HomeMy WebLinkAboutKittitasCountyCWPP_September2022_Amendment_Only (2)
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.
Date
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
Brandon Schmidt, Fire Chief
Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair
Fire District 1
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