DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Portions of Wilderness Evaluation Polygons Under

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Portions of Wilderness Evaluation Polygons Under Summary of Portions of Wilderness Evaluation Polygons under Consideration for Inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as Potential Recommended Wilderness in Alternatives B and C for the Sequoia National Forest Table 1. Potential wilderness recommendations under consideration for inclusion in Alternative C only Names (and acres) of Names (Acres) of Specific Acres of Evaluation Specific Potential Acres of Evaluation Polygon Potential Recommended Polygon Under Recommended Evaluation Under Consideration for Wilderness Under Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Evaluation Polygon Evaluation Polygon Potential Recommended Consideration for Recommended Wilderness Consideration for Polygon ID Acres Name Wilderness in Alternative B Alternative B in Alternative C Alternative C 63 5,223 Lower Kern River 0 None 4,301 Lower Kern River (4,301) Gorge 66 8,289 Saturday Peak- 0 None 7,469 Saturday Peak (7,469) Greenhorn Roadless 73 15,128 Lightner Peak - Mill 0 None 14,404 Lightner Peak (14,404) Creek 1378∗ 71,974 Adjacent to John Muir 0 None 14,529 Monarch Wilderness and Monarch Addition (14,529) Wildernesses 1384 39,629 Cannel Peak 0 None 24,133 Cannell Peak (24,133) 1387 89,627 North Fork Kern- 0 None 41,052 Golden Trout Wilderness adjacent to Golden Addition (South) (41,052) Trout Wilderness 1390 1,100 Osa Meadows, 0 None 975 Golden Trout Wilderness Adjacent to Golden Osa Addition (975) Trout Wilderness ∗ Evaluation Polygon 1378 was evaluated as a whole, but it overlays the boundary between the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and portions of it are on each forest. The figures here represent only the acres of the evaluation polygon and acres of potential recommended wilderness that fall within the Sequoia National Forest. Additional Potential Recommended Wilderness was derived from this Evaluation Polygon and that information can be found on the table titled “Summary of Portions of Evaluation Polygons under Consideration for Potential Recommended Wilderness in Alternatives B and C for the Sierra National Forest.” 1 Names (and acres) of Names (Acres) of Specific Acres of Evaluation Specific Potential Acres of Evaluation Polygon Potential Recommended Polygon Under Recommended Evaluation Under Consideration for Wilderness Under Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Evaluation Polygon Evaluation Polygon Potential Recommended Consideration for Recommended Wilderness Consideration for Polygon ID Acres Name Wilderness in Alternative B Alternative B in Alternative C Alternative C 1391∗∗ 51,033 Monache, Blackrock 0 None 6,387 South Sierra Wilderness and South Sierra Additions West 1) (2,792) East South Sierra Wilderness Additions (West 2) (2,794) South Sierra Wilderness Additions (West 3) (562) South Sierra Wilderness Additions (West 4) (239) 1394 51,801 Domeland/Woodpeck 0 None 31,776 Domeland Wilderness er Roadless Area, Addition (South) (15,052), Adjacent to Domeland Wilderness Domeland Additions (1) (12,183), Wilderness Domeland Wilderness Additions (2) (4,541) 1408 48,730 Upper Kern Canyon 0 None 36,817 Stormy Canyon (36,817) Escarpment-Baker Peak 1422 8,008 Woodward Peak 0 None 5,913 Woodward Peak (5,913) 1425 14,675 Delonegha Creek 0 None 13,516 Delonegha Creek (13,516) 1426 49,918 Adjacent to Bright 0 None 18,740 Bright Star Wilderness Star Wilderness Addition (1) (13,500), Bright Star Wilderness Addition (2) (5,240) 1431 7,234 Woodpecker 0 None 3,464 Domeland Wilderness Roadless, Adjacent Fish Creek Addition to Domeland (3,464) Wilderness ∗∗ Evaluation Polygon 1391 was evaluated as a whole, but it overlays the boundary between the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests and portions of it are on each forest. The figures here represent only the acres of the evaluation polygon and acres of potential recommended wilderness that fall within the Sequoia National Forest. Additional potential recommended wilderness was derived from this evaluation polygon and that information can be found on the table titled “Summary of Portions of Evaluation Polygons under Consideration for Potential Recommended Wilderness in Alternatives B and C for the Inyo National Forest.” 