1 Appendix H Barry Point Fire – Retrospectives and Lessons Learned Excerpts from the 2011 Fremont – Winema National Forest A

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 Appendix H Barry Point Fire – Retrospectives and Lessons Learned Excerpts from the 2011 Fremont – Winema National Forest A Appendix H Barry Point Fire – Retrospectives and Lessons Learned Excerpts from the 2011 Fremont – Winema National Forest and Lakeview District Bureau of Land Management, Fire Management Plan, that are applicable to the Barry Point Fire. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Land and Resource Management Plan Guidance Fremont National Forest - Land and Resource Management Plan: ―This Plan calls for implementing wildfire suppression tactics based on a policy of appropriate suppression response. Managers will have the option to confine, contain, or control a wildfire. Based on professional judgment and assessment of contributing factors such as expected weather, fire danger, and value of the resources threatened. Suppression costs will be reduced by eliminating the demand to take aggressive action on all fire reports and increasing flexibility to respond to specific situations with the appropriate level of effort.‖ (page 46) Winema National Forest - Land and Resource Management Plan: The forestwide fire protection objective states: ―All wildfires must receive an appropriate suppression response for each management area.‖ (page 4-10) Goals and Objectives Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – Goals (page 51, page 118) A fire protection and fire use program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives will be provided and executed. (page 118) All wildfire will receive an appropriate suppression response utilizing a strategy of confine, contain, or control. (page 118) Wildfire that threatens life, property, public safety, or improvements will receive aggressive suppression action using a control strategy. (page 118) All high investment timber areas, such as seed orchards and evaluation plantations will be protected from fire by taking aggressive initial attack and by considering their location in subsequent line location and attack strategies. (page 118) Aspen stands will be avoided whenever possible in the construction of fire lines, new roads or facilities such as rock pits (page 103) Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – Objectives (page 49) To provide responsive, courteous public service in all management activities. 1 To identify, design, and achieve a high level of multiple-use coordination in all resource management activities. To maintain or improve the productivity of the soil in all resource management activities. To re-establish all degraded land to a productive state by the year 2000. To increase public awareness of, involvement in, and support for Forest Service resource management objectives. To produce thrifty stands of commercial timber within the requirements provided by law, policy, regulations, and fiscal restrictions while providing for other resource uses. To maintain or improve vegetative condition of rangelands through the use of available silvicultural practices and livestock management while providing for other resource uses. To provide sufficient habitat quantity, quality, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations of all vertebrate native fish and wildlife species. To provide for increases in or maintain habitat quantity or quality of those species which 1) are officially listed as endangered or threatened at the state or federal level to insure population recovery and/or 2) are management indicator species. To reintroduce extirpated species that will have a minimal effect on other resource programs in coordination with ODF&W. To maintain air quality at a level that meets or exceeds applicable federal and state standards and regulations. To re-establish channel stability (by re-establishing a good or better riparian ecological condition) and to improve water quality (decrease in sediment and late season water temperature) on class I and II stream courses. To meet or exceed state water quality standards and protect identified beneficial uses. To maintain water quantity consistent with downstream needs and resource protection. To restore and maintain all riparian areas in a condition which enhances riparian dependent resource values. To improve and maintain trout habitat to support self-sustaining trout populations. To promote cooperation and coordination with individuals, corporate landowners, and state and federal agencies on matters of mutual interest. To provide a natural-appearing forest character that is attractive to the sensitive highway, forest road, trail, or developed site user. 2 To maintain the Gearhart Mountain Wilderness to enhance natural ecosystems and to provide for a Wilderness recreation experience in south central Oregon. To provide opportunities for a non-motorized recreation experience, with a high degree of isolation from sights and sounds of human activities, in a natural setting which may have very subtle alterations. Standards and Guidelines Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan – (Page 118) 1. A fire protection and fire use program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives will be provided and executed. 2. All wildfire will receive an appropriate suppression response utilizing a strategy of confine, contain, or control. 3. Wildfire that threatens life, property, public safety, or improvements will receive aggressive suppression action using a control strategy. 