DOCSLIB.ORG

Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks 1 in: Aune, rnuip s., teen, coora. iyy*. rroceeainss oi me symposium on uian. sc^uiaa. '«'" ^.o^c ... the ecotystea and society; 1992 June 23-25; Visalia, CA. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 109-115. Objects or Ecosystems? PUB #267 Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks 1 David J. Parsons2 Abstract: Policies and programs aimed at protecting giant sequoia the effects of such external threats as air pollution and (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in the national parks of the Sierra Nevada projected human induced climadc change. The challenges have evolved from the protection of individual trees to the preservation of entire ecosystems. We now recognize that the long-term preservation of associated with assuring the long-term preservation of giant giant sequoia depends on our ability to minimize and mitigate the influences sequoia have become increasingly complicated as we have of human activities. National Park Service management strategies for giant learned more about the complexity and inter-relatedness of sequoia focus on the restoration of native ecosytem processes. This includes the greater Sierra Nevada ecosystem. the use of prescribed fire to simulate natural ignitions as well as the movement of visitor facilities out of the groves. Basic research is being This paper briefly reviews the history of giant sequoia carried out to improve our understanding of the factors infuencing giant management in the National Parks of the Sierra Nevada, sequoia reproduction, growth, and survival. Future management decisions emphasizing a gradually improved understanding of giant must recognize that giant sequoia are only part of a complex ecosystem; they sequoia ecosystems and how management has attempted to cannot be managed as objects in isolation of their surroundings. incorporate this understanding; outlines current management philosophy and strategies; and reviews issues and concerns for the future of giant sequoia management in national parks. Management of giant sequoia {Sequoiadendron giganteum) on national park lands has evolved from History of Giant Sequoia Management emphasizing the protection of individual trees to recognition of the species as an integral part of a complex ecosystem. in National Parks Improved understanding of the complex and dynamic nature Giant sequoia have been "protected" within the bound­ of the giant sequoia ecosystem, including its dependence on aries of Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite National periodic disturbance and its sensitivity to human activities, Parks since the creation of the three parks in 1890 (the has forced the USDI National Park Service to periodically portion of Kings Canyon containing giant sequoia was reassess management policies and practices. originally established as General Grant National Park). The It is now recognized that the overriding goal of preserving strategies employed to insure this protection have evolved naturally functioning ecosystems can often not be achieved from relatively simple protection from logging, fire, and by simply letting nature take its course. Impacts from fire visitor abuse to more complex efforts to preserve naturally suppression, air pollution, visitor use and associated facilities, functioning ecosystems, including the restoration of fire as and other human induced changes must be mitigated through a natural process. active management action. This requires difficult decisions Deeded to the State of California as part of the Yosemite based on the best possible scientific data. Management Act of 1864, the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias was objectives and strategies must be scientifically based, clearly included in the first public reservation designated by the articulated, and periodically reassessed. Federal government for the long-term protection of natural Within the National Park system the giant sequoia is features (Runte 1990). This action protected the Mariposa native only to Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite National Grove from the extensive logging activities that devastated Parks in California. The history of management of giant many sequoia groves in the years that followed. Such pro­ sequoia within these parks has closely mirrored the history tection was extended to include other groves with the of National Park Service resource management policy. From creation of Sequoia, General Grant (enlarged to become an "era of spectacles" in which objects and scenes (big trees, Kings Canyon in 1940), and Yosemite National Parks in deep canyons, and high mountains) were "protected" from all 1890. Interest in protecting remaining intact sequoia groves injury, the management of National Park resources has from timber harvest was a primary motivation in the creation evolved to an emphasis on the restoration and preservation of these parks (Dilsaver and Tweed 1990). For the next of natural biotic communities (Graber 1983). In the case of 26 years park management consisted largely of Cavalry giant sequoias, management concern now focuses on restoring troops patrolling to stop poachers and illegal timber harvest natural fire regimes, mitigating the impacts of increasing and to deal with the growing problems associated with visitor use and associated developments, and understanding increasing visitation. Creation of the National Park Service in 1916 symbolized die beginning of a new era, characterized by on-site, year round management attention and an increased 1 An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Symposium emphasis on attracting tourists and developing a supportive on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society, June 23-25, clientele. 1992, Visalia, California 2 Research Scientist. National Park Service, Three Rivers, CA 93271 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. 