How best to manage wilderness areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks will be the topic for public conversation come October, when the parks seek input on preliminary draft alternatives for their Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
At a series of public meetings, the National Park Service will be seeking ideas and feedback about alternatives to address future wilderness management at the two parks.
Topics that may be addressed in the plan include: day and overnight use; permitting and quotas; party sizes; campfires; food storage; camping and campsites; human waste management; pack stock and grazing management; scientific research; natural and cultural resource management; maintenance of signs, trails, bridges, and other recreational infrastructure; administrative infrastructure; education and outreach; the extent to which commercial services are necessary to fulfill the recreational and other purposes of wilderness areas; and front-country support facilities.
Many of these topics were brought forward during the public scoping phase of the planning process that took place from April 11 to August 31 last year. The issue raised its head earlier this year when the lack of a wilderness management plan temporarily derailed the parks' ability to issue permits for pack trips this summer.
The problem was temporarily resolved when Congress intervened and sent legislation to President Obama that would allow the parks to issue permits for this summer's season.
To learn more about the process and how to comment on what the new plan should include, visit the National Park Service Planning, Environment, and Public Comment website and/or consider attending an upcoming workshop during the last two weeks of October to listen to a presentation by the National Park Service and meet with staff to discuss your ideas about alternatives or submit your comments.
The schedule for the meetings is:
Thursday, October 25, 2012
7 p.m.- 9 p.m.
Eastern Sierra Tri-county Fairgrounds
Patio Building
Sierra Street and Fair Street
Bishop, CA 93514
Friday, October 26, 2012
7 p.m. - 9 p.m.
Los Angeles River Center
California Building Atrium
570 West Avenue 26
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Monday, October 29, 2012
7 p.m. - 9 p.m.
East Bay Regional Parks
Redwood Regional Park
Richard C. Trudeau Training Center
Main Conference Room
11500 Skyline Blvd
Oakland, CA 94619
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
6 p.m. -- 8 p.m.
Visalia Marriott Hotel
Main Ballroom
300 South Court Street
Visalia, CA 93291
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Greetings:
A reminder to folks that comments on the Sequoia Kings NP Wilderness Stewardship Plan draft alternatives need to be in by Monday, November 19th. Note that the documents released are only to comment on whether these Alternatives are the ones that should be adopted. The next phase is to write the Alternatives in final form, then release those for comment.
Alas, the Draft is kind of a mess. I had trouble understanding the tables as presented, though think I got the general idea. I also think the plan Alternatives are driven by an assumption of overuse, which is not in any way supported by current statistics or future projections. As written, the alternatives imply increasingly draconian restrictions in use which may not even be necessary given current and future use levels.
It's important, though, for wilderness users to read and comment on this. The last plan was written in 1986 (!!!) and not revised until now. [color=#cc0000] So, it's quite likely that this Plan will be the guiding document for the next 30 years.[/color] It will affect how you can visit the backcountry for all of that time. It's a pain, but please read it and comment on what you think is important. Comments have to be in by November 19th, so take a little time to read it and send in your thoughts.
I'm bothered by three things:
1) The zone system proposed is unworkable, both philosophically and practically.
2) No specific protection plan for iconic Sierran meadows (e.g. McClure, Colby, Grouse, Upper Basin, Castle Dome etc). The alternatives suggest a yet to be determined elevational limit to grazing though this does not protect meadows below whatever elevation is chosen. Nor are grazing impacts necessarily related to the elevation of the meadow being grazed.
The essential question when stock is regulated – whether for grazing or party size – is: Is the ecological, aesthetic and social impact of stock justified by the number of people they support on any given trip? This core question has never been addressed and the draft alternatives do not appear to do so.
3)Although the USE of stock is, unquestionably, allowed to further wilderness enjoyment by people, the stock supporting the people has absolutely no intrinsic right to graze Sierra meadows. That issue is a totally separate one and must be based on different criteria which the alterantives must clearly define. The alternatives propose regulating grazing and stock use primarily by zones rather than the ecological and aesthetic limits and needs of canyon ecosystems and specific meadows.
So, something fun to do over the weekend!
George
This is a bit off topic . . .
I just tried faxing SEKI my application for a backcountry permit from 12 am - 12:45 am PST and received a busy signal the entire time. (Had to give up since it's 3:45 here in CT.) I'm trying to get a permit for the Circle of Solitude, but if looks like I might be out of luck. Does anyone know the odds on snagging one first-come, first-served?