DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of High-Elevation Wilderness Meadows to Inform Meadow Monitoring and Management of Pack Stock

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of High-Elevation Wilderness Meadows to Inform Meadow Monitoring and Management of Pack Stock National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Data Analysis and Assessment of High Elevation Wilderness Meadows Surveyed from 2008 to 2011, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science Natural Resource Report NPS/YOSE/NRR—2014/926 ON THE COVER Photograph of Dorothy Lake Meadow, July 2010. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. Data Analysis and Assessment of High Elevation Wilderness Meadows Surveyed from 2008 to 2011, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science Natural Resource Report NPS/YOSE/NRR—2014/926 Tim J. Kuhn National Park Service, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science 5083 Foresta Road El Portal, California 95318 Liz Ballenger National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Resources Management and Science P.O. Box 89 Sequoia National Park, California, 93262 Rick Scherer Conservation Science Partners 5 Old Town Square, Suite 205 Fort Collins, CO 80524 John N. Williams, Ph.D., Pacific Agroecology LLC Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CIIDIR-Unidad Oaxaca Hornos No. 10, Col. Noche Buena Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán 71230 Oaxaca, Mexico February 2015 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 Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from Yosemite National Park website (http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/meadows.htm), and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Kuhn, T. J., L. Ballenger, R. Scherer, and J. N. Williams. 2015. Data analysis and assessment of high elevation wilderness meadows surveyed from 2008 to 2011; Resource management and science, Yosemite National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/YOSE/NRR—2014/926. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 104/128094, February 2015 ii Contents Page Figures................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... v Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................viii Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................................xiii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1 Sierra Nevada meadows: characteristics and importance....................................................... 15 1.2 Meadow ecological condition ................................................................................................. 15 1.3 Pack stock use and meadows .................................................................................................. 17 1.4 Meadow vulnerability to use-related disturbance ................................................................... 20 1.5 Management context: suitability for use and meadows-of-concern ....................................... 21 2. Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 23 2.1 Study Area and Meadow Selection ........................................................................................ 23 2.2 Field sampling ........................................................................................................................ 25 2.3 Data Analysis Procedures ....................................................................................................... 30 3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 41 3.1 Summary Scores—ecological condition, vulnerability to disturbance, and use- related disturbance ........................................................................................................................ 41 3.2 Relationships among scores and use levels ............................................................................ 51 3.3 Management context: Suitability for use and meadows-of-concern ...................................... 54 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 57 4.1 Use of metrics and summary scores to prioritize monitoring ................................................. 57 4.2 Relationships among scores, reported stock use levels, and disturbance ............................... 58 4.3 Management context: suitability for use and meadows-of-concern ....................................... 59 4.4 Research needs and study limitations ..................................................................................... 61 5.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 63 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 64 iii Figures Page Figure 2-1. Locator map for study meadows in the Tuolumne Watershed of Yosemite National Park.. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2-2. Locator map for study meadows in the Merced Watershed of Yosemite National Park.. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-1. Principal component analysis results for metrics in the meadow ecological condition assessment category. ............................................................................................................ 42 Figure 3-2. Principal component analysis results for metrics in the streambank ecological condition assessment category. ............................................................................................................ 43 Figure 3-3. Principal component analysis results for metrics in the vulnerability to disturbance assessment category. ......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 3-4. Principal component analysis results for metrics in the use-related disturbance assessment category. ............................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 3-5. Meadow ecological condition summary scores. ............................................................... 47 Figure 3-6. Streambank ecological condition summary scores. .......................................................... 48 Figure 3-7. Vulnerability to disturbance summary scores. .................................................................. 49 Figure 3-8. Use-related disturbance summary scores. ......................................................................... 50 Figure 3-9. Biplot of suitability for use ratings .................................................................................... 55 iv Tables Page Table 1-1. Factors driving ecological processes, function, and desired ecosystem services associated with meadow condition. ..................................................................................................... 16 Table 1-2. Corroborated and inferred relationships between pack
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yosemite National Park Visitor Study: Winter 2008
    Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Visitor Study Winter 2008 Park Studies Unit Visitor Services Project Report 198 Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Visitor Study Winter 2008 Park Studies Unit Visitor Services Project Report 198 October 2008 Yen Le Eleonora Papadogiannaki Nancy Holmes Steven J. Hollenhorst Dr. Yen Le is VSP Assistant Director, Eleonora Papadogiannaki and Nancy Holmes are Research Assistants with the Visitor Services Project and Dr. Steven Hollenhorst is the Director of the Park Studies Unit, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho. We thank Jennifer Morse, Paul Reyes, Pixie Siebe, and the staff of Yosemite National Park for assisting with the survey, and David Vollmer for his technical assistance. Yosemite National Park – VSP Visitor Study February 2–10, 2008 Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Report Summary • This report describes the results of a visitor study at Yosemite National Park during February 2-10, 2008. A total of 938 questionnaires were distributed to visitor groups. Of those, 563 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 60% response rate. • This report profiles a systematic random sample of Yosemite National Park. Most results are presented in graphs and frequency tables. Summaries of visitor comments are included in the report and complete comments are included in the Visitor Comments Appendix. • Fifty percent of visitor groups were in groups of two and 25% were in groups of three or four. Sixty percent of visitor groups were in family groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and Many Other California Trail Maps Are Available from Sunbelt Publications. Please See
    SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP 6TH EDITION 3RD EDITION ISBN: 9780899977799 Retail: $21.95 ISBN: 9780899974019 Retail: $9.95 Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The Anza-Borrego and Western Colorado Desert A convenient map to the entire Anza-Borrego Desert Region is a vast, intriguing landscape that harbors a State Park and adjacent areas, including maps for rich variety of desert plants and animals. Prepare for Ocotillo Wells SRVA, Bow Willow Area, and Coyote adventure with this comprehensive guidebooks, Moutnains, it shows roads and hiking trails, diverse providing everything from trail logs and natural history points of interest, and general topography. Trip to a Desert Directory of agencies, accommodations, numbers are keyed to the Anza-Borrego Desert Region and facilities. It is the perfect companion for hikers, guide book by the same authors. campers, off-roaders, mountain bikers, equestrians, history buffs, and casual visitors. The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and many other California trail maps are available from Sunbelt Publications. Please see the following listing for titles and details. s: catalogs\2018 catalogs\18-CA TRAIL MAPS.doc (800) 626-6579 Fax (619) 258-4916 Page 1 of 7 SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANGEL ISLAND & ALCATRAZ ISLAND BISHOP PASS TRAIL MAP TRAIL MAP ISBN: 9780991578429 Retail: $10.95 ISBN: 9781877689819 Retail: $4.95 AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA An extremely useful map for all outdoor enthusiasts who These two islands, located in San Francisco Bay are want to experience the Bishop Pass in one handy map.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park Foundation Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Yosemite National Park California Contact Information For more information about Yosemite National Park, Call (209) 372-0200 (then dial 3 then 5) or write to: Public Information Office, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, CA 95389 Park Description Through a rich history of conservation, the spectacular The geology of the Yosemite area is characterized by granitic natural and cultural features of Yosemite National Park rocks and remnants of older rock. About 10 million years have been protected over time. The conservation ethics and ago, the Sierra Nevada was uplifted and then tilted to form its policies rooted at Yosemite National Park were central to the relatively gentle western slopes and the more dramatic eastern development of the national park idea. First, Galen Clark and slopes. The uplift increased the steepness of stream and river others lobbied to protect Yosemite Valley from development, beds, resulting in formation of deep, narrow canyons. About ultimately leading to President Abraham Lincoln’s signing 1 million years ago, snow and ice accumulated, forming glaciers the Yosemite Grant in 1864. The Yosemite Grant granted the at the high elevations that moved down the river valleys. Ice Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove of Big Trees to the State thickness in Yosemite Valley may have reached 4,000 feet during of California stipulating that these lands “be held for public the early glacial episode. The downslope movement of the ice use, resort, and recreation… inalienable for all time.” Later, masses cut and sculpted the U-shaped valley that attracts so John Muir led a successful movement to establish a larger many visitors to its scenic vistas today.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Guide @Yosemitenps
    Yosemite Guide @YosemiteNPS Yosemite's rockclimbing community go to great lengths to clean hard-to-reach areas during a Yosemite Facelift event. Photo by Kaya Lindsey Experience Your America Yosemite National Park August 28, 2019 - October 1, 2019 Volume 44, Issue 7 Yosemite, CA 95389 Yosemite, 577 PO Box Service Park National US DepartmentInterior of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Year-round Route: Valley Yosemite Valley Shuttle Valley Visitor Center Summer-only Route: Upper Hetch Yosemite Shuttle System El Capitan Hetchy Shuttle Fall Yosemite Tuolumne Village Campground Meadows Lower Yosemite Parking The Ansel Fall Adams Yosemite l Medical Church Bowl i Gallery ra Clinic Picnic Area Picnic Area Valley l T Area in inset: al F e E1 t 5 Restroom Yosemite Valley i 4 m 9 The Ahwahnee Shuttle System se Yo Mirror Upper 10 3 Walk-In 6 2 Lake Campground seasonal 11 1 Wawona Yosemite North Camp 4 8 Half Dome Valley Housekeeping Pines E2 Lower 8836 ft 7 Chapel Camp Yosemite Falls Parking Lodge Pines 2693 m Yosemite 18 19 Conservation 12 17 Heritage 20 14 Swinging Center (YCHC) Recreation Campground Bridge Rentals 13 15 Reservations Yosemite Village Parking Curry Upper Sentinel Village Pines Beach il Trailhead E6 a Curry Village Parking r r T te Parking e n il i w M in r u d 16 o e Nature Center El Capitan F s lo c at Happy Isles Picnic Area Glacier Point E3 no shuttle service closed in winter Vernal 72I4 ft Fall 2I99 m l Mist Trai Cathedral ail Tr op h Beach Lo or M E4 ey ses erce all only d Ri V ver E5 Nevada Fall To & Bridalveil Fall d oa R B a r n id wo a a lv W e i The Yosemite Valley Shuttle operates from 7am to 10pm and serves stops in numerical order.
