areas are Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator available on the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan website: 360-902-1694 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ForestHealthPlan amy.ramsey@dnr.wa.gov Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits Integration of forest health and wildfire response benefit using PODs Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) provide a pow- erful spatial framework to communicate and identify lo- cations that will deliver dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response at the landscape scale. PODs are large landscape areas delimited by Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (suppression, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire) delineated by fire operations per- sonnel. PCLs can be roads, ridgelines, or any artificial or natural fuelbreak that provides a strategic opportunity for fire operations. Summarizing landscape treatment priori- ties (Fig. 1) within PODs and wildfire response benefit pri- orities (Fig. 3) within PCLs enables planners and managers to identify, at a high level, locations where forest health or fuels treatments can be connected to a high-priority PCL that will support firefighter operations (e.g. ingress/egress route or opportunity for engagement). There is important work to do in all Manastash-Taneum PODs. First priority PODs follow spatial patterns of forest health treatment needs and occur predominantly in the western part of the planning area (Fig. 4; Taneum Ridge). PODs and PCLs in this planning area typically similar pri- ority rankings. One notable exception is a first priority PCL on the west side of the planning area adjacent to South Cle Elum Ridge. Further work is needed to assess PCLs lo- cally for their condition and detailed treatment needs, which will depend on management goals and values at risk. Ideally, landscape treatments will be implemented adjacent to priority PCLs where feasible to maximize both forest health and wildfire response goals. Achieving dual benefits will require primarily large, land- scape-level treatments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser extent, targeted treatments along PCLs. These two approaches combined will contribute to restoring and maintaining large portions of the landscape in a resilient condition while providing safe and effective areas for firefighter engagement during suppression, pre- scribed fire, or managed wildfire operations. Achieving forest health and wildfire response goals will require primarily large, landscape-level treat- ments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser extent, targeted treatments along PCLs. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 1 Above: Figure 1. Planning area location. Right: Figure 2. Planning area geography and fire risk to forests, homes, and infrastructure. LEARN MORE CONTACT This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. Amy Ramsey More details about DNR’s priority planning areas are Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ForestHealthPlan 360-902-1694 Data products are available at: https://bit.ly/ForestHealthData amy.ramsey@dnr.wa.gov Planning Area Highlights This planning area is 87% public land, split between the DNR Teanaway Community Forest (39%) in the center and US Forest Service land (48%) to the north and east. The majority of USFS land is designated as inventoried roadless area and Late Successional Reserve. Fire risk is highest in the eastern portion of the planning area, representing some of the highest risk areas in eastern WA (Fig. 2). The north side of Cle Elum Ridge and private land along Highway 970 and Teanaway road are also high risk. Projected warming over the next 20-40 years will likely shift climate conditions suitable for moist and cold forest towards conditions suitable for dry forest. The southeastern portion may no longer support forest. Treating 34-54% of forested acres is recommended to increase resilience and reduce fire risk to communities using a combination of mechanical, prescribe fire, and managed wildfire treatments. High priority areas for potential treatments that maximize forest health and wildfire response benefit include the Teanaway Community Forest and the southern boundary of the planning area. Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) 132,120 111,696 38,500 - 60,000 TEANAWAY PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2020) Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 2 Figure 3. Current (left) and future (right) moisture stress levels based on water balance deficit. Low levels are associated with moist and cold forest types, high with dry forest types, and very high with woodland or shrub-steppe. Future climate is based on a business as usual greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). Overarching Goals Reduce wildfire risk and protect communities Fire risk is high to extreme throughout the eastern, north- ern, and southern portions of the planning area due to high fuel loads and burn probability (Fig. 2). The eastern portion represents some of the highest fire risk in eastern WA. High risk areas on the southern edge are adjacent to the Cle Elum planning area and include private property. Fuels treatments are needed to break up the large patches of dense forest to reduce the likelihood of large crown fire and to facilitate protection of private property along Highway 970 and Teanaway Road. In much of the central portion and within the 2017 Jolly Mountain Fire perimeter, fire is predicted to have low risk or beneficial effects due to reduced fuels and lower burn probability from exten- sive harvesting and fire effects. Increase resilience and prepare for climate change By mid-century, the majority of the planning area is pro- jected to have moisture stress levels that are currently as- sociated with dry forest (Fig. 3). Substantial area in the southern end is projected to shift to non-forest over time. Moderate and low moisture stress levels are projected to remain on north-facing slopes and valley bottoms, pri- marily in the northern half. Treatments, as well as man- aged wildfires in roadless and other inaccessible areas, that reduce density and favor drought-tolerant species will support forest persistence into the future. Sustain wildlife habitat Habitat for dry forest, large tree, open canopy species (e.g. White Headed Woodpecker) is well represented in the planning area, although it is concentrated in large patches in the east and south. Habitat for species that depend on moist, closed canopy forest with large trees (e.g. Northern Spotted Owl) is in the middle or upper end of desired ranges, though it is overly abundant in eastern and central portions. In high fire risk locations, reducing tree density and canopy cover will reduce crown fire potential and drought vulnerability, help maintain habitat in the most sustainable locations (Fig. 7), and broaden the spatial dis- tribution of open canopy habitat. Habitat for cold forest, large-tree, closed canopy species (e.g. American Marten) is well represented but concentrated in large patches along the central part of the northern edge. Enhance rural economic development Most of the higher priority areas for commercial treat- ments have road access and will produce significant tim- ber volume. Extensive harvesting by past owners in the Teanaway Community Forest has reduced wood produc- tion potential for the next 2-3 decades. Although warming trends and high burn probability will necessitate manag- ing for lower densities and fuel loads, long-term timber production will likely be possible in much of the commu- nity forest and adjacent USFS land. Reducing fire risk will help sustain recreation and tourism while reducing the potential of smoke affecting nearby communities. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 3 Left: Figure 4. Forest structure types that are overabundant relative to targets for a resilient landscape , as well as potential maintenance treatments. Only a portion of the areas shown need to be treated. Right: Figure 5. Current land ownership. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs (range represents low and high end of treatment need). Forest Health Treatment Needs Treating 38,500 to 60,000 acres is recommended to move the landscape into a resilient condition (34-54% of forested acres; Table 1). This total includes an estimated 27,500-43,000 acres to shift dense to open forest and 11,000-17,000 acres of maintenance treatments in exist- ing open forest, based on current condition data from 2017 aerial photos. Most of the treatment need is located within the Teanaway Community Forest and USFS land, although substantial need exists on private land in the southern tip. Meeting this target range will require multiple treatment strategies (Table 1). Managed wildfire under safe condi- tions will be needed, especially in the large roadless area in the northern third and for maintenance treatments over time. Based on tree size class, many areas are commer- cially viable, although treatment type will depend on road access, logging systems, and other considerations. Indi- vidual landowners will conduct their own planning and decision-making processes to determine acres and types of treatments to achieve the landscape goals while meet- ing their own objectives and regulatory requirements. Forest conditions to treat Treatment need (acres) Current acres by major landowner* Type Size class USFS DNR-Community Private TNC Dry Dense Small 1,500 - 3,000 56 4,034 108 236 Medium-Large 23,000 - 32,000 11,129 21,344 5,713 498 Moist + Cold Dense Medium-Large 3,000 - 8,000 19,627 6,684 345 480 Dry + Moist Open Medium-Large 11,000 - 17,000 11,992 10,333 1,238 530 Total 38,500 - 60,000 *These are current acres, not targets Anticipated treatment type Noncommercial thin plus fuels treatment. May be fire only (prescribed or managed wildfire). Commercial thin plus fuels treatment if access exists. May be noncommercial, fire only (pre- scribed or managed wildfire), or regeneration treatment. Maintenance treatment: prescribed fire, managed wildfire, or mechanical fuels treatment. Target range corresponds to 50-75% of dry open and 25-50% of moist open forests. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 4 Left: Figure 6. Current and post-treatment proportions of forest types and structure classes. * mid-point of range in Table 1. Right: Figure 7. Sustainability of current and potential large tree, dense forest based on fire risk and drought vulnerabilit y. Forest Health Treatment Needs (continued) Dry dense forest treatment need Currently, dense, multistory forest structure is over-repre- sented on dry sites, especially sites dominated by Doug- las-fir. The large, contiguous patches of this forest type create high susceptibility to defoliating insects and crown fire. Treating 24,500-35,000 acres of this type (Table 1) is recommended to create large patches (~100-1000 ac) of open forest with a component of large trees (Fig. 4), flip- ping the majority of dry sites from closed to open forest (Fig. 6). Shifting composition toward ponderosa pine and reducing grand fir and Douglas-fir is also recommended. Moist and cold dense forest treatment need Dense, multistory forest on moist and cold sites exceeds or is at the upper end of desired ranges across the plan- ning area. In contrast, open canopy forest with medium to large trees, as well as open forest with small trees and shrubs, are at the low end of desired ranges, except where the Jolly Mountain Fire burned. Treating 3,000-8,000 acres of this forest type (Table 1, Fig. 4) is recommended to cre- ate a mosaic of open and dense forest that will reduce risks of large crown fire and insect outbreaks. A range of treatment types will be needed, including thinning, regen- eration treatments, and managed wildfire. Increasing the relative composition of ponderosa pine and western larch is also needed to help these sites adapt to a warming cli- mate. Following treatments, over 60% of the total moist and cold forest area would remain dense (Fig. 6) to meet habitat, wood production, and other objectives. Open forest maintenance treatment need Over the next 15 years, an estimated 11,000-17,000 acres of currently open forests on dry and moist sites will need prescribed fire, managed wildfire, or mechanical methods to maintain open conditions by reducing surface fuels and small trees. These sites include mechanically treated areas that may or may not have received fuel treatments, as well as parts of the Jolly Mountain Fire where additional fuel reduction is needed. Specific maintenance strategies de- pend on landowner objectives and time since treatment. Sustainable locations for dense forest with large trees Locations with low to moderate current and future mois- ture deficits (Fig. 3) and low fire risk (Fig. 2) offer the most sustainable locations to maintain sufficient area and patch sizes of this forest habitat type and associated ecosystem functions. Sustainable locations include the western end of the planning area, as well as north-facing slopes in the central portion and valley bottoms in the northeastern corner (Fig. 7). The large tree, dense forest sustainability map can be used in conjunction with treatment priority (Fig. 9) to select areas to promote open forest vs. where to maintain and build large tree closed canopy patches. