The base map is provided by OpenTopoMap’s volunteer servers.
Glaciation
Fish-stocking Zooicide
Previous Reports of Fairy Shrimp
Virginia Divide Double Ponds
Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond
Lundy Pass Ponds
Dunderberg North Pond
Lower “Par Value Lake”
Upper “Par Value Lake”
“Par Value” 2nd West Pond
“Par Value” Long Pond
“Par Value” Keyhole Pond
“Par Value” Northwest Pond
“Par Value” North Ridge Pond
“Bergona Lake”
“Burro Lake”
Burro Cirque Pond
What Can We Learn from the Ponds in the East-Central Sierra Nevada?
I have looked for fairy shrimp in only a small part of the Sierra Nevada between highways 108 (over Sonora Pass) and 120 (over Tioga Pass) and east of the crest of the range. The distance between Sonora and Tioga passes is only about 56 km (35 miles). To avoid giving the impression that I have visited ponds throughout the range, I use the term East-Central Sierra Nevada but this term could well encompass a larger area in many people’s minds. The Sierra Nevada is much steeper on the east side than the west side so the area east of the crest is much smaller than the area to the west. For example, it is about 12 km (7.5 miles) from Lee Vining to Tioga Pass but another 48 km (30 miles) to El Portal.
Where I have hiked in the East-Central Sierra Nevada, elevations range from about 2,250 m (7,380′) on the eastern flank to highs of around 3,150 m (10,330′) along the crest (e.g., at “Summit Lake”). The peaks, of course, are higher. Mt. Warren is 3,757 m (12,330′), Dunderberg Peak is 3,772 m (12,370′), and Matterhorn Peak is 3,738 m (12,260′).
Vegetation in the East-Central Sierra Nevada includes sagebrush, pine, aspen, fir, and alpine tundra. I don’t know many of the species.
The Sierra Nevada are a recreational wonderland due in large part to the nearly complete coverage by public lands managed by the National Park Service or by the U.S. Forest Service. However, there are private in-holdings along many of the access roads and the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center east of Sonora Pass should also be avoided. There are many reasonably well-maintained hiking trails in the east-central Sierra Nevada. The trailheads are accessible on bumpy roads from US 395 to the east, California 108 to the north, and California 120 to the south. The towns of Bridgeport and Lee Vining are nearby on US 395.
Glaciation
Like the Wind River Mountains in Wyoming, glaciation in the Sierra Nevada has created an abundance of lakes and ponds. The lakes and ponds, however, haven’t always been there due to multiple episodes of glacial advances and retreats. There have been times when they have been covered by snow or ice. The last major glacial advance in the Sierra Nevada occurred about 20,000 years ago (Wesnousky and others, 2016; see the References page). Deglaciation was probably complete by 15,000 years ago but then the Recess Peak advance occurred 14,000-13,000 years ago. Glacier elevations remained well above those of the earlier glacial maximum. Since then, glaciers have retreated to ever higher elevations. However, there are small moraines perched at the heads of some canyons that indicate some glacial activity during the Little Ice Age between 1350 and 1850. Even if the higher elevation ponds were covered by snow until 1850, that leaves over 150 years for fairy shrimp colonization of those ponds and even longer for colonization of lower elevation ponds.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Fish-stocking Zooicide
One could presume that most pre-emigrant fairy shrimp populations in the Sierra Nevada have been extirpated by fish stocking as in the Wind River Mountains. Indeed, gold miners could have started stocking alpine lakes in the Sierra Nevada as early as the 1850s. Native cutthroat trout populations in “Lake Tahoe” were severely depleted to feed the Comstock silver boom near Reno in the 1860s and finally extirpated in the 1930s after relentless predation by introduced lake trout and competition with brown trout and rainbow trout. Within the Truckee River watershed upstream of Pyramid Lake, native cutthroat populations have survived only in Independence Lake (Truckee River Basin Recovery Implementation Team, 2003). Of course, nothing would stop humans from introducing exotic fish into lakes or ponds that lacked native cutthroat.
Knapp and Marine Science Institute (1996) reviewed evidence that the percentage of lakes in the Sierra Nevada above 1,800 m (5,910′) in elevation and greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) in area that contain fish has increased from less than 1% before the mid-1800s to about 63% in the 1990s. This does not include “Lake Tahoe” at an elevation of 1,899 m (6,230′) or the upper Truckee River watershed, which are east of the inferred fishless area in Figure 2 of Knapp and Marine Science Institute (1996). Of 649 lakes within a California Department of Fish and Game database for Region 5 in the central Sierra Nevada, all were originally fishless but 85% now contain fish (Knapp and Marine Science Institute, 1996). California Department of Fish and Game regularly stocked 46% of the lakes at the time of the report.
Unlike my inferences of zooicide in the Wind River Mountains, zooicide in the Sierra Nevada has been documented by biological surveys. Stocking of non-native fish has not only severely reduced native cutthroat populations, it has also severely reduced populations of other species. The phantom midge, Chaoborus americanus, is usually common in high-elevation lakes but was not found in any of the 75 lakes in the Sierra Nevada south of Bridgeport sampled by Stoddard (1987). 58 of those lakes had fish. The presence of fish likely explains most of the absence but the midge generally does not occur at some of the highest elevations sampled or with the predatory copepod Diaptomus shoshone, which was found in 8 of the lakes. The large-bodied copepods Diaptomus shoshone and Diaptomus eiseni and the cladoceran Daphnia middendorffiana have a strong negative correlation with fish and were present in only 8, 7, and 14 lakes, respectively. Conversely, small-bodied zooplankton such as Daphnia rosea, Diaptomus signicauda, and Bosmina longirostri are positively correlated with the presence of fish in the Sierra Nevada, as elsewhere. Their small sizes offer protection against visual predators like fish. Stoddard (1987) found fairy shrimp in 2 lakes. Neither had fish. Stoddard’s (1987) community type IV, which is characterized by Daphnia middendorffiana, Diaptomus eiseni, and Branchinecta dissimilis (fairy shrimp), was associated with the shallowest and smallest lakes compared to the other four community types. This suggests these species only survived in the few lakes that were never accessible to stocked fish.
