DOCSLIB.ORG

Fire Management Plan Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fire Management Plan Template Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 SOUTHWEST OREGON INTERAGENCY FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN U.S. Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Oregon Department of Forestry, Southwest District National Park Service, Oregon Caves National Monument Page 1 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Reviewed and Updated By: Jon Lamb, Fire Planner Date: 6-30-2012 Reviewed and Updated By: Jon Lamb, Fire Planner Date: 6-7-2013 Reviewed and Updated By: Date: Reviewed and Updated By: Date: Reviewed and Updated By: Date: Page 2 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Interagency Fire Management Plan For The Southwest Oregon Fire Planning Unit June 2011 /s/: Jennifer Eberlien for Scott Conroy Date: 6/27/2011 Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, Forest Supervisor /s/: Dayne Barron Date: 6/28/2011 Medford District BLM, District Manager /s/: Vicki Snitzler Date: 6/27/2011 Oregon Caves National Monument, Superintendent /s/: Dan Thorpe Date: 6/20/2011 Oregon Department of Forestry Southwest District, District Forester Page 3 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction _______________________________________________ 9 Chapter 2. Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships ___________ 12 2.1. National and Regional Fire Management Policy ____________________ 12 2.2. Interagency Land and Resource Management Plan _________________ 13 2.3. Partnership __________________________________________________ 14 Chapter 3. Fire Management Unit Descriptions __________________________ 16 3.1. Fire Management Considerations Applicable to All Forest Fire Management Units _________________________________________________ 16 3.1.1. Land and Resource Management Plan Guidance ___________________ 16 3.1.2. Specific Range of Management Options __________________________ 19 3.1.3. Wildland Fire Operations guidance ______________________________ 29 3.1.4. Preparedness _______________________________________________ 29 3.1.5. Physical Characteristics that Apply to All Fire Management Units _______ 31 3.1.6. Description of Wildland Fire Management Strategies by Land Use Allocation (LUA) 32 3.1.7. LUA Relationship to Federal Land and Resource Management Plans ____ 39 3.1.8. Resource and Fire Management Objectives Common to all LUA’s on all Jurisdictions _____________________________________________________ 40 3.2. Fire Management Considerations for Specific Fire Management Units _ 44 3.2.1. Bear Creek FMU Snap Shot ____________________________________ 44 3.2.2. FMU Guidance – See Section 3.1 _______________________________ 47 3.2.3. FMU Characteristics __________________________________________ 47 3.2.4. Bridge FMU Snap Shot _______________________________________ 52 3.2.5. FMU Guidance – See Section 3.1 _______________________________ 55 3.2.6. FMU Characteristics __________________________________________ 55 3.2.7. Chetco FMU Snap Shot _______________________________________ 58 3.2.8. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ________________________________ 60 3.2.9. FMU Characteristics __________________________________________ 60 3.2.10. Copper Salmon Wilderness FMU Snap Shot _____________________ 61 3.2.11. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 64 3.2.12. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 64 3.2.13. DFPA Grave Creek FMU Snap Shot____________________________ 66 3.2.14. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 68 3.2.15. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 68 3.2.16. Evans FMU Snap Shot ______________________________________ 71 3.2.17. FMU Guidance- See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 73 3.2.18. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 73 3.2.19. Galice FMU Snap Shot ______________________________________ 77 3.2.20. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 80 3.2.21. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 80 3.2.22. Grassy Knob Wilderness FMU Snap Shot _______________________ 85 Page 4 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 3.2.23. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 87 3.2.24. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 87 3.2.25. Humbug FMU Snap Shot ____________________________________ 89 3.2.26. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 91 3.2.27. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 91 3.2.28. Illinois Valley FMU Snap Shot _________________________________ 92 3.2.29. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 ______________________________ 95 3.2.30. FMU Characteristics ________________________________________ 95 3.2.31. Jenny Creek FMU Snap Shot ________________________________ 104 3.2.32. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 106 3.2.33. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 106 3.2.34. Jumpoff Joe FMU Snap Shot ________________________________ 112 3.2.35. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 114 3.2.36. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 114 3.2.37. Kalmiopsis FMU Snap Shot _________________________________ 117 3.2.38. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 119 3.2.39. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 119 3.2.40. Little Butte FMU Snap Shot _________________________________ 120 3.2.41. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 123 3.2.42. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 123 3.2.43. Lower Applegate FMU Snap Shot ____________________________ 128 3.2.44. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 130 3.2.45. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 130 3.2.46. Red Buttes Wilderness FMU Snap Shot ________________________ 135 3.2.47. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 137 3.2.48. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 137 3.2.49. Rogue River FMU Snap Shot ________________________________ 138 3.2.50. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 141 3.2.51. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 141 3.2.52. Rogue Umpqua Wilderness FMU Snap Shot ____________________ 144 3.2.53. FMU Guidance ___________________________________________ 145 3.2.54. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 146 3.2.55. Siskiyou Wilderness FMU Snap Shot __________________________ 148 3.2.56. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 150 3.2.57. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 150 3.2.58. Sky Lakes Wilderness FMU Snap Shot ________________________ 152 3.2.59. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 154 3.2.60. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 154 3.2.61. Trail Creek FMU Snap Shot _________________________________ 157 3.2.62. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 159 3.2.63. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 159 3.2.64. Upper Applegate FMU Snap Shot ____________________________ 163 3.2.65. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 165 3.2.66. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 165 3.2.67. Upper Rogue FMU Snap Shot _______________________________ 171 3.2.68. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 173 Page 5 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 3.2.69. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 173 3.2.70. West Fork Cow Creek FMU Snap Shot ________________________ 178 3.2.71. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 181 3.2.72. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 181 3.2.73. Wild Rogue Wilderness FMU Snap Shot _______________________ 185 3.2.74. FMU Guidance - See Section 3.1 _____________________________ 187 3.2.75. FMU Characteristics _______________________________________ 187 3.3. Appendix___________________________________________________ 190 3.3.1. Appendix A: Operational Procedures For Response to Wildland Within The Southwest Oregon Fire Planning Unit _________________________________ 190 3.3.2. Appendix B: NFDRS Break Points ______________________________ 191 3.3.3. Appendix C: Fire Regime and Condition Class Analysis _____________ 193 3.3.4. Appendix D: WFDSS ________________________________________ 201 3.3.5. Appendix E Rogue River- Siskiyou NF Resource Advisor Reference ___ 214 3.3.6. Appendix F: Medford BLM Resource Advisor Reference _____________ 270 3.3.7. Appendix G: Smoke Management/Smoke Management Techniques ___ 273 3.3.8. Appendix H: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation _____________ 276 3.3.9. Appendix I: Monitoring and Evaluation ___________________________ 278 3.3.10. Appendix J: Soda Mountain Wilderness Operations Plan ___________ 279 3.3.11. Appendix K: Mechanized and Motorized Use in the Wilderness ______ 327 3.3.12. Appendix L: List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms _____________ 331 3.3.13. Appendix M: Other Useful Information and Websites ______________ 342 Page 6 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Overview Interagency Federal fire policy requires that every area with burnable vegetation is covered by an approved Fire Management Plan (FMP). This FMP provides information concerning the management of wildfire for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford District BLM, Oregon Caves
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interior the Following Appropriations Requests Were Submitted by Senator
    Interior The following appropriations requests were submitted by Senator Merkley to the Appropriations Committee for consideration as part of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. Bend Surface Water Project - $2,000,000 EPA, Bend, OR The Surface Water project has three major components: water treatment, pipeline replacement, and hydroelectric development. Funds will be put toward the estimated overall $71,000,000 cost of the project, which is to construct a water treatment plant, replace an 11 mile water pipeline, and install a small hydroelectric facility, gaining 1.2 MW of green power, further defraying the long term cost of the project. The project is required in order to replace aging infrastructure, and comply with EPA LT2 drinking water regulations governing surface water. Eastside Sewer Interceptor Project: Oak to Antler - $1,375,000 City of Redmond, Redmond, OR The east side of Redmond is poised for significant industrial and commercial growth. The City’s Desert Rise Industrial Park (State Certified, 75 shovel ready acres), Pioneer Business Park (40 acre, incubator lots), Crown Mill redevelopment (70 acre former sawmill), Greenway Business Campus (220 acre ―green-themed‖ re-development) and several other planned development or redevelopment projects exist east of US 97 and the BNSF rail line. Full buildout of the east side industrial development cannot occur without construction of a planned large diameter sewer line which parallels the BNSF rail line and intercepts/collects wastewater effluent from all east side development. The project, known as the Eastside Sewer Interceptor Project, will also have the capacity to serve the potential 900-acre large lot Department of State Land (DSL) project south of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Expo Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 111–11 111Th Congress An
    PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 991 Public Law 111–11 111th Congress An Act To designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Mar. 30, 2009 Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. [H.R. 146] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus Public Land SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. Management Act (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus of 2009. Public Land Management Act of 2009’’. 16 USC 1 note. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I—ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM Subtitle A—Wild Monongahela Wilderness Sec. 1001. Designation of wilderness, Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Sec. 1002. Boundary adjustment, Laurel Fork South Wilderness, Monongahela Na- tional Forest. Sec. 1003. Monongahela National Forest boundary confirmation. Sec. 1004. Enhanced Trail Opportunities. Subtitle B—Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness Sec. 1101. Definitions. Sec. 1102. Designation of additional National Forest System land in Jefferson Na- tional Forest as wilderness or a wilderness study area. Sec. 1103. Designation of Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1104. Seng Mountain and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sec. 1105. Trail plan and development. Sec. 1106. Maps and boundary descriptions. Sec. 1107. Effective date. Subtitle C—Mt. Hood Wilderness, Oregon Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Klamath Mountains Geology, California and Oregon
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A bibliography of Klamath Mountains geology, California and Oregon, listing authors from Aalto to Zucca for the years 1849 to mid-1995 Compiled by William P. Irwin Menlo Park, California Open-File Report 95-558 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. PREFACE This bibliography of Klamath Mountains geology was begun, although not in a systematic or comprehensive way, when, in 1953, I was assigned the task of preparing a report on the geology and mineral resources of the drainage basins of the Trinity, Klamath, and Eel Rivers in northwestern California. During the following 40 or more years, I maintained an active interest in the Klamath Mountains region and continued to collect bibliographic references to the various reports and maps of Klamath geology that came to my attention. When I retired in 1989 and became a Geologist Emeritus with the Geological Survey, I had a large amount of bibliographic material in my files. Believing that a comprehensive bibliography of a region is a valuable research tool, I have expended substantial effort to make this bibliography of the Klamath Mountains as complete as is reasonably feasible. My aim was to include all published reports and maps that pertain primarily to the Klamath Mountains, as well as all pertinent doctoral and master's theses.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Chetco River Maintenance Dredging
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHETCO RIVER MAINTENANCE DREDGING Prepared For US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 Prepared By 600 University Street, Suite 610 Seattle, WA 98101 June 30, 2015 Chetco River Maintenance Dredging Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chetco River Federal Navigation Project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Acts of: March 2 1945, October 27 1965, and December 4 1981; with modifications from the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1992. These authorizations include the construction, operation and maintenance of two jetty formations, and other navigation-related features, and maintenance of the navigation channels through the mouth of the Chetco River. The local sponsor is the Port of Brookings- Harbor. The purpose of the Chetco River Federal Navigation Project (the “Project”) is for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (Corps), to maintain the Entrance Channel and the Brookings-Harbor Commercial Boat Basin Access Channel at their federally authorized depths and widths by periodically removing channel-restricting shoals of naturally occurring sediment material. These ongoing maintenance dredging activities provide adequate channel dimensions for vessel access and use upstream to approximately river mile (RM) 0.3. By maintaining adequate navigational dimensions, the Project further serves to decrease waiting times and increase navigability for vessels crossing the entrance bar. The main Entrance Channel shoals rapidly in late winter and early spring due to coastal littoral processes. The inner portion of the Entrance Channel and the Boat Basin Access Channel periodically shoal due to a buildup of material from upstream areas and lower fluvial origins.
