DOCSLIB.ORG

Preserving Wild California an External Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preserving Wild California an External Assessment PRESERVING WILD CALIFORNIA AN EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT Report to the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Steven L. Yaffee, Sheila K. Schueller and Julia M. Wondolleck School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan April 15, 2009 The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable inputs of numerous Preserving Wild California staff and grantees along with others in the California conservation community who shared their experiences and insights with us. Research Team Steven L. Yaffee, PhD Sheila K. Schueller, PhD Julia M. Wondolleck, PhD Michelle S. Aldridge Yvette C. Dimcheff Nicole A. Fernandes Aviva Y. Glaser José G. Gonzalez Kristen E. Johnson Lauren V. Pidot For comments and questions, please contact: Dr. Steven Yaffee School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan 440 Church Street Ann Arbor MI 48109‐1041 [email protected] 734‐763‐5451 Title page photos by Tupper Ansel Blake Table of Contents Executive Summary ……..............................................................…………………………………… ix Section 1 – Introduction and Method of Assessment ………………………………………… 1 The Bottom Line ………………………………………………………………………...... 1 Methods Used to Carry Out the External Assessment …………………………................. 3 Some Caveats …………………………………………………………………………...…. 7 A Roadmap to the Report ………………………………………………………………...... 9 Section 2 – What was Intended? The Logic of the PWC Program ……………………..… 11 An Ambitious but Clear Set of Goals and Objectives ………………………………...…… 12 Six Major Types of Grantmaking Strategies …………………………………………….… 14 A Set of Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Success ………………………….…… 16 Section 3 – What was Funded? A Snapshot of Program Activities ………………….….. 23 How were funds distributed by region? ………………………………………………….… 25 How were funds distributed by type of project? ………………………………………….... 25 How were funds distributed by region and type of project? ………………………….……. 26 How many acres were acquired? ………………………………………………………….. 27 How much did it cost? How well were funds leveraged? ……………………………….…. 29 How were funds distributed across organizations? …………………………………….…... 30 How did grantmaking vary over the five years of the program? …………………………… 31 Section 4 – Guiding and Administering the PWC Program …………………………....…… 33 Program Planning: A Strategic Approach ……………………………………………....….. 33 Multiple Interconnected Strategies = A Recipe for Success ……………………………….. 37 Measuring Success and Adapting to Change ……………………………………………….. 39 Day-to-Day Grantmaking: Strategic and Pragmatic ………………………………………... 42 Hands-On, Interactive Style ………………………………………………………………… 44 The Costs of a Below-the-Radar-Screen Approach ………………………………………… 46 Program Time Frame – Pros and Cons …………………………………………………...… 48 Streamlined Staffing, Competent Consultants …………………………………………….... 49 Section 5 – Protecting Wildlands through Strategic Land Acquisition …………..….… 55 Significant Acreage Acquired in Priority Areas ………………………………………....…... 56 Much Acquired Land Judged Valuable by Others ……………………………………...…… 63 Increased Amount and Integrity of Protected Areas …………………………………………. 67 Creating Landscape-Scale Protection ………………………………………………………... 78 Mitigating Threats; Protecting Key Species and Ecosystems ………………………………... 83 Ensuring Long Term Wildlands Protection …………………………………………………... 88 The Critical Roles Played by PWC Funding, RLFF and its Consultants …………………….. 93 Dealing with Challenges ……………………………………………………………………… 96 Contents, Figures, Tables and Cases i Section 6 – Building Organizational Capacity for Wildlands Protection ………….… 101 A Diverse Set of Organizations ……………………………………………………….…… 102 A Hands-On and Multidimensional Approach ……………………………………….……. 107 Investing in Individuals Not Just Organizations ……………………………………..…….. 112 Building Networks ……………………………………………………………………….… 113 Significant Organizational Outcomes ……………………………………………………..... 115 Credibility, Trust and Confidence ……………………………………………………….…. 118 On-the-Ground Outcomes ………………………………………………………………….. 119 Sustaining Organizational Achievements ………………………………………………….. 122 Section 7 – Changing Public Policies that Affect California Wildlands ……………….. 127 A Wide Ranging Set of Policy Accomplishments ………………………………………….. 128 Increased Conservation Funding ………………………………………………………….… 132 Playing Defense …………………………………………………………………………..…. 133 Federal Wilderness Designations – A Strategic Success …………………………………..... 136 Coupling Short Term Wins with Strategies for Long Term Change ………………………... 145 Section 8 – Building Long Term Constituencies for Wildlands Protection …………… 149 Mobilizing Traditional and Nontraditional Groups ………………………………………….. 150 Outreach to Latino Populations …………………………………………………………….... 152 Innovative Ideas; Significant but Limited Accomplishments ………………………………... 154 Mismatch between Wildlands and Latinos? ………………………………………………….. 160 Mismatch between Time Frame and Long Term Needs? ………………………………....…. 163 Clarity of Project Goals ………………………………………………………………………. 