DOCSLIB.ORG

SEP Report for Stanislaus River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEP Report for Stanislaus River April 2019 Conservation Planning Foundation for Restoring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) and O. mykiss in the Stanislaus River Contributors and Participants American Rivers: John Cain Anchor QEA, LLC: John Ferguson, Elizabeth Greene, and Michelle L. Ratliff The Bay Institute: Jon Rosenfield and Alison Weber-Stover California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Stephen Louie, John Shelton, and Tim Heyne National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Brian Ellrott, Sierra Franks, Monica Gutierrez, Rhonda Reed, David Swank, Steve Edmundson, and Katherine Schmidt National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of California, Davis: Rachel Johnson The Nature Conservancy: Jeanette Howard and Julie Zimmerman State Water Resources Control Board: Chris Carr and Daniel Worth Trout Unlimited: Rene Henery University of California, Davis, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Ron Yoshiyama U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Joshua Israel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Paul Cadrett, Ramon Martin, and J.D. Wikert CONSERVATION PLANNING FOUNDATION FOR RESTORING CHINOOK SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA) AND O. MYKISS IN THE STANISLAUS RIVER Contributors and Participants American Rivers: John Cain Anchor QEA, LLC: John Ferguson, Elizabeth Greene, and Michelle L. Ratliff The Bay Institute: Jon Rosenfield and Alison Weber-Stover California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Stephen Louie, John Shelton, and Tim Heyne National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Brian Ellrott, Sierra Franks, Monica Gutierrez, Rhonda Reed, David Swank, Steve Edmundson, and Katie Schmidt National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of California, Davis: Rachel Johnson The Nature Conservancy: Jeanette Howard and Julie Zimmerman State Water Resources Control Board: Chris Carr and Daniel Worth Trout Unlimited: Rene Henery University of California, Davis, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission: Ron Yoshiyama U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Joshua Israel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Paul Cadrett, Ramon Martin, and J.D. Wikert Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, Washington 98101 April 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................ES-I TECHNICAL SUMMARY .......................................................................................................TS-1 Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introductio n ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Approach and Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Policy Scope .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Biological Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Logic Chain ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Structured and Collaborative Approach to Decision Making........................................................................ 11 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Central Valley .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Stanislaus River....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Biological Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Productivity ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Life History Diversity ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Genetic Diversity .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Abundance .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Environmental Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Stressors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Stressor Identification, Ranking, and Prioritization...................................................................................... 32 Results of Stressor Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 34 Addressing Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Next Steps for the Stanislaus River ....................................................................................................................... 39 Beyond the Stanislaus River .................................................................................................................................... 40 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 2 SCOPE, CONTEXT, AND CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................4 2.1 Historical Context ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Considerations for Biological and Environmental Objectives ........................................................... 5 2.3 Scope.................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.1 Policy Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2 Geographical Considerations............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.3 Biological Considerations.................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Developing Foundational Elements Necessary for Conservation Planning (“Logic Chain”)... 13 Conservation Planning Foundation for Restoring April 2019 Chinook Salmon and O. mykiss in Stanislaus River i Table of Contents 3 VIABLE SALMONID POPULATION ATTRIBUTES ................................................................. 20 3.1 Abundance ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Life History and Genetic Diversity............................................................................................................ 21 3.3 Productivity .................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Spatial Structure............................................................................................................................................ 24 4 CURRENT STATUS OF CHINOOK SALMON AND O. MYKISS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN .................................................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Fall-run Chinook Salmon............................................................................................................................ 26 4.2 Spring-run Chinook Salmon...................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 O. mykiss (Steelhead and Resident Rainbow Trout)........................................................................... 30 4.4 Late Fall-run Chinook Salmon................................................................................................................... 31 5 STANISLAUS WATERSHED DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... 32 6 DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SPECIFIC TO THE STANISLAUS RIVER..........