2 Table 2. Areas not currently under consideration for potential recommended wilderness in the draft environmental impact statement Acres of Evaluation Names (Acres) of Specific Acres of Evaluation Names (Acres) of Specific Polygon Under Potential Recommended Polygon Under Potential Recommended Evaluation Evaluation Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Polygon Polygon Evaluation Polygon Recommended Wilderness Consideration for Recommended Wilderness Consideration for ID Acres Name in Alternative B Alternative B in Alternative C Alternative C 18 6,337 Southern Paiute 0 None 0 None Mountains 36 2,089 Adjacent to Sequoia- 0 None 0 None Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness 99 9,386 Sunday Peak 0 None 0 None 120 6,865 Lion Ridge Roadless 0 None 0 None 160 16,126 Slate Mountain 0 None 0 None 162 15,806 North of Black 0 None 0 None Mountain 173 5,307 South of Wishon 0 None 0 None 190 7,100 Dennison Peak 0 None 0 None 227 15,358 Oat Mountain 0 None 0 None 1364 9,203 North of Coffee Camp 0 None 0 None 1377 11,559 Adjacent to Monarch 0 None 0 None Wilderness 1380 1,316 Adjacent to Jennie 0 None 0 None Lakes Wilderness and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness 1381 1,317 Beartrap Meadow - 0 None 0 None adjacent to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness 1385 8,216 Jennie Lakes 0 None 0 None Roadless-adjacent to Jennie Lakes Wilderness 1395 2,285 Clicks Creek - 0 None 0 None Adjacent to Golden Trout Wilderness 3 Acres of Evaluation Names (Acres) of Specific Acres of Evaluation Names (Acres) of Specific Polygon Under Potential Recommended Polygon Under Potential Recommended Evaluation Evaluation Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Consideration for Potential Wilderness Under Polygon Polygon Evaluation Polygon Recommended Wilderness Consideration for Recommended Wilderness Consideration for ID Acres Name in Alternative B Alternative B in Alternative C Alternative C 1397 3,104 South of Jordan Peak- 0 None 0 None adjacent to Moses Recommended Wilderness 1404 6,068 Hatchet Peak 0 None 0 None 1410 8,494 Deerwood Meadow 0 None 0 None 1420 6,983 Lumreau Creek 0 None 0 None 1427 6,747 Clear Creek, Paiute 0 None 0 None Mountains 1429 2,729 Pierce Valley, 0 None 0 None Adjacent to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness 1432 1,133 Blackrock Mountain, 0 None 0 None Adjacent to Golden Trout Wilderness 1434 3,726 Agnew Roadless, 0 None 0 None Adjacent to Monarch Wilderness 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita
    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and Many Other California Trail Maps Are Available from Sunbelt Publications. Please See
    SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP 6TH EDITION 3RD EDITION ISBN: 9780899977799 Retail: $21.95 ISBN: 9780899974019 Retail: $9.95 Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The Anza-Borrego and Western Colorado Desert A convenient map to the entire Anza-Borrego Desert Region is a vast, intriguing landscape that harbors a State Park and adjacent areas, including maps for rich variety of desert plants and animals. Prepare for Ocotillo Wells SRVA, Bow Willow Area, and Coyote adventure with this comprehensive guidebooks, Moutnains, it shows roads and hiking trails, diverse providing everything from trail logs and natural history points of interest, and general topography. Trip to a Desert Directory of agencies, accommodations, numbers are keyed to the Anza-Borrego Desert Region and facilities. It is the perfect companion for hikers, guide book by the same authors. campers, off-roaders, mountain bikers, equestrians, history buffs, and casual visitors. The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and many other California trail maps are available from Sunbelt Publications. Please see the following listing for titles and details. s: catalogs\2018 catalogs\18-CA TRAIL MAPS.doc (800) 626-6579 Fax (619) 258-4916 Page 1 of 7 SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANGEL ISLAND & ALCATRAZ ISLAND BISHOP PASS TRAIL MAP TRAIL MAP ISBN: 9780991578429 Retail: $10.95 ISBN: 9781877689819 Retail: $4.95 AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA An extremely useful map for all outdoor enthusiasts who These two islands, located in San Francisco Bay are want to experience the Bishop Pass in one handy map.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Planning
