DOCSLIB.ORG

National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: a Conservation Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: a Conservation Strategy NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE SIERRA NEVADA: A CONSERVATION STRATEGY AUGUST 2012 REVISED MARCH 14, 2013 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy Recommended Citation: Britting, S., Brown, E., Drew, M., Esch, B., Evans, S. Flick, P., Hatch, J., Henson, R., Morgan, D., Parker, V., Purdy, S., Rivenes, D., Silvas-Bellanca, K., Thomas, C. and VanVelsor, S. 2012. National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy. Sierra Forest Legacy. August 27, 201; revised in part March 14, 2013. Available at: http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org Preparation This strategy was developed by a team of scientists and resource specialists from a variety of conservation organizations. The following individuals led the literature review and synthesis and worked with colleagues to develop the recommendations for specific topic areas. Contributor Affiliation Contribution Susan Britting, Ph. D. Sierra Forest Legacy Editor, planning and integration, landscape connectivity, aquatic ecosystems (co-lead), species accounts Emily Brown Earthjustice Adaptive management Mark Drew, Ph. D. California Trout Aquatic ecosystems (co-lead) Bryce Esch The Wilderness Society Species accounts Steve Evans Friends of the River Wild and Scenic Rivers Pamela Flick Defenders of Wildlife Species at risk Jenny Hatch California Trout Invasive species, species accounts Ryan Henson California Wilderness Coalition Wilderness and roadless area protection Darca Morgan Sierra Forest Legacy Old forests, forest diversity, species accounts Vivian Parker Sierra Forest Legacy Species accounts, copy editing Sabra Purdy University of California, Davis Species accounts Don Rivenes Forest Issues Group Special areas Karina Silvas Bellanca Sierra Forest Legacy Fire management Craig Thomas Sierra Forest Legacy People and the Sierra Nevada, reviewer Stan VanVelsor The Wilderness Society Travel management Front Cover Photos (clockwise from upper left): Old growth red fir, California Native Plant Society Managed fire, Karina Silvas Bellanca Pacific fisher, Rick Sweitzer, SNAMP Fisher Project Middle Fork Stanislaus River, John Buckley California spotted owl, Sheila Whitmore Production: Sierra Forest Legacy (www.sierraforestlegacy.org) National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy i CONTENTS I. Introduction I-1 II. People and the Sierra Nevada II-1 III. Planning A. Planning Process and Integration III.A-1 B. Adaptive Management and Monitoring III.B-1 IV. Resource Area A. Restoring Fire as an Ecological Process IV.A-1 B. Structural Diversity of Forests and Adjacent Habitats IV.B-1 C. Maintain and Restore Old Forest Habitats and Associated Species IV.C-1 D. Restore and Maintain Aquatic Ecosystems IV.D-1 E. Conservation of Species at Risk IV.E-1 F. Species Movement and Habitat Connectivity IV.F-1 G. Management of Invasive Species IV.G-1 H. Travel Management IV.H-1 I. Protecting Roadless Areas and Recommending New Wilderness Areas IV.I-1 J. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Evaluation and Recommendation IV.J-1 K. Special Interest Areas and Research Natural Areas IV.K-1 Appendix A Species Assessments and Conservation Measures Appendix B Summary of Special Status Species Appendix C Wild and Scenic Rivers: Status of Evaluations and Comprehensive River Management Plans Appendix D Status of Special Interest Areas and Research Natural Areas Appendix E Revision History March 14, 2013 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy ii August 27, 2012 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy I. Introduction to the Conservation Strategy I-1 INTRODUCTION TO THE Nevada bioregion in ways not previously anticipated. CONSERVATION STRATEGY Land management planning on national forest lands OVERVIEW in the Sierra Nevada offers a critical opportunity to define biologically appropriate protection and California is the most biologically diverse state in restoration strategies in this diverse region. With the nation. Compared to other states, California has approximately 40 percent of the region comprised the greatest number of plant species and the most of national forest lands, the Forest Service is the endemic species – plants and animals that occur largest land manager and oversees eleven national only in California. The California Floristic forests covering approximately 11.5 million acres. Province, which includes the Sierra Nevada, has Thoughtful and forward thinking planning has the been designated as a global biodiversity hotspot by potential to positively influence a significant portion Conservation International, The Nature of the region. It is also timely to undertake a Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund. comprehensive review of biological resources in the Floristic diversity in the California Floristic region. Management activities on national forest are Province is highest in the Sierra Nevada and governed by their respective forest plans. The forest Transverse ranges (Richerson and Lum 1980). The plans are intended to have a life time of about 15 rich biological diversity and high endemism are the years. The forest plans for the national forests in the result of adaptation and evolution in response to the Sierra Nevada were first adopted in the mid to late highly varied topography, climate