DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenge of the Big Trees

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Challenge of the Big Trees Challenge of the Big Trees CHALLENGE OF THE BIG TREES Lary M. Dilsaver and William C. Tweed ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association, Inc. CONTENTS NEXT >>> Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/index.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/index.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:17 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) Challenge of the Big Trees Table of Contents COVER LIST OF MAPS LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS FOREWORD PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: The Natural World of the Southern Sierra CHAPTER TWO: The Native Americans and the Land CHAPTER THREE: Exploration and Exploitation (1850-1885) CHAPTER FOUR: Parks and Forests: Protection Begins (1885-1916) CHAPTER FIVE: Selling Sequoia: The Early Park Service Years (1916-1931) CHAPTER SIX: Colonel John White and Preservation in Sequoia National Park (1931- 1947) CHAPTER SEVEN: Two Battles For Kings Canyon (1931-1947) CHAPTER EIGHT: Controlling Development: How Much is Too Much? (1947-1972) CHAPTER NINE: New Directions and A Second Century (1972-1990) APPENDIX A: Visitation Statistics, 1891-1988 APPENDIX B: Superintendents of Sequoia, General Grant, and Kings Canyon National Parks NOTES TO CHAPTERS PUBLISHED SOURCES ARCHIVAL RESOURCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INDEX (omitted from online edition) ABOUT THE AUTHORS http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) List of Maps 1. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Vicinity 2. Important Place Names of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 3. Physical Features of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 4. Natural Vegetation Zones of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 5. Topographic Cross Sections of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 6. Regional Distribution of Native American Groups Circa 1700 7. Pioneer Trails of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 8. Explorations of the California Geological Survey, 1864 9. Mining-Related Development in the Mineral King Area, 1870—1890 10. The Kaweah Colony, 1886—1892 11. Senator John E Miller's 1881 National Park Proposal 12. Sequoia and General Grant National Parks as Established in 1890 13. Sequoia and General Grant National Parks Circa 1910 14. Federal Land Acquisition in Giant Forest, 1916—1921 15. Reproduction of Early National Park Service Proposal to Enlarge Sequoia National Park 16. Sequoia National Park as Enlarged in 1926 17. Sequoia National Park, Major Roads and Trails Circa 1930 18. Giant Forest Development Area, Early 1930s 19. Civilian Conservation Corps Camps, Sequoia National Park, 1933—1942 20. Giant Forest and Vicinity, Late 1930s 21. Highways: Actual and Proposed, 1930s 22. Reproduction of 1920 Los Angeles Proposal for Kings Canyon Hydroelectric Development 23. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks after Act of March 4, 1940 and Presidential Proclamation of June 21, 1940 24. Reproduction of 1947 National Park Service Alternatives for Copper Creek Development 25. Development Proposals for Kings Canyon, 1953 26. Giant Forest Development Area, 1972 27. Wilderness Proposals of 1966 and 1971 28. Proposed Mineral King Ski Resort, 1965—1978 29. Giant Forest/Lodgepole Development Concept Plan, Approved 1980 30. 1976 Development Plan for Kings Canyon 31. National Park Land Acquisition in the Grant Grove Area, 1890—1984 32. Sequoia and Kings Canyon Wilderness as Enacted September 28, 1984 List of Photographs 1. Aerial View of the Giant Forest 2. Early Protection of the General Grant Tree 3. Early Sierra Club Group 4. Cavalry Troops at General Sherman Tree 5. Early Ranger-Guided Nature Walk 6. The First Giant Forest Village 7. Parks Superintendent John Roberts White 8. Opening the Potwisha Civilian Conservation Corps Camp 9. Bear Feeding at Bear Hill http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) 10. Concessions Manager George Mauger 11. Congestion at Giant Forest Village 12. Biologist Lowell Sumner 13. Backcountry Stock Use 14. Park Service Officials in Backcountry 15. Proposed Mineral King Ski Resort Village (omitted from the online edition) Copyright© 1990 Sequoia Natural History Association, Inc. Three Rivers, California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dilsaver, Lary M. Challenge of the big trees : a resource history of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks / Lary M. Dilsaver and William C. Tweed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Sequoia National Park (Calif.)—History. 2. Kings Canyon National Park (Calif.)