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan
    Summary Report Central Valley Project Integrated Resource Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................5 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................7 CLIMATE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS ...............................................................................11 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMANDS .................................................................21 PERFORMANCE OF POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................................................27 PORTFOLIO TRADEOFFS .......................................................................................................................................37 CVP IRP STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................39 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES ......................................................................................41 Tables Table 1. Simulation Suites and Assumptions Inlcuded in Each Portfolio .............................................................27 Figures Figure 1a. Projected changes in Temperature in Ensemble-Informed Transient Climate Scenarios between 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis
    Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis water hetch hetchy water & power clean water October 2006 Upper Tuolumne River: Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis Final Report Prepared by: RMC Water and Environment and McBain & Trush, Inc. October 2006 Upper Tuolumne River Section 1 Introduction Available Data Sources, Field Work Plan, and Initial Hydrology Analysis Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Section 2 Hetch Hetchy Facilities in the Study Area ............................................................. 4 Section 3 Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Hetch Hetchy Project Facilities and Operations on Flow in Study Reaches ..................................................................................... 7 3.1 Analysis Approach ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2 The Natural Hydrograph........................................................................................... 10 3.3 Effects of Flow Regulation on Annual Hydrograph Components ............................. 12 3.3.1 Cherry and Eleanor Creeks.................................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Tuolumne River...................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Effects
    [Show full text]
  • The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California
    The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph of more than a dozen salt-evaporation basins at Hams salt spring, which have been carved by Native Americans in granitic bedrock. Saline water flows in light-colored streambed on left. Photograph by J.S. Moore, 2009. The Saltiest Springs in the Sierra Nevada, California By James G. Moore, Michael F. Diggles, William C. Evans, and Karin Klemic Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5053 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Moore, J.G., Diggles, M.F., Evans, W.C., and Klemic, K., 2017, The saltiest springs in the Sierra Nevada, California: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California
    Peer Reviewed Title: Riverine Nutrient Trends in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, California: A Comparison to State and Regional Water Quality Policies Journal Issue: San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 13(4) Author: Schlegel, Brandon, California State University, Sacramento Domagalski, Joseph L., U.S Geological Survey, California Water Science Center Publication Date: 2015 Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c37m6vz Keywords: Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient transport, nutrient loads, agricultural drainage Local Identifier: jmie_sfews_29499 Abstract: doi: http://dx.doi.org/1015447/sfews.2015v13iss4art2 Non-point source (NPS) contaminant control strategies were initiated in California in the late 1980s under the authority of the State Porter–Cologne Act and eventually for the development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans, under the federal Clean Water Act. Most of the NPS TMDLs developed for California’s Central Valley (CV) region were related to pesticides, but not nutrients. Efforts to reduce pesticide loads and concentrations began in earnest around 1990. The NPS control strategies either encouraged or mandated the use of management practices (MPs). Although TMDLs were largely developed for pesticides, the resultant MPs might have affected the runoff of other potential contaminants (such as nutrients). This study evaluates the effect of agricultural NPS control strategies implemented in California’s CV before and between 1990 and 2013, on nutrients, by comparing trends in surface-water concentrations and loads. In general, use of MPs was encouraged during a “voluntary” period (1990 to 2004) and mandated during an “enforcement” period (2004 to 2013). Nutrient concentrations, loads, and trends were estimated by using a recently developed Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) model.
