DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Deschutes River Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Deschutes River Report Native Fish of the Upper Deschutes Status and Recommended Restoration Actions Crooked River Deschutes River - Middle and Upper Reaches Metolius River Native Fish of the Upper Deschutes: Status and Recommended Restoration Actions A Native Fish Society report. June 28, 2010 H. Tom Davis PE, Project Manager and Co-author Clair Kunkel, Fish Biologist and Co-author Russell Bassett, Production Manager For an electronic version of this report, please visit www.nativefishsociety.org Introduction This report is intended for citizen advocates. The goal is to provide a concise summary of current issues and problems for native salmonids in the Upper Deschutes and describe the actions needed to resolve those problems. It is based on information from all federal and Oregon agencies involved in the upper Deschutes. Discussions were held with staff members from those agencies as needed to provide and interpret the hundreds of data sets, papers and reports pertinent to Upper Deschutes issues. Tom Davis, PE is the primary author of this report prepared for the Native Fish Society. Tom is a hydrologist and water resources engineer (MSCE – University of Idaho) with emphasis on groundwater-surfacewater hydrology, water quality, nonpoint source controls, fish habitat impacts, wastewater, stormwater, erosion and floodplain analysis. Clair Kunkel (MS Fisheries, Oregon State University) was a contributing author and provided report sections regarding fish biology and habitat impacts. Clair is retired following a 31-year career as a biologist and manager with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Russell Bassett, NFS River Steward Coordinator, reviewed and formatted the report for printing. The regulatory process for managing fish and their habitats is very complex, and is not covered extensively in this document. Readers interested in more detail regarding this should contact the following: • The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) manages fish in Oregon, but has little direct authority regarding watershed activities that damage fish habitat.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ • The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) implements state-federal water quality laws except as related to agriculture, logging/forest practices and land use. http://www.oregon.gov/DEQ/ • The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is responsible for administering Oregon water law. http://www. wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/about_us.shtml • Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) - http://www.lcd.state.or.us/ • Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) - http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/ • Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) - http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/ • Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) - http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PARKS/index • The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS) - co-manages the Deschutes subbasin fisheries - http://www.warmsprings.com/warmsprings/Tribal_Services/Natural_Resources/ • Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests (USFS) - http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/ • Us Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) - http://www.usbr.gov/pn/ • US Bureau of Land Management, Prineville (BLM) - http://www.blm.gov/or/index.php • US Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon (USF&WS) - http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ • US National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest (NOAA) - http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ • The Crooked River Watershed Council, http://crookedriver.deschutesriver.org/; Deschutes Land Trust, Deschutes River Conservancy, http://www.deschutesriver.org/; and Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, http://www. restorethedeschutes.org/; are described in Appendix B. The related citizen groups are also described in Appendix B. 1 Table of Contents 1) Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 2) Relationships Between the Upper and Lower Deschutes ............................................................................ 4 3) Actions ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 4) Oregon’s Poor Protection and Restoration of Habitat ................................................................................ 10 The Bull Trout Critical Habitat Example ................................................................................................ 12 5) Description - Upper Deschutes Basin ........................................................................................................ 13 Metolius Subbasin ................................................................................................................................... 13 Upper Deschutes Subbasin ...................................................................................................................... 14 Crooked Subbasin ..................................................................................................................... .............. 16 6) Native Fish of the Upper Deschutes ......................................................................................................... 17 Bull Trout ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Redband Trout ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Mountain Whitefish ................................................................................................................................. 19 Other Native Resident Fish ...................................................................................................................... 20 Summer Steelhead .................................................................................................................................... 21 Spring Chinook Salmon ........................................................................................................................ ... 22 Sockeye/Kokanee Salmon ......................................................................................................................... 