4. All high investment timber areas, such as seed orchards and evaluation plantations will be protected from fire by taking aggressive initial attack and by considering their location in subsequent line location and attack strategies. 5. Prescribed fire will be considered for use in meeting management objectives in areas where ecological studies show that fire has played a significant role in ecosystem development. Bald Eagle Management: Bald eagle management areas are highest priority for wildfire suppression if potential for damage to habitat is high.‖ (page 135) Fuel treatment by fire around active nest sites will take place outside nesting season (March 1 to July 15) if fire activities and smoke would affect nesting eagles.‖ (page 136) National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines - LINK Other raptors (page 108) - Active nests of raptors (red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, long-eared owls, sharpshinned hawks, Cooper's hawks, pygmy owls, flammulated owls, turkey vultures, American kestrels, Swainson's hawks, etc.) should be protected. Active raptor nests found in project areas will be left standing with at least four adjacent large trees for cover and perches. The nest and perch trees may be harvested after the young have left the area, usually by August 15. Attempt to make an agreement with timber purchasers to retain active nest, perch, and cover trees. Major activities such as logging and road construction adjacent (300 yards) to active raptor nests, should be postponed until young have fledged (usually around July 30). 3 Northwest Forest Plan - Standards and Guidelines Fire/Fuels Management (pages C-35 – C-36) FM-1. Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and activities to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuels management activities could be damaging to long-term ecosystem function. FM-2. Locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and other centers for incident activities outside Riparian Reserves. If the only suitable location for such activities is within the Riparian Reserve, an exemption may be granted following review and recommendation by a resource advisor. The advisor will prescribe the location, use conditions, and rehabilitation requirements. Use an interdisciplinary team to predetermine suitable incident base and helibase locations. FM-3. Minimize delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives to surface waters. An exception may be warranted in situations whereoverriding immediate safety imperatives exist, or, following review and recommendation by a resource advisor, when an escape would cause more long-term damage. FM-5. Immediately establish an emergency team to develop a rehabilitation treatment plan needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives whenever Riparian Reserves are significantly damaged by wildfire or a prescribed fire burning outside prescribed parameters. Other - In Riparian Reserves, the goal of wildfire suppression is to limit the size of all fires. When watershed and/or landscape analysis, or province-level plans are completed and approved, some natural fires may be allowed to burn under prescribed conditions. Rapidly extinguishing smoldering coarse woody debris and duff should be considered to preserve these ecosystem elements. In Riparian Reserves, water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat and water quality, as consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Inland Native Fish Strategy - Standards and Guidelines Applicable to all areas not covered by Northwest Forest Plan Fire/Fuels Management (pages A-11 – A- 12) FM-1. Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as to not prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression
Recommended publications
  • Attachment a ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary
    Attachment A ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary Fiscal Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007‐2016 Number of Fires 1 63 64 53 33 66 79 56 56 127 110 707 Total fire acres on NFS 2 1,751,118 1,326,893 549,108 211,327 1,489,029 2,411,413 1,141,353 741,465 1,587,843 1,038,686 12,248,235 High severity acres on NFS 3 842,658 368,595 268,944 76,192 619,020 809,720 513,957 265,045 489,668 397,654 4,651,453 Number of NEPA decisions identified 4 129 Acres of salvage planned in NEPA 5 218 17,255 2,134 14,010 22,761 28,937 13,809 13,264 112,388 Number of NEPA decisions litigated 6 125110332422 Litigation cases won by USFS 7 013110131112 Litigation cases lost by USFS 8 1120001011 7 Litigation cases pending 9 0000001002 3 Acres of salvage reported accomplished 10 328 2,665 8,125 3,464 8,774 6,916 11,672 19,792 16,926 21,234 99,896 1 Fires burning more than 1,000 acres on NFS land 10 Salvage harvest activity records identified as awarded in Forest Service Activity 2 Total acres inside fire perimeter on NFS land Tracking System (FACTS) by GIS analysis of fire perimeters. 3 Classified as greater than 75% mortality using Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) 4 Identified by fire salvage keyword search in PALS (Planning Appeals and Disclaimer: Only the litigation data is believed to be 100% complete and Litigation System) or reported with sale activity records in Forest Service systems accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Governor Kate Brown