1994. 109 In the early days, National Park Service management of Mitigating Human Impacts: giant sequoia focused on protection of the big trees from Increased recognition of the importance of scientific logging, fire, and other injury. Fire and pests were aggres­ data eventually led to the support of comprehensive studies sively controlled and the cutting of live trees prohibited. of management and visitor impacts in the giant sequoia Often phrased in terms of "preservation," the actual practice groves. The combination of Hartesveldt's studies of human was a hands-off policy of protection (Hartesveldt 1962). impacts to soil and vegetation in the Mariposa Grove of Many of the larger trees were named after generals or other Yosemite National Park (Hartesveldt 1962) and subsequent heroic figures, emphasizing their status as objects apart from studies in Sequoia and Kings Canyon (Hartesveldt 1963, the surrounding ecosystem. Little thought was given to 1965) were the first to quandtatively analyze the effects of preserving the ecological processes necessary to preserve historic management practices—which had been a concern the health of the giant sequoia ecosystem. since at least the 1920's (Hartesveldt 1962). As early as 1864 concern was first expressed over the Other than occasional fences, understory thinning, or importance of preserving the "natural scene" of the Mariposa rerouting of trails and roads one of the first major efforts to Grove from expected increases in human visitation (Olmsted mitigate the effects of human activities on giant sequoias 1865). Yet many decades passed before this wisdom was involved the movement of campgrounds and picnic areas widely accepted. Well into the 20th century giant sequoia from the heart of the Giant Forest Grove during the 1960's. In management in the national parks continued to focus on the 1970's a development plan was approved to move most of "protecting" the big trees from damage, while simultaneously the other visitor facilities out of the Giant Forest. Today, providing for a pleasurable visitor experience. construction continues on new visitor facilities outside of The 1916 Organic Act which created the National Park the grove. When completed, only roads, trails, and a small Service called for leaving resources "unimpaired." Yet the visitor contact center will remain in the grove. All lodging meaning of this term was not clearly defined, often leaving and food facilities will be moved and the heavily impacted policy direction ambiguous and imprecise. A 1926 report by portions of Giant Forest restored to a more natural condition. the forest pathologist Meinecke (1926) emphasized the In Yosemite's Mariposa Grove, extensive understory importance of protecting the largest and oldest specimen thinning has been used to reduce fuel hazards and open sequoias because of their inherent attractiveness. Hartesveldt vistas. The heavy visitor use in this grove is now restricted to (1962) has detailed the struggles of National Park Service access by foot or through an interpretive tram system. Other administrators to protect giant sequoias in the decades fol­ than a museum, the once extensive visitor facilities and lowing Meinecke's report. During this time, trees continued access by private auto have been eliminated. to be named and protective fences were built—including one best described as a "barbed wire entanglement,"—around Fire Management: the more popular specimens. Campgrounds, visitor centers, Concern over the effects of fire suppression on increas­ parking lots, lodging facilities, and roads and trails were ing fuel hazards in the mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra built within the sequoia groves. And whereas great care was Nevada (Agee
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-Creation of the Tribal Identity On
    From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican Contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 By Kumiko Noguchi B.A. (University of the Sacred Heart) 2000 M.A. (Rikkyo University) 2003 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Native American Studies in the Office of Graduate Studies of the University of California Davis Approved Steven J. Crum Edward Valandra Jack D. Forbes Committee in Charge 2009 i UMI Number: 3385709 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. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3385709 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Kumiko Noguchi September, 2009 Native American Studies From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Abstract The main purpose of this study is to show the path of tribal development on the Tule River Reservation from 1776 to 1936. It ends with the year of 1936 when the Tule River Reservation reorganized its tribal government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth and Colonization of Western Redcedar by Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Fumigated and Nonfumigated Nursery Beds
