DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Chetco River Maintenance Dredging

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Shoals and sedimentation can restrict or prohibit vessel navigation and dredging to authorized depths and widths is critical to keeping the river and harbor open and to sustaining important navigation components of the local and state economy, as well as maintaining a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) “critical harbor of refuge” for vessels in need. Two areas are proposed for continued maintenance dredging as part of the Project: (1) the Chetco River Entrance Channel (70,000 cubic yards from RM 0-20 to 0+30); (2) 9,000 cubic yards from the Brookings- Harbor Boat Basin Access Channel. Dredged material is placed within two authorized and approved in- water material placement locations. Dredging and placement activities occur between about June 1 or July 15 to October 31 depending on the specific location (of any given year). Funding, ocean conditions, potential storm surges, inclement weather, and difficulty in crossing the bar to reach the authorized Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) or Nearshore Placement Site all preclude safe and effective operations of necessary dredging activities during the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) preferred in-water work period. Most dredging operations work 24-hours per day depending upon weather, staffing, and other factors. Multiple environmental effects from dredging and placement activities on resources in the Project vicinity were considered in this Environmental Assessment (EA), which updates prior environmental June 30, 2015 i Chetco River Maintenance Dredging Environmental Assessment assessments completed for the Project. The analysis finds that the Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect the quality of the environment. June 30, 2015 ii Chetco River Maintenance Dredging Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... I ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ IV 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Authority ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Project Area ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Background and History .............................................................................................................. 11 1.5.1 Jetty Construction and Repair ............................................................................................ 11 1.5.2 Maintenance Dredging ....................................................................................................... 11 1.5.3 Dredged Material Placement .............................................................................................. 12 2. ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Proposed Dredging Activities ............................................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Proposed Dredge Material Placement ............................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Proposed Dredge and Placement Methods ....................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Mechanical Dredges ........................................................................................................... 18 2.2.5 Channel Management During Dredging ............................................................................. 19 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 20 3.1.1 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 20 3.1.2 Coastal Processes .............................................................................................................. 21 3.1.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.4 Sediment Quality ................................................................................................................ 26 3.1.5 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.1.6 Sound ................................................................................................................................. 29 3.1.7 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.1 Aquatic Plants, Animals and Habitat .................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Shoreline Terrestrial Plants, Animals and Habitat .............................................................. 35 3.2.3 Endangered Species .......................................................................................................... 36 3.2.3.1 NMFS Jurisdictional Species .............................................................................................. 37 3.3 Other Resources .......................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 Cultural and Historical ........................................................................................................ 42 3.3.2 Socioeconomic ................................................................................................................... 44 3.3.3 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 45 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 47 4.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 47 4.1.1 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 47 4.1.2 Coastal Processes .............................................................................................................. 47 4.1.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 49 4.1.4 Sediment Quality ................................................................................................................ 50 June 30, 2015 i Chetco River Maintenance Dredging Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chetco River
