DOCSLIB.ORG

USGS DDS-43, the Mammoth-June Ecosystem Managememt Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USGS DDS-43, the Mammoth-June Ecosystem Managememt Project CONSTANCE I. MILLAR Institute of Forest Genetics U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, California 50 The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project, Inyo National Forest ABSTRACT Public involvement in the MJEMP was at first low to moderate, but built to strong participation and interest. However, a segment of the The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) case-study assess- local public expressed dissatisfaction with the general USFS approach ment of the Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project to landscape analysis and the specific implementation in the Mam- (MJEMP) was undertaken to review and analyze the efficacy of a moth-June area, and began to mount legal action against it. The main local landscape analysis in achieving ecosystem-management ob- concern of this group is that the landscape analysis is actually a de- jectives in the Sierra Nevada. Of primary interest to SNEP was appli- cision process, yet it has been considered exempt from (or outside cation of the new U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regional process for of) National Environmental Policy Act procedures. The outcome of landscape analysis, especially use of historic and natural range of these discussions could have implications for landscape analysis on variability. An underlying assumption in current USFS approaches is national forests throughout the Sierra Nevada. that managing lands within historical and natural ranges of variability will promote ecological sustainability. Another assumption of interest to SNEP is that social goals can be incorporated into ecological goals to arrive at integrated management objectives. Success in describ- ing historical condition varied considerably by ecological indicator. A INTRODUCTION few quantitative measures were developed for short- (decade) to medium-term (several centuries) periods, but many descriptions were The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) is primarily an qualitative, highly inferential, and based on very short-term studies. assessment study. In addition to assessing ecological and so- If the intent were to develop desired conditions from scientifically ciological conditions and trends in the Sierra Nevada, SNEP defensible, quantitative descriptions of historical variabilities, the is charged with assessing relevant methods, approaches, and MJEMP analyses would be inadequate; the team found that it was policies. This direction includes both methods that SNEP it- difficult to take a science-based approach when there was not time, self uses and also policies and approaches to ecosystem man- budget, or qualifications to do the science. For the MJEMP team, agement potentially or actually employed by others in the however, the value of historic data was not to develop a desired con- Sierra Nevada. For this reason, five SNEP case studies were dition that mimicked past structural conditions, but to be informed chosen as ongoing examples of ecosystem management in the about natural processes and how they can be severely disrupted by Sierra Nevada. human activities (present and past). Thus, the information obtained The case studies illustrate diverse conditions in the Sierra by the MJEMP was useful for describing the status, trends, and ap- Nevada and do not parallel one another in intent, histories, parent changes in successional pathways caused by humans. With- magnitude, funding, or other attributes. Each exemplifies a out detailed information about historic ranges of conditions, however, particular approach to common institutional problems en- the team had difficulty describing desired future conditions, finding it countered in ecosystem management of the Sierra Nevada. oversimplified to say they wanted to maintain natural or current con- Collectively they sample many significant situations encoun- ditions. tered in ecosystem management. SNEP will evaluate the effi- Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 1273 1274 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 50 cacy of these approaches to the physical and biological com- • competing and conflicting desires for management of munities each represents, to the human communities in- parts of the area volved, for value to SNEP in its analyses, and for their value • active public involvement in wider application of these approaches in the Sierra Nevada. • relatively strong scientific information base Case-Study Objectives • Applies new U.S. Forest Service (USFS) guidelines for eco- system management, both national policy (Forest Plan Each of the three SNEP assessment questions pertains to analy- Implementation, USFS 1992a), and Pacific Southwest re- sis of SNEP case studies. In addition, because most have gional approach (Manley et al. 1995). These guidelines con- involved some form of projecting and evaluating land- tain the conceptual thinking and procedural models that management alternatives, they also represent approaches to are to be adopted by and guide land-management plan- SNEP’s questions about policy scenarios. These issues are ning on the national forests across the country and through- woven into five questions that pertain directly to each case out the Sierra Nevada in the future. study: • Relies on comparisons of current conditions to inferred his- 1. What conditions does this case study represent for ecosys- torical conditions (especially natural ranges of variability tem management in the Sierra Nevada? Conditions of in- and ecological indicators) to arrive at ecological manage- terest include natural and social environment, ment goals. It assumes (explicit in Manley et al. 1995) that land-ownership patterns, current land-management objec- landscapes managed within relevant natural range of vari- tive, historical use and policies, nature of public involve- abilities are sustainable. ment, and policy context. • Assumes that social desires can be accommodated by modi- 2. What are the specific ecosystem management methods, fying ecological goals to arrive at integrated management approaches, or policies being applied? These include in- objectives for the landscape (desired conditions). tended, planned, actual, and implemented methods, as well as biological and social aspects. 