    23 Oregon’s economy continues to do well. Businesses are growing, unemployment is low, and wages are increasing. However, not all Oregonians are enjoying this prosperity equally. We need to be diligent champions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work, in our communities, and in our regions. The foundation of the Regional Solutions program recognizes that Oregon is comprised of many different economies and tailors the state’s support to create thriving communities across the state. Regional Solutions staff live and work in the communities they serve, making sure state agencies work together efficiently and collaborate with local partners. The staff work with a grassroots approach powered by the ability to cross-cut agencies to assist businesses, local governments, and partners to get things done. They work on the nuts and bolts of economic development: streamlining permits, advising on land use, and building partnerships between the private, public, and philanthropic sectors. We see the results when businesses grow and things get built: transportation networks, water systems, broadband, homes, innovation centers, and more. That leads to not just more jobs, but better jobs across the state. This is how we support sustained growth rooted in our local communities and their plans to support economic vitality. With the impressive bench strength of the Regional Solutions staff, I give special assignments that move the needle for initiatives of state wide significance. In 2018, Regional Solutions took on workforce housing. Today, we are partnering in communities across the state on five housing pilots that will inform solutions that innovatively address this important issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Recollections of Initial Attack of the Barry Point Fire, the First Three Days
    Recollections of initial attack of the Barry Point Fire, the first three days Meeting Date: Sept 11, 2012 Location: Lakeview Interagency office Gearhart conference room Reason for Meeting: Fred Way, Fremont-Winema Forest Supervisor, requested information on the beginning days of the Barry Point Fire to get an understanding of how the Forest responded. Note Taker: Lucinda Nolan and Glen Westlund, Forest Environmental Coordinator, FOIA coordinator, and litigation coordinator Attending: Fred Way, Forest Supervisor; Coley Neider, 8/6 Operations, Trent Wilkie, 8/6 Division A Supervisor, Chad Bergren, 8/6 Division B Supervisor, Clark Hammond, air operations (on phone), Helitak Foreman; Dustin Gustaveson, Oregon Dept of Forestry Supervisor (not assigned to fire); Barry Shullanberger, 8/7-8/8 Day Operations; Noel Livingston, Not present during incident, currently acting Fremont-Winema NF Fire Staff officer; Bob Crumrine, Federal Duty Officer; Eric Knerr, 8/6-8/7 (morning) IC and logistical support; Mitch Wilson, 8/7-8/8 Division Z Supervisor; Abel Harrington, 8/7-8/8 Division A Supervisor; Kevin Burdon, Not assigned to fire ODF Supervisor. Evening August 5: Lighting storm begins with the first strike occurring at 8:59 am (0859) and the last strike at 10:56 pm (2256). See Attachment 1, Lightning Display Map. Day of August 6th 2012 Due to lightning incidents on 8/5 and expecting more on 8/6 the Lakeview Interagency Fire Center is placed in lightning mode (see attachment 2 and 3 for roles and responsibilities) which dispatches two resources per event as they get reported. The Forest has seven engines and many lookouts (5) manned (in service) by 0700, in preparation for any potential fires from previous night’s storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Allison Patterson for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife Science presented on November 13, 2012 Title: Breeding and Foraging Ecology of Caspian Terns Nesting on Artificial Islands in the Upper Klamath Basin, California Abstract approved: Daniel D. Roby Availability of suitable nesting habitat that is free of nest predators and provides access to adequate prey resources within commuting distance is a major factor limiting seabird populations. Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia ) in western North America have shifted their breeding habitat from naturally occurring habitats in interior wetlands, lakes, and rivers to primarily human-created habitats in coastal bays and estuaries. This shift has brought Caspian terns into conflict with fisheries of conservation concern, in particular anadromous salmonids. Prior to the 2010 breeding season, three artificial islands were built in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex as alternative nesting habitat for Caspian terns currently nesting at the world’s largest colony for the species, near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon. I investigated the efficacy of habitat creation (island building) and social attraction (decoys and recorded vocalizations) for establishing new breeding colonies in the Upper Klamath Basin, California. In 2010, approximately 258 pairs of Caspian terns attempted to nest on the new islands and raised an average of 0.65 fledglings/breeding pair; in 2011, 222 pairs attempted to nest and raised an average of 0.11 fledglings/breeding pair. Competition with California and ring-billed gulls ( Larus californicus and L. delawarensis ) for nesting space, gull predation on Caspian tern eggs and chicks, low water levels, and depredation by great horned owls (Bubo virginianus ) were the primary factors limiting colony development and productivity, especially in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • MVUM) Were Made by the Responsible Official Pursuant to 36 !