    [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]
  • René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______
    René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ March 22, 2013 Sent to: [email protected] and [email protected] Penelope Shibley, District Planner cc: Ara Marderosian Kern River Ranger District Georgette Theotig P.O. Box 9, 105 Whitney Road Kernville, CA 93238 Subject: Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA Comments for Sequoia ForestKeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club Ms. Shibley, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA. Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC) are generally supportive of efforts to close or restore areas damaged by OHVs to avert erosion, to deter illegal uses, to protect natural resources, and to reduce user conflict with non-motorized uses. Purpose and Scope of the Project The Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project would implement the closure and restoration of non-system routes within four recreation sites, relocate and restore campsites located within a recreation site (Evans Flat), and reroute portions of two OHV trails; one mile of the Woodward Peak Trail (Trail #32E53) and two miles of the Kern Canyon Trail (Trail #31E75). Three of the four recreation sites (Black Gulch North, Black Gulch South and China Garden) and one of the OHV trails (Kern Canyon Trail #31E75) are located in the Lower Kern Canyon. The fourth recreation site and the second OHV trail (Woodward Peak Trail #32E53) are located within the Greenhorn Mountains near Evans Flat Campground.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River Project Information
    Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Three Year Evaluation of Predation in the Stanislaus River 2. Proposal applicants: Steve Felte, Tri-Dam Project 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Jason Reed Tri-Dam Project P.O. Box 1158 Pinecrest, CA 95364 209 965-3996 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: Anadromous salmonids At-risk species, fish Fish mortality/fish predation 5. Type of project: Research 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: At-Risk Species Assessments 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 37.739 Longitude: -121.076 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. The proposed project will be conducted in the Stanislaus River between Knight’s Ferry at river mile 54.6 and the confluence with the San Joaquin River, in the mainstem San Joaquin River immediately downstream of the confluence, and in the deepwater ship channel near Stockton. 10. Location - Ecozone: 12.1 Vernalis to Merced River, 13.1 Stanislaus River, 1.2 East Delta, 11.2 Mokelumne River, 11.3 Calaveras River 11. Location - County: San Joaquin, Stanislaus 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: 18 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 5, 12 California Assembly District Number: 25, 17 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith, J.R. Et Al., 2007. Acoustic Monitoring of Mokelumne River
    •3 Two hatchery smolts moved upstream Acoustic Monitoring of from the release site into the Cosumnes River. They held there for >30 days and then moved up the Sacramento River Mokelumne River •4 Oncorhynchus mykiss PRELIMINARY RESULTS James R. Smith1 , Michelle L. Workman1, 2 3 • All hatchery smolts were detected at least once by the receiver grid. Time from release to last detection ranged from 1 to 114 Joseph E. Merz , Walter Heady , and days 1 • All hatchery reconditioned kelts were detected. Time ranged from 1 to 81 days. Joseph J. Miyamoto • Forty-Seven of sixty-four (73%) of wild O. mykiss were detected by combined stationary and mobile tracking techniques. • Time from release to last detection ranged from 1-136 days for stationary receivers and from 5 to 173 days for 1 East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1 Winemasters Way, Lodi, CA 95240 mobile tracking. 2 Cramer Fish Sciences, 636 Hedburg Way #22, Oakdale, CA 95361 3 University of California, Santa Cruz, Long Marine Lab, 100 Shaffer Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95060 70% 60% Project funded by the California Urban Water Agencies 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Release Group Vicinity of Mokelumne Sacramento Delta/Bay None INTRODUCTION Release River River The Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery (Hatchery) has released over 2 million smolt Detections through 7/13/2007 steelhead, Oncorhyncus mykiss, in the lower Mokelumne River since 1995, however, fewer than 750 adults have returned to the Hatchery since 1996. There have been limited data Hatchery Smolts n=57 Reconditioned Kelts n=7 Wild Caught Various n=64 Detections occurred in four major categories: 1)detections in vicinity of release site; collected on the movements of these fish once released.
