DOCSLIB.ORG

A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 11A – Giant Sequoias

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 11A – Giant Sequoias National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 11a – Giant Sequoias Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.11a ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 11a – Giant Sequoias Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.11a Robert A. York Tadashi Moody Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy, and Spatial Informatics Group Management www.sig-gis.com Center for Forestry, UC Berkeley 4501 Blodgett Forest Road Anthony C. Caprio Georgetown, CA 95634 Division of Resources Management and Science Nathan L. Stephenson Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological 47050 General’s Highway Research Center Three Rivers, CA 93271 Sequoia - Kings Canyon Field Station 47050 Generals Highway #4 John J. Battles Three Rivers, CA 93271 Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management Marc Meyer UC Berkeley USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 137 Mulford Hall Region Berkeley, CA 94720 1600 Tollhouse Road Clovis, CA 93611 Steve Hanna USDA Forest Service, Giant Sequoia National Monument 1839 South Newcomb Street Porterville, CA 93257 June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This document contains subject matter expert interpretation of the data. The authors of this document are responsible for the technical accuracy of the information provided. The parks refrained from providing substantive administrative review to encourage the experts to offer their opinions and ideas on management implications based on their assessments of conditions. Some authors accepted the offer to cross the science/management divide while others preferred to stay firmly grounded in the presentation of only science-based results. While the authors’ interpretations of the data and ideas/opinions on management implications were desired, the results and opinions provided do not represent the policies or positions of the parks, the NPS, or the U.S. Government. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: York, R. A., N. L. Stephenson, M. Meyer, S. Hanna, T. Moody, A. C. Caprio, and J. J. Battles. 2013. A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 11a – giant sequoias. Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/NRR—2013/665.11a. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 102/121034, June 2013 ii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................. v Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii Appendices .................................................................................................................................... vii Scope of analysis............................................................................................................................. 1 Critical questions ............................................................................................................................ 3 Reference conditions ....................................................................................................................... 5 Predicted stationary age distribution for giant sequoia ............................................................ 5 Repeated prescribed fire effects on giant sequoia regeneration .............................................. 9 High severity disturbance effects on regeneration ................................................................. 10 Burned substrate effects on recruitment ................................................................................ 12 Spatial and temporal analyses ....................................................................................................... 17 Grove locations ...................................................................................................................... 17 Fire Return Interval Departure – the primary metric of grove condition .............................. 17 Snow-dominated precipitation ............................................................................................... 18 Ozone concentration .............................................................................................................. 19 Precipitation and maximum/minimum average temperature ................................................. 19 Climatic water deficit ............................................................................................................ 19 Size structures within groves ................................................................................................. 20 Size structure by agency ........................................................................................................ 20 Departure index shifts- An approach for detecting change in grove size structure ............... 24 Size structures of individual groves ....................................................................................... 24 Analysis of Uncertainty ................................................................................................................ 27 Interactions with other focal resources ......................................................................................... 27 iii Contents (continued) Page Stressors ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Air quality .............................................................................................................................. 28 Land use/fragmentation ......................................................................................................... 29 Climate change ...................................................................................................................... 31 Invasive species ..................................................................................................................... 34 Altered fire regimes ............................................................................................................... 35 Emergent disease complexes ................................................................................................. 