    *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! 3 ! ! ! 5 ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! 1 2 ! ! ! 7 ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! 3 ! 2 ! ! ! ! 2 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! 2 ! 1 0 1 1 0 ! ! ! ! ! 5 ! 2 ! ! ! ! 7 3 ! 9 ! 1 ! 7 5 ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0.3 570 1 ! ! ! ! ! 3.9 0 0.3 ! 0 2 3 ! 0 ! 7 ! 1 3 ! 0 ! 6 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 0 ! 4 ! ! 3 ! ! ! 0 ! ! 7 ! 3462231 ! ! 0.3 ! ! ! ! 3 ! 0.6 5! ! 2 ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 0.5 ! ! ! ! 1 2 0.9 ! ! 0 ! ! ! 5 ! 3 ! ! ! 0 ! 4 4 ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 2 ! 1!7 ! 2700 7 ! ! ! ! ! 3300134 4 ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 1 3300135 ! ! 6 ! 0 7 ! 2 ! ! 0 ! ! 3 0 ! 7 !! ! 0.7 ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! MARSTER ! ! 1 ! ! 0.5 0 ! ! ! 0 ! ! 1.3 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 332 ! ! 3118 ! ! ! 5 5 ! 0 ! 7 # # ! ! ! * * *# ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! 0.8 # ! * 1 1 5 ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! SPRING ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 0 3 ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! 3 0.8 3 ! ! ! ! 3 0 ! ! ! 4 ! 0 4 2 ! 0.7 ! 6 0 ! ! ! ! 4 6 ! 8 3 3 ! ! 0 ! ! ! 2 ! *# 5 6 7 ! 0 ! 2 ! 0 0 ! 4 ! ! ! 1 ! 0 ! 0 ! 3 ! 3 ! 0 ! ! 5 3 ! 3 ! 3 2 0 ! 3 3462025 ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! 0 5 ! 3 ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! 0 ! 4 ! 4 1 ! 0 ! ! 0 ! ! 1.6 5 ! ! ! 6 ! " ! ! 0 ! ! 0 5 0 ! 4 ! ! 9 1 ! ! 2 ! 1 ! ! 4 ! 3 ! 3 ! ! ! ! 0 ! ! 0.4 ! ! ! 7 0 # 5 ! * 2 # 0 Black Butte ! 3 1 ! * 7 ! ! ! ! ! 0 8 4 1 ! ! ! 2 4 2 # 1.1 ! 2.5 ! ! * ! ! 0 ! ! 0 ! 6 1.1 ! 2 ! # * ! ! 4 # ! 6 # ! * * ! 2 3 ! ! 3462200 # *# * ! ! 1.4 ! ! 8 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! R. 12 E. R. 13 E. 3.7 R. 14 E. R. 15 E. ! R. 16 E. R. 17 E. R.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 White-Headed Woodpecker Monitoring on the Barry Point Fire
    White-headed Woodpecker monitoring on the Barry Point Fire for the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 2013 progress report Finalized February 2014 by: USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station Victoria Saab, Jonathan Dudley, and Quresh Latif To: Fremont-Winema National Forest Amy Markus, Forest Wildlife Biologist Introduction The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) program is a cooperative effort to increase the rate of restoration on our National Forests. Monitoring is a key component of the CFLR program and our work is designed to address how well CFLR projects are meeting their forest restoration and wildlife habitat conservation goals. The white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus; WHWO) is a regional endemic species of the Inland Northwest and may be particularly vulnerable to environmental change because it occupies a limited distribution and has narrow habitat requirements in dry coniferous forests. Monitoring in CFLR projects, such as the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR project on the Fremont-Winema National Forest (FreWin), also contributes to other ongoing, regional efforts to monitor effectiveness of silvicultural and prescribed-fire treatments for white-headed woodpeckers throughout their range in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Vegetation and fuels data collection also support modeling of fire-climate impacts on future forest conditions and wildlife habitat suitability. To meet their various ecological needs, white-headed woodpeckers require heterogeneous landscapes characterized by a mosaic of open- and closed-canopied ponderosa pine forests (Wightman et al. 2010, Hollenbeck et al. 2011), which are expected to benefit vascular plant and other vertebrate wildlife populations (e.g., Noss et al. 2006). Consequently, monitoring white- headed woodpecker populations and their habitat associations is central to biological monitoring for the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR project on the FreWin National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • 11.12.20 Comment Letter Re Otay Ranch Village 13