3. How effective have these specific methods been in reach- ing goals? Effectiveness is assessed relative to the natural (physical conditions, biodiversity) and social (local com- METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS munities, interest groups, common good) environments. SNEP’s approach to assessing the MJEMP was primarily ob- 4. How representative of other situations in the Sierra Ne- servation by participation, interview, and review of second- vada is the case study? ary sources. SNEP scientists involved have ongoing experience independent of SNEP in the eastern Sierra, the Inyo National 5. What can be learned from the case study? Specifically, what Forest, and especially the Owens River headwaters region. Each are the implications for local conditions (both the local has a history of research and management interest in the area natural environment and local human communities), for and has participated to some degree in management processes SNEP, and for broader application in the Sierra Nevada? for the area in recent years. By participating in the meetings and field trips of the MJEMP team, through interviews and Mammoth-June Case-Study Objectives informal discussion with team members and members of the public, and through working in residence in the eastern Si- The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project (MJEMP) erra, SNEP scientists were directly involved (although to vary- of the Inyo National Forest was selected by SNEP because it ing degrees) from the beginning of the current Mammoth-June meets the preceeding conditions and exemplifies a set of rep- project. resentative issues in Sierra Nevada ecosystem management. Several explicit assumptions are accepted: The MJEMP 1. MJEMP reflects general approaches (e.g., Grumbine 1994) • Represents eastern Sierra landscape and management con- being taken in land management. ditions in 2. MJEMP is a serious attempt to adopt the specific steps • patterns of land ownership (almost exclusively federal) outlined in the national Forest Plan Implementation (USFS • focus on recreation and habitat protection with diverse 1992a) and the new regional ecosystem management but low intensity commodity values manual (Manley et al. 1995) and thus reflects a process that may be repeated commonly throughout Sierra Ne- • forest structure and composition with associated physi- vada national forests. cal and biotic environment 1275 The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project, Inyo National Forest 3. MJEMP is one of the first landscape analyses in the Sierra Ecosystem management is the current theme guiding USFS Nevada to implement these specific national and regional land management. In June 1992, the chief of the USFS insti- guidelines at the landscape or watershed scale. tuted ecosystem management throughout the national forests of the United States and defined it as “the skillful, integrated 4. The conditions local to the Mammoth-June landscape are use of ecological knowledge at various scales to produce de- not unique nor so unusual as to limit application of les- sired resource values, products, services, and conditions in sons learned there for landscape analyses elsewhere in the ways that also sustain the diversity and productivity of eco- Sierra Nevada. systems” (Robertson 1992). Further
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inyo National Forest Visitor Guide
    >>> >>> Inyo National Forest >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Visitor Guide >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> $1.00 Suggested Donation FRED RICHTER Inspiring Destinations © Inyo National Forest Facts “Inyo” is a Paiute xtending 165 miles Bound ary Peak, South Si er ra, lakes and 1,100 miles of streams Indian word meaning along the California/ White Mountain, and Owens River that provide habitat for golden, ENevada border between Headwaters wildernesses. Devils brook, brown and rainbow trout. “Dwelling Place of Los Angeles and Reno, the Inyo Postpile Nation al Mon ument, Mam moth Mountain Ski Area National Forest, established May ad min is tered by the National Park becomes a sum mer destination for the Great Spirit.” 25, 1907, in cludes over two million Ser vice, is also located within the mountain bike en thu si asts as they acres of pris tine lakes, fragile Inyo Na tion al For est in the Reds ride the chal leng ing Ka mi ka ze Contents Trail from the top of the 11,053-foot mead ows, wind ing streams, rugged Mead ow area west of Mam moth Wildlife 2 Sierra Ne va da peaks and arid Great Lakes. In addition, the Inyo is home high Mam moth Moun tain or one of Basin moun tains. El e va tions range to the tallest peak in the low er 48 the many other trails that transect Wildflowers 3 from 3,900 to 14,494 feet, pro vid­ states, Mt. Whitney (14,494 feet) the front coun try of the forest. Wilderness 4-5 ing diverse habitats that sup port and is adjacent to the lowest point Sixty-five trailheads provide Regional Map - North 6 vegetation patterns ranging from in North America at Badwater in ac cess to over 1,200 miles of trail Mono Lake 7 semiarid deserts to high al pine Death Val ley Nation al Park (282 in the 1.2 million acres of wil der- meadows.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diatom Proxy for Seasonality Over the Last Three Millennia at June Lake, Eastern Sierra Nevada (Ca)
