The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES-2022-189BOARD OF COLINTY COMMISSIONERS COTINTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION No:2022* 18 (\ Resolution Authorizing Chair Signature on an Amendment of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. WHEREAS:The Board of County Commissioners adopted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in October 2018; and WHEREAS:The adopted plan was developed with community outreach and co- adopted by various fire chiefs in the county; and WHEREAS:The Fire Chiefs desire amending the adopted plan including appendices identifuing specific areas in the county for various fuel reduction activities; and WHEREAS:The Fire Chiefs believe adding appendices to the adopted plan strengthens successful grant applications now and in the future. NOW' THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Board of County Commissioners, after due consideration, does hereby amend the 2018 Community Wildfire Protection Plan adding appendices identifuing specific locations for fuel reduction activities. DATED this 4th day of October2022,at Ellensburg, Washington. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Attest: l4Clerkof the Board- Julie Kjorsvik Cory Wright, f Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz Commissioner Amendment of The Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Flan EvJaa@ 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 201 8. This plan is not legally binding, as it does not create or place mandates or requirements on individual jurisdictions. lt 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. 1'*q - aohr. Brandon Schmidt Fire Chief Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Fire District 1 Date LO/2/2022/fu-- George Geissler, Washington State Forester State Department of Natural Resources Osiadacz. Chair Kittitas Coung Board of Commissioners Brandon Schmidt, Chair Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition /c141,44 Y-vq- a.r')? Date Fate 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. ln 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. ln 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) Community Wildfire Protection Plan 29 September 2018 +, Sustain wildlife habitat: Large patches of white head the planni moderate Cle Elum Plannin q Area Landscape Evaluation S ummary Figure 1. Wildfire risk to homes, infrastructure & foresfs. Figure 2. Current and future moisture deficit levels. ed wood pecker habitat exist on the south Omak 20 Year Plan Landscape Goals Overarchinq: r lmprove safety and fire protection for people and homes.r lncrease resilience to drought and wildfire by creating open canopy forest with resistant tree species and a large tree component. e 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. ln the central part of the valley, the agricultural lands and extensive floodplain forests along the yit<ima river provide a natural fire break. Treatments to reduce fiie 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 chanqe: 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. facing slopes of Cle Elum Ridge and in if prescriptions incorporate habitat cons NNTUPNL RESOURCES the far eastern portion iderations. Habitat forng area. Treatments on d ry sites will increase this habitat to closed canopy d ependent species exists on north facing slopes of the southern ridge and in the northwest cornerTreatments are not recommended in most of this area. Fires that burn at characteristic severity in all forest types can benefit habitatby creating snags and stimulating higher understory plant abunda nce 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, difficult in many the high number of vacation homes, and limited roadaccess on Forest Service land make commercial treatments areas. Non-commercial treatments will require majorinvestments and will provide a major source of work for local contractors. Warming trends will make it i Cle Elum Planning Area The Cle Elum planning area combines high fire risk along the northem and southem 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 Nature Conservancy (14%), and the DNR (8%). Based on current conditions data from 2017, feating 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. Mainte- nance treatments on existing open forest are needed on 2,500-5,500 acres. ln sum, tneating 2749% of the forested acres is recom- mended' This planning area will be expanded to include the Cle Elum Lake watershed in the 2020 Landscaoe Hiqhliqhts planning cycle. tsRisk a combination fireof probab ility, fire and to fire.susceptibil itv f E*trut" ffi Moo"t"t" !Iil-"'l-:il*', I 981.201 0 2041-2070 water stress faced by plants, Moisture deficit is a measure I Ls Moislcotd Forost -] Moddarei Ory-Moi3t Forcst ) -.:l Hish' oryFo..s( I Extemerw@dlnndstope Definitions (see Aooendix for data sources and methods)., Dry: Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated forests that historicatly suppofted ground fires every 5-25 years. Mcisl: forests that histoically had mixed severity fires and were dominated by fire resr.sfanf specles on si/es with more frequent fire (-30-80 years) and fire intolerant specles such asgrand fir on sites with /ess ,Ire. Cold: Upper elevation mixed conifer forests with high seveity fires every 80-200+ years. WdlandlSbppe; Grass and shrublands that may have oak woodlands or up to 1 0/o cover of conifer trees. SLe classes.' Large: overstory diameter (OD) > 20"; Medium: OD 10-20"; Small: oD <10". Canopy cover classes.' Open: <40%' Dense: >40ok. Fuels: shrubs, grasses, small trees, duff , & dead woody material. long term timber production in the eastern and northern portions of the planning area. ncreasingly difficult to sustain Treatment Needs: Cle Elum Planning Area M.aintenance tre?tmgnts: A portion of existing open forests on drysites need prescribed fire or mechanical methods to maintain open conditions by reducing ground fuels and excessive small trees ihat have grown in. An estimated 2,500 - 5,500 acres of treatments is currently recommended. Many of these areas have been recenfly treated, but will fill in over the next 10-'l 5 years. ffineislni;; '+# {$ f, f; Open forest after ffi n,*fffif Open forest with small trees growing in maintenance treatment Drv 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. Onpublic 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 Gold 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 ina dense condition, leaving sufficient buffer for when characteristic fires burn dense forest habitat. Pre-treatment forest structure tvpes Post-treatment forest structure tvpes Medium Open #fflffr, Large Open ffi 6* ' .*fi1,, *lf Small Dense (Treatment tvoel Large-Medium Dense Figure 3. Potential Treatment Areas. Total area of target structure classes is shown. Onty a portion needs fo he treated. See Tahle 1. 'r Smali Qpen r l\4ed-Large Open r$nrall Dense rMed-Larg€ Dense 7\o/a 60dlo 45% 2no.1 ll MM# 150,/o QVa tct t0 .to C) TL c {t)0 oI ll o*".'*ffi"*o\".+l*oN ' qio\- Figure 4. Current & post treat- ment percent of forest types. * mid-point of treatment range lr Dry Small Dense Moist Small Dense m Dry M€d-Large Dense f Moist-cold Med-Large Dense ffi DryMed-Largeopen to Treatfrrest $lze Oass Trcatnent DryDense MoistCold Dense DryOpen Non+omme n + fuels trea fire onlymay eneration harveslornon-commercial fire on ntw re posmmerical thin + Anticipated Treatment T)/pe Maintenance: prescribed fire or mechanical fuels treabnent { . DNR Tribat f orw a or state frt,i:J r'rco-r,runicipat f, usrs m tndustrial [ -u,.' reoe,a, Hnvale g, and decision making processes to determine acres and types ofgoals while meeting their own management objectives anO relirtatory Overall treatment needs: nation of treatments will be needed to accomplish this goal and mechanical fuel reduction. However,are commercially considerations willaccess, logging systems, habitat type. Maintenance treatments on assessments, plannin the overall landscape Treat n estian atedm 51 to500s acres dof ense23,000 fo tsrest dedrecommen e 1 coA bim(Tabl ).and ncludeI commercialmay an non-commerciald thinning prescribed rvestshafire,regeneration Based treeon stze class,of acresthemany bvta le.road u rereq ments,timberimpactsaquatic and othermarkets,d eter-treatmentmtne areacres,0002,500-6 recomalso mended lndividual landowners wt con-lt(Fis 5)theiduct ownr field treatments cantheytooutteveachGarryrements.requi Table 1. Forest Health Treatment Need 5. Land MANASTASH.TANEUM PLANNING AREA rAN DSCAPE EVALUATTON SUMMARY (2020) 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. 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). 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 ris( 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 lnterstate 90 corridor (Fig. 1). Figure 2. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. La ndscape treatment priorityCle Elum S. Cle Elum Taneum Ridge Hvrry 410 Manastash Road Q24 Fire transmission to homes Hight Low Manostash-Toneum Landscape Evaluation Summary Addendum (2020) | page l Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization 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 PotentialOperational Delineations (pODs); see page 3. ln 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 (lnterstate 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. Definitions (continued) Wildfire response benefit: Any tactical advantage gained for wildfire response activities from actions on the landscape including identifuing 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 efficary during suppression, prescribed fire, or managed wildfire. Potenttal Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.g. roads, ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operational Delineotions (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. lt includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources - risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands - aswell as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 2). Combined, these accountlor 75To 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. a). Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Summary Addendum (2020) | page 2 Wildfire response benefit ,|.High : Low PCL (boundary) a POD (interioQ Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits lntegration of forest health and wildfire response benefit using pODs PotentialOperational 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 suppoft 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. Furlher 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. ldeally, 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. CONTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1694 a my.ramsey@d nr.wa.gov 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. LFAR.N MORE This landscape evaluation was updated in 2A20. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available on the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic Plan website: https://www.dnr.wa.govlForestHealthPlan 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 spatiaf patterns. PODs shown here are port of an ongoing process towards sn all-Iqnds delineotion; POD boundories qre sub- iect to change following on-the-ground vetting and continued diologue among witdfire agencies and stokeholders. Priority Priority ranking J' I Landscape priority for dual benefits .! r': T I t L *\ H t, # Landscape treatmenl priority (across PODs) e High l ro* Wildfire response benefit (within PCLs) a Hiott - Low : Potential control line (PCL) PCL ndary) POD Priority ranking PCL I:1 2 1 2 PODx s4 TEANAWAY PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATTON SUMMARY (2020) 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 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 34-54o/o of forested acres is recommended to increase resilience and reduce fire riskto 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 pranning area. a a TEARN MORE This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available al https://www.dnr.wa.govlForestHealthplan Data prod ucts a re ava ila ble at https://bit.lylForestHealthData CONTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1694 a my.ra msey@dn r.wa.gov 132,120 111,696 38,500 - 60,000 Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) 0mak ffif l. T"ana."y Planning Area Cle Elum Planning area Geography E Teanaway f]J sub-watersheds - Streams - Highways - Main roads Fire risk I Extreme I Very High I Hisn I Moderate [ --i Low I Beneficial No-!rvir". A 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. ln 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. lncrease 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. S u sta in wild life ha bitot 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. ln 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 Mar.ten) is well represented but concentrated in large patches along the central part of the northern edge. En ho nce ru ra I eco nom ic developme nt 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. Current 1981-2010 Future 2041-2070 Moisture deficit I Low I Moderate I xtgtr I Very high Moisture deficit is a measure of water stress faced by plants. No-i-jr*. A 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 g.5). Teanaway Landscope Evaluation Summaryr (2020) | poge 2 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. Forest Health Treatment Needs 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. lndi- 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. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs (range represents low ond high end of treatment need). Left Figure 4. Forest structure $rpes 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. Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | page 3 Small 1,500 - 3,000 56 4,034 108 236 Dry Dense 11,129 21,344 5,713 498 Moist + Cold Dense 19,627 6,684 345 480 Dry + Moist Open *\moCIlr:,.,.@moi 11,992 10,333 1,238 530 Total 38,500 - 60,000 *These are current acres, not torgets 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. Anticipated treatment type 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. Current acres by major landowner* DNR-Community Private TNCUSFS hi$$$$.ttff-ffi Forest conditions to treat Type Size class Treatment need (acres) Forest types to treat OwnershipForest type k , Dry Dense Moist, Cold Dense r', Dry, Moist Open DNR-Cmty" Forest I USFS I other Federal Tribal t Municipal, NGO I lndustrial Private No-jJ",,"" { Other State 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. ), 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. ln 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 Oable 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. lncreasing 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 6O% of the total moist and cold forest area would remain dense (Fig. 5) to meet habitat, wood production, and other objectives. Open forest maintenance treatment need Over the next 1 5 years, an estimated 1 1,000-17,000 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 pafts 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 noftheastern 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. Current Post-treatment* Dry Forest (63,584 ac) Moist-Cold Forest (49,905 ac) fl Smalt Open I Med-Large Open fl Smatt Dense ! Med-Large Dense Left Figure 6. Current and post-treatment proportions of forest tyrpes 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 vulnerability. Large dense forest sustainability HighIEN Low 24 Teonaway Landscope Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 4 [andscape Treatment Prioritization Prioritbing 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). Treotment 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. ln addition, fuel reduction treatments, defensible space, and home hardening are needed on private par- cels to protect homes along Highway 970 and Teanaway Road. Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt 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 forestt 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 rnixed- 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 < 1O% conifer cover. Forest structure Large tree: Overstory diameter > 20 inchqs. Medium tree: Overstory diameter 10-20 inches. Small,tree: Overstory diameter < 10 inches. Dense canopy: Greater than 40Vo tree canopy. Open canopy: Less than 4OYotree canopy. Shrubs, grasses, small trees; litter, duff, and dead wood. mechani- cal density reduction (commercial or non-commer- cial) and surface and ladder fuel reduction fire, piling & burning, etc). wtldflre: fires that are allowed to'burn under safe conditions to achieve management can be suppressed if conditions change. Fire transmission Landscape treatment priority .t N Ao--Liuir". Teanoway Landscape Evoluation Summary (2020) | Page S 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). 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 (Fie. 11). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 7, 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 ln 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 lnterstate 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. Defin itions (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 strateg)4 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.9. 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 manoged 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. lt includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources - risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commerciatly managed lands - as well as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Combined, these accountfor 75o/o of the wildfire re- sponse benefit. Landscape treatment priority (Fig. 9) accounts for the remaining 25%o. 