DOCSLIB.ORG

Beachie Creek Fire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beachie Creek Fire Beachie Creek Fire Erosion Threat Assessment/Reduction Team (ETART) Extended Report December 2020 ETART Extended Report – Beachie Creek Fire This page intentionally left blank. DR-4562-OR | EROSION THREAT ASSESSMENT/REDUCTION TEAM ETART Extended Report – Beachie Creek Fire Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 1. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Burned Area Characterization ........................................................................................ 3 1.2. Post-fire Watershed Condition ........................................................................................ 8 2. Risk Assessment and Recommendations ............................................................................ 12 2.1. Human Life and Safety Summary ............................................................................... 12 2.2. Property Summary ........................................................................................................ 15 2.3. Soil and Water Summary ............................................................................................. 22 2.4. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Summary ............................................................................. 22 2.5. Native Plant Communities Summary .......................................................................... 25 2.6. Cultural Resources Summary ...................................................................................... 29 3. Monitoring and Management Recommendations ............................................................... 30 3.1. Watershed Response and Hydrologic Analysis - Monitoring Recommendations ..... 30 3.2. Geologic Hazards - Management Recommendations................................................ 31 3.3. Roads and Travel Routes - Management Recommendations ................................... 31 3.4. Fish/Aquatic Habitat - Management Recommendations and Monitoring ................ 31 Resource Reports.................................................................................................................... 32 1. Weeds Specialist Report ...................................................................................................... 32 1.1. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 32 1.2. Assessment Methodology – Field assessment and Modeling .................................. 34 1.3. Results .......................................................................................................................... 35 1.4. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 49 1.5. References .................................................................................................................... 55 2. Engineering Report ............................................................................................................... 55 2.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 55 2.2. Values at Risk ............................................................................................................... 56 2.3. Observations ................................................................................................................. 57 2.4. Reconnaissance Methodology and Results ................................................................ 57 DR-4562-OR - December 2020 i ETART Extended Report – Beachie Creek Fire 2.5. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 59 2.6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 62 2.7. Management Recommendations ................................................................................ 65 2.8. References .................................................................................................................... 66 3. Heritage and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 66 3.1. Setting ........................................................................................................................... 67 3.2. Background ................................................................................................................... 68 3.3. Critical Values and Proposed Treatments .................................................................. 69 3.4. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 69 4. Soil Resources ...................................................................................................................... 71 4.1. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 71 4.2. Resource Condition and Setting .................................................................................. 74 4.3. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ 76 4.4. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 77 4.5. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 83 5. Hydrology Resources ............................................................................................................ 85 5.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 85 5.2. Critical Values ............................................................................................................... 85 5.3. Resource Condition and Setting .................................................................................. 87 5.4. Assessment Methodology and Modeling .................................................................... 93 5.5. Findings ......................................................................................................................... 93 5.6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 97 5.7. References .................................................................................................................... 98 6. Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................. 99 6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 99 6.2. Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................... 101 6.3. Findings ....................................................................................................................... 102 6.4. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 103 6.5. Mitigation and Further Evaluation ............................................................................. 106 6.6. References .................................................................................................................. 107 DR-4562-OR - December 2020 ii ETART Extended Report – Beachie Creek Fire 7. Hazard Trees ...................................................................................................................... 110 7.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 110 7.2. Danger/Hazard Trees Described ............................................................................... 110 7.3. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 114 7.4. Danger Tree Guidelines ............................................................................................. 117 7.5. References .................................................................................................................. 124 8. Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................................................... 127 8.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 127 8.2. Assessment Methodology - Field and Modeling ....................................................... 127 8.3. Resource Setting ........................................................................................................ 127 8.4. Critical Values, Results, Risk Assessment, and Recommendations ....................... 127 8.5. Recommended Monitoring ........................................................................................ 128 9. Beachie Creek ETART Members ......................................................................................... 129 Appendix A – Road Treatment Cost Estimates ..................................................................... 131 Appendix B – Invasive Plant Species Information, Treatment Design, and Cost
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Partial Fulfillment Of
    WATER UTILI AT'ION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE 11ILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN by CAST" IR OLISZE "SKI A THESIS submitted to OREGON STATE COLLEGE in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE June 1954 School Graduate Committee Data thesis is presented_____________ Typed by Kate D. Humeston TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION Statement and History of the Problem........ 1 Historical Data............................. 3 Procedure Used to Explore the Data.......... 4 Organization of the Data.................... 8 II. THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED Orientation................................. 10 Orography................................... 10 Geology................................. 11 Soil Types................................. 19 Climate ..................................... 20 Precipitation..*.,,,,,,,................... 21 Storms............'......................... 26 Physical Characteristics of the River....... 31 Physical Characteristics of the Major Tributaries............................ 32 Surface Water Supply ........................ 33 Run-off Characteristics..................... 38 Discharge Records........ 38 Ground Water Supply......................... 39 CHAPTER PAGE III. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT.. .... .................... 44 Flood Characteristics ........................ 44 Flood History......... ....................... 45 Provisional Standard Project: Flood......... 45 Flood Plain......... ........................ 47 Flood Control................................ 48 Drainage............
