Fishing Licence California Sequoia National Forrest
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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. -
Botany Biological Evaluation
APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S. -
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. -
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. -
Backcountry Discovery Trail
Have you ever wanted to get into the backcountry Backcountry of a National Forest? Have you wondered if you have Discovery Trail what it takes? Rest assured: exploring the backcountry doesn’t necessarily require an ATV or a dirt bike. You can do it in a high clearance vehicle or a 4WD sport utility vehicle. This guide gives directions for the route from point to point, gives tips on what to bring and how to prepare, provides background information on history and general topics, and directs travelers to points of interest along the way. This 150-mile-long discovery trail is a perfect place to begin your explorations of the Plumas National Forest! Plumas National Forest Plumas National Forest Backcountry Discovery Trail The Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail is published by the USDA Forest Service, in cooperation with the California State Parks OHV Division. Printed in the USA 2013 ISBN: Welcome to the Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail The Plumas Backcountry Discovery Trail (BDT) invites exploration of the remote areas of the Plumas National Forest. You can expect rough road conditions on gravel and dirt roads and a slow pace of travel, maybe only 30-50 miles a day. Be prepared for downed trees or rocks on the road, rough and rocky surfaces, and brush encroaching on the road- way. Much of the route is under snow in the winter and early spring. There are no restaurants, grocery stores, or gas stations along the main route and cell phone coverage is intermittent. The non-paved roads are currently maintained for travel by sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and high-clearance vehicles. -
Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada
FIELD ASSESSMENT OF WHITEBARK PINE IN THE SIERRA NEVADA Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, and Julie Evens Purpose of field work: 1. Verify distribution of whitebark pine in its southern extent (pure and mixed stands) 2. Assess the health and status of whitebark pine 3. Ground truth polygons designated by CALVEG as whitebark pine Regional Dominant 4. Conduct rapid assessment or reconnaissance surveys California National Forest Overview Areas surveyed: July 2013 Sequoia National Forest Areas surveyed: August 2013 Eldorado National Forest Areas surveyed: September 2013 Stanislaus National Forest Field Protocol and Forms: • Modified CNPS/CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment protocol Additions to CNPS/CDFW Rapid Assessment protocol: CNDDB • Individuals/stand • Phenology • Overall viability (health/status) Marc Meyer • Level of beetle attack • % absolute dead cover • % of whitebark cones CNPS • Impacts and % mortality from rust and beetle Field Protocol and Forms: • CNPS/CDFW Field Reconnaissance (recon) protocol is a simplified Rapid Assessment (RA) protocol 3 reasons to conduct a recon: 1. WBP stand is largely diseased/infested 2. CALVEG polygon was incorrect 3. WBP stand was close to other RA Results: Sequoia National Forest • Whitebark pine was not found during survey in Golden Trout Wilderness • Calveg polygons assessed (36 total) were mostly foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) • Highest survey conducted was at 11,129 ft at the SEKI and NF border Results: Eldorado National Forest (N to S) Desolation Wilderness: • 3 rapid assessments and 8 recons were conducted • 9,061 to 9,225 ft in elevation • Lower elevation stands were more impacted from MPB Mokelumne Wilderness: • 5 rapid assessments and 10 recons were conducted • 8,673 to 9,566 ft. -
Plumas National Forest
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST _____________________________ __ Plumas OUTREACH NOTICE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST Supervisor’s Office - Qui ncy, CA . Feather River Ranger District - O rovill e , CA. Mt. Hough Ranger District - Quin cy, CA. B eckwou rth Ranger District - Blairsd en , CA. _____________________________ ______ Region 5 Pacific Southwest Summer 2020 Permanent Seasonal Centralized Fire Hire GS-3 through GS-5 https://firelibrary.org/trackingdb/ PERMANENT SEASONAL POSITION OUTREACH Apply between April 27, 2020 and May 13, 2020 The Plumas National Forest is looking for a committed, hardworking, highly skilled workforce to suppress wildfires and work in fuels management. The fire and aviation management program is very rewarding and requires talented people working safely as part of a team in a variety of specialized positions; including Dispatch, Engine Crews, Fire & Fuels Management, Helitack, Interagency Hotshot crews, and Prevention. The Fire Hire program is being implemented to streamline the hiring process for permanent fire positions and provide consistent hiring around the Region and throughout the agency. This hiring process assists the national forests in the Pacific Southwestern Region to fill vacancies in a more efficient and timely manner. This outreach is for GS-0462-03 through GS-0462-05 permanent seasonal fire positionswith a tour of duty of 18/8. The vacancy announcements for these positions are posted on the U.S. Government's official website for employment opportunities at USAJobs. These are Regional vacancy announcements with a specific opening and closing date. The vacancy announcements will be open for applications on April 27, 2020. Those who wish to be considered for these positions must apply to the vacancy announcements by the closing date of May 13, 2020. -
California Water Trust Network
RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION -
Data Set Listing (May 1997)
