DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Greater Sierra Nevada Bioregion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Greater Sierra Nevada Bioregion A GUIDE TO Wildlands Conservation in the Greater Sierra Nevada Bioregion © Claus Sivert A GUIDE TO Wildlands Conservation in the Greater Sierra Nevada Bioregion © Claus Sivert Prepared by: Fraser Shilling, Ph. D. Evan Girvetz Chris Erichsen Brenda Johnson, Ph. D. Peter C. Nichols February, 2002 California Wilderness Coalition 2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5 Davis, California 95616 (530) 758-0380 www.calwild.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Project Steering Committee Janet Cobb, California Oak Foundation and Yosemite Regional Conservation Trust Barbara Dugelby, Ph.D., The Wildlands Project Robert Johnston, University of California, Davis Jim Quinn, Ph.D., University of California, Davis Fraser Shilling, Ph.D., University of California, Davis Michael Soulé, Ph.D., The Wildlands Project Wildlands Planning Team Christen Erichsen, California Wilderness Coalition Evan Girvetz, University of California, Davis Brenda Johnson, Ph.D., California Department of Fish and Game Alison Sterling Nichols, California Wilderness Coalition Peter C. Nichols, California Wilderness Coalition Fraser Shilling, Ph.D., University of California, Davis Acknowledgments This document would not be possible without the generous financial support of the Columbia Foundation and the Foundation for Deep Ecology. Many knowledgeable individuals helped refine and prepare this conservation vision by providing reviews, data, GIS coverages, and their expertise. The California Wilderness Coalition and planning team extend great thanks to Laurel Ames, Reginald Barrett, Eric Beckwitt, Steve Benner, Scott Hoffman-Black, Sam Blankenship, Vern Bleich, Gordon Gould, Sue Britting, John Buckley, Carlos Carroll, Janet Cobb, Kathy Daly, Barbara Dugelby, Jon Fischer, Steve Greco, Bill Haskins, Pat Huber, Rich Hunter, Mark Jennings, Bob Johnston, Walt Koenig, Levi Lewis, Eric Loft, Dan Macon, Peter Moyle, Jim Quinn, Ron Schlorff, Michael Soulé, Jim Strittholt, Craig Thomas, Jim Thorne, Steve Torres, Rick Truex, Jon Wehausen, and anonymous peer reviewers. About the California Wilderness Coalition California Wilderness Coalition works to defend the pristine landscapes that make California unique, provide a home to our wildlife, and preserve a place for spiritual renewal. We protect wilderness for its own sake, for ourselves, and for generations yet to come. We identify and protect the habitat necessary for the long-term survival of California’s plants and animals. And through our hard-hitting advocacy and public education, we enlist the support of citizens and policy-makers in our efforts to protect California’s wildlands. For more information, contact: Alison Sterling Nichols, [email protected] Pete Nichols, [email protected] P. O. Box 342, Grass Valley, CA 95945, (530) 271-5951 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1. Sierra Nevada Overview ................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Ecoregion profiles .................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Land use .............................................................................................................................. 14 2. Ecological Threats ..................................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 21 2.2 Habitat fragmentation ......................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Species loss........................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Suppressed wildfire cycles..................................................................................................... 31 2.5 Dammed wild rivers and creeks ........................................................................................... 31 2.6 Invasive plants and animals ..................................................................................................31 2.7 Human population growth .................................................................................................. 32 2.8 Lack of evenly distributed protected areas ............................................................................ 32 3. Wildlands Conservation Planning ............................................................................................. 35 3.1 What is a Wildlands Conservation Plan? .............................................................................. 37 3.2 Wildlands planning in the Sierra Nevada ............................................................................. 39 3.3 Elements of a Wildlands Conservation Plan ......................................................................... 40 4. Wildlands Conservation Plan....................................................................................................... 47 4.1 Introduction to planning methodology ................................................................................ 49 4.2 Goals for regional conservation ............................................................................................ 50 4.3 Planning objectives .............................................................................................................. 50 4.4 Assumptions and limitations ................................................................................................ 50 4.5 The precautionary principle ................................................................................................. 