HomeMy WebLinkAboutDoc 106 - Redmond Comm Fire PlanDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall S1., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of February 22, 2012
Please see directions fOT completing this document on the next page.
DATE: February 10,2012
FROM: Joe Stutler Forestry 322-7117
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2012-105, the Greater Bend Community Fire Plan;
and Document No. 2012-106, the Greater Redmond Community Fire Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TillS DATE? No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Community Fire Plans have been completed for every acre (public and private) in Deschutes County.
Utilizing Project Wildfire as the facilitator, two Community Fire Plans are updated annually. In 2011,
the Greater Bend and Redmond Plans were updated and approved by the other agencies required by the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act, having Deschutes County Board of Commissioners signature (Chair) is
the last step in the process.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners approve Chair's signature on both plan documents.
ATTENDANCE: Joe Stutler
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
One copy of each plan will be retained for recording in County Records and the remaining copies will
be returned to Joe Stutler for distribution to respective community fire plan partners.
Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
October 14, 2011
Prepared by Kate Lighthall, Project Wildfire 541-322-7129 klighthall@bendcable.com
DC 20 0
Iml Declaration of Agreement
The Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was originally completed
and approved in December 2006. As directed by this CWPP, extensive fuels reduction and fire
prevention activities have been completed on public and private lands. The Steering Committee
reconvened in April 2011 to update the original plan. Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act,
the CWPP is approved by the applicable local government, the local flIe department and the state
entity responsible for forest management.
This plan is not legally binding as it does not create or place mandates or requirements on
individual jurisd ictions. It is intended to serve as a planning tool for flIe and land managers and
residents to assess risks associated with wildland fire and identify strategies and make
recommendations for reducing those risks.
~=f~ / Jlv/, /
1m oor, Ire Ie
Redmond Fire & Rescue
Carroll Penhollow, Board Chair
Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District # 1
City of Redmond
Kevin Benton, Unit Forester
Oregon Department of Forestry
~
/;I-ljLI/
Date
1<"//4 /' / ~
DateAnthony DeBone, Chair
Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners
ii
181 Acknowledgements
Assembled within the true spirit of collaboration, the following people are acknowledged for
their participation and commitment resulting in this 2011 Greater Redmond Community Wildfire
Protection Plan.
Jake Akerberg Bureau of Land Management
Susan Bailey Resident -Northwest
I Wayne Bailey Resident Northwest !
Kevin Benton Unit Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry I
Tom Brakefield Management, Eagle Crest
i
Heather Cassaro Redmond Chamber of Commerce
Lisa Clark Central Oregon Fire Management Service !
i Traci Cooper Fire Marshal, Redmond Fire & Rescue I
Norm Crawford Resident -Northwest I
Melinda Campbell Deschutes County GIS
Rich Carver Resident -Northwest
Lisa Clark COFMS
Gerald Griggs Resident -Southwest
Solomon Kaleialoha Resident
Spence Krueger Resident -Northwest
! Katie Lighthall Project Wildfire
Randy Marvin Resident -Northwest
Jim Meyers Resident -Southwest
Cathy Miller Resident -Northwest
Tim Moor Fire Chief, Redmond Fire and Rescue
Seth Nickell Oregon Army -National Guard
• Stu Otto Oregon Department of Forestry
• Dave Pickhardt Deputy Fire Chief, Redmond Fire and Rescue
Joe Stutler Deschutes County Forester
Becky Weeks Resident -Southwest
iii
I[!II Table of Contents
Declaration of Agreement ...•...•••.•..•...•.'....................................................................................................... ii
Prioritized Hazard Redudion Recommendations
Appendices
Appendix A -Community Base Maps
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Contact information .................................................................................................................................... v
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Planning Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Collaboration ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Community Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Publk & Private Accomplishments ............................................................................................................ 6
Community Base Maps ............................................................................................................................... 10
Wildland Urban Interface description ....................................................................................................... 11
Eight Communities at Risk ......................................................................................................................... 12
Fuel Hazards and Ecotypes ............................ ............................................................................................. 12
Community Assessment of Risk ................................................................................................................. 14
ODF Assessment of Risk Factors ................................................................................................. 14
Risk of Wildfire Occurrence ................................................................................................. 14
Hazard..................................................................................................................................... 15
Protedion Capability .........................................................••. ............... .................................. 15
Values Proteded..................................................................................................................... 18
Other Community Values ...................................................................................................... 18
Structural Vulnerability ........................................................................................................ 18
Summary of ODF Assessment of Risk Fadors .................................................................... 20
Fire Regime Condition Class ...................................................................................................... 21
Oregon Forestland Urban Interface Fire Protedion Ad (Senate Bill 360) ............................ 23
Summary of Senate Bill 360 Hazard Ratings .............................................................................. 24
Areas of spedal concern ................................................................................................................ 25
and Preferred Treatment Methods .................................................................................................... 27
Priorities ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Public lands .................................................................................................................................... 28
Private and County owned lands ................................................................................................. 29
Recommendations to Reduce Structural Vulnerability ........................................................................... 31
Strudural vulnerability hazards and recommendations .......................................................... 32
Defensible space checklist ............................................................................................................. 33
Education ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Action Plan and Implementation ............................................................................................................... 35
Evaluation and Monitoring......................................................................................................................... 39
iv
Iml Contact Information
Tim Moor, Fire Chief
Redmond Fire & Rescue
341 NW Dogwood
Redmond, OR 97756
(541) 504-5000
Traci Cooper, Fire Marshal
Redmond Fire & Rescue
341 NW Dogwood
Redmond, OR 97756
(541) 504-5000
Stu Otto, Stewardship Forester
Oregon Department of Forestry
3501 NE 3rd Street
Prineville, OR 97754
(541) 447-5658
Joe Stutler, County Forester
Deschutes County
61150 SE 27th Street
Bend, OR 97702
Lisa Clark, Fire Mitigation Specialist
Central Oregon Fire Management Service
3050 NE 3rd Street
Prineville, OR 97754
(541) 416-6864
Kate Lighthall, Program Director
Project Wildfire
61150 SE 27th Street
Bend, OR 97702
(541) 322-7129
v
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
[§l] Purpose
The purpose of the Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is to:
• Protect lives and property from wildland fires;
• Instill a sense of personal responsibility for taking preventive actions
regarding wildland fire;
• Increase public understanding of the risks associated with living in a fire
adapted ecosystem;
• Increase the community's ability to prepare for, respond to and recover
from wildland fires;
• Restore fire-adapted ecosystems;
• Create and maintain fire adapted communities; and
• Improve the fire resilience of the landscape while protecting other social,
economic and ecological values.
I
I
Originally completed in December 2006, this comprehensive revision outlines a clear purpose
with updated priorities, strategies and action plans for fuels reduction treatments in the greater
Redmond wildland urban interface. This CWPP also addresses special areas of concern and
makes recommendations for reducing structural vulnerability and creating defensible spaces in
the identified communities at risk. It is intended to be a living vehicle for fuels reduction,
educational, and other projects to decrease overall risks of loss from wildland fire; updated and
revisited regularly to address its purpose.
Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of forest ecosystems across the country.
Central Oregon is no exception. Historically, wildland fires have shaped the forests and
rangelands valued by residents and visitors. These lands in greater Redmond however, are now
significantly altered, or "out ofwhack" due to fire prevention efforts, modern suppression
activities, residential development and a general lack of large scale fires. These activities have
resulted in overgrown landscapes with decadent vegetation and abundant ladder fuels that
dramatically increase the chances of large wildland fires that burn intensely and cause icatastrophic losses.
r ~
Previous population growth and projected future growth has led to increased residential
development into forests and into the wildland urban interface (WUI) presenting an increased
challenge for fire protection, frre prevention and law enforcement agencies. I1
,
I
I
i
I
!
11]]1 Planning Summary
The Redmond City Council approved the Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan
on December 19,2006. The Greater Redmond CWPP was also formally adopted by Deschutes
County by resolution # 2006-139 on December 11, 2006.
Since that time, continued efforts have been made by city, county, state and federal land
management agencies to reduce the threat of high intensity wildland fires through education and
fuels reduction activities on public lands. In addition, private residents have responded
enthusiastically to the defensible space and preparation guidelines and recommendations to
reduce hazardous fuels on their own properties.
Although reducing the risk of high intensity wildland fire is the primary motivation behind this
plan, managing the wildlands for hazardous fuels reduction and fire resilience is only one part of
the larger picture. Residents and visitors desire healthy, fire-resilient wildlands that provide
habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities, economic stimulation and scenic beauty.
In keeping with the strategy ofthe original Greater Redmond CWPP, the Steering Committee
revisited the planning outline in Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook
for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities (Communities Committee, Society of American
Foresters, National Association of Counties, and National Association of State Foresters 2005).
Eight steps are outlined to help guide Steering Committees through the planning process:
Step one: Convene the decision makers.
The Greater Redmond CWPP Steering Committee reconvened in April 2011 to review the work
completed within and adjacent to the WUI boundary on public and private lands; and reevaluate
the priorities for future fuels reduction treatments.
Step two: Involve state and federal agencies.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (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 Steering Committee recognized the importance of
this collaboration and involved not only members from the USDA Forest Service and USDI
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) but Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and Deschutes
County representatives as welL Each agency brought a wealth of information about fuels
reduction efforts planned and completed along with educational information based on current
research across the nation.
2
Step three: Engage interested parties.
