DOCSLIB.ORG

Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach January 2017, Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach January 2017, Final Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach January 2017, Final Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach Document Information Prepared for Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Project Name Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach Project Number E316005900 Project Manager Jon Ambrose Date January 2017, Final Prepared for: Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Matt Shales, Project Manager, PO Box 3162, Wenatchee, WA 98801 Prepared by: Cardno, Inc. 801 Second Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104 January 2017, Final Cardno, Inc. Document Information i Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii Document Information Cardno, Inc. January 2017, Final Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Fish Use and Population Status ....................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Recovery Planning Context .............................................................................................. 2-5 2.4.1 Process-Based Restoration and Project Prioritization ...................................... 2-5 2.4.2 Key Factors Limiting Salmon Productivity in the Area ...................................... 2-8 2.4.3 Methods ............................................................................................................ 2-9 3 Assessment Area Conditions ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Conditions Prior to European Settlement ......................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1 Channel Form and Process .............................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2 Hydrological Regime ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.3 Large Woody Dynamics .................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Human Disturbance .......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.1 Early Disturbance .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.4.2 Modern Disturbance .......................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Direct Habitat Alteration .................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 Existing Forms and Processes ......................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Hydraulics ....................................................................................................... 3-18 3.5.3 Geomorphology ............................................................................................... 3-22 3.5.4 Riparian Vegetation......................................................................................... 3-31 3.5.5 Large Wood Dynamics .................................................................................... 3-33 3.5.6 Habitat Conditions ........................................................................................... 3-37 3.5.7 Summary and Rating of Existing Conditions .................................................. 3-39 4 Sub-reach-Scale Conditions .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Sub-reach TC3 (RM 41.3 to RM 40.3) ............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Sub-reach Overview.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Forms and Processes ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Effects of Human Alterations ............................................................................ 4-2 4.2 Sub-reach TC2 (RM 40.3 to RM 33.7) ............................................................................. 4-2 4.2.1 Sub-reach Overview.......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Forms and Processes ....................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Effects of Human Alterations .......................................................................... 4-10 4.3 Sub-reach TC1 (RM 33.7 to RM 28.1) ........................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1 Sub-reach Overview........................................................................................ 4-10 4.3.2 Forms and Processes ..................................................................................... 4-10 January 2017, Final Cardno, Inc. Table of Contents i Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach 4.3.3 Effects of Human Alterations .......................................................................... 4-13 5 Restoration Strategy ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Existing and Target Habitat Conditions ............................................................................ 5-1 5.3 Trajectories under a No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Identification of Potential Habitat Actions ......................................................................... 5-3 5.5 Development of Criteria for Project Prioritization ............................................................. 5-4 5.6 Prioritization of Restoration Actions ................................................................................. 5-5 5.7 Action Type Descriptions .................................................................................................. 5-7 5.7.1 Riparian Protection (Protection Approach) ....................................................... 5-7 5.7.2 Protection of Existing Floodplain Habitats (Protection Approach) .................... 5-7 5.7.3 Riparian Planting and Restoration (Process Restoration) ................................ 5-8 5.7.4 Levee or Riprap Removal/Setback (Process Restoration) ............................... 5-8 5.7.5 Floodplain/Off-Channel Habitat Reconnection via Grading (Process Restoration) ....................................................................................................... 5-8 5.7.6 Beaver Reintroduction (Process Restoration) .................................................. 5-8 5.7.7 In-Channel LWD Placement – Flow Splitting and Deflection (Habitat Creation/Process Enhancement) ...................................................................... 