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. l l). Wildfire response benefitPOD (interior) PCL (boundary) Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 6 Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits lntearation of forest health ond 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. ldeally, 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. PODPriority Priority rankingLandscape priority for dual benelitsPCLndary) Landscape treatment priority (across PODs) n High I ao* Wildfire response benefit (within PCLs) ; Hiott - Low - Potential eonkol line (PCL) 2 Miles Priority ranking PCL PODt- 1x' n- a 3E 3f* 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. PCt width is inflated to display spatial patterns. PODs shown here are port of an ongoing process towords qn oll'Iands delineotion; POD boundaries ore subiect to change following on-the-ground vetting and continued diologue among wildfire agencies and stokeholders. Teonaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | page 7 UPPER SWAUK PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVATUATTON SUMMARY (2O2O) 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. r Although ownership is primarily USDA Forest Service (97o/o),homes and private parcels in Liberty are vulnerable to fire. r 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 39-620/o 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. o 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). LEARN MORE This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. The dual benefit assessment (pages 6-7) was completed in 2021. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available at https://rmrw.dnr.wa.govlForestHealthPlan Data products are available at https://bit.lylForestHealthData CONTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1694 a my.ramsey@d n r.wa.gov 39,175 35,450 14,000 - 22,000 Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) ffi' I Upper Swauk Planning Area Planning area Geography E Upper Swauk fl Project areas - Streams - Highways * Main roads Fire risk f Extreme I Very High I Hign I Moderate f- I low I Beneficial N 9--li*l., t\ 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 furlher mitigate these risks. lnqease resilience and prepare for climote changp 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, 41o/o 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 hobitat Habitat for dry forest, large tree, open canopy species (e.9. 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.9. 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. ln 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. En ha n ce ru ra I eco n o mic d eve lopme nt 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). ln 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. Current 1981-2010 Future 2041-2070 Moisture deficit I Low I Moderate ffiS Hign I Very high Moisture deficit is a measure of water stress faced by plants. No--L",,",A 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 tyrpes, and very high with woodland or shrub-steppe. Future climate is based on a business as usual greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCp 8.5). Upper Swauk Londscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Poge 2 Forest Health Treatment Needs Treating 14,000 lo 22,OOO acres is recommended to move the landscape into a resilient condition (39-62% of forested acres; Table 1). This total includes an estimated 1 1,000-1 6,750 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 Iess 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. lndividual 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. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs Qange represents low and high end of treatment need). 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. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary e020) | page 3 Dry Dense 8,899 117 8 0 Moist Dense 11,266 88 18 0 Cold Dense 1,62s 0 0 0 Dry + Moist Open 6,922 163 27 0 14,000 - 22,OAOTotal *These are current ocres, not targets 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. Torget range corresponds to 50-75% of dry open and 25-50% of moist open forests. Anticipated treatment type Current acres by major landowner* USFS Private Federal OtherSize class i..t:..i,i :.it:., .]t r.! ;:,,,1',,'',:'," :i.,',it' t: .;ttit. r.,it ;,i' ...,)r I J ltftlt'li )j:l.Vti t \ :l i.l:l, :,ii.1,' . ' ,,i i\' /.' lii., , .;\,i. :l , j;1.: .1.1) Forest conditions to treat Type Treatment need (acres) Forest types to treat OwnershipForest type I Dry Dense I Moist Dense I cold Dense J OrY + Moist Open Ownership I DNR-Trustlands I otherState I usps I Other Federal Tribal I Municipal, NGO I lndustrial ' Private No-i-'",,", { 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. ln 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. Definitions Vegetation Types Cold forest: Upper elevation mixed-conifer forests with high-se- verityfires 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 structute Large tree: Overstory diameter > 20 inches; Medium tree: Over- story diameter 10-20 inches; Small tree: Overstory diameter < 10 inches; Dense canopy: Greater than 40o/o tree canopy; Open can- opln Less than 40o/o tree canopy. Fuels: Shrubs, grasses. small trees, litter, duff, and dead wood. Fuels Treatmenfs.'some combination of mechanical density reduc- tion (commercial or non-commercial) and surface and ladder fuel re- duction (prescribed fire, piling & burning, etc.). Manoged wildfire: fire is allowed to burn under safe conditions to achieve management goals; can be suppressed if conditions change. Current Post-treatment* Dry Forest (18,565 ac) Moist-cold Forest (17,430 ac) I Smalt Open I Med,Large Open S Small Dense I Med-Large Dense 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 vulnerability. 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. lncreasing 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 mointenonce 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. Sustoinable locations for dense forest with lorge 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). Large dense forest sustainability HighIa Low Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary e020) | page 4 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. Treotment 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. Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Fire transmission Landscape treatment priority o-_--'rir.rA n High I 1o* -4,- 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 (rig. g). Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary e020) I poge 5 Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Dual benefits fpr 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). 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. 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 ln 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 nofthwest and southwest poftions of the planning area due to relatively high wild- fire transmission to homes (Fig. 8) and landscape treat- ment priority (Fig. 9). 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 firg 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 Delineotions (PODs) for witdland 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 londs.' 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. lt 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 accountfor 75o/o 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 High ; Low POD (interior) PCL (boundary) 'r'.|'.'. Upper Swauk Landscape Evoluation Summary (2020) | page 6 Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits lntegration 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. ldeally, 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 PC[s. Priority Priority rankingLandscape priority for dual benefits POD PCL Landscape treatment Value u High l ro* Wildfire response : Potential control line (PCL) Value I High Low Priority ranking PCL I1 I 3 1 2 3 POD ra r+ 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 PC[s. 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 PCts. PCt width is inflated to display spatial patterns. PODs shown here are part of on ongoing process towards qn all'Iands delineation; POD boundaries ore subiect to change foilowing on-the-ground vetting and continued dialogue among wildfire agencies qnd stakeholders. Upper Swauk Landscope Evaluation Summary Q020) | page 7 121"291!|'/ '121121'8',W 121'5\i\/ 121'1,W120'41'W 120'36'W 120.31'WzaoN?tszbF?NNz60NzN=N?N?c!zNzitt?120'16'W120'11'W 120.6,W119'51.25'W120"1.5'W 119'56'W 17N=F1u?NztszrltszNzbFz-@Ntszaozzb03.57Pontential Control r Lines+?nAmePKittitasCWP)Shownons(LocatiRSBWARCD9-20-2022PCLsHighwayLocal RoadRailroadKittitas County RoadsMunicipal BoundariesState GovernmentFederal GovernmentCo PCLCity / County14121121"s.\r'y 121'1'W 120"56'W120"31'W 120'26',W 120"21Datum: NoihAmeden 1983 HffiN.75'W 12't"12.7s',W121"8'W 121"75'W121"3W 121"1.5W120"57.5'W 120"55.s'w120'51.5'W120"45.s'W120"43.5'WI+-HighwayLocal RoadRailroadKittitas County RoadsMunicipal BoundariesCity / County GovernmenlState GovernmentFederal GovernmentPriority PCL/Evac Routesby lD(Ranked)1234567II10111213(Unranked)141516171819202122=Fzi.ts=NNN?NNzaDNNN7FzL7oNN=tsz60N?N7Nz&)zts=0121NzbN7N4RSBWARCD9-20-20227N7N3215tt _I6It41335{-'# tr 3t-'cq sc+'.Nt-F--.36r&5rI 6'l-5\ 3:ll432_t'36 !32t1.&:l3t33341\rS-+r,citiirity1?/.dt,/6.6\I'-4Kittitas9- io' l1u,1 '-''uf,\r'1 qx.. ;i ^-,g- r5f\i+FIt,11 12-mentstoI12WildfireRoutesd9't15 ' 14Jd {= l/ 26ll716l6 5-15' 16t'7It1?t'7i6 1514ti1.92021ll'isI,23 24, i920'29 "2112122t 2l2A2229l=2'730 -.2825I./ i626l)\i2932r283329 ts25-303133"352814 _. _.4 j535 36vT23{{'1 5I:i':",,1rr l3IT?2&\33l13435 364T116Nl*. -_f )f rrl (trI f r J'.':"''Y'r43.1IfQ1aF.s .4 - .3 ju.t -" -F,')ftl,818 ir4-1t{ti t't^, Fi'a.8, eJTi7 16.1 r9 l0a,r{112. -- iri"{n13 ili!air25-t27tB-"N14 F3l516 l5 14tt"_t6t-13t7r6l51685L25la J+!li92(j21 *)1-lz:i:l19:l0-.20 2\ ,-124 1929:,* ' 2l2t) )a \"2779-2625*75l53526i-ll;f33i634' ,32 33.- , 3+-3231_x2t R1,- _.. _ .:_ .5E'i'31R168 :s12 >'-l.3I -(5E:2 i ,-\T20fiJ6[:]8Itz)i. _ ,Jl'.iI7121.18in u" It rj/li12 tt10l5.. - t0'(] 'N,Jl613 181l_()ti ... .... 1618dd$l920 2l222.9 28 27I, tl1721&l--1320t0293i{')?4.c){\l--.--:i6351528l3263316l5 .lbr T191t14tr-2415 -14./t-27 -'l2I - -n?-lj4r0R13Et81422' ii- . TJ9R13{!' - "i""".13.,2... ... :1".'..- l0 ,t -- tl9:65.1 ..g s.-_lcl--19 17 .. to121"10.75'W 121"8'W 121121"3',W 121"1.5',W120'55.5'W120'49.5',WDatum: NodhAmed€n 1983 HffiN September 2018 Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Prepared for the Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition and Kittitas County Conservation District Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 Kittitas County Prepared for The Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition, Kittitas County Public Works, and the community of Kittitas County. Prepared by Kittitas County Conservation District 2211W Dolarway Rd Ste #4 Ellensbu rg, Washi ngton 98926-2887 Anchor QEA, LLC 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 981 01 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. lt is intended to serve as a planning tool for fire and land managers and residents to assess risks associated with wildland fire and identifu strategies and make recommendations for reducing those risks. Jay Wiseman, Fire Chief Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue Date George Geissler, Washington State Forester Washington State Department of Natural Resources Date Laura Osiadacz, Chair Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Date Mitch Long, Chair Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition Date 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. lt 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 Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue Date George Geissler, Washington State Forester Washington State Department of Natural Resources Date Laura Osiadacz, Chair Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Date 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. lt 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 Kittitas County Fire Chiefs Association, Chair Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue Date George Geissler, Washington State Forester Washington State Department of Natural Resources Date Laura Osiadacz, Chair Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Date Brandon Schmidt, Chair Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........... Abbreviations ........... 1 lntroduction IV ...................... 1 2 History of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection P|an............................4 2.1 Recent Federal lnitiatives and Legislation 4 2.2 Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition ..............,....5 2.3 The Formation of the Kittitas CWPP Subcommittee.6 2.4 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update Process 6 2.5 Additional State and Federal CWPP Guidelines lntegration. ..............8 3 Kittitas County Local Environment............... ................9 3.2 Demographics 10 3.5.1 Fire Adapted Landscape 15 3.6 Wildland Urban lnterface 20 20 21 21 24 24 30 32 32 33 34 4 Wildfire in Kittitas County 4.1.2 Change in Fire Regimes in Kittitas County 4.2.1 Landscape Risk Assessments 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 History of Wildland Urban lntedace Code in Kittitas County Wildland Urban lnterface Risk in the West..... Wildland Urban lnterface Planning Areas............ 4.2 Risk Assessment Evaluation Tools 4.2.2 Wildfire Simulation and Mappin9..................... 4.2.3 Combining Landscape Risk and Model Simulation.. Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 4.2.4 lmprove Risk Assessment lnformation............... ...........,..........36 4.2.5 Risk Assessment Summary ............37 5 Taking the Cohesive Strategy Approach ..................38 5.3 Restoring and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes in Kittitas County......... ...........40 5.3.1 Ecology/Ecosystem-Based Fire Management 40 5.4 5.5 Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative 40 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments .........43 5.5.1 Past Private Land Accomplishments and Cha11enges................ .................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 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 lncreasing Wildfire Response throughout Kittitas County......... ..............................53 6.4 Emergency Preparedness/Evacuation..................... ......... 53 6.6 Limited English Speaker Communication Plan ..,......,...55 6.7 Pre-Suppression Plans - Preparing Communities Before the lncident 55 6.9 Long Term Recovery 56 7 Putting the Community Wildfire Protection Plan into Action 58 7.1.1 Residents and Homeowners ........ 58 7.1.2 Fire and Emergency Responders 5B 7.1.3 Civic and Community Leaders........ .....................58 7.1.4 Forest and Land Managers ...........59 7.2.1 Ready Action Plan .............. .............. 66 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of CWPP........... ..................... 76 ltCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 8 References ......77 Wildland Urban lnterface Planning Area Fire Coverage.... ............................21 Kittitas County Recent Fire History. .......................24 Fuels Reduction Projects 44 State and The Nature Conservancy Fuels Reduction Projects ....................45 Federal (USFS) Projects........ ..............47 Firewise USA Recognized Communities in Kittitas County 51 Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction Roles 60 Wildland Urban lnterface Planning Areas Map 23 Median Historic Regime Fire lnterval 31 Maps Fire District and Department CWPP Survey Community Planning Area Risk Ratings (Based on Redmond CWPP) CWPP Local Planning lntegration Communities at Risk TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 ABBREVIATIONS BLM CEMP Cohesive Strategy CWPP DNR DNR LOA FEMA FLAME HFI HFRA Htz HOA HUC IWUIC KCCD KFACC MTRL-RP NEPA NRCS PNRA PNRS RAWS TNC USFS WAFAC WDFW WRIA WUI U.S. Bureau of Land Management Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Washington State Department of Natural Resources DNR Landowner Assistance Program Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Healthy Forests lnitiative Healthy Forests Restoration Act Home lgnition Zone homeowner association Hydrologic Unit Code lnternational Wildland Urban lnterface Code Kittitas County Conservation District Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition Manastash Taneum Resilient Land - Restoration Project National Environmental Policy Act Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Northwest Region Wildfire Risk Assessment Pacific Northwest Research Station Remote Automated Weather Stations The Nature Conservancy U.S. Forest Service Washington Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Water Resource lnventory Area Wildland Urban lnterface Community Wildfire Protection Plan IV September 201 8 1 lntroduction 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 Cou nty i ncl ud i ng demog raph ics, infrastructu re, terra i n, the location and conditions of all vegetation and other potential fuels, and the conditions specific to the Wildland Urban lnterface (WUl). 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). 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. 