DOCSLIB.ORG

Wildfire Mobilization Guide 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wildfire Mobilization Guide 2020 Wildfire Mobilization Guide 2020 Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands – Wasatch Front Area West Desert District Bureau of Land Management Tooele County Sheriff’s Office – 911 Dispatch Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center Uintah Wasatch Cache National Forest Bureau of Indian Affairs Tooele Army Depot Dugway Proving Grounds Utah Test and Training Range Table of Contents I. RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBJECTIVES 3 II. FIRE REPORTING PROCEDURES 4 III. FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS PERSONNEL 4 A. Wasatch Front Area Fire Wardens 4 1. Morgan County 4 2. Davis/Salt Lake County 4 3. Tooele County 4 4. Utah County 4 B. Wasatch Front Area Management 4 C. State Fire Management Coordinator 5 D. Division Director/State Forester 5 E. Neighboring Counties 5 IV. COOPERATING AGENCIES 5 A. Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center 5 B. Richfield Interagency Fire Center 6 C. United States Forest Service 6 D. Bureau of Land Management 6 E. Sheriff's Office 6 F. Utah Highway Patrol 6 G. Tooele County 6 H. Tooele County Road Department 7 V. Staffing THE FIRE ORGANIZATION 7 A. Initial Attack 7 B. Obtaining Manpower 7 C. Requests for Assistance 8 D. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) List 8 VI. LOCAL RESOURCES 8 A. Tooele City Fire (2H600) 8 B. Grantsville Fire (3H600) 9 C. Wendover Fire (4H600) 9 D. Stockton Fire (5H600) 10 E. North Tooele County Fire (6H600) 10 F. Vernon Fire (7H600) 11 G. Terra Fire (8H600) 12 H. Rush Valley Fire (9H600) 12 I. Ophir Fire (10H600) - DISSOLVED 13 J. Ibapah Fire (11H600) 13 K.Tooele Army Depot - TEAD 13 L.Utah Test and Training Range - UTTR 14 M. Wendover Airport 14 N. Dugway Fire Department 15 2 O. BLM Muskrat Station 15 P. BLM Vernon Station 15 VII. COUNTY EQUIPMENT 16 VIII. LOGISTICS/ SUPPORT 17 A. Incident Command Posts 17 B. Medical Services 17 C. Meals 18 D. Automotive/ Misc. 18 E. Water Sources / Land Use Agreements 19 IX. AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY 22 X. AREAS OF CONCERN 22 XI. FIRE DEPARTMENT DISPATCH ZONES 24 I. RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBJECTIVES The County/District Fire Warden has the responsibility for providing fire prevention, detection and suppression, for wildland fires on any non-federal lands within the assigned County/District. County/District Fire Wardens act as an official representative of both, the State of Utah and the County in matters pertaining to wildland fire management. The purpose of the County Mobilization Plan is to identify fire personnel from agencies that may have involvement or may become involved in wildland fire suppression, recognize valuable fire suppression resources and/or supplies, and define procedures for reporting fires, requesting assistance for suppression efforts and/or response to wildland fire incidents. This mobilization plan serves as an aid to fire wardens and/or agency personnel. The primary objective of fire suppression is to prevent loss of life, limb and/or valuable properties from threat or damages from wildland fire. Fire suppression efforts must never justify actions, which might endanger human lives. All suppression actions must occur in a safety conscious manner and will have been calculated to minimize danger to involved personnel. Suppression actions taken on any fire must only be to the extent justifiable of the resource threatened. All Fire Suppression actions taken, shall display efforts for minimizing the loss by fire, while reducing unnecessary costs to the county or state. Further clarification of responsibilities and objectives can be referenced in Utah State Code 65A-8-101,102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 209, 210, and 212. This plan is intended to promote expediting and locating and/or ordering equipment, fire personnel, services, etc., from Tooele County, adjacent counties, the state of Utah and/or federal agencies. 