Representatives from each of the eight Communities at Risk participated on the Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee also includes members of Redmond Fire and Rescue, local
businesses, homeowner/neighborhood associations, and other organizations and individuals.
Step four: Establish a community base map.
The Steering Committee reviewed the previous maps and boundaries from the 2006 CWPP and
approved the boundaries for the Communities at Risk for use in this update.
Step five: Develop a community risk assessment.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) was used as a risk assessment tool in the 2006 CWPP. No
updated data has been published that allowed the group to use this assessment tool again. The
Steering Committee therefore relied on the ODF Assessment of Risk Factors and the
classification ratings of individual areas under the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire
Protection Act of 1997 (aka Senate Bill 360).
Step six: Establish community hazard reduction priorities and recommendations to reduce
structural ignitability.
Based on the assessments, the Steering Committee produced two groups of priorities for fuels
reduction treatments on public and private lands. The Steering Committee also made
recommendations to reduce structural ignitability based on information in the assessments and
local knowledge.
Step seven: Develop an action plan and assessment strategy.
The Steering Committee identified an action plan for key projects; roles and responsibilities for
carrying out the purpose of the CWPP; potential funding needs and the evaluation process for the
CWPP itself.
Step eight: Finalize the Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
A draft of the Greater Redmond CWPP was available for public comment for 30 days prior to
the final signing and approval of the plan. Interested parties provided comments during this
period. The Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan was mutually approved by
Redmond Fire & Rescue, the City of Redmond, Oregon Department of Forestry, and the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners as demonstrated in the Declaration of Agreement.
3
Iml Collaboration
In 2002, President George Bush established the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) to improve
regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency and better results in
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
In 2003, the Congress passed historical bi-partisan legislation: the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act (HFRA). This legislation directs federal agencies to collaborate with communities in
developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan which includes the identification and
prioritization of areas needing hazardous fuels treatment. It further provides authorities to
expedite the National Environmental Protection 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 wildland urban interface.
Since the enactment of this legislation, communities have had the opportunity to direct where
federal agencies place their fuels reduction efforts. HFRA also allows community groups to
apply for federal funding to make communities safer against the threat of wildland fire.
Although some of the authorities under HFI and HFRA have been subsequently challenged in
federal courts, all have been successfully appealed and the original intent and authorities under
each remain the same.
Original members of the Steering Committee reconvened in April 2011 with new members to
update the Greater Redmond CWPP. The Steering Committee group included community
members from the greater Redmond area along with representatives from Redmond Fire &
Rescue, Oregon Department of Forestry, the USDA Forest Service, the USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Project Wildfire and Deschutes County to develop the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
The plan was created by this Steering Committee in accordance with Preparing a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbookfor Wildland-Urban Interface Communities
(Communities Committee, Society of American Foresters, National Association of Counties, and
National Association of State Foresters 2005); and Deschutes County Resolution 2004-093.
The Redmond City Council adopted the 2011 Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection
Plan by resolution on . The 2011 Greater Redmond CWPP was formally adopted by
Deschutes County by resolution __on _____
4
181 Community Profile
Redmond, Oregon is located in central Oregon and is a rapidly growing social, economic and
recreational destination in Deschutes County. In 2000, the census reported 13,481 residents in
Redmond. According to the 2010 census 26,215 residents called Redmond area home. The
latest certified population estimates reveal a small increase in Redmond's city population to
26,225. Deschutes County estimates a total city and surrounding area population at 40,260.
(Population Research Center, Portland State University, July 2010
www.pdx.edulsiteslwww.pdx.edu.prc/fileslmedia_ assetsiCertCityTownPopEst20 1 O.pdf).
The population in Redmond has grown 95% within the city limits over the last decade.
Deschutes County planners estimate that there are now an additional 15,112 people outside the
city limits in the greater Redmond area. From a local knowledge perspective, most of the
population growth over the last decade has occurred within the city limits, west of US Highway
97.
Historically, the Redmond area included a mix ofopen stands of western juniper, bitterbrush,
sage and grasslands which was maintained by frequent low to moderate intensity fires. Today,
with more development into the wildland urban interface and effective wildland fire suppression,
the greater Redmond area is characterized by widespread stands of dense western
juniper, bitterbrush, sage and grasses.
I
Developed 3,077 feet in elevation, in a classic wildland urban interface environment, the greater
Redmond area is also home to abundant wildlife including deer, elk, and many species of birds
and fish. Within the planning area there is also a significant amount of public land with
developed and dispersed recreation sites which provide valuable recreation opportunities to both
residents and visitors. In the summer months, Deschutes County estimates an additional
transient population of up to 20,000 people that visit these areas and the city of Redmond
creating a seasonal challenge for those agencies responsible for fire suppression and evacuation. !
1
I
The climate in Redmond is considered semi-arid and typical ofthe east slopes of the Cascade
Mountains, with most ofthe annual precipitation (8"-12") coming as winter snow or fall and
spring rains. Summers are dry and prone to frequent thunderstorms with lightning storms
producing multiple fire ignitions. ,
US Highway 97, a major transportation route through the state, runs north to south, through the
middle of the city of Redmond. US Highway 126 also intersects the city of Redmond, running
east and west in the middle oftown. As central Oregon grows, more residents and tourists crowd
the highway and increase congestion, particularly during the summer months when fire season
reaches its peak. As part of the central community, transportation routes are included in the
consideration of the WUI boundary due to their critical role as roads and travel corridors that link
communities together and serve as evacuation routes.
The community of Redmond presents a unique challenge for the wildfire planning process.
Although the core urban area is not at significant risk from wildfire due to the amount of
development and lack of vegetation, the areas adjacent to the core of Redmond are characterized
5
by dense stands of trees, topographical challenges and thick ground vegetation that contribute to
its scenic beauty as well as the overall wildland fire risk. There are extensive areas of hazardous
wildland fuels intermixed with homes and businesses across the planning area that in the event of
a grass or brush fire, could sustain a wildland fire event with catastrophic losses likely.
Redmond is also home to many agricultural areas, which have the capacity to carry significant
ground fires.
The greater Redmond community has experienced many large fires in the last 100 years. In
1996 the Smith Rock Fire charred 300 acres and one home. Each year Redmond Fire and
Rescue reports dozens of brush fires that reach 20+ acres, as well as many that are less than 100
acres that threaten lives and property.
181 Public and Private Accomplishments
As part of the ongoing wildland fire risk management of the surrounding public and private
landscape, the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Forestry, Deschutes County,
Project Wildfire and private landowners have accomplished much and continue to be engaged in
ongoing hazardous fuels treatment projects across the planning area.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management -Prineville District manages 45,511 acres of public land in
the greater Redmond area and continues to pursue
increased forest health and reduced potential for high
intensity wildland fire.
The BLM is currently engaged in the Cline Buttes
project which will thin 1,308 acres of dense juniper (220
piles) within 200 feet of the Eagle Crest boundaries in
the Southwest region of the Greater Redmond WUI. The
piles and remaining slash will be burned. This buffer
wilt significantly reduce the potential for active crown
fires and ember showers, and provide working space
between trees giving firefighters a positive shot at
suppression. In addition, a reduction in juniper trees
Ember showers: smoldering embers
from a nearby fire that can land in
gutters, roof valleys; on or under
decks and siding; in vents; or on lawn
furniture where they can ignite and
cause damage to a home. They can
travel miles and ignite spot fires far
from the original fire.
means less vegetation competing for water which in turn provides added nutrients and water to
the remaining landscape. Some of the thinned trees wilt be left in place to create wildlife habitat
and further enrichment for the soil. See map on next page.
6
--
Legend
-Highways
_ Eagle Crest Unit Piles
_ Eagle Crest Unit
D Cline Buttes EA Project Area
Eagle Crest Unit
II>
~
n
l
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUAlau of Land Management
PRINEVILLE DISTRICT
3050 HE Thild SlnIo( PrlnoYil'e. OR 97754
Phon. ' 541·416·6700
(/I
\z
('I
0
0" 0
III ';?
.t=
t"'
,(/)==
iii in .., ~ ~ co ... .... ~
III ~
7
The BLM is also currently in the planning stages for a 500-acre treatment project south of Eagle
Crest in the Mastonrrumalo Unit which will also assist in reducing the potential for wildfire and
ember showers threatening communities in Redmond. See map below.
Tumalo I Maston Priorities
"... .~
::t . r ;.
~ ."
Inn _, Ma,kol Rei
Jw Srown R d
" ~ SW Wick.up AlJe!'
~
'"
, ,
..
Cine Buttes Area
8
It is important to note that each project area requires multiple types of fuels reduction activities
to achieve the desired result including mechanical shrub mowing, tree thinning, hand piling, and
under burning. Therefore, multiple entries are required in order to adequately reduce hazardous
fuels and restore forest ecosystem health. The ultimate goal for these projects is to reduce the
potential for high intensity fire that can spread to tree crowns, requiring costly suppression
efforts and causing large losses on the landscape as well as in and around communities.
Deschutes County
Deschutes County owns only 3.22% of all the privately owned land in the greater Redmond
WUL Through ongoing funding opportunities including grants, Deschutes County is taking
steps to reduce and maintain the hazardous vegetation and contribute to the fire adapted
community here.