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Earth and Environmental Sciences Earth and Environmental Sciences 2019 A DIATOM PROXY FOR SEASONALITY OVER THE LAST THREE MILLENNIA AT JUNE LAKE, EASTERN SIERRA NEVADA (CA) Laura Caitlin Streib University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2019.291 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Streib, Laura Caitlin, "A DIATOM PROXY FOR SEASONALITY OVER THE LAST THREE MILLENNIA AT JUNE LAKE, EASTERN SIERRA NEVADA (CA)" (2019). Theses and Dissertations--Earth and Environmental Sciences. 70. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ees_etds/70 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Earth and Environmental Sciences at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Earth and Environmental Sciences by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Abella, S. R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7:1248—1284. Abella, S. R., D. J. Craig, L. P. Chiquoine, K. A. Prengaman, S. M. Schmid, and T. M. Embrey. 2011. Relationships of native desert plants with red brome (Bromus rubens): Toward identifying invasion-reducing species. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:115—124. Abella, S. R., N. A. Fisichelli, S. M. Schmid, T. M. Embrey, D. L. Hughson, and J. Cipra. 2015. Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States. Nature Conservation 10:71—94. Available: https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.10.4407 Abella, S. R., A. A. Suazo, C. M. Norman, and A. C. Newton. 2013. Treatment alternatives and timing affect seeds of African mustard (Brassica tournefortii), an invasive forb in American Southwest arid lands. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6:559—567. Available: https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-13-00022.1 Abrahamson, I. 2014. Arctostaphylos manzanita. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fire Effects Information System (Online). plants/shrub/arcman/all.html Ackerman, T. L. 1979. Germination and survival of perennial plant species in the Mojave Desert. The Southwestern Naturalist 24:399—408. Adams, A. W. 1975. A brief history of juniper and shrub populations in southern Oregon. Report No. 6. Oregon State Wildlife Commission, Corvallis, OR. Adams, L. 1962. Planting depths for seeds of three species of Ceanothus.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • References References Abrams, L
    References References Abrams, L. 1944. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States, Vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 635 p. Alexander, R. 1980. Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters; 86-87. Atzet, T.; Wheeler, D. L. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountains province. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture; 315 p. Ball, J. T. 1976. Ecological survey, Last Chance Meadow candidate research natural area, Mount Whitney Ranger District, Inyo National Forest. Unpublished report on file, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, Calif. Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. 1977. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience; 1002 p. Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County, California. National City, CA: Sweetwater River Press; 241 p. Becking, R. W. 1989. Segregation of Hastingsia serpentinicola sp. nov. from Hastingsia alba (Liliaceae: Asphodeleae). Madrono 36: 208-216. Beguin, C. N.; Major, J. 1975. Contribution to the phytosociology and ecology of bogs of the Sierra Nevada (California). Phytocoenologia 2(3/4): 349-367 (an English translation of the original French text is given as an appendix to Burke 1987). Berg, K. S. 1990. Establishment record for Station Creek Research Natural Area within Eldorado National Forest in El Dorado County, California. Unpublished report on file, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, Calif. Berg, K. S. 1991a. Establishment record for Grass Lake Research Natural Area within Eldorado National Forest, managed in Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, in El Dorado County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Order No. 21-07 Emergency Forest Closures
    Regional Order No. 21-07 USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Emergency Forest Closure Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a) and (b), and to provide for public safety and protect natural resources, the following acts are prohibited on National Forest System lands within the Pacific Southwest Region. This Order supersedes Regional Order No. 21-04 and is effective from August 31, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. through September 17, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. 1. Going into or being upon National Forest System lands within the National Forests listed below. a. Tahoe National Forest b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit c. Plumas National Forest d. Lassen National Forest e. Mendocino National Forest f. Klamath National Forest g. Six Rivers National Forest h. Shasta-Trinity National Forest i. Modoc National Forest j. Cleveland National Forest k. San Bernardino National Forest l. Angeles National Forest m. Los Padres National Forest n. Sequoia National Forest o. Sierra National Forest p. Stanislaus National Forest q. Inyo National Forest 36 C.F.R. § 261.52(e). 2. Being on a National Forest System road within the National Forests listed below. a. Tahoe National Forest b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit c. Plumas National Forest d. Lassen National Forest e. Mendocino National Forest f. Klamath National Forest g. Six Rivers National Forest h. Shasta-Trinity National Forest i. Modoc National Forest j. Cleveland National Forest k. San Bernardino National Forest l. Angeles National Forest m. Los Padres National Forest n. Sequoia National Forest o. Sierra National Forest p.