3 II. FIRE REPORTING PROCEDURES All wildland fire related calls will respectfully be reported to both, the Tooele County Sheriff's Office (435-882-5600 or 911) and the Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center (NUIFC): (801) 495-7600, NUIFC Fire Emergency Line: (801) 495- 7611, NUIFC On Call: (801) 310-3109. III. FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS PERSONNEL A. Wasatch Front Area Fire Wardens Morgan County Boyd Carrigan - Call Sign: 3A302 Cell (801) 829-2048 Email [email protected] Davis & Salt Lake Counties Robert Sanders - Call Sign: 3A301 Cell (801) 618-9400 Email [email protected] Tooele County Dan Walton - Call Sign: 3A303 Cell (435) 241-0027 Office (435) 833-8123 Email [email protected] Ken McArthur - Call Sign: 3A363 Cell (385) 285-6417 Email [email protected] Utah County Kelly Watts - Call Sign: 3A304 Cell (385) 290-0670 Email [email protected] B. Wasatch Front Area Management Area Manager Brian Trick Office (801) 538-5351 Cell (385) 214-5269 Call Sign 3A30 Email [email protected] Area FMO Dave Vickers Office (801) 538-5466 Cell (801) 554-8984 Call Sign 3A300 Email [email protected] Area Wildland Urban Interface Coordinator Dax Reid Cell (801) 678-1655 4 Email [email protected] C. State Fire Management Coordinator State FMO Brett Ostler - Call Sign: 3A4 Office (801) 538-5389 Cell (385) 251-0144 Email [email protected] State AFMO Wade Snyder - Call Sign: 3A5 Office (801) 538-7222 Cell (801) 554-6121 Email [email protected] D. Division Director/State Forester State Forester Brian Cottam - Call Sign: 3A1 Office (801) 538-5504 Cell (801) 631-1509 Email [email protected] Deputy Division Director Cornell Christensen - Call Sign: 3A2 Office (801) 538-5504 Cell (385) 215-6215 Email [email protected] E. Neighboring County Wardens Juab County Warden (Central Area) Chris Lewis – Call Sign: 3A703 Office (435) 623-2642 Cell (435) 660-1424 Email [email protected] Box Elder County Warden (Bear River Area) Vacant– Call Sign: 3A201 Cell (435) 890-0728 Email @utah.gov IV. COOPERATING AGENCIES A. Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center Office (801) 495-7600 Fire Emergency (801) 495-7611 5 On-Call (801) 310-3109 Email [email protected] Website https://gacc.nifc.gov/gbcc/dispatch/ut-nuc/index.html B. Richfield Interagency Fire Center (RIFC) Phone (435) 896-8404 On-Call (435) 979-8404 Website https://gacc.nifc.gov/gbcc/dispatch/ut-rfc/index.htm C. United States Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Supervisors Office (801) 999-2103 Pleasant Grove Ranger District (801) 785-3563 Salt Lake Ranger District (801) 733-2660 Spanish Fork Ranger District (801) 798-3571 D. Bureau of Land Management West Desert District Salt Lake Field Office (801) 977-4300 Justin Kincaid - FMO (801) 541-4020 Bob Farrell - AFMO (385) 215-4945 E. Sheriff's Office Tooele County (Sheriff Paul Wimmer) Office (435) 882-5600 Cell (435) 841-1965 Email [email protected] Tooele County Dispatch Main (435) 882-5600 Emergency 911 Utah County (801) 343-4000 Salt Lake County (801) 483-0661 Davis County (801) 444-2280 Weber County (801) 629-8221 Box Elder County (435) 257-5657 Juab County (435) 623-1344 F. Utah Highway Patrol Tooele County Dispatch (435) 882-5600 G. Tooele County Tooele County Commission Commissioner Tom Tripp Office (435) 843-3150 6 Email [email protected] Commissioner Shawn Milne (Health and Safety) Cell (435) 243-7313 Email [email protected] Commissioner Kendall Thomas Office (435) 843-3152 Cell (435) 830-6016 Email [email protected] H. Tooele County Road Department Rod Thompson Cell (435) 843-3204 Email [email protected] Wayne Anderton Cell (435) 830-8444 Email [email protected] V. STAFFING THE FIRE ORGANIZATION A. Initial Attack Initial attack will usually be handled by the District Fire Warden, local Fire Departments, and cooperating Federal Resources. Immediately upon receiving report of a fire in the district, the Fire Warden shall be notified. The first resource on scene will determine jurisdiction and coordinate with the authority having jurisdiction. If another agency or fire department provides the initial attack, the fire warden will receive notification pertaining to the size and resources necessary to suppress the fire. If at any point a fire increases in complexity levels beyond the control efforts of an initial attack force sufficient forces shall be dispatched to the fire based on requirements for suppression and availability of resources. The fire warden will be notified of any and all potential wildland fire in Tooele County. B. Obtaining Manpower 1. Local and Area Resources (a) Volunteer/Career Fire Departments (b) State of Utah (c) Bureau of Land Management (d) US Forest Service 2. Out of Area Resources (a) Shall be requested only if the fire exceeds the capability of the available local and area resources. Requests for outside resources shall be placed and 7 coordinated with the Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center by an NWCG qualified incident commander with the jurisdictions Duty Officer approval. C. Requests for Assistance 1. Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (a) District Fire Warden (b) Area Fire Management Officer (c) Area Manager (d) State Fire Management Coordinator (e) State Forester D. Tooele County Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) List (a) Stockton Fire Department (b) North Tooele Fire District (c) Terra Fire Department (d) Vernon Fire Department (e) Rush Valley Fire Department (f) Wendover Fire Department (g) Tooele County Fire Department (Sheriff’s Office and Roads Department) E. Tooele County Mutual Aid Resources (Not under MOU) (a) Tooele City Fire Department (b) Grantsville Fire Department (c) Tooele Army Depot Fire Department (North and South) (d) Dugway Fire Department (e) Utah Test & Training Range Fire Department (f) Wendover Airport Fire Department (g) Ibapah Fire Department VI. LOCAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Comprehensive Ecological Land Classification for Utah's West Desert
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 65 Number 3 Article 1 7-28-2005 A comprehensive ecological land classification for Utah's West Desert Neil E. West Utah State University Frank L. Dougher Utah State University and Montana State University, Bozeman Gerald S. Manis Utah State University R. Douglas Ramsey Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation West, Neil E.; Dougher, Frank L.; Manis, Gerald S.; and Ramsey, R. Douglas (2005) "A comprehensive ecological land classification for Utah's West Desert," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 65 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol65/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 65(3), © 2005, pp. 281–309 A COMPREHENSIVE ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR UTAH’S WEST DESERT Neil E. West1, Frank L. Dougher1,2, Gerald S. Manis1,3, and R. Douglas Ramsey1 ABSTRACT.—Land managers and scientists need context in which to interpolate between or extrapolate beyond discrete field points in space and time. Ecological classification of land (ECL) is one way by which these relationships can be made. Until regional issues emerged and calls were made for ecosystem management (EM), each land management institution chose its own ECLs. The need for economic efficiency and the increasing availability of geographic informa- tion systems (GIS) compel the creation of a national ECL so that communication across ownership boundaries can occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah
    Prepared in cooperation with the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5068 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Groundwater-supplied stock tank in southwestern Rush Valley, Utah. Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah By Philip M. Gardner and Stefan Kirby Prepared in cooperation with the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5068 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Gardner, P.M., and Kirby, S.M., 2011, Hydrogeologic and geochemical characterization of groundwater resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 43 Number 4 Article 11 10-31-1983 Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah Alan C. Taye U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Taye, Alan C. (1983) "Flora of the Stansbury Mountains, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 43 : No. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol43/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. FLORA OF THE STANSBURY MOUNTAINS, UTAH Alan C. Taye' Abstract.— The Stansbury Mountains of north central Utah rise over 2000 m above surrounding desert valleys to a maximum elevation of 3362 m on Deseret Peak. Because of the great variety of environmental conditions that can be found in the Stansburys, a wide range of plant species and vegetation types (from shadscale desert to alpine mead- ow) exist there. This paper presents an annotated list of 594 vascular plant species in 315 genera and 78 families. The largest families are Asteraceae (98 species), Poaceae (71), Brassicaceae (33), Fabaceae (27), and Rosaceae (26). Elymiis flcwescens was previously unreported from Utah. Statistical comparison of the Stansbury flora with neighboring mountain floras indicates that the Wasatch Mountains lying 65 km to the east have probably been the primary source area for development of the Stansbury flora.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Southern Stansbury Range Tooele County Utah