The plight of mountain yellow-legged frogs has caught the attention of the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and even the California Department of Fish and Game. A 1994 resurvey of Sierra Nevada lakes surveyed in 1915 found that only 15% of the lakes previously reported to have the frogs still had the frogs (Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2003). Worse, the 1915 researcher had already noted the absence of frogs where fish were present. Mountain garter snakes feed on mountain yellow-legged frogs, among other species, and, not coincidentally, no mountain garter snakes were found associated with the 1,044 lakes that were surveyed in the John Muir Wilderness (Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2003). Mountain garter snakes were found in the adjacent Kings Canyon National Park, where fish-stocking was curtailed in the 1970s and stopped in 1991 (Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2003) but were not abundant there. Knapp and Matthews (2000) indicated that more than 90% of the lake surface area in the John Muir Wilderness have trout. This percentage is apparently used as a scare tactic as the percentage of lakes with trout is likely much smaller due to lots of small lakes without trout. Nonetheless, the effects of fish-stocking on the ecosystem have been substantial.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
The Sierra Lakes Inventory Project (Knapp and others, 2020) provides evidence for mutually exclusive relations between frogs, fish, and fairy shrimp. It was conducted to “describe impacts of non-native fish on lake communities”. The principal investigators are at the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The survey area is in the southern half of the Sierra Nevada within Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks and the John Muir Wilderness. The survey protocol included recording fairy shrimp occurrences. The database is available online at doi.org/10.6073/pasta/d835832d7fd00d9e4466e44eea87fab3. Of 7,863 lakes surveyed from 1995 through 2002, fish were found in 662, at least 1 of 3 amphibians in 3,330, and fairy shrimp in 258. The 3 amphibians are Pacific tree frog (HYRE in the database, now Pseudacris regilla), mountain yellow-legged frog (RAMU in the database, now Rana sierrae), and Yosemite toad (BUCA in the database, Bufo canorus).
The relative lack of fish is probably because lakes in the national parks were no longer being stocked at the time of the survey. 250 of the lakes with frogs, or 7.5%, also had fish. 16 of the lakes with fairy shrimp, or 6.2%, also had fish. The low percentages of lakes with frogs or fairy shrimp that also have fish supports the hypothesis of extirpation by predation but habitat preferences and other environmental factors are likely also involved.
The presence of fish with fairy shrimp is unusual and cannot be explained solely by fish dying out or being recently stocked or by fairy shrimp colonization between sampling events. In most cases, sampling dates of fish and fairy shrimp were less than 4 days apart and, in some cases, they were on the same day. According to the survey protocol, fairy shrimp should be recorded if they are in “lake-associated pools” within 2 m of the lake or in “other locations”. It’s possible none of the fairy shrimp recorded were actually in the lakes with fish. Similarly, amphibians and reptiles should be recorded if they were present in “fringing habitat” rather than in the lake itself. Mature amphibians in fringing habitat could have grown as larvae in a nearby lake without fish.
To a fairy shrimper in the field, it would be useful to know what the chances of finding fairy shrimp are if fish are noticed in the lake. The conditional probability of finding fairy shrimp given the presence of fish is 2.42% (16 lakes with both divided by 662 lakes with fish). That looks definitive but it is also important to look at the probability of finding fairy shrimp given no fish in the lake. That is 3.36% (242 lakes with fairy shrimp and no fish divided by 7,201 lakes with no fish). With that number, the presence or absence of fish doesn’t seem so important. Both numbers are small because the probability of finding fairy shrimp in any case is only 3.28%.
With these numbers, there is no practical difference in searching any lake, whether or not it has fish, and in searching only lakes without fish. However, if the Sierra Lakes Inventory had been less biased toward large lakes and inclusion of more small ponds had doubled the probability of finding fairy shrimp in ponds without fish to 6.72%, then the difference would be significant. If one managed to visit 10 ponds in 1 day, then the chances of finding at least one population of fairy shrimp in any pond would be 28% (1-[1-0.0328]exp10) or 50% (1-[1-0.0672]exp10) in only ponds without fish. To achieve chances of 50% in searches of any pond regardless of presence of fish, one would have to search 20 rather than just 10 ponds. That would be a very long day.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
With the possible exception of successful gamblers, people generally ignore probabilities, particularly probabilities prefaced by a multisyllabic term like conditional. An analogy with determining the effectiveness of drugs or vaccines may be more comprehensible. If fairy shrimp were a disease, then fish could be considered a way to inoculate lakes against fairy shrimp. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses the term “risk” for conditional probability (www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section5.html). The 2.42% above could be considered the risk of disease (fairy shrimp), given vaccination (fish). One way to judge the effectiveness of a vaccine is to divide the risk of disease in the vaccinated by the risk of disease in the non-vaccinated to get the relative risk, or risk ratio. In this case, the relative risk is 0.720 (2.42/3.36). The chance of a lake with fish becoming infected with fairy shrimp is a fraction of the chance for a lake without fish.