    Tree Planter's Notes, Volume 42, No. 4 (1991) Growth and Colonization of Western Redcedar by Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Fumigated and Nonfumigated Nursery Beds S. M. Berch, E. Deom, and T. Willingdon Assistant professor and research assistant, Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, and manager, Surrey Nursery, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Surrey, BC Western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) VAM. Positive growth responses of up to 20 times the seedlings were grown in a bareroot nursery bed that had nonmycorrhizal controls occurred under conditions of limited been fumigated with methyl bromide. Seedlings grown in soil phosphorus. Incense-cedar, redwood, and giant sequoia fumigated beds were stunted and had purple foliage. seedlings in northern California nursery beds are routinely Microscopic examination showed that roots from these inoculated with Glomus sp. (Adams et al. 1990), as seedlings were poorly colonized by mycorrhizae, and only by experience has shown that the absence of VAM after soil fine vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. In contrast, roots from fumigation leads to phosphorus deficiency and poor growth. seedlings grown in non-fumigated beds had larger shoots and When western redcedars in fumigated transplant beds at green foliage and were highly colonized by both fine and the British Columbia Ministry of Forest's Surrey Nursery coarse vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. Tree Planters' began to show signs of phosphorus deficiency, a deficiency Notes 42(4):14-16; 1991. of mycorrhizal colonization was suspected. Many studies have demonstrated improved P status of VAM-inoculated Species of cypress (Cupressaceae) and yew plants (see Harley and Smith 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1
    Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Land Records Finding
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior FINDING AID PRIVATE LAND RECORDS 1903-1953 (bulk dates: 1914-1941) Prepared by Beth McDonald National Park Service Catalog Number: SEKI 22572 SEKI 22572 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Copyright and Restrictions …………………………………………………………..…ii History ………………………………………………………………………………….1 Scope and Content ……………………………………………………………………...2 File Unit Descriptions …………………………………………………………………..4 SEKI 22572 ii COPYRIGHT AND RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. The various state privacy acts govern the use of materials that document private individuals, groups, and corporations. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a reproduction if the document does not infringe the privacy rights of an individual, group, or corporation. These specified conditions of authorized use include: • non-commercial and non-profit study, scholarship, or research, or teaching • criticism, commentary, or news reporting • as a NPS preservation or security copy • as a research copy for deposit in another institution If a user later uses a copy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," the user may be personally liable for copyright, privacy, or publicity infringement. This institution's permission to obtain a photographic, xerographic, digital, or other copy of a document doesn't indicate permission to publish, exhibit, perform, reproduce, sell,
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia Insect, Disease, and Ecosystem Interactions1
    Giant Sequoia Insect, Disease, and Ecosystem Interactions1 Douglas D. Piirto2 Abstract: Individual trees of giant sequoia (Sequoia gigantea [Lindl.] afflict and kill other trees." Similarly Hartesveldt (1962) Decne.) have demonstrated a capacity to attain both a long life and very concurred that "Sequoia's longevity and great size have large size. It is not uncommon to find old-growth giant sequoia trees in their native range that are 1,500 years old and over 15 feet in diameter at been attributed by nearly all writers, popular and scientific, breast height. The ability of individual giant sequoia trees to survive over to its few insect and fungus parasites and the remarkable such long periods of time has often been attributed to the species high resistance of the older trees to damage or death by fire. resistance to disease, insect, and fire damage. Such a statement, however, is There is no record of an individual sequoia living in its a gross oversimplification, given broader ecosystem and temporal interac- tions. For example, why isn't there a greater representation of young-growth natural range as having been killed by either fungus or insect giant sequoia trees throughout the mixed-conifer belt of the Sierra Nevadas? attack." Even as recently as 1991 Harlow and others (1991) What other factors, in addition to physical site characteristics, limit giant stated: "Insects and fungi cause but minor damage, and no sequoia to its present range and grove boundaries? How does fire and fire large Bigtree killed by them has ever been found." frequency affect disease and insect interrelationships in the giant sequoia/ mixed-conifer ecosystem? Are current forest management strategies (e.g., It is finally being recognized that giant sequoia is fire suppression, prescribed burning programs) affecting these interactions? subject to the same natural forces as other tree species (Bega Giant sequoia trees are subject to the same natural forces (e.g., insect and 1964, Harvey and others 1980, Parmeter 1987, Piirto 1977, disease organisms) as other tree species.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are Coast Redwood and Giant Sequoia Not Where They Are Not?1
    Proceedings of the Coast Redwood Science Symposium—2016 Why Are Coast Redwood And Giant Sequoia Not Where They Are Not?1 2 W.J. Libby Abstract Models predicting future climates and other kinds of information are being developed to anticipate where these two species may fail, where they may continue to thrive, and where they may colonize, given changes in climate and other elements of the environment. Important elements of such predictions, among others, are: photoperiod; site qualities; changes in levels and yearly patterns of temperature, wind, fog and precipitation; the effects of these on interactions with other biota at each site; the effects of changes in fire frequency and intensity; the availability of seeds and seed vectors; and the effects of human activity. Examples are presented, with focus on fire and human activity. Natural migration may need assistance. Establishing groves far from the native ranges is advocated. Keywords: assisted colonization, assisted migration, climate change, fire, Sequoia, Sequoiadendron When preparing this talk and then paper, it became increasingly clear that it is more of an Op-Ed than a comprehensive review, and is meant for people interested in and familiar with coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) and giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Buchholz). Thus, four background references are provided, and they in turn provide detail on many of the topics covered. The final two references provide background on future speculative scenarios. Possible responses to such future scenarios are suggested. Coast redwood’s current natural latitudinal range begins with discontinuous canyon-bottom populations near the southern Monterey County border, extends north through increasingly- continuous coastal and generally-separated interior populations, and stops just north of the Oregon/California border.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks a Tool for Planning Stock-Supported Wilderness Trips
    Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Stock Users Guide to the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks A tool for planning stock-supported wilderness trips SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS Wilderness Office 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, California 93271 559-565-3766 [email protected] www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/wilderness.htm Revised May 6th, 2021 EAST CREEK .............................................................................. 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPHINX CREEK .......................................................................... 19 INTRO TO GUIDE ........................................................................ 2 ROARING RIVER ....................................................................... 19 LAYOUT OF THE GUIDE............................................................. 3 CLOUD CANYON ....................................................................... 20 STOCK USE & GRAZING RESTRICTIONS: DEADMAN CANYON ................................................................ 20 KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK .................................... 4 SUGARLOAF AND FERGUSON CREEKS ................................. 21 SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK ................................................ 6 CLOVER AND SILLIMAN CREEKS .......................................... 23 MINIMUM IMPACT STOCK USE ................................................ 8 LONE PINE CREEK .................................................................... 23 MINIMUM
    [Show full text]
  • Stony Creek and Montecito Sequoia Resorts Biological Assessment And
    Stony Creek and Montecito Sequoia Resorts Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for Sequoia National Forest Hume Lake Ranger District Improvement and Expansion Projects within Giant Sequoia National Monument Tulare County, California December 5, 2019 Prepared for: United States Forest Service Sequoia National Forest Hume Lake District District Ranger: Jeremy Dorsey 35860 East Kings Canyon Road Dunlap, CA 93621 Prepared by: Michelle McKenzie and Prairie Moore Natural Resources Management Corporation 1434 Third Street Eureka, CA 95501 Table of Contents I. Summary of Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction, Background, and Project Understanding .............................................................. 2 Project Locations ......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Descriptions .................................................................................................................. 10 Biological Descriptions .............................................................................................................. 16 III. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 17 Pre-Field Review ........................................................................................................................ 17 Field Survey ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Position and the Scientific Name of the Big Tree Known As Sequoia Gigantea
    The Taxonomic Position and the Scientific Name of the Big Tree known as Sequoia gigantea HAROLD ST. JOHN and ROBERT W. KRAUSS l FOR NEARLY A CENTURY it has been cus­ ing psychological document, but its major,ity tomary to classify the big tree as Sequoia gigan­ vote does not settle either the taxonomy or tea Dcne., placing it in the same genus with the nomenclature of the big tree. No more the only other living species, Sequoia semper­ does the fact that "the National Park Service, virens (Lamb.) End!., the redwood. Both the which has almost exclusive custodY of this taxonomic placement and the nomenclature tree, has formally adopted the name Sequoia are now at issue. Buchholz (1939: 536) pro­ gigantea for it" (Dayton, 1943: 210) settle posed that the big tree be considered a dis­ the question. tinct genus, and he renamed the tree Sequoia­ The first issue is the generic status of the dendron giganteum (Lind!.) Buchholz. This trees. Though the two species \differ con­ dassification was not kindly received. Later, spicuously in foliage and in cone structure, to obtain the consensus of the Calif.ornian these differences have long been generally botanists, Dayton (1943: 209-219) sent them considered ofspecific and notofgeneric value. a questionnaire, then reported on and sum­ Sequoiadendron, when described by Buchholz, marized their replies. Of the 29 answering, was carefully documented, and his tabular 24 preferred the name Sequoia gigantea. Many comparison contains an impressive total of of the passages quoted show that these were combined generic and specific characters for preferences based on old custom or sentiment, his monotypic genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Tree Inventory Report Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Street Tree Inventory Report: Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016