USDA Forest Service Air Resource Monitoring System Existing Data Set Listing (May 1997) Air Resource Monitoring System (ARMS) Data Set Listing May 1997 Contact Steve Boutcher USDA Forest Service National Air Program Information Manager Portland, OR (503) 808-2960 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 DATA SET DESCRIPTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 National & Multi-Regional Data Sets EPA’S EASTERN LAKES SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 EPA’S NATIONAL STREAM SURVEY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 EPA WESTERN LAKES SURVEY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) LICHEN MONITORING-------------------------------------------------14 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) OZONE BIOINDICATOR PLANTS ----------------------------------15 IMPROVE AEROSOL MONITORING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 IMPROVE NEPHELOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 IMPROVE TRANSMISSOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION PROGRAM/ NATIONAL TRENDS NETWORK----------------19 NATIONAL -
Cooperation Successful Incident Management Within California
Cooperation Chapter 80 1 Chapter 80 – Cooperation 2 3 Successful incident management within California requires close cooperation with a number of other fire 4 departments, agencies, and organizations. Incident managers must be knowledgeable regarding the 5 abilities and needs of cooperators. Copies of cooperative agreements and operating plans should be 6 available to all incident managers. It is generally most effective to handle cooperative efforts at the local 7 level. However, if needed assistance is not available at the local level, direct requests to the GACC. 8 9 Compact Agreements 10 11 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) 12 The Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a mutual aid agreement between states and 13 territories of the United States. It enables states to share resources during natural and man-made 14 disasters, including terrorism. 15 16 See Chapter 10, page 23, for mobilization/demobilization process. 17 18 Cooperative Agreements 19 20 There are various Regional/State and Local Agreements and Operating Plans currently in use. A short 21 summary of some of these agreements follows. 22 23 National Agreements 24 For all National agreements, including the NIFC and Meteorological Services, can be found at: 25 http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/mobguide/Chapter%2010.pdf 26 27 Statewide Agreements 28 California Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement 29 (CFMA) 30 The “California Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement” 31 (CFMA) is an agreement between the BLM (California and Nevada), NPS (Pacific West 32 Region), BIA (Pacific Region), US Fish and Wildlife (Pacific Southwest Region), USFS (Regions 4, 5, 33 and 6), and CAL FIRE. -
Table of Contents
Emerency Operations Directory Chapter 50 Table of Contents NATIONAL ................................................................................................................................48 US Forest Service ............................................................................................................................................. 48 National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) ..................................................................................... 49 Aviation Management Directorate ................................................................................................................. 50 FOREST SERVICE ...................................................................................................................51 Pacific Southwest Regional Office (FS5) ....................................................................................................... 51 Regional Office - McClellan............................................................................................................................ 52 Regional Office - Law Enforcement ............................................................................................................... 53 Regional Aviation Group - McClellan ........................................................................................................... 54 Regional Aviation Group - Fox Field ............................................................................................................. 55 Regional Aviation Group - Redding -
Recreational Fishing in the Golden Trout Wilderness at $148,000 to $713,000 a Year
ECONOMIC VALUE OF GOLDEN TROUT FISHING IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS, CALIFORNIA An Analysis By Carolyn Alkire, Ph.D. Resource Economist A Report for California Trout March 21, 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the many individuals who provided essential data and information, without which this study would not have been possible: Del Hubbs, Adam McClory, and Julie Molzahn, Inyo National Forest; Cheryl Bauer and Judi Kaiser, Sequoia National Forest; Jim Shackelford, Forest Service Region 5; and Donn Burton and Dave Lentz, California Department of Fish and Game. The author is grateful for the professional review by Dr. John Loomis. Stan Stephens of the California Department of Fish and Game and Dr. Robert Richardson also offered helpful comments and suggestions. This report was expertly edited by Deanne Kloepfer. California Trout would like to thank Joseph Tomelleri for the use of his trout illustrations. California Trout thanks C. Pat Patterson and Bill Hooper for generously funding this report. Cover illustration courtesy of Michael Flynn FOREWORD By R. Brett Matzke Public Lands Director California Trout, Inc. Cattle began grazing the Kern Plateau more than 130 years ago, long before the area and surrounding environs were established as the Inyo and Sequoia national forests. Various studies have documented that cattle grazing can seriously damage water and land resources. But attempts to reform grazing management policy on the Kern Plateau and to protect native species in this case, California's state fish, the golden trout, and its close relative shave met with little success. In part, the failure to reform grazing management stems from the long-held view that cattle ranching is the cornerstone of the local economy.