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is to accomplish the following goals: r Protect lives and property from wildland fires . lnstill a sense of personal responsibility for taking preventive actions regarding wildland fire r lncrease public understanding of the risks associated with living in a fire-adapted ecosystem o lncrease the community's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from wildland fires o Restore fire-adapted ecosystems r Create and maintain fire adapted communities . lmprove the fire resilience of the landscape while protecting other social, economic, and ecological values 1.2 Mission The overall mission of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan is to protect against Ioss of life, propefi, and natural resources as the result of wildland fire. The CWPP has met its mission and continues to serve as the leading document providing direction and guidance to those seeking to protect the resources of Kittitas County. Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of forest ecosystems across the country. Central Washington is no exception. Historically, 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 WUl. 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. 2Community Wildfire Protection Plan 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. 3Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 2 History of the Kittitas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2.1 Recent Federal lnitiatives and Legislation The Healthy Forests lnitiative (HFl) 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. lt 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 WUl. 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 r The primary, national goals identified as necessary to achieving the vision are: 4Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 Resilient landscapes: Landscapes across alljurisdictions 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: Alljurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. 2.2 Kittitas Fire Adapted Communities Coalition ln 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 resilienry, 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 5Community Wildfire Protection Plan 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 documenf 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. ln addition, private landowners have responded enthusiastically to the defensible space and preparation guidelines and recommendations to reduce hazardous fuels on their own properties. 6Community Wildfire Protection Plan 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. ln keeping with the strategy of the original Kittitas County CWPP, the Subcommittee revisited the planning outline in Preparing o Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban lnterface 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: lnvolve 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 effofts 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 communigr 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. a a o 7Community Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 a a a a 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 communi$r 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. lnterested parties provided comments during this period. The Kittitas County CWPP was mutually accepted and signed by localfire 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 lntegration 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 lmplementation Plan (usDA 2006) r 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 r 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. ICommunity Wildfire Protection Plan September 2018 3 Kittitas County Local Environment 3.7.7 Overview Kittitas County is located in central Washington and bound by the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Columbia River to the east. More than 7O% 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 lnventory Areas (WRlAs). 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). 9Community Wildfire Protection Plan 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% oI 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. ln 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 ln the last few years, Kittitas County has experienced tremendous growth with approximately 11,355 new residents locating within the county from 2000 to 2016 (Headwaters Economics 2018). The most recent estimate of the Kittitas County population, from 2017, was 46,205 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Kittitas County has five incorporated communities: Ellensburg (est. pop. 20,326), Cle Elum (pop. 1,993), Kittitas (est. pop. 1,491), Roslyn (est. pop.947)and South Cle Elum (est. pop.560) (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). The remaining population lives within the unincorporated areas of the county WA OFM 2017). While Kittitas County remains rural in comparison to its westerly neighbors, increased population and secondary home growth is projected to be significant (Berk Consulting 2016). Community Wildfire Protection Plan 10 September 2018 Figure 1Land Ownership MapNOTESI1. Streams and Rive6 acquired trom KCCD {2012).2. Publi€ land data acquired from USGS Gap AnalysisProgram (2016), and WA RCO Pubiic Lands lnventory(2014).IJr iIIILqend -ProS OwmEhp DEmuh h Xn&rcoung@t*aetucaimE*.,"*-FdddogtENg ssud tuBnlp- :-'*trily €i's gao€EmrlsaEoF $^$rsils?fa ot *1* ft{oo.En,sFgltor!$aioir st^:lor$rsilhesai€ajS. h NdJn e{ffi}u$ r.s+lLrlrnoa ^srN 'Ke'FoqE$$FrreerBi;s;'dekof02.551020MilesCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan11September 2018 Figure 2Kittitas County Demographic lnformationSource: WA OFM 2017KITTITAScmMdsdPmcbm CMTofrfr16t6a0l7Edidiod Biih!E3thr.d OadhdPopldion -?0ltUilndpdddhcapqrbdLedft!. n Sq. Mi-ossitt Fop./Sq. tttAisMVrl6 - ?otoTdd S tt tboedP* Crpi. S/ft@P€@lhco@-2015tdd Srr Urc*Amofr4.7303).34521.*5r9_{7KITTITASAVEnACE MOtlrflLY €fiFt_OyarGilT AilO tofaL wacEa u co\GnED E tpl-oyrtel|t{y 2016Av t ot Pscef, p@aduln&!!qAgr*' Fd.*y.Unhguihi.st5,33,46911 19.461cdsdisll.nlLdum9sr.st.8tr|t40,161Esoloffi Eftoloei oaidFhning & Hodmg 1?? 57 6.7Prtsc6eftd?old itdny % ot Cou.ty Rd bt6r.8 AEn!€ Plputdton %ofPop56684,6€0 4.819 10.t4 33?422I2'12128m. ;; .i43 56€ 3.920r 2,87 t 5.845 r80 r,319 176 t"2a8 415 2.S73 246 r.?sl xl t,22 13? 0.9164 r.250 S.?23 r30 0.s142 ?.612 18.1s 3?{ 2365 3.881 27.A10 67 0.5It 6 PddJ31.25G,r01t42.430.9r5s20,68?,260673,21?.632$8.264,737$8,7S3,84St23,5?6_3855r 1,324.08{sr.szo.esi54.506,881s3?, r 60.424s2.09a732s48,607,294s8,88€,993t227,6?S.980$5,216.426ot Tddu.l-:r3.0l5r.6tJ036.6OA87t.640309!7332E3pd{lonr1,87519.560't,500GOTnnsp. & W.GhoMShbtrmiimFh-. 1n3.. 8 Rel EsbPebssiond & T*h- Sda6Mgfr of Cmpani.s & Ederyiss&{n;fittoe & W.$ S.tuiclsEdu6d6rl SetoicesHdb C.rG & Se6l A$id&aGArtq Enbdmmht& RemrtiffA6ffiod.tis & F€d S6Ni6OSrr Sm, .rccd PlSc Adh6 .Nd Els*h€e CXasiidNa!il| hcsr3aNd MbntonTdl Popuhts Chog{ 3,815blrrbgG n ml6 4t3Fs i.m6 Pw. 9.4Divmsr n anl6 lmP- Lmo Pe. 2.3FOpUIAIIOil AY lloil't{tBpAflc RACE AND HlbpA{C OR6il Ay RACE2010C4$i NoFHis.ml0 Css! H6p!r*a2017 E.t. Nn+liipP,S/Ftrrb,2015$.235.07057r.79Slr.nt l& PhFicrl €frlrdtMOrtt SdieCrihl Or0ryiTdl€sn&EiEgcno8$ic FdCEAPDL.liPty LifrlnoOivacbn CashMA Crsh Arg9bn€R€fugca A$isbc.Stab SuppMtotr SSI?01 7 Ed,6bt€ Fls€aaOtrar Fnaftir€ Rsdftrsaeel CbA@1,9S ElnsbagXJIH6069 RagylZ9{6 Sdh CL EluhTdt 1.402 14.400 i00.0 s581,133.343 rO0OFUBLlc Aasfr'TA.{cE PRoGFAIIS Ii aTA'E FISCAL YEAR 2Oi_2q?dd !!49 Elrck [al{ 4g!!! lrHos lgg37,84 3€,278 3t: 366 7S5 5€ *73,1t1 2,7?6 52 8{ .45 3 161{0.830 37.8S3 3?8 3S6 gtl 63 1.1993,900 3.426 65 t10 61 5 233495,134.S58158.0981,r0{1,1 073,0832,97S1rsa70.0070.r430.0200.0070.m636493{4,m0Cdnt1al Ju3traFd gsisr g R*i$rifadX6tlld{ TrrLiql6 €rcis. tsrLfquc Pro6tsl{& V.*id. FlndNaUBI Rrsc6 TrslhrrHJD ftivl+go TaxlgtEq€gPdparty fuxoiRdl S.h & U:.lI O&rr luagLicelas & Pm(shggdmffil Re6u€!Chzo.t fo S.dc.3FhGi & ForlbE2014t3.0?1.S70630,5562016 2a1ts3,567,061 S3.S0,8€7pu8s K.i2sxoosftmbs ot Disol{ts 6 Scho{a ApgorimatAv$ AdL FlEEhrdl 20'lf.t6i 5.029 Si*c Fircd y.rr 28iO: 9a4,,t96,gSgAvgArs.FTEEmoll2Ol6-'l?: 5,t0S StdeFhdY*rmt7: g{7,724JA6til4or Soes ol Opdlhg i.v.+Y i}ot&l 7 gd. etpcDd. For tnnrucddd prog.+y 2016.r?&.t. $a1,85{i.2t2 8se €d..id $re,586,78fc*d 3,679.4?,. SpociltEtue!fi 5,8O0.56SLql Tax 12 645,279 Vcrtiond Edr6t.n 1,816.047cth.r L@il 1 .079,063 T€n9o(.tid 2,n5.O74Otrq S&e4 .?1 .543T@l 35S.531.550 Tdd S€bcbdEp.ndur.3 Si9.4gA,45SIRAi{SPORTAIOilT: REdetnA'OLS fOR CAl-EraOAn YeAR 2016fGlufficdodffi 31.7{Lk.ed V.tt€16: F ssgtr 24,!$+ oln6r 14Tilclr 148€ E&r|pt dgRrd3didd g,l$ Tdl 57,505Trailsi 8,7$ V!n!ty' 533COUXTY POPULATO]I BY AGEAilO S€X.RIL 1. 2OI7l,tat.Ltt01.t481.1 712"9?S1.3951.031$e@s1.2414r4 1,916 9e3 S3 Tdt 44,?30 ??,88€ 8,A444548 2?5S 1.146 l.ll2 Mdn As 32.13 31.57 323iNd.. Hr B.t d 4 Cs b rdhg. '$ loffi€ trg.. Fodndr 3ynbl mfriq!. dtu by r.dh.67"?93711 37410,68575.3933.87!93r312_&$t3, tsl.01I10.39.i?11.r26.2141.74?.7e0g.At 5.55?9,2{}.495J,572,5982,79r.6175,582.8??s56.298.z,558,t82r28.99313.r't875.3684,2?8.567519,2802,459.933r66.60236.40478,r091,021,82738.e7476.$3561.90549.171857,92?30,9S575,4835,0s1.81 1654.3r g1.587.r 603€1,2435,801.759687.490287,r21\575,.52e6. f ?3?,389.422Tdl Rdse Oi$bdd 51t.720.386 $12.394.018 513,$9,5S7 St4.S3.€esRgL EATATE EXclAE TAX COLLECNilG . TA OF ruEASbb HsdYa201{i J5,S8,ll3 Sbb FE.lYs 2016 J6.&8.5S3SabF*dY*?ot5r 16.315,872 S[bFisdYu2017: tAt5,310corjll Ty R EvEr uEs al{o ExpExotw REscAL€t{oAi yE[RJoto-Errxfl@tGrnral 6d S.Nic.!Seddly ol P.,w3 a PrfrlyPhylEll €diffiadTanspoddioFaala1.214.!s!!t2,4542,7#2,73425001.9251,!37800q|9A@5SgFfraL1.472Isd2.181ada0.4$91O 141t 19zt}243S3r539$1 1,313.39410.7{2.3823.360.3127,716,6212,230.XaS2.&9.n2!.s2,3?1s4,9€04,820.605gs ol a72.2786,01 26,3432,{S51,8971,8765t5954646t6910747$798$8485+r.4081.3761.251s786a83013{51.3381,3581,248947608409{9l1Community Wildfire Protection Plan12September 2018 3.2.7 Locol 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 (1,459jobs) (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. Howevel this is not the case everywhere. ln addition, not all geographies have lost or attracted farm employment at the same rate. Agricultural producers (primarily of hay) operate on approxim ately 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. lrrigated 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 680/o of the value of products sold in the county (USDA 2012). Rangelands account for 6.40/o 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 Agricultu re (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 25o/o decrease while non-timber employment grew from 6,801 to 1 1,007 jobs a 610/o increase. Timber sectors such as harvesting and manufacturing have all decreased substantially; while mills grew from 6 to 34 jobs, a466%o 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 lnfrastructure 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. Criticalfacilities 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 ll" facilities and railroads, which hold or carry significant amounts of hazardous materials with a potential to impact public health and welfare in a hazard event. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 13 September 2018 3.4 Terrain/Geomorphology Three distinct regions are found in the County which include the Cascades, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, and Columbia Plateau. The Cascade region is located in the western portion of the County and is characterized by glaciated valleys and high peaks. The Cascade region is mainly forested and within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. The Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills region comprises the majority of the central portion of the County and is characterized by open forests, mainly ponderosa pine. The Columbia Plateau region is located to the east of the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills and is characterized as the Yakima River Valley and the Columbia River Valley. Much of the area in the Yakima River Valley has been converted to irrigated agriculture. Shrub-steppe habitat is also prominent within the Columbia Plateau region. Soils in the mountainous areas in the county are characterized as basalt and glacial deposits. These soils are eroded and deposited in the Yakima River Valley as alluvium. Upland of the Columbia Rivel basalt forms steep talus slopes with large particle sizes (ranging from sand to boulders). The shoreline of the Columbia River is characterized by natural alluvium and sand dunes, but some areas have been modified by riprap and artificial fill (Kittitas County et al. 2013). Community Wildfire Protection Plan 14 September 201 8 3.5 Vegetation 3.5.7 Fire Adopted Londscope 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 fi1 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. lntroduction of annuals, especially cheat grass, has increased fuel loads so that fire carries easily, increasing the potential for significant and dangerous fire behavior. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 15 September 2018 3.5.1.3 Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds and cheat grass are found across the planning area and present yearly challenges for residents, agricultural users, and fire suppression agencies. Cheat grass, introduced invasive annuals and other noxious weeds typically occur where the ground has been disturbed to create roads, paths, or other plantings. Once established, they return perennially and can reach heights of three feet or more creating an easily ignitable fuel bed once they dry out during summer months. Fires that occur in this type of fuel spread quickly and can direct fire to other fuels such as trees or structures. Cheat grass provides a flammable link in the brush and forests vegetation types. lt 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. lts expansion has dramatically changed fire regimes and plant communities over vast areas of western rangelands by creating an environment where fires are easily ignited, spread rapidly, cover large areas, and occur frequently. Fire in these habitats can have severe effects on native species of plants and animals. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 16 September 2018 Figure 3Vegetation Cover MapNOTESl1. Strems and Riwrs acquied from KCCD (2012).2. IANDFIRE Vegetatioo Coverdaia acquired fomLANOFTRE USFS (201413. Public land dala acquired tom USGS GapAnalysisProgFm (2016), ard WA RCO Public LarlCs lnwntory(2014).bFd-ProtsBoffiilp o$bdotr h Ktu a4uxoflRE v.s&. crrtCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan17September 2018 Figure 4Vegetation Type Mapol@,ffiliq3$hKG;t Shei.stu6.{wd h KCC} ja1?t:. NtrReb$en rrts ddawhsGN&F,{ USr9{?gi.r3 P&bdcrb 4dtof us apae4rn3@Bial6r d *ficop&bdlrd@iSla)clar:1t:L!6i#s''fuCom mu nity Wildfire Protection Plan18September 2018 3.5.2 Climote and Temperoture 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. ln the winter, considerable snow often accumulates in the higher elevations. ln 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. ln 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 B to 10 miles per hour in the spring and summer, although wind speeds up to 20 to 30 miles per hour are not uncommon in the Kittitas Valley. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 19 September 2018 3.6 Wildland Urban lnterface 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 WUl, risk management will need to include short-term and long-term strategies to increase community resiliency add ressing developments, vegetation management and other facets of living in a wildfire prone landscape. This 2018 Kittitas County CWPP defines the concept of WUI as, "any area where the combination of human development and vegetation have a potentialto 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 lnterface and lntermix categories. lnterface refers to areas where structures directly abut wildland fuels, but there is a clear line of demarcation between developed and wildland areas. lntermix 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 Wildlond Urban lnterfoce Code in Kittitas County Kittitas County adopted the lnternational Wildland Urban lnterface Code (lWUlC) 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. ln 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 lnternational 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 lnterface in two conteKs that pertain differently to each constituent depending on their land objectives; the Community Wildfire Protection Plan 20 September 2018 lnternational Wildland Urban lnterface Code (lWUlC) 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 lnterfoce Risk in the West According to the Headwaters Economic WUI snapshot report (2018), Kittitas County was in the 85th and B9th 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 higherthe percentile (100th percentile being the highest) the higherthe 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 accordin g 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 lnterface 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. ln 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 lntedace 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 DN& 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, DN& USFS Community Wildfire Protection Plan 21 September 201 I 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, DN& USFS Domerie Flats 11,523 Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS West Kittitas County 94,084 Kittitas County Fire District No. 51, Kittitas County Fire District No. 8, Kittitas County Fire District No.7, DNR" USFS South Cle Elum 58,355 City of South Cle Elum Fire Department, Kittitas County Fire District No. 7, DNR, USFS Community Wildfire Protection Plan 22 September 2018 Figure 5Wildland Urban lnterface Planning Areas MapNOTES:1. Streare and Rivere acquired tom KCCD (2012).2. Public bnd dala acquired trom USGS Gap AnslysisProgEm (2016). and WA RCO Public Lands lnventory(2014).3. Community WldfB Prctection Flanning A€as ar€for plannlng pulposs only. Communlty WldireProtection Planning Areas aquired lrom KCCD {2018).gr€r Creir(trlEnd " Cffiunlty Wffie Prd*tbnPl.nrlngAres@n*o*,*awno*f:diE 8@daRecrbn Pl.dq A6rt-sE@r@ir6ffiwwW@.ch€&hS*tusq.tuffitre,: :.. MIAMC@^!o02.55101520ffiMilesCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan23September 2018 4 Wildfire in Kittitas County 4.1.7 Fire History The wildfire occurrence in Kittitas County has changed significantly since the 2009 CWPP plan. While the 2009 CWPP noted many occurrences and starts from 1972 to 2008, since 2008, Kittitas County has been faced with significant wildfires, both human and lightning caused. Table 2 Kittitas County Recent Fire History Fire Name Year Size Coungr Structures Lost Reecer 2004 107 Kittitas Lauderdale 2004 247 Kittitas Elk Heights 2004 296 Kittitas Lick Creek 2005 734 Kittitas Polallie 2006 961 Kittitas Amabilis 2006 116 Kittitas Crow Creek 2007 83 Kittitas Easton Ridge 2007 401 Kittitas Ellensburg Pass 2007 452 Kittitas Ellensburg Pass 2007 452 Kittitas WDFW-Tarpiscan 2008 575 Kittitas Lemah 2009 649 Kittitas Umtanum Falls 2011 252 Kittitas MP 124 2011 450 Kittitas Taylor Bridge 2012 23,501 Kittitas 61 Trail Creek 2012 24 Kittitas Stafford Creek 2012 33 Kittitas Diamond Head 2012 1,055 Kittitas Gold Creek Springs 2012 31 Kittitas Old Blewett Pass 2012 22 Kittitas Moon Beam 2012 1 Kittitas Jack Creek Pass 2012 7 Kittitas French Cabin Creek 2012 42 Kittitas Peavine Canyon 2012 19,997 Kittitas Table Mountain Fire 2012 42,481 Kittitas 5 Quilomene 2012 156 Kittitas Little Parke Creek 2012 700 Kittitas Umtanum 2 2012 180 Kittitas Community Wildfire Protection Plan 24 September 2018 Fire Name Year Size County Structures Lost Burbank 2013 202 Yakima Colockum Tarps 201 3 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 l-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 1 30 Vantage 2016 363 Kittitas MP 133 2Q16 570 Kittitas Hayward Firing Range 2016 167 Kittitas Ryegrass 2017 192 Kittitas Poison Springs 2017 353 Kittitas Jolly Mountain 2017 35,808 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 25 September 2018 Figure 6Wildfire History and Ownership' ^hd '*tr'I;:p-***".?02.55ffittrtitesCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan26September 2018 Forest Health Trends in a Changing Fir.e Regirne This infor is from DNR's 20-Year Forest Health Strateqic Plan for E n Washington (2017) i 17T - . . -, .. 