DOCSLIB.ORG

Kern River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kern River Basin Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Affected Environme nt ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Characterization of Monument Watersheds ............................................................................................ 14 Climate....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Changes in the Modern Climate Regime .................................................................................................. 19 Kings River Basin........................................................................................................................................ 20 UPPER KINGS RIVER BASIN........................................................................................................................ 20 Kaweah River Basin ................................................................................................................................... 61 UPPER KAWEAH BASIN .............................................................................................................................. 61 Kern River Basin......................................................................................................................................... 75 UPPER KERN RIVER BASIN .......................................................................................................................... 75 Upper Tule River Basin ............................................................................................................................ 106 MIDDLE FORK TULE RIVER WATERSH ED ..................................................................................................... 108 NORTH FORK TULE RIVER WATERSHED ...................................................................................................... 132 SOUTH FORK TULE RIVER WATERSHE D ...................................................................................................... 138 Upper Deer, White, and Poso River Basins ............................................................................................. 139 UPPER DEER-UPPER WHIT E RIVER BASIN ................................................................................................... 139 UPPER WHITE RIVER WATERSHE D ............................................................................................................. 140 UPPER DEER CREEK WATERSHE D .............................................................................................................. 143 Upper Poso River Basin ........................................................................................................................... 158 UPPE R POS O CREEK WAT ERSHE D ..................................................................................................... 159 Desired Conditions for Hydrological Resour ces ......................................................................................... 165 Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................................. 168 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 168 Alternative A ....................................................................................................................................... 169 Alternative B - Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 176 Alternative C ....................................................................................................................................... 185 Alternative D....................................................................................................................................... 187 Alternative E........................................................................................................................................ 187 Alternative F........................................................................................................................................ 191 Legal and Regulatory Compliance............................................................................................................... 192 Page 2 of 282 Assumptions and Methodology .................................................................................................................. 193 Ecological Restoration............................................................................................................................. 193 Use of Scien ce ......................................................................................................................................... 197 Science Considered ................................................................................................................................. 198 Assumptions for All Alternatives............................................................................................................. 198 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 200 Indirect Effe cts............................................................................................................................................. 201 All Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 201 Alternative A............................................................................................................................................ 202 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................ 202 Alternative C............................................................................................................................................ 202 Alternative D............................................................................................................................................ 203 Alternative E ............................................................................................................................................ 203 Alternative F ............................................................................................................................................ 203 Alternative Outcomes for Hydrologic Resources.................................................................................. 203 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................................................... 204 Standards and Guidelines and Monitoring ................................................................................................. 215 Literature Cited and References ................................................................................................................. 216 Appendix A: Standard and Guideline Consistency Analysis ....................................................................... 221 Appendix B: Standards and Guidelines for RCAs and CARs ........................................................................ 233 Appendix C: Stream Condition Inventory (SCI)........................................................................................... 264 Appendix D: Zone of Infl uence for Giant Sequoia Groves.......................................................................... 269 Potential Zone of Influe nce for Giant Sequoia Groves........................................................................... 