DOCSLIB.ORG

Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Agriculture Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment Forest Pacific Stanislaus March 2014 Service Southwest Region National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.-20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.01 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.02 Forest Plan Direction ........................................................................................ 3 1.03 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................ 4 1.04 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 5 1.05 Decision Framework ......................................................................................... 6 1.06 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 7 1.07 Issues ............................................................................................................... 8 2. Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 9 2.01 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ........................................................................ 9 2.02 Alternative 2 (No Action) ................................................................................. 22 2.03 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................... 23 2.04 Comparison Of Alternatives ............................................................................ 24 3. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 27 3.01 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 27 3.02 Aquatics .......................................................................................................... 31 3.03 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 40 3.04 Economics ...................................................................................................... 41 3.05 Fuels ............................................................................................................... 43 3.06 Invasive Species ............................................................................................. 45 3.07 Range ............................................................................................................. 46 3.08 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 48 3.09 Sensitive Plants .............................................................................................. 49 3.10 Soils ................................................................................................................ 51 3.11 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 56 3.12 Watershed ...................................................................................................... 57 3.13 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 61 3.14 Effects Relative to Issues ................................................................................ 78 3.15 Finding of No Significant Impact ..................................................................... 79 4. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................ 87 References ................................................................................................................... 89 List of Maps and Figures Figure 1.01-1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3.10-1 Soil and Vegetation Burn Condition Photos ................................................ 53 Project Map ............................................................................. map package List of Tables Table 2.01-1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Roads and Other Developed Facilities ...... 9 Table 2.01-2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Road Surfaces and Treatments .............. 10 Table 2.01-3 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Road Segments and Treatments ............ 10 Table 2.01-4 Operating requirements for mechanized equipment operations in RCAs .... 14 Table 2.01-5 Management requirements incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs ..... 15 Table 2.01-6 Sensitive Plant Species and associated dry, non-growing periods ............. 20 Table 2.01-7 Water Sources and Management Requirements ........................................ 22 Table 2.04-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Treatments .................................... 24 Table 2.04-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Relevant Issues ............................................ 24 Table 2.04-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects by Resource .................. 25 Table 3.02-1 California Red-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ............... 34 Table 3.02-2 Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ... 35 Table 3.02-3 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators .............. 35 Table 3.02-4 Western Pond Turtle Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ......................... 36 Table 3.05-1 Average Surface Fuel Loading ................................................................... 44 Table 3.05-2 Average Snag Density ................................................................................ 45 Table 3.07-1 Proposed Hazard Tree Treatments on Grazing Allotments ......................... 47 Table 3.09-1 Sensitive Plant Species and Botanical Interest Species ............................. 50 Table 3.10-1 Dominant Soil Types and Properties .......................................................... 52 Table 3.10-2 Soil Hazard Types ...................................................................................... 52 Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment Stanislaus National Forest Mi-Wok Ranger District; Groveland Ranger District Tuolumne County, California 1. Introduction The Forest Service prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Stanislaus National Forest office in Sonora, California. 1.01 BACKGROUND The Rim Fire started in a remote area of the Stanislaus National Forest near the confluence of the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers about 20 miles east of Sonora on August 17, 2013. Exhibiting high to extreme fire behavior with multiple flaming fronts, the fire made runs of 30,000 to 50,000 acres on two consecutive days, quickly spreading in all directions up the Clavey, Tuolumne, Middle Fork Tuolumne, South Fork Tuolumne and other drainages including Cherry Creek (see Figure 1). Over the next several weeks it burned 256,428 acres, including 154,430 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands, becoming the third largest wildfire in California history. The fire also burned within Yosemite National Park (78,896 acres), Sierra Pacific Industries private timberland (16,035 acres), other private land (6,939 acres) and Bureau of Land Management land (129 acres)1. The Rim Fire Hazard Trees (Rim HT) project area is located within the Rim Fire perimeter in the Stanislaus National Forest on portions of the Mi-Wok and Groveland Ranger Districts. The fire killed or severely damaged trees within the project area. Elevations within the project area range from 1,200 to 6,800 feet and vegetation burn severities varied from low to high. The project area includes high use roads and facilities where varying degrees of fire severity and tree mortality occurred. As the snags and fire-damaged trees weaken and fall, they pose an immediate danger to the lives, safety and property of people in the area. All hazard trees within the proposed project area will be considered for treatment, including trees previously felled during suppression and Burned Area
Recommended publications
  • Sketch of Yosemite National Park and an Account of the Origin of the Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy Valleys