    U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Wilderness May 2015 Update Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Background: The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are revising their land and resource management plans using the 2012 Planning Rule. This rule requires the agency to identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). In 1964, Congress created the NWPS to protect some of the most natural and undisturbed places in America. Only Congress can designate wilderness; however, federal land managers, citizens or other groups can make wilderness recommendations to Congress. In August 2014, the Forest Service shared a preliminary wilderness inventory with the public and tribes to gather feedback on the lands that had been inventoried to determine those areas that should or should not be further considered for wilderness recommendation. Forest Service Current Work: The inventory and evaluation (steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step wilderness inventory process) on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests have been completed. The results will be included as an appendix in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) being prepared for these forest plan revisions. Not all lands included in the inventory and subsequent evaluations are required to be carried forward. In total, the Forest Service is considering 10 areas for analysis as recommended wilderness. Of these areas, 3 are potential new recommended wilderness areas, and 7 are potential recommended additions to current
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Trout Wilderness Includes 478 Mi2 of the Rugged Forested Part of the Southern Sierra Nevada (Fig
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1231-E UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS, SOUTHERN SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY REPORT By D. A. Dellinger, E. A. du Bray, D. L. Leach, R. J. Goldfarb and R. C. Jachens U.S. Geological Survey and N. T. Zilka U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and the Joint Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Golden Trout Wilderness (NF903), Sequoia and Inyo National Forests, Tulare and Inyo Counties, California. The area was established as a wilderness by Public Law 95-237,1978. SUMMARY Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) did not reveal any large mineral deposits. Tungsten, lead, silver, zinc, and molybdenum are the principal elements in ore-forming minerals detected in the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada
    FIELD ASSESSMENT OF WHITEBARK PINE IN THE SIERRA NEVADA Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, and Julie Evens Purpose of field work: 1. Verify distribution of whitebark pine in its southern extent (pure and mixed stands) 2. Assess the health and status of whitebark pine 3. Ground truth polygons designated by CALVEG as whitebark pine Regional Dominant 4. Conduct rapid assessment or reconnaissance surveys California National Forest Overview Areas surveyed: July 2013 Sequoia National Forest Areas surveyed: August 2013 Eldorado National Forest Areas surveyed: September 2013 Stanislaus National Forest Field Protocol and Forms: • Modified CNPS/CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment protocol Additions to CNPS/CDFW Rapid Assessment protocol: CNDDB • Individuals/stand • Phenology • Overall viability (health/status) Marc Meyer • Level of beetle attack • % absolute dead cover • % of whitebark cones CNPS • Impacts and % mortality from rust and beetle Field Protocol and Forms: • CNPS/CDFW Field Reconnaissance (recon) protocol is a simplified Rapid Assessment (RA) protocol 3 reasons to conduct a recon: 1. WBP stand is largely diseased/infested 2. CALVEG polygon was incorrect 3. WBP stand was close to other RA Results: Sequoia National Forest • Whitebark pine was not found during survey in Golden Trout Wilderness • Calveg polygons assessed (36 total) were mostly foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) • Highest survey conducted was at 11,129 ft at the SEKI and NF border Results: Eldorado National Forest (N to S) Desolation Wilderness: • 3 rapid assessments and 8 recons were conducted • 9,061 to 9,225 ft in elevation • Lower elevation stands were more impacted from MPB Mokelumne Wilderness: • 5 rapid assessments and 10 recons were conducted • 8,673 to 9,566 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Set Listing (May 1997)
    USDA Forest Service Air Resource Monitoring System Existing Data Set Listing (May 1997) Air Resource Monitoring System (ARMS) Data Set Listing May 1997 Contact Steve Boutcher USDA Forest Service National Air Program Information Manager Portland, OR (503) 808-2960 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 DATA SET DESCRIPTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 National & Multi-Regional Data Sets EPA’S EASTERN LAKES SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 EPA’S NATIONAL STREAM SURVEY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 EPA WESTERN LAKES SURVEY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) LICHEN MONITORING-------------------------------------------------14 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) OZONE BIOINDICATOR PLANTS ----------------------------------15 IMPROVE AEROSOL MONITORING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 IMPROVE NEPHELOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 IMPROVE TRANSMISSOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION PROGRAM/ NATIONAL TRENDS NETWORK----------------19 NATIONAL