269 Stream Channel Stability Inventory Prioritization.................................................................................. 269 Inventory Priority for Northern Portion of Giant Sequoia National Monument ................................... 270 Inventory Priority for Southern Portion of Giant Sequoia National Monument ................................... 272 Appendix E: Meadow Condition ................................................................................................................. 275 Meadow Condition Classification ........................................................................................................... 275 Meadow Conditions - Northern Monument .......................................................................................... 277 Meadow Conditions - Southern Monument ........................................................................................... 278 Page 3 of 282 Introduction The hydrology report for the Giant Sequoia National Monument (Monument) is organized by Affected Environment, Environmental Effects, Management Strategy, and References. The Affected Environment provides information on beneficial uses, Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) (Frazer et al. 2005), aquatic management indicator species (MIS) site condition (Hawkins et al. 2000; EPA 2006; Rehn 2009), descriptions of riparian ecotypes (Kaplan-Henry 2000), and past and present effects. The Affected Environment is organized in hierarchal manner using fourth- field watersheds as the largest unit. Fifth,
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]
  • Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed
    • D -1:>K 1.2!;EQUOJA-KING$ Ci\NYON NATIONAL PARKS History of the Parks "''' Evaluation of Historic Resources Detennination of Effect, DCP Prepared by • A. Berle Clemensen DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEA.'! NATIONAL PAP.K SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPAR'J'}fENT OF THE l~TERIOR DENVER, COLOR..\DO SEPTEffilER 1975 i i• Pl.EA5!: RETUl1" TO: B&WScans TEallillCAL INFORMAl!tll CfNIEil 0 ·l'i «coo,;- OOIVER Sf:RV!Gf Cf!fT£R llAT!ONAL PARK S.:.'Ma j , • BRIEF HISTORY OF SEQUOIA Spanish and Mexican Period The first white men, the Spanish, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1772. They, however, only observed the Sierra Nevada mountains. None entered the high terrain where the giant Sequoia exist. Only one explorer came close to the Sierra Nevadas. In 1806 Ensign Gabriel Moraga, venturing into the foothills, crossed and named the Rio de la Santos Reyes (River of the Holy Kings) or Kings River. Americans in the San Joaquin Valley The first band of Americans entered the Valley in 1827 when Jedediah Smith and a group of fur traders traversed it from south to north. This journey ushered in the first American frontier as fifteen years of fur trapping followed. Still, none of these men reported sighting the giant trees. It was not until 1833 that members of the Joseph R. 1lalker expedition crossed the Sierra Nevadas and received credit as the first whites to See the Sequoia trees. These trees are presumed to form part of either the present M"rced or Tuolwnregroves. Others did not learn of their find since Walker's group failed to report their discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Schaeffer Fire Sequoia National Forest, an Assessment of Fuels And
    2017 Schaeffer Fire Sequoia National Forest An Assessment of Fuels and Fire Behavior July 24, 2017 Prepared by: Fire Behavior Assessment Team (FBAT) Alicia Reiner, Enterprise Program, [email protected], Jennifer Anderson, Pacific Southwest Region Carol Ewell, Stanislaus National Forest Amy Ziegler, Six Rivers National Forest Summit Wildland Fire Module, Stanislaus National Forest Sequoia Wildland Fire Module, Sequoia National Forest Acknowledgements: We thank the people who dedicate their energy and careers to land and fire management with the Forest Service and other agencies. The firefighters FBAT has had the opportunity to work with on this assignment and others, not only inspire us to continue navigating the difficulties inherent to keeping FBAT operational, but also give us hope that our land management agencies and fire organizations will continue to improve and provide high quality land and fire management into the future. We thank the CA Central Coast Incident Management Team for supporting FBAT logistically and allowing us to accomplish monitoring work on this fire. We thank the Division Supervisors and other resources we worked with for working with us to access portions of the fire safely. We thank the Sequoia National Forest and Kern River Ranger District, for welcoming FBAT to their unit. A final thanks is to all members and supporters of FBAT, current and past, who have made this program, and the learning which comes from it, possible. 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries
    NATIVE TROUT WATERS OF CALIFORNIA Michael Carl The Ecological Angler www.ecoangler.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUTION – THE ORIGINAL SIX 4 ABOUT THE BOOK 4 CLAVEY RIVER 5 BACKGROUND 6 TROUT POPULATION DATA 6 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 7 DIRECTIONS TO REACH SEGMENT 3 AND 4 (E.G., BRIDGE CROSSING CLAVEY RIVER): 7 AREA MAP 8 CLAVEY RIVER FLOW STATISTICS 9 FISHING TECHNIQUES 9 EAGLE LAKE 10 BACKGROUND 11 BIG TROUT FOOD – TUI CHUBS 11 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 11 DIRECTIONS TO EAGLE LAKE FROM RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA: 11 AREA MAP 12 PRODUCTIVE TIMES AND ZONES TO FISH 13 FISHING TECHNIQUES 13 SPALDING TRACT – TOPO MAP 14 PIKES POINT – TOPO MAP 15 GOLDEN TROUT CREEK 16 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 17 ABUNDANCE OF CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT 17 CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT GENETIC DATA 17 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 18 DIRECTIONS TO COTTONWOOD PASS TRAILHEAD 18 AREA MAP 19 PHOTO JOURNAL – COTTONWOOD PASS TO TUNNEL MEADOW 20 FISHING TECHNIQUES 23 HEENAN LAKE 24 BACKGROUND 25 FLY ANGLER STATISTICS – 2007 SEASON (8/3/07 TO 10/28/07) 26 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 27 AREA MAP 27 DIRECTIONS 27 PRODUCTIVE ZONES TO FISH 28 FISHING TECHNIQUES 28 UPPER KERN RIVER 29 BACKGROUND 30 KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 DISTRIBUTION OF KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 31 MAP – LLOYD MEADOW ROAD TO FORKS OF THE KERN 32 SPOTLIGHT – FORKS OF THE KERN 33 DIRECTIONS AND TRAIL DESCRIPTION 33 RECOMMENDED FISHING GEAR 33 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER 35 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 36 ABUNDANCE AND SIZE OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT 37 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, ACCESS & DISTANCE 37 DIRECTIONS TO REACH TRAILHEAD: 38 AREA MAP 39 TRAIL DESCRIPTION 40 FISHING TECHNIQUES 40 Introduction – The Original Six The Native Trout Waters of California details six of the state’s most scenic, diverse, and significant native trout fisheries.