Project Wildfire
Over the last five years, Project Wildfire has secured over $8.5 million in grant funding to reduce
hazardous fuels on private lands. In order to stretch the grant money as far as possible, Project
Wildfire developed the Sweat Equity Program whereby residents create or maintain defensible
space on their property; bring the woody debris to the roadside and the grant funding pays to
have it hauled away at no charge to the resident. Project Wildfire manages this program and now
estimates that residents participating in this program are treating 10,000 acres each year. The
benefit ofthis program is not only the treatment of hazardous fuels, but the education and
resident "buy-in" that are occurring at the individual resident and neighborhood levels.
Similar to the Sweat Equity Program, Project Wildfire also coordinates and manages the FireFree
Program whereby residents also complete their defensible space work and bring it to local
recycling sites at no charge.
The debris collected through the Sweat Equity Program is combined with the debris collected
through the FireFree Program to yield approximately 200,000 cubic yards of woody biomass
each year. The debris is ground into a biomass fuel and utilized for making clean energy and
electricity throughout the region.
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry works with large landowners on a cost share basis to reduce
hazardous fuels and the potential for losses on larger tracts of land and with homeowner and
neighborhood associations on commons lands.
Firewise Communities USA
The Firewise Communities USA program is a national recognition program which highlights
communities that have chosen to complete and maintain defensible space; ensure adequate
access, water and signage; promote ongoing fire prevention education, and build or retro-fit
structures with non-combustible building materials such as siding, decks and roofing. Oregon
Department of Forestry is the statewide liaison for the Firewise Communities USA program and
9
in coordination with Redmond Fire and Rescue and Project Wildfire, they are leading the charge
to identifY and assist neighborhoods in their Firewise and FireFree endeavors. Redmond Fire and
Rescue has made the development of additional Firewise Communities a top priority for the
coming years. Specific plans to develop Firewise Communities in the Greater Redmond WUI
are detailed in the Action Plan and Implementation section of this CWPP on page 35.
Since the implementation ofthe original CWPP in 2006, many neighborhoods within the eight
Communities at Risk have made tremendous strides in reducing the potential for catastrophic
losses.
• Odin Falls and River Springs combined their Sweat Equity endeavors and achieved 100%
participation in their neighborhoods, producing 6,000 cubic yards of defensible space
debris.
• Tetherow Crossing participated in a neighborhood-wide Sweat Equity event to produce
1,700 cubic yards of debris and mapped the subdivision for an Evacuation Plan and
installed mUltiple evacuation signs across the neighborhood.
• Lower Bridge Estates residents took advantage of partnership opportunities and treated
160 acres of 5-acre parcels to greatly reduce the risk of brush fire in their subdivision.
• The Cliffs subdivision combined efforts with the City of Redmond to treat the commons
lands in the subdivision and the Dry Canyon area directly below the subdivision.
• The Ridge at Eagle Crest participated in two Sweat Equity events producing over 4,500
cubic yards of defensible space debris and took advantage of partnership opportunities to
treat 106 acres of commons lands and 100 vacant lots (25 acres). The Ridge homeowners
board has also developed a ladder fuels reduction plan, included funding in their annual
budget for maintenance ofthe treated commons. The Architectural Review Committee
has adopted new landscape guidance incorporating fire-resistant plants and defensible
space principles. This represents an important shift from an "aesthetics and natural
preservation" approach to one that places equal value on fire considerations.
1131 Community Base Maps
The CWPP Steering Committee relied on the following maps and GIS data (Appendix A):
• Greater Redmond WUI boundary with eight Communities at Risk, and all private &
public land ownership;
• 2010 Senate Bill 360 Classification Ratings.
For updated planning purposes, the Steering Committee referenced this data and relied on recent
activities and fuels treatment projects in specific Communities at Risk.
10
Wildland Urban Interface Description
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act defines wildland urban interface (WUI) as an area within or
adjacent to an at~risk community that has been identified by a community in its wildfire
protection plan. For areas that do not have such a plan, it is identified as:
• extending Y2 mile from the boundary of an at~risk community,
• extending 1 Y2 miles from the boundary of an at~risk community when other criteria
are met such as a sustained steep slope or a geographic feature that creates an
effective firebreak, or is classified as Condition Class 3 land,
• adjacent to an evacuation route.
The Redmond CWPP Steering Committee reviewed the overall WUI boundary and approved its
use in this update (see Appendix A). The southern edge ofthe boundary is the northern
boundary ofthe Bend CWPP. The northern part of the WUI is the Jefferson County CWPP
boundary. The west side ofthe WUI is met by the Greater Sisters Country CWPP boundary and
the east side is met by the Crook County CWPP. Every acre in Deschutes County is covered by
aCWPP.
The southeast corner ofthe planning area dips into the Bend CWPP boundary to capture the
evacuation route from the Pronghorn development where it meets the Powell Butte Highway.
This area was not included in the Bend CWPP risk assessments. The Steering Committee
included it in this plan as a necessary element for assessment.
Also included in the Southeast sub region is 23,718 acres ofland for the Biak Training Center for
the Oregon Army National Guard. The Oregon Military Department recently renewed its long
term lease for this land with the Bureau of Land Management. This acreage takes up
approximately 90% of the land in this sub region and includes a variety of infrastructure and
buildings including gas and power lines, roads and numerous buildings that comprise the Guard
Base. A representative for the Oregon Army National Guard participated on the Steering
Committee for the Greater Redmond CWPP. Under Department of Defense guidelines, the Biak
Training Center is also conducting a fire prevention planning effort. Although their planning
process significantly differs from the Greater Redmond process, the Steering Committee
recognizes the value of the military training center and supports coordinated and complementary
efforts to protect it from losses due to wildland fire. Therefore, the Steering Committee included
the Biak Training Center in the WUI boundary.
In all eight identified sub regions, the 1 Y2 mile WUI boundary meets the CWPP planning area
boundary. For the purposes ofthis plan, the wildland urban interface (WUI) boundary and the
CWPP planning area are the same geographical region. The Greater Redmond wildland urban
interface boundary is approximately 173 square miles and covers 111,003 acres.
11
Communities at Risk
The Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) define a
"community at risk" from wildland fire as one that:
• is a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such
as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to federal
land;
• has conditions conducive to large-scale wildland fire; and
• faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of a wildland fire.
As noted, the Steering Committee approved the existing boundaries of the Communities at Risk
to identify these eight (8) Communities at Risk.
Table 1 -Communities at Risk
Estimated
Community at Risk Acreage Structures Population
Northeast 13,797 815 2,038
Southeast 26,354 116 290
Northwest
-
34,809 2,677 6,692
Southwest 20,388 2,437 6,092
Urban Northeast 3,263 961 2,402
Urban Southeast 4,462 500 1,250
Urban Northwest 3,351 3,139 7,848
Urban Southwest 4,579 5,459 13,648
Total 111 ,003 16,104 40,260
Note : The estimated population of each area is based on Deschutes County's estimate formulated as 2.5 x the
number of homes .
Fuel Hazards and Ecotypes
The majority ofthe vegetation in the Greater Redmond WUI includes:
• Sagebrush
• Westemjuniper
• Bitterbrush
• Cheat grass & noxious weeds
12
Sagebrush is found throughout the Redmond
planning area and is of great concern as ladder fuel
intermixed with stands of western juniper trees.
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.
Changes in fire occurrence along with fire suppression
and livestock grazing have contributed to the current condition of sagebrush in the planning area.
Introduction of annuals, especially cheat grass, has increased fuel loads so that fire carries easily,
increasing the potential for significant and dangerous fire behavior.
Western juniper is the predominant overstory species that occurs across the Redmond area
landscape. During its first few decades, western juniper is extremely susceptible to wildfire and
spends most of its resources putting down major
root systems instead of developing thick bark or
other fire resistant characteristics. Prior to
settlement of the western United States,juniper
was frequently killed by wildfires that moved
through the landscape approximately every 30
years. As a result, it grew almost exclusively in
rocky areas and outcrops where fire could not
burn it. Over the past century, western juniper
has established itself outside the rocky outcrops
and into much of central Oregon, including the
greater Redmond area. Specifically, the increase
in its range is attributed to more effective fire
suppression which has allowed stands to grow unchecked by fire and past grazing practices of
domestic livestock which has decreased the amount of ground vegetation needed to carry a fire.
Bitterbrush occurs throughout the Redmond planning
area on all aspects and elevations and is frequently
found with sagebrush and western juniper. Fire
severely damages bitterbrush, especially if rain is not
received shortly after a burn. Bitterbrush is fire
dependent, but not fire resistant. It regenerates mostly
from seed after a fire and often sprouts from caches of
seeds made by rodents. Bitterbrush will sprout after
burning regardless of the severity of the burn and
matures relatively quickly. Consequently, the
Redmond wildland urban interface area is rich with
patches of bitterbrush that burn well on their own and provide fire-rea9Y ladder fuels for taller
tree stands.
13
Noxious weeds and cbeat grass are found across the planning area and present yearly
challenges for residents, agricultural users and fire suppression agencies. Cheat grass
(considered obnoxious rather than noxious) and some 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.
Ladder fuels: Bitterbrush,
manzanita, sagebrush and
other flammable vegetation
that can provide a direct path
or "ladder" for fire to travel to
trees or structures.
The resu It of the fuel hazards and forest types in the greater
Redmond area is an overgrowth of trees and ladder fuels with
an abundance of dead or dying vegetation that contribute to a
substantially elevated risk of wildland fires that are difficult to
control. These overly dense conditions lead to fire behavior
that produces flame lengths over eight feet with crowning and
torching that can result in stand replacement severity fires.