5-8 5.7.8 In-Channel LWD Placement – Habitat Focus (Habitat Creation/Process Enhancement) ................................................................................................... 5-8 5.7.9 Boulder Clusters (Habitat Creation/Process Enhancement) ............................ 5-9 5.8 Sub-reach-Scale Strategies ............................................................................................. 5-9 5.8.1 Sub-reach TC3 (RM 41.3 to 40.3) ................................................................... 5-10 5.8.2 Sub-reach TC2 (RM 40.3 to 33.7) ................................................................... 5-10 5.8.3 Sub-reach TC1 (RM 33.7 to 28.1) ................................................................... 5-10 6 References ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 Appendices Appendix A Map Folio – Existing Condtions, Geomorphic Mapping, Floodplain Inundation, FLIR Mapping, and Restoration Strategy Appendix B Habitat Survey Methods and Data Summary Appendix C Target Conditions and Existing Conditions Rating Criteria ii Table of Contents Cardno, Inc. January 2017, Final Methow River Assessment of the Twisp to Carlton Reach Tables Table 2-1 Fish Usage in the Twisp to Carlton Reach of the Methow River ..................................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Middle Methow Ecological Concern Prioritization from the Upper Columbia Biological Strategy (RTT 2014) ........................................................................................ 2-9 Table 3-1 Summary of Hydro-modifications
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Behind the Hammer
    FALL 2016 Behind the HAMMER COVER STORY — TEXAS People who don’t call it quits 4 A SPARK AWAY FROM DISASTER 8 ALL WITH ONE PURPOSE 10 KANSAS UNIT CONTINUES TRADITION 12 Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) is a volunteer network of Anabaptist churches that responds in Christian love to those affected by disasters in Canada and the United States. While the main focus is on clean up, repair and rebuilding homes, this service touches lives and nurtures hope, faith and wholeness. Our programs, funded by contributions, aim to assist the most vulnerable community members, individuals and families who, Mennonite without assistance, would not have ON THE COVER Disaster the means to recover. MDS volunteers MDS volunteer Service Stefan Penner — women and men, youth and adults — clears out burnt Behind the Hammer is published quarterly by provide the skills and labor needed to trees in Bastrop, Texas. Photo by Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) and is available respond, rebuild and restore. Andrew Huth. for free upon request. This magazine shares the stories of MDS work in the U.S. and Canada and of the more than 4,000 volunteers who are the core of MDS. The stories are meant to encourage people to COVER FEATURE — TEXAS continue expressing the love of God through the People who don’t call it quits 4 work of MDS. FEATURE — WASHINGTON Executive Director: Kevin King A spark away from disaster 8 Editor: Mark Beach Contributors: Susan Kim, Andrew Huth, Jon Rutter, VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE Kristin Troyer, Paul Hunt All with one purpose 10 Designer: Julie Kauffman
    [Show full text]
  • Floods Risks Following Wildland Fires a Case Study: Plain, Washington
    Floods Risks following Wildland Fires A Case Study: Plain, Washington A B Cover: Counter clockwise from the 2017 Google map image A near Plain WA illustrates a probable managed forest scenario. Clockwise from the 2006 image of the same area, B offers an unmanaged scenario. The low intensity prescribed burn picture was taken off the sanjuanheadwaters.org web page. The high intensity fire picture is of the 2006 Tripod Fire Complex taken off the Inciweb.org web site. See report for other picture sources. Table of Contents Introduction/Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 9 Research Approach ................................................................................................................................... 9 Forest Stresses and Resilience ................................................................................................................ 10 Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Risk Reduction and Uncertainty ............................................................................................................. 12 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Fire Regimes ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Fall 2014 President’S Message—Al Matecko
    OldSmokeys Newsletter Newsletter of the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Retirees—Fall 2014 President’s Message—Al Matecko Elmer Moyer represented the best of the OldSmokeys. Like you, he took passion in the outfit and its people. He never complained, just went about building a better place and a better tomorrow for all. I first met Elmer when Regional Forester Linda Goodman and Deputy Regional Forester Mike Ash asked me to work with the planning team for the 2005 U.S. Forest Service Centennial Reunion held in Portland. Elmer was one of those OldSmokeys who just went about seeing the Reunion would be a success, and he did what- ever was necessary. And I must say, the 2005 Reunion was the hallmark of all reunions! After he passed away, the OldSmokeys Board of Directors did a wonderful thing in establishing the Elmer Moyer Memorial Emer- gency Fund to be used to help in emergency situations. It was an outstanding idea to honor not just Elmer but all the OldSmokeys! Suring the summer fires on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, two Forest Service members and a volunteer lost their homes and all their possessions. Because of an earlier Board’s foresight to create the Elmer Moyer fund, we were able to send three checks to the affected individuals. It should also be noted when one of the three said he’d be honored to join our group, Bob Devlin immedi- ately paid the dues. These actions show how valued all of you are and how much passion and dedication you have for all Forest Ser- vice people—retired and still serving! To those who attended this year’s picnic, it was great to see everyone, and see the joy of old friends gathering together.