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [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]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Siskiyou Hiker 2020
    WINTER 2020 THE SISKIYOU HIKER Outdoor news from the Siskiyou backcountry SPECIAL ISSUE: 2020 Stewardship Report Photo by: Trevor Meyer SEASON UPDATES ALL THE TRAILS CLEARED THIS YEAR LOOKING AHEAD CHECK OUT OUR Laina Rose, 2020 Crew Leader PLANS FOR 2021 LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR Winter, 2020 Dear Friends, In this special issue of the Siskiyou Hiker, we’ve taken our annual stewardship report and wrapped it up into a periodical for your review. Like everyone, 2020 has been a tough year for us. But I hope this issue illustrates that this year was a challenge we were up for. We had to make big changes, including a hiring freeze on interns and seasonals. My staff, board, our volun- teers, and I all had to flex into what roles needed to be filled, and far-ahead planning became almost impossi- ble. But we were able to wrap up technical frontcountry projects in the spring, and finished work on the Briggs Creek Bridge and a long retaining wall on the multi-use Taylor Creek Trail. Then my staff planned for a smaller intern program that was stronger beyond measure. We put practices in place to keep everyone safe, and got through the year intact and in good health. This year we had a greater impact on the lives of the young people who serve on our Wilderness Conserva- tion Corps. They completed media projects and gained technical skills. Everyone pushed themselves and we took the first real steps in realizing greater diversity throughout our organization. And despite protocols in place to slow the spread of Covid-19, we actually grew our volunteer program.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judge Upholds Expansion of Ecological Wonder
    Case 1:17-cv-00285-CL Document 65 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION MURPHY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00285-CL Plaintiffs, V. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants, and SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS COUNCIL, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs Murphy Company and Murphy Timber Investments, LLC ( collectively "Plaintiff') bring this case challenging the authority of the President of the United States to include lands covered under the Oregon & California Revested Lands Act ("O&C Act") in the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#39), Federal Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#42), and Defendant-Intervenor's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Report & Recommendation I 1 Case 1:17-cv-00285-CL Document 65 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 9 (#44). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs motion should be DENIED, and Defendants' motions should be GRANTED. BACKGROUND Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906, authorizing the President of the United States, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation landmarks, structures, and objects of historic and scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the federal government to be national monuments. 54 U.S.C. § 320301. The only limitation that Congress placed on the President's authority to reserve federal land for the creation of national monuments by the Antiquities Act is that the "parcels of land" reserved must "be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." Id.; see generally Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Eg-Or-Index-170722.05.Pdf
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Burns Paiute Tribal Reservation G-6 Siletz Reservation B-4 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Reservation B-3 Umatilla Indian Reservation G-2 Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation H-9,10 Warm Springs Indian Reservation D-3,4 Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge B-4 Basket Slough National Wildlife Refuge B-4 Badger Creek Wilderness D-3 Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge D-9 9 Menagerie Wilderness C-5 Middle Santiam Wilderness C-4 Mill Creek Wilderness E-4,5 Black Canyon Wilderness F-5 Monument Rock Wilderness G-5 Boulder Creek Wilderness C-7 Mount Hood National Forest C-4 to D-2 Bridge Creek Wilderness E-5 Mount Hood Wilderness D-3 Bull of the Woods Wilderness C,D-4 Mount Jefferson Wilderness D-4,5 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument C-9,10 Mount Thielsen Wilderness C,D-7 Clackamas Wilderness C-3 to D-4 Mount Washington Wilderness D-5 Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge F-2 Mountain Lakes Wilderness C-9 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Newberry National Volcanic Monument D-6 C-2 to E-2 North Fork John Day Wilderness G-3,4 Columbia White Tailed Deer National Wildlife North Fork Umatilla Wilderness G-2 Refuge B-1 Ochoco National Forest E-4 to F-6 Copper Salmon Wilderness A-8 Olallie Scenic Area D-4 Crater Lake National Park C-7,8 Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area C-4 Crooked River National Grassland D-4 to E-5 Opal Creek Wilderness C-4 Cummins Creek Wilderness A,B-5 Oregon Badlands Wilderness D-5 to E-6 Deschutes National Forest C-7 to D-4 Oregon Cascades Recreation Area C,D-7 Diamond Craters Natural Area F-7 to G-8 Oregon
    [Show full text]