22 Pacific Lamprey ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Anadromous Fish Issues ............................................................................................................................ 24 Introduced Salmonids ................................................................................................................................ 26 Other Non-native Fish ............................................................................................................................... 29 7) Surfacewater – Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 29 Fish Passage and Connectivity .................................................................................................................. 29 Surfacewater and Groundwater Relationships .......................................................................................... 30 Oregon Groundwater Mitigation Program ................................................................................................ 33 Groundwater Pollution and the Impacts on Surface Water ....................................................................... 34 Flow and Habitat Issues ............................................................................................................................ 34 8) Invasive/Nuisance Species .......................................................................................................................... 42 9) Instream and Watershed Improvement Measures Needed .......................................................................... 43 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Riparian Zone ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Forest Management ................................................................................................................................... 51 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Erosion – Existing and Potential ............................................................................................................... 61 Enforceable Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 63 10) Land Uses, Practices, Development and Planning/Control ...................................................................... 63 Erosion Controls ....................................................................................................................................... 64 Destination Resorts ................................................................................................................................... 64 Legal ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 County Plans and Protections ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Conditions Appendix II
    Environmental Conditions Environmental Conditions Appendix II The unique geology, hydrology and climates of the Deschutes River Subbasin create a diverse mix of habitat conditions for fish and wildlife. These populations are linked to the ecosystems in which they live and their health, individual characteristics and abundance reflect the diversity ― and quality ― of their environments. Fish populations, for instance, developed complex life histories through time that responded to the subbasin’s considerable variation in habitat conditions. Stream flows, water temperatures, substrate characteristics and other combined attributes affected anadromous fish distribution within the subbasin and timing of migration. Wildlife population abundance and distribution also developed in response to habitat conditions. Native grasslands once covered vast areas and supported species such as sage grouse, which once occurred exclusively in this habitat. Loss of grassland habitat greatly reduced such populations. Today subbasin habitat conditions continue to influence fish and wildlife production, distribution and survival. These habitats and their attributes ― as well as the aquatic and terrestrial populations they support ― are affected by both natural watershed processes and human activities that influence flow, water quality, upland and riparian conditions and instream habitat. This chapter examines how environmental conditions in the Deschutes watershed affect the subbasin’s fish and wildlife populations. Building on the more general review provided in the Overview, the discussion characterizes the environmental conditions within three watershed areas: the Lower Deschutes watershed (below RM 100), Crooked River watershed, and Upper Deschutes watershed (above RM 100). It characterizes the natural watershed environments, such as geology, climate and hydrology, and the focal fish species they support.
    [Show full text]
  • Metolius River LLID: 1212861445954
    ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT STREAM REPORT STREAM: Metolius River LLID: 1212861445954 BASIN: Deschutes River HUC NUMBER: 17070301 DATES: June 21 - July 14, 2011 SURVEY CREWS: Frank Drake / Mark McLaughlin REPORT PREPARED BY: Staci Stein USGS MAPS: Black Butte, Candle Creek, Prairie Spring Farm ECOREGION: Cascade Eastern North BASIN AREA: 795 km2 FIRST ORDER TRIBUTARIES: 50+ GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Metolius River habitat survey began at the confluence of Jefferson Creek and continued upstream 21,049 meters to end at the headwater springs surfacing from the hillside. Nine reaches were designated based on changes in channel morphology and contributions from major tributary junctions. The river channel was constrained by terraces and hillslopes. Land uses were mature trees (50-90cm dbh), large timber (30-50cm dbh), rural residential property, and second growth timber (15-30cm dbh). The crew floated the river with inflatable kayaks in the lower reaches (Reaches 1-4) where the river was too swift and deep for safe and accurate measurements by foot. The upper reaches (Reaches 5-9) of the river were surveyed by foot. Overall stream substrate was a combination of gravel (36%), sand (24%), cobble (18%), and silt and organic fines (11%). The stream habitat types were predominately riffles (50%), scour pools (28%), and rapids (14%). Large wood debris volume ranged from 1.5-17.8m3/100m. The trees observed most frequently in the riparian zones were conifers ranging from 3-50cm dbh (based on thirty-one riparian transects). REACH DESCRIPTIONS: Reach 1: (T12S-R09E-S02NE) Length 3029 meters. Reach 1 began at the confluence with Jefferson Creek and continued to Bridge 99.