    [Show full text]
  • John Muir Trail Entry Points
    John Muir Trail Entry Points Alphabetical list of Inyo National Forest trails that connect to John Muir Trail (JMT) Mileage and elevation are approximate for trip planning, not intended for navigation. * indicates there is no pass between entry point and JMT junction Elevation Miles to Trail Name (area) Elevation at TrailheadElevation of Pass at JMT JunctionMiles to Pass JMT Junction Baxter Pass (Independence) 6,000 ft. 12,270 ft. 10,200 ft. 8 13 Bishop Pass (South Lake/ Bishop) 9,800 ft. 11,960 ft. 8,700 ft. 5 10 Cottonwood Pass -PCT (Horseshoe 9,900 ft. 11,120 ft. 10,600 ft. 3.5 20.5 Meadow) Duck Pass (Mammoth Lakes) 9,100 ft. 10,795 ft. 10,200 ft. 6 7 High Trail (Agnew Meadows) 8,300 ft. * 9,850 ft. * 7.75 JMT North of Devils Postpile (Reds 7,560 ft. * 7,580 ft. * Meadow toward Yosemite) 0.25 JMT South of Devils Postpile (Reds 7,560 ft. * 7,580 ft. * Meadow toward Mt Whitney) 0.25 Kearsarge Pass (Independence) 9,100 ft. 11,800 ft. 10,500 ft. 4 6.5 McGee Pass (Crowley Lake) 8,000 ft. 11,875 ft. 9,500 ft. 7 11.5 Mono Pass (Rock Creek Road) 10,200 ft. 12,040 ft. 8,400 ft. 2.5 15 Mt Whitney Trail (Lone Pine) 8,300 ft. 13,700 ft. 13,480 ft. 8.2 8.7 Pine Creek Pass (Bishop) 7,400 ft. 11,120 ft. 8,075 ft. 7 20 Piute Pass (North Lake/ Bishop) 9,350 ft. 11,420 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park U.S
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Merced Wild & Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Designated in 1987, the The Merced Wild and Scenic River Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Merced Wild and Scenic River includes 81 miles The Merced Wild and Scenic River, designated in Management Plan and Environmental Impact State- in Yosemite National 1987, includes 122 miles of the Merced River on the ment (Final Merced River Plan/EIS) is the National Park and the El Portal Park Service’s response to these requirements. Administrative Site. western side of the Sierra Nevada in California. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 81 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River through Yosem- The Final Merced River Plan/EIS will be the guid- ite National Park and the El Portal Administrative ing document for protecting and enhancing river Site, including the headwaters and both the Mer- values and managing use and user capacity within ced River’s main stem and the South Fork Merced the Merced River corridor for the next 20 years. As River. As the Merced River flows outside Yosemite’s such, it evaluates impacts and threats to river values western boundary, the U.S. Forest Service and the and identifies strategies for protecting and enhanc- Bureau of Land Management manage the next 41 ing these values over the long-term. The plan fol- miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. lows and documents planning processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Why a Comprehensive Management Plan? the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires and other legal mandates governing National Park comprehensive planning for all designated rivers to Service decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Necator): a Conservation Assessment
    Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A Conservation Assessment John D. Perrine * Environmental Science, Policy and Management Department and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley Lori A. Campbell** USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Sierra Nevada Research Center Davis, California Gregory A. Green Tetra Tech EC Bothell, Washington Current address and contact information: *Primary Author: J. Perrine, Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401 [email protected] **L. Campbell, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Perrine, Campbell and Green R5-FR-010 August 2010 NOTES IN PROOF • Genetic analyses by B. Sacks and others 2010 (Conservation Genetics 11:1523-1539) indicate that the Sacramento Valley red fox population is native to California and is closely related to the Sierra Nevada red fox. They designated the Sacramento Valley red fox as a new subspecies, V. v. patwin. • In August 2010, as this document was going to press, biologists on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest detected a red fox at an automatic camera station near the Sonora Pass along the border of Tuolomne and Mono Counties. Preliminary genetic analyses conducted at UC Davis indicate that the fox was a Sierra Nevada red fox. Further surveys and analyses are planned. • The California Department of Fish and Game Region 1 Timber Harvest Program has established a Sierra Nevada red fox information portal, where many management-relevant documents can be downloaded as PDFs. See: https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/Portal/SierraNevadaRedFox/tabid/618/Default.aspx Sierra Nevada Red Fox Conservation Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This conservation assessment provides a science-based, comprehensive assessment of the status of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) and its habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Story and Photos by Kyle Sparks S a Photographer, My Career Week Was Cycling