    Sketch of Yosemite National Park and an Account of the Origin of the Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy Valleys

    SKETCH OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK AND AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE YOSEMITE AND HETCH HETCHY VALLEYS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1912 This publication may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington. I). C, for LO cents. 2 SKETCH OP YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK AND ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE YOSEMITE AND HETCH HETCHY VALLEYS. By F. E. MATTHES, U. S. Geological Surrey. INTRODUCTION. Many people believe that the Yosemite National Park consists principally of the Yosemite Valley and its bordering heights. The name of the park, indeed, would seem to justify that belief, yet noth­ ing could be further from the truth. The Yosemite Valley, though by far the grandest feature of the region, occupies only a small part of the tract. The famous valley measures but a scant 7 miles in length; the park, on the other hand, comprises no less than 1,124 square miles, an area slightly larger than the State of Rhode Island, or about one-fourth as large as Connecticut. Within this area lie scores of lofty peaks and noble mountains, as well as many beautiful valleys and profound canyons; among others, the Iletch Hetchy Valley and the Tuolumne Canyon, each scarcely less wonderful than the Yosemite Valley itself. Here also are foaming rivers and cool, swift trout brooks; countless emerald lakes that reflect the granite peaks about them; and vast stretches of stately forest, in which many of the famous giant trees of California still survive. The Yosemite National Park lies near the crest of the great alpine range of California, the Sierra Nevada.
  • 9.0 Bibliography

    9.0 Bibliography

    9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archaeological Resources Technology (ART) [Revised by EDAW]. 2007. Historical Context and Archaeological Survey Report for the Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Communication System Upgrade Project. Bates, C. D., and M. J. Lee. 1990. Tradition and Innovation: A Basket History of the Indians of the Yosemite-Mono Lake Area. Yosemite Association, Yosemite National Park. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1953. High Altitude Occupation in the Yosemite National Park Region. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 21:31–32. Berkeley. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1956. An Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of Yosemite National Park. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 34. Berkeley. Bridgman, Roy. 2006-2007. Wildlife Biologist. Stanislaus National Forest. United States Forest Service. Groveland Ranger District. Groveland, CA. December 15 and 18, 2006, and January 10 and February 6, 2007 – Email correspondence and telephone conversation regarding biological resources in the project area. Bunnell, L. H. 1990. Discovery of the Yosemite and the Indian War of 1851 Which Led to That Event. Reprint of the 4th ed., 1911. Yosemite Association, Yosemite National Park, California. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2007. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov>. Accessed March 2007. 2003. HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Utilities and Engineering Bureau. 1992. Structural Rehabilitation Study of Old Moccasin Powerhouse. Appendix H, p.3. January 23. California Department of Forestry (CDF). 2007. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cooperative Efforts. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_er_cefedgov.php. Accessed January 2007. California Department of Conservation (CDC). Stanislaus County 2002-2004 Land Use Conversion.
  • Conservationists and the Battles to Keep Dams out of Yellowstone: Hetch Hetchy Overturned

    Conservationists and the Battles to Keep Dams out of Yellowstone: Hetch Hetchy Overturned