    [Show full text]
  • Smokejumper Magazine, October 2016 National Smokejumper Association
    Eastern Washington University EWU Digital Commons Smokejumper and Static Line Magazines University Archives & Special Collections 10-1-2016 Smokejumper Magazine, October 2016 National Smokejumper Association Allen Biller Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.ewu.edu/smokejumper_mag Recommended Citation National Smokejumper Association and Biller, Allen, "Smokejumper Magazine, October 2016" (2016). Smokejumper and Static Line Magazines. 97. https://dc.ewu.edu/smokejumper_mag/97 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives & Special Collections at EWU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Smokejumper and Static Line Magazines by an authorized administrator of EWU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The National Smokejumper Quarterly Magazine Association October 2016 Smokejumper Jim Phillips Volunteer of the Year .................................................. 16 Granite Mt. Past Bad Decisions Ignored ........................................ 19 Shep Johnson Remembered ........................................................... 37 CONTENTS Message from Message from the President ....................................2 Super Cub Fire Jump ..............................................4 Have You Ever Done “The Kip?” ..............................6 the President NSA Photo Preservation Project ..............................8 County Residents Blame Poor Fire Management, Environmentalism For 2014-15 Wildfi res.........9 ning bust the night before. 2016
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Committee on Agriculture House Of
    HEARING TO REVIEW THE 2015 FIRE SEASON AND LONG-TERM TRENDS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 8, 2015 Serial No. 114–30 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture agriculture.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 97–183 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 11:05 Feb 16, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\114-30\97183.TXT BRIAN COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking Vice Chairman Minority Member BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona DOUG LAMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.5 Wildland Fire Hazard
    Chapter 4.5 Wildland Fire Hazard Hazard Type WILDLAND FIRE Probability of Occurrence HIGH Vulnerability Chapter 4.5 MODERATE Risk Wildland Fire Hazard Profile MODERATE Introduction extensive forest lands, prairies, and other open spaces throughout the county. Under the Wildland fires can rapidly destroy forests and right conditions, a large wildland fire could other natural resource lands, recreational areas, consume more forest, grasslands, homes, and habitat, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. other public and private owned assets within Wildland fires can injure or kill people, pets, the region. Due to the high probability of livestock, and wildlife. Although lightning occurrence and the number of wildland urban strikes sometimes ignite wildland fires, most interface communities that are moderately are started by negligent human behavior. vulnerable, the region has a moderate risk Eastern Washington regularly experiences rating for wildland fire. massive wildland fires that require thousands of firefighters that may battle the blazes for several The wildland fire hazard is unique from other months. In 2015, a combined 2,013 wildland hazards in Thurston County in that: fires on all state and federal lands burned • It is the most frequently occurring hazard, 1,137,664 acres in Washington State.1 with approximately 63 wildland fires per The Thurston County region experiences an year average of 63 wildland fires a year, but they • It can be prevented; poor human are typically contained by local and state fire judgement and accidental causes start suppression efforts. In the future, the risk for over 99 percent of fires hazardous wildland fires is likely to increase • It is the only natural hazard in this plan due to drought, warmer weather, and longer that can be actively contained in real lasting summers from the effects of climate time.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State K-12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan