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 5 Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. It is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Figure 9. Landscape treatment priority is based on three metrics of forest health – forest fire risk (Fig. 1), drought vulnerability (Fig. 3), overabundant forest structure (Fig. 4) – as well as wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Definitions Vegetation Types Cold forest: Upper elevation mixed-conifer for- ests with high-severity fires every 80-200+ years. Dry forest: Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir domi- nated forests that historically had surface fires every 5-25 years. Moist forest: Forests that historically had mixed- severity fires every 30-100 years and were com- posed of fire-resistant (western larch, Douglas-fir) and fire-intolerant (grand fir) trees. Woodland/Steppe: Grass and shrub lands that may have oak woodlands or ≤ 10% conifer cover. Forest structure Large tree: Overstory diameter > 20 inches. Medium tree: Overstory diameter 10-20 inches. Small tree: Overstory diameter < 10 inches. Dense canopy: Greater than 40% tree canopy. Open canopy: Less than 40% tree canopy. Fuels: Shrubs, grasses, small trees, litter, duff, and dead wood. Fuels treatments: some combination of mechani- cal density reduction (commercial or non-commer- cial) and surface and ladder fuel reduction (prescribed fire, piling & burning, etc.). Managed wildfire: fires that are allowed to burn under safe conditions to achieve management goals but can be suppressed if conditions change. Landscape Treatment Prioritization Prioritizing for forest health & to reduce fire exposure of homes Landscape treatment priority integrates three metrics of forest health – forest fire risk (Fig. 2), drought vulnerability (Fig. 3), and presence of overabundant forest structure types (Fig. 4) – with wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). To ensure that habitat for closed canopy dependent wildlife is incorporated into the prioriti- zation, we recommend overlaying the large dense forest sustain- ability layer (Fig. 7) when selecting treatment locations. Wildfire transmission is high across most of the planning area, indicating that wildfires starting in these locations are expected to expose homes in Roslyn, Cle Elum, and along Teanaway Road (Fig. 2). Treatment priorities Landscape treatment priority is highest in the eastern portion on the Teanaway Community Forest and USFS land (Fig. 9). The southern edge along the north side of Cle Elum Ridge is also high priority. Medium and high priority areas on roadless USFS lands in the northeastern portion indicate that managed wildfire will be needed to restore this landscape. Some low priority areas may need treatment to address species composition, insect and dis- ease risk, or other issues. In addition, fuel reduction treatments, defensible space, and home hardening are needed on private par- cels to protect homes along Highway 970 and Teanaway Road. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 6 Definitions (continued) Wildfire response benefit: Any tactical advantage gained for wildfire response activities from actions on the landscape, including identifying and consoli- dating existing anchor points and control lines and reducing potential fire behavior. Wildfire response benefit is not restricted to any specific fire manage- ment strategy; it is centered on conditions that im- prove fire operations safety and efficacy during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire. Potential Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of Po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.g. roads, ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) for wildland fire: Landscape containers whose bound- aries are potential control lines (PCLs). PODs are useful for planning strategic response to unplanned ignitions, strategic fuel planning, and prioritizing fuel treatments within PODs. Commercially managed lands: Commercially managed forestlands include: DNR Trustlands, tribal forests, industrial forests, non-industrial pri- vate forests, and US Forest Service forests where timber is a primary management objective. Figure 10. Wildfire response benefit (WRB) integrates multiple fire risk and forest health components. It includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources – risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands – as well as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Combined, these account for 75% of the wildfire re- sponse benefit. Landscape treatment priority (Fig. 9) accounts for the remaining 25%. Also shown are PODs: units bounded by PCLs (open black lines). One use of the WRB metric is to prioritize Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 11). Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response It is necessary to conduct treatments to both improve for- est health and reduce fire risk to communities as well as provide conditions where firefighters can safely and effi- ciently conduct fire operations (e.g. suppression, pre- scribed burning, and managed wildfire). The wildfire response benefit metric (WRB; Fig. 10) identifies and pri- oritizes locations where values at risk that are more likely to be the focus of fire operations (homes, infrastructure, sources of drinking water, and commercially managed lands) coincide with areas likely to transmit wildfire to homes and generate severe fire behavior. Because there are positive feedbacks between healthy, resilient forests and safe, effective fire operations, the WRB metric also integrates the landscape treatment priority map (Fig. 9). Where WRB is highest, actions may be needed to create and maintain conditions that provide a tactical advantage for fire operations. These actions will vary with the local context and can include landscape-level forest health and fuel treatments, treatments along escape routes, resident and community fire mitigation activities (e.g. defensible space, home hardening), and improving signage and road conditions. The WRB metric provides a high-level prioriti- zation, and additional work at the local level will be re- quired to identify appropriate actions and assess their feasibility. WRB is useful for prioritizing Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 11). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 7. In the Teanaway planning area, wildfire response benefit is highest along the Teanaway Road and Highway 970, re- flecting risk to communities along these road corridors. Wildfire transmission to homes is high throughout the southern and central portions of the planning area (Fig. 8), indicating that ignitions in those locations will expose houses in communities along Interstate 90. Crown fire po- tential (not shown) is high throughout the planning area with the exception of a few patches with lower crown fire potential in the Jolly Mountain burned area. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 7 Figure 11. Landscape prioritization of dual benefits using PODs as a spatial framework to summarize treatment priorities. Both maps display landscape treatment priority within PODs and wildfire response benefit within PCLs. The map on the left shows the datasets at the raster level, while the map on the right shows the same information summarized and ranked within PODs and PCLs. PCL width is inflated to display spatial patterns. PODs shown here are part of an ongoing process towards an all-lands delineation; POD boundaries are subject to change following on-the-ground vetting and continued dialogue among wildfire agencies and stakeholders. Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits Integration of forest health and wildfire response benefit using PODs Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) provide a pow- erful spatial framework to communicate and identify lo- cations that will deliver dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response at the landscape scale. PODs are large landscape areas delimited by Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (suppression, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire) delineated by fire operations per- sonnel. PCLs can be roads, ridgelines, or any artificial or natural fuelbreak that provides a strategic opportunity for fire operations. Summarizing landscape treatment priori- ties (Fig. 9) within PODs and wildfire response benefit pri- orities (Fig. 10) within PCLs enables planners and managers to identify, at a high level, locations where for- est health or fuels treatments can be connected to a high- priority PCL that will support firefighter operations (e.g. ingress/egress route or opportunity for engagement). There is important work to do in all Teanaway PODs to achieve the forest health treatment targets in Table 1. First and second priority PODs include the Teanaway Commu- nity Forest and PODs along the southern boundary of the planning area bordering the Cle Elum planning area. PCLs vary in priority, reflecting variability in values at risk along POD boundaries (Fig. 10). Further work is needed to as- sess PCLs locally for their condition and detailed treat- ment needs, which will depend on management goals and values at risk. Ideally, landscape treatments will be imple- mented adjacent to priority PCLs where feasible to max- imize both forest health and wildfire response goals. Achieving forest health and wildfire response dual bene- fits will require primarily large, landscape-level treatments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser ex- tent, targeted treatments along PCLs. These two ap- proaches combined will contribute to restoring and maintaining large portions of the landscape in a resilient condition while providing safe and effective areas for fire- fighter engagement during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire operations. Achieving forest health and wildfire response goals will require primarily large, landscape-level treat- ments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser extent, targeted treatments along PCLs. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 1 LEARN MORE CONTACT This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. Amy Ramsey The dual benefit assessment (pages 6-7) was completed in 2021. Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator More details about DNR’s priority planning areas are 360-902-1694 available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ForestHealthPlan amy.ramsey@dnr.wa.gov Data products are available at: https://bit.ly/ForestHealthData Above: Figure 1. Planning area location. Right: Figure 2. Planning area geography and fire risk to forests, homes, and infrastructure. Planning Area Highlights This planning area embodies many of the most pressing forest health issues in the eastern Cascades, including wildfire risk to communities and forests, endangered species, insects and disease, and climate change. Although ownership is primarily USDA Forest Service (97%), homes and private parcels in Liberty are vulnerable to fire. Projected warming over the next 20-40 years will likely shift climate conditions suitable for moist forest towards condi- tions suitable for dry forest. Some areas of current dry forest may no longer support forest. Treating 39-62% of forested acres is recommended to increase resilience and reduce fire risk to communities using a combination of mechanical, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire treatments. High priority areas for potential treatments that maximize forest health and wildfire response benefit include locations north and west of Highway 97 and along roads near homes in and around Liberty. Swauk Pine in the southeastern portion and Wild Blew in the western portion are two project areas that have been assessed for USFS restoration projects (Fig. 2). Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) 39,175 35,450 14,000 - 22,000 UPPER SWAUK PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2020) Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 2 Figure 3. Current (left) and future (right) moisture stress levels based on water balance deficit. Low levels are associated with moist and cold forest types, high with dry forest types, and very high with woodland or shrub-steppe. Future climate is based on a business as usual greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). Overarching Goals Reduce wildfire risk and protect communities Fire risk is high to extreme in northern and western por- tions of the planning area due to high fuel loads and burn probability (Fig. 2). The western portion represents some of the highest fire risk in eastern WA. Fuels treatments are needed to break up the large patches of dense forest to reduce the likelihood of large crown fire. Relatively lower fire risk in the southeastern portion is due in part to recent treatments on USFS and private land, as well as the 2012 Table Mountain Fire. However, fire risk is still high to ex- treme in some areas around Liberty and Highway 97, in- cluding private parcels with homes. The planned Swauk Pine treatments will reduce the risk of wildfire and insect outbreaks. Additional treatments in dense forest in north- ern and western portions will further mitigate these risks. Increase resilience and prepare for climate change Projected warming will increase moisture stress and risk of wildfire and insect outbreaks, which are already gener- ally high in currently dry and moist forest types. By mid- century, 41% of the planning area is projected to have moisture stress levels currently associated with woodland and shrub-steppe, indicating that these locations may no longer support forest (Fig. 3). Treatments to reduce den- sity and favor drought-tolerant species on projected fu- ture high and very high deficit sites will support forest persistence into the future. Sustain wildlife habitat Habitat for dry forest, large tree, open canopy species (e.g. White Headed Woodpecker) is well represented in central portions of the planning area, primarily in loca- tions with recent thinning treatments. Habitat for species that depend on moist, closed canopy forest with large trees (e.g. Northern Spotted Owl) is in the middle or up- per end of desired ranges, though it is overly abundant in large patches in western portions. In high fire risk lo- cations, reducing tree density and canopy cover will re- duce crown fire potential and drought vulnerability, help maintain habitat in the most sustainable locations (Fig. 7), and broaden the spatial distribution of open canopy habitat. When consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan, lighter, variable density thinning in mid-sized stands can accelerate habitat development. Habitat for cold forest, large-tree, closed canopy species (e.g. American Marten) is a relatively minor component of this planning area. Enhance rural economic development Reducing fire risk will help sustain recreation and tourism while reducing the potential of smoke affecting nearby communities. Warming trends may make it difficult to sustain timber production on south-facing slopes in the planning area (Fig. 3). In the remainder, long-term timber production will likely be possible if proactive strategies to shift species composition and manage for lower tree den- sity are adopted over time. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 3 Left: Figure 4. Forest structure types that are overabundant relative to targets for a resilient landscape, as well as potential maintenance treatments. Only a portion of the areas shown need to be treated. Right: Figure 5. Current land ownership. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs (range represents low and high end of treatment need). Forest Health Treatment Needs Treating 14,000 to 22,000 acres is recommended to move the landscape into a resilient condition (39-62% of forested acres; Table 1). This total includes an estimated 11,000-16,750 acres of dense forest and 3,000-5,250 acres of maintenance treatments in existing open forest, based on current condition data from 2012 aerial photos. The majority of the treatment need and opportunity is on USFS land, although substantial need exists for private landowners in the community of Liberty. Meeting this target range will require multiple treatment strategies (Table 1). Managed wildfire under safe condi- tions will be needed, especially in less accessible locations. Based on tree size class, many areas are commercially vi- able, although treatment type will depend on road access, logging systems, and other considerations. Individual landowners will conduct their own planning and decision- making processes to determine acres and types of treat- ments to achieve the landscape goals while meeting their own objectives and regulatory requirements. Forest conditions to treat Treatment need (acres) Current acres by major landowner* Type Size class USFS Private Federal Other Dry Dense Medium-Large 5,500 - 7,500 8,898 117 8 0 Moist Dense Medium-Large 4,500 - 8,000 11,266 88 18 0 Cold Dense Medium-Large 1,000 - 1,250 1,625 0 0 0 Dry + Moist Open Medium-Large 3,000 - 5,250 6,922 163 27 0 Total 14,000 - 22,000 *These are current acres, not targets Anticipated treatment type Commercial thin plus fuels treatment if access exists. May be noncommercial, fire only (pre- scribed or managed wildfire), or regeneration treatment. Maintenance treatment: prescribed fire, managed wildfire, or mechanical fuels treatment. Target range corresponds to 50-75% of dry open and 25-50% of moist open forests. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 4 Left: Figure 6. Current and post-treatment proportions of forest types and structure classes. * mid-point of range in Table 1. Right: Figure 7. Sustainability of current and potential large tree, dense forest based on fire risk and drought vulnerabilit y. Definitions Vegetation Types Cold forest: Upper elevation mixed-conifer forests with high-se- verity fires every 80-200+ years. Dry forest: Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated forests that historically had surface fires every 5-25 years. Moist forest: Forests that historically had mixed-severity fires every 30-100 years and were composed of fire-resistant (western larch, Douglas-fir) and fire-intolerant (grand fir) trees. Woodland/Steppe: Grass and shrub lands that may have oak woodlands or up to 10% cover of conifers. Forest structure Large tree: Overstory diameter > 20 inches; Medium tree: Over- story diameter 10-20 inches; Small tree: Overstory diameter < 10 inches; Dense canopy: Greater than 40% tree canopy; Open can- opy: Less than 40% tree canopy. Fuels: Shrubs, grasses, small trees, litter, duff, and dead wood. Fuels Treatments: some combination of mechanical density reduc- tion (commercial or non-commercial) and surface and ladder fuel re- duction (prescribed fire, piling & burning, etc.). Managed wildfire: fire is allowed to burn under safe conditions to achieve management goals; can be suppressed if conditions change. Forest Health Treatment Needs (continued) Dry dense forest treatment need Currently, dense, multistory forest structure is over-repre- sented on dry sites, especially sites dominated by Douglas- fir. Treating 5,500-7,500 acres of dense dry forest (Table 1) is recommended to shift the landscape from dense to open forest. In locations with large trees, removing smaller trees and treating fuels with mechanical or fire-based methods will create more fire-, insect-, and drought-resistant forest structure. Favoring ponderosa pine and reducing Douglas- fir and grand fir on drier sites is also recommended. Moist and cold dense forest treatment need Dense, multistory forest on moist and cold sites exceeds or is at the upper end of desired ranges throughout the plan- ning area, and patch sizes are too large. Treating 5,500- 9,250 acres of dense forest on moist and cold sites (Table 1, Fig. 4) is recommended to reduce the risk of large crown fire and help forests adapt to a warming climate. Increasing the relative composition of ponderosa pine and western larch is also needed. Following treatments, approximately half of the total moist and cold forest area would remain dense (Fig. 6) to meet habitat, wood production, and other objectives. Open forest maintenance treatment need Over the next 15 years, an estimated 3,000-5,250 acres of currently open forests on dry and moist sites will need pre- scribed fire, managed wildfire, or mechanical methods to maintain open conditions by reducing surface fuels and small trees. Specific maintenance strategies depend on landowner objectives and time since prior treatments. Sustainable locations for dense forest with large trees Locations with low to moderate current and future mois- ture deficits (Fig.3) and low fire risk (Fig. 2) offer the most sustainable locations to maintain sufficient area and patch sizes of this forest habitat type and associated ecosystem functions. Sustainable locations include the eastern end of the planning area, as well as north-facing slopes in the cen- tral portion and valley bottom areas in the northeastern corner (Fig. 7). Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 5 Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. It is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Figure 9. Landscape treatment priority is based on three metrics of forest health – forest fire risk (Fig. 1), drought vulnerability (Fig. 3), overabundant forest structure (Fig. 4) – as well as wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Landscape Treatment Prioritization Prioritizing for forest health & to reduce fire exposure of homes Landscape treatment priority integrates three metrics of forest health – forest fire risk (Fig. 2), drought vulnerability (Fig. 3), and presence of overabundant forest structure types (Fig. 4) – with wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). To ensure that habitat for closed canopy dependent wildlife is incorporated into the prioriti- zation, we recommend overlaying the large dense forest sustain- ability layer (Fig. 7) when selecting treatment locations. Wildfire transmission is high across the western half of the planning area, representing potential fire exposure to communities in Liberty, along the Highway 97 corridor, and in the Cle Elum area. Treatment priorities Treatment priority is particularly high in western and northern por- tions of the planning area, reflecting high wildfire transmission on the slopes east of Teanaway Ridge (Fig. 8). Within those areas, north-facing slopes are especially high priority due to fire risk (Fig. 1) and current forest structure (Fig. 4). Treatment priority is gener- ally lower in southeastern portions due to recent treatments near Liberty and lower fire probability where the Table Mountain Fire burned in 2012. Planned Swauk Pine treatments will help reduce fire and forest health risks in remaining high priority locations. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 6 Definitions (continued) Wildfire response benefit: Any tactical advantage gained for wildfire response activities from actions on the landscape, including identifying and consoli- dating existing anchor points and control lines and reducing potential fire behavior. Wildfire response benefit is not restricted to any specific fire manage- ment strategy; it is centered on conditions that im- prove fire operations safety and efficacy during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire. Potential Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of Po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.g. roads, ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) for wildland fire: Landscape containers whose bound- aries are potential control lines (PCLs). PODs are useful for planning strategic response to unplanned ignitions, strategic fuel planning, and prioritizing fuel treatments within PODs. Commercially managed lands: Commercially managed forestlands include: DNR Trustlands, tribal forests, industrial forests, non-industrial pri- vate forests, and US Forest Service forests where timber is a primary management objective. Figure 10. Wildfire response benefit (WRB) integrates multiple fire risk and forest health components. It includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources – risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands – as well as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Combined, these account for 75% of the wildfire re- sponse benefit. Landscape treatment priority (Fig. 9) accounts for the remaining 25%. Also shown are PODs: units bounded by PCLs (open black lines). One use of the WRB metric is to prioritize Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 11). Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response It is necessary to conduct treatments to both improve for- est health and reduce fire risk to communities as well as provide conditions where firefighters can safely and effi- ciently conduct fire operations (e.g. suppression, pre- scribed burning, and managed wildfire). The wildfire response benefit metric (WRB; Fig. 10) identifies and pri- oritizes locations where values at risk that are more likely to be the focus of fire operations (homes, infrastructure, sources of drinking water, and commercially managed lands) coincide with areas likely to transmit wildfire to homes and generate severe fire behavior. Because there are positive feedbacks between healthy, resilient forests and safe, effective fire operations, the WRB metric also integrates the landscape treatment priority map (Fig. 9). Where WRB is highest, actions may be needed to create and maintain conditions that provide a tactical advantage for fire operations. These actions will vary with the local context and can include landscape-level forest health and fuel treatments, treatments along escape routes, resident and community fire mitigation activities (e.g. defensible space, home hardening), and improving signage and road conditions. The WRB metric provides a high-level prioriti- zation, and additional work at the local level will be re- quired to identify appropriate actions and assess their feasibility. WRB is useful for prioritizing Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 11). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 7. In the Upper Swauk planning area, wildfire response ben- efit is very high in and around private land parcels near Liberty and along Highway 97 (Fig. 2), corresponding to areas with numerous homes and critical infrastructure. WRB is also moderate in the northwest and southwest portions of the planning area due to relatively high wild- fire transmission to homes (Fig. 8) and landscape treat- ment priority (Fig. 9). Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 7 Figure 11. Landscape prioritization of dual benefits using PODs as a spatial framework to summarize treatment priorities. Both maps display landscape treatment priority within PODs and wildfire response benefit within PCLs. The map on the left shows the datasets at the raster level, while the map on the right shows the same information summarized and ranked within PODs and PCLs. PCL width is inflated to display spatial patterns. PODs shown here are part of an ongoing process towards an all-lands delineation; POD boundaries are subject to change following on-the-ground vetting and continued dialogue among wildfire agencies and stakeholders. Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits Integration of forest health and wildfire response benefit using PODs Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) provide a pow- erful spatial framework to communicate and identify lo- cations that will deliver dual benefits for forest health and wildfire response at the landscape scale. PODs are large landscape areas delimited by Potential Control Lines (PCLs) for fire operations (suppression, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire) delineated by fire operations per- sonnel. PCLs can be roads, ridgelines, or any artificial or natural fuelbreak that provides a strategic opportunity for fire operations. Summarizing landscape treatment priori- ties (Fig. 9) within PODs and wildfire response benefit pri- orities (Fig. 10) within PCLs enables planners and managers to identify, at a high level, locations where for- est health or fuels treatments can be connected to a high- priority PCL that will support firefighter operations (e.g. ingress/egress route or opportunity for engagement). There is important work to do in all Upper Swauk PODs to achieve the forest health treatment targets in Table 1. Multiple opportunities for treatments that provide dual benefit occur in the first priority PODs west of Highway 97. First priority PCLs correspond to Highway 97 and in- clude forest roads to the east through Liberty and to the west up to Teanaway Ridge. Further work is needed to as- sess PCLs locally for their condition and detailed treat- ment needs, which will depend on management goals and values at risk. Ideally, landscape treatments will be imple- mented adjacent to priority PCLs where feasible to max- imize both forest health and wildfire response goals. Achieving forest health and wildfire response dual bene- fits will require primarily large, landscape-level treatments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser ex- tent, targeted treatments along PCLs. These two ap- proaches combined will contribute to restoring and maintaining large portions of the landscape in a resilient condition while providing safe and effective areas for fire- fighter engagement during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire operations. Achieving forest health and wildfire response goals will require primarily large, landscape-level treat- ments across PODs (~100’s-1,000’s of acres) and, to a lesser extent, targeted treatments along PCLs. Gr ant Count yKi t t i t asCo u n t yG rantCountyDouglasCountyPierce CountyYakimaCountyChelan County Kittitas Co untyChelanCountyDouglasCountyKingCountyKittitasCounty Kittitas County Yak im a County 119°51.25'W 119°51.75'W119°56'W 119°56'W 120°1.5'W 120°2'W 120°6'W 120°6'W 120°11'W 120°11'W 120°16'W 120°16'W 120°21'W 120°21'W 120°26'W 120°26'W 120°31'W 120°31'W 120°36'W 120°36'W 120°41'W 120°41'W 120°46'W 120°46'W 120°51'W 120°51'W 120°56'W 120°56'W 121°1'W 121°1'W 121°5'W 121°5'W 121°8'W 121°8'W 121°14'W 121°14'W 121°19'W 121°19'W 121°23'W 121°23'W121°29'W 47°36'N47°36'N47°33'N47°33'N47°30'N47°30'N47°26'N47°26'N47°23'N47°23'N47°21'N47°21'N47°18'N47°18'N47°15'N47°15'N47°11'N47°11'N47°8'N47°8'N47°6.5'N47°6.5'N47°4'N47°4'N47°1.5'N47°1.5'N46°58.5'N46°58.5'N46°55.25'N46°55.25'N46°52'N46°52'N46°49'N46°49'N46°46'N46°46'N46°43'N46°43'N46°40'N46°40'NKittitas CountyCWPP AmendmentPontential Control Lines(Locations Shown Only) RSBWA RCD9-20-2022 Kittitas Co PCL PCLs Highway Local Road Railroad Kittitas County Roads Municipal Boundaries City / County Government State Government Federal Government07143.5 Miles Datum: North American 1983 HARN XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY q q q q # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # BM 1820 BM 1821 Te a n aw a y BM 1928 BM 1795 BM 1810 RO AD CabinLake 6 BigLake BM 1910 ROAD M A ST E RS O N1880 TEANAWAY Teanaway R I D G E BM 1873 1849BM GravelPit DE VERE FIELDFireSta RIVER 1864 Indian JohnHill Rest Area THE MOUNTAINS GR E E N WAY 2726 DisappointmentTe a na way4605RidgeTeanaway Ri ve r Red TopMountain 1364A 29PINES GuardStation 35 E L U M R I D G E Prospect 17 5 8 CampSeventeenCanyonNo 3CanyonCedar (INDEFINITE)132620Creek R OADR O A D HiddenValley4WDBETTASCanyonH o rse 4WD 4WD 4W D Mill Wi lliam sSwaukCreekCreek BRANCHNORTH BM24123370 3760 2711 3031 3288 BM2335 2712 2426 BM 2257 Quarry 23422334 2306 2642 2412 Quarry 2493 2545 2081 Quarry 2460 5 4 98 17 16 2120 29 27 345 32 8 9 151617 20 21 22 BM 2023BM 1949 C ASASS ACANAL 20 21 22 CanyonEASTON RIDGE IRON HO RSE STATE PARK JOHN WAYNE PIONEER TRAIL 1321134113 3 4 1321B13 2 1 RIVER YAKIMA RIVERCreekSilverLake Easton CreekTucker ColeCreekLittleCreekCreek Cre ek CA N ALMA I NCANAL 2180 2660 4505 Easton WT 2782 2672 3525 2141 WENATCHEE Mile 200 3366 2943 4981 4114 4235 2927 4248 36905504 5362 4142 3543 4682 4582 3819 3679 5268 5140 5265 5180 4981 4210 4255 4930 5658 4540 Mile198 81211109 16 15 14 18 17 2019242321 28 27 26 25 30 32363533 4 2 1 6 5 871211 16 15 14 18 17 201924 Falls Spring Spring Spring CHELAN COKITTITAS CO LEAVENWORTH CLE ELUM R DR D RidgeTeanawayLOC APPROX LOCATION Teanaway Ri dge13 5 1 1226 B e a r CreekJack Fork H oveyBlue North CreekCr ee kBaker Creek 5276 4685 4465 4217 3675 3275 4022 4089 3869 4035 Prospect Adit 4231 3882 Adit Adit 29 28 343332 5 4 3 109 17 16 15 29 27 32 5 4 3 27 Spring Te a n a wa y Ri dge1364B Jack Cr e e k Jungle Ja c k IndianCreek RyeCreekShirk ForkCreek Blue Creek CreekMedicine M ason4298 4542 4417 3788 2838 3203 3405 4238 Red Top 25361 3932 3519 4346 4042 3326 3063 29 3136343332 4 3 2 1 712111098 17 16 15 14 13 18 192423222120 29 28 27 26 313635343332 5 4 3 2 1 6 Spring Spring 12 3 5 Creek5 C r e ek SeventeenCampCreekC reek Ju n g le Creek Rye Cr ee k Shi r k CampLake YellowHill 2730LiarsPrairie 4961 4380 4290 4305 4261 W E N A T C H E E N A T I O N A L F O R E S T 3910 J o hn so n 3660 3305 TeanawayButte Canyon27 26 25 31363534 2 1 6 7121110 15 14 13 192422 4122 2392 3370 2977 2992 30813305 3705 W N F Mile 9 28 27 26 25 Ca bin 35343332 5 4 3 2 1 121098 16 15 14 13 18 242220 29 28 27 25 3432 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 17 33 Spr 135313 491222 1353 1308 Creek Thorp 1348.1 C L ECreek Sac 1315B 1316 13 0 8 Salmon Little RiverTeanawayWestForkCreekTumbleCreekCreek French Cr e e k Dry Hex C reekM o rg an CreekBe llNewportCreekWest Fork TeanawayCorral Cre ek Cre ekBear Creek CreekDingbatCreekSpringCreek M ill22 402240 E LEVATI ON 2 2 2 3224022402240 4575 2982 5159 4990 4692 2624 3501 1315 13081315 R Thorp FrenchCreek Knox ForkFork S o ut h Branch Creek Pa ra DomerieKachess ELEVATION 2254 2261 2261 5203 5014 4761 5841 5742 5766 5498 5724 5525 5184 4952 5282 4527 5269 5194 4884 4615 4771Intake 2672 2985 28 27 25 30 31353433 4 2 6 712109 16 15 14 13 18 2423 21 28 26 25 30 3635 4 1 6 ThorpLake 31 6 7 18 19 30 Adit 3492 31 BM S O U T H C L E R I D G EE L U M 5 RIVER Mile197 T 19 N BM 1978 Mile 12022 TO BM2031 THE MOUNTAINS SOUND BullfrogPond R I D G E E A S T O N WaterTank 17 MineDump WTMineDump StripMine Tailings No 3Mine WT11 2925 3553 E A S T O N R I D G E 2685 BM2105 BM2101 BM2074 BM2061 23 Strip Mine R I D G E E L U MWT 31 30 19 7 6 31 30 S A S S E R I D G ER I D G ES A S S ESasseMountain la 1349REDMOUNTAIN 2247 4925 2382 3723 C L E E L U ML A K E 23 2790 Boat Ramp Domerie Cr Lakedale 1308 Sandstone Creek 5BeaconBM2220 2 BM2208 Quarry 5107K A C H E S SR I D G EN A T I O N A L SouthPeakC A B I NM O U N T A I N1 36 26 5854 ThorpMountain French Cabin Basin L A K E LAKE EASTON STATE PARK 3 2180 E A S T O N R I D G E River WNF BoatRamp GagingStation 1922 226 1 Spring Easton StateAirport WISH Mile 15 Mile 10 Para Creek 26 POOSH N O N A M E R I D G ECooperPass Mile18 SALMONLA SAC GravelPit Mile20 2788 BM 2840USMM #2 2896BM ROAD TEANAWAY AIRPORT RO AD LAMBERTWESTMASTERSONROAD TA YLO R Bristol FlatRD Horseshoe Canyon HIDDENVALLEYROADMasonRiver CreekMusserYAKIMA YA KIMA RIVER MA IN MAI NCANAL 2232 BM 2122 1895 1925 BM2081 Quarry BM 1884 BM 1839Teanaway Pacific 2125 BM 1827 Rest Area BM 1825 BM 1820 BM 1890 Quarry Mile 175 2665 SevenBM 1818Bristol 2265 BM 1798 Quarry Bristol Elk 2435 BM 1838 Quarry BM 1918 Mile 171Horlick 5 4 3 2 1 712111098 17 16 14 13 18 192423222120 29 28 27 26 25 30 313635343332 5 4 3 2 1 712111098 15 14 13 18 1923 Spring Spring Siphon Siphon LittleLakeCarlsonCanyonGulchCanyonNo 6No 5 CanyonCurryCanyon Greens ROADPAYS LOWER UPPER 4 WDCrystal Creek RIVER YAKIMA R IV E R Y A K IM A CreekFi rst CreekCedar MA IN C ANALMAIN Cem Roslyn 3310 Prospect No 5 Mine 2380 2135 2095 Substa BM 2026 BM 1907 BM 2003 BM 1889 Gravel Pit BM 1930 Mile 180 2026 2018 Pine Quarry Cle Elum 2310 2150 2104 QuarryLookout Quarry Quarry Cle ElumHigh Sch Open PitMines Open PitMines Open PitMines Open PitMines Open PitMines 5 4 3 2 1 6 7121098 17 16 15 14 13 18 1924232221 29 28 26 25 30 3136343332 5 4 2 1 6 1298 16 15 14 13 18 17 20192423222120 Spring Well N o 3CanyonJOHN WAYNE PIONEER