California Forest Service Wiki Changes

[SCPD]

Bill, I have very limited information for remote bases and links. Some people have, in the past, expressed an interest in gathering what we know and including it in the database or included on Wiki pages. This is real hard info to get a hold of. If people understand the difference between a remote base and a repeater and understand how UHF linking works then I would welcome having the information to include on the Wiki pages. Trouble is, a lot of members don't understand those things very well. They don't have the experience needed to determine the frequencies, figure out if it is a downlink, uplink to a remote base or the links between two remote bases, or as in the case of the Toiyabe National Forest, the UHF links between every repeater and the combination federal and Nevada State microwave systems that links the radio system for the entire Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest statewide.

My take on it has been, if we can't present a large portion of the data, then we don't include it at all. A UHF frequency here and there for each forest, which has not been verified as to its use or location doesn't seem to be enough to occupy space on the database or Wiki pages.

I know that the Angeles, Plumas, Lassen and Shasta-T have extensive microwave linking. Any NF channel plan that has a notation that dispatch and district offices can be reached using the simplex channel of each net and using a particular tone most likely uses microwave for linking. Often each repeater site has both a repeater and a microwave linked remote base, or the majority of their sites has such a setup. I know very little of the Modoc - it is one forest I never fought a fire on or had a temporary assignment on.

Having the total picture of a radio system, knowing where every remote base is and how those bases are linked is very valuable. If you are camping or backpacking on a forest and are within range of a UHF linked remote base you can often hear all the traffic on the entire forest.

 

[kma371]

Silverspy, in the future just use the existing thread rather than creating a new thread. I've merged your post with this one.

 

[silverspy]

OK,will do.

 

[silverspy]

Shasta-Trinity NF District Nets

Hello everyone.
Here are the new frequencies for the Shasta-Trinity NF District Nets:
South Fork Management Unit 167.225
Trinity River Management Unit 168.9625
Mt.Shasta-McCloud Management Unit 166.9875
Shasta Lake Management Unit 167.725

All Tones remain the same (167.9-Tone 7)

I also submitted the info for the database to be updated. I really don't know how to update the Wiki, so that is why I am making this post. Happy Holidays everyone. Thanks,
Bill

 

[SCPD]

Bill, I prefer to update the Wiki pages as I have the best information available for maintaining them.

I made a small edit today for the Sierra NF. I recently found some several year old information that mentioned that law enforcement uses the Admin Net and that fire management uses the Emergency Net. Fire units stay on the Emergency Net all the time, except when they need to call any other type of unit. I've confirmed this as I can receive a couple of the repeaters on each net here on the east side of the Sierra.

 

[SCPD]

Hello everyone.
Here are the new frequencies for the Shasta-Trinity NF District Nets:
South Fork Management Unit 167.225
Trinity River Management Unit 168.9625
Mt.Shasta-McCloud Management Unit 166.9875
Shasta Lake Management Unit 167.725

All Tones remain the same (167.9-Tone 7)

I also submitted the info for the database to be updated. I really don't know how to update the Wiki, so that is why I am making this post. Happy Holidays everyone. Thanks,
Bill

Bill,

Somehow the new management unit nets fell through the cracks when I last revised the Wiki pages. I will take care of my oversight shortly. The Shasta-T must have made these changes over last (2014-2015) winter, but I can't confirm that. My 2014 information is cubbyholed upstairs and I can't get up there without a fair share of effort by both my wife and I.

I apologize for the oversight as these changes are dated 1-29-15. I don't know how many people listen to these nets, but if anyone monitored what I had listed and didn't hear anything, I may have caused them to lose hearing a lot of traffic. Sorry.

 

[silverspy]

Thanks. I looked at the database and noticed that it shows the new Shasta-Trinity Forest Net frequencies as being the same as the new Shasta-Trinity Service Net frequencies. But when I looked at the Wiki, it still shows the original Forest Net frequencies. Are they using the new Service Net Frequency pair as the new Forest Net, or is this a "typo"? I figure at some point, they will have to change the input frequency of the Forest Net, as it does not fit the NTIA "structure". Could someone please clarify? Thanks again. Sorry if I double posted this reply, but I might have accidentally hit a button,
Bill

 

[SCPD]

My Wiki page tables are based on data from several sources, some is from official materials and some from current employees. I have no idea of the source the database administrator received to justify showing what we think is the service net for the forest as the forest net. It may be a temporary change while the Forest Net is being modified. It makes little sense that the long term forest net uses one of the two service net frequencies being used in California, 171.5000 and 172.4000. Nearly every National Forest in California is changing service net frequencies to utilize these two frequencies and the assignment of them is being done in hopscotch manner to reduce interference between forests.

I would like to know the source of the database administrator's information. I will send him a PM and try to get some details. In the meantime I will keep the database the same, based on the information sources I have.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

 

[silverspy]

Yes, I agree. It does not make any sense to use a Service Net as the Forest Net and I have never heard of such a thing in my 23 or so years of monitoring Forest Service traffic on the West Coast. And like you, don't post any information unless it's from an official document or something I've actually seen in a facility or such. I know it's the holidays,and in addition, there is probably not much traffic this time of year, but maybe someone from the area of the Shasta-Trinity can help shed some light on this mystery. Merry Christmas everyone. Bill

 

[kma371]

I would like to know the source of the database administrator's information. I will send him a PM and try to get some details. In the meantime I will keep the database the same, based on the information sources I have.

Are you talking about my edit? That came from your wiki entry which you have since removed, so what should it be because I'm changing the DB around based on your info.