    Conservationists and the Battles to Keep Dams Out of Yellowstone: Hetch Hetchy Overturned Michael J. Yochim Abstract Between 1919 and 1938 irrigation interests in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming repeatedly tried to construct reservoirs in Yellowstone National Park by damming several large park lakes and Bechler Meadows. Conservationists of the time joined forces with Horace Albright and Steven Mather of the National Park Service to oppose the dams. Ultimately successful in all their efforts, their key victory came in 1923 when they defeated an attempt to dam Yellowstone Lake. This victory reversed the loss of protected status for national parks that had occurred just ten years earlier at Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. By chronicling the protracted conflict over dams in Yellowstone, I illustrate that the conservationists (including Mather and Albright) reestablished the funda- mental preservation policy of the national parks and empowered the newly cre- ated National Park Service to carry out its mission of park protection. This effort was the key battle in proving national parks and wilderness to be inviolate to industrial, exploitive uses. Conservationists both defined and tested the inviolate policy in Yellowstone; their battles in Dinosaur National Monument and the Grand Canyon cemented it into place. Introduction Far off, there lies a lovely lake Which rests in beauty, there to take Swift pictures of the changing sky, Ethereal blues, and clouds piled high. When black the sky, when fall the rains, When blow fierce winds, her face remains Still beautiful, but agitate, Nor mirrors back their troubled state. Within a park this treasure lies, — Such region ne’er did man devise — The hand of Mighty God, alone, Could form the Park of Yellowstone.
  • Cal Fire: Creek Fire Now the Largest Single Wildfire in California History

    Cal Fire: Creek Fire Now the Largest Single Wildfire in California History

    Cal Fire: Creek Fire now the largest single wildfire in California history By Joe Jacquez Visalia Times-Delta, Wednesday, September 23, 2020 The Creek Fire is now the largest single, non-complex wildfire in California history, according to an update from Cal Fire. The fire has burned 286,519 acres as of Monday night and is 32 percent contained, according to Cal Fire. The Creek Fire, which began Sept. 4, is located in Big Creek, Huntington Lake, Shaver Lake, Mammoth Pool and San Joaquin River Canyon. Creek Fire damage realized There were approximately 82 Madera County structures destroyed in the blaze. Six of those structures were homes, according to Commander Bill Ward. There are still more damage assessments to be made as evacuation orders are lifted and converted to warnings. Madera County sheriff's deputies notified the residents whose homes were lost in the fire. The Fresno County side of the fire sustained significantly more damage, according to Truax. "We are working with (Fresno County) to come up with away to get that information out," Incident Commander Nick Truax said. California wildfires:Firefighters battle more than 25 major blazes, Bobcat Fire grows Of the 4,900 structures under assessment, 30% have been validated using Fresno and Madera counties assessor records. Related: 'It's just too dangerous': Firefighters make slow progress assessing Creek Fire damage So far, damage inspection teams have counted more than 300 destroyed structures and 32 damaged structures. "These are the areas we can safely get to," Truax said. "There are a lot of areas that trees have fallen across the roads.
  • Geologic Hazards

    Geologic Hazards

    Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Assessment FINAL Specialist Report – GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Thomas Fire –Los Padres N.F. December, 2017 Jonathan Yonni Schwartz – Geomorphologist/geologist, Los Padres NF Introduction The Thomas Fire started on December 4, 2017, near the Thomas Aquinas College (east end of Sulphur Mountain), Ventura County, California. The fire is still burning and as of December 13, 2017, is estimated to have burned 237,500 acres and is 25% contained. Since the fire is still active, the BAER Team analysis is separated into two phases. This report/analysis covers a very small area of the fire above the community of Ojai, California and is considered phase 1 (of 2). Under phase 1 of this BAER assessment, 40,271 acres are being analyzed (within the fire parameter) out of which 22,971 acres are on National Forest Service Lands. The remaining 17,300 acres are divided between County, City and private lands. Out of a total of 40,271 acres that were analyzed, 99 acres were determined to have burned at a high soil burn severity, 19,243 acres at moderate soil burn severity, 12,044 acres at low soil burn severity and 8,885 acres were unburned. All of the above acres including the unburned acres are within the fire parameter. This report describes and assesses the increase in risk from geologic hazards within the Thomas Fire burned area. When evaluating Geologic Hazards, the focus of the “Geology” function on a BAER Team is on identifying the geologic conditions and geomorphic processes that have helped shape and alter the watersheds and landscapes, and assessing the impacts from the fire on those conditions and processes which will affect downstream values at risk.
  • Yosemite Valley Visitor Center

