DOCSLIB.ORG

Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment Prepared By Wayne Spencer Sarah Sawyer Heather Romsos William Zielinski Rick Sweitzer Craig Thompson Kathryn Purcell Deana Clifford Lindsay Cline Hugh Safford Susan Britting Jody Tucker Prepared For The Fisher Interagency Leadership Team: Sierra Nevada Conservancy USDA Forest Service National Park Service US Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife January 2015 Produced by the Conservation Biology Institute. CBI is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization that works collaboratively to conserve biological diversity in its natural state through applied research, education, planning, and community service. Recommended Citation: Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinski, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompson, K.L. Purcell, D.L. Clifford, L. Cline, H.D. Safford, S.A. Britting, and J.M. Tucker. 2015. Southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation assessment. Unpublished report produced by Conservation Biology Institute. Fisher Interagency Leadership Team: Barnie Gyant, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Cay Goude, US Fish and Wildlife Service David Graber, PhD National Park Service (retired) Kent Smith (retired) and Eric Loft, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jim Branham, Sierra Nevada Conservancy Core Project Support Team: Diana Craig, USDA Forest Service Sarah Sawyer, PhD, USDA Forest Service Wayne Spencer, PhD, Conservation Biology Institute Mandy Vance, Sierra Nevada Conservancy Fisher Technical Team: Wayne Spencer, PhD (Chair), Conservation Biology Institute Sarah Sawyer, PhD, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Susan Britting, PhD, Sierra Forest Legacy Deana Clifford, DVM, MPVM, PhD, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lindsay Cline, MS, National Park Service Roger Powell, PhD, North Carolina State University (Emeritus) Kathryn Purcell, PhD, Pacific Southwest Research Station Hugh Safford, PhD, USDA Forest Service Region 5 and University of California, Davis Rick Sweitzer, PhD, Great Basin Institute Craig Thompson, PhD, Pacific Southwest Research Station Jody Tucker, PhD, USDA Forest Service Region 5 William Zielinski, PhD, Pacific Southwest Research Station ii Contents Tables .......................................................................................................................... iv Figures ......................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions ....................................................................... vii Preface ...................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... x 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives and Scope ......................................................................................................... 4 2 Population Distribution and Trends .......................................................................... 6 2.1 Range Size and Trends ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Elevation Distribution ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Population Size and Trends ................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Genetic Diversity and Population Subdivision ..................................................................... 9 3 Fisher Biology and Ecology .....................................................................................11 3.1 Life History ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Reproduction ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Survivorship ............................................................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Mortality causes ....................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Ecology ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.1 Space use patterns ................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Activity patterns ....................................................................................................... 21 3.2.3 Diet .......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.4 Interspecific competition .......................................................................................... 24 4 Habitat Associations...............................................................................................26 4.1 Landscape Scale ............................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Home Range Scale ............................................................................................................ 27 4.3 Sub-home Range Scale ..................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1 Foraging ................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.2 Resting habitat and structures .................................................................................. 30 4.3.3 Denning habitat and structures ................................................................................ 33 5 Habitat Core and Linkage Areas ..............................................................................41 5.1 Fisher Core Areas ............................................................................................................. 41 5.1.1 Core Area 1 .............................................................................................................. 44 5.1.2 Core Area 2 .............................................................................................................. 44 5.1.3 Core Area 3 .............................................................................................................. 46 5.1.4 Core Area 4 .............................................................................................................. 47 5.1.5 Core Area 5 .............................................................................................................. 49 5.1.6 Core Area 6 .............................................................................................................. 50 5.1.7 Core Area 7 .............................................................................................................. 