In cases where the total number of vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals in the population are not known, the relative risk cannot be calculated. The odds ratio may be used instead (www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section5.html). The Sierra Lakes Inventory Project did not sample every lake in the Sierra Nevada so the odds ratio could be appropriate to estimate the effectiveness of fish inoculation throughout the mountain range. The odds of fairy shrimp infection in lakes with fish are the number of lakes with both divided by the number of lakes with fish but no fairy shrimp, 16/646 = 0.0248. The odds of fairy shrimp infection in lakes without fish are 242/6,959 = 0.0348. The odds ratio is then 0.0248/0.0348 = 0.712, or approximately 5/7. An odds ratio of 1 would indicate even chances of fairy shrimp infection in lakes with and lakes without fish. Relative risk and the odds ratio are very similar when the rare-disease assumption holds but can diverge widely when the “disease” occurs in a large fraction of the sample (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio). Fairy shrimp in the Sierra Nevada are evidently a rare disease.
So far, so good but fairy shrimp populations are likely sensitive to factors other than fish. Assuming those factors and any errors in identifying fish or fairy shrimp cause random variations in lake counts from sample to sample of Sierra Nevada lakes, how do we know that that odds ratio is not just a sampling fluke? We don’t but we can calculate confidence limits that encompass all but 5% of that random variation (i.e., 95% confidence). Such confidence limits are 1.19 and .427 (for equations see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio). The wide range of confidence limits indicates a lot of variability in the data. The fact that the range includes the even odds ratio of 1.0 means we can’t be 95% confident that fish inoculation is at all effective.
A complicating factor for the above analysis is that only 1% of water bodies sampled by the Sierra Lakes Inventory Project are 36 hectares (89 acres) or smaller. 1 hectare (2.47 acres) is the area of a 100 m by 100 m (330′) square or of a circle 113 m (370′) across. A 36-hectare square would be 600 m (1,970 m) long and wide. Of the 23 ponds where I found fairy shrimp in the Wind River Mountains, only 4 had estimated maximum dimensions of 100 m (330′) or more and none had maximum dimensions greater than 200 m (660′). If smaller water bodies had been included in the Sierra Nevada survey, more fairy shrimp would probably have been found. Fish would be less likely in small ponds and puddles so the number of fishless ponds with fairy shrimp would likely increase substantially.
The biological work on lakes in the Sierra Nevada considered here does not allow one to back out the abundance of fairy shrimp before 1850. There is apparently no large area that has escaped fish-stocking and preserves even a small bit of the pre-emigrant fairy shrimp distribution. The full extent of the zooicide cannot be determined. The negative correlations between introduced fish and many species nonetheless suggest a multi-species zooicide of vast extent, geographically and biologically.
The Sierra Lakes Inventory Project data also hints at a mutually exclusive relation between fairy shrimp and frogs. The conditional probability of fairy shrimp given a lake with at least 1 of the 3 amphibians is 102/3,228 = 3.06%. But the 102 lakes with frogs and fairy shrimp are 40% of all lakes with fairy shrimp. As with fish, this number is elevated due to the survey’s large-lake bias. Mountain yellow-legged frogs, at least, would avoid the smallest ponds because they need to survive at least 1 winter before maturity in a pond that doesn’t freeze solid. The relative risk of fairy shrimp as affected by frogs is 0.890 and the odds ratio is 0.887. Frogs evidently do not have as strong an effect on fairy shrimp as fish. The 95% confidence limits of 1.14 and 0.69 include 1.0. In any case, fairy shrimp are more likely to be found in small ponds less than 1 m deep, where both frogs and fish are least common (Knapp and Matthews, 2000), than in large lakes.
In spite of the deadly human activities in the lakes of the Sierra Nevada, Truckee River water management has created an interesting opportunity for fairy shrimp downstream. In 1939, “Winnemucca Lake” dried up due to reduced flows in the Truckee River (Truckee River Basin Recovery Implementation Team, 2003). “Winnemucca Lake” is east of, and was connected to, “Pyramid Lake” and its fish in the past. Desiccation obviously eliminated the fish population. Water likely collects on the bed of “Winnemucca Lake” after wet winters or intense thunderstorms as it does on other playas in Nevada. This creates a possibility for fairy shrimp colonization. Moreover, if fairy shrimp do appear in the resulting ponds, we will know they have arrived since 1939.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Previous Reports of Fairy Shrimp
3 species of fairy shrimp were recorded in the Sierra Lakes Inventory Project (Knapp and others, 2020): Branchinecta coloradensis, Branchinecta oriena, and Streptocephalus seali. There are also a few records of “Branchinecta sp.”, where only the genus was identified. Eng, Belk, and Eriksen (1990) listed 2 occurences of Branchinecta coloradensis in the Sierra Nevada at elevations of 3,050 m (10,010′) and 3,500 m (11,480′), 9 occurrences of Branchinecta dissimilis between Lake Tahoe and Bishop at elevations of 2,440-3,506 m (8,010-11,500′), and 35 occurrences of Streptocephalus seali in coniferous forest from Lassen Volcanic National Park to Mammoth Mountain at elevations of 2,100-3,032 m (6,890-9,950). The Branchinecta dissimilis occurrences may include the 2 of Stoddard (1987). Stoddard’s B. dissimilis occur in Community Type IV, which was found in ponds with areas of 0.2-0.6 hectares (0.5-1.5 acres) (range for standard errors) at elevations of 3,310-3,460 m (10,860-11,350′).
There are no doubt reports by others of fairy shrimp in the Sierra Nevada but I haven’t found them online.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Virginia Divide Double Ponds (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
___This map is a screenshot of The National Map (Go to The National Map). The U.S. Geological Survey generally does not copyright or charge for its data or reports (unless printed). A pond location is indicated by an “X”, which corresponds to the coordinates given in the data spreadsheet. Labels in quotations are from 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
___Red lines are the U. S. National Grid with a spacing of 1,000 m and intersection labels consisting of the UTM zone (e.g., 11S, 12T), a 2-letter 100-km square designation (e.g., LC, XN), and a 4-digit number. The first 2 digits of the number represent the 1,000-meter Easting and the second 2 digits the 1,000-meter Northing, as seen in the example Easting and Northing. Unlike latitude and longitude, the National Grid is rectilinear on a flat map, the units of abscissa and ordinate have equal lengths, and the units (meters) are measurable on the ground with a tape or by pacing.