Not only have large, stand replacement fires not occurred, but
also the more frequent low intensity fires have not been
allowed to burn either. This practice of fire exclusion along with insufficient vegetation/fuels
reduction has resulted in the buildup of excessive live and dead fuels.
IlEI I Community Assessment of Risk
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) was used as a risk assessment tool in the 2006 CWPP. No
updated data has been published to demonstrate the significant amount of work that has occurred
in the planning area over the last five years. The Steering Committee notes the importance
however of a landscape level analysis, rather than a lot-by-Iot, and understands the overall goal
to return the landscape to its historical setting. It is described in this section for reference only.
The Steering Committee relied on the ODF Assessment of Risk Factors and the classification
ratings of individual areas under the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of
1997 (aka Senate Bill 360).
ODF Assessment of Risk Factors
Risk of Wildfire Occurrence
The risk of wildfire occurrence refers to the likelihood of a fire occurring based on historical fire
occurrence, home density and ignition sources. The risk ranges from HIGH to MODERATE in
the Communities at Risk based on historical evidence of fire history as well as ready ignition
sources like dry lightning storms, debris burning, equipment use, juveniles, campfires, and arson.
See Table 2 on page 20.
14
The current condition of the vegetation on the federal and private lands adjacent to and within
the Greater Redmond WUI poses an elevated risk of catastrophic loss from wildland fire.
Redmond is also threatened by a possibility of a crown fire sweeping into the community, or by
embers falling on the community from an adjacent wildland fire.
Hazard
The hazard rating describes resistance to control once a fire starts based on weather, topography
(including slope, aspect and elevation), vegetation and crown fire potential. As stated earlier,
less logging activity, effective wildland fire suppression and a lack of forest management has led
to dense vegetation in the wildland urban interface. All Communities at Risk in the Greater
Redmond WUI are rated EXTREME under this assessment except the Urban Southeast, Urban
Northwest and Urban Southwest areas which are rated HIGH. See Table 2 on page 20.
A wildland fire could start within the communities or in any of the forested areas adjacent to or
surrounding the communities. With a fire of any significance, it could be difficult to assemble
the resources necessary to adequately address all of the fire and safety issues that could arise in
the early stages of emergency operations. The potential exists for a high intensity wildland fire
for any number of reasons, during a significant portion of each year.
Protection capability
Fire protection capability ranges from LOW to HIGH in the Greater Redmond WUI. In this
category, the lower the overall rating, the more protection capability the community has. The
ratings are based on fire protection capability and resources to control and suppress wildland and
structural fires. The ratings also consider response times and community preparedness. See
Table 2 on page 20.
When local resources are fully engaged, all agencies can request additional resources through the
State of Oregon and request federal resources through the Pacific Northwest Coordination
Center.
In addition to this high level of coordination, all fire departments and agencies in Central Oregon
convene each year for a pre-season meeting to discuss the upcoming wildland fire season.
Topics addressed at this meeting include predicted wildland fire activity, weather forecasts and
how agencies can/will respond to meet the needs of fire events.
Redmond Fire & Rescue
In 2011, Redmond Fire and Rescue successfully transitioned from a municipal fire department to
a fire district. Under the leadership of its five-member elected board of directors, Redmond Fire
and Rescue provides fire suppression services within its 150 mile service district and extends
Emergency Medical Services (EMS), including Advanced Cardiac Life Support transport, within
a 450 square mile service boundary.
15
The department provides specialized firefighting coverage for Redmond International Airport at
Roberts Field. Redmond Fire & Rescue adopted the National Incident Management Systems
(NIMS) and all personnel have received training and continue to train in its use.
Redmond Fire & Rescue is a combination career and volunteer department that employs one Fire
Chief, one Deputy Chief, two Division Chiefs, three Battalion Chiefs, 33 line
firefighter/paramedics, one fire prevention staff member, and two administrative staff members.
The department also manages a strong student volunteer program with seven student volunteers
and seven regular volunteers.
Through its four stations, Redmond Fire & Rescue utilizes a fleet of firefighting and EMS
apparatus including: three structural engines, three interface engines, one ladder truck, three
water tenders, two heavy brush engines, two light brush engines, one light rescue truck, four
ambulances, two hazardous materials response vehicles and trailers, two Aircraft Rescue Fire
Fighting (ARFF) engines, two command vehicles and six staff vehicles.
In addition to the fire fighting resources, Redmond Fire and Rescue puts a portion of its
workforce towards fire prevention. The fire prevention team is comprised of one Fire Marshal
and one Deputy Fire Marshal that provide enforcement of local fire codes and ordinances as well
as provide public education across the district. This team is responsible for fire cause
determination and providing information about the science of fire so the department can focus on
a prevention message, campaign and code development to prevent those fires in the future.
~ The department is a party to the Central Oregon Mutual Aid Agreement. In the event of a major
fire the department may request assistance from all other fire departments that are signatory to
the agreement. In addition to Central Oregon Fire Departments, this includes the US Forest
Service, Oregon Department of Forestry, and the BLM. Conversely, when these agencies need
assistance and the District has resources available, it assists them. Redmond Fire and Rescue is
also a party to an Automatic Aid Agreement with Bend, Cloverdale, Sunriver, Sisters, US Forest
Service and ODF. Through a streamlined Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) center, Redmond
Fire and Rescue responds automatically to certain calls in areas up to five miles beyond the fire
district.
Local Ordinances provide the department with the control of burning practices. This step alone
has contributed positively to the decrease in the amount of fire calls and reduced the threat of
wildfire in the greater Redmond area.
Local building codes and fire codes also reduce the catastrophe from wildfires as they allow the
department to restrict the use of combustible roofing materials, design new communities with
adequate and proper access (ingress/egress) for emergency vehicles as well as adequate water
supply and hydrant distribution. These opportunities give firefighters an expedient route to fires
and assist residents in safe evacuations.
All of these enforced code and ordinance provisions help reduce the number and severity of fires
in the greater Redmond area.
16
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)
The Central Oregon District of the Oregon Department of Forestry does not provide fire
protection for any private landowners in the greater Redmond area. ODF does however
participate in mutual aid requests for fire suppression on wildland fires within the Redmond
CWPP boundary as described above.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management
The US Forest Service and BLM provide wildland fire protection on the federal lands within the
greater Redmond area. Together, they are identified as the Central Oregon Fire Management
Service (COFMS). COFMS includes the Deschutes National Forest, the Ochoco National
Forest, the Crooked River National Grassland, and the Prineville District of the BLM. These
four units are managed cooperatively under combined leadership, with an Interagency Fire
Management Officer, two Deputy Fire Management Officers, and a Board of Directors including
decision makers from both agencies, with Forest Service District Rangers and BLM Field
Managers. COFMS has a central dispatching facility in partnership with the Oregon Department
of Forestry that serves as a communications hub for fire and fuels operations, as well as safety
and training issues for COFMS. In total, COFMS provides the following resources: 25 engines,
6 initial attack hand crews, 6 prevention units, 2 dozers, 2 water tenders, 1 air attack, 3 lead
planes and 3 helicopters. Additional regional and national resources are available and include 53
smoke jumpers, 2 inter-regional Hotshot crews, 1 air tanker, 1 National Fire Cache, and 23
overhead staff positions.
~ Law Enforcement
Police services are provided by the City of Redmond Police Department and Deschutes County
Sheriff. Both entities have responsibility for ensuring the safe and orderly evacuation ofthe
community in the event of a major emergency. A number of resources have been allocated to
accomplish this task including hi/lo sirens on vehicles; emergency notification via radio and
television; reverse 9-1-1 capability; Police and Sheriff's Department staff; Deschutes County
Search & Rescue; Redmond Fire & Rescue staff and community-wide volunteers. Any other
issues relative to a major emergency are addressed by the Countywide Disaster Plan and the
Deschutes County Department of Emergency Services.
Oregon State Police assists the law enforcement efforts and cooperates with the City of Redmond
and Deschutes County for protection in the Redmond area.
Community Preparedness
Also under the category of Protection Capabilities, the ODF Assessment of Risk examines a
community's level of organization and preparedness to respond in an emergency situation. The
assessment considers whether the area has an organized stakeholder group that looks out for its
own area through mitigation efforts, a phone tree, etc. Or, does the area only receive outside
efforts such as newsletters, mailings or fire prevention information from other groups? In the
Greater Redmond WUI, the Communities at Risk varied from having a high level of organization
to not having any with most efforts made by outside agencies such as the fire department's
FireFree efforts and Project Wildfire's Sweat Equity projects in individual neighborhoods. The
Steering Committee used local knowledge to determine the level of preparedness.
17
Values Protected
The human and economic values protected in the Greater Redmond WUI are based on home
density per ten acres and community infrastructure such as power substations, transportation
corridors, water and fuel storage, etc. Five Communities at Risk are rated HIGH in this category
and three are rated MODERATE. See Table 2 on page 20.
Based on Deschutes County tax records from 2010, there are approximately 16,104 residential
structures in the Greater Redmond planning area, with an estimated real market value of
$3,386,315,729. In addition, 1,500 businesses operate in the Redmond area. If a large wildland
fire occurs in this area which resulted in the closure of either US Highway 97 or state highway
126, the economic loss to businesses could exceed $3.5 million per day.