165 Recognizing Diversity within the Latino Population ………………………………………….166 Working in Culturally-Sensitive Ways ………………………………………………………. 167 Organizational Impacts and Challenges ……………………………………………………….169 Section 9 – Supporting Science and Planning to Guide Future Protection ……………. 171 New Science; Expanded Tools ……………………………………………………………..... 172 Acquisition Strategies and Land Management Plans …………………………………….…... 177 Identifying Landscape-Scale Linkages ……………………………………………………… 180 Enabling Participation in Public Planning Processes ………………………………………... 182 Building Multiparty Partnerships ……………………………………………………………. 184 From Science to Plans to Action …………………………………………………………..… 186 What about Climate Change? ……………………………………………………………...… 188 Section 10 – Toward Future Wildlands Protection …………………………………………….... 191 Strategies and Activities …..........………………………….………………………………..... 191 Grantmaking Style and Process …................…………………………………….................... 198 Appendix A – Status of Policies Influenced by PWC Activities ……………………………… 201 ii Preserving Wild California: An External Assessment | Yaffee, Schueller and Wondolleck List of Figures Figure Page 2.1 PWC program logic model ………………………………………………………. 21 3.1 Location of projects/grantees funded by the PWC program …………………….. 24 3.2 Percent of funds awarded by region ……………………………………………… 25 3.3 Percent of grants awarded by region ……………………………………………... 25 3.4 Percent of funds by project type ………………………………………………….. 25 3.5 Percent of grants by project type …………………………………………………. 25 3.6 Percent of funds awarded by region and project type ……………………………. 26 3.7 Amount of funds awarded by region and project type …………………………… 26 3.8 Distribution of acquired acreage across PWC regions …………………………… 27 3.9 Amount of acquired acreage distributed by PWC focal areas ……………………. 28 3.10 Average dollar amount of grant by region and project type ……………………… 29 3.11 Relationship between grant amount and total project cost by region …………….. 29 3.12 Number of organizations receiving PWC grants by region ………………………. 30 3.13 Number of organizations receiving grants for different types of PWC projects …. 30 3.14 Number of grants awarded by year ……………………………………………….. 31 3.15 Total $ amount awarded per year …………………………………………………. 31 3.16 Total $ amount awarded per year by region ………………………………………. 31 3.17 Total $ amount awarded per year by project type …………………………………. 31 4.1 PWC Priority and Special Opportunity Areas …………………………………….. 36 4.2 The evolution of PWC grantmaking by strategy type …………………………….. 48 4.3 The evolution of PWC grantmaking by region …………………………………… 49 5.1 Distribution of acquired acreage across PWC regions ……………………………. 57 5.2 Comparison of acquired acreage to PWC Strategy Book benchmarks ……………. 58 5.3 Relationship of acquired acreage to original PWC priorities……………………… 59 5.4 Acreage protected in PWC Priority Areas and Special Opportunity Areas ………. 60 5.5 Pattern of Catellus “railroad” lands …...………………………………………… 62 5.6 Placement of acquired parcels relative to existing protected areas ……………….. 68 5.7 Placement of acquired acreage relative to existing protected areas ……………… 68 5.8 Placement of acquired acreage by region …………………………………………. 69 5.9 Acquisition of inholdings in Wilderness Areas …………………………………… 71 5.10 Acquisition of inholdings in Wilderness Study Areas …………………………….. 71 5.11 Administrative additions to the Ishi Wilderness Area …………………………….. 72 5.12 Acquisitions in Beauty Mountain Wilderness Study Area ………………………... 74 5.13 Acquisitions in the Smith River National Recreation Area ……………………….. 76 5.14 Acquisitions within the Kern River watershed ……………………………………. 79 5.15 PWC projects helping to build the Redwoods to the Sea Corridor ……………….. 81 5.16 Final ownership of acquired acreage ……………………………………………… 89 5.17 Eventual protection level of acquired acreage ……………………………………. 90 Contents, Figures, Tables and Cases iii 6.1 Location of PWC capacity-building projects ……………………………… ……... 103 6.2 Location of organizations receiving PWC capacity-building grants ……………… 104 6.3 PWC capacity-building approach ………………………………………………... 107 7.1 Location of Fort Hunter Liggett in the Central Coast ……………………………... 129 7.2 California wilderness bills influenced by PWC grantmaking……………………… 137 9.1 PWC-funded science and negotiations helped protect the Tejon Ranch ………….. 173 9.2 Missing Linkages as articulated by PWC-grantee South Coast Wildlands ……….. 181 iv Preserving Wild California: An External Assessment | Yaffee, Schueller and Wondolleck List of Tables Table Page 4.1 Number of grants made by region and type of strategy ……………………………
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment E Part 2
    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Doggin' America's Beaches
