DOCSLIB.ORG

Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan TABLE of CONTENTS Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTS OF TABLES & FIGURES I TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 7 APPENDICES AF'PENDIX TITLE .PAGE A . ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES .............A.1 B . THE MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS ..............B.l C . DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION .FURTHER PLANNING AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ................C.1 1. BLM ROCKHOUSE WSA. ...................C.2 2. OAT MOUNTAIN FPA .................... C.11 3 . DENNISON PEAK FPA .................... C.20 4. MOSES FF'A ........................ C.31 5. SCODIES FPA ....................... C.44 D . &ONOMIC EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ................D.1 E . WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ...................E.1 F . WATER YIELD BY WATERSHED ..................F.1 G . MAJOR SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND THEIR APPLICATION ......G.1 H . EVALUATION OF ERNEST C . TWISSELMANN BOTANICAL AREA .....H.1 I. ACRONYMS .......................... 1.1 J . GLOSSARY .......................... J.l K . BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ K.1 L . BUDGETS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOREST PLAN ......1-1 M . EFFECT OF HERBICIDE CONSTRAINTS ON TIMBER MANAGEMENT ....M.1 N . SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT PLAN AND DEIS ....N.1** 1 Summary of the Content Analysis System ..........N-1 2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ........N -2 3 Summary of Comments by Analysis Categories. Subject Areas. and Alternatives ..............N -3 4 Summary of Comments on Issues ..............N -8 5 Summary of Comments on the Document and Process .....N-15 6 Sequoia National Forest Responses to Public Comments ..................... N.17 i 6A Alphabetical Listing of Respondents . N-196 7 Letters From Elected Officials and Public Agencies and Their Resolution. N-252 8 Sequoia National Forest Response to The CHEC Report. N-501 0. THE REGIONAL TIMBER SUPPLY-DEMAND SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA. 0-1 P. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT OF NON-WILDERNESS ROADLESS ARMS P-1 Q. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . Q-1 ** See Volume 2. Appendix N ii LIST OF TABLES APPENDIX TABLE TITLE PAGE A (no tables used) B B.l Prescriptions Used in Analysis.. ............... B-16 B.2 Outputs Used in Analysis ....................... B-28 B.3 Benefits Used in the FORPLAN Analysis .......... B-32 B.4 Rotation Lengths.. ............................. B-42 B.5 Summary of Constraint Analysis ................. B-44 B.6 Constraints Specific to Each Alternative. ...... B-70 C c.3 BLM Rockhouse WSA - Acres (and Percent) Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription......... ........................ C-9 c.2 BLM Rockhouse WSA - Average Annual Outputs Decades 1 and 5 .............................. C-10 c.3 Oat Mountain FPA - Acres (and Percent) Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription ................................. C-17 c.4 Oat Mountain FPA - Indicators .................. C-18 c.5 Oat Mountain FPA - Average Annual Outputs Decades 1 and 5 .............................. C-19 C.6 Dennison Peak FPA - Acres (and Percent) Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription.. ............................... C-28 c.7 DeMiSOn Peak FPA - Indicators.......... ....... C-29 C.8 Dennison Peak FPA - Average Annual Outputs Decades 1 and 5. ............................. C-30 c.9 Moses FPA - Acres (and Percent) Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription.. .... C-41 c.10 Moses FPA - Indicators ......................... C-42 c.11 Moses FPA - Average Annual Outputs Decades 1 and 5 .............................. C-43 c.12 Scodies FPA - Acres (and Percent) Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription. ................................ C-51 c.13 Scodies F’PA - Indicators....................... C-5l C.14 Scodies FPA - Average Annual Outputs Decades 1 and 5 .............................. C-52 c.15 Acres by Management Emphasis Allocated by Alternative - Total for National Forest Further Pl.ming Areas.. .............. C-54 C.16 Further Planning and Wilderness Study Area Evaluation (USFS and BLM) Acres and Percent Allocated by Alternative and Management Prescription. ..................... C-55 D (no tables used) E (no tables used) iii APPENDIX TABLE F (no tables used) G G.l Ratings of the Major Silvicultural Systems by Principle Biological Attributes.............. G-20 G.2 Ratings of the Major Silvicultural Systems by Key Managerial Attributes.................... G-21 H H.l Vegetation by Plant Associations and Timber Volumes ............................... H-4 H.2 Southern Limits Within Sierra Nevada, Sirretta Peak.............,........... ....... H-5 H.3 Tulare County Endemics on Sirretta Peak. ....... H-5 1 (no tables used) J (no tables used) K (no tables used) L L.l Sequoia National Forest Budgets ................ L-3 M M.1 Typical Prescriptions and Treatment Costs...... M-3 M.2 Typical Treatment Costs for Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement........... ...... M-9 M.3 No Applications of Herbicides - Regulation Class I Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Timber Types, By Alternative............ ..... M-10 M.4 No Aerial Applications of Herbicides - Regulation Class I Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Timber Types, By Alternative..... ............................. M-11 M.5 Herbicide Application - Regulation Class I Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Timber Types, By Alternative...... ........... M-12 M.6 No Applications of Herbicides - Regulation Class I1 Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Timber Types, By Alternative........ M-13 M.1 No Aerial Applications of Herbicides - Regulation Class I1 Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Tlmber Types, By Alternative.. ................................ M-14 iv APPENDIX TABLE TITLE -PAGE M M.8 Herbicide Application - Regulation Class I1 Land Base - Effects on Timber Yields and Costs of Cultural Treatments, By Major Timber Types, By Alternative............ ..... M-15 M-9 Effects on Timber Management of Two Policies that would Restrict Use of Herbicides ........ M-16 M. 10 Acres Suitable for Timber Management by Alternative, Forest Type and Regulation Acres........................................ M-17 N (no tables used) 0 0.1 California Timber Harvests by Ownership, 1952-86 ...................................... 0-7 0.2 Timber Harvest, Growth, and Inventory on Private Land in California ................... 0-8 0.3 Average Annual National Forest Timber Sales Compared to Allowable Sale Quantities in Forest Plans.............. ................... 0-9 P P.l Non-wilderness Roadless Areas. ..................P-1 P.2 Acres by Management Emphasis by Alternative for Non-wilderness Areas..... .................P -2 Q (no tables used) V LIST OF FIGURES APPENDIX FIGURE TITLE -PAGE A (no figures used) B (no figures used) C (no figures used) D (no figures used) E (no figures used) F (no figures used) G G.l Clearcutting.. ............................. G-4 G.2 Shelterwood System ......................... G-5 G-3 Seed-tree System.. ......................... G-6 G.4 Single-tree Selection System ............... G-7 . H (no figures used) I (no figures used) J (no figures used) K (no figures used) L (no figures used) M (no figures used) N (no figures used) 0 (no figures used) P (no figures used) 4 (no figures used) vi Appendix A ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES APPENDIX A ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES I. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Identification Process The following is a summary of the steps completed by the Forest to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities (ICO's). A more detailed description of the process follows in narrative form. Full documentation is located in Forest planning records in "Documentation of the Issues Identification Process Used by the Sequoia NF for Land Management Planning" - October 8, 1980. Further documentation is in the FEIS Appendix N "Summary of Public Response" to the Draft Plan and DEIS which summarizes critical issues. SUMMARY OF THE SEQUOIA ISSUE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS 1. Preliminary issues package is developed by the Planning Team (PT) with Ranger/Staff review. 2. News releases made public, employee meetings held, and the issues package is distributed to obtain public input. 3. PT organizes and IDT reviews public comment on the preliminary screening criteria to provide final criteria. 4. PT organizes and makes preliminary analysis of public input on issues and questions. 5. IDT analyzes public input (as organized by PT) to revise the issues and questions and to produce preliminary Forest issues list. 6. PT organizes "identified" issues from public input and adds to IDT's preliminary Forest issues list. 7. The package from Step 6 is sent to Rangers/Staff for review and the addition of management concerns. 8. PT organizes management concerns and aggregates them with package from Step 6 to produce an issues and concerns package for IDT screenings. 9. IDT uses final screening criteria for screening issues and concerns package and produces draft Sequoia issues and questions. 10. IDT uses final screening criteria for screening draft issues and questions and produces Sequoia issues. 11. Sequoia issues sent to Rangers/Staff for final review and comment. 12. IDT considers Rangers/Staff comments and Sequoia issues package is recommended to the Forest Supervisor. 13. Forest Supervisor recommends issues to Regional Forester. ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES App. A-1 14. Regional Forester approves issues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cottonwood Lakes / New Army Pass Trail
    Inyo National Forest Cottonwood Lakes / New Army Pass Trail Named for the cottonwood trees which were located at the original trailhead in the Owens Valley, the Cottonwood Lakes are home to California's state fish, the Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita). The lakes are located in an alpine basin at the southern end of the John Muir Wilder- ness. They are surrounded by high peaks of the Sierra Nevada, including Cirque Peak and Mt. Lang- ley. The New Army Pass Trail provides access to Sequoia National Park and the Pacific Crest Trail. Trailhead Facilities: Water: Yes Bear Resistant Food Storage Lockers: Yes Campgrounds: Cottonwood Lakes Trailhead Campground is located at the trailhead. Visitors with stock may use Horseshoe Meadow Equestrian Camp, located nearby. On The Trail: Food Storage: Food, trash and scented items must be stored in bear-resistant containers. Camping: Use existing campsites. Camping is prohibited within 25 feet of the trail, and within 100 feet of water. Human Waste: Bury human waste 6”-8” deep in soil, at least 100 feet from campsites, trails, and water. Access: Campfires: Campfires are prohibited above 10,400 ft. The trailhead is located approximately 24 miles southwest of Lone Pine, CA. From Highway Pets: Pets must be under control at all times. 