DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Prepared For: Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance P. O. Box 7989 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158 Prepared By: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology 1572 East College Parkway, Suite 162 115 Limekiln Road Carson City, Nevada 89706 Santa Cruz, California 95062 River Run Consulting C. G. Celio & Sons P.O. Box 8538 P.O. Box 734 Truckee, California 96162 Minden, Nevada 89423 June, 2004 Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment Copies of this report may be requested from: SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE P. O. BOX 7989 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96158 (530) 542-4546 MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING 1572 EAST COLLEGE PARKWAY, SUITE 162 CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89706 (775) 888-9992 Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through a contract with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13) and any amendments thereto for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Condition Assessment project was performed by a consulting team comprised of MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, River Run Consulting, Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, and C.G. Celio & Sons. MACTEC acted as the prime contractor, working directly with representatives of the Alpine Watershed Group and the Sierra Nevada Alliance. MACTEC personnel involved in the project included Charles Zeier who acted as project manager and technical editor of the report, Jacquelyn Picciani (vegetation), Dustin Waters (hydraulics), Dennis Manor (hydraulics), Ron Reno (history), Shannon Hataway (graphics), and Jay Aldean (quality control and assurance). Matt Kiesse represented River Run Consulting, while Mitch Swanson and John Dvorsky represented Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology. Clint Celio of C.G. Celio & Sons assisted with figure preparation and GIS applications. The assessment team would like to acknowledge the time and energy given to this project by members of the Alpine Watershed Group. The following participants regularly attended Group meetings: ¾ Jim Austin and Debbi Waldear - Friends of Hope Valley ¾ Genie Azad and Ed James - Carson Water Subconservancy District ¾ Mary Bennington and Marie Barry - Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada ¾ Hal Bird - South Tahoe Public Utility District ¾ Sally Champion - U.S. Forest Service ¾ Jason Churchill - Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board ¾ Joan Clayburgh - Sierra Nevada Alliance ¾ Brad Davis - Carson River Resort, Alpine Chamber of Commerce ¾ Donald Jardine, Alpine County Commissioner ¾ Mark DeMaio, Alpine County Public Works Department ¾ Brian Peters - Alpine County Planning Department ¾ Mike Hayes - U.S. Department of Agriculture Service Center ¾ Dan Kaffer – Natural Resources Conservation Service ¾ Dick McCleary – Central Sierra Resource Conservation and Development ¾ John Cassidy, John Craik, Jim Dunn, Patty DeMaio, Margie Evans, Marlena Hellwinkel, and Rich Williams – community members Members of the Group have served as project participants and as a sounding board for products developed by the assessment team. We would also like to acknowledge the role played by Joan Clayburgh of the Sierra Nevada Alliance and Jason Churchill of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both individuals were helpful in providing information and project direction. Representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the California Department of Forestry, the California Department of Fish and Game, and Alpine County were generous with their time and information. Special thanks are given to Dick Edwards, Nancy Thornburg, and the Alpine County Museum for allowing us access to their photographic archive. June 2004 Page i Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................vi Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. vii 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT GOALS ..........................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 REPORT FORMAT.........................................................................................................................................................3 1.3 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................................3 2. Watershed Geomorphic Processes....................................................................................................5 2.1 GEOLOGIC INFLUENCES ON GEOMORPHIC PROCESS ...........................................................................................6 2.1.1 Glacial Morphology.............................................................................................................................................10 2.2 HYDROLOGIC INFLUENCES ON GEOMORPHIC PROCESS ....................................................................................10 2.2.1 Precipitation........................................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2 Peak Flows.........................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.3 Low Flows..........................................................................................................................................................17 2.