zones, fire 1980s. Collectively, these forest plans have been regime, geology, and soils found in the Sierra amended three times since first adopted, and they Nevada. The region contains one of the most are now ripe for a thorough review and revision. biologically diverse temperate conifer forests on the Forest Service leadership is in agreement with the planet, with 27 different species of conifers and need to revise the forest plans. The agency, in July over 3,000 vascular plants, 400 of which only occur 2012, released a draft revised forest plan for the in the Sierra Nevada (Centers for Water and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and began in Wildland Resources 1996). About 300 species of 2012 the process to revise three other forest plans terrestrial vertebrates, including mammals, birds, (Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia national forests). The reptiles, and amphibians use the Sierra Nevada as a Forest Service has adopted an ambitious schedule to significant part of their range, with an additional revise a forest plan within three years of initiating 100 species occupying the bioregion as a minor part the process. of more extensive ranges elsewhere (Id.). In anticipation of the public dialogue about forest One hundred thirty-five plant species and sixty-nine planning, our coalition developed the following terrestrial vertebrate species found predominantly in conservation strategy for the national forests in the the Sierra Nevada are considered at risk by state or Sierra Nevada. The purpose of the strategy is to federal agencies (Id.). These species are threatened identify issues we believe to be a high priority to by a variety of stressors – California's rapid pace of address during the process of revising forest plans development, habitat loss, habitat degradation, new and to suggest specific tools, methods, or actions to pathogens, competition from introduced invasive resolve or address these issues. species, and disruption of essential ecological processes such as fire. The additional stress from expected changes in future climate and the synergy among stressors are likely to affect the Sierra August 27, 2012 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada: A Conservation Strategy I. Introduction to the Conservation Strategy I-2 OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLE:ECOLOGICAL needs. Rather, social and economic structures must SUSTAINABILITY fit within the biological system. This view has been characterized by Hart (1999), USDA Forest Service The concept of sustainability is central to any (2010) and others as strong sustainability. Strong discussion of resource management (Orr 2002). The sustainability “acknowledges that the human term generally suggests positive value in our economy depends on people and social interaction. culture, yet sustainability holds a highly variable Society, in turn, cannot exist outside the meaning within various interest groups. While there environment which provides the basic necessities is no universally agreed upon definition of for people to exist: air, food, water, energy, and raw sustainable management, the term is used widely materials” (USDA Forest Service 2010). throughout the world to support the need for improved management. Our values, in a broad sense, have been recorded in mottos such as "the greatest good for the greatest Commonly, the culture of resource management number in the long run" and "caring for the land and depicts decisions in a framework of social, serving people," and in the Forest Service mission economic and ecological choices framing the land statement: "Sustain the health, diversity, and manager’s decision space. Such “three-legged productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands stool” characterizations perpetuate the myth that to meet the needs of present and future humanity is outside the biological system versus generations." What’s missing is an understanding of limited by it (Dawe and Ryan 2003). The discipline the impossible demands of an overgrown population of conservation biology correctly argues that we are on a finite resource base—the American wildlands biological organisms living in a biologically defined are in retreat, largely degraded and lack resilience and limited planet. The ecosystem is the foundation due to unfettered economic demands and, until upon which social structures and economic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 ON THE COVER Examples of campsites surveyed in the late 1970s and again in 2006-2007. In a clockwise direction, these sites are in the Striped Mountain, Woods Creek, Sugarloaf, and Upper Big Arroyo areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Photographs by: Sandy Graban and Bob Kenan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Campsite Impact in the Wilderness of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Thirty Years of Change Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SEKI/NRTR—2013/665 David N. Cole and David J. Parsons Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 790 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 January 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804