 

[silverspy]

Merry Christmas everyone. If I may interject for a moment. It looks to me like some sort of confusion may have happened when ExSmokey updated the Wiki for the Shasta-Trinity, with the new District Nets and also added the frequencies for the new Service Net, that somehow resulted in information being received by KMA371, that ultimately ended up in him editing the Forest Net in the database, and somehow it reading the same as the Service Net, which we all three know is not an impossible situation,but not too likely for them to be using the Service Net as the Forest Net, unless like ExSmokey said that they are working on the Forest Net and just using the Service Net temporarily. I know that this statement is pretty much purely conjecture, but If I were them, I would take the old input to the Klamath NF and use it as the new input to the Shasta-Trinity Forest Net, since it does appear that they are "reusing" frequencies in new situations. On another note, I am one hundred percent certain that the new District Nets for the Shasta-Trinity are accurate,not quite certain if they are operating yet, but I think that they are;guess we won't really know until someone from the area gives us feedback. Looking at all the frequencies, one of the old District Net frequencies for the Shasta-Trinity, is now the Orange Net for the Klamath NF and another is slated to be the Forest Net for the Six Rivers. One more thing I was thinking about, I don't see it very likely using (even temporarily) the Shasta-Trinity Service Net as the Forest Net, because last time I knew, they only had one Service Net site, and that was on Shasta Bally. Thanks again,
Bill

 

[kma371]

OK so the question remains, what needs to be changed.

 

[kma371]

Never mind, I just changed it back to its original. Just make a submission if it changes.

 

[silverspy]

Thanks. Could you please also change the District Net Frequencies to the new ones, when you get a chance. I tried to get ahold of you, but had some challenges responding to the note you added. I'm certain that they are accurate. Thnaks,
Bill

 

[SCPD]

kma371 kept it right, they are "Management Unit" nets, not "District Nets." The management units consist of at least two ranger districts. It may seem like a small detail, but the database should be a huge collection of details, all of which we should get right.

Many national forests are not consolidating ranger districts and are combining them into management units with one district ranger per management unit, some establish a deputy district ranger to oversee one of the ranger districts. This has been done on the Inyo NF where there is a south management unit with the district ranger in Bishop overseeing the White Mtn. and Mt Whitney Ranger Districts, with a deputy district ranger in Lone Pine. The north zone consists of the Mammoth and Mono Lake Ranger Districts with a deputy at Lee Vining. Other forests have actually disbanded ranger districts and combined them with an adjacent one, sometimes giving the new district the name of both former ranger districts such as "the Pine Hill/Bear Peak Ranger District." Some are just coming up with a brand new name. Some keep both ranger stations open with various staff located at each office. Some take all the primary district staff to one ranger stations and turn the other facility into a work center with lower level field staff remaining at the old facility. Some sell the old facility if it is isolated some distance from the main body of the national forest. Some facilities are leased and those leases get cancelled or are allowed to expire.

All of this is done to deal with decreasing budgets. I think it is all harmful as people become more removed from the resource. If a GS-11 staff officer (primary assistant to a district ranger, called an officer in R5, such as the Recreation Officer) does not have enough time to get in the field very much on a district, guess what happens when you give that person the same responsibility for two districts?

 

[SCPD]

I have previously posted that in other Forest Service regions the use of NIFC Tacs 1-3 is ending for initial attack. Other regions are picking up 3 tacticals to replace the NIFC tacs, which are to be reserved for national incidents (Type I and II teams) only. California has had its own regional tacticals for quite some time, prior to other regions having their own tactical assignments, however, the 3 have been used on national incidents, with very little use for initial attack until the last 2-4 years.

I've come across some official correspondence from Region 5 (USFS Pacific Southwest Region) that use of NIFC Tacs 1 and 3 will require GACC (Geographical Area Coordination Center, North Ops and South Ops) authorization to use on any fire. For some reason the use of Tac 2, 168.2000 is going to continue for an unknown period of time. The memo states that R5 Tacs 4 and 5 are to be used for initial attack along with NIFC Tac 2. I can't figure out why all 3 R5 Tacs are not mentioned and why NIFC Tac 2 can be used for initial attack in California.

It is possible, due to the long term widespread use of NIFC Tac 2 in R5, that this last year was a year in transition with the initial attack use of NIFC Tac 2 coming to an end in a future year. I also think that it is possible R5 will get more regional tacticals or NIFC will get more tacticals. With multi-branch or multi-zone fires becoming more common, it appears 6 national tacticals is not enough. We've seen a huge increase in the use of command net frequency assignment, but not in tacticals. With half of the Forest Service budget for fire management being spent in California, I think some changes are likely.

 

[fireinoc]

NIFC T2 is authorized for use by numerous Fed/State/Local agencies in mutual threat plans such as SOLAR and PROS in Southern California. It's my understanding that 168.200 will continue to be authorized for use for at least another year until a new frequency is identified and response partners have the opportunity to reprogram.

 

[f40ph]

In R5, everything will be year-to-year until the 2019 fed freq restructuring deadline passes. Then we'll see some stability.

 

[scottyhetzel]

NIFC T2 is authorized for use by numerous Fed/State/Local agencies in mutual threat plans such as SOLAR and PROS in Southern California. It's my understanding that 168.200 will continue to be authorized for use for at least another year until a new frequency is identified and response partners have the opportunity to reprogram.

I know of solar but what is pros? Please

 

[B]

I know of solar but what is pros? Please

It's the communications plan for Camp Pendleton, Riverside, Orange County and San Diego