    [Show full text]
  • Hiking Trails Sequoia National Forest Western Divide Ranger District
    United States Department of Agriculture Hiking Trails Sequoia National Forest Western Divide Ranger District Western Divide Hiking Trails TRAIL NAME TRAIL # APPROX LOW HIGH EASY MOD STREN BIKE MILES Long Meadow 31E15 7.6 6,800’ 9,000’ X X Summit (GTW) 31E14 11.3 8,400’ 9,920’ Summit (South) 31E14 25 7,000’ 9,000’ X X Clicks Creek 32E11 8.2 6,200’ 7,800’ X X Lewis Camp 33E01 18.5 5,800’ 7,600’ Jerkey Meadow 32E12 9.8 6,000’ 6,800’ X X Forks of the Kern 33E20 11.5 4,600’ 5,700’ Lloyd Meadow 32E12 5.1 5,600’ 6,000’ X X Nelson 31E30 3.7 5,300’ 6,800’ X X X Bear Creek 31E31 8 5,000’ 9,000’ X X X Wishon 30E14 6 4,000’ 5,600’ X X X Needles 32E22 2.5 7,800’ 8,200’ X X Freeman Creek 32E20 4.3 5,600’ 7,100’ X X Jordan Peak 31E35 1.5 8,600’ 9,115’ X X X Mule Peak 31E43 1.5 7,600’ 8,200’ X X X LONG MEADOW: Leaves from Shake Camp in Mtn. Home State SUMMIT SOUTH (NON-WILDERNESS PORTION): Trail trav- Forest. Trail travels northeasterly starting at 6,800’ and enters Sequoia els from the GTW boundary south to Freeze out Mdw on the Hot & Kings Canyon National Parks at approximately 9,000’. Trail crosses Springs District. Trail is bisected many times by roads, but does pro- the Tule River twice, then junctions with the Touhy Gap Trail, then vide the visitor with many beautiful views and interesting things to see rises steeply on a rocky trail with many switchbacks to Summit Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project Is Located in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, CA on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (Middle Fork) and South Fork Stanislaus River
    Hydropower Project License Summary STANISLAUS RIVER, CALIFORNIA SPRING GAP-STANISLAUS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2130) Photo Credit: California State Water Board This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition Stanislaus River, CA STANISLAUS RIVER, CA SPRING GAP-STANISLAUS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2130) DESCRIPTION: The Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project is located in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, CA on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (Middle Fork) and South Fork Stanislaus River. Owned. The project, operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), has an installed capacity of 87.9 MW and occupies approximately 1,060 acres of federal land within the Stanislaus National Forest. Both the Middle and South Forks are popular destinations for a variety of outdoor recreation activities. With a section of the lower river designated by the State of CA as a Wild Trout Fishery, the Middle Fork is widely considered to be one of California’s best wild trout fisheries. The South Fork on the other hand, with its high gradient and steep rapids, is a popular whitewater kayaking and rafting destination. A. SUMMARY 1. License application filed: December 26, 2002 2. License Issued: April 24, 2009 3. License expiration: March 31, 2047 4. Capacity: Spring Gap- 6.0 MW Stanislaus- 81.9 MW 5. Waterway: Middle & North Forks of the Stanislaus River 6. Counties: Calaveras, Tuolumne 7. Licensee: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) 8. Licensee Contact: Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 997300 Sacramento, CA 95899-7300 9. Project area: The project is located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of north- central California.
    [Show full text]
  • KINGS RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA High Sierra Ranger District
    PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION Restoring, Enhancing and Sustaining Forests in California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands Sierra National Forest KINGS RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA High Sierra Ranger District Welcome to the Kings River Special Manage- Kings River at the end of Garnet Dike Road. It ment Area. Congress has given special designa- follows the river east for three miles to Spring tion to this area to enhance its recreational oppor- Creek, ascends northeast to Garlic Meadow tunities. It is located two hours east of Fresno in Creek, and continues to Rough Creek. the upper Kings River canyon. The Special Man- agement Area (SMA) includes 49,000 acres Bear Wallow interpretive trail is also located on within the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. It the north side of the Kings River. Interpretive is the third such area nationwide to be given spe- signs provide information on: Cultural heritage, cial recognition and protection. The other two wildflowers, grasses, California Mule Deer mi- special management areas are Lake Tahoe Basin gration, Blue Oak Woodland and a description of and Mono Lake. Noteworthy characteristics of the scenic overlook. The trail is approximately 2 the SMA include a wild trout fishery, Garlic miles long and gradually climbs the foothill Falls, and the Boole Tree, which is the largest slopes. John Muir Wilderness, Monarch Wilder- Sequoia tree found in any National Forest in the ness, Kings Canyon National Park and the Kings United States. River area all on display at the beautiful scenic overlook. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES The SMA offers a wide variety of recreational On the south side of the river, another trail be- opportunities: gins at Mill Flat Creek and follows the Kings Camping: There are four developed camp- River upstream 5 miles to Converse Creek.
    [Show full text]