___There is no private or state land on this map. All the lands are public.
Virginia Divide Double Ponds are a little more than 24 km (15 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. They are in a low spot on the broad ridge that forms the drainage divide between Virginia Creek and East Fork Green Creek. There are 2 ponds which are close together and a couple hundred meters south of the hiking trail. They are not on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s recreation map for the Bridgeport Ranger District but are on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The slope to the west of the ponds probably collects a lot of snow.
Access is the hiking trail from the “Virginia Lakes” trailhead. There is an elevation gain of about 450 m (1,480′) but the distance is less than 5 km (3 miles).
Elevation: 3,376 m (11,075′)
September 8, 2016
Water levels are well below the high-water mark but it may not be too late for fairy shrimp.
- Bigger pond is 20 m x 40 m, smaller one is less than 20 m both ways; depths not estimated.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera).
Virginia Divide Double Ponds, looking north along the ridge between East Fork Green Creek Canyon (left) and Virginia Creek Canyon (right). The hiking trail can be seen faintly to the left of the rocky knoll at center.
August 26, 2021
Stopped by on the way to “Burro Lake”. It’s been another dry year but there is some water.
- Bigger pond is 15 m x 40 m and up to 50 cm deep; smaller pond less than 15 m across and less than 15 cm deep.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Sparse backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae), few caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), rare mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera).
Virginia Divide Double Ponds. This view is looking more to the northwest across East Fork Green Creek canyon than photograph Virginia Divide Double Ponds 2016-09-08, #38.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
Virginia Divide Double Ponds map
Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond is approximately 24 km (15 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond is at the upper end of Virginia Creek about 1 km (0.6 miles) southwest of several ponds next to the label “Frog Lakes”. The recreation map shows a pond here, the 1:100,000-scale BLM map does not. Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond is 130 m (430′) long on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. This pond has a striking pale green color that was present on both my 2016 and 2021 visits. The pond is at least 100 m (330′) off the hiking trail above “Virginia Lakes”. It is easily seen while descending from the East Fork Green Creek – Virginia Creek divide but harder to spot while hiking up the trail.
Access is the hiking trail from the “Virginia Lakes” trailhead. The distance is less than 4 km (2 1/2 miles).
Elevation: 3,244 m (10,645′)
September 8, 2016
I had seen fish while hiking past “Frog Lakes” and the creek between “Frog Lakes” and Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond does not look like much of an obstacle for fish. In spite of the long odds, the shallow water provides some hope so WIDLA.
- 80 m x 130 m based on the 7.5-minute quadrangle; probably less than 100 cm deep as the bottom is easily visible throughout.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae), black diving beetles; didn’t see fish.
Looking south across Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond with cliffs west of Black Mountain in the background. The grassy turf bordering the pond was very comfortable.
August 26, 2021
Stopped by on the way back from “Burro Lake”. Looks about the same size and depth as in 2016 and the water is still pale green. I paced off the length this time.
- 80 m x 150 m (this length is slightly more than that shown on the 7.5-minute quadrangle); probably no more than 100 cm deep.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae) of various sizes, water boatmen (sub-order Heteroptera, family Corixidae), caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), few black diving beetles, numerous young frogs, some still have tails.
I was very confused about whether the pond had backswimmers, like last time, or water boatmen. They are hard to tell apart when swimming. Both tend to swim away from an approaching human. A helpful clue is that water boatmen always cling to the bottom between swimming bouts. Backswimmers sometimes do but they more commonly hang in the water about 1 cm below the water surface if they are not excited. I eventually saw enough of both behaviors to realize the pond had both heteropterans.
Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond, looking down Virginia Canyon from the hiking trail with one of “Frog Lakes” above and to left of center. The pale green color isn’t as striking from this angle but it’s still there.
Small frog at Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond. The grass was veritably hopping with frogs in places. Based on the black eye stripe, my guess is that these frogs are Pacific tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla), which are widely distributed from British Columbia south through California and east into Utah and Montana (see amphibiaweb.org). They are small and have long legs. The presence of frogs and abundant backswimmers suggest the pond doesn’t have fish but there is no waterfall between here and the fish in “Frog Lakes” (see previous photograph). If fish can swim to this pond, why haven’t they? Or have they?
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Lundy Pass Ponds (Inyo National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
___This map is a screenshot of The National Map (Go to The National Map). The U.S. Geological Survey generally does not copyright or charge for its data or reports (unless printed). A pond location is indicated by an “X”, which corresponds to the coordinates given in the data spreadsheet. Labels in quotations are from 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
___Red lines are the U. S. National Grid with a spacing of 1,000 m and intersection labels consisting of the UTM zone (e.g., 11S, 12T), a 2-letter 100-km square designation (e.g., LC, XN), and a 4-digit number. The first 2 digits of the number represent the 1,000-meter Easting and the second 2 digits the 1,000-meter Northing, as seen in the example Easting and Northing. Unlike latitude and longitude, the National Grid is rectilinear on a flat map, the units of abscissa and ordinate have equal lengths, and the units (meters) are measurable on the ground with a tape or by pacing.