395 in Lone Pine, turn west onto Whitney Portal Additional Regulations: Information about Kings Road. Drive 3.5 miles and turn south (left) onto Canyon National Park regulations is available at Horseshoe Meadow Road. Travel approximately www.nps.gov/seki, www.fs.usda.gov/goto/inyo/ 20 miles, turn right and follow signs to the cottonwoodlakestrail or at Inyo National Forest Cottonwood LAKES Trailhead.
    [Show full text]
  • Robinson V. Salazar 3Rd Amended Complaint
    Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 125 1 Evan W. Granowitz (Cal. Bar No. 234031) WOLF GROUP L.A. 2 11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90064 3 Telephone: (310) 460-3528 Facsimile: (310) 457-9087 4 Email: [email protected] 5 David R. Mugridge (Cal. Bar No. 123389) 6 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. MUGRIDGE 2100 Tulare St., Suite 505 7 Fresno, California 93721-2111 Telephone: (559) 264-2688 8 Facsimile: (559) 264-2683 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon and David Laughing Horse Robinson 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, and Case No.: 1:09-cv-01977 BAM DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON, an 14 individual and Chairman, Kawaiisu Tribe of PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED 15 Tejon, COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiffs, (1) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, etc. 17 vs. (2) EQUITABLE 18 KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as ENFORCEMENT OF TREATY 19 Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; TEJON RANCH CORPORATION, a (3) VIOLATION OF NAGPRA; 20 Delaware corporation; TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware company; COUNTY (4) DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY 21 OF KERN, CALIFORNIA; TEJON IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th RANCHCORP, a California corporation, and AMENDMENT; 22 DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, (5) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 23 Defendants. DUTY; 24 (6) NON-STATUTORY REVIEW; and 25 (7) DENIAL OF EQUAL 26 PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th AMENDMENT. 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 125 1 Plaintiffs KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON and DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON 2 allege as follows: 3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita
    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
    [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]
  • 3 Scenic Road Trips Worth the Drive Near Visalia
    Media contact: Suzanne Bianco [email protected] THREE SCENIC DRIVES WORTH THE TRIP THIS SUMMER Visit Visalia’s top picks for road tripping travelers Visalia, Calif. (June 11, 2021) – Visit Visalia is gearing up for an influx of visitors as Covid restrictions are lifted and California opens back up. Anticipating increased summertime travel, Visit Visalia is ready with travel tips and suggestions, and offering their top picks for three scenic drives that will have visitors exploring the local foothills and the national parks in Visalia’s backyard for a classic summer road trip. Road Trip #1: Drive the General’s Highway in Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park The nearby national parks are filled with scenic vistas and majestic sequoia trees that appear around each turn as you drive through the parks. For travelers who want to see these amazing parks but don't have time for a deep exploration, a road trip through the parks is a great solution. Sequoia and Kings Canyon are two of the most unique in the park system! They are adjacent parks that are linked by the General's Highway which makes for a perfect day drive that spans from the Ash Mountain gate in Sequoia National Park to the Big Stump gate in Kings Canyon. And only one entry fee is required. Road Trip #2: Yokohl Valley to Balch Park and Springville Skirting the southwestern edge of Sequoia National Park (though not accessible), the trip through Yokohl Valley is along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains. This route winds past orange groves, cattle ranches and rolling hills dotted with barns and pastures providing a relaxing drive and lots of photo ops.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 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. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impacts of the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts
    THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER ———————— A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ———————— In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in History ———————— by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER A Thesis by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharron A. Barrios, Ph.D.____________ APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: _________________________________ Michael F. Magliari, Ph.D., Chair______ _________________________________ Jesse A. Dizard, Ph.D._______________ _________________________________ Timothy G. Sistrunk, Ph.D._________ __ TABLE OF CONTENTS ——————————————————————————————————————— PAGE List of Figures ........................................................................................................... iv Abstract ..................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 I. Planning for the Future, The Water Bank of California: 1957-1972 .............. 12 II. The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Fight to Preserve the North- Coast Rivers: 1968-1972 ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Happy Camp and Oak Knoll 2018 120318
    KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST RANGER DISTRICT SPECIFIC CUTTING CONDITIONS For woodcutting in Happy Camp, Oak Knoll, Salmon River, and Scott River listen to the West Zone KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST OFFICES PERSONAL USE FIREWOOD CONDITIONS danger rating. For the Goosenest, listen to the East Zone. In addition to the Forest-Wide Personal Use Firewood Conditions, the following applies to woodcut- Ranger District and Supervisors Office hours are 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. United States Department of Agriculture This map, together with the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and fuelwood tags are ting on specific Districts of the Klamath National Forest. Woodcutters shall have an USDA, Forest Service approved spark arrester on the chainsaw and fire Forest Service a part of your woodcutting permit and must be in your possession while cutting, HAPPY CAMP extinguisher or a serviceable shovel not less than 46 inches in length within 25 feet of woodcutting area. Forest Supervisor's Office Happy Camp Ranger District gathering, and transporting your wood. 1711 South Main St. 63822 Highway 96 A. Within areas designated for General Firewood Cutting: Check woodcutting site for any smoldering fire and extinguish before leaving. Yreka, CA 96097 Happy Camp, CA 96039 In order to get the most out of your woodcutting trip, it is important that you review 1. Standing dead hardwoods and conifers may be cut. and become familiar with the terms of your Permit prior to cutting. If you have ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: (530) 842-6131 (530) 493-2243 2. Standing live hardwoods may be cut. (TDD) (530) 841-4573 (TDD) (530) 493-1777 questions about any terms or conditions, please contact the District you plan to visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RESTORATION OF THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, KERN PLATEAU, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1966-2004, WITH REFERENCE TO GOLDEN TROUT CREEK By E. P. (Phil) Pister, Inland Deserts Region, Retired CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT Central Region Administrative Report No. 2008-1 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2 The Beginning..................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WARNINGS ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 6 WATERSHED RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 8 THE FIRST FISH BARRIER AND EARLY BROWN TROUT CONTROL....................... 8 1976 – THE MAJOR PROJECT BEGINS..................................................................... 10 TEMPLETON AND SCHAEFFER BARRIERS............................................................. 12 1977 -1979 – HOLDING THE LINE .............................................................................. 16 1980 -1983 – MAJOR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS AND BEGINNING
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Interest and the Panamint Shoshone (E.G., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934)
    109 VyI. NOTES ON BOUNDARIES AND CULTURE OF THE PANAMINT SHOSHONE AND OWENS VALLEY PAIUTE * Gordon L. Grosscup Boundary of the Panamint The Panamint Shoshone, also referred to as the Panamint, Koso (Coso) and Shoshone of eastern California, lived in that portion of the Basin and Range Province which extends from the Sierra Nevadas on the west to the Amargosa Desert of eastern Nevada on the east, and from Owens Valley and Fish Lake Valley in the north to an ill- defined boundary in the south shared with Southern Paiute groups. These boundaries will be discussed below. Previous attempts to define the Panamint Shoshone boundary have been made by Kroeber (1925), Steward (1933, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1941) and Driver (1937). Others, who have worked with some of the groups which border the Panamint Shoshone, have something to say about the common boundary between the group of their special interest and the Panamint Shoshone (e.g., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934). Kroeber (1925: 589-560) wrote: "The territory of the westernmost member of this group [the Shoshone], our Koso, who form as it were the head of a serpent that curves across the map for 1, 500 miles, is one of the largest of any Californian people. It was also perhaps the most thinly populated, and one of the least defined. If there were boundaries, they are not known. To the west the crest of the Sierra has been assumed as the limit of the Koso toward the Tubatulabal. On the north were the eastern Mono of Owens River.
    [Show full text]