36 Giant sequoia in a novel environment ................................................................................... 39 Inter-grove assessment ........................................................................................................... 40 Groves at elevation extremes ............................................................................................ 40 Small groves...................................................................................................................... 40 Groves with extreme fire return interval departures ......................................................... 41 Groves with persistent and large climatic water deficit .................................................... 41 Level of confidence in assessment ................................................................................................ 43 Monitoring and Inventory ...................................................................................................... 45 Basic research ........................................................................................................................ 45 Active adaptive management experiments ............................................................................ 46 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 47 iv Figures Page Figure 1. Predicted and actual age distributions from two locations not experiencing fire during the 20th century (top
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-Creation of the Tribal Identity On
    From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican Contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 By Kumiko Noguchi B.A. (University of the Sacred Heart) 2000 M.A. (Rikkyo University) 2003 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Native American Studies in the Office of Graduate Studies of the University of California Davis Approved Steven J. Crum Edward Valandra Jack D. Forbes Committee in Charge 2009 i UMI Number: 3385709 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. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3385709 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Kumiko Noguchi September, 2009 Native American Studies From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Abstract The main purpose of this study is to show the path of tribal development on the Tule River Reservation from 1776 to 1936. It ends with the year of 1936 when the Tule River Reservation reorganized its tribal government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth and Colonization of Western Redcedar by Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Fumigated and Nonfumigated Nursery Beds
    Tree Planter's Notes, Volume 42, No. 4 (1991) Growth and Colonization of Western Redcedar by Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Fumigated and Nonfumigated Nursery Beds S. M. Berch, E. Deom, and T. Willingdon Assistant professor and research assistant, Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, and manager, Surrey Nursery, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Surrey, BC Western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) VAM. Positive growth responses of up to 20 times the seedlings were grown in a bareroot nursery bed that had nonmycorrhizal controls occurred under conditions of limited been fumigated with methyl bromide. Seedlings grown in soil phosphorus. Incense-cedar, redwood, and giant sequoia fumigated beds were stunted and had purple foliage. seedlings in northern California nursery beds are routinely Microscopic examination showed that roots from these inoculated with Glomus sp. (Adams et al. 1990), as seedlings were poorly colonized by mycorrhizae, and only by experience has shown that the absence of VAM after soil fine vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. In contrast, roots from fumigation leads to phosphorus deficiency and poor growth. seedlings grown in non-fumigated beds had larger shoots and When western redcedars in fumigated transplant beds at green foliage and were highly colonized by both fine and the British Columbia Ministry of Forest's Surrey Nursery coarse vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. Tree Planters' began to show signs of phosphorus deficiency, a deficiency Notes 42(4):14-16; 1991. of mycorrhizal colonization was suspected. Many studies have demonstrated improved P status of VAM-inoculated Species of cypress (Cupressaceae) and yew plants (see Harley and Smith 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia Insect, Disease, and Ecosystem Interactions1
    Giant Sequoia Insect, Disease, and Ecosystem Interactions1 Douglas D. Piirto2 Abstract: Individual trees of giant sequoia (Sequoia gigantea [Lindl.] afflict and kill other trees." Similarly Hartesveldt (1962) Decne.) have demonstrated a capacity to attain both a long life and very concurred that "Sequoia's longevity and great size have large size. It is not uncommon to find old-growth giant sequoia trees in their native range that are 1,500 years old and over 15 feet in diameter at been attributed by nearly all writers, popular and scientific, breast height. The ability of individual giant sequoia trees to survive over to its few insect and fungus parasites and the remarkable such long periods of time has often been attributed to the species high resistance of the older trees to damage or death by fire. resistance to disease, insect, and fire damage. Such a statement, however, is There is no record of an individual sequoia living in its a gross oversimplification, given broader ecosystem and temporal interac- tions. For example, why isn't there a greater representation of young-growth natural range as having been killed by either fungus or insect giant sequoia trees throughout the mixed-conifer belt of the Sierra Nevadas? attack." Even as recently as 1991 Harlow and others (1991) What other factors, in addition to physical site characteristics, limit giant stated: "Insects and fungi cause but minor damage, and no sequoia to its present range and grove boundaries? How does fire and fire large Bigtree killed by them has ever been found." frequency affect disease and insect interrelationships in the giant sequoia/ mixed-conifer ecosystem? Are current forest management strategies (e.g., It is finally being recognized that giant sequoia is fire suppression, prescribed burning programs) affecting these interactions? subject to the same natural forces as other tree species (Bega Giant sequoia trees are subject to the same natural forces (e.g., insect and 1964, Harvey and others 1980, Parmeter 1987, Piirto 1977, disease organisms) as other tree species.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests
    Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are Coast Redwood and Giant Sequoia Not Where They Are Not?1
    Proceedings of the Coast Redwood Science Symposium—2016 Why Are Coast Redwood And Giant Sequoia Not Where They Are Not?1 2 W.J. Libby Abstract Models predicting future climates and other kinds of information are being developed to anticipate where these two species may fail, where they may continue to thrive, and where they may colonize, given changes in climate and other elements of the environment. Important elements of such predictions, among others, are: photoperiod; site qualities; changes in levels and yearly patterns of temperature, wind, fog and precipitation; the effects of these on interactions with other biota at each site; the effects of changes in fire frequency and intensity; the availability of seeds and seed vectors; and the effects of human activity. Examples are presented, with focus on fire and human activity. Natural migration may need assistance. Establishing groves far from the native ranges is advocated. Keywords: assisted colonization, assisted migration, climate change, fire, Sequoia, Sequoiadendron When preparing this talk and then paper, it became increasingly clear that it is more of an Op-Ed than a comprehensive review, and is meant for people interested in and familiar with coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) and giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Buchholz). Thus, four background references are provided, and they in turn provide detail on many of the topics covered. The final two references provide background on future speculative scenarios. Possible responses to such future scenarios are suggested. Coast redwood’s current natural latitudinal range begins with discontinuous canyon-bottom populations near the southern Monterey County border, extends north through increasingly- continuous coastal and generally-separated interior populations, and stops just north of the Oregon/California border.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks 1
    in: Aune, rnuip s., teen, coora. iyy*. rroceeainss oi me symposium on uian. sc^uiaa. '«'" ^.o^c ... the ecotystea and society; 1992 June 23-25; Visalia, CA. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 109-115. Objects or Ecosystems? PUB #267 Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks 1 David J. Parsons2 Abstract: Policies and programs aimed at protecting giant sequoia the effects of such external threats as air pollution and (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in the national parks of the Sierra Nevada projected human induced climadc change. The challenges have evolved from the protection of individual trees to the preservation of entire ecosystems. We now recognize that the long-term preservation of associated with assuring the long-term preservation of giant giant sequoia depends on our ability to minimize and mitigate the influences sequoia have become increasingly complicated as we have of human activities. National Park Service management strategies for giant learned more about the complexity and inter-relatedness of sequoia focus on the restoration of native ecosytem processes. This includes the greater Sierra Nevada ecosystem. the use of prescribed fire to simulate natural ignitions as well as the movement of visitor facilities out of the groves. Basic research is being This paper briefly reviews the history of giant sequoia carried out to improve our understanding of the factors infuencing giant management in the National Parks of the Sierra Nevada, sequoia reproduction, growth, and survival. Future management decisions emphasizing a gradually improved understanding of giant must recognize that giant sequoia are only part of a complex ecosystem; they sequoia ecosystems and how management has attempted to cannot be managed as objects in isolation of their surroundings.
    [Show full text]
  • Pier Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project Scoping Comments for Sequoia Forestkeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club
    René Voss – Attorney Natural Resources Law PROTECTING 15 Alderney Road ATURAL San Anselmo, CA 94960 N RESOURCES [email protected] Tel: 415-446-9027 _____________________________________________________________________________ Sent to: March 21, 2018 [email protected] Eric LaPrice – District Ranger cc: Ara Marderosian Amarina Wuenschel – Team Leader Ann Carlson Western Divide Ranger District Chad Hanson 32588 Highway 190 Justin Augustine Springville, CA 93265 Steve Montgomery Subject: Pier Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project Scoping Comments for Sequoia ForestKeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club (the Club) thank you for the opportunity to comment. 1. Hazard tree mitigation along roads considered for decommissioning should be dropped In October, 2014, in its attempts to resolve objections to the Tule River Reservation Protection Project (TRRPP), the Forest Service agreed to begin scoping a project to decommissioning six (6) road segments now included in this proposal, stating that “The project will analyze the impacts of decommissioning spur roads No. 21S12B, 21S25A, 21S25B, 21S25C, and 21S25D in the [Black Mountain] grove that do not lead to private property, as well as approximately the last half mile of Road No. 21S25.” Attachment A, p. 1 (Oct. 15, 2014, letter from District Ranger Rick Stevens). Moreover, in his objection decision Forest Supervisor Kevin Elliott stated that “the Forest Service will not implement shaded fuel breaks on any of these road segments pending the completion of the decommissioning project; the shaded fuel breaks will be dropped from the project on any segments selected for decommissioning.