    Photo by Louis Kamler. www.nationalforests.org Building 27, Suite 3 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804 Printed on recycled paper 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Island Lake, Eldorado National Forest Desolation Wilderness. Photo by Adam Braziel. 1 We are pleased to present the National Forest Foundation’s (NFF) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013. During this fourth year of the Treasured Landscapes campaign, we have reached $86 million in both public and private support towards our $100 million campaign goal. In this year’s report, you can read about the National Forests comprising the centerpieces of our work. While these landscapes merit special attention, they are really emblematic of the entire National Forest System consisting of 155 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands. he historical context for these diverse and beautiful Working to protect all of these treasured landscapes, landscapes is truly inspirational. The century-old to ensure that they are maintained to provide renewable vision to put forests in a public trust to secure their resources and high quality recreation experiences, is National Forest Foundation 2013 Annual Report values for the future was an effort so bold in the late at the core of the NFF’s mission. Adding value to the 1800’s and early 1900’s that today it seems almost mission of our principal partner, the Forest Service, is impossible to imagine. While vestiges of past resistance what motivates and challenges the NFF Board and staff. to the public lands concept live on in the present, Connecting people and places reflects our organizational the American public today overwhelmingly supports values and gives us a sense of pride in telling the NFF maintaining these lands and waters in public ownership story of success to those who generously support for the benefit of all.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Stewardship Proposal, Tahoe National Forest, Bear River
    Land Stewardship Proposal for the Lake Spaulding, Bear River, & Fordyce Lake Planning Units of the Yuba Bear Watershed by the USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest PART 1 - ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Contact Information: Primary Contact: Fran Herbst Lands Program Manager 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6852 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Secondary Contact: Heather Newell (New Secondary Contact) Yuba River Ranger District Assistant Public Service Officer 15924 Highway 49 Camptonville, CA 95922 (530) 288-0727 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 Executive Director: Tom Quinn Forest Supervisor 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 478-6200 [email protected] Fax (530) 478-6109 1 2. Executive Summary The Tahoe National Forest (TNF) is managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) which is a federal agency in the Department of Agriculture. National Forest System (NFS) lands are generally managed with similar goals and objectives as the Beneficial Public Values (BPVs) identified for Stewardship lands. Some of the laws requiring the protection of these values include the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Forest Service was established in 1905. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public lands, known collectively as the National Forest System. Currently, a critical emphasis of the USFS is to retain and restore ecological resilience of the NFS lands to achieve sustainable ecosystems that provide a broad range of services to humans and other organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Eldorado National Forest
    Welcome to the Eldorado National Forest The Eldorado National Forest is part of an overall community which contributes to the quality of life. Everyone who shares in its benefits, shares in its welfare. Contact Information Eldorado National Forest Supervisor’s Office Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor 100 Forni Road Placerville, CA 95667 Phone: 530) 622-5061 (530) 642-5122 (TTY) Internet Site: www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado Amador Ranger District 26820 Silver Drive Pioneer, CA 95666 Phone: (209) 295-4251 (209) 295-5996 (TTY) Georgetown Ranger District The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in 7600 Wentworth Springs Road all its programs and activities on the Georgetown, CA 95634 basis of race, color, national origin, Phone: (530) 333-4312 age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, Pacific Ranger District parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 7887 Highway 50 political beliefs, reprisal, or because Pollock Pines, Ca 95726 all or part of an individual’s income Phone: (530) 644-2349 is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with Placerville Ranger District disabilities who require alternative 4260 Eight Mile Road means for communication of Camino, CA 95709 program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact Phone: (530) 644-2324 USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) (530) 647-5314 (TTY) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file complaint of discrimination, Write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA
    September 29, 2014 Land Management Plan Revision USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Planning Staff 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via Region 5 website Re: Comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action for the Forest Plan Revisions on the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests To the Forest Plan Revision Team: These comments are provided on behalf of Sierra Forest Legacy and the above conservation organizations. We have reviewed the Notice of Intent (NOI), detailed Proposed Action (PA), and supporting materials posted on the Region 5 planning website and offer the following comments on these documents. We have submitted numerous comment letters since the forest plan revision process was initiated for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra national forests. Specifically, we submitted comment letters on the forest assessments for each national forest (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013b, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2013c), comments on two need for change documents (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014a, Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014b) and comments on detailed desired conditions (Sierra Forest Legacy et al. 2014c). We incorporate these comments by reference and attach the letters to these scoping comments. We have included these letters in our scoping comments because significant issues that we raised in these comments have not yet been addressed in the NOI, or the detailed PA creates significant conflict with resource areas on which we commented. Organization of Comments The following comments address first the content of the NOI, including the purpose and need for action, issues not addressed in the scoping notice, and regulatory compliance of the PA as written.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Sierra Nevada Gooseberry in Relation to Blister Rust Control
    4C z icology of the Sierra Nevada Gooseber n Relation to Mister Rust Control By Clarence R. Quick, Forest Ecologist, Forest Service Circular No. 937 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTENTS Page Page Introduction 3 Effects of various forest dis- Plant ecology in the Sierra turbances 21 Nevada 5 Fire 21 Climatology 5 Logging 22 Sierran montane forest 6 Grazing 23 Forest ecology 7 Hand eradication 23 Autecologv of the Sierra Nevada Chemical eradication 25 gooseberry 7 Application of ecology to control Morphology 8 work 25 Diseases 8 Timing of eradication 25 Seeds and distribution 9 Estimation of gooseberry Seedling 11 occurrence potential 26 Seedling survival and growth. _ 13 Timber management 27 Fruit production 17 Decline of populations 18 Summary 28 Gooseberries and the fauna 19 Literature cited 29 Washington, D. C. March 1954 INTRODUCTION Ecological studies of the genus Ribes have been in progress in northern California for more than 20 years. A thorough under- standing of the ecology of native ribes in general, and of the Sierra Nevada gooseberry (Ribes roezli Regel) in particular, is necessary in connection with the control of the white pine blister rust in California. This disease of five-needled pines, caused by the fungus Cronartium ribicola Fischer growing on ribes as its alternate host, threatens to destroy sugar pine (Pinus lamberliana Dougi.) on about a million and a half acres of forest land that supports sufficient sugar pine to make rust control economical. Some of the conclusions from these studies are based on extensive field observations. For the most part, however, they are related directly to analyses of field data collected from several series of plots in California from 1936 to 1949.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report
    Tulare County Measure R Riparian-Wildlife Corridor Report Prepared by Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners for Tulare County Association of Govenments 11 February 2008 Executive Summary As part of an agreement with the Tulare County Association of Governments, Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners (TBWP) visited nine potential riparian and wildlife corridors in Tulare County during summer 2007. We developed a numerical ranking system and determined the five corridors with highest potential for conservation, recreation and conjunctive uses. The selected corridors include: Deer Creek Riparian Corridor, Kings River Riparian Corridor, Oaks to Tules Riparian Corridor, Lewis Creek Riparian Corridor, and Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Corridor. For each corridor, we provide a brief description and a summary of attributes and opportunities. Opportunities include flood control, groundwater recharge, recreation, tourism, and wildlife. We also provide a brief description of opportunities for an additional eight corridors that were not addressed in depth in this document. In addition, we list the Measure R transportation improvements and briefly discuss the potential wildlife impacts for each of the projects. The document concludes with an examination of other regional planning efforts that include Tulare County, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint, the Tulare County Bike Path Plan, the TBWP’s Sand Ridge-Tulare Lake Plan, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the USFWS Upland Species Recovery Plan. Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, 2/11/2008 Page 2 of 30 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Goals and Objectives………………………...……………………………………………. 4 Tulare County Corridors……………………..……………………………………………. 5 Rankings………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Corridors selected for Detailed Study…………………………………………….. 5 Deer Creek Corridor………………………………………………………. 5 Kings River Corridor……………………………………………………… 8 Oaks to Tules Corridor…………………………………..………………… 10 Lewis Creek East of Lindsay……………………………………………… 12 Cottonwood Creek………………………………………...……………….
