DOCSLIB.ORG

A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 19 - Native and Non-Native Vertebrate Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 19 - Native and Non-native Vertebrate Species Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.19 ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 19 - Native and Non-native Vertebrate Species Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.19 Authors (alphabetically): John Austin Supervisory Biologist Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Danny Boiano Aquatic Ecologist Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Danny Gammons Wildlife Biologist Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Erik Meyer Student Trainee (Aquatic Biologist) Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Harold Werner Wildlife Ecologist (Retired) Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This document contains subject matter expert interpretation of the data. The authors of this document are responsible for the technical accuracy of the information provided. The parks refrained from providing substantive administrative review to encourage the experts to offer their opinions and ideas on management implications based on their assessments of conditions. Some authors accepted the offer to cross the science/management divide while others preferred to stay firmly grounded in the presentation of only science-based results. While the authors‘ interpretations of the data and ideas/opinions on management implications were desired, the results and opinions provided do not represent the policies or positions of the parks, the NPS, or the U.S. Government. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Austin, J., D. Boiano, D. Gammons, E. Meyer, and H. Werner. 2013. A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 19 – native and non-native vertebrate species. Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/NRR—2013/665.19. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 102/121154, June 2013 ii Contents Page Introduction and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 1 Native Species Extirpated from SEKI ..................................................................................... 3 Problematic Native Species .......................................................................................................... 19 Prickly Sculpin .............................................................................................................................. 19 Consensus Decision ............................................................................................................... 19 Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 19 Information obtained from http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/...................................................... 19 Information obtained from UC Davis Biological Museum Collections ........................... 19 Conclusion about nativity ................................................................................................. 19 Records from SEKI ........................................................................................................... 19 Conclusion about current status ........................................................................................ 19 Riffle Sculpin ................................................................................................................................ 21 Consensus Decision ............................................................................................................... 21 Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 21 Information obtained from http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/: .................................................... 21 Information obtained from UC Davis Biological Museum Collections ........................... 21 Conclusion about nativity ................................................................................................. 21 Records from SEKI ........................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion about current status ........................................................................................ 21 Sacramento Pikeminnow .............................................................................................................. 21 Consensus Decision ............................................................................................................... 21 Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 21 Information obtained from http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/...................................................... 21 Information obtained from UC Davis Biological Museum Collections ........................... 22 Conclusion about nativity ................................................................................................. 22 Observations from near SEKI ........................................................................................... 22 Records from SEKI ........................................................................................................... 22 iii Contents (continued) Page Conclusion about current status ........................................................................................ 22 California Legless Lizard .............................................................................................................. 23 Consensus Decision ............................................................................................................... 23 Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 23 Information obtained from Stebbins 2003 and www.calforniaherps.com ........................ 23 Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Specimens ...................................................... 23 Conclusion about nativity ................................................................................................. 23 Observations from near SEKI ........................................................................................... 23 Records from SEKI ........................................................................................................... 23 Conclusion about current status ........................................................................................ 23 Coast Horned Lizard ..................................................................................................................... 23 Consensus Decision ............................................................................................................... 23 Reasoning .............................................................................................................................. 24 Information obtained from Stebbins 2003 and www.calforniaherps.com ........................ 24 Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Specimen ........................................................ 24 Conclusion about nativity ................................................................................................. 24 Records from SEKI ........................................................................................................... 24 Conclusion about current status ........................................................................................ 25 Common (Valley) Garter Snake ................................................................................................... 27 Consensus Decision ..............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 5. Consultation and Collaboration

    Chapter 5. Consultation and Collaboration

    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Diamond Project Plumas National Forest Chapter 5. Consultation and Collaboration 5.1 Preparers and Contributors_____________________________ The Forest Service consulted the following individuals; federal, state, and local agencies; and tribes during the development of this environmental impact statement (EIS): 5.1.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members Name Title Education / Responsibility / Experience Merri Carol Martens Planner Merri Carol has a B.S. degree in Forestry from West Virginia University. She has 15 years of experience in natural resource management with the U.S. Forest Service. Chris Collins Wildlife Chris holds a B.S. degree in Wildlife Management from Biologist Humboldt State University. He has 13 years of experience in wildlife management and biological work with the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chris is responsible for project coordination, planning, implementation, and monitoring for wildlife issues on the Mt. Hough Ranger District. Michelle Coppoletta Botanist Michelle received a B.S. degree in Plant Biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Master of Science in Ecology from the University of California at Davis. Prior to working with the Forest Service, Michelle was a rare plant botanist for the National Park Service at Point Reyes National Seashore where she worked on developing conservation and management plans for rare and sensitive plant species. She has also worked as a biological science technician for the USGS in the southern Sierra Nevada. She is currently the assistant botanist on the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. Cristina Weinberg Archaeologist Christina has a B.A.
  • Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed

    Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed

    • D -1:>K 1.2!;EQUOJA-KING$ Ci\NYON NATIONAL PARKS History of the Parks "''' Evaluation of Historic Resources Detennination of Effect, DCP Prepared by • A. Berle Clemensen DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEA.'! NATIONAL PAP.K SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPAR'J'}fENT OF THE l~TERIOR DENVER, COLOR..\DO SEPTEffilER 1975 i i• Pl.EA5!: RETUl1" TO: B&WScans TEallillCAL INFORMAl!tll CfNIEil 0 ·l'i «coo,;- OOIVER Sf:RV!Gf Cf!fT£R llAT!ONAL PARK S.:.'Ma j , • BRIEF HISTORY OF SEQUOIA Spanish and Mexican Period The first white men, the Spanish, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1772. They, however, only observed the Sierra Nevada mountains. None entered the high terrain where the giant Sequoia exist. Only one explorer came close to the Sierra Nevadas. In 1806 Ensign Gabriel Moraga, venturing into the foothills, crossed and named the Rio de la Santos Reyes (River of the Holy Kings) or Kings River. Americans in the San Joaquin Valley The first band of Americans entered the Valley in 1827 when Jedediah Smith and a group of fur traders traversed it from south to north. This journey ushered in the first American frontier as fifteen years of fur trapping followed. Still, none of these men reported sighting the giant trees. It was not until 1833 that members of the Joseph R. 1lalker expedition crossed the Sierra Nevadas and received credit as the first whites to See the Sequoia trees. These trees are presumed to form part of either the present M"rced or Tuolwnregroves. Others did not learn of their find since Walker's group failed to report their discovery.
  • Sharing the Range: Managing Wildlife Impacts to Livestock Production in California Coast Range Working Landscapes Author Sheri Spiegal Ph.D

    Sharing the Range: Managing Wildlife Impacts to Livestock Production in California Coast Range Working Landscapes Author Sheri Spiegal Ph.D

    Title Sharing the range: managing wildlife impacts to livestock production in California Coast Range working landscapes Author Sheri Spiegal Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management University of California, Berkeley Abstract Livestock and wildlife share grazed rangelands, and in many cases, they get along fine. Some wildlife species, however, can negatively impact livestock operations by killing livestock, consuming forage, damaging facilities, and transmitting disease. Ranchers have traditionally resorted to lethal wildlife control to reduce these impacts, yet this has been controversial as many people do not want any animal to be harmed for any reason. In addition, some policies designed to protect wildlife may be perceived by ranchers as doing so at the expense of livestock production. It is important to find ways to minimize the conflicts between livestock production and wildlife protection in order to maintain sustainable working landscapes that enjoy broad support among livestock producers and conservationists. Interviews of people connected with livestock production in and adjacent to the California Coast Ranges, from Mendocino County south to Monterey County, and a review of scientific literature were used to identify the main problems ranchers experience with wildlife and the impact reduction strategies they use that are broadly acceptable to the public. Interviewees most commonly described grievances related to the mountain lion, tule elk, coyote, California ground squirrel, and feral pig. For each of these species, a history of popular opinion in California is summarized, ecological and biological characteristics are briefly reviewed, impacts to livestock operations are described, dimensions of lethal control are outlined, and strategies used to reduce impacts with minimal controversy are assessed for their effectiveness.
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
  • The Impacts of the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts

    The Impacts of the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts

    THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER ———————— A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ———————— In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in History ———————— by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 THE IMPACTS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACTS IN CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON CALIFORNIA’S TRINITY RIVER A Thesis by Michael I. Muraki Fall 2018 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharron A. Barrios, Ph.D.____________ APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: _________________________________ Michael F. Magliari, Ph.D., Chair______ _________________________________ Jesse A. Dizard, Ph.D._______________ _________________________________ Timothy G. Sistrunk, Ph.D._________ __ TABLE OF CONTENTS ——————————————————————————————————————— PAGE List of Figures ........................................................................................................... iv Abstract ..................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 I. Planning for the Future, The Water Bank of California: 1957-1972 .............. 12 II. The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Fight to Preserve the North- Coast Rivers: 1968-1972 ............................................................................
  • Jordan Toll Trail by William F

    Jordan Toll Trail by William F

    Jordan Toll Trail By William F. (Bill) Jordan In the year of 1860, there was a lot of verbal and political activity about the matter of building roads across the Sierra Mountains. In April, 1860, the Tulare County Supervisors appointed a committee to view a road and pack trail from Visalia to Mono. On January 30, 1860, the Visalia Delta announced that a company had been formed and application was made to the legislature to build a toll road from Visalia to Owens Lake. S. G. George, H. L. Mathews. S. Sweet, Henry Bostwick, John Jordan, and W. F. Jordan. About or before that time, the large Coso Silver and Gold Mines opened up. They were located southeast of Owens Lake up in the Coso Range of mountains, east of Owens Valley. The mines are what attracted all of this excitement. While all this talk and legislative action was going on, John Jordan and his son, William F. Jordan, were apparently going ahead with a toll trail project under the authority given by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. The Jordan petition is on file at the Tulare County Courthouse and reads as follows: Saturday, March 30, 1861. whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County have this day passed a resolution instructing our Senator and Representative in the Legislature of the State of California, authorizing said County of Tulare to levy an additional road tax of 10 cents on each $100.00 worth of taxable property in said County. Now, therefore, if the Legislature shall pass the Act aforesaid, it is, by this Board ordered that all the taxes arising from the aforesaid special Act for one year, shall be applied to building and constructing a certain wagon road leading from San Luis Obispo County to Coso by the way of Visalia.
  • The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries

    The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries

    NATIVE TROUT WATERS OF CALIFORNIA Michael Carl The Ecological Angler www.ecoangler.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUTION – THE ORIGINAL SIX 4 ABOUT THE BOOK 4 CLAVEY RIVER 5 BACKGROUND 6 TROUT POPULATION DATA 6 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 7 DIRECTIONS TO REACH SEGMENT 3 AND 4 (E.G., BRIDGE CROSSING CLAVEY RIVER): 7 AREA MAP 8 CLAVEY RIVER FLOW STATISTICS 9 FISHING TECHNIQUES 9 EAGLE LAKE 10 BACKGROUND 11 BIG TROUT FOOD – TUI CHUBS 11 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 11 DIRECTIONS TO EAGLE LAKE FROM RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA: 11 AREA MAP 12 PRODUCTIVE TIMES AND ZONES TO FISH 13 FISHING TECHNIQUES 13 SPALDING TRACT – TOPO MAP 14 PIKES POINT – TOPO MAP 15 GOLDEN TROUT CREEK 16 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 17 ABUNDANCE OF CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT 17 CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT GENETIC DATA 17 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 18 DIRECTIONS TO COTTONWOOD PASS TRAILHEAD 18 AREA MAP 19 PHOTO JOURNAL – COTTONWOOD PASS TO TUNNEL MEADOW 20 FISHING TECHNIQUES 23 HEENAN LAKE 24 BACKGROUND 25 FLY ANGLER STATISTICS – 2007 SEASON (8/3/07 TO 10/28/07) 26 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 27 AREA MAP 27 DIRECTIONS 27 PRODUCTIVE ZONES TO FISH 28 FISHING TECHNIQUES 28 UPPER KERN RIVER 29 BACKGROUND 30 KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 DISTRIBUTION OF KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 31 MAP – LLOYD MEADOW ROAD TO FORKS OF THE KERN 32 SPOTLIGHT – FORKS OF THE KERN 33 DIRECTIONS AND TRAIL DESCRIPTION 33 RECOMMENDED FISHING GEAR 33 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER 35 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 36 ABUNDANCE AND SIZE OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT 37 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, ACCESS & DISTANCE 37 DIRECTIONS TO REACH TRAILHEAD: 38 AREA MAP 39 TRAIL DESCRIPTION 40 FISHING TECHNIQUES 40 Introduction – The Original Six The Native Trout Waters of California details six of the state’s most scenic, diverse, and significant native trout fisheries.
  • Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The