    ~+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++"~, i UTAH GEOLOGICAL AND MINERALOGICAL SURVEY I AFFILIATED WITH + i+ + * THE COLLEGE OF MINES AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES .:. i UNIVERSITY OF UTAH I f SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH .r. :t.:. .:- i... :i: * GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN :i:.:- i STANSBURY RANGE i + TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH i by .:- .:..:­ 1 John A. Teichert .:- I.:.. .:. I :i: .:­ -:. -:. i I+ * *.1- *+ t Bulletin 65 May, 1959 i + PRICE $1.50 i + +-:. ~++++++++++++++++~1-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++~ UTAH GEOLOGICAL AND MINERALOGICAL SURVEY The Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey was authorized by act of the Utah State Legislature in 1931; however, no funds were made available for its establishment until 1941 when the State Government was reorganized and the Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey was placed within the new State Department of Publicity and Industrial Development where the Survey functioned until July 1, 1949. Effective as of that date, the Survey was trans­ ferred by law to the College of Mines and Mineral Industries, University of Utah. The Utah Code Annotated 1943, Vol. 2, Title 34, as amended by chapter 46 Laws 0/ Utah 1949, provides that the Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey "shall have for its objects": 1. "The collection and distribution of reliable information regarding the mineral resources of the State. 2. "The survey of the geological formations of the State with special ref­ erence to their economic contents, values and uses, such as: the ores of the various metals, coal, oil-shale, hydro-carbons, oil, gas, industrial clays, cement materials. mineral waters and other surface and underground water supplies, mineral fertilizers, asphalt, bitumen, structural materials, road-making ma­ tE,'rials.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-5-19 Transcript Bulletin
    Looking back at Stansbury, Tooele and Grantsville’s basketball season See B1 TOOELETRANSCRIPT S T C BULLETIN S TUESDAY March 5, 2019 www.TooeleOnline.com Vol. 125 No. 79 $1.00 Boulder kills woman on Stansbury Island hike STEVE HOWE line, with the woman in the STAFF WRITER middle, when she stepped out A 37-year-old woman died of the path and onto a rock, Saturday on Stansbury Island Scharmann said. The rock after a large rock fell on top of began to slide and she tried to her, according to the Tooele jump off it, but the rock landed County Sheriff’s Office. on top of her in the bottom of The Salt Lake area woman, the gully. whose identity has not been Scharmann said the boulder released, was hiking on was about 4 feet by 4 feet by Stansbury Island with her 18 inches and too heavy to husband and a friend Saturday move by hand. He said the trio afternoon, according to Tooele was not on the marked trail County Sheriff’s Lt. Travis from a nearby trailhead and Scharmann. They were walking in SEE BOULDER PAGE A8 ® FRANCIE AUFDEMORTE/TTB PHOTO Tyson Hamilton, the owner of Another Man’s Treasures in Tooele, stands behind the counter of his antique store. Former Tooele New chamber chairman wants cop charged to bring community together with custodial Buy local, tourism, unity, and community spirit top sexual relations Hamilton’s 2019 to-do list STEVE HOWE federal parolee, supervised by TIM GILLIE STAFF WRITER the federal government. EDITOR A Tooele City police officer A Tooele City detective A full-blooded Tooelean, the new has been charged with a felony conducted an investigation, in chairman of the Tooele County Chamber after he allegedly had sexual which he interviewed Dudley of Commerce and Tourism board of relations with a federal parolee and the parolee, the statement directors is fervent about building local during his time as an officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Areas on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National