200 percent greater thart in'the 1980s. They Nat tmall Insect and Disease Risk Kip (NiDRM) projects continued e evated levels of damage will occ -f f& .insec-ts and diseas • r et al. 2014), NORM estimates that 2.7 mild re :ofWashington stat. 0re5tfa risk to suffer severf damage froth insects anidrsea rom 3013:2027 xxR' t' -- 9 and expensive wildfires have led 6therstates t6 ide trf�pathways.tb� a e ' rade and scale,of forest he fth r lana e[T�e{qt aad �stg6tion and take acti�ns td r�du� t�fii ' •. fig^ f •f' E;sIC in ammunities. In 2015r more i4� wifi�3tires burned over ❑tae mif cf ,ani:.: .s 230horTiES aCip5S Vif sh}nRtRn St W'sI 9.tos`t state taxpayers,$89 m that YOC . � we •+' • wff�• .. '. "r: C"-�`' (r�• r .. titer • rT.� .. f., .. � . hich is aimst~'1<h rxni§§ the 1'6�yea arinuafi a'verageaf X34 rta` 1110n. In ++J. 5,,wildfires Lot ''� i'��}+ •�' i • . t •f .• ' R' !. •l+i`. ' to ,;�.f y i.' ;., :T- •�, represented the second largest sirg`rgle .carbon emitter in the sl;V-. sego to the �.�•� ._ transportation sector. In total; agencies and landowners cql�� TV spent • n X19 million on'tire':sr.,ppre�sion activities theit year in Washi:.�While the 2015'ildfir•e .. i. �k- season broke. Many• .Cecords, predictions' indicat;e:� th PacificAorthwest 'may .�ex pe four times more acres burhed'aniapall in tie p y 4$Us comp td �..` annual �?ea burned from 1915 to 2006 {!_it;efl t al. 201 O�,.Ipthoutii y mann ernent, inGludin . changes .Rn 'the a rtaach and -'methods- r' treatin r� 9 I 9 g i�p, f�� ., � �'1 •mac landscapes; forest health will cpritinue to; decline, and occ�frrencun e of r racteristic • U ZI- 4� w wildfires will continue to increase: � r ►fir• c•., .� r•- �`" _� ... t4�� • . Copyright 2017 John F Marshall r 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. ln 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 PotentialControl 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. ln 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. l. Summary of Amendment (Page 29) 2. Landscape Evaluations 3. Static Maps of Evacuation Routes, PODs and PCLs (online map available) Community Wildfire Protection Plan 29 September 201 8 t F' Omak Cle Elum Planninq Area Landscaoe Evaluation Summary ffir$iur*.[; 20 Year Plan Landscape Goals Overarchinq: . lmprove safety and fire protection for people and homes. o lncrease resilience to drought and wildfire by creating open canopy forest with resistant tree species and a large tree component. o 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. ln 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 flre 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 chanqe: Projected warming will increase moisture stress and thus probability of wildfire and insect outbreaks. By mid-century, 45% oI 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. Figure 1. Wildfire risk to homes, infrastructure & foresfs. fjJ Cle Elum PlanningArea Landscape Hiqhlishts The Cle Elum planning area combines high fire risk along the northem and southem ddges with extensive development in the valley and foothills. Ownership of forestland is dominated by small private landowners (56%), along with Forest Service (19%), the Nature Conservancy (14%\ and the DNR (8%). Based on current conditions data from 2017, teafrng 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. Mainte- nance treatments on existing open forest are needed on 2,500-5,500 acres. ln sum, tneating 2743% 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. to fire. Risk is a combination of fire fire intensity, and ! E"t,eme ffi uooerate I;il"'Li::'*,, 1981-2010 2041-2070 water stress faced by plants. I L*: Moisrcob F6r€st .::i Mde,.r€: ory-Moist Forcst !t.;r. rign: oryrorest I Exton€iWdl.nd-Slepe Definitions {see Aooendix for data sources and methods): Dry: Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated forests that histoicatly supported ground fires every 5-25 years. Mcist: forests that histoically had mixed seveity fires and were dominated by fire reslsfanl species on slfes with more frequent fire (-30-80 years) and fire intolerant specles such as grand tir on stfes wfh /ess fhe. Cold: Upper elevation mixed conifer forests with high severity fires every 80-200+ years. WodlandlStbppe.' Grass and shrublands that may have oak woodlands or up to 10To cover of conifer trees. SEe classes.' Large: overstory diameter (OD) > 20"; Medium: OD 1U20"; Small: OD <10". Canopy cover c/asses.' Open: <40%; Dense: >40/o. Fuels: shrubs, grasses, small trees, duff, & dead woody material. ffi[!rrrni;;Treatment Needs: Gle Elum Planning Area Maintenance treatments: A portion of existing open forests on dry sites need prescribed flre 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. lfi.&,,-f#$s. cH $Open forest with small trees growing in tf*, { rf Open forest after maintenance treatment Drv forest: Treating 8,000 - 1 1,000 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 Gold 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. Pre-treatment forest structure tvpes Post-treatment forest structure tvpes #ltt, & lf Medium Open frffif 3 {tr" Larte Open r Small Open r Med-Latge Open r Smali Dense r M*d-Large M Small Dense $$*s' (Treatment tvpe) Large-Medium Dense Figure 3. Potential Treatment Areas. Total area of target structure classes is shown. Only a portion needs fo hetreated. See lable 1. ^6" Figure 4. Current & post treat- ment percent of forest types. * mid-point of treatment range MM# -a 75Y* $lil nll .,..":'B:t::::i $s-.rt**, Cf*s'*or+ il i Dry Small Dense Moist Small Dense ffi ory tt,teo-Large Dense f Moisl-cold Med-Large Dense ff$ Dry Med-Large open Condltlons toTreat Slzc Class Treatment NeedAcree DryDense Moist-Cold Dense DryOpen on-comme treatment, maybe fire+ N4ay be ornon-commercla fire Commerical thin + neration harvest poss $;. : ,i OtrtR Tribal f orw a or state 8*{g Nco-Municipal fusrs mlndustrial I otherFederal PrivateMaintenance: prescribed fire or mechanical fuels treatment Anticipated Treatment Type Overall treatment needs: Treating an estimated 15,500 to 23,000 acres of dense forest is recommended (Table 1). A combi- ffineededtoaccomplishthisgoal,andmayincludecommercialandnon-commercialthinning,prescribed fire, regeneration harvests, and mechanical fuel reduction. Based on tree size class, many of the acres are commercially viable. Howev6r, road access, logging systems, habitat requirements, aquatic impacts, timber markets, and other considerations will deter- mine treatment type. MainGnance treatments on 2,500-6,000 acres are also recommended. lndividual landowners (Fig. 5) will con- duct their own fibld 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. Table 1. Forest Health Treatment Need Figure 5. Land MANASTASH.TANEUM PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2O2O) 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. La ndscape Treatment Prioritization Prioritbing for forest heolth & 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. 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). Treotment 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 lnterstate 90 corridor (Fig. 1). Figure 2. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Landscape treatment priority Cle Elum S. Cle Elum Ridge Thorp Taneum Hwy 410 Manastash Road Fire transmission to homes Monastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluotion Summary Addendum (2020) | page 1 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.9. 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). context and can include landscape-level forest health and fuel treatments, treatments along escape routes, resident and community fire mitigation activities (e.9. defensible space, home hardening), and improving signage and road conditions. The WRB metric provides a high-level prioriti- zalion, 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. ). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 3. ln 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 (lnterstate 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. 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 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. Potentiol Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of Po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.9. 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. lt 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 accounl lor 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. a). Wildfire response benefit ,,] PCL (boundary) POD (interior) Manastash-Toneum Landscope Evaluotion Summary Addendum (2020) | Page 2 Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits lntegration 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. ldeally, 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. CONTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1694 amy.ramsey@d nr.wa.gov 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. LEARN MORE This landscape evaluation was updated in 2020. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available on the 20-Year Forest Health Strategic plan website: https://lwvru.d nr.wa.govlFo restHea lth Pla n 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 PC[s. 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 prccess towards an qll-Ionds delineation; POD boundqries are sub- iect to chonge following on'the-ground velting and continued dialogue among wildfire agencies and stakeholders. Priority Priority ranking! Landscape priority for dual benefits Landscape treatment priority (across PODs) u High I ao* Wildfire response benefit (within PCLs) ; Hiott - Low - Potential conkol line (PCLi PCL POD Priority ranking PCL POD 1r rI, z 3 == 3 p,{" TEANAWAY PLANNING AREA LANDSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2020) 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 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 riskto 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. LEARN MORE This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available at: https://www.dnr.wa.govlForestHealthPlan Data prod u cts a re ava il a ble at: https://bit.lylForestHealthData CCINTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1 694 amy.ramsey@d nr.wa.gov 111,596 38,s00 - 60,000132,120 TotalAcres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) Omak i l.t ! T"un"*"y Planning Area Hwy 97 Teanaway Rd Cle Elum Hwy 970 Planning area Geography E Teanaway EJ Sub-watersheds - Streams - Highways * Main roads Fire risk I Extreme I Very High I Hign ffi Moderate l t I-ow I Beneficial N o--4-o,rir", A Overarching Goals Reduce wildfire risk ond 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. ln 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. lnqease resilience ond orepare 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. Susta in wild life h a bitat 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. ln 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. En hance ru ra I eco no m ic deve lopme nt 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. Gurrent 1981-2010 Future 2041-2070 Moisture deficit I Low I Moderate I Higrr I very nign Moisture deficit is a measure of water stress faced by plants. No--=Lit,,"" A 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). Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 2 Forest Health Treatment Needs Treating 38,500 to 60,000 acres is recommended to move the landscape into a resilient condition (34-54o/o 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. lndi- 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. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs (ronge represents low ond high end of treatment need). 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. Teanowoy Landscape Evaluotion Summary (2020) | Poge 3 1,500 - 3,000 56 4,034 108 236Small 11,129 21,344 5,713 498 Dry Dense 6,684 345 48019,627Moist + cold Dense 10,333 1,239 53011,992Dry + Moist Open 38,500 - 60,000 *These are current ocres, not targetsTotal 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.Anticipated treatment type 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. TNCusFs I 1,r;r1r, I i,tlt)tlll.lttl :ittl:,lt\tlii litj ti,t,l:il,tl.t: Forest conditions to treat Type Size class Current acres by major landowner* DNR-Community Private Treatment need (acres) it'lt 'r':t t:::tt': :...1i1,,t: t ,. ,.a'.\i.'t'r.: '..).,'';)i.)i': t1 'i:.,.t:1tjl..t,tr:,i],:.1;I)i.i ....',.i:tiit,, i,i'.li)jt:t OwnershipForest types to treat Forest type Dry Dense Moist, Cold Dense Dry, Moist Open Ownership I DNR-Cmty. Forest I Other State USFS Other Federal Tribal Municipal, NGO lndustrial Private No--Lir*" A 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. ), 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. ln 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. lncreasing 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. Ooen forest maintenance treatment need Over the next 1 5 years, an estimated 1 1,000-17,000 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 pafts 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 lorge 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 poftion 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. Current Post-treatment* Dry Forest (63,584 ac) Moist-Cold Forest (49,905 ac) E Small Open ! Med-Large Open S Smail Dense I Med,Large Dense 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 vulnerability. Large dense forest sustainability 2 Miles Teanawoy Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 4 Landsca pe Treatment Prioritization Priorit'aing for forest health &. to reduce f[re 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. ln addition, fuel reduction treatments, defensible space, and home hardening are needed on private par- cels to protect homes along Highway 970 and Teanaway Road. 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). Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt is based on simulated fire perimeters given contempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. 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-intolerarlt (grand fir) trees. Woodland/Steppe; Grass and shrub lands that may have oak woodlands or s 1070 conifer cover. Fotest strudure Large tree: Overstory diameter > 20 inches. Medium tree: Overstory diameter 10-20 inches. Small tree: Overstory diameter < 10 inches. Dense canopy: Greaterthan 4Q%tree canopy. Open canopy: Less than 40% tree canopy. F.uels:Shrubs, grasses, small trees, litter, duff, and wood some combination of mechani- cal density reduction {commercial or non-commer- cial) and surface and ladder fuel reduction (prescribed fire, piling & burning, etc). Manoged wildfue: fires that are allowed to burn safe conditions to achieve management goals but can be suppressed if conditions change. Fire transmission Hight; Low Landscape treatment priority HighGn Low o-L.on,t'n" Teanaway Landscope Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 5 Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Dual benefits for forest health ond 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). 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 (FiC. 11). PCLs are a part of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs); see page 7. 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 ln 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 lnterstate 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. Defin itions (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 strateg)4 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.9. roads. ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operational Dellneations (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 componeng. lt inctudes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources - risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands - as wef f as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Combined, these accountlor 75o/o of the wildfire re- sponse benefit. Landscape treatment priority (Fig. 9) accounts for the remaining 25o/o. Also shown are pODs: units bounded by PCLs (open black lines). One use of the WRB metric is to prioritize Potential Control tines (PCLs) for fire operations (Fig. 1l). Wildfire response benefitPOD (interior) PCL (boundary) High ; Low Miles6e2 4 Teanaway Landscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | page 6 Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits tntegration 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.9. ingress/egress route or opportunity for engagement). 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 PC[s. 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. ldeally, 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. POD Priority rankingPriorityLandscape priority for dual benefits Landscape treatment priority (across PODs) rr High I to* Wildfire response benefit (within PCLs) I Hish - Low - Potential control line (PCL) Priority ranking PCL POD 1r tI a 3r SlF Figure 11. Landscape prioritization of dual benefits using PODs as a spatial framework to summarize treatment priorities. Both maps disptay 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. PQDs shown here ore port of an ongoing Process towards an all-Iands delineation; POD boundories qre subject to chonge following on-the-ground velting and continued dialogue qmong wildfire agencies and stakeholders. Teonoway Landscape Evaluation Summary Q020) | Page 7 UPPER SWAUK PLANNING AREA LAN DSCAPE EVALUATION SUMMARY (2020) 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. r 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. o 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). TEARN MORE This landscape evaluation was completed in 2020. The dual benefit assessment (pages 6-7) was completed in 2021. More details about DNR's priority planning areas are available at https://unrnw.dnr.wa.govlForestHealthPlan Data products are available at https://bit.lylForestHealthData CONTACT Amy Ramsey Forest Health Strategic Plan Coordinator 360-902-1694 amy.ra msey@d n r.wa.gov 39,175 35,450 14,000 - 22,000 Total Acres Forested Acres Treatment Goal (Acres) Omak E W I Upp", Swauk Planning Area Highway 97 Planning area Geography ! Upper Swauk l-l Project areas - Streams - Highways - Main roads Fire risk I Extreme I Very High I Hign I Moderate l __l Low I Beneficial N 9-=iJt,,". A Overarching Goals Reduce wildfire risk ond 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 paft 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. lncreose resilience ond 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. Su sta in wild life h a bitot Habitat for dry forest, large tree, open canopy species (e.9. 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.9. 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. ln 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.9. American Marten) is a relatively minor component of this planning area. Enhance rurol 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). ln 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. Future 2041-2070 Current 1981-2010 Moisture deficit I Low I Moderate FW High I Very hign Moisture deficit is a measure of water stress faced by plants. No--]Jr,,", A 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). Upper Swauk Londscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 2 Treating 14,000 to 22,OOO acres is recommended to move the landscape into a resilient condition (39-62% of forested acres; Table 1). This total includes an estimated 1 1,000-1 6,750 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. Forest Health Treatment Needs 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. lndividual 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. Table 1. Summary of forest health treatment needs (ronge rcpresents low ond high end of treatment need). 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. Upper Swauk Landscope Evaluation Summary (2020) | page 3 Dry Dense 8,898 117 8 0 Moist Dense 11,266 88 18 0 Cold Dense 1,625 0 0 0 Dry + Moist Open 6,922 163 27 0 Total 14,000 - 22,OOO *These are current ocres, not targets Commercial thin plus fuels treatment if access exists. May be noncommercial, fire only (pre- scribed or managed wildfire), or regeneration treatment.Anticipated treatment type Maintenance treatment prescribed fire, managed wildfire, or mechanical fuels treatment. Target ronge corresponds to 50-75% of dry open and 25-50% of moist open forests. Current acres by major landowner* USFS Private Federal Other Forest conditions to treat Size class t\i).i'\:.:itl tlltr') .i1,,,,) ti. itit,',',,.:l.iiil.t,',,,,,:11,1.i'., Type I 'i r\,i. ,''1 . | .:, , ), tl:.;t ,: ji.: i\t:':r'tt:,,'t .tj,t!',, j.tlj.' :.,'tj\)1., Treatment need (acres) Forest types to treat OwnershipForest type f, Dry Dense I Moist Dense I cold Dense I Ory + Moist Open Ownership I DNR-Trustlands I OtherStateI usrs I OtherFederal Tribal f Municipal, NGO I lndustrial , Private o--L3r,,", { Forest Health Treatment Needs (continued) Dru 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. ln 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. Definitions Vegetotion 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. Fotest 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 4oo/o lree canopy; Opeh can- opln Less than 40Yo tree canopy. Fuels: Shrubs, grasses, small trees, litter, duff, and dead wood. Fuels Treatmenfs.' some combination of mechanical density reduc- tion {commercial or non-commercial) and surface and ladder fuel re- duction (prescribed fire, piling & burning. etc.). Managed wildftre: tire is allowed to burn under safe conditions to achieve management goals; can be suppressed if conditions change. Current Post-treatment* Dry Forest (18,565 ac) Moist-cold Forest (17,430 ac) S Smalt open I Med-Large open f,l Small Dense I Med-Large Dense 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 vulnerability. Moist ond cold dense forest treotment 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. lncreasing 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 maintenonce 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. Sustoinable 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 norlh-facing slopes in the cen- tral portion and valley bottom areas in the northeastern corner (Fig. 7). Large dense forest sustainability HighIn Low Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summaryr (2020) | Page 4 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. Figure 8. Fire transmission to homes shows where fires that expose structures are most likely to originate. lt is based on simulated fire perimeters given Gontempo- rary patterns of fuels, topography, and wind. Fire transmission Landscape treatment priority o-_-]-jndibsA ; High I1-o* Figure 9. Landscape treatment priority is based on three metrics of forest health - forest fire risk (Fig. 1), drought vulnerabilityr (Fig. 3), overabundant forest structure (Fig. 4) - as well as wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. S). Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summary Q020) | page S Wildfire Response Benefit Prioritization Duol 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.9. 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). context and can include landscape-level forest health and fuel treatments, treatments along escape routes, resident and community fire mitigation activities (e.9. 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 (Fie. 11). PCLs are a part of PotentialOperational Delineations (PODs); see page 7. ln 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). 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 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 firg or managed wildfire. Potential Control Lines (PCLs): Boundaries of Po- tential Operational Delineations (PODs) relevant to fire control operations (e.9. roads. ridgetops, and water bodies). Potential Operatlonal 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 manoged londs.' 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. lt includes four fire risk metrics representing highly valued resources - risk to homes, infrastructure, drinking water, commercially managed lands - as wefl as crown fire potential and wildfire transmission to homes (Fig. 8). Combined, these accounlfor 75o/o 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 POD (interior) PCL (boundary) lJpper Swauk Londscape Evaluation Summary (2020) | Page 6 Prioritizing Landscape Treatments for Dual Benefits lntegration of forest health and wildfire response benefit using paDs 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 supporl firefighter operations (e.g. ingress/egress route or oppoftunity 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. ldeally, 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. Priority Priority rankingLandscape priority for dual benefits POD PCL Landscape treatment Wildfire response Value ; nion - Low : potential control line (PCL) Value s High I to* 1 2 3 PCL Priority ranking POD 1I 2 3X Figure 11. Landscape prioritization of dual benefits using PODs as a spatial framework to summarize treatment priorities. poth 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. Pct width is inflated to display spatial patt€rns. PODs shown here are port of on ongoing prccess towards an all'Iands delineotion; POD boundaries are subject to change following on-the-ground vefting ond continued diologue among wildfire agencies and stakeholders. Upper Swauk Landscape Evaluation Summory (2020) | page 7 120'51'W 120'46'W'120'31'W 120'26'W1tw 120"6'W 120'2',W12'1"25'W12'1"14'W 121"8'W7otszacNNzNzaoNNz6.Ntsz-oN7Nz-@FzN?N7Nza?Nz+Nz[.)6l@zNzc!zN@zzioz03.57.s',W 119'56'W 119'51.75'Wons Shown Only)++Po(LocatiCouRSBWARCD9-20-2022PCLsHighwayLocal RoadRailroadKiftitas County RoadsMunicipal BoundariesState GovernmentFederal GovernmentCoCity / County+i!,t\-trM14g',W 12'1"14'W 1211'W 120'56'W'120'41'W 120'36'W120"21',W 120"16'WDalum: NoihAmeri€n 1983 HARN -"29iit1,t"t2l{lti,, 1,,t17l5)l ^^Ittt6t2q,20.g--IL2326-35l423'i26t535i01522I)229,28337-16t.:.2734-)O )a a?22''lu24u,622.20ilt32i1Ec!f.*fJ352627t233tb1417-...16 _ls..? ..a 9.-T1 9R1 4r.-1215 _t4F4233{20R13t - 16T10F1"CI'"; \10- 18l522"1ib21'-"iI" )!. 17IJr 14-19 -121"12-75',W 121'121"6'W 121'4.5'W 12',t"3'W'121120"57.5'W 120"55.5,W120"475W 1120"41.s',W:I--F--HighwayLocal RoadRailroadKittitas County RoadsMunicipal BoundariesCity / County GovernmenlState GovernmentFederal Govemment?ryNzn)Ntszb)ts=tszF.)NNz-otsza!NN?NtsPriority PGL/Evac Routesby lD(Ranked)1234567I910111213(Unranked)141516171819202122zFzNzioN7N012zN?N4RSBWARCD9-20-2022120'43.5'WF7N=N7712.75'W 121'10.75'W121"8',W12'1"1.5'W 120"59.5'W120"51.5'WDatum: NodhAmeri€n 1983 HARN 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 WUl. 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, hottet 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 30 September 2018 Figure 7Median Historic Regime Fire lntervalDab Notes:1- Sheams and RiveF acquired tom KCCO e1t4.2. Public land data acquied ffom USGS GapAnalysisP-r,ogmm (2016), and WA RCO pubtic Lands lnventory{2014}.3. MRFI data acqujred ftom USFS LANDFTRE (2014).Medion Historic Regime Fire lnterudl.,,_ra.*o 2.75 5.51116.5 22offiyi1seThe data used {or thir m.p/exhibit is p.cvided "as js'withoutwaeraotvofsnykiDd, FunhetiheKjftiiasCountyCgnrervdianDistrjddoesnotw6(aoiglareflree,bg.nd.wdnRrttrhMau.fu R{hrfiottur.lhateo( resuls from thetheinotCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan31September 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. ln 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 NorthwestQuantitotiveWildfire RrskAssessment: 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. lt 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 32 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: r Likelihood of a fire burning . lntensity of a fire if one should occur . Exposure of assets and resources based on their locations o 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 fueltreatments (e.g., prescribed fire and mechanical fueltreatments). ln 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 ond Mapping Computer simulation modeling of hypotheticalwildfires 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 33 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. ,,-Jjir* - ::.-- Community Wildfire Protection Plan 34 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 Wa'shington boundaries) risk assessment. lt 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 lnformation 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 ris( neither facilitates a thorough mapping of risk across the county. Moving fonvard, 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 35 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 lmproveRiskAssessment lnformotion 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 WUl, 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. lntegrate 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 lrrigation Districts' infrastructure and landscape to continue to have viable agricultural outcomes in the Kittitas Valley. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 36 September 201 8 4.2.5 RrskAssessment 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. ln 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 requirefield 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. ln order to continue the foruuard 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 37 September 201 8 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, allof which promote local collaborative processes. Goalsfor 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 ult preparedness through education by engagement, training, planning, and implementation will provide for the protection of people, structures, inf rastructu re, 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. lt 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: o Community engagement and development awareness of community roles in preparing for wildfire Community Wildfire Protection Plan 38 September 2018 . Effective administration of wildfire hazard mitigation grant programs that leverage additional resources for implementation o 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/priorilize 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. lmprove 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. lmplement 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 wild land 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. ln May 2017, the KCCD organized a localworkshop 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 39 September 201 8 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. 5.3.7 Ecology/Ecosystem-Based Fire Management Restoration and maintenance strategies should align with the Cohesive Strategy, as outlined below, and integrate the following goals: o 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. e Restore forest processes that are currently under-represented in the landscape, compared to historical conditions, including low- and mixed-severity fire regimes. o Maintain and promote the growth of specific large tree species, which are also under- represented, across the landscape. o 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 40 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 tor 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 el 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 a|.2009; lsaak et a|.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 a|.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 conserue 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. ln response to these challenges the Community Wildfire Protection Plan 41 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. ln 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), bulltrout (Salvelinus confluentus; USFWS 2015), and northern spotted owl (Sfrx occidentolis courina; 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 lnlond Pacific landscapes: seven core principles, and Yeager (2015) Summary of Aquatic Resource Objectives and Recommended Design and lmplementation Elements for the Mid and Upper Columbia Anadromous and Bull Trout Producing Wotersheds of Eostern Washington. 2 httpl//www.tapash.org Community Wildfire Protection Plan 42 September 201 8 5.5 Past and Current Public Land Accomplishments 5.5.7 Past Private Land Accompl[shments ond 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. ln 2009, the KCCD was asked by the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners to facilitate the initial CWPP. After the adoption of the CWPP in April 2009, KCCD continued to work with private landowners participating in fuels reduction programs with funding from DNR, FEMA and other public sources. During that time, the KCCD has served as the first point of contact for almost all Firewise Communities, and worked with many landowners on a voluntary basis. Since 2015, KCCD has worked with over 26 Firewise Communities (see Section 6.2) and helped facilitate recognition status of approximately ten new communities and with 350 landowners who participated in the Roving Chipper program resulting in treatment of 81 acres in 2016 to 2017 alone. From 2016 to 2017, using $199,750 of state capital funds thru lnteragency Agreements with DNR, KCCD worked with private landowners to treat 156 acres and use a local Fire District Chipping Crew to work with 247 volunlary private landowners. The local Fire District Chipping Crew worked in many communities, providing Ready, Set, Gol (see Section 6.5) and Firewise literature and sharing information regarding local resources forfuels reduction cost-share, site visits from the KCCD, Iocalfire districts, DNR, and other partners depending on each landowner's interests and concerns. 