    Doggin’ America’s Beaches A Traveler’s Guide To Dog-Friendly Beaches - (and those that aren’t) Doug Gelbert illustrations by Andrew Chesworth Cruden Bay Books There is always something for an active dog to look forward to at the beach... DOGGIN’ AMERICA’S BEACHES Copyright 2007 by Cruden Bay Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Cruden Bay Books PO Box 467 Montchanin, DE 19710 www.hikewithyourdog.com International Standard Book Number 978-0-9797074-4-5 “Dogs are our link to paradise...to sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace.” - Milan Kundera Ahead On The Trail Your Dog On The Atlantic Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Gulf Of Mexico Beaches 6 Your Dog On The Pacific Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Great Lakes Beaches 0 Also... Tips For Taking Your Dog To The Beach 6 Doggin’ The Chesapeake Bay 4 Introduction It is hard to imagine any place a dog is happier than at a beach. Whether running around on the sand, jumping in the water or just lying in the sun, every dog deserves a day at the beach. But all too often dog owners stopping at a sandy stretch of beach are met with signs designed to make hearts - human and canine alike - droop: NO DOGS ON BEACH.
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Renewable Energy Zones
    From: Megan Lawson To: Gungle, Ashley Cc: Hingtgen, Robert J; Patrick BROWN ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Soitech follow up Date: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:34:46 PM Attachments: image001.png CA_CREZ_Conceptual_Transmission_Segments_Phase_2B_final.pdf Ashley, Here is our response to Mr. Silver's e-mail: Mr. Silver references “Competitive Renewable Energy Zones” (CREZs), which were part of the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) “Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative” (RETI) between 2008 and 2011. From what we can tell, the CEC’s RETI process appears to have stalled in early 2011, and now appears to have been set aside by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) process. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/. As you know, we do not need to address the DRECP in the PEIR because the project areas are located entirely outside of the DRECP area. For the County’s reference, the RETI process identified necessary major updates to the California transmission system to access CREZs. The process identified CREZs that could be developed in the most cost effective and environmentally benign manner. Potential renewable energy projects were grouped into CREZs based on geographic proximity. The CREZ implicated in southern San Diego County is CREZ 27, San Diego South. Each CREZ was developed based on existing and proposed projects (e.g., those projects with a PPA, or PPA pending) and other projects or resources with a high potential of being developed. Because the Soitec projects were not yet proposed at the time of CREZ development (2008- 2010), Soitec’s projects were not accounted for in the CREZ, nor does CREZ 27 account for areas of high solar potential or the most cost-effective or environmentally-benign sites for future solar development.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the many citizens, staff, and community groups who provided extensive input for the development of this Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. The project was a true community effort, anticipating that this plan will meet the needs and desires of all residents of our growing County. SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Glenn Hawes, Chair David Kehoe Les Baugh Leonard Moty Linda Hartman PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Terry Hanson, City of Redding Jim Milestone, National Park Service Heidi Horvitz, California State Parks Kim Niemer, City of Redding Chantz Joyce, Stewardship Council Minnie Sagar, Shasta County Public Health Bill Kuntz, Bureau of Land Management Brian Sindt, McConnell Foundation Jessica Lugo, City of Shasta Lake John Stokes, City of Anderson Cindy Luzietti, U.S. Forest Service SHASTA COUNTY STAFF Larry Lees, County Administrator Russ Mull, Department of Resource Management Director Richard Simon, Department of Resource Management Assistant Director Shiloe Braxton, Community Education Specialist CONSULTANT TEAM MIG, Inc. 815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97204 503.297.1005 www.migcom.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 Plan Purpose 1 Benefits of Parks and Recreation 2 Plan Process 4 Public Involvement 5 Plan Organization 6 2. Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 7 Planning Area 7 Community Profile 8 Existing Resources 14 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve: Administrative History
    Mojave National Preserve: Administrative History Mojave Administrative History From Neglected Space To Protected Place: An Administrative History of Mojave National Preserve by Eric Charles Nystrom March 2003 Prepared for: United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Mojave National Preserve Great Basin CESU Cooperative Agreement H8R0701001 TABLE OF CONTENTS moja/adhi/adhi.htm Last Updated: 05-Apr-2005 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/moja/adhi/adhi.htm[8/6/2013 5:32:15 PM] Mojave National Preserve: Administrative History (Table of Contents) Mojave Administrative History TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO: PRELUDE TO SYSTEMATIC FEDERAL MANAGEMENT Native Americans and Anglo Contact Grazing Mining Railroads Homesteading Modern Roads and Rights of Way Modern Military Training Recreation CHAPTER THREE: BLM MANAGEMENT IN THE EAST MOJAVE FLPMA and the Desert Plan The East Mojave National Scenic Area and the Genesis of the CDPA The