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT SUPPLY..........................................................................................................................17 2.3.1 Geologic Influence................................................................................................................................................17 2.3.2 Climatological Influences......................................................................................................................................20 2.3.3 Mass Sediment Movement ...................................................................................................................................20 2.3.4 Proximity to Sediment Supply .............................................................................................................................21 2.4 NATURAL GEOMORPHIC DYNAMISM .....................................................................................................................21 2.4.1 Equilibrium........................................................................................................................................................23 2.4.1.1 Resistance to Change................................................................................................................................23 2.4.1.2 Resilience Following Disturbance...........................................................................................................23 2.5 CHARACTERIZING DYNAMISM OF THE HISTORIC CHANNEL .............................................................................23 2.6 CHANNEL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, EROSION AND DEPOSITION ......................................................................28 2.6.1 Transport Channels ............................................................................................................................................28 2.6.2 Confined Response Channels ...............................................................................................................................28 2.6.3 Unconfined Response Channels............................................................................................................................29 2.7 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN MORPHOLOGY.......................................................................................................29 2.7.1 The Role of Woody Debris ..................................................................................................................................32 2.7.2 Beaver.................................................................................................................................................................33 2.8 VEGETATION DYNAMICS.........................................................................................................................................35
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Highway Conditions Introduction
    Chapter 4 Highway Conditions Introduction The Ebbetts Pass National Scenic Byway (NBS) began as a trail that American Indians most likely used for trade and a hunting access route, and was later utilized by fur trappers. By the early to mid 1800’s pioneers and miners crossed over the pass. With the discovery of silver and the demand for more supplies to be delivered to the region, so came improvements to the road. Today, the highway itself is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The road twists you further into the mountains narrowing with no centerline near Lake Alpine as it separates both the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Wildernesses, luring the traveler farther away from society. The journey takes one both physically and psychologically closer to wildness. Beyond the crest of Ebbetts Pass, the descent winds through a rugged volcanic landscape overlooking the canyons below. This asphalt ribbon transitions back to a distinct, 2-lane highway with a centerline when you reach the floor of Silver Creek, just east of Silver Creek Campground. This portion of the byway is steep, narrow, and windy, and is not suitable for semi trucks, buses, and most Recreational Vehicles (RV’s). It is best left for smaller vehicle travel. Average Daily Traffic CalTrans collects data annually that reflects the number of vehicles that travel along Highway 4 in a given month. This data is compiled into average annual daily traffic counts (AADT). AADT numbers are calculated using electronic highway counters, determining the yearly figure and dividing by 365 days/year.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth.
    [Show full text]
  • California Water Trust Network
    RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Geographic Response Plan
    Carson River Geographic Response Plan Final Alpine County, California and Douglas, Carson City, Lyon, Churchill Counties, Nevada April 2006 Prepared by: Carson & Walker Rivers Area Committee (CWRAC) Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 Acknowledgements The Carson River Geographic Response Plan (CRGRP) was developed through a collaborative effort between the local, state, and federal government agencies listed below. Local Government • Carson City Fire • Douglas County Emergency Management • East Fork Fire and Paramedic District • Lyon County Sheriff’s Office • Mason Valley Fire • Mono County Conservation District State Government • California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response • California Office of Emergency Services • Nevada Division of Emergency Management • Nevada Division of Environmental Protection • Nevada Highway Patrol Tribal Government • Washo Tribe Federal Government • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Department of Agriculture Carson Valley Conservation District • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX o U.S. EPA Region IX Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), Ecology & Environment, Inc. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. 2) Make the initial notification to Dispatch by dialing 911. Dispatch will make the Mandatory Notifications. A list of county dispatch centers is on page R-2 of this plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Cardno ENTRIX Report Template
    Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Alpine County, California Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Volume II – Appendices A-G February 2014 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Document Information Prepared for Alpine County, CA Project Name Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Project Number 3343000100 Project Manager Virginia Mahacek Date February 2014 Lead Agency: Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road, Markleeville, CA 96120 530.694.2140 www.alpinecountyca.gov Sponsor: Alpine Watershed Group 270 Laramie St. Markleeville, CA 96120 530.694.2327 www.alpinecountyca.gov Prepared by: Cardno ENTRIX 295 Highway 50, Suite 1 / PO Box 1533, Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 775.588.9069 www.cardno.com February 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Document Information i Markleeville IS-MND_Volume II_Appendices A-G_Feb2014.docx Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii Document Information Cardno ENTRIX February 2014 Markleeville IS-MND_Volume II_Appendices A-G_Feb2014.docx Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Appendices Appendix A Site Flood History Appendix B MPUD Sewer Diagrams Appendix C Restoration Plans and Details Appendix D Hydraulic Modelling Memo Appendix E Wetland Delineation Report Appendix F Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants Memo Appendix G Cultural Resources Inventory and Recommendations Letter Report February 2014 Cardno ENTRIX
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006
    DRAFT Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 Carson River Aquatic Trail Plan August 4, 2006 DRAFT Prepared for: CARSON CITY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 3303 Butti Way, Building #9 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Prepared by: RESOURCE CONCEPTS, INC. 340 N. Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703-4152 DRAFT Table of Contents Page 10.0 CARSON RIVER AQUATIC TRAIL...........................................................................1 10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CARSON RIVER..................................................................... 1 10.1.1 River Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 1 10.1.2 General River Terminology.............................................................................................. 3 10.1.3 River Anatomy and Common River Hazards.................................................................... 4 10.1.4 Hazardous Dams on the Carson River............................................................................. 5 10.2 JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 10.2.1 The State of Nevada.......................................................................................................... 5 10.2.2 Property
    [Show full text]
  • Task 4.9 Public Draft Page 2
    Task 4.9 Stormwater Resource Plan Public Draft Version 0.1 Drafted: December 4, 2017 STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN – TASK 4.9 PUBLIC DRAFT PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 11 IMPLEMENTERS .............................................................................................................................................. 12 PARTNERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 OTHERS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 SECTION A. DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED AND SUB-WATERSHEDS .................................................... 14 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES (SWRP GUIDELINES SECTION A.I) ................................................................ 14 INTERNAL BOUNDARIES (SWRP GUIDELINES SECTION A.II) ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WATERSHEDWATERSHED a Lifeline Connecting Our Communities Reno Fernley Truckee Canal VIRGINIA RANGE S NGE T 50A DT RA IL BOL L 95A HUM W a T Virginia City 95 E R
    THETHE CARSONCARSON RIVERRIVER WATERSHEDWATERSHED A Lifeline Connecting Our Communities Reno Fernley Truckee Canal VIRGINIA RANGE S NGE T 50A DT RA IL BOL L 95A HUM W A T Virginia City 95 E R R A N 341 G Hobart 395 E Reservoir 40 MILE DESERT Soda Lake 50A Carson Sink Marlette Fallon Lake Silver Naval Air Snow Valley Mark Twain Peak Stagecoach Springs Station Stillwater National 28 Wildlife Refuge Moundhouse Dayton Carson River 50 50 Carson Fort Churchill Lake CARSON RANGE Historic State Park Carson River Weeks Spooner Lake 50 50 Lake Indian Hills Carson City Tahoe Lahontan Reservoir Carson River 95A 95 395 DESERT MOUNTAIN RANGE DEAD CAMEL RANGE 50 PINE NUT MOUNTAINS Monument Genoa Peak SIERRA NEVADA Johnson Lane Stateline 50 95 South Minden Lake Tahoe Jobs Peak I West Fork Carson River 95A Brockliss Slough Yerington N Gardnerville 89 Gardnerville Ruhenstroth Ranchos CALIFORNIA 88 NEVADA Pyramid Lake 80 East Fork Carson River Mud Carson Sink Woodfords Lake Mt. Siegel 395 Fernley Truckee Canal Reno Storey County Churchill County Hope Valley 395 Fallon 88 89 80 395 50 Indian Creek 50 Reservoir Truckee River Carson River Lake Carson City West Fork Carson River Tahoe Douglas County Lyon Carson River 50 County Watershed Basin Boundary Topaz Lake 395 Markleeville 89 395 Alpine County Ebbett’s Pass Carson Pass Lost Lakes Area 89 Monitor Pass Carson River Watershed: Our Home Carson River Watershed Water and Land Use Timeline 11,200 years ago — First record of human The Carson River is our lifeline in the desert. Its precious water supports our watershed’s environment, economy, and quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Carson River Watershed Adaptive Stewardship Plan, Part 1
    CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: CarsonCarson WaterWater SSubconservancyubconservancy DDistrictistrict Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada CarsonCarson RiverRiver CoalitionCoalition CarsonCarson ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict DaytonDayton ValleyValley ConservationConservation DistrictDistrict WesternWestern NevadaNevada ResourceResource ConservationConservation andand DevelopmentDevelopment NaturalNatural ResourcesResources ConservationConservation ServiceService LyonLyon CountyCounty GISGIS DepartmentDepartment C.G.C.G. CelioCelio andand SonsSons Co.Co. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning June 2006 DRAFT CARSON RIVER WATERSHED “Our Lifeline in the Desert” Adaptive Stewardship Plan Prepared by: Carson Water Subconservancy District Alpine County, California Carson City, Nevada Churchill County, Nevada Douglas County, Nevada Lyon County, Nevada Lyon County GIS Department Carson Valley Conservation District Dayton Valley Conservation District Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development Natural Resource Conservation Service C.G. Celio and Sons Co. In Cooperation with: Carson River Coalition Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Water Quality Planning May 2007 Carson River Watershed Stewardship Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following were