5.5.3 Washington Department of Notural Resources DNR Landowner Assistance Program (DNR LOA) has provlded 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 43 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 201 8 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 Notural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS Environmental Quality lncentives 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 Restorotion Project DNR" WDFW, and TNC have been coordinating activities on the Manastash Taneum Resilient Land - Restoration Project (MTRL-RP) since 2015. Other projects, including Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatments and reforestation efforts, have benefited this landscape. TNC completed Pre-Commercial Thinning in early 2017 in the Morgan Creek area, benefiting the communities below it and having a positive impact on the landscape during the Jolly Mountain wildfire event. Other efforts from DNR and WDFW have been occurring, including DNR's Pre-Commercial Thinning in the Naneum State Forest. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 44 September 2018 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 Precom mercial 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 Table 4 State and The Nature Conselancy Fuels Reduction Projects 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 45 September 2018 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 46 September 2018 Table 5Federal (USFS) ProiectsBurn-Y/ttHandpilesTons2040552116121612141010232547341042220475Legal LocationT19N R15E 516T19N R15E 518T19N R15E 518T19N R15E 518T19N R15E S18T19N R15E 518T21N R17E 536T2ON R17E 52T21N R17E S35T2ON R17E 51T2ON R17E 51T2ON R17E 51T2ON R17E 51TzON R17E 512T20N R17E 511TZON R17E S12T21N R17E S25T20 R18 56, T20, R17 51T21N R17E 536T21N R17E 536T21N R17 536T2ON R18E 56Acres1012147434857227116210521110245/7 leftUnit NameLast Chance 22Last Chance '17Last Chance 18Last Chance 3Last Chance 8Last Chance 9Liberty 228Liberty 230Liberty 235Liberty 258Liberty 269Liberty 271Liberty 272Liberty 284Liberty 290Liberty 295Liberty Fls Stwd. 217Liberty Fls Stwd. 14Liberty Fls Stwd. 242Liberty Fls Stwd. 254Liberty Fls Stwd. 2544Liberty Fuels 13Burn-Y/NYTons203216261522099182455124143844931021015122845Legal LocationT21, R18, S18T21 R18 S7,8T21N R17E 510/15TziN R17E 529/30T19N R15E 516T19N R13E 51T19N R13E 51T21N R18E 535-36T20N R17E 513T19N R15E S25T21N R18E S19T21N R18E S19T19N R14E 510T19N R14E 54T20N R14E 531,32T2ON R17E S25T20N R17E S25T19N R15E 516T19N R15E S16T19N R15E 516T21, R12, 536T21N R16E S12AcresI16813510243912236138147/52left154414731315Unit NameBlue Hurley 30Blue Hurley 33Blue Hurley 5Blue Hurley 63Boundary 14Caveman 1Caveman 4Drop Kick 8Fawn Thin 5Grand Goose 4Grand Lion 11Grand Lion 9Granite 1Granite 3Granite 7Green Top 3Green Top 7Last Chance 2Last Chance 20Last Chance 21Martin 10Moonbeam 10Community Wildfire Protection Plan47September 2018 Burn-Y/NTons261Z5242151824431965208328012916946843963078Legal LocationT20 R18 56, T20, R'.l7 SiT21N R18E S31T21, R17, 536T2ON Rl7E 51T2ON R17E 51T20, R18, 56T20N R17E 512T19N R15E 536T19N R15E 536T19N R14E S10T21, R17, 510T21, R18,522T21N R18E S22T2ON R18E S27T20, R18, S32T20, R18, 514&15T20, R18, 514T20, R18 S23T19N R15E 516T19N R15E S2OT19N R15E S2OT19N R15E 516T19N R15E S16T19N RisE 513-14Acres13631216991673084152433443251644/8lelt1129Unit NameLiberty Fuels 14Liberly Fuels 249Liberty Fuels 255Liberty Fuels 265Liberty Fuels272Liberty Fuels 278Liberty Fuels 9Tamarack 26f amarack2TUpper Granite 3West lron 5WF Naneum 146WF Naneum 150Willie 12Willie 17Wilson Ridge 16Wilson Ridge 21Wilson Ridge 7South CIe Elum Ridge 11South Cle Elum Ridge 2South Cle Elum Ridge 3South Cle Elum Ridge 4South Cle Elum Ridge 5South Cle Elum Ridge 9Burn-Y/NTons6011727621186030135246505026826634501219legal Locationr21/22 R16E 536/1T21N R16E S'IT21N R16E S12T21/22 R16E 536/1T21N R15E S1/12T19N R15E S24T19N R16E S28T19N R16E S28T2ON RlBE S3OT21N R11E52T21N R11ES12T2ON R'I7E S1TzON R17E 51T20N R17E S12T20,R17,S'12 &T20,R18,S7T21, R1B, 59T21, R18, S9&16r21, R17, 52T21N R18E 55T19N R15E 536Acres193992761712456221134133153167Unit NameMoonbeam 16Moonbeam 17Moonbeam 18Moonbeam 19Moonbeam 6Osborn Pt. 13Osborn Pt 23Osborn Pt 25Reecer WUI 7Roaring Thin 201NRoaring Thin 202Roaring Thin 209Roaring Thin 210Snow Boulder 33Snow Boulder 36Snow Boulder 4-,-Snow Boulder 6Swauk Discovery TrailSwauk Meadows 7Swauk Pass 19Swauk Pass 7Tamarack 22Community Wildfire Protection Plan48September 2018 Burn-Y/NTonslegal LocationAcresUnit NameBurn-Y/NMachine PilesabTons17555754,147legal LocationTzON Rl7E 512T22, R16, S30T22, R 16, S18AcresAcps7185251,510UniLNameLiberty 8Teanaway 7Teanaway 9TotalNotes:a. Teanaway 7 has accomplished 8 acres.b. Teanaway t has accomplished 12 acres.Community Wildfire Protection Plan49September 2018 5 Promoting a Fire Adapted Kittitas County T 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 $6,000 in fire adapted work. ln 2016 through 2017, the Hidden Valley - Swauk Fire Adapted Community has participated in cost-share funding for 20 acres of fuels reduction treatment, residents removed 60 yards of vegetation and six residents used the Roving Chipper Program for chipping. Hidden Valley-Swauk residents spent 239 hours of labor in the following perimeters: 0- to 5- foot Home lgnition Zone (HlZ),5- to 3O-foot rl t\ { + *t t ,- FirB tle$arbnellt Enrr0€{rcy t'lan6gemenl Lantl Minaqers Fire-adapled Communiteo tlstrte{l 0fficials Iei0hbtrhood At$scioliso$ E Civir Grorus Lsfsl BIsims$ $r*'*u** {': ;l- Community Wildfire Protection Plan 50 September 2018 HlZ, and 30- to 10O-foot HIZ equaling $6,867.83 of in-kind contributions. Additional efforts included a newsletter to Kittitas County residents regarding living in the Kittitas County WUI and development support for an educationalvideo regarding the Jolly Mountain Fire, and wildfire community meetings and local workshops to help engage people and residents to be prepared for emergencies and evacuation. Using Hidden Valley - Swauk as a framework, efforts have been taken to educate and connect other neighborhoods and provide educational resources for individuals and homeowner association (HOA) communities. Through education, Fire Adapted Communities realize that living with wildfire is an ongoing process, not an event, and continually work in their areas to manage vegetation, improve response for first responders, and be ready to evacuate at any time. 6.2 Firewise USA Recognized Communities .- I *hs* The Firewise Communities USA program is a national recognition L$}J I ffi program which highlights communities that have chosen to NFPIS I *W complete and maintain defensible space; ensure adequate access, I FIREWISE USA. lllll and sisnase; promote onsoins fire prevention education; nesiJenit-r*;ing"iilrii.?rr,* 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 lnvestments Banti Creek Cle Elum 2015 $48.28 Buffalo Springs Cle Elum 2013 $3,s92.00 Goat Peak Ranch HOA Cle Elum 2016 $13,608.00 Green Canyon Ellensburg 201s $1,e31.20 Hidden Valley Terrace Cle Elum 2014 $6,03s.00 Hidden Valley Vistas-Hidden Valley Meadows CIe Elum 2012 $6,867.83 Hyak Snoqualmie Pass 2016 $3,s26.96 Kachess Ridge Easton 2013 $20,316.90 Kachess Village Easton 201 3 $8,376.s8 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 51 September 2018 Name Area Year Created 2017 lnvestments Lauderdale Ridge HOA Cle Elum 2016 $1,427.64 Morgan Creek Ronald 2015 $20,2s3.46 Pine Loch Sun Ronald 2013 $6,947.82 Ski Tur Valley Snoqualmie Pass 2014 $2,790,s6 Sky Meadows Ranch Cle EIum 2009 $24,308.98 Sun Country Cle Elum 2012 $4000.00 Suncadia Cle Elum 2012 $2s0,000.00 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 201 3 $1,448.40 Wagon Wheel Teanaway 201 0 $1,s20.82 Wildwood Roslyn 2016 $2,157.04 Tillman Creek Cle Elum 2017 $1,448.40 Upper Manastash Canyon Ellensburg 2017 $1 93.12 Liberty Mountain Development Liberty 2017ffi-$5,ooo.ooWffi $18,7 4,,4 Community Wildfire Protection Plan 52 September 2018 6.3 lnceasing 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. ln 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 Prepa red ness/Evacu ati o n Emergency evacuation procedures are the responsibility of the Kittitas County Sheriff's Office. During a wildfire, the lncident 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 lnteragency Coordination Center use the "closest forces" concept in wildland fire dispatch. This allows for the closest suppression resource to be sent, regardless of boundaries or jurisdictional responsibilities. This arrangement is particularly helpful at either end of the federally recognized fire season (typically mid-June through mid-September). When wildfires start early, as they did in 2000 (the first wildfire occurred on March 15), federal fire crews are not yet employed so it is the community-based firefighter who is often first on scene. Through pre-established mutual aid agreements, fire suppression resources in Kittitas County are authorized to leave their jurisdictional boundaries to aid a requesting agency partner. ln 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. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 53 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 WU|-how to best prepare themselves and their properties against wildland fire threats. S& Wildland fire preparedness in paftnership with your local fire department -.!: - ,:S4. ,w_ dfrlirr\ ftgAoY, t€r,60rV) l-Y.,t U ew - Be ready" Tal?lo local fire depaftment perso nnel altout, preparirg youi horne for wilrJlirnrJ lift] lllroat. Werk to pret)arc yaur prr)perh/ tty creating clefensible space. M Clean up or relocate comhrustible rnaterial froffr around your honte lil Keep Srra$s nrowed sh0rt i;{ Trirrr h(x)$ arrd bushts. ttl allowing amplo elract; []t)lt/tc(nl y(.]ur hotl'iL] antl lanclscapre velletalioll * Be alert" Preguie: a'ga kit'anrJ inr;futcle items such as ;l ['rcscription rltcdicatk)n ;r: Emergency sutr]plies i', I rn p0rtant doclrnrellt-s Create your wil action plan ,rj [')lan and praclir)c rlnilli[]le cxlt mules frot-n yortr lronre atrtl neri ghhrrrhu-rt1 , .iAssign a meeting place in uase you are.$eparated i7l Make $urc yc\u're lantiliar with yottr local cmergorrcy not ilicirtion arrd 0vacuati{}rr $yslorns $al - Act early! lr'l Retnain a/r?rt and kee[r yoLrr$elt irrfonned ol the situati(]n. &l Got your'go klt'and lcnve *'tlll brefore the irfipendino lhreat reaches your community or neighborhood lolklwin0 a plailned. acc(]tj$il')k-) roul r)- l;? Coolrt;ralc !vith lo(;al authorilioij clurhrE; er.racuation antl re-8ntrv proce$se.s, 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.9., 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 54 September 201 8 -E 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. ln 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 lncident 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. lt should not be thought of as a cookbook of what musf be done, but what could be done.Wildland firefighting and structural protection/defense requires judgment based on many years of actualfirefighting experience, and must be responsive to actual, on the ground conditions. No amount of classroom training or simulations can prepare an individual for the leadership required during large, fast-moving fires, but preparing the available information in ways that can facilitate that leadership is key to effective wildfire response. Pre-suppression plans include maps of resource placements, but these placements should not be thought of as static, as resources must remain mobile and available to go where needed. Resources may be deployed to prepare structures, construct hand lines, or conduct a burn out operation. Once the flaming front engages the edge of the city or structure fires begin to occur and firefighters are actively engaged in firefighting, additional resources will likely need to be pulled from other areas to assist. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 55 September 201 8 6.8 Post Fire lmpacts 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 lntegrating 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 .1 The Jolly Mountain Fire ln 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. lncreased 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. m# E"*rt'o3au;cft .' !''. , ]F ffi /ffiF.-€ m='lri.31*5Fr ::''i -r''- :.,' .. _ ff1_-j...x*";LF.F *T Community Wildfire Protection Plan 56 September 2018 respond and put every wildfire out at lnitialAttack 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. .'$ftWruct*re Burn Scars are a HEad ru* During Fire After Fire lhtcr illp.111 ,; rr,.1:+f,il rr, lr fi rr-''li,r,l, |r:;f:r er.i*, lrrr;ift- l*rl Durlng Heavy Rain , .."{{rD.{rdnD lvd{ir{ft not *a {*rri6 f, rt4t r$rllirl r+il lr)*i { lt rvD: ofl lrtt WKhrnl wfi,irh {dula! d*rt4rqd, lnl,-J-J',llliTf,,"*l Community Wildfire Protection Plan 57 September 201 8 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 StakeholderEngagement 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. 7.1.7 Residents and Homeowners Kittitas County Fire Districts cannot always protect everyone from wildfire, especially if homeowners haven't taken responsibility for ensuring firefighters can safely work in the area. By creating a defensible space around individual homes and communities, reducing hazardous fuels in the surrounding area, and ensuring that access routes will support fire apparatus, homeowners can greatly increase the likelihood that their property will survive a wildland fire event. lt is imperative that homeowners work with their neighbors and communities to increase safety and reduce risk for the greater protection of all. 7.7.2 Fire and Emergency Responders There are a number of resource and capability enhancements identified by the fire and emergency responders in Kittitas County that are related to response and treatment of defensible space, eg ress/ing ress, capacity, equipment, and planning efforts. lmplementation 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 Leoders Wildfire mitigation efforts must be supported by a set of policies and regulations, where appropriate, as well as guidelines at the county and community levels that maintain a solid foundation for safety and consistency. They must also be supported by the public infrastructure, economy, and value Community Wildfire Protection Plan 58 September 201 I 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 ond Land Manogers There are many land management issues associated with wildfire that can have lasting effects on natural resources as well as communities and local economy. ln 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. lncreasing cohesiveness of land management across boundary jurisdictions will reduce risk and increase efficiency. Table 7 shares roles that community members at local, state, and federal levels play in Kittitas County's wildfire resilience and risk reduction. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 59 September 2018 Table 7Kittitas County Wildfire Resilience and Risk Reduction RolesStakeholder GroupCountyr,and Loel PartnersElected OfficialsOverview of Roles. Board of County Commissioners has jurisdiction and power to represent the county and has care of thecounty properly, management, and business concerns.r Kittitas County Sheriff is an elected position that has responsibility of the enforcement of state and countylaws and statutes.. The Ellensburg, Cle Elum, and Roslyn city councils and mayors are elected to represent citizens of thoseareas.. 