TRAIL IRON HORSE STATE PARK JOHN WAYNE PIONEER TRAILPARK STATE IRON HORSE 1326A 1326 1377 Creek Domerie ELUM RI VE R RIVER YAKIMA CreekBigYAKIMACreekPeterson LittleCreekCreek ArthButte CANAL MAIN CANAL WT AditsRonald Footbridge Mile 8 2415 3043 Adit Roslyn Cem 2310 2673 2643 2074 BM 2176Nelson Nelson 2683 WTBullfrogBM1985 2177Line 2 2208 2519 2428 4805 4792 2503 46655210 4930 5 4 3 1 6 5 871098 17 15 14 13 18 201924222120 29 28 27 30 29 32313635343332 5 4 3 2 1 8712 10 98 17 15 14 13 18 17 Spring Siphon Siphon Siphon 2223 30 5 W E N A T C H E E 6 7 6 18 19 30 31ForkCreek Lick 27 26 30 2585 RID G E 1222 Middle Creek ForkCreek 5014 4086 5527Yellow 2765 2758 2765 29303245 Casland(Site) 29 28 3332 5 4 98 17 16 21 29 313635343332 5 4 3 2 1 6 F R E N C H 13 0 8 .1K A C H E S SR I D G EJi mN O R T HB L A Z E D WindyPass W E N A T C H E E Prospect AditProspectsAdit Adit 5447 345 10 151617 22 Spring 1369 Creek18 19 APP RO XIM A TE 17 2013911383 Bi g Boulder TurnpikeCreek De Roux North Teanaw ay 6779 4203 4843 5076 5034 33 34 35 36 1245 8 9 10 11 12 1314151617 1310 1392 1392G 13 92H1309 1307A 1355 13071307 1325 135313 4 0 1222 Cre ek Cooper RiverRiverMiddle Fork Fork C re ek Sac Little Sac Adit Adit Adit 5762 6050 53524962 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 612345 8 9 10 11 7 1813141617 20 22 23 24 19 1330 Re d Mounta in 1323 1311 1327 13 301315 1315Cooper Lake Ri ve r StaveNo 2788 5242 4922 3894 3422 5083 5722 5205 5170 5635 5487 5357 5236 57035109 35 31 61234 9 10 12 7 18141516 21 22 23 24 19 1355 Creek 6917 5090 4720 31 20 2221 23 24 M O U N T A I N S BM 4243 1392.11383.1GravelPit 13 101393.1 la Water TreatmentPlantSewage DisposalPond Elumla S A S S ER I D G E R I D G E Cem 5 BM 1855 Mobile HomePark Mile179 32 Sewage DisposalPlantSouth Cle Elum Fire Sta Cable Car Cut BM2069 Quarry BM 2052 GravelPit BM 1959 GravelPit BM BM 1919 27 Cle Elem Cle ElumMunicipal Airport 29 Steiners CanyonBal mersCanyon 20Open PitMines No 7Mine Open PitMinesOpen PitMines No 9Mine Open PitMines C L E Lo d g epo le Creek Nort hFirst Cr eekQuarryTaneum Point 21 22 23 24 19 Kountze2271 21 22 23 24 WILDLIFE AREABDYM o r r i s o n GravelPit20 S O U T H Canyon4WDFishook 13 771377LookoutCreek Taneum Creek Fork Creek4336 20 21 22 24 19 1388 1321B1326Creek LittleLo ok out Creek 21 23 24 19 20 CAN AL NORTHSpr 2073 GREENWAY Hosp CommunicationFacility Cle ElumPoint Cedar Creek Meadows S O U T H C L E E L U M R I D G E PeohPoint RothlisbergerMine Prospect 2545BM BM BM 2635 2698 BM2891 W E N A T C H E E 8 M O U N T A I N S20 20Taneum BM 2202 T 20 NT 20 N T 19 N MountainMonahan EastonPonds MAIN StripMine W N F OWHI Boat Ramp WBALLARD HILL BM2426 BM 2398 3285 BM2218 C a n y o n BM 1909 ROADAIRPORT MOHAR PEOH POINT TillmanBM 1920 Laurel HillMemorial Park Cemetery CANYONCreek LankinSpringNorth24222120 MineDump Roslyn-CascadeMine No 4 StripMine MineDump MAIN BM 1984 T 20 N 3938 OsbornPoint 3412 BM 51234 N O R T HBM2088 LavenderLake THE MOU NTAINS TO SOUND GREENWAY BM2115 NATIONAL FOREST 13 BM 2151Easton 2178 FORESTNATIONAL WENATCHEE W N F 7 Pendant 2 FOREST WENATCHEE NATIONAL Cole Butte R I D G EB L A Z E D4605 LauderdaleJunction 22 3 3428 R i d g e T e a n a w a y W E N A T C H E E 10 3030 2980W N F 2559 2459 Swauk PrairieCem BM 2333 BM 2350 S W A U K P R A I R I E 2260 2972 ROADYAKIMA R CA N AL Lookout Mountain Swauk Prairie STATE WILDLIFE AREA Skull SpringSTATE WILDLIFE AREA GREENWAY W E N A T C H E E N A T I O N A L F O R E S T 11 3855 5155 StripMine R I D G E1304.1 F O R E S T W E N A T C H E E 6LAKE EASTON STATE PARK LAKE EASTON BM2182 BEVERLY1393.2N A T I O N A L Footbridge 1330.1 129 THE C a n y o n GravelPits 19 WT Spring 20 Cr eekCe darR 16 ER 15 E R 17 ER 16 E CAN ALBRMAIN 5423 Gre ek5413 224712 N A T I O N A L R 14 E R 13 E R 14 E R 13 E R 15 ER 14 E1378 Cr e ek 23 24 MorrisonL T MURRAY STATE WILDLIFE AREA L T MURRAY R 16 E R 17 E 2174 R OAD1617 2150 P RAI RIE THORP TO S O UN D 2107 Teanaway UPPER PEOH T 19 N HART RO AD 1836 PEOH LOWER 3465 R O AD 1845 1987 1983 WEST BALLARD HILL Riv e r 1923 2002 2618 ROAD 15 2661 E L U M WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST6R 16 E R 17 E Spring 3343 2732 MASONC REEKROAD CreekR 16 E R 17 E CommunicationFacility 2928 Spring Snyder 42104430 4043 Cr42021326NATIONAL FOREST WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST WENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTWENATCHEE NATIONAL FORESTWENATCHEE NAT FOR NATIONAL FOREST 4682 4918 T 20 N T 19 N 13 23 13 33 2221 GreekJim10 9 Big Little3963 3 CreekCreekBi g 356734 292930Creek3013 2788 2517 22 2810 3775 Cabi nCreek R 13 E R 14 E BM2184 2772 BM 2200 Mile205 2358 31 WENATCHEENATIONAL FORESTWENATCHEE NAT FOR WENATCHEE NATIONAL FOREST WENATCHEE Domerie Flats 20CrTaneum19R 14 E R 15 E F o rk 4444 5003 4872 49074540 1377.2 Creek 1334 16 1377.2 5442 5468 1326 CreekSpex5518HicksButteGr a nite Mile187 2253 2565 Mile190 25GREENWAY 2596 23 2899 Mile195 CLE 2285 Mile 5 16 R 15 ER 14 E12 W E N A T C H E E N A T I O N A L F O R E S T Springs 6 T 20 N T 19 N 26 BM2088 CLE ELUMLAKE 2814 2573 2 13 4 1 1321C 1341.1 1304G o a t P e a k R 13 ER 14 EL T MURRAY R 16 ER 15 E BIBLE ROCKCHILDRENS CAMP 4W D WT ELUMCLE RIDGE ROAD 1326 17 87 4W D ROAD 3462 1110 T 20 N T 19 N T 20 N T 19 N 2061 2225 3ROAD 2106WESTSIDEROAD SOUND 1866 1896 P E O HPOINT TO 35 R O AD R O ADRESERVOIR Mile185 M O U N T A INS Mile186 T H E Spring LaniganSpring WTs S O UN D TOBULLFROGROAD 25242490 20 ROAD RIDGE MAIN 11 R 15 ESTATE WILDLIFE AREA Tote Mile 178 ROAD STATE WILD LIFE AR EA ThorntonCreekC L E 3460 L T MURRAY RD POINT POINT ROAD L T M URRAY Quarries CANAL 1952 Fire Sta Mobile HomePark BM 1920PO GagingSta THE MOUNTAINSMobile Home Park BM 1887 2165 R 16 EGrave W N F GREENWAY SOUND TO MOUNTAINS WENATCHEENATIONAL FOREST WENATCHEE MIDDLEFORK T 20 N T 19 N 4WD ROAD CANYON 4WD 4WD 2575 2498 HAYWARDSwauk10 DryCreekROAD2422 2834 HORSE 342816 33 28 BM 2317 BM 2260 HILLBALLARDEASTHARTMANROADLEYROAD2457 2462 3775 15MusserCreek BM LIB ER T Y 3729 38953945 3384 Cr T 22 N T 21 N T 20 N T 21 N BM 2495 Prospect3258 Mill 4621 4355 34 Prospect Adit Adits Prospect Fork 3682 33 4015 LOC APPROX LOC AT IO N AP P RO XIMA TE Swauk283984 3543Medicine Cr Durst BM 2743 22 Mineral SpringsResortMINERALSPRINGSCreek Creek 363121 3199 20 Adit 3975 4047 1364.2 3932 2959BM 382512084002 3942 3695 Creek 8 Cr e e k 3601 4284 West4943 47921364 4429 IronCreek S o ut hFork 5459 5510 13 6 4 5489 4762 STANDARD 3561 CreekStoryN CrFkBaker 30 4482 4418 5014 25Creek Dickey2864 CreekNorth DICKEY 5012F O R E S T4326 3167 Middl e Teanaway3052 13641364.3N A T I O N A L4993Creek IndianRiverCreek 4602 3223 3084 34753952 4189Creek 3150 3896 4464 Creek Staf f or d Ri ver Cr e e k3784 2728 Teanaway 402431 28 North Fork 3894 4536 3609 T 21 N T 20 N R 16 ER 15 E T 20 N T 21 N T 22 N T 21 N T 22 N T 21 NR 16 ER 15 ETeanaway River 2216 Canyon2642 2568 C a rlso n 2470 CLE ELUM No rt h 2645 West Fork Fork Sandstone 2910 Di n g b a t2535 2425 25Middle282925 2990 West 23203015 3241 18 Grave 13 9 3 4633 4348 3510 3475 3672 3370 3223 4385LOCL AWa y3Fork4195 L A L A4095 3745 3834 5220 APPROXMa lcolm 1393 4401 4752 462513 8 3 A1225 1235 4938MalcolmMountain 5441 T 20 N T 21 N R 14 E R 15 E T 21 N T 20 N T 21 N T 22 N T 21 N T 22 N R 15 ER 14 E 3666 Adit 3632 36352311 2325Davis River 3093Creek 3397 1340.1 21 3130 4180 3535 4293 3823 13 4 04137 2519 4535 4425 Creek 11 HexMountain 5034 13432285 ElbowPeak5673 5438 5025 4810 4750 45334727 4168 2565 ElumCle5375 5605 36 50605730 5350 Howson 5750 12221340 5610 1325 Mile 17 29 T 20 N T 21 N T 22 N T 21 N R 14 ER 13 E R 14 ER 13 E 4517 4168 42912237 2654 BM 2229 SilverDomeriePeak MountBaldy 4761 31 Creek 2810 34Kachess Dam 33 2373 2534 4942 2273 CommunicationTower 27 ThomasMountainCreekSilver Creek 5211 5090 5563 W estWestPeak 5045 5349 4526 5023 NorthPeak 1309 3 3404 Cr ee k Cabin 5296 5545 5418 Creek 5645 1315.311 RIVERCLE ELUM 5335 T 21 N T 20 N FIFTH PARALLEL NORTH T 21 N T 20 N T 22 N T 21 NT 21 N T 22 N T 22 N T 23 N 1330Prospects 13Cre e kName 5020 River Cooper 11 CreekTumbleCreek 4826 BOUNDARY WILDERNESS 36 DiamondLake 5464 3433 T 22 N T 23 N T 22 N1324Hour Creek Jolly 4900RiverWFork Teanaway 5130 3233 21 Salmon CreekCle5085 South 1307.115 Salmon 1393Fork 12 No r t h CreekParis ChinaPoint Adit 1393.1CreekBould er Little 5882 FootbridgeBOUNDARY WILDERNESS 3036 1203.15202 Boulder Big T 23 N R 16 ER 15 E 1358 Creek Johnson3951 4130 River 5343 5438 13 8 3 1225 MedraRiver Cree kJolly 1393Cr e e k5005 5029 Fork 4712 1225 5806 Fork Teanaway 1393 51225865 5891 Beverl y13 916510 IronPeakEldorado Cre ek 13 5 8 5253 Middle5885 1226.1BOUNDARYWIL DERNES SR D R D LEAVENWORTHCLE ELUM 1399 3 13585265 5631 1392.2 1225 13926260 13 9 3 1392.8 6494 13 946765 6407 6477 Gallagher HeadLakeProspects 321203.1CreekStandup5195 Footbridge 5693 Beverl yShaser Middle 4347Creek Bear5177 4153 CulverSprings 5250 9 Ne g ro Adit 1 210Creek 4892 5170 BOUNDARYWILDERNESS Little Joe 13 301309 T 23 N T 22 N F O R E S TN A T I O N A L R 14 E R 15 E Jolly 6443 WT Salmon La SacGuard Station USMM#1 6031Koppen DE ROUX Footbridge 1393.2EsmeraldaPeaks North 21KITTITA S CODISTRICT RANGER IronMountain T 23 N T 22 N T 23 N T 22 N KITTITAS CO CHELAN CO LEAVENWORTH CLE ELUM R D R DM O U N T A I N S5837 581816 6459BeanCreek1391A1210 Negro BOUNDARYWILDERNESS Spring 64421369 7036EarlPeak LEAVENWORTHCLE ELUM 1211 7169 Adit 6 Creek LEAVENWORTH 53491379 MillerCreek1359T 23 N T 22 N 6 7 MillerPeak 19 18 6012 6402 1210NegroThree BrothersCHELAN CO 1211 KITTITAS CO1219 6427 No r th Fork32 6 7 18 19 W E N A T C H E E 30North Fk Bear CrBM5764RANGERT 23 N T 22 N N A T I O N A L ForkTe a na way RiverNorth R 16 EF O R E S T 21 22 23 24 19 6394 ThreeB rothersC H E L A N K IT T I T A SC OCOCreekFo u r th 1226.1 32 33 34 35 36 12345 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18131415 4899 5018 4747 R 17 E6 W E N A T C H E E W E N A T C H E E M O U N T A I N S1226 Gold Basin Prospect CreekCreek St af f o r dCreekCreekR 17 ER 16 E13791369Standup30 4428 27 26 25 30 4075 ForkSouth North Creek Bear Fork1359 1351CreekCreekMillerFalls121673037223NavahoPeakCascade12176658Hardscrabble1226.16743 6457CreekCreek6698 121861356417 6666FourthCreek1219Creek 1311 USLM 4USLM 4 AQUEDUCTAQUEDUCT North 20 17 8 29 2397 N A T I O N A L F O R E S T W E N A T C H E E Spring Spring 2482 N A T I O N A L W E N A T C H E E CREEK TEANAWAY W E N A T C H E E N A T I O N A L F O R E S TRiver BM BM 4WDLOCAPPL ACle Elum LakeCle Elum Lake N A T I O N A L F O R E S TRiverWaptus 1392.8 Adit Adit Lake Mountain Mountain CHELAN CODISTRICT RANGER N A T I O N A L F O R E S T DISTRICT Spring Spring RANGERDISTRICT CLE ELUM W E N A T C H E E 5 33 24 14 8 5 7 21 31 13 5 2 34 14 21 16 10 12 8 6 26 18 1 1 29 36 11 34 35 27 18 33 15 15 8 29 27 7 31 16 34 6 4 6 36 13 13 24 12 14 30 32 22 18 35 20 30 11 2 35 12 13 6 2 21 35 27 24 32 19 7 31 36 7 3 3 34 19 10 13 12 4 29 29 34 9 2 22 21 33 34 7 19 31 15 9 3 1616 14 24 33 31 22 16 31 7 13 31 11 23 9 26 20 14 20 36 33 9 23 36 30 30 19 22 2 11 10 15 33 15 21 33 34 21 6 26 1 36 20 3 8 26 35 5 25 34 31 5 11 3 15 20 18 21 35 22 2 33 1 9 21 9 11 1 28 23 4 35 12 24 5 9 4 35 1 24 14 33 15 22 22 14 2 9 16 28 32 27 7 32 34 9 14 4 16 20 17 15 8 20 1 33 2 32 2 23 18 22 33 21 33 5 20 17 24 13 12 16 36 2019 10 3 9 16 20 28 21 33 26 23 6 25 30 1 18 29 28 32 17 36 9 41 35 13 4 25 8 9 2 30 29 2 17 5 30 31 26 28 30 5 27 8 23 17 18 10 19 10 20 5 4 26 14 11 4 8 25 32 16 33 23 11 16 19 14 32 8 7 18 23 32 18 31 6 35 12 27 24 3 17 28 28 32 15 10 25 29 11 24 31 28 21 30 34 35 11 36 9 18 12 12 4 634 4 12 19 15 25 23 16 6 29 5 25 3 23 15 22 32 5 13 17 33 26 16 28 5 33 22 21 8 10 13 32 28 36 1 19 21 22 11 1 7 11 23 6 1 2 8 27 19 24 30 15 21 3 10 2 7 19 2 32 5 8 4 17 36 6 10 17 2 22 1 20 16 12 34 17 10 4 18 22 3 26 36 29 3 35 4 14 22 28 3 13 34 7 21 27 10 12 10 25 9 18 3 4 9 21 9 24 17 23 10 33 5 3 15 36 14 25 8 16 6 4 17 35 5 27 23 10 23 8 18 4 25 22 13 11 30 21 32 26 14 20 27 34 3136 14 34 23 32 29 16 31 34 22 29 10 32 20 33 7 27 13 28 26 31 7 18 6 4 19 11 15 35 12 26 7 24 13 5 28 16 1211 7 810 15 2 11 3 3 7 15 6 18 812 5 22 14 3 19 24 25 36 24 10 1516 9 26 23 1 17 2322 31 22 12 24 27 28 4 29 19 21 6 1 33 27 4 15 9 34 32 273534 12 36 9 16 15 22 2423 13 3 34 2 35 11 14 211920 1517 14 17 28 13 9 19 30 17 35 20 27 36 8 29 21 14 34 10 20 16 8 25 3 18 10 33 17 31 35 11 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 145 146 147 148 149 150 151152 155 156 157 158 6868 69 69 70 7171 72 72 73 73 74 74 75 75 76 76 7777 7878 7979 80 80 