___There is no private or state land on this map. All the lands are public.
Lundy Pass Ponds are in a broad basin with low relief between Tioga Crest and the crest of the Sierra Nevada 12.5 km (7.8 miles), more or less, northwest of Lee Vining. Ponds of many sizes are south of the lip of Lundy Canyon and north of “Saddlebag Lake” and “Greenstone Lake”. Larger lakes, such as “Steelhead”, “Twin”, “Odell”, and “Hummingbird”, have probably been stocked with fish. Any streams connected to these lakes or “Saddlbag Lake” also likely have fish. However, the undulating terrain has numerous smaller ponds that appear to be isolated from the main streams and likely haven’t been stocked.
There are recreational facilities south of Lundy Pass. “Saddlebag Lake” is almost 2 km (1.2 miles) long and has a boat ramp, campgrounds, and people fishing.
Closest access is from the “Saddlebag Lake” trailhead, off California 120 east of Tioga Pass. This is also the easiest as the ponds are no more than 150 m (490′) higher than “Saddlebag Lake”. Lundy Pass can also be reached after a steep climb from the Lundy Canyon trailhead off US 395 by “Mono Lake”. The upper part of the Lundy Canyon trail has a steep snowbank that persists well into the summer and could pose a challenge. An ice axe should be considered. The attraction of the Lundy Canyon route is the waterfalls on Mill Creek.
Elevation: 3,207 m (10,520′)
July 30, 2019
Fabulous wildflower display presents lots of photo opportunities but I’m not forgetting the fairy shrimp.
- Various ponds less than 10 m to more than 50 m across, maybe some up to 100 m long; depths 10 cm to greater than 100 cm.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp in any of 20 or so ponds I looked in.
- Of the 20 or so ponds, I saw a big diving beetle in one, a big diving beetle and a water boatman (sub-order Heteroptera, family Corixidae) in another, and a caddisfly larva (Trichoptera) in a third; gull near “Odell Lake”; lots of mosquitoes.
Lundy Pass Ponds, looking west from hill east of Lundy Pass. “Greenstone Lake” is at left and the ponds are amongst the scattered snowbanks to the right. They don’t show up well in the photo because they aren’t reflecting the sunlight. North Peak is at right and Mt. Coness at left.
View northwest across large pond in area of Lundy Pass Ponds. This pond has fish and could be “Z Lake”. Shepherd Crest is in the distance.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Dunderberg North Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest)
___This map is a screenshot of The National Map (Go to The National Map). The U.S. Geological Survey generally does not copyright or charge for its data or reports (unless printed). A pond location is indicated by an “X”, which corresponds to the coordinates given in the data spreadsheet. Labels in quotations are from 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
___Red lines are the U. S. National Grid with a spacing of 1,000 m and intersection labels consisting of the UTM zone (e.g., 11S, 12T), a 2-letter 100-km square designation (e.g., LC, XN), and a 4-digit number. The first 2 digits of the number represent the 1,000-meter Easting and the second 2 digits the 1,000-meter Northing, as seen in the example Easting and Northing. Unlike latitude and longitude, the National Grid is rectilinear on a flat map, the units of abscissa and ordinate have equal lengths, and the units (meters) are measurable on the ground with a tape or by pacing.
___There is no private or state land on this map. All the lands are public.
Dunderberg North Pond is on the north side of Dunderberg Peak next to a prominent and persistent snowbank, which is shown on The National Map. The pond is south of, and well up the hill from, the road up to Kavanaugh Ridge. Dunderberg Peak is approximately 21.5 km (13.3 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. Dunderberg North Pond is not the pond at the head of Dunderberg Creek shown on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s recreation map of the Bridgeport Ranger District. That pond is much bigger, accessible to vehicles, and has fish.
The easiest access is via the Kavanaugh Ridge road. This is “trail” 22317 on the Motor Vehicle Use Map of “Hoover Canyons (Sheet 6 of 10)” for the Bridgeport Ranger District. It is not shown on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s recreation map for the Bridgeport Ranger District. 22317 can be reached by turning north off the “Virginia Lakes” road onto Mono County 20 (gravel) and then turning left onto National Forest road 32178 after 1.5-2 miles. 22317 is less than .5 mile from that intersection. The first part of 22317 is steep and challenging due to big rocks and tree roots that can’t be avoided. It shouldn’t be attempted without 4-wheel drive, a low-range transmission setting, and high clearance. 22317 could also be reached by a longer route from the north via Mono County 20. Alternatively, one could park amongst the trees along road 32178 and hike from there, whether along 22317 or not.
Elevation: 3,354 m (11,005′)
August 22, 2019
Found a nice snowbank-fed pond while descending the north side of Dunderberg Peak toward Kavanaugh Ridge. NPPWOPII.
- Less than 20 m across; depth not estimated.
- Water clear
- No fairy shrimp.
- Other animals not noted.
Looking north across Dunderberg North Pond, with deep canyon of East Fork Green Creek looming at left. “Trail” 22317 can be seen terminating at the lip of Kavanaugh Ridge in the middle distance.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Lower “Par Value Lake” (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
___This map is a screenshot of The National Map (Go to The National Map). The U.S. Geological Survey generally does not copyright or charge for its data or reports (unless printed). A pond location is indicated by an “X”, which corresponds to the coordinates given in the data spreadsheet. Labels in quotations are from 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
___Red lines are the U. S. National Grid with a spacing of 1,000 m and intersection labels consisting of the UTM zone (e.g., 11S, 12T), a 2-letter 100-km square designation (e.g., LC, XN), and a 4-digit number. The first 2 digits of the number represent the 1,000-meter Easting and the second 2 digits the 1,000-meter Northing, as seen in the example Easting and Northing. Unlike latitude and longitude, the National Grid is rectilinear on a flat map, the units of abscissa and ordinate have equal lengths, and the units (meters) are measurable on the ground with a tape or by pacing.