    [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]
  • Army Civil Works Program Fy 2020 Work Plan - Operation and Maintenance
    ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM FY 2020 WORK PLAN - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL LINE ITEM OF BUSINESS MANAGERS AND WORK STATE DIVISION PROJECT OR PROGRAM FY 2020 PBUD MANAGERS WORK PLAN ADDITIONAL FY2020 BUDGETED AMOUNT JUSTIFICATION FY 2020 ADDITIONAL FUNDING JUSTIFICATION PROGRAM PLAN TOTAL AMOUNT AMOUNT 1/ AMOUNT FUNDING 2/ 2/ Funds will be used for specific work activities including AK POD NHD ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK $10,485,000 $9,685,000 $9,685,000 dredging. AK POD NHD AURORA HARBOR, AK $75,000 $0 Funds will be used for baling deck for debris removal; dam Funds will be used for commonly performed O&M work. outlet channel rock repairs; operations for recreation visitor ENS, FDRR, Funds will also be used for specific work activities including AK POD CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK $7,236,000 $7,236,000 $1,905,000 $9,141,000 6 assistance and public safety; south seepage collector channel; REC relocation of the debris baling area/construction of a baling asphalt roads repairs; and, improve seepage monitoring for deck ($1,800,000). Dam Safety Interim Risk Reduction measures. Funds will be used for specific work activities including AK POD NHS DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK $875,000 $875,000 $875,000 dredging. Funds will be used for dredging environmental coordination AK POD NHS ELFIN COVE, AK $0 $0 $75,000 $75,000 5 and plans and specifications. Funds will be used for specific work activities including AK POD NHD HOMER HARBOR, AK $615,000 $615,000 $615,000 dredging. Funds are being used to inspect Federally constructed and locally maintained flood risk management projects with an emphasis on approximately 11,750 of Federally authorized AK POD FDRR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK 3/ $200,000 $200,000 and locally maintained levee systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Management.Indd
    Fire today ManagementVolume 65 • No. 2 • Spring 2005 LLARGEARGE FFIRESIRES OFOF 2002—P2002—PARTART 22 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Erratum In Fire Management Today volume 64(4), the article "A New Tool for Mopup and Other Fire Management Tasks" by Bill Gray shows incorrect telephone and fax numbers on page 47. The correct numbers are 210-614-4080 (tel.) and 210-614-0347 (fax). Fire Management Today is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the pub- lic business required by law of this Department. Fire Management Today is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, at: Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 Fire Management Today is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/index.html Mike Johanns, Secretary Melissa Frey U.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager Dale Bosworth, Chief Robert H. “Hutch” Brown, Ph.D. Forest Service Managing Editor Tom Harbour, Director Madelyn Dillon Fire and Aviation Management Editor Delvin R. Bunton Issue Coordinator The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communica- tion of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Giant Sequoia Forest Service Sequoia National Monument National Forest August 2012 Record of Decision The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Responsible Official: Randy Moore Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern This document presents the decision regarding the the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be National Monument (Monument) that will amend the followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource environmental consequences contained in the Final Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the Environmental Impact Statement are considered in national forest that is in the Monument.
    [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]
  • 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]