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation Management
    RECREATION MANAGEMENT Board of Forestry Recreation Accomplishments (FY 2017) Table 1: Summary of Volunteer Hours for Recreation Projects FY 2017 Tillamook State Tillamook State Santiam West Forest - Forest Grove Forest - Tillamook Clatsop State State Oregon District District Forest Forest District Total Hours 4,108 3,744 1,191 401 2,100 Table 2: Trail Project Summary for FY 2017 Clatsop State Santiam State Tillamook State Forest Forest Forest Forest Grove Tillamook Astoria North Cascade West Oregon Activity District District District District District OHV Trails (Existing) 113.3 miles 307 miles 30 miles 6 miles 4.8 miles New Trails Construction 2.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles Trail Upgrade/Improvement 0 miles 12.1 miles 3 miles 0 miles 0 miles Trails Maintained 113.3 miles 43 miles 30 miles 0 miles 4.8 miles Non-Motorized Trails 66 miles 20.8 miles 21 miles 26 miles 9.5 miles (Existing) New Trails Construction .5 miles 0 miles 0 miles .5 miles 0 miles Trail Upgrade/Improvement 0 miles 0 miles 0.3 miles .25 miles 2.5 miles Trails Maintained 60 miles 5 miles 21 miles 13 miles 7.0 miles Table 3: Number of Campers and Revenue from Campgrounds during FY 2017 Campground District/Campsites Campers Visitor Nights Revenue Henry Rierson Spruce Run Astoria/38 sites 10,137 10,137 $56,308 Gnat Creek Astoria/4 sites 1,360 1,360 $5,646 Northrup Creek Astoria/11 sites 601 601 $3,798 Beaver Eddy Astoria/8 sites 1,621 1,621 $5,338 Gales Creek Forest Grove/19 sites 3,080 5,265 $24,743 Brown’s Camp Forest Grove /30 sites 4,109 8,425 $34,297 Stage
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation
    2019 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES COMPILATION CHAPTER 736 Parks and Recreation Department Published By DENNIS RICHARDSON Secretary of State Copyright 2019 Office of the Secretary of State Rules effective as of January 01, 2019 DIVISION 1 PROCEDURAL RULES 736-001-0000 Notice of Proposed Rules 736-001-0005 Model Rules of Procedure 736-001-0030 Fees for Public Records DIVISION 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 736-002-0010 State Park Cooperating Associations 736-002-0015 Working with Donor Organizations 736-002-0020 Criminal Records Checks 736-002-0030 Definitions 736-002-0038 Designated Positions: Authorized Designee and Contact Person 736-002-0042 Criminal Records Check Process 736-002-0050 Preliminary Fitness Determination. 736-002-0052 Hiring or Appointing on a Preliminary Basis 736-002-0058 Final Fitness Determination 736-002-0070 Crimes Considered 736-002-0102 Appealing a Fitness Determination 736-002-0150 Recordkeeping, Confidentiality, and Retention 736-002-0160 Fees DIVISION 3 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY PLAN 736-003-0005 Willamette River Greenway Plan DIVISION 4 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE FUNDSTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED LANDMANAGERS, ATV CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS 736-004-0005 Purpose of Rule 736-004-0010 Statutory Authority 736-004-0015 Definitions 736-004-0020 ATV Grant Program: Apportionment of Monies 736-004-0025 Grant Application Eligibility and Requirements 736-004-0030 Project Administration 736-004-0035 Establishment of the ATV Advisory Committee 736-004-0045 ATV Operating Permit Agent Application and Privileges 736-004-0060
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study
    US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study DRAFT Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment November 2017 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove, and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where the Willamette River flows into the Columbia River. The basin is more than 11,200 square miles, averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state (Figure ES-1). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population (nearly 70 percent), larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin. Through a series of Flood Control Acts the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams1 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams, reservoirs and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Feasibility Study History The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future Willamette River basin water demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Molalla-Pudding Subbasin TMDL & WQMP