Redmond is also home to the Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center. If local transportation
routes are closed due to fire, events at the Expo Center and the resulting income to the
community could be greatly affected. For example, the 2011 Motor Coach Rally brought 7,000
visitors and $4.7 million in revenue to businesses in Redmond over four days (Redmond
Chamber, 2011). Receipts and revenue generated from events such as these would be negatively
impacted if transportation routes were closed.
The essential infrastructure includes multiple webs of utilities, roads, water and sewer systems
and has an approximate replacement value of $275,000 per mile for electrical transmission lines;
$150,000 per mile of electrical distribution lines; and $2 million per electrical sub-station. Loss
to roads, water and sewer systems would be minimal because most are underground or otherwise
not flammable.
Other Community Values
Of high importance to residents and business owners in Redmond is the value placed on scenic
beauty and recreational opportunities that exist on public lands both within and adjacent to the
planning area. Redmond residents and visitors value Smith Rock State Park and Cline Falls
State Park as two of the many scenic gems in the area.
The loss of recreational use by visitors to the area as a result of scenic quality, specifically large
"bum over" areas, will have an unknown economic impact not only to the Redmond area, but to
the remainder of Deschutes County and neighboring cities like Bend, La Pine, Sunriver and
Sisters. If a large wildland fire occurs in this area, the result will be catastrophic loss to both the
developed and dispersed recreational opportunities in the greater Redmond area.
Structural Vulnerability
In recent years, many neighborhoods in the greater Redmond area have taken steps to decrease
the vulnerability of structures to wildland fire. Although attitudes and behaviors towards fire are
changing in the Redmond area thanks to educational programs like FireFree and Firewise, the
population growth and continued development into the wildland urban interface present fresh
challenges each year. The Steering Committee puts high value on the importance of making
structures and neighborhoods in the Greater Redmond WUI as fire safe as possible.
18
The ratings for structural vulnerability for each sub region rated LOW. See Table 2 on page 20.
The survey included assessments ofthe following:
• Flammable roofing -wood or non-wood present;
• Defensible space -meets local requirements or not;
• Ingress/egress -one, two or more roads in/out;
• Road width - 0 to more than 24 feet wide;
• All season road conditions -surfaced or not with grade more or less than
10%;
• Fire Service access -more or less than 300 ft with or without turnaround;
• Street signs -Present with 4" reflective characters or absent.
The following table -Table 2 -is a summary of the eight Communities at Risk, the value ratings
(with corresponding scores) and the total scores for each community in each category. The
higher the total score in this assessment, the higher the overall risk.
19
Table 2 -ODF Assessment Summary
Community
at risk
What is the
likelihood of a
fire occurring?
Hazard
rating
Protection
capability
Human and
economic
values
protected
Structural
vulnerability
Total
score Rank
Northeast
Moderate
20
Extreme
68
" High
17
Moderate
22
Low
17 144 5
Southeast
High
30
Extreme
68
High
22
Moderate
22
Low
21 163 2
~ Northwest
Moderate
20
Extreme
68
High
26
Moderate
22
Low
27 163 2
Southwest
High
35
Extreme
68
High
17
High
35
Low
25 180 I
Urban NE
Moderate
20
High
53
Low
2
High
35
Low
8 liS 7
Urban SE
Moderate
25
High
60
Low
2
High
35
Low
9 13 I 6
UrbanNW
Moderate
25
High
60
Low
2
High
50
Low
24 161 3
Urban SW
- - - - -
High
__ 1° ___
High
55
---
Low
'--__2___
High
_ _ 50 __
Low
17
----'---
154
- - -
4
The higher the overall score, the greater the risk.
Risk: Describes the likelihood of a fire occurring based on histori:al fire ocrurrence and ignition sources. Low= 0 -13 points; Moderate = 14 -27 points; High = 28 -40 points .
Hazard: Describes resistance to control once a fire starts based on weather, topography and fuel. Low = 0 - 9 points; Moderate = 10-40 points; High = 41 -60 points ; Extreme = 61 -80 points .
Protection capability: Describes fire protection capability and resoun:es based on type of protection, response times and community preparedness . Low= 0 - 9 points ; Moderate = 10 -16 points;
High = 17 -40 points . The lower the score here , the better the risk factor.
Values protected: Describes the human and economic values in the community based on home density per ten acres and community infrastructure such as power substations, transportation corridors,
water and fuel storage, etc. Low = 0 -IS points ; Moderate = 16 -30 points; High = 31 -50 points.
Structural vulnerability: Describes the likelihood that structures will be destroyed by wildfire based on roofing and building materials , defensible space, separation of homes, fire department access
and street signage. Low= 0 -30 points; Moderate = 31 -60 points; High = 61 -90 points .
Total score: A sum of all the points from each category surveyed.
20
Fire Regime and Condition Class
Although not used as an assessment toolfor this updated CWPP, the Steering Committee notes it
here because ofits description and goals for the overall landscape.
Fire Regime -Condition Class considers the type of vegetation and the departure from its natural
fire behavior return interval.
Five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years between
fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity of the fire on dominant overstory vegetation.
Fire regimes I and II are each represented on the landscape in the Redmond WUI. Western
juniper for example has a 31 year fire interval with high potential for stand replacement fires.
Western juniper therefore falls within Fire Regime II which describes species with fire return
intervals between 0 -35 years.
Table 3 summarizes Fire Regimes.
Table 3 -Fire Regimes
Fire Re2ime Group Fire Frequency Fire Severity
Plant Association
Group
I 0 35 years Low severity Ponderosa pine,
manzanita, bitterbrush
II 0-35 years Stand replacement Western juniper
III 35 -100+ years Mixed severity Mixed conifer dry
IV 35 100+ years Stand replacement Lodgepole pine
V > 200 years Stand replacement Western hemlock,
mixed conifer wet
Condition Class categorizes a departure from the natural fire regime based on ecosystem
attributes. In Condition Class I, the historical ecosystem attributes are largely intact and
functioning as defined by the historical natural fire regime. In other words, the stand has not
missed a fire cycle. In Condition Class 2, the historical ecosystem attributes have been
moderately altered. Generally, at least one fire cycle has been missed. In Condition Class 3,
historical ecosystem attributes have been significantly altered. Multiple fire cycles have been
missed. The risk oflosing key ecosystem components (e.g. native species, large trees, soil) is low
for Class I, moderate for Class 2, and high for Class 3.
Table 4 summarizes Condition Class.
21
Table 4 -Condition Class
Condition Class Attributes
Condition Class 1
• Fire regimes are within or near an historical range.
• The risk oflosing key ecosystem components is low.
• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies (either
increased or decreased) by no more than one return interval.
• Vegetation attributes are intact and functioning within an historical
range.
Condition Class 2
• Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range.
• The risk of losing key ecosystem components has increased to
moderate.
• Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) from
historical frequencies by more than one return interval. This change
results in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size,
frequency, intensity, severity or landscape patterns.
• Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historic
ranges.
Condition Class 3
• Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range.
• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high.
• Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) by
multiple return intervals. This change results in dramatic changes to one
or more ofthe following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or
landscape patterns.
• Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historic
ranges.
There are 111,003 acres in the Greater Redmond WUI area. Fuels reduction projects continue to
reduce the amount of acreage in Condition Class 2 & 3. Achieving Condition Class 1 on public
lands however, requires multiple entries on treatment sites, over a period ofyears. For example,
thinning and mowing may occur over a 12-24 month project period. The under-burning
component ofthe project may not occur for another year while the land recovers from the
thinning and mowing and produces an adequate shrub content to support prescribed fire.
Condition Class applies on the landscape level. Therefore, the Steering Committee recognizes
that although significant fuels reduction work is underway by the BLM, the need continues on
the landscape as a whole. The Steering Committee supports the ongoing planning and treatment
process on public lands.
I
I
I22
I
I
Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997
The Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, also known as Senate Bill 360,
enlists the aid of property owners toward the goal of turning fire-vulnerable urban and
suburban properties into less volatile zones where firefighters may more safely and effectively
defend homes from wildfires. The law requires property owners in identified forestland-urban
interface areas to reduce excess vegetation around structures and along driveways. In some
cases, it is also necessary to create fuel breaks along property lines and roadsides.
Forestland-urban interface areas are identified in each county by a classification committee.
Once areas are identified, a committee applies fire risk classifications to the areas. The
classifications range from "low" to "high density extreme," and the classification is used by a
property owner to determine the level of hazardous fuel reduction that needs to be established on
the property to minimize risk of experiencing structural property loss from unwanted wildfire.
I
i
The classification committee reconvenes every five years to review and recommend any changes
to the classifications. This process was completed and approved in February 2010. At the same ftime, Deschutes County elected to classifY all the lands within its boundaries, regardless ofODF
protection.
t
It is important to note that while Oregon Department of Forestry does not provide fire protection
in the greater Redmond area other than what is approved under the Mutual and Automatic Aid
agreements with Redmond Fire and Rescue, Deschutes County has classified all private lands in
the Greater Redmond WUI under Senate Bill 360 and strongly recommends that residents
comply with the standards ofthe legislation.
A detailed description ofthe standards is available from the Oregon Department of Forestry in
the handbook for the Oregon Forestland Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997. This
information is also available at www.oregon.gov/ODF/fire/SB360.