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteers Crucial to BLM Wilderness Programs
    BY M A R T Y D I C K E S THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: VOLUNTEERS Volunteers Crucial to BLM Wilderness Programs n the last two years, volunteers have helped the Bureau How volunteers contribute of Land Management’s (BLM) Ridgecrest Field Office Individual volunteers have “adopted” special places, trails, or in thirteen wilderness or wilderness study are a s . wilderness areas. They regularly visit, monitor, inventory, file Without volunteers, the Field Office would not have a reports, and perform other work in these areas. Volunteers have functioningI wilderness program. In this time of budget shortfalls, monitored and performed work in the Great Falls Basin and wilderness programs are critically understaffed. Most California White Mountain Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), the El Paso, D e s e rt District (CDD) offices have only one staff person Sylvania, Piper, and Inyo Mountains Wildernesses, and the working fulltime in wilderness, despite the fact that there are Malpais Mesa, Darwin Falls, Coso Range, Bright Star, Sacatar more than 3.6 million acres of wilderness in the CDD. Trail, Surprise Canyon, and Manly Peak Wildernesses. Like most wilderness coordinators, I have a hard time getting Individuals who volunteer come to the office, pick up detailed out from behind my desk and on-the-ground. I must respond to boundary maps, carsonite signs and pounders, wood posts, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements of shovels, and stickers, and go to work, often camping out all programs with projects in wilderness, as well as pushing my overnight and working an area for 2-3 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreational Fishing in the Golden Trout Wilderness at $148,000 to $713,000 a Year
    ECONOMIC VALUE OF GOLDEN TROUT FISHING IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS, CALIFORNIA An Analysis By Carolyn Alkire, Ph.D. Resource Economist A Report for California Trout March 21, 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the many individuals who provided essential data and information, without which this study would not have been possible: Del Hubbs, Adam McClory, and Julie Molzahn, Inyo National Forest; Cheryl Bauer and Judi Kaiser, Sequoia National Forest; Jim Shackelford, Forest Service Region 5; and Donn Burton and Dave Lentz, California Department of Fish and Game. The author is grateful for the professional review by Dr. John Loomis. Stan Stephens of the California Department of Fish and Game and Dr. Robert Richardson also offered helpful comments and suggestions. This report was expertly edited by Deanne Kloepfer. California Trout would like to thank Joseph Tomelleri for the use of his trout illustrations. California Trout thanks C. Pat Patterson and Bill Hooper for generously funding this report. Cover illustration courtesy of Michael Flynn FOREWORD By R. Brett Matzke Public Lands Director California Trout, Inc. Cattle began grazing the Kern Plateau more than 130 years ago, long before the area and surrounding environs were established as the Inyo and Sequoia national forests. Various studies have documented that cattle grazing can seriously damage water and land resources. But attempts to reform grazing management policy on the Kern Plateau and to protect native species in this case, California's state fish, the golden trout, and its close relative shave met with little success. In part, the failure to reform grazing management stems from the long-held view that cattle ranching is the cornerstone of the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Issues in the Sequoia & Sierra Revised Draft Forest
    KEY ISSUES IN THE SEQUOIA & SIERRA REVISED DRAFT FOREST PLANS The revised draft Sequoia and Sierra Forest Plans are analyzed in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS) as the Preferred Alternative B. Conservation groups urge the public to support Alternative C with the changes noted below. Alternative C recommends far more wilderness protection, proposes more acres of forest restored through prescribed and managed fire, and more riparian and meadow restoration than Alternative B. Wilderness Recommendations What’s Good: The RDEIS identifies more than 800,000 acres of wilderness-quality lands across the two forests. The conservation-oriented Alternative C recommends over 452,000 acres of new wilderness. The new Alternative E also creates a Backcountry Management Area designation for