52 5.2 Linkage Areas ................................................................................................................... 52 5.2.1 Linkage A .................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.2 Linkage B .................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.3 Linkage C .................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.4 Linkage D .................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.5 Linkage E .................................................................................................................. 55 5.2.6 Linkage F .................................................................................................................. 55 iii 6 Threats Assessment ...............................................................................................57 6.1 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 57 6.1.1 Large and severe wildfires ........................................................................................ 57 6.1.2 Lack of fire as a natural disturbance process ............................................................. 59 6.1.3 Post-fire habitat management .................................................................................. 60 6.1.4 Vegetation management .......................................................................................... 63 6.2 Rodenticides and Other Poisons ....................................................................................... 65 6.3 Predation ......................................................................................................................... 66 6.4 Disease and Infections...................................................................................................... 66 6.5 Roads and Other Human Structures ................................................................................. 68 6.6 Climate Change Effects ..................................................................................................... 69 6.6.1 Physiological ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Tahoe-Sierra Frontal Fault Zone, Emerald Bay Area, Lake Tahoe, California: History, Displacements, and Rates
    Research Paper GEOSPHERE The Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone, Emerald Bay area, Lake Tahoe, California: History, displacements, and rates 1 2 1 3 4 4 GEOSPHERE, v. 15, no. 3 R.A. Schweickert , J.G. Moore , M.M. Lahren , W. Kortemeier , C. Kitts , and T. Adamek 1Department of Geological Sciences, MS 172, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, MS 910, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02022.1 3Western Nevada College, 2201 West College Parkway, Carson City, Nevada 89703, USA 4Robotic Systems Laboratory, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California 95053, USA 18 figures; 3 tables; 1 set of supplemental files CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected] ABSTRACT zones along the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada microplate. The Lake Tahoe basin (Figs. 1A and 1B), a complex half-graben, is part of the Walker Lane belt, CITATION: Schweickert, R.A., Moore, J.G., Lahren, M.M., Kortemeier, W., Kitts, C., and Adamek, T., 2019, The location and geometry of the boundary between the Sierra Nevada possibly an incipient plate boundary, and a region of dextral transtensional de- The Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone, Emerald Bay area, microplate and the transtensional Walker Lane belt of the Basin and Range formation between the internally unfaulted Sierra Nevada and the extensional Lake Tahoe, California: History, displacements, and Province in the Lake Tahoe area have been debated. Two options are that Basin and Range Province to the east. Numerous studies in the Walker Lane belt rates: Geosphere, v. 15, no. 3, p. 783–819, https://doi .org /10.1130 /GES02022.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The
    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report
    Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report Prepared by Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners for Tulare County Association of Govenments 11 February 2008 Executive Summary As part of an agreement with the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners (TBWP) visited nine potential riparian and wildlife corridors in Tulare County during summer 2007. We developed a numerical ranking system and determined the five corridors with highest potential for conservation, recreation and conjunctive uses. The selected corridors include: Deer Creek Riparian Corridor, Kings River Riparian Corridor, Oaks to Tules Riparian Corridor, Lewis Creek Riparian Corridor, and Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Corridor. For each corridor, we provide a brief description and a summary of attributes and opportunities. Opportunities include flood control, groundwater recharge, recreation, tourism, and wildlife. We also provide a brief description of opportunities for an additional eight corridors that were not addressed in depth in this document. In addition, we list the Measure R transportation improvements and briefly discuss the potential wildlife impacts for each of the projects. The document concludes with an examination of other regional planning efforts that include Tulare County, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, the Tulare County Bike Path Plan, the TBWP’s Sand Ridge-Tulare Lake Plan, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the USFWS Upland Species Recovery Plan. Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, 2/11/2008 Page 2 of 30 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Goals and Objectives………………………...……………………………………………. 4 Tulare County Corridors……………………..……………………………………………. 5 Rankings………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Corridors selected for Detailed Study…………………………………………….. 5 Deer Creek Corridor………………………………………………………. 5 Kings River Corridor……………………………………………………… 8 Oaks to Tules Corridor…………………………………..………………… 10 Lewis Creek East of Lindsay……………………………………………… 12 Cottonwood Creek………………………………………...……………….