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY December 2008 Molalla-Pudding Subbasin TMDL & WQMP December 2008 Molalla-Pudding Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Primary authors are: Karen Font Williams, R.G. and James Bloom, P.E. For more information: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/willamette.htm#mp Karen Font Williams, Basin Coordinator Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2020 SW 4th Ave. Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97201 Phone 503-229-6254 • Fax 503-229-6957 i Molalla-Pudding Subbasin TMDL Executive Summary December 2008 Acknowledgments In addition to the primary authors of this document, the following DEQ staff and managers provided substantial assistance and guidance: Bob Dicksa, Permit Section, Western Region, Salem Gene Foster, Watershed Management Section Manager Greg Geist, Standards and Assessment, Headquarters April Graybill, Permit Section, Western Region, Salem Mark Hamlin, Permit Section, Western Region, Salem Larry Marxer, Watershed Assessment, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division (LEAD) LEAD Chemists, Quality Assurance, and Technical Services Ryan Michie, Watershed Management, Headquarters Sally Puent, TMDL Section Manager, Northwest Region Andy Schaedel, TMDL Section Manager, Northwest Region (retired) The following DEQ staff and managers provided thoughtful and helpful review of this document: Don Butcher, TMDL Section, Eastern Region, Pendleton Kevin Masterson, Toxics Coordinator, LEAD Bill Meyers, TMDL Section, Western Region, Medford Neil Mullane,
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Bıoenu V( Land Management in U›E5v›I
    'Me Wíldemefif Eevíew P›v5›Aın v( tfie Bıoenu v( Land Management in U›e5v›ı _ " ;.` › › __. V L i_ „_ 4 ;' ~ gp ""! ¬~ «nvıvq f 1 -4-" _ ._ , 4_&,;¬__§?~~..„ V ıdı; "^. \-*_ ~¬¬ Q 1.z,“-_ ,._§,.';;.è,;;¶±„»_§ ' 1 4. _ _ı-?L_V wı -_ _` ' “T `;",~=:.f~ "_ ';1f“-=".f=«'í~.'›._ 2* T e \ ' "§11 ` `~. xx« (Part Une) Array Kerr ~OSPlR(5 lrwfr March 19/8 THE WILDERNESS REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN OREGON PART I Andy Kerr OSPIRG Intern March, 1978 This study is dedicated to those Bureau of Land Management personnel who know what is right for the land and are doing their best to see that it is done by the Bureau. They work under difficult circurs'ances. But with them on the inside and us on the outside, changes are being made, Someday they may all come out of the rloset victorious. Copyright l978 by Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Individuals may reproduce or quote portions of this handbook For academic or cítizen action uses, but reproduction for commercial purposes is stríctly prohihíted. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank several persons who knowingly, and unknowingly, aided in this study. l'm sure that l'm forgetting some. First the BLM agency people: Ken white and Don Geary (Oregon State Office); Warren Edinger, Ron Rothschadl, and Bob Carothers (Medford District); and Dale Skeesick, Bill Power, Larry Scofield, Jerry Mclntire, Warren Tausch, John Rodosta, Scott Abdon. Jenna Gaston, Karl Bambe, and Paul Kuhns (Salem District). Bob Burkholder (U_S, Fish and Wildlife Service) was most helpful with the Oregon Islands Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Bill 1014 Sponsored by COMMITTEE on RULES (At the Request of Coalition for Oregon River Rights)
    73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session Senate Bill 1014 Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON RULES (at the request of Coalition for Oregon River Rights) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor′s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Establishes public right to use certain water bodies up to ordinary high water line for certain recreational purposes. Specifies limits of public right. Provides that title to land lying between or- dinary high water line is unaffected. Provides that landowner is not liable for damage to natural resources caused by public use of water body. Directs State Marine Board to develop management plan governing recreational use of water bodies. Allows modification of plan. Directs State Marine Director to establish Floatable Water Bodies Advisory Committee. Speci- fies duties. Establishes program for issuance of recreational use registrations. Directs use of registration fees by board. Specifies that portion of fees be allocated to counties for law enforcement. Punishes violation of management plan or violation of public right by fine of up to $180. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to floatable water bodies; creating new provisions; amending ORS 105.672, 830.140 and 3 830.150; and appropriating money. 4 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 5 SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 9 of this 2005 Act are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 6 830.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Tuesday and Thursday Series of Day Hikes and Rambles, Most Within Two Hours of Lake Oswego
    Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation Hikes and Rambles Spring/Summer 2015 Calendar of Hikes/Rambles/Walks Welcome to our Tuesday and Thursday series of day hikes and rambles, most within two hours of Lake Oswego. Information is also available at LO Park & Rec Activities Catalog . To recieve weekly News email send your request to [email protected]. Hikes are for hikers of intermediate ability. Hiking distance is usually between 6 - 10 miles, and usually with an elevation gain/loss between 800 - 2000 ft. Longer hikes, greater elevation gains or unusual trail conditions will be noted in the hike description. Hikes leave at 8:00 a.m., unless otherwise indicated. Rambles are typically shorter, less rugged, and more leisurely paced -- perfect for beginners. Outings are usually 5-7 miles with comfortable elevation gains and good trail conditions. Leaves promptly at 8:30a unless otherwise noted. Meeting Places All hikes and rambles leave from the City of Lake Oswego West End Building (WEB), 4101 Kruse Way, Lake Oswego. Park in the lower parking lot (behind the building) off of Kruse Way. Individual hike or ramble descriptions may include second pickup times and places. (See included places table.) for legend. All mileages indicated are roundtrip. Second Meeting Places Code Meeting Place AWHD Airport Way Home Depot, Exit 24-B off I-205, SW corner of parking lot CFM Clackamas Fred Meyer, Exit 12-A off I-205, north lot near Elmer's End of the Oregon Trail Interpretative Center, Exit 10 off I-205, right on Washington Street to EOT parking lot by covered wagons Jantzen Beach Target,Exit 308 off I-5, left on N Hayden Island, left on N Parker, SE corner JBT Target parking lot L&C Lewis and Clark State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Plan
    HOOD RIVER MT HOOD (OR HIGHWAY 35) Corridor Plan Oregon Department of Transportation DOR An Element of the HOOD RIVER-MT. HOOD (OR 35) CORRIDOR PLAN Oregon Department of Transportahon Prepared by: ODOT Region I David Evans and Associates,Inc. Cogan Owens Cogan October 1997 21 October, 1997 STAFF REPORT INTERIM CORRIDOR STRATEGY HOOD RIVER-MT. HOOD (OR HWY 35) CORRIDOR PLAN (INCLUDING HWY 281 AND HWY 282) Proposed Action Endorsement of the Hood River-Mt. Hood (OR HWY 35) Corridor Strategy. The Qregon Bep ent of Transportation (ODOT) has been working wi& Tribal and local governments, transportation service providers, interest groups, statewide agencies and stakeholder committees, and the general public to develop a long-term plan for the Hood River-Mt. Hood (OR HWY 35) Corridor. The Hood River-Mt. Hood Corridor Plan is a long-range (20-year) program for managing all transportation modes within the Oregon Highway 35 corridor from the 1-84 junction to the US 26 junction (see Corridor Map). The first phase of that process has resulted in the attached Interim Com'dor Stvategy. The Interim Corridor Strategy is a critical element of the Hood River- Mt. Hood Corridor Plan. The Corridor Strategy will guide development of the Corridor Plan and Refinement Plans for specific areas and issues within the corridor. Simultaneous with preparation of the Corridor Plan, Transportation System Plans (TSPs) are being prepared for the cities of Hood River and Cascade Locks and for Hood River County. ODOT is contributing staff and financial resources to these efforts, both to ensure coordination between the TSPs and the Corridor Plan and to avoid duplication of efforts, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness-Like Areas, but Instead Declassified Previously Protected Wildlands with High Timber Value
    48 OREGON WILD A Brief Political History of Oregon’s Wilderness Protections Government protection should be thrown around every wild grove and forest on the Although the Forest Service pioneered the concept of wilderness protection in the mountains, as it is around every private orchard, and trees in public parks. To say 1920s and 1930s, by the late 1940s and 1950s, it was methodically undoing whatever nothing of their values as fountains of timber, they are worth infinitely more than all good it had done earlier by declassifying administrative wilderness areas that contained the gardens and parks of town. any commercial timber. —John Muir1 Just prior to the end of its second term, and after receiving over a million public comments in support of protecting national forest roadless areas, the Clinton Administration promulgated a regulation (a.k.a. “the Roadless Rule”) to protect the Inadequacies of Administrative remaining unprotected wildlands (greater than 5,000 acres in size) in the National Forest System from road building and logging. At the time, Clinton’s Forest Service Protections chief Mike Dombeck asked rhetorically: here is “government protection,” and then there is government protection. Mere public ownership — especially if managed by the Bureau of Is it worth one-quarter of 1 percent of our nation’s timber supply or a fraction of a Land Management — affords land little real or permanent protection. fraction of our oil and gas to protect 58.5 million acres of wild and unfragmented land T National forests enjoy somewhat more protection than BLM lands, but in perpetuity?2 to fully protect, conserve and restore federal forests often requires a combination of Wilderness designation and additional appropriate congressional Dombeck’s remarks echoed those of a Forest Service scientist from an earlier era.
    [Show full text]