    [Show full text]
  • C a L I F O R N
    BACKPACKER CALIFORNIA <<< WILD WEEKENDS IN YOUR BACKYARD & N E V A D A Lower Rock Creek Morris Meadow Enjoy a variety of seasons in Inyo National Forest Get an alpine fix, maybe some fish, on this Trinity Alps trek THE HIKE This downhill shuttle hike may be THE HIKE If you can’t wait for the warmup to hard on the knees, but the views of seasonal thaw high routes in the Sierras and southern change are easy on the eyes. In spring, you Cascades, this 18-mile out-and-back into the can watch the last remnants of snow give heart of the Trinity Alps Wilderness is just the way to blooming wildflowers; in fall, you can ticket. Follow the Stuart Fork Trail as it parallels see autumn colors rewind to vibrant summer the tumbling waters of Stuart Fork, winding greens as you descend 1,900 feet over 9.3 through a rocky channel beneath a dense miles. Start on the Lower Rock Creek Trail as canopy of mixed hardwoods. The river supports it drops gently from the upper trailhead, then cross the creek a healthy population of rainbow trout, so pack tackle. You’ll climb and follow its banks southeast for 2.2 miles. When you reach a gentle slope up a canyon amid black oaks, ponderosa pines, the road, hook right; follow the road briefly, then cross the creek and incense cedars, crossing several streams. After nearly 9 again and pick up the trail on its west bank. Head another 2.2 miles of forest, expansive Morris Meadow opens up at 4,400 miles south through the woods until you cross the road and feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Are You Suprised ?
    Transportation Observations, Considerations, and Recommendations relative to the Eastern Sierra Expanded Transit System and the Reds Meadow Shuttle Provided by the Interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG) / Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL) Program Mammoth Lakes / Bishop, CA August 21 – 23, 2007 A field investigation of the current transportation issues and opportunities relative to the Eastern Sierra Expanded Transit System and the Reds Meadow Shuttle by the inter- agency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG) was conducted August 21-23, 2007, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) in cooperation with the Devils Postpile National Monument (National Park Service (NPS)) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This TAG report was prepared subsequent to the site visit and interaction with numerous federal, state, local and private sector stakeholders. This report documents the conditions observed, transportation issues and considerations, and recommendations arising from the TAG analysis. The site visit and the preparation of this report were facilitated and funded by the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL) program, administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in coordination with the Department of the Interior (DOI). Background and Conditions The Eastern Sierra Expanded Transit System has evolved from concept to reality through the creation of the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) on July 1, 2007. The ESTA service area encompasses a large area stretching from Reno, NV, on the north to Ridgecrest, CA, on the south – with connections from the region to major metropolitan areas (Las Vegas, NV, Los Angeles, CA, and San Francisco, CA). Inyo and Mono counties comprise the majority of the area both in terms of geography and recreational and tourism opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Inyo National Forest on Cross-Country a Variety of Terrain, from Wide-Open Meadows to Forested Paved Mammoth Scenic Loop Road
    WINTER SAFETY Know Before You Go! • Check local weather conditions. • Tell someone WHERE you are going, WHEN you are INYO NATIONAL www.esavalanche.org returning, and WHO you are going with. U.S. Forest Service Avalanche Center: • Know the risks and be prepared. For the most recent information on snow conditions and ava- HYPOTHERMIA is a lowering of the inner temperature of the body FOREST lanche activity, please visit the website or call: resulting in rapid and progressive mental and physical collapse. Caused by exposure to cold and aggravated by wetness, wind, and (760) 924-5510 exhaustion, untreated hypothermia can result in death. for the most recent information WEATHER conditions can change rapidly. • Obtain a weather report before your trip. • Avoid traveling during heavy storms and whiteout conditions AVALANCHES may occur at any time during the winter. • Routes and areas open to winter use are not controlled for avalanches. • Avoid mountainous terrain after heavy snowfalls or long periods of high wind. • Avoid crossing steep hillsides and entering