51 4.6 Important terminology ........................................................................................................51 4.7 Selection of focal species ...................................................................................................... 51 4.8 Conservation targets ............................................................................................................ 55 4.9 Data sources ........................................................................................................................ 57 4.10 Assessment of Wildland Integrity....................................................................................... 58 4.11 Identification of Wildland Conservation Areas .................................................................. 64 4.12 Identification of Wildland Linkages ................................................................................... 66 4.13 Comparative representation analysis .................................................................................. 66 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5. Results and Discussion................................................................................................................. 69 5.1 Wildland Conservation Areas .............................................................................................. 71 5.2 Wildland Linkages ............................................................................................................... 81 5.3 Stewardship Zones ............................................................................................................... 81 5.4 Threatened Wildlands.......................................................................................................... 82 6. Guidelines for Site Conservation Planning .................................................................................. 88 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 89 6.2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 89 6.3 The site planning process ..................................................................................................... 91 7. Conservation and Management Guidelines ................................................................................. 97 7.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 99 7.2 Regional guidelines ............................................................................................................ 101 7.3 Guidelines for Cascade and Modoc study area ................................................................... 103 7.4 Guidelines for north Sierra study area ................................................................................ 111 7.5 Guidelines for south Sierra study area ................................................................................ 124 7.6 Guidelines for east Sierra study area ................................................................................... 132 7.7 Guidelines for focal species management ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1990 Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas Mary Beth Hennessy The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hennessy, Mary Beth, "Effectiveness of limiting use in wilderness areas" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2166. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2166 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. MontanaUniversity of The Effectiveness of Limiting Use in Wilderness Areas By Mary Beth Hennessy B.A. University of California Santa Barbara, 1981 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science University of Montana 1990 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School IfthUocJu /f, Date UMI Number: EP35655 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 ON THE COVER Examples of campsites surveyed in the late 1970s and again in 2006-2007. In a clockwise direction, these sites are in the Striped Mountain, Woods Creek, Sugarloaf, and Upper Big Arroyo areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Photographs by: Sandy Graban and Bob Kenan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 David N. Cole and David J. Parsons Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 790 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 January 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804
    Photo by Louis Kamler. www.nationalforests.org Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804 Printed on recycled paper 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Island Lake, Eldorado National Forest Desolation Wilderness. Photo by Adam Braziel. 1 We are pleased to present the National Forest Foundation’s (NFF) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013. During this fourth year of the Treasured Landscapes campaign, we have reached $86 million in both public and private support towards our $100 million campaign goal. In this year’s report, you can read about the National Forests comprising the centerpieces of our work. While these landscapes merit special attention, they are really emblematic of the entire National Forest System consisting of 155 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands. he historical context for these diverse and beautiful Working to protect all of these treasured landscapes, landscapes is truly inspirational. The century-old to ensure that they are maintained to provide renewable vision to put forests in a public trust to secure their resources and high quality recreation experiences, is National Forest Foundation 2013 Annual Report values for the future was an effort so bold in the late at the core of the NFF’s mission. Adding value to the 1800’s and early 1900’s that today it seems almost mission of our principal partner, the Forest Service, is impossible to imagine. While vestiges of past resistance what motivates and challenges the NFF Board and staff. to the public lands concept live on in the present, Connecting people and places reflects our organizational the American public today overwhelmingly supports values and gives us a sense of pride in telling the NFF maintaining these lands and waters in public ownership story of success to those who generously support for the benefit of all.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of the California Desert