—History. I. Tweed, William C. II. title. F868,S4D55 1990 979.4'86—dc20 89-70076 CIP ISBN-1-878441-00-0—Hardcover ISBN-1-878441-01-9—Paper <<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>> Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Foreword) Challenge of the Big Trees Foreword MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY ago, in 1933, I accepted a position with the National Park Service in the agency's Region IV, San Francisco office. This was at the height of the Great Depression, and I was very glad to be able to put my newly acquired Master's Degree in Landscape Architecture to work. Soon I was at work in the woods designing and overseeing construction of the Generals Highway, the roadway the National Park Service and the Bureau of Public Roads were constructing to connect Sequoia and General Grant national parks. A few years later I returned to the Sequoia/Kings Canyon region to explore the Kings Canyon back-country on horseback to see if the area met the Service's criteria for inclusion within the national park system. For these reasons Challenge of the Big Trees is for me a very personal and exciting opportunity to renew old memories. Now, as Sequoia National Park celebrates its centennial and Kings Canyon National Park achieves its golden anniversary, I am struck by how much the Sierra has changed since I first went to work in the region. The highway I helped to design now allows nearly a million visitors a year to see the beauties of the southern Sierra, and the Kings Canyon region I studied is now the heart of one of America's greatest wildernesses. Challenge of the Big Trees tells of the changes I have seen and more. It is a story of how the dedication and sustained effort of a small group of interested citizens awakened the consciousness of the American people and their government. As a result, the Sierra's giant sequoias and wonderful high country were saved from selfish destruction. In my lifetime of park work I have witnessed many similar stories; people do make a difference. The story of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks is also a fascinating bit of history. The authors detail not only how the parks came to exist, but also how the parks were repeatedly threatened with over-development, and how they were fortunate enough to ward off those threats. Again the critical efforts of a few key persons made all the difference. All too often national park histories tend to end with the creation of the parks. Challenge of the Big Trees avoids this weakness and explores in substantial detail the critical actions that made the two parks what they are today. As we face the environmental challenges of the future it is wise to review the challenges of the past and the lessons they provide. Much can be learned from reading this book; I commend it to you. —WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR. FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE <<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>> http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/foreword.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:26 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Foreword) Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/foreword.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/foreword.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:26 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Preface) Challenge of the Big Trees Preface NATIONAL PARKS ARE MORE THAN LAND, more than just protected resources, more than policy or law, more than their histories, more than the people who use and love them. Our national parks are places where the people of the United States have undertaken a great and still-evolving experiment. Can a modern society preserve "unimpaired" not just isolated natural features, but entire natural ecosystems while at the same time intensively using them for recreation? Further, should these idealistic goals be pursued through gentle, hands-off protection, or through intense and persistent management? Is it possible to define at what point human use begins to conflict significantly with effective resource preservation? Should the natural ecosystems in national parks be allowed to evolve unimpeded towards some uncertain, but natural, future, or should they be stabilized or frozen to perpetuate the features or systems that attracted public attention to the park in the first place? More than a century after the initiation of this grand American experiment, none of these questions has really been answered. Perhaps in the definitive sense they never will be. Each national park, however, has contributed in its own way to the ongoing debate about what parks really are and how they should be managed. The national park system and the Service that operates it have received increasing attention from scholars in recent years, yet few of these studies have focused in depth on the history of individual parks. It is a premise of this book that our understanding of the national park system can be significantly improved by detailed appraisals at the individual park level.
Recommended publications
  • Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas

    Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1990 Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas Mary Beth Hennessy The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hennessy, Mary Beth, "Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2166. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2166 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. MontanaUniversity of The Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas By Mary Beth Hennessy B.A. University of California Santa Barbara, 1981 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science University of Montana 1990 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School IfthUocJu /f, Date UMI Number: EP35655 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
  • Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed

    Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed

    • D -1:>K 1.2!;EQUOJA-KING$ Ci\NYON NATIONAL PARKS History of the Parks "''' Evaluation of Historic Resources Detennination of Effect, DCP Prepared by • A. Berle Clemensen DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEA.'! NATIONAL PAP.K SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPAR'J'}fENT OF THE l~TERIOR DENVER, COLOR..\DO SEPTEffilER 1975 i i• Pl.EA5!: RETUl1" TO: B&WScans TEallillCAL INFORMAl!tll CfNIEil 0 ·l'i «coo,;- OOIVER Sf:RV!Gf Cf!fT£R llAT!ONAL PARK S.:.'Ma j , • BRIEF HISTORY OF SEQUOIA Spanish and Mexican Period The first white men, the Spanish, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1772. They, however, only observed the Sierra Nevada mountains. None entered the high terrain where the giant Sequoia exist. Only one explorer came close to the Sierra Nevadas. In 1806 Ensign Gabriel Moraga, venturing into the foothills, crossed and named the Rio de la Santos Reyes (River of the Holy Kings) or Kings River. Americans in the San Joaquin Valley The first band of Americans entered the Valley in 1827 when Jedediah Smith and a group of fur traders traversed it from south to north. This journey ushered in the first American frontier as fifteen years of fur trapping followed. Still, none of these men reported sighting the giant trees. It was not until 1833 that members of the Joseph R. 1lalker expedition crossed the Sierra Nevadas and received credit as the first whites to See the Sequoia trees. These trees are presumed to form part of either the present M"rced or Tuolwnregroves. Others did not learn of their find since Walker's group failed to report their discovery.
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The

    Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The

    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
  • John Muir Wilderness

    John Muir Wilderness

    John Muir Wilderness Sierra National Forest +\ The John Muir Wilderness encompasses approxi Group Size mately 584,000 acres in the Sierra and Inyo National Group size is limited to 15 people and 25 head of Forests. It extends along the crest of the Sierra Ne• stock are permitted on overnight trips. vada from Mammoth Lakes southeasterly for 30 miles, and then forks around the boundary of Kings Proper Food Storage Canyon National Park to Crown Valley and Mt. Backcountry and wilderness users are required to store Whitney. food or refuse in a manner designed to keep bears from gaining access to it. Visitors are encouraged to Elevations range from 4,000 feet to 14,496 feet at use bear-resistant food canisters to safeguard food. If Mt. Whitney with many peaks above 12,000 feet. a bear canister is not available, the counter-balance Deep canyons as well as beautiful meadows among method of storing food is also an acceptable method. the many lakes and streams characterize the Wilder ness. The South and Middle Forks of the San Joa• Bear-Resistant Canisters quin River, the North Fork of the Kings River and many creeks, which drain into the Owens Valley, These portable containers are the only effective way originate in the John Muir Wilderness. for backpackers to store food in wilderness. Each can ister weighs less than 3 pounds, fits in a full-sized Stands of jeffery and lodgepole pine, incense cedar, backpack, and is capable of holding up to 3 to 5 day’s and red and white fir can be found on the lower west worth of food for one person.
  • Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report

    Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report

    Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report Prepared by Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners for Tulare County Association of Govenments 11 February 2008 Executive Summary As part of an agreement with the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners (TBWP) visited nine potential riparian and wildlife corridors in Tulare County during summer 2007. We developed a numerical ranking system and determined the five corridors with highest potential for conservation, recreation and conjunctive uses. The selected corridors include: Deer Creek Riparian Corridor, Kings River Riparian Corridor, Oaks to Tules Riparian Corridor, Lewis Creek Riparian Corridor, and Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Corridor. For each corridor, we provide a brief description and a summary of attributes and opportunities. Opportunities include flood control, groundwater recharge, recreation, tourism, and wildlife. We also provide a brief description of opportunities for an additional eight corridors that were not addressed in depth in this document. In addition, we list the Measure R transportation improvements and briefly discuss the potential wildlife impacts for each of the projects. The document concludes with an examination of other regional planning efforts that include Tulare County, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, the Tulare County Bike Path Plan, the TBWP’s Sand Ridge-Tulare Lake Plan, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the USFWS Upland Species Recovery Plan. Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, 2/11/2008 Page 2 of 30 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Goals and Objectives………………………...……………………………………………. 4 Tulare County Corridors……………………..……………………………………………. 5 Rankings………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Corridors selected for Detailed Study…………………………………………….. 5 Deer Creek Corridor………………………………………………………. 5 Kings River Corridor……………………………………………………… 8 Oaks to Tules Corridor…………………………………..………………… 10 Lewis Creek East of Lindsay……………………………………………… 12 Cottonwood Creek………………………………………...……………….
  • Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Page 1 Of

    Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Page 1 Of

    Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Response and Concern Status Report Generated: 6/22/2018 12:48 PM Project: Chetco Fire Salvage Project (53150) Comment Period: Other - 30-Day Comment and ESD Comment Period Period Dates: 4/16/2018 - 5/16/2018 and 5/18/2018 - 6/18/2018 Name Comment Text Response Text Comment # ESD Comments Received 5/18/2018 - 6/18/2018 Vaile, Joseph 1-2 An ESD may prove counterproductive to the goals of the agency, if it The Forest Service has been engaging the public in a robust and thorough process since the prevents meaningful mitigation measures to the proposed action. The Chetco Bar fire began. Refer also to the response to comment 1-1 for more information on use of the ESD may prevent the Forest Service from engaging the public design criteria and evaluation for feasibility. in a robust and thorough planning process that could be accomplished through an objection process. Page 1 of 341 Chetco Bar Fire Salvage Project Comment Analysis Name Comment Text Response Text 1-5 Please note that the discussion of the agency's desire for an ESD at page The EA states "An additional consideration is the health and safety of forest visitors and 2-6 of the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage EA makes reference to a concern for nearby private landowners due to numerous dead trees, as well as Forest Service staff and "the health and safety of forest visitors." We wholeheartedly agree that forest industry workers working in the Chetco Bar Fire Salvage project area. Traveling or this is a legitimate concern.
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1

    Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1

    Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
  • The Influence of Several Factors of Site on the Giant Sequoias }Ames D

    The Influence of Several Factors of Site on the Giant Sequoias }Ames D

    THE INFLUENCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS OF SITE ON THE GIANT SEQUOIAS }AMES D. BLICK San Diego State College The Giant Sequoias (Sequoia gigantea or Sequoiadendron giganteum) are among the more interesting members of the earth's B.ora. Their great age and size has attracted attention since the trees were first classified by John Lindley in 1853. Specimens of these trees have been planted and grow in over 50 differ­ ent localities in the world. However, they occur natively only in a narrow belt 220 miles long by about 10 miles wide between approximately 4400 and 8000 feet elevation on the western or windward slope of the Sierra Nevada in Central California. Within this belt the Sequoias occur in a series of about 70 groves, each definitely separated from the other (Figure 1 ) . The aggregate area usually included in the groves is slightly less than 36,000 acres. The distribution of groves, moreover, is not even. Except for 8 groves, the bulk is concentrated in the southernmost one-third of the belt in which they occur. These are: Redwood Mountain (RM),l Giant Forest (GF), Converse Basin (CB), and Windy Gulch (WG) between the King's River and the Middle Fork of the Kaweah; Garfield Grove (G) on the South Fork of the Kaweah; Mountain Home (MH) in the Tule River drainage. Groves on both ends of the Sequoia belt are small in area and contain relatively few mature giants. It was this very spotty and limited occurrance of the Giant Sequoias which led the author to investigate some aspects of their ecology in hopes of accounting for the present pattern of growth.
  • Copyrighted Material

    Copyrighted Material

    INDEX See also Accommodations and Restaurant indexes, below. GENERAL INDEX American Express emergency Battery Chamberlain (San number, 246 Francisco), 36 America the Beautiful- Bayleaf Trail, 142 AA (American Automobile A National Parks and Federal Bayporter Express (San Fran- Association), 13, 14, 243 Recreational Lands Pass, 19 cisco Bay area), 34 Abalone Point, 115, 117 Amtrak, 14, 15 Beaches. See also specific Abbotts Lagoon, 255 to San Francisco, 34 beaches Access America, 246 Andrew Molera State Park, Lake Tahoe, 212 Accommodations. See also 6, 92–95 north of San Francisco, Accommodations Index Angel Island, 3 102–104, 107, 109, 111, best, 8 Angel Island State Park, 117, 118, 120–122, 126 the coast north of San 46–49 Redwood National and Francisco, 128–129 Ano Nuevo Island, 85 State Parks, 256–257 the coast south of San Ano Nuevo Point, 84, 87 San Francisco Bay area, Francisco, 97–98 Ano Nuevo Point Trail, 85 36, 56, 59, 74, 77 Death Valley National Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, south of San Francisco, 240–241 3, 84–87 87, 93 green-friendly, 18 Arch Rock, 68, 70 Bear Valley, 2–3, 68–70 Lake Tahoe, 221–222 Area codes, 243 Bear Valley Trail, 68, 70, 72 San Francisco Bay area, Ash Mountain Entrance Bear Valley Visitor Center, 78–79 (Sequoia National 35, 68 Sequoia & Kings Canyon Park), 186 Beaver Creek, 145 National Parks, 203–204 The Association of British Belgum Trail, 49 tipping, 248–249 Insurers, 245 Ben Johnson Trail, 59–60 toll-free numbers & web- Atwell Mill Campground, 204 Bennett Peak, 240 sites for, 253–254 Australia Berry
  • Alta Peak Chapter California Native Plant Society