    Page 78 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 45A–1 Kaweah River and The

    § 45a–1 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 78 Kaweah River and the headwaters of that branch Fork Kaweah River to its junction with Cactus of Little Kern River known as Pecks Canyon; Creek; thence easterly along the first hydro- thence southerly and easterly along the crest of graphic divide south of Cactus Creek to its the hydrographic divide between Pecks Canyon intersection with the present west boundary of and Soda Creek to its intersection with a lateral Sequoia National Park, being the west line of divide at approximately the east line of section township 16 south, range 29 east; thence south- 2, township 19 south, range 31 east; thence erly along said west boundary to the southwest northeasterly along said lateral divide to its corner of said township; thence easterly along intersection with the township line near the the present boundary of Sequoia National Park, southeast corner of township 18 south, range 31 being the north line of township 17 south, range east of the Mount Diablo base and meridian; 29 east, to the northeast corner of said township; thence north approximately thirty-five degrees thence southerly along the present boundary of west to the summit of the butte next north of Sequoia National Park, being the west lines of Soda Creek (United States Geological Survey al- townships 17 and 18 south, range 30 east, to the titude eight thousand eight hundred and eighty- place of beginning; and all of those lands lying eight feet); thence northerly and northwesterly within the boundary line above described are in- along the crest of the hydrographic divide to a cluded in and made a part of the Roosevelt-Se- junction with the crest of the main hydro- quoia National Park; and all of those lands ex- graphic divide between the headwaters of the cluded from the present Sequoia National Park South Fork of the Kaweah River and the head- are included in and made a part of the Sequoia waters of Little Kern River; thence northerly National Forest, subject to all laws and regula- along said divide now between Horse and Cow tions applicable to the national forests.
  • Climate Change Impacts on California Vegetation: Physiology, Life History, and Ecosystem Change

    Climate Change Impacts on California Vegetation: Physiology, Life History, and Ecosystem Change

    CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON CALIFORNIA VEGETATION: PHYSIOLOGY, LIFE HISTORY, AND ECOSYSTEM CHANGE A White Paper from the California Energy Commission’s California Climate Change Center Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: University of California, Berkeley JULY 2012 CEC‐500‐2012‐023 William K. Cornwell1,2 Stephanie A. Stuart3 Aaron Ramirez1 Christopher R. Dolanc4 James H. Thorne4 David D. Ackerly1 1University of California, Berkeley 2 Vrije University, Netherlands 3Macquarie University, Australia 4University of California, Davis DISCLAIMER This paper was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this paper; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This paper has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this paper. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements are provided in each section of this paper. i ABSTRACT Dominant plant species mediate many ecosystem services, including carbon storage, soil retention, and water cycling. One of the uncertainties with climate change effects on terrestrial ecosystems is understanding where transitions in dominant vegetation, often termed state change, will occur. The complex nature of state change requires multiple lines of evidence. Here, we present four lines of inquiry into climate change effects on dominant vegetation, focusing on the likelihood and nature of climate change–driven state change.
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
  • Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management

    Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management

    Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Chapter I Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management MAY 2017 Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS) Program completed Risk Assessments for methods used in wildlife damage management in 1992 (USDA 1997). While those Risk Assessments are still valid, for the most part, the WS Program has expanded programs into different areas of wildlife management and wildlife damage management (WDM) such as work on airports, with feral swine and management of other invasive species, disease surveillance and control. Inherently, these programs have expanded the methods being used. Additionally, research has improved the effectiveness and selectiveness of methods being used and made new tools available. Thus, new methods and strategies will be analyzed in these risk assessments to cover the latest methods being used. The risk assements are being completed in Chapters and will be made available on a website, which can be regularly updated. Similar methods are combined into single risk assessments for efficiency; for example Chapter IV contains all foothold traps being used including standard foothold traps, pole traps, and foot cuffs. The Introduction to Risk Assessments is Chapter I and was completed to give an overall summary of the national WS Program. The methods being used and risks to target and nontarget species, people, pets, and the environment, and the issue of humanenss are discussed in this Chapter. From FY11 to FY15, WS had work tasks associated with 53 different methods being used.