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'sofficer Responsible for community response and protection services for areas across Kittitas County. Nonprofit association with members from city, county, rural, state, and federal agencies including firedepartments and districts, Kittitas County Emergency Management DNR" USFS, and other Fire Districtorganizations. Coordinates fire prevention and response activities. Coordinates emergency response components in the geographical area of Kittitas Countyr Responsible for air quality monitoring. Responsible for personal property and engaging in community projectsr Community councils participate in planning process by facilitating communication between communitiesand local government.. lncludes privatelandowners such as citizens and entities with large landholdings (e.9., TNC)r lncludes stakeholders from Central Washington Homebuilders Association, realtors, and other industryprofessionalso Volunteer organizations, KCCD, local chapters of Chamber of Commerce, utilities, university partners, andother businesses. lncludes federal, state, and local ownership committed to improving landscape and community resiliency forall who live, worh and play in Kittitas CountyKittitas County Community and PlanningServicesFire Departments and Fire DistrictsKittitas County Fire Chiefs AssociationKittitas County Emergenry ManagementKittitas County Health DepartmentKittitas County residents, landowners, andcommunity councilsNongovernmental StakeholdersKittitas County Fire Adapted CommunitiesCoalitionCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan60September 2018 Stakeholder GroupStateDNROveruiew of Roles. State agency providing fire resources and information, including burn permits. air quality updates, currentfire restrictions, and historical fire information. Co-land manager of the Teanaway Community Forest, a high recreational use area in Kittitas County that isculturally and ecologically sensitiver State agency that is a landowner/land manager in Kittitas Countyr Co-manager of the Teanaway Community Forest, a high recreational use area in Kittitas County that isculturally and ecologically sensitiver State agency that monitors and reports air quality conditions and establishes burn ban regulations and burnpermits. Network of practitioners that provides communities with resources to develop innovative solutions, workwith local partners, engage with other member communities, and increase local capacity to work and livebetter with wildfire. Non-profit organization that provides resources for facilitation, planning, coordination, and implementationof natural resource conservation and community development initiatives such as the WAFAC, Yakima BasinClean Water Partnership, and Yakima Tributary Habitat & Access Programr Fiscal sponsor for the Washington Prescribed Fire Council, Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition, KFACC,Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative, and the South Central Washington Coordinated WeedManagement Arear Forest manager of the Central Cascades Forestr Member of the Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative and Manastash - Taneum Resilient Landscapes -Restoration Project among many other local and statewide landscape and community resiliency projectsr Federal, state, and local agencies and non-profit organizations working in partnership to improve ecosystemhealth and natural functions of the eastern Cascades landscape through the use of best available science,community input, and adaptive managementFederal andPartners. Manages Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest and Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. Local support and resources also include Cle Elum Ranger District. Maintains a culturally sensitive site inventory for lands on and off the reservation and in Kittitas County has asignificant role in fish habitat restoration and cultural valuer Manages public lands out of the Wenatchee Field OfficeWDFWWashington Department of EcologyWAFACWashington Resource Conservation andDevelopment CouncilThe Nature ConservancyTapash Sustainable Forest CollaborativeUSFSYakama NationBLM61Community Wildfire Protection PlanSeptember 2018 0veruiew of Rolesr Administers environmental stewardship programs and services to guide conservation, development andmanagement of fish and wildlife resources. lssues permits under various wildlife laws and treaties. Manages Yakima Training Center that stretches between the most southern and eastern portion of KittitasCountyStakeholder GroupU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Army Yakima Training CenterCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan62September 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. lmplementing 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 53 September 2018 NotesRisk AssessmentResilient LandscapesFire Adapted CommunitiesTimeframe20192019/OngoingOngoingFall2018/Spring 2019Fall 2018/OngoingOngoing20192019OngoingOngoingPriorityHighHighHighHighMediumMedium to HighHighMediumHighHishLead(s)USFS, County, KFACCFire Districts, CountyWashington ResourceConservation & DevelopmentCouncil, KCCD, TNCKFACCKFACCKFACCKittitas County CommunitYDevelopment ServicesKittitas County CommunityDevelopment ServicesKittitas County CommunitYDevelopment ServicesKittitas Cou nty CommunityDevelopment ServicesStrategic Action Plan1. Update the Kittitas County Risk Assessment and include a WUIidentification map.2. Compile parcel-level assessment data to inform and complete riskassessment, increase first-responder information and encouragepublic engagement.3. Continue the KFACC.4. Review and identify priority landscapes and potential treatmentoptions.5. Advance Prescribed Fire Activities.5. lmplement post-fire recovery activities.7. Update County Growth Policy and land use map and local areaplans, as needed and appropriate, using wildfire hazard areainformation to steer growth away from more hazardous areas.8. Implement land use map updates using zoning to guide growth tomore appropriate areas and away from more hazardous areas.9. Use land conservation tools such as open space to bufferdeveloped areas from wildfire.10. Enforce WUI code and development regulations that require bestpossible hazard mitigation to protect communities,neighborhoods, fire professionals, and properties/structures i n theevent of wildfire. Propose development regulations thatincorporate best practices, including changes to building code,zoning code, and subdivision regulations.Table 8Strategic Action PlanCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan64September 2018 Noteslmproved ResponseTimeframeOngoing2019OngoingOngoingPriorityHighHighHishMediuml-ead(s)KFACCKittitas County CommunityDevelopment Services, KFACCKFACCKittitas County Fire Chief'sAssociation, Kittitas County FireMarshalKittitas County EmergencyManagement, Local Fire Districts,DNRStrategic Action Plan11. Engage with industry professionals on mitigation programs,activities, and opportunities to improve public education andoutreach across neighborhoods and communities.12. Update county and other websites with wildfire education,resources, and materials.13. Promote neighborhood and community development activitiesand evacuation plans through programs such as FirewiseCommunity USA, Ready Set Go!14. Promote and support fire departments to increase capacity,funding opportunities, and volunteer firefighter recruitment andretention.15. Establish wildland fire response agreements between the county,local fire districts, and state and federal agencies.Community Wildfire Protection Plan65September 2018 7.2.7 Ready Action PIan 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 pafticipants 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. ln addition, the CWPP subcommittee does not intend restrict funding to projects identified as high priority. A project that may be a high priority for a specific community may not be a high priority at the county level. Regardless, the project may be just what the community needs to mitigate a disastrous outcome. The flexibility to fund a variety of diverse projects based on applicable criteria is a necessity for a functional mitigation program at the county and community level. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 66 September 2018 Table 9Ready Action PlanNotesRequiring an annual riskassessment review requiresthe CWPP be reviewed andamended to reflect a livingdocument nature. Providingan annual scheduling isrequired to ensure that thisoccurs.Currently being done inChelan County as part of theCommunity PlanningAssistance for Wildfire grantprocess. Once this process iscompleted and finalized forChelan County, KittitasCounty will use the formatand replicate.Assessment of NEPArecommendations andreevaluation of priorities andtreatments will be needed toidentify and ensure privatelands treatmentrecommendations areconsistentMeasurementAnnualMeetingDatabase,UpdatedlnformationDistributed toStakeholdersTBDObstaclesCoordination,CapacityCoordination,Capacity,FundingCoordinationPriorityHighMediumHighLead(s)Fire Districts,County, KFACCFire Districts,County, KFACCUSFS, KFACCProject GoalEvery winter, hold a KFACCstakeholder group thatreviews new data anddevelopment of the WUI andpast wildfire season andupdates new priorities of riskin Kittitas County.Encourage publicengagement by providingassessment data to individualsand compile assessment datadone by KFACC partners intoa single accessible location tofirst responders and fireadapted practitioners.Based on NEPA review of theManastash-Taneum (expectedcompletion Fall 2019),coordinate and reevaluateprivate lands activity andmanagement of bestmanagement practices.Project NameRisk AssessmentAnnual RiskAssessment Updatelndividual RiskAssessment DatabaseResilient LandscapesUSFS NEPA Review -Manastash-TaneumCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan67September 2018 NotesJoint Chief's Private LandsTreatment Phase I is currentlybeing implemented andincentivizes privatelandowners to work withneighbors to increase pace,scale, and size of treatments.Priority areas: South andNorth Cle Elum Ridges,Teanaway, and Liberty AreasPriority areas: WUICommunities (South CleElum, Cle Elum, Roslyn,Ronald, Liberty, Easton, andVantage)201 8: Manastash-Taneum2020: Teanaway WatershedMeasurement# AcresTreated, # ofLandownersParticipating, #of ResidentsBenefited (1 to2-mile radius)# AcresTreated, # ofLandownersParticipating, #of ResidentsBenefited (1 to2-mile radius)# acresTreated, # ofLandownersParticipating, #of ResidentsBenefited (1 to2-mile radius)# of AcresTreated inPriorityWatershedsObstaclesFundingFundingFundingFunding,Coordination,CapacityPriorityHighHighHighHighLead(s)KFACCKFACCKFACCDNR SE Region,TNC, KCCD,KFACCProject GoalContinue the momentum ofcurrent Joint Chief's PrivateLands Grant to createcontiguous and effectivetreatments across North CleElum and South Cle ElumRidge.lmplement (200 feet fromroad edge or use topography)shaded fuel breaks fromprivate to public properly toestablish effective fuel breakslmplement effective fuelbreaks around communitiesto minimize impact of highintensity wildfire adjacent tocommunities.Align priority watersheds withthe guiding forest healthdocument and coordinatetimeframes.Project NameJoint Chief's Phase llShaded Fuel BreakCorridorsStrategic Fuel Breakfor Community RiskReduction20 Year EasternWashington StrategicForest Health PlanCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan68September 2018 Notesln 2Q17, a wildfire smokefatality occurred on l-90. lt isimperative for public life andsafety that measures be takento protect users and privateproperty owners along majortransportation systems.Use current grant fundingsources. KCCD is pendinggrant award for fuelsreduction cost-share fromFEMAMeasurement# of vehiclefires, # of acrestreated, # offatalitiescaused bywildfire smoke# AcresTreated, # ofLandownersParticipating, #of ResidentsBenefited (1 to2-mile radius)#ofEducationalWorkhops, #of Field Tours,# of FlyersDistributed, #of Social Media"Likes"ObstaclesFunding,CoordinationCapacityCoordinationCapacity,LiabilityPriorityHighMedium toHishMediumlead(s)DNR SE Region,Fire DistrictsandDepartments,BLM, YTC,PrivateLandowners,KCCD andWashingtonStateDepartment ofTransportationDNR SE Region,KCCD, TNCWashingtonState PrescribedFire Council,DNR, USFS,KFACC,LandownersProject GoalContain vehicle fires fromspreading along lnterstatesand State Highways in KittitasCounty.Continue and encourageparticipation in cost-ShareFuels Reduction Programs forprivate landowners.Coordinate public educationand outreach throughWashington Prescribed FireCouncil to encourage publicto learn more aboutprescribed fire. Help privatelandowners with resources tocoordinate prescribed fireoperationsProject NameTransportationCorridor Vehicle FireRisk ReductionFuels ReductionTreatmentsPrescribed FireEducational Outreachand Prescribed FireCoalitionsCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan69September 2018 NotesLocal landscape levelapplications are currentlyhappening on a small scale;Fall 2017'. private landownerparticipated Prescribed FireLearning Exchange (|REX)learning exchange and 14acres were burned usingprescribed fire. Fall 2018:Prescribed Fire TrainingExchange (IREX) will bebased in upper KittitasCounty, coordinated byWashington Prescribed FireCouncil/TNC working closelywith Cle Elum Ranger District(USFS) and KFACC members.Fire Adapted CommunitiesOne video has beenproduced and distributed onSocial Media and YouTubedescribing the events of JollyMountain, Kittitas County asa fire environment andraising landowner awarenessto wildfire.Landowners have expressedthis program has beenintegral part of theirmitigation activities.Measurement# AcresTreated, # ofStakeholderslnvolved, # ofParticipants# of VideosCreated andReleased, # ofSocial MediaLikes on KFACCMembersDistribution#ofParticipatingLandownersandCommunities, #of FlyersDistributed toResidentsObstaclesCapacity,LiabilityFundingFundingPriorityMediumHighHighLead(s)WashingtonState PrescribedFire Council,DNR, USFS,KFACC,LandownersKFACCKFACCProject Goallmplement and advanceprescribed fire activities onthe landscape.Develop two additionaleducational videoshighlighting emergencyprepared ness and technicalhow-to approach to Firewiseprinciples and fuels reduction.Encourage Firewise USACommunities to continuemitigation activities on theirown by providing a FireDistrict Crew and equiPmentto chip materials on site,Project Name#GOODFIRE#FIREENVIRONMENTVideo SeriesRoving ChipperProgramCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan70September 2018 Noteslmprove relationships andpartnerships betweenagricultural community,infrastructure, and fireresponse. ldentify andprotect values at risk thathave impact agriculturaleconomies and rangelandquality from wildfire andwildfire response.For the 2018 farmer's marketseason, KFACC will be at eachfarmers market the firstweekend of the month. Theeffectiveness will beevaluated at the end of 2018.Operating at a minimal levelthrough the KCCD, uses localassessment funds to providethis service. DNR SE regiondoes provide assistance whenavailable.Measurement#olParticipatingFarmers andRanchers# of MarketsAttended, # ofEducationalMaterialDistributed# of HOAmeetings, # ofEducationalWorkshops, #of EducationalMaterialDistributed, #of AssessmentsUpdated/Created, # ofAction PlansUpdated/CreatedObstaclesPolicy,Capacity,Coordination,FundingCapacityFundingPriorityHighMediumMediumLead(s)KFACC,WashingtonState FarmBureau, KittitasReclamationDistrict, Bureauof Reclamation,WashingtonCattleman'sAssociation,Local FireDistrictsKFACC,WashingtonFarm ForestryAssociationVolunteersKFACCProject GoalEncourage agriculturalpractices that benefit theforest and range, discouragedevelopment of open spaceland, and identify agriculturali nfrastructu re for protectionand proactive treatments.Continue providinginformation about KFACCpartners and mission atEllensburg and Roslyn farmersmarkets.Continue providingneighborhood assessments,action plans, and education toHOAs and communities in theKittitas County area.Project NameRangeland andAgriculture in a FireLandscapeFarmers MarketPublic Education &OutreachNeighborhoodEducation, Outreach& EngagementCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan71September 2018 NotesUse Podio Workspace andcultivate local sparkplugs.ln spring 2018, coordinatedwith Kittitas EnvironmentalEducation Network for 4thgrade field trip integratingfire ecology concepts.Community WildfirePreparedness Day artworkproject in partnership withGallery One, and localschools in Ellensburgincreasing awareness ingrade schools about wildfire.Measurement# of LearningExchangeEvents, # ofLocalSparkplugs, #of PodioParticipants# of Field Trips,# of ArtworkParticipation, #of ArtworkDisplayed#ofParticipatingContractors inKittitas CountyAreaTBDObstaclesFunding,CapacityFunding,Staffing,Capacity,ExpertiseComplexity,CapacityComplexity,CapacityPriorityMediumMediumMediumMediumLead(s)WAFAC, KFACCKFACCKFACCTNC, KFACCProject GoalDevelop a learning exchangeprogram that engagescommunities from across thestate that empowerscommunity members to takeaction in their owncommunity and share lessonslearned.Coordinate with existingeducational programs tointegrate fire adaptedconcepts.Encourage and cultivate fuelsreduction contractors who arefamiliar with Firewiseprinciples, wildlife friend lyfuels reduction, and foresthealth best managementpractices.Encourage the economicinfrastructure to develoPsmall diameter woody debrismarkets.Project NameCommunities HelpingCommunitiesYouth Education &OutreachFuels ReductionContractorsSmall Wood MarketsCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan72September 201 8 Noteslmproved ResponseEngage motivated Firewise orFire Adapted Communities totake the next step in their FireAdapted efforts. Develop aneighborhood level wildfirepre-suppression plans forlncident Command teamsand local Fire ResponseNeighborhood EmergencyPreparedness plans are to beused as a living document toresources for pre, during, andafter wildfires as well as othernatural resource concernsthat would impact residentsand their resources.ldentify communities'egress/ingress on a case bycase basis and recommendactions to improve roadaccess and provide saferresponse.Measurement# of Pre-SuppressionPlans Created,# of Pre-SuppressionPlans Given toIMT# of PlansCreated# of Roadslmproved, # ofRoadsldentified, # ofSecondaryAccesseslmproved,Created, and/orMaintained# of AddressPlatesRequested, # ofEvacuationSignagelnstalled inCommunitiesObstaclesFunding,Staffing,CapacityFunding,Staffing,CapacityFunding,Capacity,LandownersCoordinationPriorityHighHishHighHighLead(s)KFACCKittitas CountyFire District No.7Kittitas CountyFire Marshall,DNRKittitas CountyEmergencyManagement,KFACC, LocalResponse,Neighborhoods,CommunitiesCommunities,KFACC, LocalResponseCommunities,KFACC, LocalResponse,Kittitas CountyPublic WorksProject Goallmprove response by planningwildfire suppression tactics,first responder andcommunity safety andpreparedness.Develop neighborhood plansthat integrate county levelplanning efforts such asNatural Hazards, CWPP, andCEMP and implement tacticsand strategies to buildeconomic, ecological, andsocial resiliency.lmprove response bywidening and/ or resurfacingroads or adding secondegress to communities thathave only one egress/ingress.lmprove response byimplementing addressing andevacuation signage at aneighborhood level.Project NamePre SuppressionAction PlanNeighborhoodEmergenryPreparednessPlanningRoad AccessEmergency Address &SignageCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan73September 2018 NotesFirefighter training includesvalues of risk that have notbeen traditionally recognizedi.e., ecological values (sagegrouse and other criticalhabitat) and cultural valuesand economic values(fencing, livestock, publicworks, and energyinfrastructure)Some