DOCSLIB.ORG

USGS DDS-43, Recreation in the Sierra

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TIMOTHY P. DUANE Department of City and Regional Planning and Department of Landscape Architecture University of California 19 Berkeley, California Recreation in the Sierra ABSTRACT Recreation is a significant activity in the Sierra Nevada, which serves INTRODUCTION as a center for a wide range of recreational activities. The Sierra con- The Sierra Nevada region is a popular destination for tains some of the world’s outstanding natural features, and they at- recreationists. Year-round local residents and California resi- tract visitors from throughout the country and the world. Lake Tahoe, dents and nonresidents pursue a wide variety of recreational Yosemite Valley, Mono Lake, and the Sequoia Big Trees attract mil- activities. These pursuits occur throughout the entire region, lions of visitors each year. Recreational activities on public lands alone from the bottom of steep river canyons to the top of the high- account for between 50 and 60 million recreational visitor days (RVDs) est mountain peaks. The mountain range is the natural infra- per year, with nearly three-fifths to two-thirds of those RVDs occur- structure that supports wilderness backpackers, skiers, fishing ring on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The Califor- enthusiasts, off-road vehicle users, naturalists, and many oth- nia Department of Parks and Recreation has the second greatest ers. All individuals who pursue outdoor activities within the number of RVDs, followed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Sierra Nevada rely upon the natural world for an enjoyable National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. experience. The ecological conditions of the Sierra Nevada Additional recreational activities on private lands account for millions are therefore important factors influencing patterns of recre- more RVDs that are currently not accounted for by any agency in a ational activity. The frequency, duration, timing, and spatial consistent or reliable format that would allow direct comparisons with pattern of recreational activities will in turn affect those eco- public land recreational use data. Inconsistency in the data classifi- logical conditions. cation and collection methodologies of the various public agencies Ecological, social, and economic conditions for many Si- also limits the usefulness of the recreational activity data that are erra Nevada communities and residents are closely inter- available. This report brings the available data together into a com- twined in the recreation sector. Tourism activity in the region, mon digital format and makes it available for analysis. The role of of which recreation constitutes a significant part, is also de- state and federal agencies in providing recreational opportunities in pendent in part upon the condition of Sierra Nevada ecosys- the Sierra Nevada is summarized, and more specific data provided tems. The assessment in this chapter focuses exclusively on about the types of recreational activities pursued under each agency’s recreational activities on the public lands and public waters jurisdiction. There is significant variation by subregion and recreational in the Sierra Nevada. This recreational activity may be either activity class, moreover, which makes some agencies more impor- local in origin or involve tourism, which is in turn a subset of tant than others for specific types of recreation in specific areas. These all activity related to the travel industry. Tourism that does differences by subregion and recreational activity class must be ac- not involve recreational activities utilizing the natural re- counted for in any assessment of policy scenarios for the Sierra Ne- sources of the Sierra Nevada are not addressed in this report. vada that might affect the availability of future opportunities for Tourism throughout the Sierra Nevada is nevertheless con- recreation. A more detailed assessment of recreational activities in ducted against the backdrop of the Sierra Nevada’s recre- the eastern Sierra subregion is also described to illustrate how sub- ational opportunities, so the two are closely intertwined and regional assessments can provide critical information on user char- include most of the economic activity described by Stewart acteristics and activities at a finer level of disaggregation. (1996) in the tourism and developed recreation sectors. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 557 558 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 19 Unfortunately, there is very limited quantitative informa- There is also a significant level of locally based recreational tion linking specific levels and types of recreational activity activity occurring within the Sierra Nevada. Finally, indoor to specific levels of tourism for the Sierra Nevada as a whole. recreation by both Sierra Nevada residents and visitors oc- The potential impact of changing ecological conditions on curs largely on private lands. Our estimates of recreational recreational activity and specific levels of tourism is there- activity in the Sierra Nevada are therefore conservative: over- fore poorly understood. This is true despite several decades all social, economic, and ecological importance of recreation of work on the topic (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995), including and tourism is much greater than indicated by the activity several studies that were specifically focused on conditions figures reported here. The impact of recreation on social and in the Sierra Nevada (Parmeter 1976; Foin 1977). We there- ecological well-being remains largely unexplored in the Si- fore do not attempt to infer specific responses by the recre- erra Nevada. These linkages are now being explored by local ation sector to alternative management actions or changes in groups and recreation providers in recreation-dependent com- ecological conditions. Recreational activity is a function of munities, however, such as the Tahoe Coalition of Recreation many factors, and for most types of recreation ecological con- Providers (TCORP) and the Coalition for Unified Recreation ditions are not necessarily the dominant factor. The availabil- in the Eastern Sierra (CURES). ity of developed facilities and a wide range of behavioral considerations, including cultural factors, are probably equally important. The institutional arrangements for the provision of recreational opportunities (e.g., whether they are public or private and whether or not there is a fee for the KEY QUESTIONS activity) also influence recreational activity. Finally, aesthetic considerations are important for many types of outdoor rec- This assessment has attempted to answer five basic questions reation in the Sierra Nevada. Aesthetic appeal is not neces- about recreation in the Sierra Nevada. The answers may help sarily consistent with ecological well-being, however, so policymakers, citizens, agencies, and others to evaluate how ecological well-being is not necessary to support many types various future policy alternatives (or other trends) may affect of recreational activities that are dominated by aesthetic con- recreational activities in the region: siderations. This report has several significant deficiencies: (1) it has no 1. What are the current levels and types of recreational ac- reliable information about recreational activities on private tivities in the Sierra Nevada? lands; (2) it does not address the qualitative dimensions of 2. What is the spatial and temporal distribution of those rec- different types of recreational experiences or activities; (3) it reational activities? does not address the impact of recreation on ecological con- ditions; (4) it does not address the impact of public land poli- 3. Who participates in these recreational activities (e.g., age, cies and alternative institutional arrangements upon future gender, residence)? recreational opportunities; (5) it does not discuss the vast lit- 4. Who provides the opportunities for these recreational ac- erature on recreation or recreation’s important historical role tivities (e.g., agency)? in determining the institutional arrangements for land and resource management in the Sierra Nevada. Limited resources 5. What changes are likely to occur in the future in recre- required us to focus on available data in a common format, ational activities and users? which touches on only one dimension of recreation in the Sierra Nevada. Each of these other dimensions is also impor- We are also interested in how the answers to these questions tant, but we were unable to address them within the frame- have changed over time, although we have not attempted to work of this assessment. complete a comprehensive historical analysis of recreation in Significant recreational resources in the Sierra Nevada are the Sierra Nevada; our focus has been on the recent past and located on private lands, however, and a significant level of its implications for the future. David Beesley (1996) discusses recreational activity occurs on those lands. Much of the shore- some of the more important historical events regarding rec- line of the lakes and rivers of the Sierra Nevada is on private reation in the Sierra Nevada, including the designation of land, and recreational activities in the region are often focused several national parks. These events continue to affect land around water resources. The high Sierra resort communities and resource management in the region, so it is clear that
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.
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions

    Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions

    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
  • Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change

    Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 ON THE COVER Examples of campsites surveyed in the late 1970s and again in 2006-2007. In a clockwise direction, these sites are in the Striped Mountain, Woods Creek, Sugarloaf, and Upper Big Arroyo areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Photographs by: Sandy Graban and Bob Kenan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 David N. Cole and David J. Parsons Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 790 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 January 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 Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
  • Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804

    Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804

    Photo by Louis Kamler. www.nationalforests.org Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804 Printed on recycled paper 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Island Lake, Eldorado National Forest Desolation Wilderness. Photo by Adam Braziel. 1 We are pleased to present the National Forest Foundation’s (NFF) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013. During this fourth year of the Treasured Landscapes campaign, we have reached $86 million in both public and private support towards our $100 million campaign goal. In this year’s report, you can read about the National Forests comprising the centerpieces of our work. While these landscapes merit special attention, they are really emblematic of the entire National Forest System consisting of 155 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands. he historical context for these diverse and beautiful Working to protect all of these treasured landscapes, landscapes is truly inspirational. The century-old to ensure that they are maintained to provide renewable vision to put forests in a public trust to secure their resources and high quality recreation experiences, is National Forest Foundation 2013 Annual Report values for the future was an effort so bold in the late at the core of the NFF’s mission. Adding value to the 1800’s and early 1900’s that today it seems almost mission of our principal partner, the Forest Service, is impossible to imagine. While vestiges of past resistance what motivates and challenges the NFF Board and staff. to the public lands concept live on in the present, Connecting people and places reflects our organizational the American public today overwhelmingly supports values and gives us a sense of pride in telling the NFF maintaining these lands and waters in public ownership story of success to those who generously support for the benefit of all.
  • Land Stewardship Proposal, Tahoe National Forest, Bear River

    Land Stewardship Proposal, Tahoe National Forest, Bear River

    Land Stewardship Proposal for the Lake Spaulding, Bear River, & Fordyce Lake Planning Units of the Yuba Bear Watershed by the USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest PART 1 - ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Contact Information: Primary Contact: Fran Herbst Lands Program Manager 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6852 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Secondary Contact: Heather Newell (New Secondary Contact) Yuba River Ranger District Assistant Public Service Officer 15924 Highway 49 Camptonville, CA 95922 (530) 288-0727 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Executive Director: Tom Quinn Forest Supervisor 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6200 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 1 2. Executive Summary The Tahoe National Forest (TNF) is managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) which is a federal agency in the Department of Agriculture. National Forest System (NFS) lands are generally managed with similar goals and objectives as the Beneficial Public Values (BPVs) identified for Stewardship lands. Some of the laws requiring the protection of these values include the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Forest Service was established in 1905. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public lands, known collectively as the National Forest System. Currently, a critical emphasis of the USFS is to retain and restore ecological resilience of the NFS lands to achieve sustainable ecosystems that provide a broad range of services to humans and other organisms.
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 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, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
  • September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA

    September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA

    September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Planning Staff 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via Region 5 website Re: Comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action for the Forest Plan Revisions on the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests To the Forest Plan Revision Team: These comments are provided on behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy and the above conservation organizations. We have reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI), detailed Proposed Action (PA), and supporting materials posted on the Region 5 planning website and offer the following comments on these documents. We have submitted numerous comment letters since the forest plan revision process was initiated for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra national forests. Specifically, we submitted comment letters on the forest assessments for each national forest (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013b, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013c), comments on two need for change documents (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014b) and comments on detailed desired conditions (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014c). We incorporate these comments by reference and attach the letters to these scoping comments. We have included these letters in our scoping comments because significant issues that we raised in these comments have not yet been addressed in the NOI, or the detailed PA creates significant conflict with resource areas on which we commented. Organization of Comments The following comments address first the content of the NOI, including the purpose and need for action, issues not addressed in the scoping notice, and regulatory compliance of the PA as written.
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009

    VGP) Version 2/5/2009

    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
  • Inyo National Forest Visitor Guide

    Inyo National Forest Visitor Guide

    >>> >>> Inyo National Forest >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Visitor Guide >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> $1.00 Suggested Donation FRED RICHTER Inspiring Destinations © Inyo National Forest Facts “Inyo” is a Paiute xtending 165 miles Bound ary Peak, South Si er ra, lakes and 1,100 miles of streams Indian word meaning along the California/ White Mountain, and Owens River that provide habitat for golden, ENevada border between Headwaters wildernesses. Devils brook, brown and rainbow trout. “Dwelling Place of Los Angeles and Reno, the Inyo Postpile Nation al Mon ument, Mam moth Mountain Ski Area National Forest, established May ad min is tered by the National Park becomes a sum mer destination for the Great Spirit.” 25, 1907, in cludes over two million Ser vice, is also located within the mountain bike en thu si asts as they acres of pris tine lakes, fragile Inyo Na tion al For est in the Reds ride the chal leng ing Ka mi ka ze Contents Trail from the top of the 11,053-foot mead ows, wind ing streams, rugged Mead ow area west of Mam moth Wildlife 2 Sierra Ne va da peaks and arid Great Lakes. In addition, the Inyo is home high Mam moth Moun tain or one of Basin moun tains. El e va tions range to the tallest peak in the low er 48 the many other trails that transect Wildflowers 3 from 3,900 to 14,494 feet, pro vid­ states, Mt. Whitney (14,494 feet) the front coun try of the forest. Wilderness 4-5 ing diverse habitats that sup port and is adjacent to the lowest point Sixty-five trailheads provide Regional Map - North 6 vegetation patterns ranging from in North America at Badwater in ac cess to over 1,200 miles of trail Mono Lake 7 semiarid deserts to high al pine Death Val ley Nation al Park (282 in the 1.2 million acres of wil der- meadows.
  • 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.
  • Botany Biological Evaluation

    Botany Biological Evaluation

    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
  • 4 Riverside County Ranges Guide No

    4 Riverside County Ranges Guide No

    4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RANGES GUIDE NO. 4.6 OROCOPIA MOUNTAIN 3815 FEET CLASS 1 MILEAGE: 156 miles of paved road, 3.8 miles of good dirt, 0.4 miles of 4WD road DRIVE/ROUTE A: See Map 1. From Indio, CA. drive 23 miles E on Interstate 10 to the signed Mecca- Twentynine Palms exit. Turn right (S) and drive 0.35 miles to the paved, signed Pinto Road. Turn left (E) here and go 0.6 miles to a good dirt road heading S. Turn right (S), crossing under high voltage power lines in 0.95 miles and bearing left at the fork just past the power lines (MC 133). Continue 2.85 miles S to a junction, bearing left at all forks encountered along the way. Further progress is barred by a rock barrier across the sand wash road directly S of this junction. 2WD's park here. 4WD's can continue by taking a sharp left up a steep hill and going 75 yards to a fork. Bear right (S) at the fork and drive 0.4 miles to the Orocopia Mountains Wilderness boundary. Park. CLIMB/ROUTE A: See Map 1. From the 4WD parking area, walk 0.3 miles up the road to where it passes through a deep, narrow gully. Once across the gully, hike 0.5 miles S along the left bank of a large wash. Dropping into the wash here, follow it S for about 0.75 miles until you reach a fork with a large wash merging from the right (W) at UTM 133157.