The Standards for properties classified as HIGH under the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface
Fire Protection Act of 1997 are:
• Establish a primary fuel break of30 feet around structures (additional 20
feet if flammable roofing material is present);
• Create fuel breaks around driveways longer than 150 feet;
• Remove tree branches within 10 feet of chimneys;
• Remove any dead vegetation that overhangs a roof;
• Remove flammable materials from under decks and stairways;
• Move firewood 20 feet away from structures;
If the property is classified as EXTREME, a total of 50 feet of defensible space around structures
is required (an additional 20 if flammable roofing is present). I
23 I
I
I
A fuel break consists of: Removal of dead/dry/flammable brush around home, roof, chimney,
decks and under nearby trees; removal of low hanging branches on trees; and reposition of wood
piles at least 20 feet away from home during fire season .
The specific recommendations under Senate Bill 360 for private lands are also outlined under
Prioritized Hazard Reduction Recommendations and Preferred Treatment Methods in this
CWPP.
The ratings among the eight Communities include High and Extreme. The following table
summarizes the percentages of each in the Communities at Risk.
Table 5 -SB 360 Rating
and percentage of High and Extreme
Community at
Risk Rating Acres Percentage
Northeast
Extreme
High
285.0
13,509.7
2 .1%
97.9%
Southeast High 26,353.2 100.0%
Northwest
Extreme
High
2 ,266.4
32,533.0
6.5%
93.5%
Southwest
E xtreme
High
608.6
19 ,779 .9
3.0%
97.0%
Urban Northeast High 3,263.5 100 .0%
Urban Southeast High I 4,461.6 100.0%
Urban Northwest High 3,351.3 100.0%
Urban Southwest High 4,578.6 100.0%
Overall
High
Extreme
107830.8
3,160.0
97.2%
2.8%
Total Acres 110,990.8
24
The Steering Committee considered the percentages of High and Extreme ratings under Senate
Bill 360 (Table 5 above) and compared it to the information revealed by the ODF Assessment of
Risk (Table 2 on page 20). Based on the aggregate information, the Steering Committee came to
consensus on the prioritization for fuels treatment in the eight Communities at Risk.
Two groups of priorities are presented for hazardous fuels treatments on public and private lands:
1st Priority
Northwest
Southwest
Urban Northwest
Southeast
Northeast
2nd Priority
Urban Southwest
Urban Southeast
Urban Northeast
Areas of special concern
Critical Transportation Routes
Critical Transportation Routes do not have a standard definition in Deschutes County. For
purposes ofthe Greater Redmond CWPP, the Steering Committee defines Critical Transportation
Routes as:
• all routes necessary for the support of routine flow of commerce to and/or through the
Redmond area,
• all routes that could be used for potential evacuation of citizens and/or visitors from a
wildland fire threat to public safety,
• routes needed for emergency ingress and egress to a wildland fire incident, not
including unimproved or "two-track" roads,
• and, all routes needed to protect and support critical infrastructure (power substations,
communication transmission lines, water and fuel storage, public service facilities,
recreation facilities, etc).
As mentioned earlier, local knowledge suggests that most ofthe growth and development in the
greater Redmond area has occurred within the city limits west of US Highway 97.
25 I
I
I
Deschutes County estimates an additional transient population of up to 20,000 people who visit
recreation sites and utilize the transportation corridors around Redmond. Critical transportation
routes are a prime concern for those agencies responsible for fire suppression and evacuation.
As noted in the 2006 CWPP, the Steering Committee is concerned with the lack of maintained
roads leading in and out of the high risk areas in the WUI. Should an evacuation be necessary,
the Steering Committee expressed great concern over the number and quality of the evacuation
routes. Many of the egress routes are dirt roads that contribute to substantial dust and debris
clouds as vehicles attempt to use them. During the summer months, after a few cars travel the
road, the dust is so dense that it is not safe for vehicles to continue using the road until the dust
settles. Lack of maintenance has led to deteriorated road surfaces with large potholes, ruts and
washboards that slow evacuation efforts and cause some vehicles to break down, further
complicating a mass departure from the area. The current condition of some of the evacuation
routes is a life safety issue.
Working with Deschutes County and Project Wildfire, several
neighborhoods within the Communities at Risk have taken advantage
of a signage program to increase visibility of evacuation route signs
along roads. The signs are made from high intensity reflective
material and indicate proper exit routes from these neighborhoods.
The Steering Committee underscored the need to continue to identify,
develop and protect critical transportation routes as part of this
planning process. Ingress/egress issues are included under
Recommendations to Reduce Structural Vulnerability. This issue is
also highlighted under Action Plan and Implementation.
Hazardous vegetation along railroads
The Steering Committee expressed concern over the condition of the vegetation in the railroad
right of way in those Communities at Risk that the railroad transects. In the Northeast and Urban
Northeast sub regions for example, residents are concerned about the increased flammability of
the weeds due to their unchecked growth. In some areas, the railroad right of way extends 100
feet from the center of tracks on both sides of the rails. In the past, trains traveling in the area
have ignited dry weeds along the railways. In addition to the size of the railroad right of way is
the amount and type of flammable vegetation. In some cases, the right of way is thick with sage,
bitterbrush, cheat grass and noxious weeds -all acting as ladder fuels to the trees that share the
right of way. Sheer size along with the amount and type of vegetation can lead to a large fire
with high spreading potential to nearby homes and neighborhoods already at risk.
While the vegetation management ofthe railroad right of ways has improved in recent years, the
Steering Committee strongly recommends encouraging Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Corporation to maintain weeds below 4" to deter the spread of any potential fires.
26
~] Prioritized Hazard Reduction Recommendations and
Preferred Treatment Methods
As maintained in the original CWPP, the Steering Committee agreed that the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan is a tool that can be used for many outcomes. The
following is an outline of the priorities, as well as preferred treatments and goals under the
Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Priorities
Based on consensus ofthe assessment infonnation, the Steering Committee has identified the
following priorities:
1st Priority
Northwest
Southwest
Urban Northwest
Southeast
Northeast
2nd Priority
Urban Southwest
Urban Southeast
Urban Northeast
27
,
£
I
Goals
The Steering Committee identified the following goals to meet the Purpose on page one ofthe
Greater Redmond CWPP:
• Reduce hazardous fuels on public lands;
• Reduce hazardous fuels on private lands;
• Reduce structural vulnerability;
• Increase education and awareness of the wildfire threat;
• Identify, improve and protect critical transportation routes;
Preferred treatments and goals for hazardous fuels reduction
Appendix A includes detailed maps of the WUI boundary throughout the Greater Redmond
CWPP and the recommended areas for treatments by reducing wildland fuel hazards on both
public and private lands.
The standard ofthe Greater Redmond CWPP is to decrease the risk of uncharacteristic and high
intensity wildland fire behavior by reducing fuel loads to that which can produce flame lengths
of less than four feet. This enables safe and effective initial attack.
The CWPP goal is also to provide for a healthy, fire resilient landscape that supports the social,
economic and ecological values of Redmond area residents and visitors. The Steering
Committee recognizes the effectiveness and value of maximizing treatment efforts in areas that
are adjacent to federal or private projects and recommends that future projects consider these
benefits when selecting areas for treatment. The following specific standards are recommended
for treatments on public and private lands within the Greater Redmond WUL
Public lands
Public lands are managed by the BLM and occupy 40.15% of lands in the Greater Redmond
planning area, all located in the four rural Communities at Risk. The Oregon Military
Department leases 22% ofthe lands for its Biak Training Center in the Southeast sub region.
The Steering Committee includes the training center lands within the WUI boundary and in this
section for fuels treatment recommendations.
State owned lands represent only 2.71% ofthe planning area but include the valuable recreation
and scenic areas of Smith Rock State Park and Cline Falls State Park. The state also owns
blocks ofland in the Northwest and Southwest planning areas. The parks are managed by
Oregon State Parks and the blocks ofland are managed by the Division of State Lands.
It is the intent of the Steering Committee that the Greater Redmond planning area is subject to
expedited measures for hazardous fuels treatment and allocation of funds to protect the
communities and neighborhoods as stipulated by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
28
The overall standard for public lands under this CWPP is to decrease the risk of high intensity
wildland fire behavior by reducing and maintaining fuel loads to that which can produce flame
lengths ofless than four feet in the areas within the WUI boundary. This buffer will begin at the
edge of private lands (except where other land management practices prohibit it such as riparian
or wetland areas) and extend onto the federal lands to the designated WUI boundary. This
enables safe and effective initial attack. This standard can be achieved by federal land
management agencies through a variety oftreatment methodologies such as thinning, prescribed
burning and mechanical treatments. Specific treatments should address fuels issues on a
landscape scale rather than acre by acre.
Federal and state land managers are strongly encouraged to work toward the overall standard by
reducing and maintaining fuel loads to that which can produce flame lengths ofless than four
feet in the following areas:
• Within a Y4 mile buffer inside the Greater Redmond WUI. Treatments should
begin here and increase in Y4 mile increments until the WUI boundary is reached.
• Within 300 feet of any critical transportation route or ingress/egress that could
serve as an escape route from adjacent communities at risk.
• Maintenance of previously treated lands is also a top priority. Treatment and
maintenance of previously treated lands before treatment begins again in other
places is an important component of keeping communities safe.
~ In juniper, sage and bitterbrush dominated wildlands, federal land managers are strongly
encouraged to utilize mechanical treatments including prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads to that
which can produce flame lengths of less than four feet.
The standard can be achieved through a variety oftreatment methodologies such as thinning,
prescribed burning and mechanical treatments. These treatments shall be consistent with the
current Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan and the COFMS Fire Management Plan on
the federal lands.