    Alta Peak Chapter California Native Plant Society

    CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Insignis Newsletter of the Alta Peak Chapter, celebrating and supporting the native plant communities in Tulare County, serving the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada Mountains and Foothills. Volume 20, Number 3 June 2010 Fall Chapter Program President’s Report Native Plant Sale Local Native Plant Native Plant Gardens Contact Information by Mary Gorden Joan tells us what’s up Native American Nursery Read about the five Join our Chapter Board The Ethnobotany of the with our Chapter... Basketweavers event at by Cathy Capone public native plant of Directors. Native Americans who Page 2 Kaweah Oaks Preserve The story of how she gardens in Three Page 7 lived in the Kaweah Fall Plant Workshops Page 1 started her Cal Natives Rivers, planted by the River Watershed... Intermountain Nursery Green Faire and Green nursery in Porterville... Redbud Garden Club Page 1 and 3 has plant workshops... Home Tour Page 5 Page 4 Page 7 4th Annual Three CNPS Conservation New Law Passed Rivers Environmental Conference in 2012 Join CNPS California Native Plant Weekend events Planning is in progress. Membership form Week in April... Page 6 Can you help? Page 8 Page 2 Page 7 Annual Native Plant Sale Fall Chapter Program October 2, 2010 from 9-1 pm October 2, 2010 2 pm Three Rivers Arts Center, North Fork Drive Three Rivers Arts Center, North Fork Drive *Deadline for submitting pre-orders is September 20.* What’s Cooking in the Foothills 600 Years Ago? Plants are provided by Intermountain Nursery in Prather and Native Americans and Our Local Native Plants Cal Native Nursery in Porterville.
  • Wilderness Trail Names and Quotas for Inyo National Forest

    Wilderness Trail Names and Quotas for Inyo National Forest

    Wilderness Trail Names and Quotas for Inyo National Forest • Quota is the number of people that can start at the listed location each day. • Permit is only valid to start on specific entry date and location reserved. • (JMT) or (PCT) indicates trail connects to the John Muir Trail or Pacific Crest Trail. • Information about quotas, commercial use, wilderness permit requirements on page 3. • For help identifying what quota applies for a trip, contact our wilderness permit office. Trail Name Trail Total Reserve Reserve Commercial Code Quota (6 month (2 weeks Quota – Notes* advance) advance) Baker Lakes JM22 8 5 3 Special Approval Baxter Pass (JMT) JM29 8 5 3 Special Approval Beck Lake AA12 15 9 6 *Single quota Big Pine Creek North Fork JM23 25 15 10 15 (PO); 8 (O/G) Big Pine Creek South Fork JM24 12 7 5 *Single quota Birch Lake JM25 8 5 3 Special Approval Bishop Pass (JMT) JM21 36 22 14 15 Blackrock GT66 Non Quota--Unlimited Bloody Canyon AA03 8 5 3 Special Approval Convict Creek JM04 10 6 4 *Single quota Cottonwood Lakes JM39 60 36 24 15 Cottonwood Pass (PCT) GT60 40 24 16 Non-quota Deer Lakes JM0 10 6 4 *Single quota Duck Pass (JMT) JM01 30 18 12 15 Fern Lake AA13 10 6 4 *Single quota Fish Creek AA14 15 9 6 15 Gable Lakes JM12 8 5 3 Special Approval George Creek - Mt. Williamson JM33 8 5 3 Special Approval George Lake JM18 10 6 4 *Single quota Gibbs Lake AA02 8 5 3 *Single quota Glacier Canyon AA01 8 5 3 *Single quota Golden Trout Lakes (Onion JM30 10 6 4 Special Approval Valley) Haiwee Pass (PCT) SS64 Non Quota--Unlimited High Trail –PCT