Political Battle Over the CDPA CHAPTER FOUR: AN AWKWARD START AND THREATS OF AN EARLY END The Dollar Budget CHAPTER FIVE: PLANNING FOR MOJAVE'S FUTURE CHAPTER SIX: PARK MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER SEVEN: VISITOR SERVICES Resource and Visitor Protection Interpretation CHAPTER EIGHT: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Natural Resources http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/moja/adhi/adhit.htm[8/6/2013 5:32:17 PM] Mojave National Preserve: Administrative History (Table of Contents) Cultural Resources CHAPTER NINE: FUTURES BIBLIOGRAPHY FOOTNOTES INDEX (omitted from the online edition) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1 - Joshua tree and buckhorn cholla Illustration 2 - Prehistoric petroglyphs at Indian Well Illustration 3 - The 7IL Ranch Illustration 4 - Stone walls of 1880s-era Providence Illustration 5 - U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 887-acre Canyon Hills project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City. The project site lies within the Verdugo Mountains, a mountain range that covers an area of approximately 25 square miles.1 The Verdugo Mountains are geographically defined by the San Fernando Valley and the La Tuna Canyon and Tujunga Canyon drainages to the west, the Los Angeles Basin to the south, the San Gabriel Valley and the Arroyo Verdugo drainage to the east, and the communities of Sunland and Tujunga, which lie at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, to the north. The project site is an irregular-shaped property that extends along a southeast to northwest axis, and is roughly bounded by Verdugo Crestline Drive2 on the north and La Tuna Canyon Road on the south. Interstate 210 bisects the project site in an east-west direction dividing it into a northern subarea (“Development Area A”) of approximately 492 acres and a southern subarea (“Development Area B”) of approximately 395 acres. Existing Land Uses The project site contains steep mountainous terrain with local relief changes in excess of 500 vertical feet. Land elevations range from approximately 1,160 to 2,064 feet above sea level. Natural slope gradients roughly range from 3:1 to as steep as 0.75:1 (horizontal:vertical). Steep “V” shaped canyons are abundant throughout the project site. The proposed project site is bisected by Interstate 210. The portion of the freeway that passes through the project site was constructed in the early 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • See the Forest Order
    SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST Forest Order No. 05-12-00-21-12 Wilderness Occupancy and Use Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a), and to protect natural resources and provide for public safety, the following acts are prohibited within the San Bernardino National Forest. This Order is effective from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2022. 1. Entering or being in the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas. 36 C.F.R. § 261.57(a). 2. Being on any National Forest System trail within the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas. 36 C.F.R. § 261.55(a). 3. Being within the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Area as part of a group larger than 12 persons. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(f). 4. Camping in the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas, or within the Stonehouse Crossing Campsite. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(e). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from this Order: 1. Persons with a valid wilderness area day use permit issued by the San Bernardino National Forest are exempt from Prohibition Nos. 1 and 2, provided they are in compliance with the conditions contained in the permit. 2. Persons with a valid wilderness area overnight permit issued by the San Bernardino National Forest are exempt from Prohibition Nos. 1, 2, and 4, provided they are in compliance with the conditions contained in the permit. 3. Persons with a valid “PCT Long-Distance Permit” issued by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Castle Mountain Mine Plan and Reclamation
    Castle Mountain Venture (Viceroy Gold Corporation) CASTLE MOUNTAIN MINE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINE PLAN AND RECLAMATION PLAN Ver.2.1 (90M-013) California Mine ID NO. 91-36-0015 Prepared by: Castle Mountain Venture Castle Mountain Mine 911 American Pacific Drive., Ste. 190 Henderson, NV 89014 January 2, 2019 Castle Mountain Mine January 2019 Mine Plan and Reclamation Plan TABLE CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO 1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Background................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Mine Ownership and Prior Approvals .................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Organization of this Mine Plan/Reclamation Plan ................................................................. 1-4 1.4.1 Description – Site, Access, and Property ................................................................... 1-7 1.4.2 Background and Current Status of Operation ......................................................... 1-10 1.4.2.1 Early History – Hart Mining District ........................................................ 1-10 1.4.2.2 Operations (1990 – 2001) ....................................................................... 1-11 1.4.2.3 Operations