    [Show full text]
  • AFRC-Amicus-Brief-Pe
    No. 20-97 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN’S ASS’N, et al., Petitioners, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL SUPPORTING PETITIONERS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- DAVID O. BECHTOLD LAWSON E. FITE NORTHWEST RESOURCE Counsel of Record LAW PLLC SARA GHAFOURI 1500 S.W. First Avenue, AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE Suite 985 COUNCIL Portland, OR 97201 700 N.E. Multnomah Street, Suite 320 Portland, OR 97232 (503) 222-9505 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the Presi- dent to declare national monuments to protect certain objects “situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government.” 54 U.S.C. §320301(a). The boundaries of such monuments must be the “smallest area compatible with the proper care . of the objects to be protected.” Id. §320301(b).
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Position and the Scientific Name of the Big Tree Known As Sequoia Gigantea
    The Taxonomic Position and the Scientific Name of the Big Tree known as Sequoia gigantea HAROLD ST. JOHN and ROBERT W. KRAUSS l FOR NEARLY A CENTURY it has been cus­ ing psychological document, but its major,ity tomary to classify the big tree as Sequoia gigan­ vote does not settle either the taxonomy or tea Dcne., placing it in the same genus with the nomenclature of the big tree. No more the only other living species, Sequoia semper­ does the fact that "the National Park Service, virens (Lamb.) End!., the redwood. Both the which has almost exclusive custodY of this taxonomic placement and the nomenclature tree, has formally adopted the name Sequoia are now at issue. Buchholz (1939: 536) pro­ gigantea for it" (Dayton, 1943: 210) settle posed that the big tree be considered a dis­ the question. tinct genus, and he renamed the tree Sequoia­ The first issue is the generic status of the dendron giganteum (Lind!.) Buchholz. This trees. Though the two species \differ con­ dassification was not kindly received. Later, spicuously in foliage and in cone structure, to obtain the consensus of the Calif.ornian these differences have long been generally botanists, Dayton (1943: 209-219) sent them considered ofspecific and notofgeneric value. a questionnaire, then reported on and sum­ Sequoiadendron, when described by Buchholz, marized their replies. Of the 29 answering, was carefully documented, and his tabular 24 preferred the name Sequoia gigantea. Many comparison contains an impressive total of of the passages quoted show that these were combined generic and specific characters for preferences based on old custom or sentiment, his monotypic genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Tree Inventory Report Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Street Tree Inventory Report: Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016
    Street Tree Inventory Report Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Street Tree Inventory Report: Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Written by: Kat Davidson, Angie DiSalvo, Julie Fukuda, Jim Gersbach, Jeremy Grotbo, and Jeff Ramsey Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry 503-823-4484 [email protected] http://portlandoregon.gov/parks/treeinventory Hillsdale Tree Inventory Organizers: Jim Keiter Staff Neighborhood Coordinator: Jim Gersbach Data Collection Volunteers: Dennis Alexander, Richard Anderson, William Better, Ben Brady, Brian Brady, Julia Brown, Marty Crouch, Hannah Davidson, April Ann Fong, Lise Gervais, Margaret Gossage, Karen Henell, Jim Keiter, John Mills, Pat Ruffio, Jerry Sellers, Kristin Sellers, Mimi Siekmann, Haley Smith, Nancy Swaim, Mark Turner, Loris Van Pelt, Paige Witte, and Maggie Woodward Data Entry Volunteers: Michael Brehm, Nathan Riggsby, and Eric Watson Arborist-on-Call Volunteers: Will Koomjian GIS Technical Support: Josh Darling, Portland Parks & Recreation Financial Support: Portland Parks & Recreation Cover Photos (from top left to bottom right): 1) Colorful foliage on a golden Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara 'Aurea'). 2) The deep green leaves of a quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). 3) Unusual peeling bark on a young madrone (Arbutus menziesii). 