81 81 82 82 8383 84848585 86 87 87 88 8989 9090 91 91 92 92 93 93 34 5 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 T 1 9 R 1 3 E T 2 0 R 1 3 E T23R15ET23R14ET23R13ET23R16ET 2 2 R 1 4 E T 2 1 R 1 4 ET22R14ET22R13E T 2 0 R 1 4 E T 2 1 R 1 4 E T 2 0 R 1 4 E T 1 9 R 1 4 ET20R14ET20R13ET21R14ET21R13E T 2 3 R 1 7 E T 2 2 R 1 7 ET22R16E T 2 0 R 1 5 E T 2 1 R 1 5 E T20R15ET20R16ET21R17ET21R16ET 2 2 R 1 5 E T 2 1 R 1 5 E T21R15ET21R16ET19R15ET19R16ET19R17ET 2 0 R 1 7 E T 1 9 R 1 7 ET20R17ET20R16ET20R16E T 2 1 R 1 6 E 1 2 0 °4 1 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 1 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 3 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 3 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 5 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 5 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 7 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 7 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 9 .5 'W 1 2 0 °4 9 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 1 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 1 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 3 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 3 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 5 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 5 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 7 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 7 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 9 .5 'W 1 2 0 °5 9 .5 'W 1 2 1 °1 .5 'W 1 2 1 °1 .5 'W 1 2 1 °3 'W 1 2 1 °3 'W 1 2 1 °4 .5 'W 1 2 1 °4 .5 'W 1 2 1 °6 'W 1 2 1 °6 'W 1 2 1 °7 .5 'W 1 2 1 °7 .5 'W 1 2 1 °8 'W 1 2 1 °8 'W 1 2 1 °1 0 .7 5 'W 1 2 1 °1 0 .7 5 'W 1 2 1 °1 2 .7 5 'W 1 2 1 °1 2 .7 5 'W 47°26.5'N47°26.25'N47°25.25'N47°25'N47°23'N47°23'N47°23'N47°23'N47°22'N47°22'N47°21'N47°21'N47°20'N47°20'N47°19'N47°19'N47°18'N47°18'N47°17'N47°17'N47°16'N47°16'N47°15'N47°15'N47°14'N47°14'N47°13'N47°13'N47°11'N47°11'N47°11'N47°11'N47°10'N47°10'N47°8'N47°8'N47°8'N47°8'N47°7'NKittitas CountyCWPP AmendmentWildfire Evacuation Routes R S BWA R C D9-2 0 -2 0 2 2 H i g h w a y L o c a l R o a d R a il r o a d K i tt it a s C o u n t y R o a d s M u n ic i p a l B o u n d a r i e s C i ty / C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t S t a t e G o v e r n m e n t F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t 0 2 41 M i le s D a tu m : N o r th A m e r ic a n 1 9 8 3 H A R N Priority PCL/Evac Routesby ID(Ranked)1234567891 0111213(Unranked)1 41516171819202122 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 30 September 2018 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. 4.1.2 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 31 September 2018 Figure 7 Median Historic Regime Fire Interval Community Wildfire Protection Plan 32 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 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. 4.2.1 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 (Pyrologix 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. 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. 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 33 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 FlamMap 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. 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). Community Wildfire Protection Plan 34 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 Model 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. Snag Canyon Wildfire, 2014; Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 35 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 0 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 (WAFAC) 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 wildland 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 40 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 wildland 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 Management 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 41 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 into 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 42 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 43 September 2018 5.5 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments 5.5.1 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 Interagency 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 regarding 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 44 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 Crew 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 Manastash 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. Kittitas County Conservation District Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 45 September 2018 Table 4 State and The Nature Conservancy Fuels Reduction Projects Project Name Project Type Acres Status Year Location Owner Big Creek Reforestation Pine Planting 148 Complete 2016 Tapash–MTRL-RP TNC Cle Elum Ridge– Morgan Commercial Thinning 245 Complete 2016 Tapash–Cle Elum Ridge TNC South Cle Elum Ridge Replanting Replant 40k Ponderosa Pine in South Cle Elum Ridge Fire Burned area 900 Complete 2016 TNC 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 15 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Wheelbarrow Precommercial Thinning 76 Complete 2016 Tapash DNR Cle Elum Ridge (Shaft) Commercial Thinning 66 Planned TBD Tapash–Cle Elum Ridge TNC 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 Plumback Forest Enhancement 2,810 Planned TBD Tapash–MTRL-RP DNR Taneum Forest Enhancement 507 Planned TBD Tapash–MTRL-RP WDFW Robinson Commercial Thinning 1,099 Planned TBD Tapash–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 46 September 2018 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Community Wildfire Protection Plan 47 September 2018 Table 5 Federal (USFS) Projects Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/N Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/N Handpiles Blue Hurley 30 8 T21, R18, S18 20 Y Last Chance 22 10 T19N R15E S16 20 Blue Hurley 33 16 T21 R18 S7,8 32 Y Last Chance 17 12 T19N R15E S18 40 Blue 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 S1 99 Liberty 228 48 T21N R17E S36 161 Drop Kick 8 9 T21N R18E S35-36 18 Liberty 230 5 T20N R17E S2 2 Fawn Thin 6 12 T20N R17E S13 24 Liberty 235 7 T21N R17E S35 14 Grand Goose 4 2 T19N R15E S25 5 Liberty 258 2 T20N R17E S1 10 Grand Lion 11 3 T21N R18E S19 6 Liberty 269 2 T20N R17E S1 10 Grand Lion 9 6 T21N R18E S19 12 Liberty 271 7 T20N R17E S1 23 Granite 1 138 T19N R14E S10 414 Liberty 272 1 T20N R17E S1 2 Granite 3 147/52 left T19N R14E S4 384 Liberty 284 16 T20N R17E S12 54 Granite 7 154 T20N R14E S31,32 493 Liberty 290 2 T20N R17E S11 7 Green Top 3 4 T20N R17E S25 10 Liberty 295 10 T20N R17E S12 34 Green Top 7 1 T20N R17E S25 2 Liberty Fls Stwd. 217 5 T21N R17E S25 10 Last Chance 2 4 T19N R15E S16 10 Liberty Fls Stwd. 14 21 T20 R18 S6, T20, R17 S1 42 Last Chance 20 7 T19N R15E S16 15 Liberty Fls Stwd. 242 1 T21N R17E S36 2 Last Chance 21 3 T19N R15E S16 12 Liberty Fls Stwd. 254 10 T21N R17E S36 20 Martin 10 13 T21, R12, S36 28 Liberty Fls 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 48 September 2018 Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/N Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/N Moonbeam 16 19 T21/22 R16E S36/1 60 Liberty Fuels 14 13 T20 R18 S6, T20, R17 S1 26 Moonbeam 17 39 T21N R16E S1 117 Liberty Fuels 249 6 T21N R18E S31 12 Moonbeam 18 9 T21N R16E S12 27 Liberty Fuels 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 Fuels 9 9 T20N R17E S12 18 Osborn Pt 25 12 T19N R16E S28 30 Tamarack 26 9 T19N R15E S36 24 Reecer WUI 7 45 T20N R18E S30 135 Tamarack 27 16 T19N R15E S36 43 Roaring Thin 201N 6 T21N R11E S2 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 R18E S27 32 Snow Boulder 36 3 T20N R17E S1 6 Willie 17 24 T20, R18, S32 80 Snow Boulder 4 4 T20N R17E S12 8 Wilson Ridge 16 3 T20, R18, S14&15 12 Snow Boulder 6 13 T20,R17,S12 & 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 Pass 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 Protection Plan 49 September 2018 Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/N Unit Name Acres Legal Location Tons Burn- Y/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 50 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 51 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 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 52 September 2018 Name Area Year 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 Total 2017 Investments $394,358.61 Average $ Investment per Firewise Community $15,774.34 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 53 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. 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 Interagency 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. Jolly Mountain Wildfire 2017; Inciweb Community Wildfire Protection Plan 54 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 serve. The program helps the fire service teach individuals who live in high risk wildland fire areas—and the WUI—how to best prepare themselves and their properties against wildland fire threats. 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 55 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. Wildland 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. Taylor Bridge Wildfire Community Meeting, August 2012; Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 56 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 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. Jolly Mountain Wildfire, 2017; Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan 57 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 58 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. 7.1.1 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 wildland 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. 7.1.2 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. 7.1.3 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 Taylor Bridge Wildfire, 2012; Washington State Department of Natural Resources Flickr Community Wildfire Protection Plan 59 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. 7.1.4 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. Tapash Field Trip 2015; Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative Community Wildfire Protection Plan 60 September 2018 Table 7 Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction Roles Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles City, County, and Local Partners Elected Officials • Board of County Commissioners has jurisdiction and power to represent the county and has care of the county property, management, and business concerns. • Kittitas County Sheriff is an elected position that has responsibility of the enforcement of state and county laws and statutes. • The Ellensburg, Cle Elum, and Roslyn city councils and mayors are elected to represent citizens of those areas. Kittitas County Community and Planning Services • Responsible for developing and administering plans and regulations, including zoning and subdivision, growth policy, regional plans, and land use code enforcement • 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 Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association • Nonprofit association with members from city, county, rural, state, and federal agencies including fire departments and districts, Kittitas County Emergency Management, DNR, USFS, and other Fire District organizations • Coordinates fire prevention and response 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 Kittitas County residents, landowners, and community councils • Responsible for personal property and engaging in community projects • Community councils participate in planning process by facilitating communication between communities and local government. • Includes private landowners such as citizens and entities with large landholdings (e.g., TNC) Nongovernmental Stakeholders • Includes stakeholders from Central Washington Homebuilders Association, realtors, and other industry professionals • Volunteer organizations, KCCD, local chapters of Chamber of Commerce, utilities, university partners, and other businesses Kittitas County Fire Adapted Communities Coalition • Includes federal, state, and local ownership committed to improving landscape and community resiliency for all who live, work, and play in Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 