The Steering Committee also encourages federal land managers to work with local landowners to
minimize road closures that could be used as alternate evacuation routes from Communities at
Risk.
Private and county owned lands
The majority ofthe land (53.91%) in the Greater Redmond planning area is privately owned land
and is considered developed, or in rare cases intermixed with development. The County owns
only 3.22% ofthe land in this planning area. The Steering Committee recommends that County
owned lands be treated in the same manner as privately owned lands.
Private lands with structural improvements
On private lands with structural improvements, the goal is for each structure to meet the
Standards identified in the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997 (aka
29 I
I
I
Senate Bill 360) for its individual classification rating. This includes properties with structural
improvements that are vacant from foreclosure or other legal transactions.
Although the Oregon Department ofForestry does not provide wildland fire protection in the
greater Redmond planning area, Deschutes County has classified each area under Senate Bill 360
(Table 5 on page 24) and the Steering Committee supports the standards recommended for each.
A detailed description ofthe standards is available from the Oregon Department of Forestry in
the handbook for the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997. This
information is also available at www.oregon.gov/ODF/fire/SB360.
The Standards for properties classified as HIGH under the Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface
Fire Protection Act of 1997 are:
• Establish a primary fuel break of30 feet around structures (additional 20
feet if flammable roofing material is present);
• Create fuel breaks around driveways longer than 150 feet;
• Remove tree branches within 10 feet of chimneys;
• Remove any dead vegetation that overhangs a roof;
• Remove flammable materials from under decks and stairways;
• Move firewood 20 feet away from structures;
Ifthe property is classified as EXTREME, a total of 50 feet of defensible space around structures
is required (an additional 20 if flammable roofing is present).
A fuel break consists of: Removal of dead/dry/flammable brush around home, roof, chimney,
decks and under nearby trees; removal of low hanging branches on trees; and reposition ofwood
piles at least 20 feet away from home during fire season.
Property owners can also achieve the Senate Bill 360 standards by taking advantage ofFireFree
and Firewise recommendations to create and/or maintain defensible space, a fire-resistant buffer
that allows for effective first-response firefighting and a significantly reduced risk ofthe spread
of fire. These national education programs promote a variety of fire safe actions to help prevent
the spread of fire to protect individual homes and neighborhoods. Information about these
programs can be found at www.firefree.org and www.firewise.org. More information is also
listed in this plan under Recommendations to Reduce Structural Vulnerability.
Vacant lots
Within the Greater Redmond WUI, approximately 20% ofthe private land is considered vacant,
or lots with no structural improvements. Many ofthose are owned by "absentee owners". In
general, vacant lots owned by absentee owners present a specific threat to neighborhoods in that
owners have little to no connections to the neighborhoods and in most cases do not recognize
their responsibility to contribute to the safety ofthe entire neighborhood by reducing the t
I
I
30
hazardous vegetation on their properties. The risk of destructive wildland fires is thereby greater
inside these neighborhoods due to the lack of owner attention on vacant lots.
The Steering Committee recommends that those vacant lots and acreages that are dominated by
hazardous wildland fuels follow the guidelines under Senate Bill 360 for "High Density
Extreme" which includes a 20-foot fuel break around the perimeter of the lot.
~] Recommendations to Reduce Structural Vulnerability
Structural Vulnerability
Based on the assessment of structural vulnerability for the ODF Assessment of Risk Factors in
Table 2 on page 20, the following table identifies the main hazards within the eight Communities
at Risk in the Greater Redmond planning area. For each hazard or risk listed, an action is
recommended to address the threat or decrease the risk.
31
Table 6 -Structural Vulnerability Hazards & Recommendations
Community
at Risk Primary Hazards Recommended Actions
Northeast
1/3 have no defensible space-
hazardous vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
10"10 wood roofs Fire Free, Firewise S8 360 compliance
Some access/egress issues Establish route(s), sign and maintain
Some roads in poor condition Identify, uP2J'8de and maintain
Southeast
Hazardous vegetation along Hwy 97 Mow to 4" -FireFree, Firewise,
S8 360 compliance
Some access & evacuation route issues Improve rou~s),sign and maintain
Some roads in poor condition Identify, upgrade and maintain
Northwest
1/3+ have no defensible space-
Hazardous Vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
1/6 wood roofing FireFree Firewise S8 360 compliance
Insufficient access & evacuation routes Improve route(s). sign and maintain
Poor condition of some roads IdentifY, u~radeand maintain
Southwest
About 50% with no defensible space-
hazardous vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
In+ wood roofing FireFree Firewise S8 360 cOI1!Pliance
Some roads in poor condition Identify and improve
Some access & evacuation route issues Establish route(s), sign and maintain
Some inadequate signage Identify and improve
Urban
Northeast
1/6 have no defensible space-
hazardous vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
Some access & evacuation route issues Establish route(s). sign and maintain
Poor condition of some roads Identify, upgrade and maintain
Urban
Southeast
Very few with no defensible space-
hazardous vegetation Fire Free, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
10% wood roofing Fire Free Firewise S8 360 compliance
Some access & evacuation route issues Improve route(s), sign and maintain
Poor condition of some roads Identify, upgrade and maintain
Urban
Northwest
1/3 with no defensible space
hazardous vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
About 1/3 wood roofing FireFree Firewise S8 360 compliance
Some access & evacuation route issues Improve route(s). sign and maintain
Poor condition of some roads IdentifY, upgrade and maintain
Urban
Southwest
About 1/3 with no defensible space-
hazardous vegetation FireFree, Firewise, S8 360 compliance
10% wood roofing FireFree, Firewise S8 360 compliance
Some aceesslegress issues Establish route(s), sign and maintain
Some roads in poor condition Identify, upgrade and maintain
32
Table 7 provides a checklist for residents seeking to reduce the risk of catastrophic losses to their
homes and properties.
Table 7 -Defensible Space Cbecklist
What can I do to help prevent losses to my property and my
neighborhood?
o Post easy-to-read address signs so emergency crews can find your home.
o Reduce flammable vegetation and brush around your home.
o Reduce the density of nearby trees.
o Clear wood piles and building materials away from your home.
o Remove low tree branches and shrubs.
o Keep grass and weeds cut low.
o Remove overhanging branches and limbs.
o Remove leaves & needles from gutters, roofs and decks.
o Remove dead plants and brush.
o Maintain a minimum of30 feet of defensible space around your home.
o Screen vents and areas under decks with 1/8" metal mesh.
1:1 Keep decks free of flammable lawn furniture, doormats, etc.
1:1 Choose fire-resistant roofing materials.
o Trim vegetation along driveways a minimum distance of 14' x 14' for fire trucks.
1:1 Use alternatives to burning debris.
I
J
I
~ 1
33
Education
As stated in the Purpose on page one of the Greater Redmond CWPP, four outcomes for this
planning effort are to:
• Instill a sense of personal responsibility for taking preventative actions regarding
wildland fire,
• Increase public understanding of living in a fire-adapted ecosystem, and
• Increase the community's ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from wildland
fires;
• Create and maintain fire adapted communities.
With these goals in mind, education and outreach are top priorities for the Greater Redmond
CWPP. The rapid influx of new residents is just one reason the Steering Committee places high
value on the education of Redmond area residents and landowners. Many new residents are
unfamiliar with wildland fire and have limited experience with issues such as defensible space.
Residents and visitors will continue to benefit from clear examples of what a fire resilient forest
and community look like as well as easy access to resources that help them take action.
The creation of fire adapted communities is new to the Greater Redmond CWPP as a goa\. As
residents employ the recommendations in this CWPP, fire adapted communities will begin to
surface. A recent public paradigm shift across the
United States, a fire adapted community engages a
higher degree of personal responsibility on the part
of residents in fire prone areas. Residents and
neighbors are encouraged to prepare not only their
properties but also their families in fire safe
practices including necessary evacuation protocols.
Utilizing pre-fire strategies such as defensible space
and fire resistant landscaping and construction
materials, communities can tum entire
neighborhoods into fire adapted communities where
even in the event of a wildland fire, people can
safely evacuate themselves, homes survive with
little or no intervention from fire agencies and if
trapped, people know what to do to survive the fire.
A fire adapted community is one that is
located in a fire prone area that requires
little or no assistance from firefighters
during a wildfire. Residents in a fire
adapted community possess the
knowledge and skills to prepare their
homes and properties to survive a
wildfire. They can evacuate early, safely
and effectively and if trapped, they can
survive .
Deschutes County, Project Wildfire and Redmond Fire and Rescue endorse the nationwide
Ready, Set, Go! Program that provides a framework for enhancing current education programs
that will lead to the development of fire adapted communities.
There are several opportunities to enhance these educational efforts in the greater Redmond area.
Redmond Fire and Rescue, the Central Oregon Fire Prevention Cooperative and Project Wildfire
all provide consistent wildland fire prevention programs through a variety of individual and
collaborative efforts.
34
I
)
!
Some neighborhoods in the greater Redmond area are well organized through homeowners
associations and other groups. These groups provide valuable ongoing education to their
populations about the risks of high intensity wildland fire and ways to improve their protection.
The Steering Committee supports these groups and encourages their formation in the greater
Redmond area to address the educational needs of current and incoming residents about living in
a fire adapted community and increasing personal responsibility for creating defensible space.