    SIXES RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Prepared for The Sixes River Watershed Council Prepared by Mike Maguire South Coast Watershed Council June 2001 South Coast Watershed Council PO Box 666 Gold Beach, Oregon 97444 (541) 247-2755 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………...…i INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE………………………………………………..…..ii I WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION………………………….…………..1 INTRODUCTION AND SUBWATERSHEDS……………………..………………………..…1-2 LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE………………………………………………………………..2-3 II WATERSHED ISSUES………………………………………………………….5 BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS…………………………………………..5 III ECOREGIONS………………………………………………………………..…6 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION……………………………………………..……....6-7 DESCRIPTION OF ECOREGIONS…………………………………………………………...7-11 IV CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES……………………………………………..…12 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………..…..12 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY………….……………………………………..12-13 CHANNEL SENSITIVITY / RESPONSIVENESS…………………………………………..13-14 DESCRIPTION OF CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES………………………...………………15-25 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………….…….26-27 KEY FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………...27-28 V FISH & FISH HABITAT…..…………………………………………………..29 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………...29-33 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….33-38 KEY FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………….……38 VI WATER QUALITY…………………………………………………………….40 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………...40-43 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….43-45 METHODOLOGY……………………………………..……………………………………..45-46 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………..46-49 KEY FINDINGS………………………………………………..………………………….....49-50
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-19 Status Review for Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead
    NOAA-NWFSC-19 U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo-19: Status Review for Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-19 Status Review for Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Peggy J. Busby, Thomas C. Wainwright, and Robin S. Waples National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center Coast Zone and Estuarine Studies Division 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle WA 98112-2097 December 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Ronald H. Brown, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration D. James Baker, Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries CONTENTS Summary Acknowledgments http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm19/tm19.html (1 of 14) [4/9/2000 9:41:49 AM] NOAA-NWFSC-19 Introduction Scope of Present Status Review Key Questions in ESA Evaluations The "Species" Question Hatchery Fish and Natural Fish Thresholds for Threatened or Endangered Status Summary of Information Relating to the Species Question Environmental Features Ecoregions and Zoogeography Klamath Mountains Geological Province California Current System In-Stream Water Temperature Life History Anadromy-Nonanadromy Steelhead Run-Types Age Structure Half-Pounders Oceanic Migration Patterns Straying History of Hatchery Stocks and Outplantings Steelhead Hatcheries Oregon Hatchery Stocks California Hatchery Stocks Population Genetic Structure Previous Studies New Data Discussion and Conclusions on the Species Question Reproductive Isolation Ecological/Genetic
    [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]
  • A Simple Model That Identifies Potential Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Estuarine and Estuary-Ecotone Habitat Locations for Salmonids in Oregon, USA
    A Simple Model that Identifies Potential Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Estuarine and Estuary-Ecotone Habitat Locations for Salmonids in Oregon, USA Rebecca Flitcroft, Kelly Burnett & Kelly Christiansen Environmental Management ISSN 0364-152X Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-013-0074-0 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA). This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-013-0074-0 A Simple Model that Identifies Potential Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Estuarine and Estuary-Ecotone Habitat Locations for Salmonids in Oregon, USA Rebecca Flitcroft • Kelly Burnett • Kelly Christiansen Received: 1 May 2012 / Accepted: 6 May 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013 Abstract Diadromous aquatic species that cross a diverse Keywords Salmonids Á Digital elevation models Á range of habitats (including marine, estuarine, and fresh- LiDAR Á Sea-level rise Á Estuary Á Habitat water) face different effects of climate change in each environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chetco River Kayaking Permit
    Preliminary Decision Memo Chetco River Kayaking Permit USDA Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Gold Beach Ranger District - Curry County, Oregon BACKGROUND A special use permit has been requested by Zachary Collier, Northwest Rafting Company, LLC, Hood River, Oregon, to authorize commercially guided kayaking trips on the Wild and Scenic segments of the Chetco River, including through the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. When I received the special use application, I considered the review and preliminary decision one of the most important of my career. I have kayaked the Chetco River from Taggarts Bar to the wilderness boundary, and I believe this stretch of river is one of the jewels of the National Wild and Scenic River system. This stretch of river is unsurpassed in its primitive nature. It has an extreme amount of natural resources highlighted by water quality, aquatic habitat, geologic features and biological diversity, just to name a few. Currently, there is no established commercial outfitting program for this stretch of river. As a result, I spent a significant amount of time reviewing the appropriate laws and management plans to arrive at a decision. Most of the Chetco River proposed for kayaking is classified as “wild” under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Act states in section 2(b): “Wild river areas - - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.” The wild segment of the Chetco River is also within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chetco River Winter Steelhead Program
    HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Chetco River Winter Steelhead Program Hatchery Program: Species or Winter Steelhead (Stock 96) Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed and Region: Rogue Watershed, Southwest Region Date Submitted: March 13, 2006 First Update Submitted: June 10, 2016 Date Last Updated: June 10, 2016 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1.1) Name of hatchery or program. Elk River Fish Hatchery (Chetco River Winter Steelhead Program). 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. Chetco River Winter Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Stock 96. ESA Status: Neither wild nor hatchery stock of Chetco River winter Steelhead are ESA-listed populations. 1.3) Responsible organization and individuals Lead Contact: Name (and title): Scott Patterson, Fish Propagation Program Manager Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 3406 Cherry Ave., NE, Salem, OR 97303 Telephone: (503) 947-6218 Fax: (503) 947-6202 Email: [email protected] On Site Lead: Name (and title): Todd Confer, District Fish Biologist Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: PO Box 642, Gold Beach, OR 97444 Telephone: (541) 247-7605 Fax: (541) 247-2321 Email: [email protected] On Site Lead: Name (and title): Robert Rice, Elk River Hatchery Manager Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 95163 Elk River Road, Port Orford, OR 97465 Telephone: (541) 332-7025 Fax: (541) 332-8440 Email: [email protected] 1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs. State of Oregon’s General Fund provides an approximate annual operational budget of $330,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2001-02 Annual Report
    THE OREGON PLAN for Salmon and Watersheds Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2001-02 Annual Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2004-08 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and services on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against as described above in any program, activity, or facility, please contact the ADA Coordinator, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207, 503-872-5262. This material will be furnished in alternate format for people with disabilities if needed. Please call 541-474-3145 to request. Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project 2001-02 Annual Report Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Report No. OPSW-ODFW-2004-08 March 22, 2004 Thomas D. Satterthwaite Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Citation: Satterthwaite, T.D. 2004. Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead Project, 2001 Annual Report. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW- 2004-08, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. CONTENTS Page SUMMARY....................................................... 1 Objective for 2001-02.................................... 1 Findings in 2001-02...................................... 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1 METHODS....................................................... 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................ 3 Determine Resource Status in Relation to Population Health
    [Show full text]
  • Chetco River Steelhead Report
    Chetco River Steelhead Report Mystagogic and arboreous Shelby agonized her chazans imparl glowingly or hovel maritally, is Joachim hard? How bloomier is Theodoric when massy and weak Irwin averring some valeta? Beneficiary and fractious Darby perennate: which French is vinicultural enough? Conditions will be maintaining our shorter, isonychia fly shop building in southern oregon on northern california state and chetco river tailwaters lodge. Best results for steelhead runs of all oregon, report for chinook move up or future stock photography and chetco river steelhead report started last week. An ice box, the day and most of natural colors for all have a very often fishes when releasing fish well be following day includes lunch, chetco river steelhead report search training to. Try lures is salmon fishing well as the river stream area road, chetco river steelhead report. My preferred method is nice chetco river steelhead report for steelhead on charts and fun filled days should be muddy for del norte to. Try again later salmon stocks, chetco river steelhead report. Gonna work hard fought second place, river report is. The chetco steelhead are passionate about all the green water to hundreds of sandy ground. This is one of the later salmon runs and produces some of the largest salmon on the west coast. Rains blow the Chetco out, King Salmon on the move! Please handle them nicely. Alternatively you can expect significant snow showers late next weekend the chetco river over time frame february at chetco river steelhead report the standard small minnow imitation lures like. The chetco flows dropped into magical march with shane, chetco river steelhead report.
    [Show full text]
  • Final New River Plan 2004
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Coos Bay District Office, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, OR 97459 NEW RIVER AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MANAGEMENT PLAN Updated May 2004 ii iii iv VISION STATEMENT New River is a dynamic, ever-changing system influenced by biological, climatological, geo-physical, and fluvial processes. The river and adjacent lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are in a special management category known as the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The New River ACEC is managed to maintain biodiversity and quality habitats for native communities of plants, birds, animals, and fish. It also provides protection to cultural sites and affords educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities to the visiting public in a manner consistent with the primary goals of protecting natural and cultural resources. BLM’s vision of the New River area includes protecting or enhancing habitats for a diversity of wildlife and plant species. Varied ecosystems such as meadows, forests, wetlands, coastal lakes, open sand dunes, and the New River estuary will continue to support this biodiversity. This includes a more stable meandering river with greater riparian vegetation. BLM also envision a visiting public that will appreciate and enjoy the varied ecosystems protected at New River in a way that will not degrade the naturalness of the setting or the quality of the visitor experience. BLM will manage the ACEC primarily for non-motorized public use that is compatible with the semi-primitive natural setting evident throughout most of the area. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision Statement .