    Yosemite Valley Visitor Center

    k e k e e r e C r Upper C n Yosemite o h y c r Fall n k A a e C e l r Yosemite Point a n C 6936ft y a Lower o 2114m i North Dome e d R t 7525ft i Yosemite n I 2294m m Fall e s ek o re Y U.S. Yosemite Valley Visitor Center C ya Court a Wilderness Center n e Museum Royal Arch T Lower Yosemite Medical Clinic Cascade Fall Trail Washington Columbia YOSEMITE Column Mirror Rock VILLAGE ROYAL Eagle Lake T ARCHES 4094ft Peak H 1248m 7779ft R The Ahwahnee Half Dome 2371m Sentinel Visitor E 8836ft Bridge Parking E North 2693m B Housekeeping Pines Camp 4 R Yosemite Camp Lower O Lodge Pines Chapel Stoneman T Bridge Middle H LeConte Brother E Memorial Road open ONLY to R Lodge pedestrians, bicycles, Ribbon S Visitor Parking and vehicles with Fall Swinging Bridge Curry Village Upper wheelchair emblem Pines Lower placards Sentinel Little Yosemite Valley El Capitan Brother Beach Trailhead for Moran 7569ft Four Mile Trail (summer only) R Point Staircase Mt Broderick i 2307m Trailhead 6706ft 6100 ft b Falls Horse Tail Parking 1859m b 2044m o Fall Trailhead for Vernal n Fall, Nevada Fall, and Glacier Point El Capitan Vernal C 7214 ft Nature Center John Muir Trail r S e e 2199 m at Happy Isles Fall Liberty Cap e n r k t 5044ft 7076ft ve i 4035ft Grizzly Emerald Ri n rced e 1230m 1538m 2157m Me l Peak Pool Silver C Northside Drive ive re Sentinel Apron Dr e North one-way Cathedral k El Capitan e Falls 0 0.5 Kilometer id To Tioga Road, Tuolumne Meadows Bridge Beach hs y ed R ut a y J and Hwy 120; and Hetch Hetchy Merc iv So -w horse trail onl o 0 0.5 Mile er
  • Fuels, Fire Suppression, and the California Conundrum

    Fuels, Fire Suppression, and the California Conundrum

    Fuels, fire suppression, and the California conundrum Eric Knapp U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Redding, CA Bald and Eiler Fires - 2014; Photo: T. Erdody How did we get here? 2018: Most destructive wildfire (Camp Fire) Largest wildfire (Mendocino Complex) Most acres burned in modern CA history 2017: 2nd most destructive wildfire (Tubbs Fire) 2nd largest wildfire (Thomas Fire) Mediterranean climate = fire climate Redding, CA (Elev. 500 ft) 8 100 7 6 80 F) o 5 Wildfire season 4 60 3 Precipitation (in) 2 40 Ave Max.Temp. ( 1 0 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Precipitation Month Temperature • Very productive – grows fuel • Fuel critically dry every summer • Hot/dry = slow decomposition Fire activity through time Shasta-Trinity National Forest (W of Trinity Lake) 1750 1850 1897 Fire return interval 3 years 12 years No fire since 1897 Fuel limited fire regime | Ignition limited fire regime • Fire was historically a combination of indigenous burning and lightning ignitions • Aided travel, hunting, and improved the qualities of culturally important plants • Many early Euro-American settlers initially continued to burn • Forage for grazing animals • Lessened the danger from summer wildfires • Foresters advocated for Halls Flat, A. Wieslander, 1925 suppressing fire • “The virgin forest is certainly less than half stocked, chiefly as one result of centuries of repeated fires” – Show and Kotok 1925 • Believed keeping fire out would be cheaper than treating fuels with fire Burney area, A. Wieslander, 1925 Change in structural variability (trees > 4 in.) 1929 2008 Methods of Cutting Study – Stanislaus National Forest Lack of fire also changed non-forests A.
  • Yosemite Forest Dynamics Plot