    [Show full text]
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Affected Environment
    Chapter 3 Affected Environment Chapter 3. Affected Environment This chapter provides environmental analyses relative to social, biological, and physical parameters of the project area. Components of this study include a setting discussion, impact analysis criteria, project effects and significance, and applicable mitigation measures. This chapter is organized as follows: • Section 3.1, Air Quality • Section 3.2, Cultural Resources • Section 3.3, Social Environment • Section 3.4, Hydrology and Flood Plains • Section 3.5, Hazardous Waste/Material • Section 3.6, Traffic • Section 3.7, Parking • Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning • Section 3.9, Noise • Section 3.10, Recreation • Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities • Section 3.12, Geology and Soils • Section 3.13, Water Quality • Section 3.14, Growth Inducing Impacts • Section 3.15, Visual Resources • Section 3.16, Biological Resources. Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project Final EA/EIR/EIS 3-1 Chapter 3 Affected Environment As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for the project, the following environmental issues were considered but no adverse impacts were identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these issues in this document. • Agriculture—There is no land designated as agriculture in the project area. • Coastal Zones—The project area is not located in a Coastal Zone. • Energy—The proposed project would not involve changes to energy usage patterns or availability and would not have substantial energy impacts. • Farmlands/Timberlands—There are no designated Farmlands or Timberlands in the project area. • Paleontology—There are no known paleontological resources in the project area. • Minerals—There are no known mineral resources in the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
    COMPLIMENTARY $2.95 2017/2018 YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO THE PARKS SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS ACTIVITIES • SIGHTSEEING • DINING • LODGING TRAILS • HISTORY • MAPS • MORE OFFICIAL PARTNERS This summer, Yamaha launches a new Star motorcycle designed to help you journey further…than you ever thought possible. To see the road ahead, visit YamahaMotorsports.com/Journey-Further Some motorcycles shown with custom parts, accessories, paint and bodywork. Dress properly for your ride with a helmet, eye protection, long sleeves, long pants, gloves and boots. Yamaha and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation encourage you to ride safely and respect the environment. For further information regarding the MSF course, please call 1-800-446-9227. Do not drink and ride. It is illegal and dangerous. ©2017 Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. All rights reserved. BLEED AREA PARK REGULATIONS AND SAFETY TRIM SIZE WELCOME LIVE AREA Welcome to Sequoia and Kings Canyon you’ll find myriad fun activities in the parks! National Parks. The National Park Service (NPS), Dela- Zion National Park Located in central California, the parks ware North at Sequoia and Kings Canyon is the result of erosion, extend from the San Joaquin Valley foothills National Parks and Sequoia Parks Conser- to the eastern crest of the Sierra Nevada. vancy work together to ensure that your sedimentary uplift, and If trees could be kings, their royal realms visit is memorable. Stephanie Shinmachi. would be in these two adjoining parks. This American Park Network guide to 8 ⅞ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks is testify to nature’s size, beauty and diversity: provided to help plan your visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Fires Continue to Burn in SEKI (Pdf 54
    National Park Service Sequoia and Kings Canyon 47050 Generals Hwy. U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Three Rivers, CA 93271 559 565-3341 phone 559 565-3730 fax Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks News Release For Immediate Release Reference Number: 8550-2029 Contact: Perri Spreiser, Fire Information Officer Phone Number: (662) 231-6457 E-mail: [email protected] Wilderness Fires Continue to Burn in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS, Calif. September 19, 2020 – Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks continue to have two active fires burning in designated wilderness with no threats to people or property. The Rattlesnake and Moraine Fires were both caused by lighting and continue to show slow and minor fire growth. The Rattlesnake Fire is 2,078 acres and the Moraine Fire is 575 acres. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are in a highly fire-adapted ecosystem. This means that fire has shaped this landscape for thousands of years and the plants and animals have evolved to live with fire. The main example within the parks are the sequoia trees themselves. Not only does the giant sequoia have thick bark to provide protection from high heat sources, the cones have also developed to open only during periods of high temperatures to release seeds, generating new trees. This type of cone is referred to as serotinous. Sequoia trees would not exist today if there was not fire to support them. In addition to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks full park closures, park managers have implemented a designated wilderness closure in response to the Rattlesnake Fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies Related to Wilderness Primitive Areas, 1967-1969