    MAMMALS OF THE CALIFORNIA DESERT William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. Karen Boyer Buckingham Theodore A. Rado INTRODUCTION I ,+! The desert lands of southern California (Figure 1) support a rich variety of wildlife, of which mammals comprise an important element. Of the 19 living orders of mammals known in the world i- *- loday, nine are represented in the California desert15. Ninety-seven mammal species are known to t ':i he in this area. The southwestern United States has a larger number of mammal subspecies than my other continental area of comparable size (Hall 1981). This high degree of subspeciation, which f I;, ; leads to the development of new species, seems to be due to the great variation in topography, , , elevation, temperature, soils, and isolation caused by natural barriers. The order Rodentia may be k., 2:' , considered the most successful of the mammalian taxa in the desert; it is represented by 48 species Lc - occupying a wide variety of habitats. Bats comprise the second largest contingent of species. Of the 97 mammal species, 48 are found throughout the desert; the remaining 49 occur peripherally, with many restricted to the bordering mountain ranges or the Colorado River Valley. Four of the 97 I ?$ are non-native, having been introduced into the California desert. These are the Virginia opossum, ' >% Rocky Mountain mule deer, horse, and burro. Table 1 lists the desert mammals and their range 1 ;>?-axurrence as well as their current status of endangerment as determined by the U.S. fish and $' Wildlife Service (USWS 1989, 1990) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Internal and External Parasites of Deer
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INDEX-CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ZOOLOGY SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 1 CHECKLIST OF THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PARASITES OF DEER, ODOCOILEUS HEMION4JS AND 0. VIRGINIANUS, IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INDEX-CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ZOOLOGY SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 1 CHECKLIST OF THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PARASITES OF DEER, ODOCOILEUS HEMIONOS AND O. VIRGIN I ANUS, IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA By MARTHA L. WALKER, Zoologist and WILLARD W. BECKLUND, Zoologist National Animal Parasite Laboratory VETERINARY SCIENCES RESEARCH DIVISION AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE Issued September 1970 U. S. Government Printing Office Washington : 1970 The protozoan, helminth, and arthropod parasites of deer, Odocoileus hemionus and O. virginianus, of the continental United States and Canada are named in a checklist with information categorized by scientific name, deer host, geographic distribution by State or Province, and authority for each record. Sources of information are the files of the Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology, the National Parasite Collection, and pub- lished papers. Three hundred and fifty-two references are cited. Seventy- nine genera of parasites have been reported from North American deer, of which 73 have been assigned one or more specific names representing 137 species (10 protozoans, 6 trematodes, 11 cestodes, 51 nematodes, and 59 arthropods). Sixty-one of these species are also known to occur as parasites of domestic sheep and 54 as parasites of cattle. The 71 parasites that the authors have examined from deer are marked with an asterisk. This paper is designed as a working tool for wildlife and animal disease workers to quickly find references pertinent to a particular parasite species, its deer hosts, and its geographic distribution.
    [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]
  • MOUNT SHASTA & CASTLE CRAGS WILDERNESS Climbing Ranger
    MOUNT SHASTA & CASTLE CRAGS WILDERNESS Climbing Ranger Report 2017 SEARCH, RESCUE, SELF-RESCUE, FATALITY = 9 GARBAGE PACKED OUT ON FOOT BY RANGERS = 45 gallons HUMAN WASTE FOUND/REMOVED ON FOOT BY RANGERS (#) = 63 or 189 lbs. SUMMIT PASSES SOLD = 6,817 2017 CLIMBING & WEATHER SEASON SUMMARY: The 2017 Mount Shasta climbing season was fantastic. A banner winter lead to a long lasting climbing season with snow on the mountain and good climbing conditions into July. Search and Rescue incidents were below average. Unfortunately, we had one fatality this season that was not climbing related. Four climbing rangers managed the Mount Shasta and Castle Crags Wilderness areas. The Helen Lake camp was set up in early May and staffed every weekend throughout the summer season. Regular patrols took place on all routes as access opened up from the heavy winter snow drifts. Notable projects this year include the all new trailhead kiosks that were installed at all major trailheads around the mountain, the new Bunny Flat 3-panel informational kiosk and trailhead features, the ongoing Glacier re-photo project and the annual Helicopter Search & Rescue Training, hosted by the mountain rangers. Nick Meyers continues as the Lead Ranger and is backed up by longtime seasonal ranger Forrest Coots. Newer to the group are Andrew Kiefer and Paul Moore, both outstanding additions. Regular patrols, trail and trailhead maintenance and thousands of visitor contacts were conducted all spring, summer and fall. Left to right: Andrew Kiefer, Paul Moore, Nick Meyers and Forrest Coots at the Lake Helen camp Helen Lake, Memorial Day Weekend.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting Deer in California