    Yosemite Forest Dynamics Plot

    REFERENCE COPY - USE for xeroxing historic resource siuay VOLUME 3 OF 3 discussion of historical resources, appendixes, historical base maps, bibliography YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK / CALIFORNIA Historic Resource Study YOSEMITE: THE PARK AND ITS RESOURCES A History of the Discovery, Management, and Physical Development of Yosemite National Park, California Volume 3 of 3 Discussion of Historical Resources, Appendixes, Historical Base Maps, Bibliography by Linda Wedel Greene September 1987 U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service b) Frederick Olmsted's Treatise on Parks ... 55 c) Significance of the Yosemite Grant .... 59 B. State Management of the Yosemite Grant .... 65 1. Land Surveys ......... 65 2. Immediate Problems Facing the State .... 66 3. Settlers' Claims ........ 69 4. Trails ........%.. 77 a) Early Survey Work ....... 77 b) Routes To and Around Yosemite Valley ... 78 c) Tourist Trails in the Valley ..... 79 (1) Four-Mile Trail to Glacier Point ... 80 (2) Indian Canyon Trail ..... 82 (3) Yosemite Fall and Eagle Peak Trail ... 83 (4) Rim Trail, Pohono Trail ..... 83 (5) Clouds Rest and Half (South) Dome Trails . 84 (6) Vernal Fall and Mist Trails .... 85 (7) Snow Trail ....... 87 (8) Anderson Trail ....... (9) Panorama Trail ....... (10) Ledge Trail 89 5. Improvement of Trails ....... 89 a) Hardships Attending Travel to Yosemite Valley . 89 b) Yosemite Commissioners Encourage Road Construction 91 c) Work Begins on the Big Oak Flat and Coulterville Roads ......... 92 d) Improved Roads and Railroad Service Increase Visitation ......... 94 e) The Coulterville Road Reaches the Valley Floor . 95 1) A New Transportation Era Begins ... 95 2) Later History 99 f) The Big Oak Flat Road Reaches the Valley Floor .
  • Yosemite Roads and Bridges Man WAY B M Eaiimum

    Yosemite Roads and Bridges Man WAY B M Eaiimum

    Yosemite's Bridges STGNEMLAN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION - 1932 YOSEMITE FALLS Yosemite Village A variety of vehicular bridges span the main streams and lesser tributaries in the park. The oldest is the covered bridge at This structure exemplifies the National Park Service Rustic man WAY B m EAiimum Wawona, built as an open-deck structure in 1868 by Galen Style of architecture. Built of reinforced concrete, Ahwahnee Hotel Clark, the first settler and state-appointed Guardian of the the bridge is faced with native granite to blend s Yosemite Grant. In the 1870s it was converted to a covered in with its natural setting. Equestrian bridge by the Washburn brothers, natives of Vermont, who tunnels were designed in conjunction supposedly had it altered to remind them of their home state. with a new park bridle path. Yosemite Lodge Yosemite Rehabilitated by the Park Service in 1956, it can be seen today Drawn by David Fleming, at the Pioneer Yosemite History Center. HAER, 1991 Roads and Bridges Yosemite National Park, California Early bridges were wood and metal trusses. The previous Sentinel Bridge was an uncommon iron bowstring-arch truss. YRL WAWONA COVERED BRIDGE, 1868 The Wawona Tunnel was the longest vehicular tunnel in the Drawn by Dione DeMartelaere, HAER, 1991 West when completed in 1933. Significant for its state-of- Original Appearance the-art engineering, the tunnel played a greater role in Construction of retaining wall on Big Oak Flat Drawn by Dione DeMartelaere and preserving the visible landscape of Yosemite Valley. Road, 1939. YRL Marie-Claude LeSauteur, HAER 1991 Over the ensuing years more timber and iron trusses were built, but these eventually gave way to reinforced concrete structures; 1.
  • San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley Gabriel L