___There is no private or state land on this map. All the lands are public.
Lower “Par Value Lake” is about 21 km (13 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. There are 2 “Par Value Lakes” shown on the 1:100,000-scale BLM map and they are labeled but only 1 is shown on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s recreation map for the Bridgeport Ranger District. Lower “Par Value Lake” is the larger one downstream of the smaller one. Lower “Par Value Lake” is 200 m x 170 m (660′ x 560′) on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The outlet of Lower “Par Value Lake” on the north side of Glines Canyon is too steep for fish. The small size and out-of-the-way location of the lake and the lack of a trail up the canyon wall suggests the lake may have escaped the fish-stocking frenzy.
Access is from the Green Creek Trailhead and the well traveled trail to “Green Lake”. There is a trail shown on the 1:100,000-scale BLM map around the west side of “Green Lake” and up Glines Canyon as far as the outlet creek of “Par Value Lakes”. Oddly, this trail is not shown on the more detailed National Map. There is a little used trail there but it is unmarked and is easily lost in the dense shrubbery along “Green Lake”. However, once into the pine forest near the inlet on the west side of the lake, the trail is easy to follow as far as the remains of a mill on the outlet creek of “Par Value Lakes”. I don’t know if the trail continues up Glines Canyon from there. The climb from the mill to “Par Value Lakes” is steep with loose rock in places but poses no technical challenges. There are indications of human foot traffic in places.
Elevation: 3,140 m (10,300′)
August 19, 2021
There are still some wildflowers blooming although this has been a dry winter-spring-summer. The very sparse evidence for human traffic to “Par Value Lakes” has me hopeful that no one has bothered to stock them with fish.
- 170 m x 200 m based on the 7.5-minute quadrangle; depth greater than 200 cm.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Fish.
View southeast across Lower “Par Value Lake”, with Dunderberg Peak in distance at center. The outlet is at the far end of the lake and drops off steeply into Glines Canyon.
A fish in Lower “Par Value Lake”. There is a non-native trout at center.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Upper “Par Value Lake” (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
Upper “Par Value Lake” is about 150 m (490′) southwest of Lower “Par Value Lake”. On the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Upper “Par Value Lake” is 170 m x 50 m (560′ x 165′). There is a short, steep cascade at the outlet but that might not be enough to stop fish. The 2 “Par Value Lakes” are so close that it seems likely Upper “Par Value Lake” would have been stocked too.
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. It is a short, easy hike from Lower to Upper “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,181 m (10,435′)
August 19, 2021
The water level in the lake is clearly down from normal levels but the lake is still large with plenty of water.
- 50 m x 150 m; depth more than 100 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Lots of caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), common mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera) less than 7 mm, occasional backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae); garter snake near the outlet.
An abundance of visible zooplankton indicate Upper “Par Value Lake” doesn’t have fish. Maybe winter freezes keep the fish out.
Upper “Par Value Lake”, looking northeast toward the outlet and Lower “Par Value Lake”. The shoreline has clearly pulled back from its normal extent.
Macroinvertebrates in Upper “Par Value Lake”. Although slightly out of focus, the external gills on the abdominal segments and the 3 tail-like filaments extending from the end of the abdomen of the mayfly nymph (order Ephemeroptera) at center can be seen against the shadow. The 2 pale tubular objects to the left of center are caddisfly (order Trichoptera) larval cases constructed of sand grains. The caddisfly larvae are quite active and frequently roll off the steep rock surfaces only to climb them again. The mayfly nymphs make short, fast swims with a prominent wiggling of the abdomen that is helpful in distinguishing them from other insect larvae.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Par Value” 2nd West Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
“Par Value” 2nd West Pond is the second pond southwest of, and up hill from, Upper “Par Value Lake”. It is smaller than the area of 1st West Pond, which is dry. “Par Value” 2nd West Pond is 400-500 m (1,310-1,640′) southwest of Upper “Par Value Lake”. It is in a trough bounded by boulder rubble to the northwest and boulder talus to the southeast.
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. It is a short, easy hike from Upper “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,229 m (10,595′)
August 19, 2012
This pond is less than a third of its normal size, based on rock staining.
- 10 m x 20 m but probably 20 m x 60 m in normal years; depth less than 20 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Several backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae) greater than 10 mm long.
View northeast across puddle remaining in “Par Value” 2nd West Pond. This is looking down the drainage toward Upper “Par Value Lake”.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Par Value” Long Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
“Par Value” Long Pond is perched in a small trough at the base of the steep slope on the ridge northwest of Lower and Upper “Par Value Lakes”. It is shown on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle with dimensions of about 60 m x 20 m (200′ x 66′).
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. The shortest route is likely to loop around the north end of Lower “Par Value Lake”. It could also be reached by hiking north from Upper “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,207 m (10,520′)
August 19, 2021
It was just luck that I saw this pond in my wanders over the boulder rubble looking for other ponds above Upper “Par Value Lake”. The pond has steep sides so it hasn’t shrunken much in area but the high-water mark is about 20 cm above the current water level. There are sparse cloud-like clumps of green algae near the pond bottom.
- 15 m x 60 m; depth probably up to 200 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Common mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera) less than 7 mm long, garter snake.
View to northeast at “Par Value” Long Pond (below center) with Monument Ridge on the far side of “West Lake” drainage in the distance.
Mayfly nymph (order Ephemeroptera) in “Par Value” Long Pond. In this view, the gills sticking out from the abdomen and the 3 filaments at the end of the abdomen the nymph can be seen easily against the dark rock.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Par Value” Keyhole Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
“Par Value” Keyhole Pond is below “Par Value” Long Pond and west of “Par Value” Northwest Pond so I found it while walking between the 2. The pond is very small on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The irregular shape of the outline of the shrunken pond have a slight resemblance to a keyhole.
