Sequoia National Forest Prioritized Meadows Restoration Project

Status Planning County Tulare
Project Type Non-mitigation Location 36.15423° N, -118.24823° W Map
Project Area (Acres) 1,392 Last Updated 15 April 2024
Project Abstract The Sequoia National Forest has identified ten mountain meadows across the forest landscape that are in critical need for repair. This project will complete the permitting, environmental compliance, and design work to advance the restoration of those ten priority meadows to implementation phase.
Project Groups CDFW Prop 1 | Sierra Meadows Partnership
Administrative Region Sierra Meadows Partnership - Allison Hacker, [email protected]

Project Identification

IDType
P1596020 CDFW - Prop 1 Grant ID

Habitat Plan

Site NamePhaseActivitySubActivitiesHabitatSubHabitatAcresActivity StatusWater Regime
Granite Knob Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 219.6 Construction completed Unknown/Unspecified
Jackass Meadow Final design Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 60.45 Construction planned None
Little Horse Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 32.21 Construction completed
Little Troy Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 94.72 Construction completed
Lower Parker Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 60.27 Construction completed
Packsaddle Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 9.25 Construction completed
Powell Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 51.80 Construction completed Unknown/Unspecified
Powell Meadow None Unknown/Unspecified Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None No Data Unknown/Unspecified Unknown/Unspecified
Troy Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 791.2 Construction completed
Upper Parker Meadow Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/unspecified wetland habitat None 72.82 Construction completed

Related Habitat Impacts

Impact Project NameHabitatAcres LostType of Loss
No Data

Sites

NameStatusAcres
Granite Knob Meadow Construction completed 219.6
Jackass Meadow Construction planned 60.45
Little Horse Meadow Construction completed 32.21
Little Troy Meadow Construction completed 94.72
Lower Parker Meadow Construction completed 60.27
Packsaddle Meadow Construction completed 9.25
Powell Meadow Construction completed 51.80
Troy Meadow Construction completed 791.2
Upper Parker Meadow Construction completed 72.82

Events

DateTypeDescriptionSite Name
2016-09-02 Project start date Estimated date

People

TypeNameOrganizationDepartment
Contact Jessica Strickland Trout Unlimited Not applicable/Unknown
Agency Staff Adam Ballard California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed Restoration Grants Branch

Funding

PhaseActivityFunderAmount
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/Unspecified
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/Unspecified Private Funder
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) Unknown/Unspecified Federal Funder
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) WCB Wildlife Conservation Board $692,300
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife $432,000
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) CDWR California Department of Water Resources $233,700
Monitoring & Evaluation Restoration (unspecified) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation $85,000
Final design Restoration (unspecified) California Department of Fish and Wildlife $54,000
Final design Restoration (unspecified) WCB Wildlife Conservation Board $30,000

Related CRAM Assessments

Visit DateVersionSite NameWetland TypeIndex Score
No Data

No files found.

How to Use the Habitat Development Curve

Habitat Development Curves (HDCs) are used to determine the developmental status and trajectory of on-the-ground projects to create, restore, or enhance California wetland and stream habitats. Each HDC is based on assessments of habitat condition for different age areas of one habitat type that in aggregate represent the full spectrum of habitat development. The assessments of condition are provided by expert applications of the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). Visit the CRAM website for more information about CRAM.

For each HDC, reference condition is represented by areas of a habitat that consistently get very high CRAM scores, have not been subject to disruptive management practices, and exist within landscapes that are protected and managed for their natural conditions. The horizontal lines intersecting the top of an HDC represent the mean CRAM score and standard deviation of scores for 25 qualifying reference areas.

The age of a project is estimated as the elapsed time in years between the groundwork end date for the project and the date of the CRAM assessment. To add or update a groundwork end date, use the Project Events form in Project Tracker (ptrack.ecoatlas.org). The minimum age in years of a non-project area, including any natural reference area, is estimated from all available local information, including historical maps and imagery, historical written accounts, and place-specific scientific studies of habitat development.

An HDC can be used to address the following questions:

  1. At what time in the future will the area of assessed habitat achieve the reference condition or other milestones in habitat development? The HDC can answer this question if the CRAM score for the assessed area is within the confidence interval of the HDC. The answer is the time in years along the HDC between the current age of the assessed area and the future date corresponding to the intersection of the HDC and the reference condition or other milestone.
  2. Is the area of assessed habitat likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace as most other areas of the same habitat type? The habitat area is likely to develop faster, slower, or at the same pace if the CRAM score for the area is above, below, or within the confidence interval of the HDC, respectively.
  3. What can be done to improve the condition of the habitat area or to increase its rate of development? HDCs by themselves cannot answer this question. Possible answers can be inferred by the following analysis that involves HDCs:
    1. Examine the HDC for each of the four CRAM Attributes;
    2. Identify the Attribute(s) scoring below the HDC;
    3. For any low-scoring Attribute, examine the component Metric Scores (note: the Metric Scores for any public CRAM assessment in the CRAM database can be obtained through EcoAtlas);
    4. Assume the low score of an Attribute is due to its low-scoring Metric(s);
    5. Consider modifying the design or management of the habitat area in ways that will sustainably increase its score(s) for the low-scoring Metric(s).

For more information about CRAM Attributes and Metrics, including their scientific rationale, see the CRAM Manual.

Display Habitat Development Curves For Wetland Type:

CRAM Site Scores