4) A vivid fuchsia bloom on a magnolia (Magnolia sp.) 5) The developing cone of a rare China-fir Cunninghamia( lanceolata). 6) Unusually shaped leaves on a tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). 7) The pendant foliage of a weeping giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum 'Pendulum'). 8) Multicolored scaly foliage on a variegated elkhorn cedar (Thujopsis dolobrata 'Variegata'). ver. 10/17/2016 Portland Parks & Recreation 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 823-PLAY Commissioner Amanda Fritz www.PortlandParks.org Director Mike Abbaté Contents Key Findings .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Discover Giant Sequoia National Monument
    United States Department of Agriculture Discover the Giant Sequoia National Monument Western Divide Ranger District Hume Lake Ranger District The Monument is named for the native Giant Sequoia tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum, the world’s largest tree. Sequoias can tower more than 300 feet high and reach diameters of 40 feet. Out of approximately 67 groves in the Sierra, the Monument contains 38. On April 15, 2000, President William J. Clinton, by proclamation, In addition, almost all National Forest System land created the Giant Sequoia National Monument. The Giant Sequoia is available for you to choose your own camping National Monument is located within Sequoia National Forest in the spot and this is called dispersed camping. Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Gateways are Highway Remember to obtain a campfire permit if you plan 180 east of Fresno, Highway 190 east of Porterville, County Road M-56 to make your own camp and pack out all your trash. east of California Hot Springs, and Highway 178 east and north of Bakersfield. The Monument encompasses approximately 327,769 acres Several refurbished historic cabins can be rented for over-night of federal land managed by the Sequoia National Forest, Western Divide visits: Big Meadows Guard Station near Hume Lake, Poso Station and Hume Lake Ranger Districts. near Sugarloaf and Glenville, Frog Meadow Guard Station near Tobias Peak, and Mountain Home Guard Station near Balch Park The landscape is as spectacular as its 38 groves of giant sequoia. Elevation and Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest. Please contact the climbs from around 1,000 to 9,700 feet over a distance of only a few Districts for more miles, capturing an extraordinary array of habitats within a relatively information .
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Wonderlands
    THE Owner’S GUIDE SERIES VOLUME 6 WINTER wonderlandsPresented by the National Park Foundation www.nationalparks.org Yellowstone National Park WINTER Imagine having a national park virtually all to wonderlandsyourself. Visitation to national parks dips across the board during winter, so it’s almost possible in this season. You’re alone. Or so you think, until you spot an elk in the snowy distance at Rocky Mountain, or catch a brook trout in Great Smoky. In winter, you can often experience the wilderness, the landscape, and satisfy your yearning for adventure with a little more solitude and fewer distractions. In this guide, we’ve gathered top winter activities at 15 national parks. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are common themes, but there’s also ice fishing in Acadia, stargazing in Bryce Canyon, contra dancing at Cuyahoga, sledding in Great Sand Dunes, and enjoying a Renaissance-themed holiday dinner at Yosemite. A common challenge with winter travel is just getting there, so we’ve also included general About the Author: Kelly Smith Trimble information about facility and road closures, but writes about the outdoors from her home in Knoxville, Tennessee, near the K weather forecasts and conditions change regularly, OC Great Smoky Mountains. She’s been ST snowshoeing in Lassen Volcanic and hiked ER so always be prepared. And most of all, enjoy. These across glaciers in Rocky Mountain and Glacier, but she’s never been ice fishing. aren’t parks to get away from the season. These S/SHUTT GE A are places to be immersed in all the joy that winter M Copyright 2015 National Park Foundation D I 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 200 OO offers.
    [Show full text]