    All We Do Is Ride Uphill Story and photos by Kyle Sparks s a photographer, my career week was cycling. With this thought in my another section of grass out of the sprin- has taken me to the far mind, I jumped onto the back of the pack kler’s reach — and then back to sleep. reaches of the world on and kept pushing pedals. Then another attack came more quickly several occasions. But none Brian, Rob, and I pedaled through the and forcefully. At this point, I was done of my experiences abroad fields of Oxnard and Ventura. These nice, moving around. I just covered my face compare to a recent cycling flat roads have great bike lanes. We knew with my sleeping bag, hoping someone Atrip — pedaling through my home state, that soon enough the flat roads would else would deal with the problem. Luckily straight uphill. This idea spawned from give way to our first major climb — Pine Rob was on it in seconds, jamming the stories of a trip my dad went on in 1976. Mountain, 5,080 feet. After a right turn in sprinkler’s movement with a large stick. He rode his bicycle across the U.S. from Ventura, we started up. With the sprinkler issue resolved, we Oxnard, California, to Millinocket, Maine. The Ventura River bike path is 11 miles drifted back into a deep sleep. In the morn- A couple of good friends, Brian Mich and 700 feet of elevation gain from Ventura ing, we’d make our apologies for disrupting and Rob Thompson, and I embarked on to Ojai.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Simulation Modeling of Recreation
    Chapter 2: Historical Development of Simulation Models of Recreation Use Jan W. van Wagtendonk David N. Cole The potential utility of modeling as a park and Numerous sociological studies were launched to elicit wilderness management tool has been recognized for the relationship between benefits and encounters, decades. Romesburg (1974) explored how mathemati- but, other than laborious field work, no means existed cal decision modeling could be used to improve deci- for enumerating encounters. sions about regulation of wilderness use. Cesario (1975) To overcome this obstacle, researchers from Re- described a computer simulation modeling approach sources for the Future began to develop a computer that utilized GPSS (General Purpose Systems Simula- model that would simulate travel behavior in a wilder- tor), a simulation language designed to deal with ness and track encounters between parties. They soon scheduling problems. He identified a number of poten- found that the programming expertise needed far tial uses and the advantages of using simulation exceeded their capabilities, so they approached IBM instead of trial and error. In this chapter, we review for assistance. The result was a simulation program many of the most important applications of computer written by Heck and Webster (1973) in the General simulation modeling to recreation use, and the major Purpose Simulation System (GPSS) language run- lessons learned during each application. ning on an IBM mainframe computer. The model was dynamic, stochastic, and discrete, meaning that it represented a system that evolves over time, incorpo- rates random components, and changes in state at Wilderness Use Simulation discrete points in time (Law and Kelton 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Accessibility Guide January 2015