    [Show full text]
  • Album Pg Page Heading Description Date Object Type
    Area Album Pg Page Heading Description Date Object Type 1 1 South Toutle Pack Trip Origin of the South Fork Toutle River (Wash.) on side Mt. St. Helens; 1941 Silver gelatin prints upper drainage basin at base of Mt. St. Helens; 1941-05-21 1 1 South Toutle Pack Trip Origin of South Fork Toutle River (Wash.) on side Mr. St. Helens; 1941 Silver gelatin prints part of watershed on side of Mt. St. Helens; 1941-05-21 1 1 South Toutle Pack Trip South Fork Toutle; upper watershed of South Fork at base of Mt. St. 1941 Silver gelatin prints Helens; 1941-05-21 1 1 South Toutle Pack Trip South Toutle outwash plain at base of Mt. St. Helens; outwash plain 1941 Silver gelatin prints 200 yards wide along upper south Fork. The north branch of the river can be seen at the left of the picture; 1941-05-21 1 2 South Toutle Pack Trip Bryant at South Toutle shelter; South Fork Toutle; Bryant at South 1941 Silver gelatin prints Toutle Shelter; the first nights stopping place on the pack trip; 1941-05-41 1 2 South Toutle Pack Trip South Fork Toutle; Part of channel of North Branch in broad out wash 1941 Silver gelatin prints plain near Mount Saint Helens; 1941-05-22 1 2 South Toutle Pack Trip Bear Creek trib. South Fork Toutle; Impassable 10' falls 1/4 mile 1941 Silver gelatin prints above mouth; 1941-05-24 1 2 South Toutle Pack Trip South Fork Toutle; Good 2nd growth of Douglas fir around Silver Lake 1941 Silver gelatin prints (Wash.); 1941-06-02 1 3 South Toutle Pack Trip Green River trib.
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST CAMPGROUND STATUS (June 1, 2020)
    DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST CAMPGROUND STATUS (June 1, 2020) If you have questions, please contact the appropriate Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District: 541-383-5300 Ranger District (M-F, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Sisters Ranger District: 541-549-7700 Crescent Ranger District: 541-433-3200 Open or Opening June 5, 2020 Opening June 15, 2020 Opening Mid to Late June BEND-FT ROCK RANGER DISTRICT Campgrounds Site Status Reason for Continued Tentative Closure Opening Date /FORT /FORT Big River Campground Closed Hazard tree removal Mid-Late June Big River Group Camp Closed Group camps are currently closed to comply with group size limits TBD Bull Bend Campground Closed Hazard tree removal Mid-Late June Fall River Campground Closed Hazard tree removal Mid-Late June McKay Crossing Campground Open 6/15/20 ROCK Ogden Group Campground Closed Group camps are currently closed to comply with group size limits TBD Pine Mountain Campground Closed TBD Prairie Campground Open 6/15/20 Pringle Falls Campground Closed Hazard tree removal Mid-Late June BEND/SUNRIVER/ LAPINEBEND/SUNRIVER/ AREA Wyeth Campground Closed Hazard tree removal Mid-Late June Big Cove Boat-In Campground Closed Hazard tree assessments and Mid-Late June removal; safety inspection Cow Meadow Campground Closed Hazard tree assessments and Mid-Late June removal; safety inspection Crane Prairie Campground Open 6/5/20 Cultus Lake Campground Open 6/5/20 Devils Lake Campground Closed Hazard tree assessments and removal; safety inspection TBD Elk Lake Campground Closed Hazard tree assessments and Mid-Late June
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County General Reports
    JEFFERSON COUNT¥ ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY STUDY Geologist (125 days@ $125/day) • $ 15,600 * Editing (65 days@ $77/day) • 5,000 * Cartography. 4,000 * Supplies. • 750 * Printing. • 4,900 Travel and per diem Per diem - $27.50 x 60 days •••••••••• • $1,650 Travel to job - 566 (mi. round trip) x 12 x 14¢. 948 Travel on job - 100 x 60 x 14¢ • • •••• 840 3,438 * Overhead on* items above - $28,788 x 20%. 5,757 TOTAL. • • • $ 39,445 Maps: (1) Geology - 4 or 5 color (1 inch= 3 miles) (2) Mineral deposits (combine with geology?) (3) Urban - 7~' - 1:24,000 (black and white) Bulletin Start August 1 if no ERDA uranit.nn study Start March 1, 1978, if ERDA uranium study Contract for flat fee - 60% from county •••••••••••••• $ 24,000 )< Gs-C!J~C-/j' ~ )( -· /-J t:Cl rT,; >-J c; .,, /~ 6DO ;,, Cdjvz To_; 5;0CJO ;Jl(d-, p F J' cL..,.-'.=. 5 ~ (;Yoo -:? / rtZ,, ✓ J /; ✓ (-; -7so y/- ) <",,,..., •..f10 -0, 4 / 9 CJO 77.o, v _, /-O,.tz: T ;,s ... ~ /.J; L:>Vt 7e.,, u 7o JD";, z 8 3 fl? ,. ,. 2- x: / z. ,c /~ ~ , ' Q ,,,-1 ;;;;-~ / ,,...,,c"? )('. 5 y / 2- )C / ,3. ~ /L~/-'.,'/~5 /4 G'~?--8~·-r - 4 -c,-r 5°' Cr?n-c;;,.>c - ~"'--,s ;' /./'I.,.,,, ✓ ~ "'1L /JJSPc,s,-,s Cc ~&-rs/--. i-v~ ,,'-( qco <- oc,-r- •;,; LJ «: ~,e,o,/ - 7£/ / - - ✓, ~,.G ~ t' )OO -/3Ch/ . • . C),,..J t:,..._,?. ~s "7? .)(/ -0.,...-e:. ~~r. T>m1,~ --<--. ~$r ', 1 ,·? J y ~ /tf. tr--0 ro.. A Jz.&.o If/. IJO '1.i,,,,{ • /tJ.oo /'J.-6-C)O 3, Cf I 00 tJ(tt':ll' 5! 00 ,, .:2,..S~ .56',oo ·' .5t' ro ')..&,/, 00 ,, ~)-1, (co ,.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History, Population Dynamics, and Management of Signal Crayfish in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon
    ANABSTRACT OFTHE THESIS OF Scott D. Lewis for the degree of Master of Science in Fisheries Science presented on 24 November 1997. Title: Life History, Population Dynamics, and Management of Signal Crayfish in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Abstract approved:Signature redacted forprivacy. / '- 1 Howard F. Horton Signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus were studied in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon, during 1994 and 1995. Because little was known about the crayfish population, this study was conducted to obtain reliable estimates of life history and population parameters, document historic commercial harvests, and make management recommendations. Crayfish were captured with baited traps and by hand using SCUBA gear. Maturation of both male and female crayfish occurred during the fall of their third year at age 2+. Copulation of mature crayfish began during the first week of October in 1994 and 1995. In 1995, hatching began during the second week of April. The estimated mean days and thermal units required for egg incubation was 166 days and 2,208 degree-days, respectively. Mean pleopod fecundity during the incubation period was 105 ± 12 (mean ± 95% CI) eggs. Crayfish were captured as deep as 100 m, but 98% of the population was found at depths70 m. The peak relative abundance of crayfish occurred at 10-20 m. Diel activity of crayfish was primarily nocturnal and was skewed towards sunset. Eight age classes were identified from analyses of length-frequency distributions. The sex composition of crayfish appeared to be a 50:50 ratio and only deviated because of behavioral changes related to hatching. The mean density of crayfish, estimated from transects, in five habitat types ranged from 0.24 crayfish/m2 to 1.13 crayfish/rn2.
    [Show full text]
  • Crescent Creek Management Plan, Oregon
    Crescent Creek Wild and United States Department of Scenic River Agriculture Forest Comprehensive River Service August Management Plan 2020 Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Klamath County, Oregon Township 24 S, Range 6, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 and Township 24 S, Range 7 E, Sections 8, 9, 14-21, Willamette Meridian Table of Contents THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 1 RIVER CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................. 2 TIMELINE OF THE CRESCENT CREEK WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION ........................................................................ 2 RIVER CORRIDOR BOUNDARY ......................................................................................................................... 2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................................................................................. 5 DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION ......................................................................................................................... 8 CONSISTENT AND INCONSISTENT USES .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Bend Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    Greater Bend Community Wildfire Protection Plan Two Bulls Fire, June 2014 February 2016 Prepared by Project Wildfire 541-322-7129 www.projectwildfire.org [email protected] ª Executive Summary Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) are documents that are designed by a local group of stakeholders who are invested in the wildland fire threat to their area. The group of stakeholders typically consists of a representative from the fire department(s), the state, any governing bodies and especially property owners. Each of these representatives should bring their concerns regarding wildland fire to the discussion and propose solutions to their concerns. Although reducing the risk of high intensity wildland fire is the primary motivation behind this plan, managing the larger landscape to restore forest health and more resilient conditions and improving fire response by all fire agencies are also discussed and addressed in the action plan. Continued efforts have been made by county, state and federal land management agencies to reduce the threat of high intensity wildland fires through education and fuels reduction activities on public lands. In addition, private property owners have responded enthusiastically to the defensible space and preparation guidelines and recommendations to reduce hazardous fuels on their own properties by participating in programs such as Firewise and FireFree. All of these activities allow the Greater Bend Area to become a more Fire Adapted Community. Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of ecosystems across the country. Central Oregon is no exception. Historically, wildland fires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. These landscapes however, are now significantly altered due to fire prevention efforts, modern suppression activities and a general lack of large scale fires, resulting in overgrown forests with dense fuels that burn more intensely than in the past.
    [Show full text]