    [Show full text]
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanislaus National Forest Pacific Southwest Region 5 *****Outreach Notice*****
    02/12 STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION 5 *****OUTREACH NOTICE***** TITLE: Various- See Below DUTY LOCATION: Stanislaus National Forest SERIES: GS-462 Various Locations- See Below GRADE: GS- 6, 7, 8, 9 FOREST: The Stanislaus National Forest (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/) totals approximately 1,090,000 acres within its boundaries. The Forest is bordered on the south by the Merced River and the Sierra National Forest. The Mokelumne River and the Eldorado National Forest comprise the northern border. Yosemite National Park and the Toiyabe National Forest make up the eastern boundaries. The Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in Sonora, California, county seat for Tuolumne County. The four Ranger Districts, Mi-Wok, Calaveras, Summit and Groveland, are within 45 minutes of the Supervisor’s Office. To view the AVUE vacancy announcement summary, click the announcement number link. This will give you salary, qualification and application information regarding the position. GROVELAND RANGER DISTRICT: Please use the “AVUE Location” listed in the tables below as the preferred location on your application. Number of Position Series and AVUE Resource/Duty Merit Promotion DEMO Announcement positions Grade Location Station Announcement Number Number Forestry Groveland, 1 Technician (Fire GS-462-7 Kinsley Engine OCRP-462-FEO(H)-7G OCRP-462-FEO(H)-7DP CA Engine Operator) Forestry Technician (Hand Groveland, Buck Meadows OCRP-462- OCRP-462- 1 GS-462-7 Crew Supervisor) CA HANDCREW-7G HANDCREW-7DP For technical questions regarding the above positions, please contact Division Chief Alec Lane at: [email protected] or (209) 962-7825 x519 MI-WOK RANGER DISTRICT: Please use the “AVUE Location” listed in the tables below as the preferred location on your application.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife in the Tahoe National Forest
    United States Forest Service Department of Agriculture Tahoe National Forest Wildlife Tahoe National Forest ÞÅ The Tahoe National Forest is characterized by a Mountain Lion wide variety of wildlife habitats as it spans the Mountain lions are large wild felines that typically Central Sierra Nevada range between the Sacra- live where mule deer are found, as that is their mento Valley and the Great Basin region. Broad main diet. They are tawny gold in color with vegetation types include: mountain chaparral, black fur tips on their tail and ears. Mountain lions mixed conifer, red fir, and eastside sage-pine/ are mostly nocturnal, escaping the heat of the day brush. to sleep in cool rock cavities or shady brush. They Providing for good habitat for wildlife is an im- are very secretive and solitary, and extremely rare portant objective of the National Forests. The nat- to see. Mountain lions need large areas for their ural habitat is carefully considered in the manage- habitat, 25 – 30 square miles, but instead of being ment of many uses in the National Forests. territorial, they generally avoid contact with oth- Wildlife is often difficult to observe. It is easier to ers. They can live up to 18 years of age. notice signs that they are or have been in the area. For instance, one might see tracks near a water Mule Deer source, nibbled leaves, scat, clawed trees or Mule deer or black-tailed deer are commonly seen branches, and feathers or fur left behind. The in the forest, often eating in meadows or grassy sounds of birds or coyotes yipping are good indi- areas.
    [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]
  • SIGHTS, SITES, and CITATIONS: RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS by the YOSEMITE RESEARCH CENTER W
    SIGHTS, SITES, AND CITATIONS: RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS BY THE YOSEMITE RESEARCH CENTER w. Joseph Mundy Yosemite Research Center P.O. Box 700 El Portal, CA 95318 ABSTRACT In addition to being scenic focal points, Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks are also areas in which the Park Service balances its construction programs with its preservation values. Over a period of several years, millions of dollars are being funneled into construction efforts in the parks. Since 1984, such construction has mandated 12 major archaeological surveys, 11 excavation projects, and three large scale construction monitoring efforts, as well as numerous data updates and smaller cul­ tural resources management compliance surveys. with site avoidance the most implemented option, the archaeological work still includes the full gamut of treatments -- from initial discovery and recording, to testing, mitigative excavation, and construction impact monitoring. As an introduction to other papers from Yosemite, the major observations and findings of recent archaeological work are reviewed with an emphasis on informational highlights. Plans for future synthetic studies and other projects planned by the Yosemite Research Center are also discussed. INTRODUCTIONI There are several papers from the Yosemite Research Center in this volume. This paper will be somewhat intro­ ductory to the others, and will discuss some of the projects undertaken by the Research Center in recent years. The Center is located in El Portal, in the Merced River canyon, at the western edge of Yosemite National Park. The archaeology staff shares the Yosemite Research Center with the Park's natural science staff, who are currently involved in the development of a computerized geographic information system for Yosemite, a fire dynamics study, and radio tracking of the recently reintroduced Bighorn sheep herd.
    [Show full text]