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. As for “Par Value” Long Pond, the shortest route is likely to loop around the north end of Lower “Par Value Lake”. It could also be reached by hiking north from Upper “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,195 m (10,480′)
August 19, 2021
The pond has a small area but it is surprisingly deep between the boulders. This pond has sparse cloud-like clumps of green algae near the pond bottom.
- 10 m x 30 m; depth probably up to 50 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae) longer than 10 mm, rare caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera).
View to south at “Par Value” Keyhole Pond (below center). The craggy ridge in the distance is southwest of Upper “Par Value Lake”.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Par Value” Northwest Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
“Par Value” Northwest Pond is northwest of Lower “Par Value Lake” in a separate drainage from Upper “Par Value Lake”. Its outlet drains into the northwest end of Lower “Par Value Lake” and is separated from it by a waterfall more than 3 m (10′) high. On the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, “Par Value” Northwest Pond is about 100 m x 70 m (330′ x 230′). It is represented by an intermittent lake symbol rather than by a perennial one.
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. The shortest route is likely to loop around the north end of Lower “Par Value Lake”. It could also be reached by hiking north from Upper “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,181 m (10,435′)
August 19, 2021
This would normally be a rather large pond but the water level is so low I can walk across the middle on protruding rocks.
- 40 m x 80 m but probably 60 m x 120 m in normal years; depth less than 30 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Lots of caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), some mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera).
View to east at “Par Value” Northwest Pond from below “Par Value” Long Pond.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Par Value” North Ridge Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
“Par Value” North Ridge Pond seems out of place. It is large and relatively deep but sits in a saddle on the ridge between the “Par Value Lakes” and “West Lake”. The ridge has a low, gradual rise from the “Par Value Lakes” side and a steep, cliffy drop on the “West Lake” side. The pond drains toward “West Lake”. “Par Value” North Ridge Pond has dimensions of 160 m x 60 m (520′ x 200′) on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
For access, see Lower “Par Value Lake”. It is an easy hike to the northeast from Lower “Par Value Lake”.
Elevation: 3,156 m (10,355′)
August 19, 2021
A long stretch of dry, discolored rocks along the inlet reflects the dry weather but much of the pond has steep sides and is relatively deep.
- 60 m x 150 m (maybe 200 m long in a normal year); depth probably greater than 200 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Lots of backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae) of various sizes (including greater than 10 mm and less than 7 mm long), some mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera), a few black beetles.
View to north across “Par Value” North Ridge Pond. The outlet is in the pine trees at left and Monument Ridge is in the distance across the “West Lake” canyon.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Bergona Lake” (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
___This map is a screenshot of The National Map (Go to The National Map). The U.S. Geological Survey generally does not copyright or charge for its data or reports (unless printed). A pond location is indicated by an “X”, which corresponds to the coordinates given in the data spreadsheet. Labels in quotations are from 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
___Red lines are the U. S. National Grid with a spacing of 1,000 m and intersection labels consisting of the UTM zone (e.g., 11S, 12T), a 2-letter 100-km square designation (e.g., LC, XN), and a 4-digit number. The first 2 digits of the number represent the 1,000-meter Easting and the second 2 digits the 1,000-meter Northing, as seen in the example Easting and Northing. Unlike latitude and longitude, the National Grid is rectilinear on a flat map, the units of abscissa and ordinate have equal lengths, and the units (meters) are measurable on the ground with a tape or by pacing.
___There is no private or state land on this map. All the lands are public.
“Bergona Lake” is 20.5 km (12.7 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. “Bergona Lake” is not shown on the 1:100,000-scale BLM map but is shown and labeled on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s recreation map for the Bridgeport Ranger District. On the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, the lake is 200 m x 80 m (660′ x 260′).
“Bergona Lake” is close to and upstream from “West Lake”, which is accessible by a constructed trail. That suggests some people could be interested in stocking and fishing it. However, when I peered over the edge from “Par Value” North Ridge Pond, I saw that the outlet descends a series of cliffs in a narrow gorge that would be quite a challenge for people to climb. Certainly, no fish could. Maybe it hasn’t been stocked; WIDLA.
The easiest access is probably from Lower “Par Value Lake” but that is longer than the route from “West Lake”. From Lower “Par Value Lake”, hike up to “Par Value” North Ridge Pond. There is a wide shelf between lower and upper cliffs that extends from “Par Value” North Ridge Pond to the upper part of the “Bergona Lake” outlet. Rather than take that long route back, I decided to make a shortcut to the hiking trail at “West Lake”. My descent from “Bergona Lake” to “West Lake” proved to be harrowing. I stayed close to the outlet gorge and at one point wedged down a thankfully almost dry section of waterfall. I would definitely not recommend that route. Maybe there is a better route on the steep slope east of “Bergona Lake” and south of the creek. At least there are bits of trail on the north shore of “West Lake”.
Elevation: 3,155 m (10,350′)
August 19, 2021
The lake appears to be only slightly smaller due to the drought and could be deep.
- 100 m x 200 m; depth greater than 200 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Complete absence of visible zooplankton suggests fish are present although I didn’t see any.
View west across “Bergona Lake” from the almost dry outlet.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
“Burro Lake” (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
Virginia Divide Double Ponds map
“Burro Lake” is perched high on the north side of Lundy Canyon 25 km (15.5 miles) southwest of Bridgeport. On the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, the lake is 300 m x 220 m (980′ x 720′).
“Burro Lake” is so difficult to get to that it seems unlikely to have been stocked with fish.
For access, I followed the hiking trail from the “Virginia Lakes” Trailhead to the Green Creek – Virginia Creek divide and then turned south to cross about 500 m (1,640′) of rolling upland to the top of the steep slopes that drop down into the “Burro Lake” basin. The descent over talus of more than 150 m (490′) vertically was difficult but at least I didn’t end up in a chute with not even slip-slidey footing. My later ascent to the northeast from Burro Cirque Pond was easier but there was still a lot of slip-slidey talus. Access from Lundy Canyon would involve a steep but probably not technical climb.