    Street Tree Inventory Report Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Street Tree Inventory Report: Hillsdale Neighborhood August 2016 Written by: Kat Davidson, Angie DiSalvo, Julie Fukuda, Jim Gersbach, Jeremy Grotbo, and Jeff Ramsey Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry 503-823-4484 [email protected] http://portlandoregon.gov/parks/treeinventory Hillsdale Tree Inventory Organizers: Jim Keiter Staff Neighborhood Coordinator: Jim Gersbach Data Collection Volunteers: Dennis Alexander, Richard Anderson, William Better, Ben Brady, Brian Brady, Julia Brown, Marty Crouch, Hannah Davidson, April Ann Fong, Lise Gervais, Margaret Gossage, Karen Henell, Jim Keiter, John Mills, Pat Ruffio, Jerry Sellers, Kristin Sellers, Mimi Siekmann, Haley Smith, Nancy Swaim, Mark Turner, Loris Van Pelt, Paige Witte, and Maggie Woodward Data Entry Volunteers: Michael Brehm, Nathan Riggsby, and Eric Watson Arborist-on-Call Volunteers: Will Koomjian GIS Technical Support: Josh Darling, Portland Parks & Recreation Financial Support: Portland Parks & Recreation Cover Photos (from top left to bottom right): 1) Colorful foliage on a golden Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara 'Aurea'). 2) The deep green leaves of a quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). 3) Unusual peeling bark on a young madrone (Arbutus menziesii). 4) A vivid fuchsia bloom on a magnolia (Magnolia sp.) 5) The developing cone of a rare China-fir Cunninghamia( lanceolata). 6) Unusually shaped leaves on a tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). 7) The pendant foliage of a weeping giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum 'Pendulum'). 8) Multicolored scaly foliage on a variegated elkhorn cedar (Thujopsis dolobrata 'Variegata'). ver. 10/17/2016 Portland Parks & Recreation 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 823-PLAY Commissioner Amanda Fritz www.PortlandParks.org Director Mike Abbaté Contents Key Findings .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Conservancy Spring.Summer 2014 :: Volume 05.Issue 01
    YOSEMITE CONSERVANCY SPRING.SUMMER 2014 :: VOLUME 05.ISSUE 01 Commemorating 150 Years of Preservation INSIDE An Enduring Legacy of Preservation Expert Insights from Ken Burns & Dayton Duncan Restoration at Tenaya Lake’s Sunrise Trail Q&A with Yosemite’s Iconic Stage Coach Driver PHOTO: (RIGHT) © ROBERT PEARCE. PEARCE. (RIGHT) © ROBERT PHOTO: MISSION Providing for Yosemite’s future is our passion. We inspire people to support projects and programs that preserve and protect Yosemite National Park’s resources and enrich the visitor experience. PRESIDENT’S NOTE YOSEMITE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL MEMBERS Yosemite’s CHAIR PRESIDENT & CEO Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr.* Mike Tollefson* 150th Anniversary VICE CHAIR VICE PRESIDENT, Bob Bennitt* CFO & COO hroughout the years, I have been Jerry Edelbrock privileged to hear countless stories of Yosemite’s life-changing power. For COUNCIL some, Yosemite provides the backdrop Hollis & Matt Adams Jean Lane for generations of family memories. For Jeanne & Michael Adams Walt Lemmermann* others, that first glimpse of Tunnel View Lynda & Scott Adelson Melody & Bob Lind* inspired a career devoted to protecting wild Gretchen Augustyn Sam & Cindy Livermore Susan & Bill Baribault Anahita & Jim Lovelace places. This year’s celebration of the 150th Meg & Bob Beck Lillian Lovelace anniversary of the signing of the Yosemite Suzy & Bob Bennitt* Carolyn & Bill Lowman Grant Act provides an opportunity to reflect David Bowman & Sheila Grether-Marion Gloria Miller & Mark Marion on how Yosemite inspires all of us — and how we can protect it for the future. Tori & Bob Brant Kirsten & Dan Miks Marilyn & Allan Brown Robyn & Joe Miller On June 30, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed a law to forever preserve Steve & Diane Ciesinski* Dick Otter Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias.
    [Show full text]
  • Discover Giant Sequoia National Monument
    United States Department of Agriculture Discover the Giant Sequoia National Monument Western Divide Ranger District Hume Lake Ranger District The Monument is named for the native Giant Sequoia tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum, the world’s largest tree. Sequoias can tower more than 300 feet high and reach diameters of 40 feet. Out of approximately 67 groves in the Sierra, the Monument contains 38. On April 15, 2000, President William J. Clinton, by proclamation, In addition, almost all National Forest System land created the Giant Sequoia National Monument. The Giant Sequoia is available for you to choose your own camping National Monument is located within Sequoia National Forest in the spot and this is called dispersed camping. Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Gateways are Highway Remember to obtain a campfire permit if you plan 180 east of Fresno, Highway 190 east of Porterville, County Road M-56 to make your own camp and pack out all your trash. east of California Hot Springs, and Highway 178 east and north of Bakersfield. The Monument encompasses approximately 327,769 acres Several refurbished historic cabins can be rented for over-night of federal land managed by the Sequoia National Forest, Western Divide visits: Big Meadows Guard Station near Hume Lake, Poso Station and Hume Lake Ranger Districts. near Sugarloaf and Glenville, Frog Meadow Guard Station near Tobias Peak, and Mountain Home Guard Station near Balch Park The landscape is as spectacular as its 38 groves of giant sequoia. Elevation and Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest. Please contact the climbs from around 1,000 to 9,700 feet over a distance of only a few Districts for more miles, capturing an extraordinary array of habitats within a relatively information .
    [Show full text]