    2014 Washington State K–12 Facilities Hazard Mitigation Plan School Facilities and Organization Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Prepared by: Kenneth Goettel, Goettel and Associates, Inc. Robert Dengel, School Facilities and Organization School Facilities and Organization Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Gordon Beck, Director OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at (360) 725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11 1.1 What is a Hazard Mitigation Plan? .................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Why is Hazard Mitigation Planning Important for Washington State, OSPI, and School Districts? . 12 1.3 Mitigation Planning: Key Concepts and Definitions .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 WA State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Final- Hazard Profile – Wildland Fire Wildland Fire Frequency 50+ yrs 10-50 yrs 1-10 yrs Annually People <1,000 1,000-10,000 10,000-50,000 50,000+ 3%+ Economy 1% GDP 1-2% GDP 2-3% GDP GDP Environment <10% 10-15% 15%-20% 20%+ Property <$100M $100M-$500M $500M-$1B $1B+ Fire Hazard scale < Low to High > Risk Level Frequency – One or more wildland fires occur in Washington every year. People – The number of lives lost to wildland fires in Washington does not meet the minimum threshold for this category. Economy – While the local economy where the wildland fire occurs may be affected, the affect that wildland fires have on the economy of Washington does not meet the minimum threshold for this category. Environment – While the damage to forest fires can be significant, the potential for 10% of a single species or habitat to be destroyed by such a fire is highly unlikely. Property – Past U.S. wildland fires indicate that the amount of property damage due to a wildland fire can exceed $100 million dollars. Note: The discussion of the Urban Fire Hazard begins on page 31. Summary o The hazard – Wildland fire burns approximately 23,000 acres of state-owned or protected land annually. The cost of wildland fire on these lands is more than $28 million annually in firefighting and damage to timber, habitat, and property. o Previous occurrences – Washington has a long history of both small and very large fires. Some fires can reach 100,000 acres or more, which has occurred eight times since 1902.
    [Show full text]
  • Fires from August 9, 2015 to September 10, 2015
    October 7, 2015 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D. C. 20500 Through: Regional Administrator Kenneth Murphy FEMA Region X Bothell, WA 98102 Dear Mr. President: Under the provisions of Section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR § 206.36, I request that you declare a major disaster for the State of Washington as a result of the 2015 Washington Wildfires from August 9, 2015 to September 10, 2015. I request the Individuals and Households Program, the Disaster Crisis Counseling Program, the Disaster Unemployment Program, and the SBA Disaster Loan Program for Physical and Economic Loss for Okanogan County, Chelan County, Stevens County and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. I further request that this declaration be granted for the Public Assistance Grant Program for Asotin County, Chelan County, Columbia County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Garfield County, Klickitat County, Lincoln County, Okanogan County, Pend Oreille County, Stevens County, Whatcom County, Yakima County, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. In addition, I request Public Assistance Direct Federal Assistance (DFA) to address hazards and mitigation measures associated with burned areas in the impacted jurisdictions. Impacts to the affected areas include significantly increased risks of damage from flash flooding, debris flows and other erosional events to infrastructure, residences, and environmental and cultural resources. I also request the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Carlton Complex Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area
    BLM OREGON POST-FIRE RECOVERY PLAN EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND BURNED AREA REHABILITATION PLAN TEMPLATE 2010 CARLTON COMPLEX FIRE (H8HC) BLM SPOKANE DISTRICT OFFICE OREGON STATE OFFICE FIRE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Fire Name Carlton Complex Fire Number LFESH8HC0000 / LFBRH8HC0000 District/Field Office SPOKANE DISTRICT OFFICE Admin Number LLORW00000 State OREGON County(s) OKANOGAN Ignition Date/Cause 07/14/2014 Lightning Date Contained 08/28/2014 Jurisdiction Acres State 69877 BIA 590 USFS 80089 Private 98884 BLM 6291 Total Acres 255731 Total Costs $976,000 Costs to LF2200000 $88,000 (2822) Costs to LF3200000 $888,000 (2881) Status of Plan Submission (check one box below) Initial Submission of Complete Plan X Updating or Revising