    XAVIER BECERRA State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1800 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 P.O. BOX 85266 SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5266 Public: (619) 738-9000 Telephone: (619) 738-9519 Facsimile: (619) 645-2271 E-Mail: [email protected] November 12, 2020 San Diego County Planning & Development Services Attn: Mark Wardlaw, Director of Planning & Development Services 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92123 By email: [email protected] RE: Otay Ranch Resort Village—Village 13 Final Environmental Impact Report; Otay Ranch Resort Village, Project Nos. GPA04-003, REZ04-009, TM-5361, SP04-002, and ER LOG04-19-005 Dear Mr. Wardlaw: We appreciate your preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) responding to public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including the comments we submitted on December 27, 2019, regarding wildfire risks associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Resort Village—Village 13 Development (Project). After reviewing the FEIR, we acknowledge and appreciate that you have provided more information regarding wildfire risks associated with the Project. We believe, however, that the FEIR’s discussion of these risks remains inadequate.1 I. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE INCREASED WILDFIRE RISK THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE PROJECT In our comment letter, we explained that locating new development in a very high fire hazard severity zone will itself increase the risk of fire and, as a result, increase the risk of exposing residents, employees, and visitors to that enhanced risk. We further explained that the DEIR fails to analyze the increased risk of wildfire that will result from siting the Project within a such a zone.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018/2019 Grant Awards
    California Climate Investments CAL FIRE Forest Health and Forest Legacy Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Grant Awards Applicant Project Title County(ies) Grant Award Project Description Restore forest health by implementing fuels reduction and hardwood thinning in degraded forests. Pre-commercial and commercial thinning will lead to increased carbon sequestration Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Lacks Creek Management Area Humboldt $ 4,314,243 and support long term forest development in a late successional forest reserve. This is an area Field Office Landscape Restoration threatened by Sudden Oak Death and high fire risk. Project will lead to the development of old growth forest characteristics and improve wildlife habitat and water quality. The Collins Modoc Reforestation Project seeks to reforest approximately 10,143 acres at up to 250 trees per acre of Ponderosa Pine forest lost during the 2012 Barry Point Fire for long-term Collins Timber Company, LLC Collins Modoc Reforestation Project Modoc $ 3,305,164 forest health, sustainable timber harvest, and a potential carbon offset project for the ARB marketplace. The Whiskey CE is Phase 3 of a trio of working forest CEs on the 39,685-acre Scott River Headwaters property (SRH), the largest block of private forestland in Scott Valley. The Whiskey Whiskey Working Forest CE extinguishes development rights on 18,683 acres and helps ensure significant flows of timber Ecotrust Forests II, LLC Conservation Easement - Scott River Siskiyou $ 5,805,798 to nearby mills in perpetuity. SRH is positioned between fire-prone wilderness areas and 5 Headwaters Phase 3 communities. The Whiskey CE and companion CEs will enhance water quality, improve wildlife habitat and forest resiliency, reduce fire risk, and increase carbon storage providing a 1,496,017 CO2-e.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES As of 8/22/12 - 0800 Hours
    CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES as of 8/22/12 - 0800 Hours Barry Point Fire ~ FRA 65% Containment 93,231 Acres 8 Antelope Fire ~ FRA Fort Complex ~ FRA 10% Containment 37% Containment DEL 8 250 Acres 6,444 Total Acres NORTE MODOC Goff Fire ~ 5,061 Acres - 15% Containment SISKIYOU 8 Nelson Fire ~ FRA Hello Fire ~ 977 Acres - 83% Containment 100% Containment Lick Fire ~ 403 Acres - 97% Containment 3,661 Acres Fruit Fire ~ 3 Acres - - 100% Containment 8 HUMBOLDT Rush Fire ~ FRA 8 60% Containment 313,911 Acres Bagley Fire ~ FRA SHASTA LASSEN 0% Containment TRINITY 8 Reading Fire ~ FRA 5,650 Total Acres 8 8 100% Containment 28,079 Acres SHU August Lightning 8 Complex ~ SRA 8 Ponderosa Fire ~ SRA 90% Containment TEHAMA 8 PLUMAS 50% Containment 204 Acres 8 24,323 Acres North Pass~ FRA BUTTE GLENN Chips Fire ~ FRA 11% Containment SIERRA 37% Containment 11,646Total Acres MENDOCINO NEVADA 62,541 Acres S COLUSA U YUBA PLACER Mill Fire ~ SRA LAKE T T 85% Containment E R 1,675 Acres EL DORADO YOLO O T ALPINE Ramsey Fire ~ FRA SONOMA N NAPA E 95% Containment M AMADOR A 1,137 Acres R 8 SOLANO C A CALAVERAS S MARIN Cascade Fire ~ FRA TUOLUMNE CONTRA SAN MONO 0% Containment COSTA JOAQUIN 671 Acres SAN FRANCISCO 8 ALAMEDA STANISLAUS MARIPOSA SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA MERCED MADERA SANTA CRUZ S A N B FRESNO INYO E N IT O TULARE MONTEREY KINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN 8 SAN BERNARDINO SANTA BARBARA VENTURA LOS ANGELES Jawbone Complex ~ FRA O R 98% Containment A RIVERSIDE N G 12,018 Total Acres E Jawbone Fire ~ 1,987 Acres - 100% Containment Rim Fire ~ 10,031 Acres - 98% Containment IMPERIAL SAN DIEGO 8 New Incident (1) 8 Active Incident (11) 8 Contained Incident (2) 8 Resource Benefit Incident (1) Total of 15 Incidents identified on map Created by Cal-EMA, J.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Series Buck Deer Attachment 1. Draft Proposed Changes to Big Game Hunting Seasons
    100 Series Buck Deer Attachment 1. Draft Proposed Changes to Big Game Hunting Seasons Hunt # Hunt Name Staff Proposal General General Archery Remove the Ochoco Unit from general archery deer season, replace with 137R Make all legal archery equipment, legal for the entire Murderers Creek Unit during General General Archery general archery season All hunts with a bag limit including "one buck having not less than a forked antler" will All change to "one buck with visible antler" Eliminate this complicated hunt and replace with 121M, 119M, and 114M. Willamette 100M NW Cascade Unit will not be included in the new hunt and tags for that unit will be added to 615 121M Indigo Expand to all of Indigo Unit, change name to Indigo, Nov 14 - 25, 150 tags 119M McKenzie New Hunt, all of McKenzie Unit, Nov 14 - 25, 350 tags 114M Trask New Hunt, all of Trask, 200 tags, Nov. 7 - 20, 123M1 Melrose - N. Sixes Eliminate and replace with 123M1 and 125M 123M1 Melrose New hunt, entire unit with 100 tags, Nov. 14 - 22, 125M Sixes New hunt, entire unit with 50 tags, Nov. 14 - 27, 135M Paulina Eliminate, small tags, antlerless hunt, biological concern 135R Paulina Eliminate, small tags, antlerless hunt, biological concern 137R Ochoco New archery hunt, entire Ochoco Unit, 400 tags Eliminate, antlerless deer hunts should be in 600 series, hunt was originally created to 139R2 Metolius Unit Bow 2 provide recreation opportunity however populations do not warrant doe harvest Eliminate, antlerless deer hunts should be in 600 series, hunt was originally created to 139M2 Metolius Unit Muzz 2 provide recreation opportunity however populations do not warrant doe harvest Eliminate the ability to use this controlled hunt tag also during Western Oregon 141A Hood-White River General Deer Season, this is the only rifle deer hunt in eastern Oregon that is transportable and there is no existing general deer season in the unit 143C John Day Canyon New hunt in portion of Biggs Unit east of Highway 97, Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • RAPTOR RESEARCH REPORTS a Publication of the Raptor Research Foundation) Inc