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Photo by Dan Horner Yosemite Accessibility Guide January 2015 Welcome to Yosemite National Park! The park strives for full and equal participation for all visitors and continually upgrades facilities, programs and services to improve accessibility. This guide outlines a variety of accessible services, facilities, and activities available in Yosemite. Within each area, it describes ways for people with sight, hearing, and mobility impairments to enjoy Yosemite. If you do not need this guide after your visit, please return it to any visitor center or entrance station. The Yosemite Accessibility Guide is available at entrance stations, visitor centers and online at www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/upload/access.pdf. For general park information and descriptions of services, programs and activities, see the Yosemite Guide, available at entrance stations, visitor centers or online at www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/guide.htm. We welcome your comments and suggestions on ways to improve accessibility for visitors to Yosemite National Park. Discrimination on the basis of disability in federally conducted programs or activities of the Department of the Interior is prohibited. Contact Information: Accessibility Coordinator 209‐379‐1035 [email protected] United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Yosemite National Park P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, California 95389 IN REPLY REFER TO: P4215 (YOSE‐PM) Message from the Superintendent: Yosemite National Park is a wonderful and beautiful place with towering trees, thundering waterfalls and massive granite formations. Set aside as a National Park in 1890, Yosemite is a place visited by almost four million visitors a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park [PDF]
    To Carson City, Nev il 395 ra T Emigrant Dorothy L ake Lake t s Bond re C Pass HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE Maxwell NATIONAL FOREST S E K Lake A L c i f i c IN a Mary TW P Lake Tower Peak Barney STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST Lake Buckeye Pass Huckleberry Twin Lakes 9572 ft EMIGRANT WILDERNESS Lake 2917 m HO O k N e V e O E r Y R C N Peeler A W Lake Crown C I Lake L D Haystack k e E Peak e S R r A Tilden W C TO N Schofield OT Rock Island H E Lake R Peak ID S Pass G E S s Styx l l Matterhorn Pass a F Peak Slide Otter ia Mountain Lake r e Burro h Green c Pass D n Many Island Richardson Peak a Lake L Lake 9877 ft R (summer only) IE 3010 m F E L Whorl Wilma Lake k B Mountain e B e r U N Virginia Pass C T O Virginia S Y N Peak O N Y A Summit s N e k C k Lake k A e a ic L r C e Kibbie N r d YO N C Lake n N A I C e ACK A RRICK J M KE ia K in N rg I i A r V T e l N k l i U e e p N O r C S M O Lundy Lake Y L Piute Mountain N L te I 10541 ft iu A T P L C I 3213 m T (summer only) Smedberg Benson k Lake e Pass k e e r e C r Benson C Lake k Lake ee Cree r Vernon k C r o e Upper n Volunteer cCab a M e McCabe l Mount Peak E Laurel k n r Lake Lake Gibson e u e N t r e McC C a R b R e L R a O O A ke Rodgers I s N PLEASANT A E H N L Lake I k E VALLEY R l Frog e i E k G K e E e a LA r R e T I r C r Table Lake V T T North Peak C Pettit Peak N A 10788 ft INYO NATIONAL FOREST O Y 3288 m M t ls Saddlebag al N s Roosevelt F A e Lake TIL a r Lake TILL ri C VALLEY (summer only) e C l h Lake Eleanor il c ilt n Mount Wapama Falls T a (summer only) N S Conness R I Virginia c HALL
    [Show full text]
  • Nature Vs. History: the Fight for National Park Designation Kieran Althus
    CONTRIBUTOR BIO KIERAN ALTHUS is a fourth-year student at Cal Poly graduating this June. He will earn a BA in Political Science with a concentration in American Politics and have minors in both music and biology. He’s originally from Culver City, CA, but Kieran plans to spend this summer in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountain range surveying plants. After this, Kieran wants to take a gap year before pursuing a master’s degree. In his free time, Kieran loves to study plants, read, and practice both tuba and guitar. By Ethan Gunnlaugsson 59 Nature vs. History: The Fight for National Park Designation Kieran Althus Abstract National Parks are a pinnacle of the United States recreation scene. Providing the U.S. with over 52.2 million acres protected for the use of the public and for conservation and scientifc research. National Parks are not the only entity in the National Park System that provides protections for land deemed valuable by Congress. There are National Monuments and National Historic Landmarks that are tasked with maintaining historic or natural areas for the sake of education and science. Within these three types of Park, there are to implicit types of locations someone can visit: one protected for its natural scenic/ scientifc interest, and the other protected for its historic signifcance. This paper delves into the distinction between these two types of Parks, all of which are dubbed “National Park” for the sake of this paper. This paper explores the differences and similarities between the two, and whether or not there is a discrepancy as to which type of park is more attractive to California legislators when deliberating between park-types.
    [Show full text]