narrow, steep- sided canyons. • If crossing potentially dangerous areas is unavoidable, cross one person at a time. CREEKS AND LAKES • Stay off frozen lakes. • Cross snow-covered creeks with care. SURVIVAL KIT • Warm clothes for layering (wool or synthetics are best) • Space blanket • Water, sunglasses, and sunscreen • Ensolite pad • Whistle for emergency signaling (3 blasts means “help”) • Waterproof matches or lighter • Map and compass To Report Unsafe or Illegal Activities, Please Call (760)-873-2405 Emergencies DIAL 911 The Mammoth Lakes Trail System website provides an online guide to winter and summer recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • June Mountain Ski Area Vegetation Management
    JUNE MOUNTAIN SKI AREA VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Inyo National Forest Mono Lake Ranger District OVERVIEW Background Located on the Mono Lake District, June Mountain Ski Area (JMSA) is one of two alpine ski resorts operated under special use permit on the Inyo National Forest. The ski area is currently undergoing a severe mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak which has affected whitebark and lodgepole pine stands on over 150 acres within the ski area boundary. Additional acres are currently infested outside ski area boundaries, both outside and within designated wilderness areas. It is expected the outbreak will continue and intensify based upon the number of new infestations detected this past summer. Forest activities are guided by the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA), Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, which amended the Forest Plan on January 21, 2004, sets goals and objectives for management activities which will restore natural ecosystem processes while minimizing threats to life, property, and natural resources. Regional Forester direction clarifying recreation management issues related to the SNFPA were issued in a letter dated June 24, 2002. Issues were related to Regional Soil Quality Standards, Incidental Removal of Vegetation and Down Woody Material, and Limited Operating Periods for Pine Marten within developed recreation sites and impacts to recreation-related activities. The first two issues were resolved with clarification; the third issue was resolved with errata to the Plan Amendment. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to develop both short and long-term vegetation management strategies for all areas within the boundaries of JMSA.
    [Show full text]
  • SFL Et Al. Objection to the Inyo Revised Forest Plan (10/3/18) Fran Hunt Eastern Sierra Organizer Sierra Club
    October 3, 2018 Barnie Gyant Objection Reviewing Officer Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 Submitted via: [email protected] Re: Objections to the Inyo National Forest Plan Revision and Species of Conservation Concern Dear Mr. Gyant: Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 219 Subpart B, Sierra Forest Legacy, California Wilderness Coalition, The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Inyo, California Native Plant Society, Mono Lake Committee, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Lassen Forest Preservation Group, and Forest Issues Group are objecting to portions of the Draft Record of Decision, Final Forest Plan, and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Inyo National Forest. The responsible official for the Inyo plan revision is Tammy Randall-Parker, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest. We are also objecting to the list of Species of Conservation Concern adopted by Regional Forester Randy Moore. Collectively, the objecting organizations have provided substantive formal comments throughout the forest planning process for the Inyo National Forest on the objection issues we raise below. We are deeply invested in securing a forest plan for the Inyo National Forest that protects important natural resources and provides for people. This objection covers a variety of issues related to resources affected by the revised forest plan and offers recommendations on how objection issues could be resolved. We appreciate the opportunity for review and possible resolution of issues contained in this objection prior to the approval of the final plan. We look forward to an opportunity to discuss our concerns with you.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement - Los Padres National Forest Tamarisk Removal Project
    Final Environmental Impact United States Department of Agriculture Statement Forest Service Los Padres National Forest September 2016 Tamarisk Removal Project Los Padres National Forest Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877- 8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]