roadless lands not recommended as wilderness. However, the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative B only adds a paltry 4,900 acres of new wilderness on the Sequoia NF and recommends no new wilderness on the Sierra NF despite hundreds of thousands of eligible acres. Significant Improvements Needed: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative C or strengthen Alternative B to include more recommended wilderness areas on both forests, with an emphasis on low-elevation areas not typically protected by the wilderness system (see below for specific areas). Both plans should also apply Alternative E’s Backcountry Management Area designation to protect roadless areas not recommended for wilderness protection. Sequoia National Forest: Recommended wilderness areas should include the Golden Trout Wilderness Addition, Stormy Canyon, Oat Mountain, Cannell Peak, and the Domeland Wilderness West Addition, using boundaries developed by conservation groups to reduce conflicts with motorized and mountain bike trails (as displayed in Alternative E).
    [Show full text]
  • Facts and Q&A About the 90-Day Finding On
    California Golden Trout Protection Not Warranted Questions and Answers Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, August 2011 Photo Credit: Kevin Aceituno, USFWS Q: What is a California golden trout? A: California golden trout is a subspecies of rainbow trout. Formerly known as Volcano Creek golden trout, they are well known for their bright coloration, red to red-orange belly and cheeks, bright gold lower sides, a central lateral band that is red-orange, and a deep olive-green back. California golden trout can reach lengths of 7 to 8 inches. California golden trout have been known to live as long as nine years, and they commonly reach six to seven years old. This is extremely old for stream-dwelling trout, and is likely due to the short growing season, high densities of fish, and a low abundance of food in these streams. These conditions create competition for scarce resources, promoting slow growth rates that lead to old ages of trout. Q: Where do they live? A: California golden trout inhabit the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek on the Kern Plateau in Tulare County, California. Both were once part of the same stream system, but became separated by volcanic activity in the region thousands of years ago. In Golden Trout Creek, the subspecies historically occurred from the headwaters, with the exception of headwater lakes, and the probable exception of upper reaches of some tributary streams, to a series of waterfalls where the creek joined with the Kern River. In the South Fork Kern River they historically occurred from the headwaters to the Domeland Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia Forestkeeper and Sierra Club, Western Watershed, and Basin & Range Watch Submitted These Comments Concerning
    René Voss – Attorney Natural Resources Law PROTECTING 15 Alderney Road ATURAL San Anselmo, CA 94960 N RESOURCES [email protected] Tel: 415-446-9027 _____________________________________________________________________________ January 8, 2021 Submitted via FERC web portal: https://ferconline.ferc.gov/ Copy sent via U.S. Postal Service to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426 Re: Docket No. 15035 – Premium Energy Holdings’ Preliminary Permit Application for the Isabella Pumped Storage Project, FERC [Project No. 15035–000], printed in the Federal Register /Vol. 85, No. 221 /Monday, November 16, 2020 Dear Ms. Bose: The undersigned conservation organizations are submitting these comments concerning the Isabella Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. P-15035 (Isabella Project or proposed project). See also https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/16/2020-25208/premium- energy-holdings-llc-notice-of-preliminary-permit-application-accepted-for-filing-and. We strongly oppose the issuance of this preliminary permit. We have a number of concerns about the application by Premium Energy Holdings, LLC, particularly with regard to the potential impact of activities that could be granted under the preliminary permit on sensitive federal lands, which are eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and which are currently classified as Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers. The proposed project would be located on public lands with highly sensitive resources managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Sequoia National Forest) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), state lands managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as lands owned by Non-Governmental Organizations and other private lands.
    [Show full text]