Elevation: 3,214 m (10,545′)
August 26, 2021
“Burro Lake” has a remarkable blue color that shows up even in some satellite images. There is apparently something in the water as rocks in the stream above the lake have a grayish-white coating. Unlike Virginia Divide Double Ponds today and the “Par Value” ponds a couple of weeks ago, the water level doesn’t appear to be any lower than normal.
- 200 m x 300 m; could be deeper than 200 cm.
- Clear water.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Fish, no visible zooplankton.
Looking down and to the south at “Burro Lake”. The outlet drops off steeply into Lundy Canyon, in the middle distance. The blue color is apparent but not quite so striking from this angle.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
Burro Cirque Pond (Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Hoover Wilderness)
Virginia Divide Double Ponds map
Burro Cirque Pond is on the massive jumble of moraine 1,000 m (3,280′) west of “Burro Lake”. It is an oval with dimensions of about 80 m x 60 m on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. There is a 5 m (16′) waterfall on the stream between the pond and “Burro Lake” that would prevent fish access but it turns out the pond doesn’t have a surface outlet. The pond doesn’t sit on bedrock; it drains through the moraine for a few hundred meters before there is visible surface water.
On the August 2021 visit, there was a smaller pond less than 50 m (160′) south of Burro Cirque Pond that is likely connected at high water. It was then only about 20 m (65′) across and had the same aquatic fauna as Burro Cirque Pond. This smaller pond is indicated by an intermittent lake symbol on the 7.5-minute quadrangle. It is not described separately here.
There is another cirque a couple hundred meters above Burro Cirque Pond that was carved out more recently. It is also floored by a massive jumble of moraine but does not have a pond.
For access, see “Burro Lake”. Burro Cirque Pond is an easy hike from “Burro Lake” but the problem is getting into and out of the “Burro Lake” basin.
Elevation: 3,327 m (10,915′)
August 26, 2021
Burro Cirque Pond is below its normal extent, as indicated by rock staining, but it is not quite as bad as Virginia Divide Double Ponds.
On hiking up to the pond, I also looked for 2 small ponds shown on the 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle about halfway between “Burro Lake” and Burro Cirque Pond. They were essentially dry but with a trickle of water flowing over the rocks. Even if there are ponds there at times, they likely get flushed by spring run-off and that would be problematic for retaining fairy shrimp eggs.
- 50 m x 70 m; depth less than 100 cm.
- Water clear.
- No fairy shrimp.
- Lots of 2 mm long cladocerans, smaller possible copepods, rare backswimmers (sub-order Heteroptera, family Notonectidae) less than 5 mm, rare caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera) 2 10-12 mm long larvae that might be dragonfly nymphs, also saw molts more than 20 mm long of something that might be a dragonfly floating on the surface of the water, lots of sparrow-like birds hanging around the water and coloring the rocks white – are they eating the cladocerans?
View northeast across Burro Cirque Pond and its smaller companion pond. There is no surface water outlet but water leaks out toward the upper right. The pond doesn’t drain to the lower right, which would be the most direct route to the stream above “Burro Lake”. To get back to the “Virginia Lakes” hiking trail, I climbed up the reddish-brown talus at center with the green krummholz at the top. The trees provided reassuring hand holds but didn’t help much.
Cladocerans from Burro Cirque Pond in white container. The ovoid animals have a prominent pair of swimming antennae, which are branched, and a brown carapace which covers all but the head. They are about 2 mm long. They swim with a jerky, stop-and-go motion. I am confident they are cladocerans but am not really qualified to say.
East-Central Sierra Nevada – top
What Can We Learn from the Ponds in the East-Central Sierra Nevada?
There is a startling lack of fairy shrimp in what would seem to be good habitat. When I tried to record every pond visited rather than just those with fairy shrimp in the Wind River Mountains, I found fairy shrimp in 10% or 16% of ponds in 2 different areas. On the 1 day in the Snowy Range when I tried to record all ponds, I found fairy shrimp in 31%. If the frequency of fairy shrimp in Sierra Nevada ponds is the same as the 3.3% of the Sierra Lakes Inventory Project survey, then my failure to find fairy shrimp in 14 ponds is understandable. However, that survey was biased toward large lakes.
The lack of fairy shrimp can’t be due just to extirpation by fish. Most of the ponds I visited are too small or too shallow to have ever had fish and are not connected to streams. Of these, Burro Cirque Pond, Virginia Divide Double Ponds, “Par Value” Long Pond, “Par Value” Keyhole Pond, “Par Value” Northwest Pond, and “Par Value” North Ridge Pond have macroinvertebrate populations which suggest that there are no physical or chemical limitations to fairy shrimp colonization. The cladocerans in Burro Cirque Pond, in particular, are filter feeders like fairy shrimp. This suggests that dispersal agents have been lacking or inadequate.
Another possible explanation for the lack of fairy shrimp is predation by frogs. The Wind River Mountains have more fairy shrimp but don’t have frogs. As discussed in Fish-stocking Zooicide, there is a negative correlation between the 3 amphibian species of the Sierra Lakes Inventory Project and fairy shrimp in the Sierra Nevada. However, the odds ratio is not statistically significant. Frogs were seen at Virginia Creek Pale Green Pond but they seem less likely at Virginia Divide Double Ponds, Dunderberg North Pond, and Burro Cirque Pond, which are all shallow, isolated, and mostly lacking in vegetation.
The East-Central Sierra Nevada is a great place to visit but don’t go for the fairy shrimp.