    Wilderness Areas On The Uinta‐Wasatch‐Cache National Forests “Wilderness is the land that was wild land beyond the frontier...land that shaped the growth of our nation and the character of its people. Wilderness is the land that is rare, wild places where one can retreat from civilization, reconnect with the Earth, and find healing, meaning and significance.” The United States was the first country to define and create designated wilderness areas. In 1964 the Wilderness Act was passed in congress. The Act describes wilderness as the following: "...lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition..." Section 2(a) "...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man..." Section 2(c) "...an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation..." Section 2(c) "...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable..." Section 2(c) "...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." Section 2(c) "...shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic use." Section 4(b) Within the Uinta‐Wasatch‐Cache National Forest there are 9 designated wilderness areas. These areas include: Mount Naomi Wilderness, Wellsville Mountain Wilderness, Mount Olympus Wilderness, Twin Peaks Wilderness, Lone Peak Wilderness, Mount Timpanogos Wilderness, Mount Nebo Wilderness, Deseret Peak Wilderness and the High Uinta Wilderness. Each of these areas offer unique wilderness opportunities and experiences. The Mount Naomi Wilderness was designated in 1984 and includes 44,523 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Iii Cultural Resource Inventory of the Private Fuel Storage Project in Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah
    CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF THE PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE PROJECT IN SKULL VALLEY, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH Cultural Resources Report 5126-02-9909 by Daniel K. Newsome "•,.•.. _/ l. Site 42TO1187 A Temporary datum Low Transportation Corridor oenterfine o Low Tranmportation Comdor 1 centedlne c point Rock 0 T 25 e Rock accurjmjabon ydo Intemittent drainage Contour interval: 3.0 ft F Photo point P-IIIASSOCIATES, INC. 0 9910260199 991019 PDR ADOCK 07200022 B PDR CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF THE PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE PROJECT IN SKULL VALLEY, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH Cultural Resources Report 5126-02-9909 by Daniel K. Newsome Submitted to Stone & Webseter 7677 East Berry Avenue Englewood, CO 80111-2137 by P-Ill Associates, Inc. 2759 South 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-2932 July, 1999 Work completed under Department of Interior Antiquities Permit 98UT54616, State of Utah Antiquities Permit U-99-PD, and State of Utah Project-Specific Permit U-98-PD-0213bi Table of Contents Section Page List of Figures ................................................... iii L ist of T ables ....................................................... v Introduction and Project Description ..................................... 1 Environm ental Setting ................................................ 25 Regional Prehistoric and Historic Overview ............................... 28 Literature Review and Records Search ................................... 31 Field M ethods ...................................................... 33 Inventory R esults ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Iosepa More Than a Century Ago, a Small Group of Native Hawaiians Left the Islands to Found a Tiny Town in Utah
    Send to printer Close window Remembering Iosepa More than a century ago, a small group of Native Hawaiians left the Islands to found a tiny town in Utah. This is their story. SARAH MILEY A rusty fire hydrant is one of the few remaining signs of the abandoned Hawaiian settlement of Iosepa. PHOTO: MAEGAN BURR, TOOELE TRANSCRIPT BULLETIN Arrival of the Hawaiians From 1889 to 1917, hundreds of Pacific Islanders lived, toiled and some died in Skull Valley, Utah. The remote valley is about 75 miles southwest of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ headquarters in Salt Lake City, and it was a stark contrast to their Island home. They traded rain forests for juniper and sage brush, the blue Pacific for the Great Salt Lake—a remnant of the giant Lake Bonneville. Most of the settlers were Native Hawaiians, who had been converted to Mormonism by missionaries and had first gathered on Lanai and then at Laie, Oahu, but were determined to gather at Zion with other members of the church in Utah and participate in sacred ordinances at the Salt Lake Temple that was under construction there. In the 1870s, the Hawaiian government eased restrictions on emigration, and the Hawaiian “saints,” as the LDS church refers to its members, began their journeys eastward to Utah. In Salt Lake City, assimilation didn’t come easily for the Pacific Islanders, and a committee consisting of three Caucasians and three Hawaiians was sent to find a place suitable for relocation of the Pacific Islanders. After looking at several possible destinations, it was decided that the 1,920-acre John T.