61 September 2018 Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles State Partners DNR • State agency providing fire resources and information, including burn permits, air quality updates, current 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 WDFW • State agency that is a landowner/land manager in Kittitas County • 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 WAFAC • Network of practitioners that provides communities with resources to develop innovative solutions, work with local partners, engage with other member communities, and increase local capacity to work and live better with wildfire Washington Resource Conservation and Development Council • 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 Clean Water Partnership, and Yakima Tributary Habitat & Access Program • 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 The Nature Conservancy • Forest manager of the Central Cascades Forest • 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 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative • Federal, state, and local agencies and non-profit organizations working in partnership to improve ecosystem health and natural functions of the eastern Cascades landscape through the use of best available science, community input, and adaptive management Federal and Tribe Partners USFS • Manages Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest and Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest • 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 62 September 2018 Stakeholder Group Overview of Roles U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Administers environmental stewardship programs and services to guide conservation, development and 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 63 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 64 September 2018 Table 8 Strategic Action Plan Strategic Action Plan Lead(s) Priority Timeframe Notes Risk Assessment 1. Update the Kittitas County Risk Assessment and include a WUI identification map. USFS, County, KFACC High 2019 2. Compile parcel-level assessment data to inform and complete risk assessment, increase first-responder information and encourage public engagement. Fire Districts, County High 2019/Ongoing 3. Continue the KFACC. Washington Resource Conservation & Development Council, KCCD, TNC High Ongoing Resilient Landscapes 4. Review and identify priority landscapes and potential treatment options. KFACC High Fall 2018/Spring 2019 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 plans, as needed and appropriate, using wildfire hazard area information to steer growth away from more hazardous areas. Kittitas County Community Development Services High 2019 8. Implement land use map updates using zoning to guide growth to more appropriate areas and away from more hazardous areas. Kittitas County Community Development Services Medium 2019 9. Use land conservation tools such as open space to buffer developed areas from wildfire. Kittitas County Community Development Services High Ongoing 10. Enforce WUI code and development regulations that require best possible hazard mitigation to protect communities, neighborhoods, fire professionals, and properties/structures in the event of wildfire. Propose development regulations that incorporate best practices, including changes to building code, zoning code, and subdivision regulations. Kittitas County Community Development Services High Ongoing Community Wildfire Protection Plan 65 September 2018 Strategic Action Plan Lead(s) Priority Timeframe Notes 11. Engage with industry professionals on mitigation programs, activities, and opportunities to improve public education and outreach across neighborhoods and communities. KFACC Ongoing 12. Update county and other websites with wildfire education, resources, and materials. Kittitas County Community Development Services, KFACC High 2019 13. Promote neighborhood and community development activities and evacuation plans through programs such as Firewise Community USA, Ready Set Go! KFACC High Ongoing Improved Response 14. Promote and support fire departments to increase capacity, funding opportunities, and volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention. Kittitas County Fire Chief’s Association, Kittitas County Fire Marshal High Ongoing 15. Establish wildland fire response agreements between the county, local fire districts, and state and federal agencies. Kittitas County Emergency Management, Local Fire Districts, DNR Medium Community Wildfire Protection Plan 66 September 2018 7.2.1 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 wildland 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. Jolly Mountain Wildfire, 2017; Inciweb Community Wildfire Protection Plan 67 September 2018 Table 9 Ready Action Plan Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Risk Assessment Annual Risk Assessment Update Every winter, hold a KFACC stakeholder group that reviews new data and development of the WUI and past wildfire season and updates new priorities of risk in Kittitas County. Fire Districts, County, KFACC High Coordination, Capacity Annual Meeting Requiring an annual risk assessment review requires the CWPP be reviewed and amended to reflect a living document nature. Providing an annual scheduling is required to ensure that this occurs. Individual Risk Assessment Database Encourage public engagement by providing assessment data to individuals and compile assessment data done by KFACC partners into a single accessible location to first responders and fire adapted practitioners. Fire Districts, County, KFACC Medium Coordination, Capacity, Funding Database, Updated Information Distributed to Stakeholders Currently being done in Chelan County as part of the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire grant process. Once this process is completed and finalized for Chelan County, Kittitas County will use the format and replicate. Resilient Landscapes USFS NEPA Review – Manastash-Taneum Based on NEPA review of the Manastash-Taneum (expected completion Fall 2019), coordinate and reevaluate private lands activity and management of best management practices. USFS, KFACC High Coordination TBD Assessment of NEPA recommendations and reevaluation of priorities and treatments will be needed to identify and ensure private lands treatment recommendations are consistent Community Wildfire Protection Plan 68 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Joint Chief's Phase II Continue the momentum of current Joint Chief's Private Lands Grant to create contiguous and effective treatments across North Cle Elum and South Cle Elum Ridge. KFACC High Funding # Acres Treated, # of Landowners Participating, # of Residents Benefited (1 to 2-mile radius) Joint Chief's Private Lands Treatment Phase I is currently being implemented and incentivizes private landowners to work with neighbors to increase pace, scale, and size of treatments. Shaded Fuel Break Corridors Implement (200 feet from road edge or use topography) shaded fuel breaks from private to public property to establish effective fuel breaks KFACC High Funding # Acres Treated, # of Landowners Participating, # of Residents Benefited (1 to 2-mile radius) Priority areas: South and North Cle Elum Ridges, Teanaway, and Liberty Areas Strategic Fuel Breaks for Community Risk Reduction Implement effective fuel breaks around communities to minimize impact of high intensity wildfire adjacent to communities. KFACC High Funding # acres Treated, # of Landowners Participating, # of Residents Benefited (1 to 2-mile radius) Priority areas: WUI Communities (South Cle Elum, Cle Elum, Roslyn, Ronald, Liberty, Easton, and Vantage) 20 Year Eastern Washington Strategic Forest Health Plan Align priority watersheds with the guiding forest health document and coordinate timeframes. DNR SE Region, TNC, KCCD, KFACC High Funding, Coordination, Capacity # of Acres Treated in Priority Watersheds 2018: Manastash-Taneum 2020: Teanaway Watershed Community Wildfire Protection Plan 69 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Transportation Corridor Vehicle Fire Risk Reduction Contain vehicle fires from spreading along Interstates and State Highways in Kittitas County. DNR SE Region, Fire Districts and Departments, BLM, YTC, Private Landowners, KCCD and Washington State Department of Transportation High Funding, Coordination Capacity # of vehicle fires, # of acres treated, # of fatalities caused by wildfire smoke In 2017, a wildfire smoke fatality occurred on I-90. It is imperative for public life and safety that measures be taken to protect users and private property owners along major transportation systems. Fuels Reduction Treatments Continue and encourage participation in cost-Share Fuels Reduction Programs for private landowners. DNR SE Region, KCCD, TNC Medium to High Coordination # Acres Treated, # of Landowners Participating, # of Residents Benefited (1 to 2-mile radius) Use current grant funding sources. KCCD is pending grant award for fuels reduction cost-share from FEMA Prescribed Fire Educational Outreach and Prescribed Fire Coalitions Coordinate public education and outreach through Washington Prescribed Fire Council to encourage public to learn more about prescribed fire. Help private landowners with resources to coordinate prescribed fire operations Washington State Prescribed Fire Council, DNR, USFS, KFACC, Landowners Medium Capacity, Liability # of Educational Workshops, # of Field Tours, # of Flyers Distributed, # of Social Media "Likes" Community Wildfire Protection Plan 70 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes #GOODFIRE Implement and advance prescribed fire activities on the landscape. Washington State Prescribed Fire Council, DNR, USFS, KFACC, Landowners Medium Capacity, Liability # Acres Treated, # of Stakeholders Involved, # of Participants Local landscape level applications are currently happening on a small scale; Fall 2017: private landowner participated Prescribed Fire Learning Exchange (TREX) learning exchange and 14 acres were burned using prescribed fire. Fall 2018: Prescribed Fire Training Exchange (TREX) will be based in upper Kittitas County, coordinated by Washington Prescribed Fire Council/TNC working closely with Cle Elum Ranger District (USFS) and KFACC members. Fire Adapted Communities #FIREENVIRONMENT Video Series Develop two additional educational videos highlighting emergency preparedness and technical how-to approach to Firewise principles and fuels reduction. KFACC High Funding # of Videos Created and Released, # of Social Media Likes on KFACC Members Distribution One video has been produced and distributed on Social Media and YouTube describing the events of Jolly Mountain, Kittitas County as a fire environment and raising landowner awareness to wildfire. Roving Chipper Program Encourage Firewise USA Communities to continue mitigation activities on their own by providing a Fire District Crew and equipment to chip materials on site, KFACC High Funding # of Participating Landowners and Communities, # of Flyers Distributed to Residents Landowners have expressed this program has been integral part of their mitigation activities. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 71 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Rangeland and Agriculture in a Fire Landscape Encourage agricultural practices that benefit the forest and range, discourage development of open space land, and identify agricultural infrastructure for protection and proactive treatments. KFACC, Washington State Farm Bureau, Kittitas Reclamation District, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington Cattleman’s Association, Local Fire Districts High Policy, Capacity, Coordination, Funding # of Participating Farmers and Ranchers Improve relationships and partnerships between agricultural community, infrastructure, and fire response. Identify and protect values at risk that have impact agricultural economies and rangeland quality from wildfire and wildfire response. Farmers Market Public Education & Outreach Continue providing information about KFACC partners and mission at Ellensburg and Roslyn farmers markets. KFACC, Washington Farm Forestry Association Volunteers Medium Capacity # of Markets Attended, # of Educational Material Distributed For the 2018 farmer’s market season, KFACC will be at each farmers market the first weekend of the month. The effectiveness will be evaluated at the end of 2018. Neighborhood Education, Outreach & Engagement Continue providing neighborhood assessments, action plans, and education to HOAs and communities in the Kittitas County area. KFACC Medium Funding # of HOA meetings, # of Educational Workshops, # of Educational Material Distributed, # of Assessments Updated/ Created, # of Action Plans Updated/ Created Operating at a minimal level through the KCCD, uses local assessment funds to provide this service. DNR SE region does provide assistance when available. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 72 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Communities Helping Communities Develop a learning exchange program that engages communities from across the state that empowers community members to take action in their own community and share lessons learned. WAFAC, KFACC Medium Funding, Capacity # of Learning Exchange Events, # of Local Sparkplugs, # of Podio Participants Use Podio Workspace and cultivate local sparkplugs. Youth Education & Outreach Coordinate with existing educational programs to integrate fire adapted concepts. KFACC Medium Funding, Staffing, Capacity, Expertise # of Field Trips, # of Artwork Participation, # of Artwork Displayed In spring 2018, coordinated with Kittitas Environmental Education Network for 4th grade field trip integrating fire ecology concepts. Community Wildfire Preparedness Day artwork project in partnership with Gallery One, and local schools in Ellensburg increasing awareness in grade schools about wildfire. Fuels Reduction Contractors Encourage and cultivate fuels reduction contractors who are familiar with Firewise principles, wildlife friendly fuels reduction, and forest health best management practices. KFACC Medium Complexity, Capacity # of Participating Contractors in Kittitas County Area Small Wood Markets Encourage the economic infrastructure to develop small diameter woody debris markets. TNC, KFACC Medium Complexity, Capacity TBD Community Wildfire Protection Plan 73 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Improved Response Pre Suppression Action Plan Improve response by planning wildfire suppression tactics, first responder and community safety and preparedness. KFACC Kittitas County Fire District No. 7 Kittitas County Fire Marshall, DNR High Funding, Staffing, Capacity # of Pre- Suppression Plans Created, # of Pre- Suppression Plans Given to IMT Engage motivated Firewise or Fire Adapted Communities to take the next step in their Fire Adapted efforts. Develop a neighborhood level wildfire pre-suppression plans for Incident Command teams and local Fire Response Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness Planning Develop neighborhood plans that integrate county level planning efforts such as Natural Hazards, CWPP, and CEMP and implement tactics and strategies to build economic, ecological, and social resiliency. Kittitas County Emergency Management, KFACC, Local Response, Neighborhoods, Communities High Funding, Staffing, Capacity # of Plans Created Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness plans are to be used as a living document to resources for pre, during, and after wildfires as well as other natural resource concerns that would impact residents and their resources. Road Access Improve response by widening and/or resurfacing roads or adding second egress to communities that have only one egress/ingress. Communities, KFACC, Local Response High Funding, Capacity, Landowners # of Roads Improved, # of Roads Identified, # of Secondary Accesses Improved, Created, and/or Maintained Identify communities’ egress/ingress on a case by case basis and recommend actions to improve road access and provide safer response. Emergency Address & Signage Improve response by implementing addressing and evacuation signage at a neighborhood level. Communities, KFACC, Local Response, Kittitas County Public Works High Coordination # of Address Plates Requested, # of Evacuation Signage Installed in Communities Community Wildfire Protection Plan 74 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Local WUI Response Improve response by standardizing equipment and wildland/WUI training across local fire districts. Cultivate volunteer recruitment and retention for strategic local response. Local Fire Districts, DNR, USFS, Washington Prescribed Fire Council High Policy, Coordination, Capacity, Funding # of Wildland Volunteers, # of Trainings Offered to All Fire Districts and # of Training Participants, # of Standardized Equipment Firefighter training includes values of risk that have not been traditionally recognized i.e., ecological values (sage grouse and other critical habitat) and cultural values and economic values (fencing, livestock, public works, and energy infrastructure) Improved Data Collection and Data Sharing Improve response by providing centralized geodatabases and data collection of county wildland urban interface Local Fire Districts and Departments, DNR, Communities, KFACC, KCCD High Coordination, Capacity, Funding Data Collection and Unified Multi- Jurisdictional Sharing Platform Some Fire Departments do not have the capacity or funding to collect data. Reduce redundancies in data collection across first responders and use a central coordination data collection and sharing platform. Post-Fire Response, Stabilization, and Long-Term Rehabilitation Rapid Response– Burned Area Emergency Response Strike Team Coordinate local Burned Area Emergency Response Strike Team assessments on state and private land to assess needs for restoration and long-term community recovery. Washington State Conservation Commission, DNR, KFACC High Policy, Funding, Capacity, Coordination # of Team Members, # of Team Deployments, # of Assessments Local communities need coordinated response that models Incident Command System structure to use long term recovery and restoration efforts on all land ownership and form long term partnerships to obtain restoration and recovery project funding. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 75 September 2018 Project Name Project Goal Lead(s) Priority Obstacles Measurement Notes Post Fire Coordinated Education & Outreach Use incident meetings during response to provide post-fire education and recovery information to landowners, residents, business owners, and farmers/ranchers. KFACC High Coordination, Capacity, Funding # of Incident Management Team Meetings Attended, # of Flyers Distributed About Post-Fire Risk, # of Educational Workshops for Post-Fire Before Wildfires Occur Most incident meetings are well attended. While people are at those meetings, educate the public on post- fire risk since education and outreach after the incident has less attendance. Water Quality and Watershed Protection Use Burned Area Emergency Response Strike Teams to assess conditions after wildfire and coordinate water quality and watershed protection by using the all hands all lands approach. KFACC High Policy, Funding, Capacity, Coordination # of Best Management Practices Installed on Watersheds Coordinating rapid response to water quality issues using restoration will better improve wildlife habitat and potable water sources and limit impact on quality of life and ecological system functions. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 76 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. © The Nature Conservancy | John Marshall Photography Community Wildfire Protection Plan 77 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/publications/rp_forest_health_20_year_strategic_plan.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. Manastash-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- content/uploads/western_case_studies_report.pdf. Headwaters Economics, 2018. Economic Profile System. Accessed May 8, 2018. Available at: https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 78 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 1: 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 Salmonid 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. O. 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 79 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://factfinder.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.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Washin gton/cp53037.pdf. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 80 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/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/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.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/statewide-data/washington-state-data- 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 Mid and Upper Columbia Anadromous and Bull Trout Producing Watersheds of Eastern Washington. Appendix A Maps Appendix B Fire District and Department CWPP Survey Appendix C Community Planning Area Risk Ratings (Based on Redmond CWPP) 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 County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) 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 County Community 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. Kittitas County Shoreline Management 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 Acreage Residential Structures Estimated 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 Teanaway 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. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Eastern Kittitas County Kittitas Valley Upland Manastash - Taneum Swauk - Liberty Teanaway Roslyn - Cle Elum Domerie Flats South Cle Elum North Cle Elum West Kittitas County Community Planning Areas Public and Private Ownership (Acres) 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. 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 2.77%6.65% 34.34% 0.22% 51.22% 4.62% 0.17% Eastern Kittitas County Land Distribution Residential Transportation Public Recreation & Trade Agriculture Undeveloped Open Space 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 highline 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. 7.54% 0.39%0.10% 37.02% 47.12% 1.26% 6.32%0.26% Kittitas Valley Upland Land Distribution Residential Commercial, Recreation & Trade Transportation Public Agriculture Designated Forest Undeveloped Manastash – 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. 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 6%0.33% 75% 6% 7% 5%1% Manastash –Taneum Land Distribution Residential Commercial, Services & Recreation Public Agriculture Designated Forest Land Undeveloped Open Space 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. 8.34% 0.58%1.12% 44.62% 31.66% 11.19%1.70%0.78% Swauk Liberty Land Distribution Residential Commercial, Trade & ServicesTransportation Public Agriculture Designated Forest LandUndeveloped Open Space 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. Roslyn – Cle Elum 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: 4.84%0.60%0.003% 94.56% Teanaway Land Distribution Residential - Single Family Residential - Vacation & Cabin Trade Public Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No. 6 in 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. 6.76% 1.07% 7.94% 6.11% 59.71% 10.90% 7.51% Roslyn –Cle Elum Land Distribution Residential Commercial, Trade Services & Recreation Public Agriculture Designated Forest Land Undeveloped 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. South Cle Elum 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 27.24% 0.38% 13.40% 3.87%0.15% 6.97% 20.98% 27.01% Domerie Flats Land Distribution Residential Transportation Public Recreation Agriculture Designated Forest LandUndeveloped Open Space 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. 10.21% 0.77% 43.52% 6.09% 32.04% 6.94%0.43% South Cle Elum Land Distribution Residential Commercial, Trade Services and Recreation Public Agriculture Designated Forest Land Undeveloped Open Space 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. West Kittitas County 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 3.29%0.08% 64.82%0.10% 24.22% 4.56% 2.93% North Cle Elum Land Distribution Residential Commercial Public Agriculture Designated Forest Land Undeveloped Open Space 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. 1.65%1.07% 0.31% 71.49% 23.29% 1.84% 0.35% West Kittitas County Land Distribution Residential Trade & Recreational Transportation Public Designated Forest Land Undeveloped Open Space