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve California
    A fact sheet from 2017 Dougall Photography/iStockphoto Mojave’s $131.8 million maintenance backlog includes repairs to historic buildings such as the Kelso Depot. Shane McMurphy/iStockphoto Mojave National Preserve California Overview Two hours from the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas and 100 miles from the nearest lodging lies California’s Mojave National Preserve. The Las Vegas Review-Journal dubbed this vast desert in San Bernardino County the “perfect escape for those seeking serenity.” The preserve spans 1.6 million acres, making it the third-largest National Park Service (NPS) unit in the contiguous United States. Mojave is ecologically and geologically diverse, with towering sand dunes, dun-colored mesas, and volcanic formations providing habitat for its abundant plants and wildlife. In addition to the densest forest of Joshua trees in the world, visitors can see bighorn sheep, bobcats, golden eagles, and breathtaking displays of seasonal wildflowers. The preserve also has a rich cultural heritage. Lands first inhabited by the Chemehuevi and Mojave tribes attracted gold miners in the late 19th century and were later crossed by several railroad lines. Visitors can learn more about this history through exhibits at the visitor center and by exploring archaeological sites, abandoned mines, and preserved homesteads and other buildings. The ghost town of Kelso, which once served as a Union Pacific Railroad depot and mining outpost, is one of the park’s most popular destinations. Unfortunately, Mojave faces over $131 million in deferred maintenance. Maintenance challenges Nearly all of Mojave’s needed repairs are for its road network. Severe deterioration of some sections of pavement has prompted the NPS to warn visitors of dangerous potholes.
    [Show full text]
  • Discover California State Parks in the Monterey Area
    Crashing waves, redwoods and historic sites Discover California State Parks in the Monterey Area Some of the most beautiful sights in California can be found in Monterey area California State Parks. Rocky cliffs, crashing waves, redwood trees, and historic sites are within an easy drive of each other. "When you look at the diversity of state parks within the Monterey District area, you begin to realize that there is something for everyone - recreational activities, scenic beauty, natural and cultural history sites, and educational programs,” said Dave Schaechtele, State Parks Monterey District Public Information Officer. “There are great places to have fun with families and friends, and peaceful and inspirational settings that are sure to bring out the poet, writer, photographer, or artist in you. Some people return to their favorite state parks, year-after-year, while others venture out and discover some new and wonderful places that are then added to their 'favorites' list." State Parks in the area include: Limekiln State Park, 54 miles south of Carmel off Highway One and two miles south of the town of Lucia, features vistas of the Big Sur coast, redwoods, and the remains of historic limekilns. The Rockland Lime and Lumber Company built these rock and steel furnaces in 1887 to cook the limestone mined from the canyon walls. The 711-acre park allows visitors an opportunity to enjoy the atmosphere of Big Sur’s southern coast. The park has the only safe access to the shoreline along this section of cast. For reservations at the park’s 36 campsites, call ReserveAmerica at (800) 444- PARK (7275).
    [Show full text]
  • Resolved by the Senate and House Of
    906 PUBLIC LAW 90-541-0CT. I, 1968 [82 STAT. Public Law 90-541 October 1, 1968 JOINT RESOLUTION [H.J. Res, 1461] Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1969, and for other purposes. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatimes of tlie United Continuing ap­ propriations, States of America in Congress assernbled, That clause (c) of section 1969. 102 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-366), is Ante, p. 475. hereby further amended by striking out "September 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "October 12, 1968". Approved October 1, 1968. Public Law 90-542 October 2, 1968 AN ACT ------[S. 119] To proYide for a Xational Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purPoses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Wild and Scenic United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) this Act Rivers Act. may be cited as the "vVild and Scenic Rivers Act". (b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandin~ly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoy­ ment of l?resent and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appro­ priate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be com­ plemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof m their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.
    [Show full text]