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Decree
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVAD A THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No . D-183 BRT Plaintiff, vs. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR COMPANY, a corporation, et al . , Defendants . FINAL DECRE E FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , TABULATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FINDINGS OF FAC T I. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to thi s proceeding . II. The Carson River and its tributaries are interstate streams and the waters of th e Carson River and its tributaries are fully appropriated . III. Under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the United States, acting by th e Secretary of the Interior, on July 2, 1902, withdrew from public entry, excepting under the home - stead laws in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the lands required for the government' s first reclamation project, now known as the Newlands Project . IV. The United States has diligently proceeded with the construction of the Newland s Project and has expended over Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in that construction . The works s o constructed have been used for many years for the storage of Carson River water and the distribu- tion thereof to Project lands . The principal structure of the Project is the Lahontan Reservoi r which was completed at a cost of approximately One Million lour Hundred Thousand Dollar s ($1,400,000) . Lahontan Reservoir has a capacity of 295,149 acre-feet to the spillway crest . With 20 inch flashboards on the crest, the capacity is 317,280 acre-feet .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2: Region Description
    Section 2: Region Description This section provides a detailed description of the Tahoe-Sierra Region, including socio- economic conditions, geography, climate, land use, ecological resources, surface and groundwater resources and infrastructure, water demand and supply, water quality, and climate change vulnerabilities. The description is intended to comply with the Regional Description IRWM Plan standard as detailed in the IRWM Guidelines for Proposition 84 and 1E published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in November 2012. 2.1 Region Overview The Region is a mountainous area on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range that ranges from about 5,000 feet to almost 11,000 feet in elevation and encompasses 802,600 acres. It extends from the crest of the Sierra Nevada east to the Nevada border, and from the border between Alpine and Mono Counties in the south to north of Stampede Reservoir in Sierra County (Figure 2-1). The Region consists of the Truckee River system, which includes the Upper Truckee River, the California portion of Lake Tahoe, streams draining to Lake Tahoe within California, the Little Truckee River, and the Truckee River in California; and the East and West Forks of the Upper Carson River in California. Surface water flows in both river systems drain into Nevada, and Lake Tahoe straddles the border between California and Nevada. As an east slope area, water users downstream of the Region are in Nevada. The majority of the Region, approximately 80%, is open space including both public and private lands (DWR 2010). Within the Region, approximately 68% of the land area is publicly managed for recreation and/or forest, 10% is the California portion of the surface of Lake Tahoe, and 6% is urban, rural, or planned development.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2021 Slink Fire by Judy Warren Wickwire Historic Vaquero Camp Was Threatened by the Slink Fire in August
    FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY PO Box 431 Markleeville, CA 96120 Newsletter winter 2021 Slink Fire By Judy Warren Wickwire Historic Vaquero Camp was threatened by the Slink Fire in August. The FS crew wrapped For the all the buildings in a fire retardant foil wrap. We are grateful to the FS for protecting these preservation of the important historical buildings. Dedication to this and moving the allotment permitted sheep scenic, recreational from the area was labor intensive. All the and historic use of building were saved at Vaquero Camp and the Hope Valley and Little Antelope Pack Station buildings and stock Alpine County’s in Coleville survived the fire. eastern Sierra slope. The Slink Fire was managed by the Humbolt- Toiyabe National Forest in coordination with the BLM Bishop Field Office. The lightning BOARD OF DIRECTORS strike burned 27,000 acres and started August 29 in the Slinkard Valley near Coleville. The Friends of Hope Valley want to thank you for your past support. We hope that you will Debbi Waldear continue your membership in this non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of President Fire crews, heavy equipment and helicopters were stationed at the Heenan Lake parking historic, recreational and scenic values of Hope Valley and Sierra Nevada's eastern slope area, while crews worked the fire lines in Bagley and Silver King Valleys. The fire extended in Alpine County. With your help we can continue to address the sensitive environmental Jim Donald south towards Coyote Valley Creek and into the Carson Iceberg Wilderness area. concerns of the eastern Sierra.
    [Show full text]