    [Show full text]
  • Hapter Ix: Skkullull Vaalleylley Pllanninganning Diistrictstrict
    HAPTER IX: SKKULLULL VAALLEYLLEY PLLANNINGANNING DIISTRICTSTRICT LAND USE and grazing on public lands. Most of this district is zoned MU-40 which allows a broad spectrum of uses, Land owners and administrators of the Skull but this zone should perhaps be changed to a same Valley planning district include the Bureau of Land density, but less permissive zone (in conjunction with Management, privately owned ranches, the Skull similar zoning ordinance change recommendations) in Valley/Goshute Indian Reservation, the Wasatch order to promote agricultural and deter more industrial National Forest and the Dugway Proving Ground. land uses. The only concentration of population in the valley is Commercial/Industrial the unincorporated town of Terra, a settlement made up primarily of people who work at the Dugway There is limited commercial development and no Proving Ground. Terra developed from the sale of industrial development in Skull Valley. Residents must fi ve-acre parcels by the BLM. The zoning for the area commute to Tooele Valley for goods and services. The is RR-5 which allows fi ve-acre lots. However, much of limited infrastructure, population and services in the the development appears to be on smaller lots. valley are not supportive of growth in commercial or industrial uses. (Please refer to Tooele County Proposed Land Use and Proposed Zoning Maps, and to chapter ten for recommendations and zoning ordinance change ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC suggestions.) Demographic Summary Residential Development The Skull Valley population is found in the The residential development in the area has occurred unincorporated town of Terra, English Village at the in three forms: the unincorporated town of Terra Dugway Proving Ground and ranches located in the with allowable densities of one unit per fi ve acres; valley.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX C WILDERNESS EVALUATION Introduction Inventory Of
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX C WILDERNESS EVALUATION Introduction This appendix describes the process used to inventory and evaluate areas on the Wasatch – Cache National Forest for their potential as wilderness. Each of the 31 roadless areas is then summarized in an individual report describing an area’s wilderness characteristics, current resource uses, and the need for the area to be included in the wilderness preservation system. Inventory of Potential Wilderness Updating the 1983 Inventory Past roadless inventories, such as the 1983 Forest Plan roadless inventory were used as a starting point to identify roadless resources on the Wasatch – Cache National Forest. These areas were updated and new areas identified based upon criteria in: · FSH 1909.12 Inventory and Evaluation of Roadless Areas · Intermountain draft Roadless Inventory and Evaluation Guide (USFS, 1998) · 1984 Utah Wilderness Act A significant change since 1983 roadless inventory was completed was portions of Mount Naomi, Wellsville Mountains, Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak and Deseret Peak (Stansbury Mountains) roadless areas became wilderness in 1984 by the Utah Wilderness Act. Lone Peak had become a wilderness area earlier with the 1978 Endangered Wilderness Act and no further acreage was added in 1984. Additional Areas Identified as Roadless Because different criteria were used for the 1999 inventory than those used in 1983, eight additional areas were identified as roadless since the 1983 Roadless Inventory: · Temple Peak (Logan Ranger District) · Boulder Mountain (Logan Ranger District) · Mahogany Range (Logan Ranger District) · Right Hand Fork (Logan Ranger District) · Sugar Pine (Ogden Ranger District) · Rock Creek – Green Fork (Ogden Ranger District) · Hogsback (Salt Lake Ranger District) Wasatch-Cache National Forest C - 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement · Lone Peak Additions (Salt Lake Ranger District) Further, the Mount Logan 1983 roadless area was split into three separate roadless areas, because of constructed roads that were identified.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lincoln Highway in Utah, 2"D Edition Published by the Utah Chapter of the Lincoln Highway Association Te"-1 and Maps by Jesse G