    Studies Related to Wilderness Primitive Areas, 1967-1969 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1261 This volume was published as separate chapters A-G UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. OS 75-605185 CONTENTS [Letters designate the separately published chapters] (A) Mineral resources of the Desolation Valley primitive area of the Sierra Nevada, California, by F. C. W. Dodge and P. V. Fillo. (B) Mineral resources of the Ventana primitive area, Monterey County, California, by Robert C. Pearson, Philip T. Hayes, and Paul V. Fillo. (C) Mineral resources of the Uncompahgre primitive area, Colorado, by R. P. Fischer, R' G. Luedke, M. J. Sheridan, and R. G. Raabe. (D) Mineral resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana, "by Jack E. Harrison, Mitchell W. Reynolds, M. Dean Kleinkopf, and Eldon C. Pattee. (E) Mineral resources of the Blue Range primitive area, Greenlee County, Arizona, and Catron County, New Mexico, by James C. Ratte", E. R. Landis, David L. Gaskill, and R. G. Raabe, with a section on Aeromagnetic interpretation, by Gordon P. Eaton. (F) Mineral resources of the San Juan primitive area, Colorado, by T. A. Steven, L. J. Schmitt, Jr., M. J. Sheridan, and F. E. Williams, with a section on Iron resources in the Irving Formation, by Jacob E. Gair and Harry Klemic. (G) Mineral resources of the Emigrant Basin primitive area, California, by E. W. Tooker, H. T. Morris, and Paul V. Fillo, with a section on Geophysical studies, by H.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge of the Big Trees
    Challenge of the Big Trees Challenge of the Big Trees CHALLENGE OF THE BIG TREES Lary M. Dilsaver and William C. Tweed ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association, Inc. CONTENTS NEXT >>> Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/index.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/index.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:17 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) Challenge of the Big Trees Table of Contents COVER LIST OF MAPS LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS FOREWORD PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: The Natural World of the Southern Sierra CHAPTER TWO: The Native Americans and the Land CHAPTER THREE: Exploration and Exploitation (1850-1885) CHAPTER FOUR: Parks and Forests: Protection Begins (1885-1916) CHAPTER FIVE: Selling Sequoia: The Early Park Service Years (1916-1931) CHAPTER SIX: Colonel John White and Preservation in Sequoia National Park (1931- 1947) CHAPTER SEVEN: Two Battles For Kings Canyon (1931-1947) CHAPTER EIGHT: Controlling Development: How Much is Too Much? (1947-1972) CHAPTER NINE: New Directions and A Second Century (1972-1990) APPENDIX A: Visitation Statistics, 1891-1988 APPENDIX B: Superintendents of Sequoia, General Grant, and Kings Canyon National Parks NOTES TO CHAPTERS PUBLISHED SOURCES ARCHIVAL RESOURCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INDEX (omitted from online edition) ABOUT THE AUTHORS http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) List of Maps 1. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Vicinity 2. Important Place Names of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction and Emplacement of Cretaceous Plutons in the Crystal Range, Southwest of Lake Tahoe, California
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Summer 2017 Construction and Emplacement of Cretaceous Plutons in the Crystal Range, Southwest of Lake Tahoe, California Brad Buerer San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Buerer, Brad, "Construction and Emplacement of Cretaceous Plutons in the Crystal Range, Southwest of Lake Tahoe, California" (2017). Master's Theses. 4837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.eyj9-3w7m https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4837 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTRUCTION AND EMPLACEMENT OF CRETACEOUS PLUTONS IN THE CRYSTAL RANGE, SOUTHWEST OF LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Geology San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Brad Buerer August 2017 © 2017 Brad Buerer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled CONSTRUCTION AND EMPLACEMENT OF CRETACEOUS PLUTONS IN THE CRYSTAL RANGE, SOUTHWEST OF LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA by Brad Buerer APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY August 2017 Dr. Robert Miller Department of Geology Dr. Jonathan Miller Department of Geology Dr. Dave Andersen Department of Geology ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTION AND EMPLACEMENT OF CRETACEOUS PLUTONS IN THE CRYSTAL RANGE, SOUTHWEST OF LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA by Brad Buerer Three Cretaceous plutons are investigated to determine their construction and emplacement histories, focusing on magmatic foliation patterns and contact relationships with each other and with the Jurassic metasedimentary host rocks of the Sailor Canyon Formation.
    [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]
  • Tahoe Valley Area Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist
    Tahoe Valley Area Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist March 16, 2015 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATGED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/FONSE Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1 1.1 INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ......................................... 1 1.2 TIERING PROCESS .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................... 5 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................... 10 1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 12 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 12 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS ............. 12 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 19 2.1 AREA PLAN OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 19 3.0 BASELINE .................................................................................................. 35 4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................... 37 5.0 COMMODITIES
    [Show full text]