    [Show full text]
  • Floras Creek Watershed Assessment Was Prepared for the Floras Creek Watershed Council Whose Members Are Dedicated to Sustaining the Health of Their Watershed
    FLORAS CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Prepared for The Floras Creek Watershed Council Prepared by Mike Maguire South Coast Watershed Council June 2001 South Coast Watershed Council PO Box 666 Gold Beach, Oregon 97444 (541) 247-2755 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………...…i INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE………………………………………………..…..ii I WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION………………………….…………..1 INTRODUCTION AND SUBWATERSHEDS……………………..…………………………..1-2 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP………………………………………………………………..2-4 II WATERSHED ISSUES………………………………………………………….5 BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS…………………………………………..5 III HISTORICAL CONDITIONS………………………………………………….6 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………6 HISTORICAL NARRATIVE……………………………………………………………….…6-10 HISTORICAL TIMELINE…………………………………………………………………....10-16 IV ECOREGIONS………………………………………………………………....18 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..…18-19 DESCRIPTION OF ECOREGIONS………………………………………………………….19-23 V CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES……………………………………………..…24 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………..…..24 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY………….……………………………………..24-25 CHANNEL SENSITIVITY / RESPONSIVENESS…………………………………………..25-26 DESCRIPTION OF CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES………………………...………………27-32 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………...33 KEY FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………….34 VI FISH……………………………………………………………………………..36 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………...36-40 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….40-44 KEY FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………...44-45 VII WATER QUALITY…………………………………………………………….46 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………...46-49
    [Show full text]
  • Site Management Plan for the Siuslaw Hairy-Necked Tiger Beetle
    SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SIUSLAW HAIRY-NECKED TIGER BEETLE (CICINDELA HIRTICOLLIS SIUSLAWENSIS GRAVES, KREJCI, AND GRAVES, 1988) ON NEW RIVER ACEC, COOS BAY BLM, OREGON Photo by Candace Fallon / The Xerces Society. Developed by Candace Fallon and Sarina Jepsen of The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation SEPTEMBER 2015 U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE REGION 6 AND U.S.D.I. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT INTERAGENCY SPECIAL STATUS AND SENSITIVE SPECIES PROGRAM CONTENTS Goal of the Management Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Section I: Status and Threats ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Conservation Status ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Species Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends ............................................................................................... 4 Species Life History .................................................................................................................................................... 7 New River ACEC Site Description ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Management Plan Template
    Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 3.2. Fire Management Considerations for Specific Fire Management Units 3.2.1. Bear Creek FMU Snap Shot FMU Number: 001 Radio Frequency: Refer to Rogue River-Siskiyou NF Frequency List and Coverage Maps General Risk Category: High Fire Behavior Indicator: Burning Index (BI). Pocket Cards available at: RSF Interior - BI Pocket Card RSF Interior - ERC Pocket Card NFDRS Weather Station: Interior Special Interest Group (SIG) 1. Bald Knob RAWS 2. Long Prairie RAWS 3. Agness 2 RAWS Nearest Weather Station: Buckhorn Springs RAWS Acres/Agency/Land Use Allocation: Wildland Bear Creek Urban Grand Total FMU Interface USFS 23,001 23,001 BLM 20,457 20,457 PV 174,318 174,318 State 967 967 Totals 218,743 218,743 Predominant Vegetation Types: Vegetation complexes generally flow from grass shrub in heavily developed valley bottoms, to a mix of chaparral shrublands with timber litter in the mid elevations, and timber understory with heavy dead and down in the uplands. Unit: Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, Medford BLM, ODF SW District IA Dispatch Office: Medford Interagency Communications Center (MICC) Medford ODF – ODF responsible for fire suppression on Medford BLM lands Medford ODF Communities adjacent or within FMU: Medford, Ashland, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix and Talent LMP Options available for response to ignition: Full range of management responses (from suppression to monitoring), including use of wildland fire for resource benefit Page 44 of 342 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan – 2013 Full suppression Special safety considerations: Explosives storage container at Mt. Ashland Ski area Diesel and propane tanks located at the Mt.
    [Show full text]