    Association UTAH CHAPTER THE LINCOLN HIGHWAY IN UTAH SECOND EDITION Published by The Utah Chapter of the Lincoln Highway Association © 1998 - All rights reserved Lincoln Highway Association The Lincoln Highway In Utah, 2"d Edition Published by the Utah Chapter of the Lincoln Highway Association Te"-1 and Maps by Jesse G. Petersen Computerization by Ray A. Petersen February 1999 - All rights reserved n r ,, ! THE LINCOLN HIGHWAY IN UTAH MI In 1913 a group of businessmen who were involved with the newly developing automobile industry created a plan for a road that would cross the United States. The name of this trans-continental road was to be the Lincoln l\ilemorial nI Highway, and its route was to cross twelve centrally located states including Utah. The Lincoln Highway was developed In locating the route of the Highway the r before the government became involved in writer has relied on several early road guides. roads and highways and was promoted and Four of these were published by the original r, financed primarily by the private sector. After Lincoln Highway Association in 1915, 1916, i \ serving as the main east-west auto route 1918, and 1924. across the country for about 16 years the An early road guide for the Utah area was ,, Lincoln Highway lost its identity as an compiled by William D. Rishel, the secretary l officially recognized highway when the of the Utah Auto Association from 1902 until federal highway system was created by the US 1920. This road guide was published by the r: Congress. Salt Lake Tribune in 1919 as Rishel's Routes.
    [Show full text]
  • OQUIRRH-STANSBURY, WEST (STANSBURY MTNS) August 2019
    BIGHORN SHEEP UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN OQUIRRH-STANSBURY, WEST (STANSBURY MTNS) August 2019 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Tooele County--Boundary begins at I-80 and SR-36; south on SR-36 to Pony Express Road; west on this road to the Skull Valley road; north on this road to I-80 at Rowley Junction; east on I-80 to SR-36. EXCLUDES ALL NATIVE AMERICAN TRUST LANDS WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY. Excludes all CWMUs. USGS 1:100,000 Maps: Provo, Rush Valley, Salt Lake City, Tooele. Boundary questions? Call the Springville office, (801) 491-5678. LAND OWNERSHIP Table 1. Land ownership and approximate area of modeled bighorn sheep habitat for the Oquirrh-Stansbury, West bighorn sheep management unit. MODELED BIGHORN Ownership HABITAT Area (acres) % Bureau of Land Management 48,084 41.7% National Forest 42,687 37.0% Private 16,795 14.6% Utah State Institutional Trust Lands 7,179 6.2% Tribal 550 0.5% Department of Defense 5 <0.1% Totals 115,300 100% HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS Bighorn sheep are native to the Great Basin of Utah and Nevada. Bighorns were extirpated from the Great Basin region of Utah in the early 1900s. It was proposed to transplant bighorn sheep in in historic ranges in an effort to reestablish bighorns to their native ranges (Buechner 1960, Dalton and Spillet 1971) and to promote wildlife diversity for hunting and viewing, in accordance with Utah Code 23-14-21. In an effort to reestablish bighorns in the Stansbury Mountains in the Great Basin region of Utah, 54 bighorn sheep were transplanted and released in January 2006 and with an additional 19 transplanted in February 2007 from Antelope Island.
    [Show full text]