the Initial Submission Carlton Complex - H8HC - 09/25/2014 - Page 1 Amendment Carlton Complex - H8HC - 09/25/2014 - Page 2 PART 1 - PLAN SUMMARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FIRE. The Carlton Complex started on July 14th from four lightning caused fires (Stokes, Gold Hikes, French Creek and Cougar Flat) burning National Forest System lands on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Bureau of Land Management lands, Washington State, Colville Tribal and private lands. Hot weather and windy conditions pushed the fire over the ridge tops and into the town of Pateros resulting in a large number of evacuations. The fire made significant runs towards the cities of Brewster, Pateros and Mallot between July 17th and 18th, consuming approximately 300 homes in its path and destroying critical infrastructure. These fires grew into one larger fire on July 20th. The burned area is located in Okanogan County, Washington, near the communities of Pateros, Brewster, Mallot, Methow, Carlton, Twisp and Winthrop, Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Treatment Effectiveness in the Context of Landform, Vegetation, and Large, Wind-Driven Wildfires
    Ecological Applications, 30(5), 2020, e02104 Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driven wildfires 1,5 2,3 4 2 SUSAN J. P RICHARD , NICHOLAS A. POVAK , MAUREEN C. KENNEDY , AND DAVID W. P ETERSON 1School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, Washington 98195-2100 USA 2USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Lab, Wenatchee, Washington 98801 USA 3Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 USA 4Sciences and Mathematics, Division of the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington – Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington 98801 USA Citation: Prichard, Susan J., Nicholas A. Povak, >Maureen C. Kennedy, and David W. Peterson. 2020. Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driven wildfires. Eco- logical Applications 30(5):e02104. 10.1002/eap.2104 Abstract. Large wildfires (>50,000 ha) are becoming increasingly common in semiarid landscapes of the western United States. Although fuel reduction treatments are used to miti- gate potential wildfire effects, they can be overwhelmed in wind-driven wildfire events with extreme fire behavior. We evaluated drivers of fire severity and fuel treatment effectiveness in the 2014 Carlton Complex, a record-setting complex of wildfires in north-central Washington State. Across varied topography, vegetation, and distinct fire progressions, we used a combina- tion of simultaneous autoregression (SAR) and random forest (RF) approaches to model dri- vers of fire severity and evaluated how fuel treatments mitigated fire severity.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildfires in Okanogan County, Washington: Recovery from Disaster Scott D
    FEATURE ARTICLE Wildfires in Okanogan County, Washington: Recovery from Disaster Scott D. Furman The statements made or opinions expressed by authors in Fair & Equitable do not necessarily represent a policy position of the International Association of Assessing Officers. (Article photos are by Kristen Wall, Lifesong Photography unless otherwise noted.) he week of July 14, 2014, Wash- 4,765 privately owned parcels of land. ington state experienced the larg- It destroyed 98 single-family residences, Okanogan County, est single wildfire in its history, 96 cabins, 23 detached garages, and 93 Washington, Fact Sheet the Carlton Complex Fire, which covered miscellaneous outbuildings for a total T Population: 41,120 year-round a large area of north central Washington structure loss of $11.5 million. residents (2010 Census) state including portions of Okanogan The Okanogan County Assessor’s Of- County. The fire, caused by four sepa- fice took the lead in identifying loss Area: Approximately 3,400,000 rate lightning strikes, affected more than caused by the wildfires. The office had acres of land; 5,315 square miles; 250,000 acres of public and private land. the aerial imagery, the parcel layer largest county in the state The fire affected 4,800 parcels of pri- maps, the database identifying parcel Land ownership: Approximately vately owned land in Okanogan County. ownership, drawings, photographs 25 percent privately owned. Public The fire destroyed 322 homes, including of structures, and most importantly lands owned by U.S. Forest Service, approximately 260 single-family resi- knowledge of and familiarity with the Bureau of Land Management, Wash- dences, and more than 250 outbuild- area.
    [Show full text]