    (ISBN 0-935868-43-7) RAPTOR RESEARCH REPORTS A Publication of The Raptor Research Foundation) Inc. RAPTOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT UNDER THE U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MULTIPLE-USE MANDATE April 1989 No.8 RAPTOR RESEARCH REPORTS F.stablisbed 1971 EDITOR Jimmie R. Parrish The Raptor Research Foundation. Inc. Depamneot of Zoology, 159 Widtsoe Building Brigham Young UniveiSity Provo, Utah 84602 Consulting EditoiS forVolume8 Jeffrey L. Lincer RicbardJ. aam: W. Grainger Hunt Eco-analysts, Inc. Depamnent of Biology BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 4718 Dunn Drive York College of Pennsylvania 303 Potrero Street, Suite 29-203 Sarasota, Florida 33583 Yod:, Pennsylvania 17403-3426 Santa Cmz, California 95060 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., was formed in 1966 by individuals who recognized the impact of human activities on raptors and other forms of wildlife. Information provides the key to understanding the life history and ecology of raptor species. The purpose of The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., is "to stimulate the dissemination of information concerning raptorial birds among interested persons worldwide and to promote a better public understanding and appreciation of the value of birds of prey" (Article I, Section 2, By-Laws of the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.). Raptor Research Reports was first published in 1971. Articles too lengthy for inclusion in the Journal of Raptor Research are published as Rap tor Research Reports as determined by the Editor and Board of Directors. No set schedule for publication is prescribed. Individual volumes are published based on availability of material and following completion of financial arrangements with the Editorial Office. Generally, manuscrlets considered for publication in Raptor Research Reports exceed 50 pages in length, including text, illustrations, tables, and literature cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Wildlife Species Habitat Descriptions
    TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS Fremont-Winema National Forest Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan Eastside of the Forest - Bly, Lakeview, Paisley, and Silver Lake Districts JULY 17, 2017 PREPARED BY Cheran Cavanaugh – Eastside Wildlife Biologist and Isaac Gansberg – Eastside Assistant Wildlife Biologist Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Mammals ........................................................................................................................................ 5 American marten ........................................................................................................................ 5 Canada lynx ................................................................................................................................. 8 Gray Wolf .................................................................................................................................... 9 Fringed myotis .......................................................................................................................... 11 Mule Deer ................................................................................................................................. 12 Pacific Fisher – West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) .............................................. 15 Pallid bat ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]