Fire Departments donot have the capacity orfunding to collect data.Reduce redundancies in datacollection across firstresponders and use a centralcoordination data collectionand sharing platform.Post-Fire Response, Stabilization, and Long-Term RehabilitationLocal communities needcoordinated response thatmodels lncident CommandSystem structure to use longterm recovery and restorationefforts on all land ownershipand form long termpartnerships to obtainrestoration and recoveryproject funding.Measurement# of WildlandVolunteers, #of Trainingsoffered to AllFire Districtsand # ofTrainingParticipants, #ofStandardizedEquipmentData Collectionand UnifiedMulti-JurisdictionalSharingPlatform# of TeamMembers, # ofTeamDeployments, #of AssessmentsObstaclesPolicy,Coordination,Capacity,FundingCoordination,Capacity,FundingPolicy,Funding,Capacity,CoordinationPriorityHighHishHightead(s)Local FireDistricts, DNR,USFS,WashingtonPrescribed FireCouncilLocal FireDistricts andDepartments,DNR,Communities,KFACC, KCCDWashingtonStateConservationCommission,DNR, KFACCProject Goallmprove response bystandardizing equipment andwildland/WUl traini ng acrosslocal fire districts. Cultivatevolunteer recruitment andretention for strategic localresponse.lmprove response byproviding centralizedgeodatabases and datacollection of county wildlandurban interfaceCoordinate local Burned AreaEmergency Response StrikeTeam assessments on stateand private land to assessneeds for restoration andlong-term communityrecovery.Project NameLocal WUI Responselmproved DataCollection and DataSharingRapid Response-Burned AreaEmergency ResponseStrike TeamCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan74September 2018 NotesMost incident meetings arewell attended. While peopleare at those meetings,educate the public on post-fire risk since education andoutreach after the incidenthas less attendance.Coordinating rapid responseto water quality issues usingrestoration will betterimprove wildlife habitat andpotable water sources andlimit impact on quality of lifeand ecological systemfunctions.Measurement# of lncidentManagementTeam MeetingsAttended, # ofFlyersDistributedAbout Post-FireRisk, # ofEducationalWorkshops forPost-FireBeforeWildfires Occur# of BestManagementPracticeslnstalled onWatershedsObstaclesCoordination,Capacity,FundingPolicy,Funding,Capacity,CoordinationPriorityHighHightead(s)KFACCKFACCProject GoalUse incident meetings duringresponse to provide post-fireeducation and recoveryinformation to landowners,residents, business owners.and farmers/ranchers.Use Burned Area EmergencyResponse Strike Teams toassess conditions after wildfireand coordinate water qualityand watershed protection byusing the all hands all landsapproach.Project NamePost Fire CoordinatedEducation &OutreachWater Quality andWatershed ProtectionCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan75September 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. lt 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 ffable 9) and the scheduled review of the CWPP will be in Winter 2018/2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 76 September 2018 8 References Berk Consulting, 2016 Kittitas County Population Projection Review ond Analysis. Prepared for Kittitas County. July 2016. Bisson, P. A., B. E. Rieman, c. Luce, P. Hessburg, D. Lee, J. L. Kershnel G. Reeves, and R. Gresswell, 2003. "Fire and Aquatic Ecosystems of the Western USA: Current Knowledge and Key Qu esti on s." F o re st Eco Io gy a n d M o n ag e me nt 17 8(1 -2):21 3 -229. Bunting, S. C., J. L. Kingery, M. A. Hemstrom, M. A. Schroeder, R. A. Gravenmiel and W. i. Hann, 2002, Altered Rongeland Ecosystems in the lnterior Columbio Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-553. Septemb er 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 PIan:A Handbook for Wildtand-tJrban tnterfoce Communities. March 2004. DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources), 2017. 2}-Yeor Forest Health Strotegic Plan Eostern Washington Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.govlpublications/rp-forest-health-20year_strategic_plan.pdf?kzzucv Gaines, W. 1., D. W. Peterson, C. A. Thomas, and R. J. Harrod, 2012. Adaptotions to Climate Chonge: Colville ond Okonogan-Wenotchee Nationol 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. Monastash-Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project: Landscope Evaluations and Presuiptions. May 201 6. Haugo, R., c. Zanger, T. DeMeo, c. Ringo, A. shlisky, K. Blankenship, M. simpson, K. Mellen-Mclean, J. Kertis, and M. Stern,2015. "A NewApproach 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 Lea rned. May 201 4. Ava ila ble at: http://headwaterseconom ics.orglwp - content/u p loads/western_case_stu d i es_repo rt. pdf. Headwaters Economics, 2018. Economic Profile System. Accessed May 8, 2018. Available at: https://headwaterseconom ics.orgltools/econom ic-profi le-system/, Community Wildfire Protection Plan 77 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 lnland Pacific Landscapes: Seven Core Principles." Londscope 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 lnterior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Greot Basins. Part 1: Linking Vegetotion Patterns ond Landscape Vulnerability to Potential lnsect ond Pathogen Disturbances. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458. September 1 999. Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, R. B. Salter, R. D. Ottmar, and E. Alvarado,2000. "Recent Changes (1930s- 1990s) in Spatial Patterns of lnterior Northwest Forests, USA." Foresf Ecology Monagement 1 36(1 -3)s3-83. lsaak, 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." Ecologicol Applications 20(5):1350-71. lsaak, 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 lmplications for Salmonid Fishes." Climatic Cha n g e 1 13: 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 lnventory 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 Nationql lnsect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team-14-01 .lanuary 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 Ra nge." N orthwest Scie nce 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." Climafic Ch a n g e 1 02(1 -2):1 29-1 58. Mantua, N., l. Tohver, and A. Hamlet, 2009. "lmpacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State." Climatic Change 102(1-2):187-223. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 78 September 201 8 Mass, C., 2009. "Windy Ellensburg." Cliff Mass Weather ond 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 Watet Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest." Climotic Chonge 61 (1-2):45-BB. National Association of State Foresters, 2003. Field Guidance: ldentifying and Priorit'zing Communities ot Risk. Available at: http://wurw.stateforesters.orglnode /1951. June 2003. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2008. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery P/an. November 30, 2009. Pyrologix, 2018. Pacific Northwest Quantitotive Wildfire RiskAssessment: 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 lnternational),2004. The SER lnternational 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 Relevont Biophysical Science ond lmplicotions for Future Land Manogement. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-897. Septemb er 201 4. 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 .govlfaces/nav/isf /pageslcommunity_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 lmplementation Plan. December 2006. USDA, 2012. Census of Agriculture County Profile: Kittitas County Washington. Available at: https://www.agcensus.usda.govlPublications/201 2/Online-Resources/County_Profiles/lffashin gton/cp53037.pdf. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 79 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://wvrnrv.fs.usda,govllnternet/FSE-DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5423599.pdf. May 201 3. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentolis courina). June 2011. USFWS, 2015. Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United Sfafes Population of Bull Trout (Solvelinus confluentus). September 201 5. UW (University of Washington) State Forestland Database, 2007. Version 2007, Release 2.0. Accessed M ay 8, 20 1 B. Ava i I a b I e at: http://www. ru ra ltech.o rglp rojects/wrl/f ld b/data.a sp. WA OFM (State of Washington Office of Financial Management),2017. Dato 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.Yakimo Steelheod Recovery Plon. Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan with updates. Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board. August 2009. Yeager, ).,2015. Summory of Aquotic Resource Objectives ond Recommended Design ond tmplementation Elements for the Mid and Upper Columbia Anadromous and Bull Trout Producing Wotersheds of Eastern Washington. Community Wildfire Protection Plan 80 September 2018 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 lntegration Local Planning lntegration 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. Kittita s Co u nty M u Iti-J u risd ictio n o I H aza rd s M itig atio n P la n 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. C EM 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 localjurisdictions may need in order to implement all-hazard mitigation. lt 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; lnformation 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 Kittitos County Community Wildfire Protection PIan 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. Fufthermore, the 2018 CWPP includes a larger cross-section of stakeholders and public input due to the recent efforts of the KFACC. Kittitas CounV 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 Ordino nce 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 Cou nty Shorel[ne M anageme nt 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: . ls 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 o 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-l Community Planning Area Boundaries at Risk Community at Risk Total Acreage Residential Acreage Residential Structures Estimated Population Eastern Kittitas County 145,839 3,335 513 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 6,60s 872 2,180 Teanaway 40,764 1,717 293 740 Roslyn - Cle Elum 21,371 1,1 60 1,479 3,698 Domerie Flats 22,734 3,569 1,077 2,692 South Cle Elum 71,133 7,035 2,147 s,367 North Lake Cle Elum 40,320 1,319 1',243 3,107 West Kittitas County 110,629 1,749 1,252 3,1 30 Total 842,905 43,495 16,922 42,324 Note: The estimated population of each area is based on Kittitas County's estimate formulated as 2.5 x the number of homes. Community Planning Areas Public and Private Ownership (Acres) West Kittitas County North Cle Elum South Cle Elum Swauk - Liberty Manastash - Taneum Kittitas Valley Upland Iastern Kittitas County Domerie Flats I Roslyn - Cle tlum f Teanaway I 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 3s0,000 r Total Community Planning Area (acres) r Public Ownership (acres) I Private Ownership (acres) Easte rn Kittitas Cou nty Eastern Kittitas County Community Planning Area follows the Lower Parke Creeh 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 DN& 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 (lnterstate 82/90 and State Route highways), recreation (John Wayne Trail), rangeland and agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands for sheep and cattle), historical structures and utilities. Eastern Kittitas County Land Distribution 4.17o/o 4.620/o 2.77%6.650/o r Residential r Transpodati0n n Public x Recreation &. Trade Agriculture r Undeveloped r Open Space Kittitos Valley Upland Kittitas Valley Community Planning Area follows Reecer Creek to the northern Wilson-Cherry portion subwatersheds. The boundary delineates areas of private lands, but does contain areas of the Naneum State Forest (DNR). This area is within one fire district: Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat and biological corridors, egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, and lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents, historical structures, and recreational users. This area is heavily irrigated below the highline canal benefiting rural and urban areas near Ellensburg. lrrigation may be shut off due to water shortages (e.9., during the 2015 drought) and agricultural lands may be more at risk than normal. Kittitas Valley Upland Land Distribution r Residential r Commercial, Recreatior & Trade r Transportation * Public 'Agriculture r Designated Forest r Undeveloped 6.32/o 0-260/o 7.54o/o 039%'' 0.10o/o1.?6% 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 criticalfish and wildlife habitat, biological corridors, cultural resources, egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, and lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents, and recreational users. Manastash - Taneum Land Distribution 5"/a 1o/o 60/o 0.33o/or Residential r Commercial, Services & Recreation a Public 60/o ln Agricuhure Designated lorest Land r Undeveloped r Open Space Swauk Liberty Swauk Liberty Community Planning Area follows the Swauk Creek subwatershed to the Reecer Creek watershed and includes parts of the Yakima River. This area is inclusive of Elk Heights, Thorp, Liberty, Lookout Mountain, Lauderdale Junction, and Highway 10 and Highway 970 Junction. This area contains three Fire Districts, Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7, Kittitas County Fire District No.1, and Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Kittitas County Fire District No. 2). With landownership including WDFW DNR, and USFS Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, there are many areas that are under fire district protection. Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, biological corridors, cultural resources, transportation (major state highway routes), egress/ingress, recreational users, agriculture (irrigation infrastructure and grazing lands), utilities, lack of safety zones for firefighters, residents and recreational users, historical structures, and narrow canyons. Many wildfires have occurred in this area (Peavine Canyon, Table Mountain, Snag Canyon, Taylor Bridge, among others) resulting in structure loss, property threatened, and evacuations. Swauk Liberty Land Distribution r Residential 1.70o/o 0.78o/o 11.19%0.58o/o 1.12o/or Commercial, Trade &, Servicesr Transportation n Public ,' Agriculture r Designated Forest Landr Undeveloped r 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. Teanaway Land Distribution 4.84o/o'; 0.6A0/o 0.003% n Residential - Single Family r Residential - Vacation & Cabin m Trade q Public Roslyn - CIe EIum Roslyn-Cle EIum Community Planning Area follows the North Cle Elum ridge and private parcels including and surrounding the towns of Roslyn-Cle Elum. This area contains several fire districts: Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No, 6 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. Roslyn - Cle Elum Land Distribution .A7o/or Residential r Commercial, Trade Services & Recreation r Public a Agriculture ', Designated Forest Land r 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. r Residential r Transportation u Public tr Recreation '' Agriculture r Designated Forest Landr Undeveloped r Open Space Domerie Flats Land Distribution - 0.38% 3.87o/" 0.15% South CIe EIum South Cle Elum Community Planning area extends from the South Cle Elum Ridge from Easton to the southern portion of Elk Heights lnterstate 90 exit. This area contains many new residential developments since 2009 and is expanding rapidly. Most development in this area consists of secondary/vacation homeowners. There are two fire districts present in this area: Kittitas County Fire & Rescue No. 7 and Kittitas County Fire District No. 3 (Easton). Significant areas of concern include critical fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, transportation (borders interstates), egress/ingress, recreational users, utilities, communication infrastructure, railroad corridors, residents and recreational users, irrigation infrastructure, and tourism and recreational economy. South Cle Elum Land Distribution 6.94%0.43o/o 10.21o/o r Residential r Commercial, lrade Services and Recreation r Public r Agriculture '.' Designated Forest Land r Undeveloped r Open Space 0.77% ,/ North Loke CIe EIum 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 criticalfish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, biological corridors, egress/ingress, communication infrastructure, residents and recreational users, tourism, and recreational economy. The Northern part of Lake Cle Elum was exposed to wildfire in 2017; however, the communities were fortunate enough that no structures were lost to the Jolly Mountain Wildfire. The Jolly Mountain wildfire exposed a lot of risk that had not been visualized by many stakeholders and landowners. Previous mitigation activity from private landowners and prior mechanical thinning on TNC property helped improve the outcome of this wildfire by mitigating fuels and active land management. North Cle Elum Land Distribution 2.93o/o ,.' 0.48o/o 29% 4.56% n Residential r Commercial x Public ut Agriculture Designated Forest land r Undeveloped r Open Space 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 2422a/o . ': :' 0.10o/o 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. lf this area experiences wildfire, it is most likely that major transportation corridors will be disrupted, resulting in significant economic loss and posing a threat to safety since wildfire smoke would heavily impede traffic. West Kittitas County Land Distribution 0.35o/o 1.65o/a 1.07o/o 1.84o/o -'''.,.-0.31o/o r Residential r Trade & Recreational r Transportation r Public ", Designated Forest Land r Undeveloped r Open Space