    HUNTING DEER IN CALIFORNIA We hope this guide will help deer hunters by encouraging a greater understanding of the various subspecies of mule deer found in California and explaining effective hunting techniques for various situations and conditions encountered throughout the state during general and special deer seasons. Second Edition August 2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME L. Ryan Broddrick, Director WILDLIFE PROGRAMS BRANCH David S. Zezulak, Ph.D., Chief Written by John Higley Technical Advisors: Don Koch; Eric Loft, Ph.D.; Terry M. Mansfield; Kenneth Mayer; Sonke Mastrup; Russell C. Mohr; David O. Smith; Thomas B. Stone Graphic Design and Layout: Lorna Bernard and Dana Lis Cover Photo: Steve Guill Funded by the Deer Herd Management Plan Implementation Program TABLE OF CON T EN T S INTRODUCT I ON ................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: THE DEER OF CAL I FORN I A .........................................................................................................7 Columbian black-tailed deer ....................................................................................................................8 California mule deer ................................................................................................................................8 Rocky Mountain mule deer .....................................................................................................................9
    [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]
  • BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Lassen
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE Lassen 15 Restoration Project Modoc National Forest Prepared by: Mary Flores /s/ Mary Flores 28 October 2017 John Clark /s/ John Clark 28 October 2017 I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE) documents the potential effects to terrestrial USDA Forest Service Region 5 wildlife species by the implementation of activities considered in the Lassen 15 Restoration Project (Lassen 15 Project) Environmental Analysis. The Lassen 15 project area is located on the Warner Mountain Ranger District roughly five air miles northeast of Davis Creek, California. The proposed project area is 25,276 acres, although only 8,004 acres are targeted for treatment. Biological Assessments and Evaluations document the analysis necessary to ensure proposed management actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of, or cause adverse modification of habitat for federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species as described in the Forest Service Manual (FSM section 2672.43) (USFS 2005). This BA/BE was prepared in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) for threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) wildlife species. The determination of whether to include wildlife species in this analysis was based on review of (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC data (website accessed on 22 October 2015) and (2) Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species list (October 2013). Table 1 displays whether the project is within the range of the species, whether suitable habitat is contained within or adjacent to the project, and whether the species has been previously detected within the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia National Forest
    FOREST, MONUMENT, OR PARK? You may see signs for Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks… and wonder what is the difference between these places? All are on federal land. Each exists to benefit society. Yet each has a different history and purpose. Together they provide a wide spectrum of uses. National Forests, managed under a "multiple use" concept, provide services and commodities that may include lumber, livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation with and without vehicles. Forest employees work for the U.S. Forest Service, an agency in the Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905. National Monuments can be managed by any of three different agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, or the Bureau of Land Management. They are created by presidential proclamation and all seek to protect specific natural or cultural features. Giant Sequoia National Monument is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is part of Sequoia National Forest. It was created by former President Bill Clinton in April of 2000. National Parks strive to keep landscapes unimpaired for future generations. They protect natural and historic features while offering light-on-the-land recreation. Park employees work for the National Park Service, part of the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service was created in 1916. Forests, Monuments, and Parks may have different rules in order to meet their goals. Read "Where can I..." below to check out what activities are permitted where within the Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks.
    [Show full text]