    San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley Gabriel L

    __________________________________________________________________ The Forbidden Water: San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley Gabriel L. Mansfield Gabriel Mansfield is a sophomore history major from Onarga, Illinois. He wrote this paper for Dr. Lynne Curry’s HIS 2500: Historical Writing and Research Methods. After graduation Mr. Mansfield wishes to pursue a career in academic librarianship and double as “Duke Silver” at local jazz clubs. _____________________________________________________________________________ Northwest of the Yosemite Valley, Half Dome, and other iconic landmarks at Yosemite National Park in Northeastern California is a small valley known as Hetch Hetchy. This was a quiet spot that Sierra Club founder, nature lover, and preservationist John Muir described as “a grand landscape garden, [and] one of Nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.”1 At the beginning of the 20th Century, this beautiful expanse drew the attention of the city of San Francisco, which planned to dam the area to create a reservoir to use as a water source. Unfortunately for San Franciscans, this would not be an easy journey because of the stiff opposition to the city’s plan. This resistance would primarily be spearheaded by Muir, whose actions would ultimately not be enough to quell the city’s desire for this new water source. In late 1913, Congress would grant the city permission to begin building a reservoir in Hetch Hetchy Valley. Some of the few instrumental people in this effort to build the dam included: chief forester and conservationist Gifford Pinchot, and James Phelan, the mayor of San Francisco and a dam supporter from the time when the application was first submitted.
  • Mozilla's Shumway Pushes Flash to Off-Ramp (2012, June 7) Retrieved 25 September 2021 From

    Mozilla's Shumway Pushes Flash to Off-Ramp (2012, June 7) Retrieved 25 September 2021 From

    Mozilla's Shumway pushes Flash to off- ramp 7 June 2012, by Nancy Owano hope is that it will work well enough to enable a smooth transition where Flash development stays alive for a few more years if Flash fades as a standard browser plug-in. "Shumway is community-driven and supported by Mozilla," says the project statement. "Integration with Firefox is a possibility if the experiment proves successful." If Shumway does become part of Firefox, Mozilla will enjoy Flash compatibility as standard without having to collaborate with Adobe. Shumway is described as a "clean" solution in that it sidesteps any security issues in the Flash player; there is no Adobe code being run in order to render the (Phys.org) -- Mozilla's experimental project on content. GitHub, a hosting service for development projects, is taking on a happy buzz where developers look Developers have had to put up with a series of at a future that may not include Adobe Flash. The reports and fixes of vulnerability exploits stemming project, called Shumway, is designed to try to from outdated versions of Adobe Flash Player. interpret SWF (Flash files) using browser-standard Flash is nonetheless pervasive; most online video technologies such as HTML5 and JavaScript. Said content uses Flash, which continues to be a key one anonymous Slashdot writer-reflecting general part of browsing; the Web browser plug-in is still developer response-- "All I can say is please and popular and is with all the grousing a principal thank you!" The Shumway project replaces Flash addition for desktop browsing.
  • 2013 Rim Fire Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Summary

    2013 Rim Fire Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Summary

    United States Department of Agriculture 2013 Rim Fire Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Summary Forest Pacific Southwest R5-MR-060 April 2015 Service Region 2013 Rim Fire Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Summary Shelly Crook, Carol Ewell, Becky Estes, Frankie Romero, Lynn Goolsby and Neil Sugihara USDA Forest Service Dec. 1, 2014 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................. 5 Conditions Leading to August 17 ......................................................................5 Chronology of the Rim Fire ..............................................................................8 Sidebar 1. Fight fire with fire ................................................................... 12 Ecological Setting Prior to the Rim Fire .........................................................13 Fire History and Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) ................................15 Severity patterns within the Rim Fire ..............................................................17 Fuel Treatments ......................................................................................... 20 Fuel Treatment Objectives ...............................................................................20 Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring (FTEM) .........................................20 Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Case Studies ............................................ 23 Combined Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatment....................................25 Combined Mechanical and