Local residents are encouraged to contact Redmond Fire and Rescue for information. Residents
may also find additional information on how they can reduce hazards and protect themselves
from loss due to wildland fires at www.firefree.org and www.firewise.org.
Iml Action Plan and Implementation
The Steering Committee recognizes that the Greater Redmond CWPP is a living tool with
multiple applications. The following actions address the goals on page 28 and are intended to
assist individuals and agencies in the implementation of this CWPP across Redmond and the
adjacent WUI.
Reduce hazardous fuels on public lands
Immediately following the acceptance and signed approval of this plan, the Steering Committee
will forward copies of the 2011 Greater Redmond CWPP available to all public land managers
and public safety officials including:
• Central Oregon Forest Management Service -US Forest Service and BLM
• Oregon Department of Forestry
• Redmond Fire and Rescue
• Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
• Redmond Police
• Oregon Department of Transportation
• Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corporation
• City of Redmond
The intention of the Steering Committee is to engage in continued discussions with the greater
Redmond community and adjacent landowners to implement the CWPP and accomplish
hazardous fuels reduction projects in the most expeditious manner possible. The Steering
Committee recognizes the effectiveness and value of maximizing treatment efforts in areas that
are adjacent to federal or other private projects and recommends that future projects consider
these benefits when selecting areas for treatment.
35
Reduce hazardous fuels on private lands
The intention of the Steering Committee is to engage in continued discussions with landowners
to facilitate fuels reduction projects on private lands through the implementation of Senate Bill
360. These actions can be accomplished through education activities and grants for specific
projects on private lands.
The Steering Committee will make the 2011 Greater Redmond CWPP available to Homeowner
Associations, developers and other entities providing guidance to communities and organized
neighborhoods.
Redmond Fire and Rescue will work with Project Wildfire to engage four new communities in
Sweat Equity projects by the end of20 14. These projects shall be in addition to any ongoing
Sweat Equity projects in any of the Communities at Risk.
Redmond Fire and Rescue will work with Oregon Department of Forestry and Project Wildfire
to identify and certify two communities for application under the national Firewise Communities
USA program.
Reduce Structural Vulnerability
The Steering Committee is charged with the task of engaging community members to review the
Structural Vulnerability Assessment in this CWPP and identify projects that will strengthen the
potential for the neighborhoods to survive a wildland fire within the Greater Redmond WUI.
The ODF Assessment of Risk Factors (Table 2) and Tables 6 & 7 can be utilized as a resource
for homeowners to improve the fire resistance oftheir homes on an individual basis and also by
groups to implement education programs.
As asserted above, Redmond Fire and Rescue will work with Oregon Department of Forestry
and Project Wildfire to identify and certify two communities for application under the national
Firewise Communities USA program.
The Steering Committee is also charged with the task of working with Redmond Fire and Rescue
to identify and assess the water resources available for fire suppression in Redmond and the
surrounding WUI. The Steering Committee can make recommendations for projects to ensure
adequate water resources are available for fire suppression.
Increase Awareness and Education
The Steering Committee will work with Redmond Fire and Rescue and Project Wildfire to
review the educational programs available and identify potential projects for implementation.
Redmond Fire and Rescue will work with Project Wildfire to provide FireFree and Firewise
education and materials to at least five new groups each year. These are in addition to any
ongoing educational events completed by Redmond Fire and Rescue.
36 It
I
I
t
f
The action item above, to identify and certify two communities under the national Firewise
Communities USA program, will assist greatly in achieving this goal.
Identify, Improve and Protect Critical Transportation Routes
The Steering Committee will work with Redmond Fire and Rescue, City of Redmond Police
Department, Deschutes County, and Oregon Department of Transportation to identify and map
existing transportation and evacuation routes of concern.
The Steering Committee will assist in conducting further assessments to determine the
evacuation needs of greater Redmond and identify at least one neighborhood per year to
approach and develop evacuation signage projects.
The Steering Committee will continue to encourage federal land managers to work with local
landowners to minimize closures of roads that can be used as alternate evacuation routes.
37
Table 8 -Summary of Goals & Action Plan
Goals Action Entity Responsible Timeline
Steering Committee with:
Reduce hazardous
fuels on public lands
Upon approval ofthis CWPP,
forward copies ofthe 20 II Greater
Redmond CWPP available to all
public land managers and public
safety officials. In addition make
the CWPP available to developers,
HOAs and any entities providing
governance to communities and
organized neighborhoods.
I Project Wildfire Upon
CWPP
approval in
9/30/2011
Reduce hazardous
Engage four new communities
in Sweat Equity projects.
Redmond Fire &
Rescue, Project
Wildfire By 12/2014
fuels on private lands Identify and certify two (2)
communities for application
under the national Firewise
Communities USA program.
ODF, Redmond Fire &
Rescue, Project
Wildfire By 12/2014
Identify and certify two (2)
communities for application
under the national Firewise
Communities USA program.
ODF, Redmond Fire &
Rescue, Project
Wildfire By 12/2014
Reduce Structural
Vulnerability Identify and assess the water
resources available for tire.
Make recommendations for
projects to ensure adequate
water resources are available
for fire suppression.
Redmond Fire &
Rescue
By 12/2014
Increase Awareness
and Education
Provide FireFree and Firewise
education and materials to at
least five (5) new groups each
year -in addition to any
ongoing educational events
completoo by RF &R.
Redmond Fire &
Rescue, Project
Wildfire
By 12/2014
Identify, Improve
and Protect Critical
Transportation
Routes
Identify and map existing
transportation and evacuation
routes of concern. Identify at
least one neighborhood per year
to approach and develop
evacuation signage projects.
Redmond Fire and Rescue,
City of Redmond Police
Department. Deschutes
County.ODOT By 12/2014
38
Fund Projects
The Steering Committee and Project Wildfire wilJ encourage and assist community groups in
seeking funding for fuels reduction, educational, and other projects to decrease overall risks of
loss from wildland fire.
u~1 Evaluation and Monitoring
The Steering Committee faced a complex task in the update of the Greater Redmond Community
Wildfire Protection Plan. Implementing and sustaining these efforts will require a significant
commitment. Maintaining a collaborative and cooperative environment with Redmond Fire and
Rescue, community-based organizations, local government and the public land management
agencies continues to be an important step in reducing the risk ofwildland fire. The Steering
Committee pledges to maintain this cooperation with the public over the long-term with the
commitment of all the partners involved.
At a minimum, the Steering Committee shall include: a Division Chief from Redmond Fire and
Rescue; a representative from ODF; representatives from COFMS, and Deschutes County along
~ with members ofthe greater Redmond public.
The Steering Committee agrees that the Greater Redmond Community Wildfire Protection Plan
will be a living document, intended to promote fuels reduction, educational, and other projects to
decrease overall risks ofloss from wildland fire; revisited at least annually to address its Purpose.
Project Wildfire will ensure that the evaluation and monitoring activities listed above are
addressed by the Steering Committee each year. As members ofthe Steering Committee change,
Project Wildfire will ensure that it maintains a balanced representation of agency and public
members, with a continued focus on inviting interested parties to participate in the review and
planning process.
Redmond Fire and Rescue will work with Project Wildfire to convene the Steering Committee as
often as the Steering Committee deems necessary to implement and review the Greater Redmond
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Topics for discussion can include:
• Identification and assessment ofnew or treated risks.
• Evaluation and tracking of progress toward goals.
• Updating of maps.
• Adoption of new and/or revised priorities.
• Identification of specific projects.
39
r
I
i
j
i
I
l <-'! ~I • Discussion of grant opportunities and detennination of projects eligible for I funding.~
• Writing of grants.1
j
! • Identification of appropriate projects to address additional items as I outlined in the Action Plan for Structural Vulnerability, Education and
l Critical Transportation Routes.
i
J
I • Coordination of additional items, projects and assessments.
I,
~ Project Wildfire will ensure that the evaluation and monitoring activities listed above are
i addressed by the Steering Committee each year. As members of the Steering Committee change,
~ Project Wildfire will ensure that it maintains a balanced representation of agency and public
l members, with a continued focus on inviting interested parties to participate in the review and
~ planning process. I
1
t
~
i
t '~
.:
! ~
:!
1
!
l
!
!
i1,•
40
COUNTY
[?
CROOK
COUNTY
RLSOUTHEAST
Legend
Q SubdMsIoos 0 URBAN NORTHEAST
_ NORTHEAST 0 URBAN NORTHWEST
_ NORTHWEST 0 URBAN SOUTHEAST o SOUTHEAST _ URBAN SOUTHWEST o SOUTHWEST
1.25 25UPPER
TUMAW Gco,..-ph.it' InfOlrOUdon s,....elllRESERVOIR
Mep P'rtIpWed ~Deec:tMn eoun., ...I"""""Tedn::IkJvJ~ NORTH-""'14t(W~A......
..... OA.not
a.1-817-41730 1:125,000
SOUTHEAST
=
,.,.
=
iI:
=
z
=
"
-
-.::I
-.::I
.....
:.
z
=
-=
z
,.,.
=
H
=
-
-.::I
CROOK
COUNTY
Legend
0.Redmond CWPP Subregions Public L.nd
' .25 2.5
GeoppIUc .............. s,-..
M.,~dlJt~eau..ty ..InIof"INIonT~~ NORTH-"""14 HW~Awenu.
Bend, OR ,"101
SU-4S17"'1'3O
1:125,000
Ownership
County land
_ FodO""lJInd
S1ateland
5_