DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Elk Conservation and Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Elk Conservation and Management Plan State of California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DRAFT ELK CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN November 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California supports three of the four remaining North American elk (Cervus canadensis) subspecies. Prior to European arrival and settlement, it is estimated that more than 500,000 elk inhabited parts of the San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Range, and central, northern and northeastern parts of the state into Oregon. During this time, indigenous people managed and utilized elk for food and other purposes. Non- indigenous settlement decimated California’s elk populations, especially tule elk (C. c. nannodes) which only inhabited California. By 1872, only a few tule elk remained in the San Joaquin Valley. Protective conservation measures, successful translocation efforts and natural dispersal of elk into suitable habitat have allowed for recovery in portions of their historical range and allowed expansion into areas previously unoccupied (e.g. Owens Valley). Elk population growth since 1970 has been significant; California now supports approximately 5,700 Roosevelt elk (C. c. roosevelti), 1,500 Rocky Mountain elk (C. c. nelsoni) and 5,700 tule elk. While elk population growth and range expansion may continue in the near future, California most likely will never again support 500,000 elk because of residential and agricultural development and its business and transportation infrastructure. Conflicts between expanding elk and human populations are significant at some locales. Of particular importance are private property conflicts and public health or safety incidents. Section (§) 3952 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) was adopted in 2003 against the backdrop of increasing conflicts between elk and human populations, and requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) to develop a statewide elk management plan that is consistent with California’s wildlife policy. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of elk and the habitat necessary to sustain them, FGC §1802. California’s wildlife policy emphases three general goals: to maintain sufficient wildlife resources for their intrinsic values, to provide for diverse public uses and economic contribution to citizens, and to alleviate economic losses and public health/safety problems (FGC §1801). Based on FGC §3952, the statewide elk management plan must emphasize enhancing and maintaining sufficient populations of all three subspecies of elk in perpetuity, with specific consideration of the following: Characteristics and geographic range of each elk subspecies within the state, including Roosevelt elk, Rocky Mountain elk, and tule elk; Habitat conditions and trends within the state; Major factors affecting elk within the state, including, but not limited to, conflicts with other land uses; Management activities necessary to achieve the goals of the plan and to alleviate property damage; Identification of high priority areas for elk management; Methods for determining population viability and the minimum population level needed to sustain local herds; and i Description of the necessary contents for individual herd management plans prepared for high priority areas. The Department is also committed to establishing a positive, cooperative relationship with California federally recognized Tribes (Tribes) regarding elk management in recognition that the Department and Tribes share authority to regulate the take of elk as they move across the landscape. In order to achieve the goals regarding California’s elk populations, innovative management actions and collaboration will be required, and guidance from a statewide elk management plan is necessary to help mediate competing and conflicting interests. This elk management plan is designed to address these goals and objectives and assure the maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of California elk populations and habitat. Based on this framework and the requirements in FGC §3952, a nine person working group reviewed elk management plans from other states and Canadian provinces and provided initial recommendations to develop California’s plan. The working group consisted of three members from the Department, two representatives from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and one each from the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, California Cattlemen’s Association, and California Farm Bureau Federation. Whereas the working group provided initial recommendations, preparation of the management plan was the responsibility of the Department as the managing steward of California’s wildlife resources. Beginning in 2016 the Department began working with Tribes for input to address Tribal concerns. The statewide elk management plan describes historical and current geographic range, habitat conditions and trends, and major factors affecting Roosevelt, Rocky Mountain, and tule elk in California. It identifies, delimits and describes high priority areas for elk management, referred to as Elk Management Units (EMUs). The 22 EMUs collectively comprise the current known distribution of elk in California with a few exceptions. Documents specific to each EMU (see Appendix E) contain information for high priority areas under the following headings: Description of EMU, Elk Distribution and Abundance, Management Goals, Objectives and Actions, Herd Viability, Summary of Annual Harvests, and Unit Highlights. The working group’s recommendations and the Department’s experience with other species management plans inform the contents of the EMU documents. The statewide elk management plan considers methods of determining elk population viability. Management activities to achieve plan goals generally emphasize maintaining and improving habitat conditions on public and private land. EMU documents identify specific management objectives and actions, along with who is responsible for those objectives and actions. Where it is (or may become) necessary to alleviate property damage and public health/safety problems within an EMU, regulated hunting is the recommended primary method of population control, followed by capture/translocation of surplus animals when regulated hunting is unfeasible or ineffective. The Department recognizes the need to develop and maintain effective tribal/state governmental relations and to manage elk as a shared resource. The conservation, ii management, protection, enhancement, and reestablishment of wildlife resources and habitat are critical to providing cultural, scientific, educational, recreational, aesthetic, and economic benefits for present and future generations of all Californians. This management plan provides guidance and direction to help set priorities for elk management statewide. Whereas the management plan establishes general policies, goals and priorities on a statewide basis, individual EMU documents address issues specific to the unit and establish population objectives and future management direction. Although the Department has statutory authority and primary responsibility for wildlife management in California, partnerships with other organizations and agencies have assisted with elk management in the past and will be increasingly important in the future. This plan emphasizes that sharing of resources and collaboration with all parties interested in elk and elk management will be essential to managing California’s elk populations in the future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vii I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 A. Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. 4 B. Taxonomy and Historical Distribution ...................................................................... 5 C. Life History and Habitat ........................................................................................... 8 D. Distribution and Population Status ........................................................................ 14 E. Historical and Ongoing Management Efforts by the Department and California Tribes......................................................................................................................... 23 II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 25 A. Adaptive Management .......................................................................................... 25 B. Population Monitoring ............................................................................................ 25 C. Herd Viability and Genetic Diversity ...................................................................... 27 D. Disease Surveillance............................................................................................. 31 E. Co-Management with California Federally Recognized Tribes & Tribal Traditional Uses and Knowledge ................................................................................................. 33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Springs of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
    [Show full text]
  • COMMON MAMMALS of OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK Roosevelt Elk the Largest and Most Majestic of All the Animals to Be Found in Olympic Na
    COMMON MAMMALS OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK Roosevelt Elk The largest and most majestic of all the animals to be found in Olympic National Park is the Roosevelt or Olympic elk. They were given the name Roosevelt elk in honor of President Theodore Roosevelt who did much to help preserve them from extinction. They are also known by the name "wapiti" which was given to them by the Shawnee Indians. Of the two kinds of elk in the Pacific Northwest, the Roosevelt elk are the largest. Next to the moose, the elk is the largest member of the deer family. The male sometimes measures 5 feet high at the shoulder and often weighs 800 pounds or more. Their coats are a tawny color except for the neck which is dark brown. It is easy to tell elk from deer because of the large size and the large buff colored rump patch. When the calves are born in May or June, they weigh between 30 and 40 pounds and are tawny colored splashed with many light spots and a conspicuous rump patch. Only the bull elk has antlers. They may measure as much as 5 feet across. Each year they shed the old set of antlers after mating season in the fall and almost immediately begin to grow a new set. During the summer months, some of the elk herds can be found in the high mountains; the elk move down into the rain forest valleys on the western side of the park during the winter months. About 5,000 elk live in Olympic National Park where they, like all of the animals are protected in their natural environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Big River Basin Assessment November 2006
    Coastal Watershed Planning Assessment Program Big River Basin Assessment November 2006 State of California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Mike Chrisman Secretary, Alan Lloyd North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Participants Contributing Agencies and Departments Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Chair, Art Baggett Department of Forestry and Fire Protection North Coast Regional Water Director, Dale Gildert Quality Control Board Executive Officer, Catherine Kuhlman Department of Water Resources Department of Conservation Director, Lester A. Snow Interim Director, Debbie Sareeram Big River Assessment Team Assessment Manager Scott Downie California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries: Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Beatrijs deWaard Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom California Department of Fish and Game Forestry and Land Use: Rob Rutland California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Water Quality: Elmer Dudik North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Geology: Karin W. Fresnel Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Fluvial Geomorphology: Dawn McGuire Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Currently Department of Fish and Game Geographic Information System, Data Management, Ecological Management Decision System (EMDS) Vikki Avara-Snider – GIS & Document Production Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • Elk: Wildlife Notebook Series
    Elk Elk (Cervus elaphus) are sometimes called “wapiti” in North America. Two subspecies of elk have been introduced to Alaska. Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) are larger, slightly darker in color, and have shorter, thicker antlers than the Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni). In many European countries “elk” are actually what we know as moose (Alces alces). Fossil bones indicate that a subspecies of elk once existed in Interior Alaska during the Pleistocene period, but all of the elk currently in Alaska were introduced from the Pacific Northwest in the last century. The first successful translocation involved eight Roosevelt elk calves that were captured on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State in 1928 and moved to Afognak Island (near Kodiak) in 1929. These elk have successfully established themselves on both Afognak and Raspberry Islands. The second successful transplant occurred in 1987, when 33 Roosevelt elk and 17 Rocky Mountain elk were captured in Oregon and moved to Etolin Island (near Petersburg) in Southeast Alaska. These elk subsequently dispersed and established a second breeding population on neighboring Zarembo Island. General description: Elk are members of the deer family and share many physical traits with deer, moose, and caribou. They are much larger than deer and caribou, but not as large as the moose which occur in Alaska. Distinguishing features include a large yellowish rump patch, a grayish to brownish body, and dark brown legs and neck. Unlike some members of the deer family, both sexes have upper canine teeth. The males have antlers, which in prime bulls are very large, sweeping gracefully back over the shoulders with spikes pointing forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report January-March 2019
    Resource use and distribution of Roosevelt elk and Kodiak brown bears on Afognak, Raspberry, and Sitkalidak Islands, Alaska Progress Report: January- March 2019 Issued: June 2019 Submitted to: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Prepared by: Shannon Finnegan – Graduate Research Assistant, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Principal Investigators: Dr. Jerrold Belant – Camp Fire Professor of Wildlife Conservation, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Nathan Svoboda – Area Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game The State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry 1 Forestry Drive Syracuse, NY, 13210 Abstract During January–March 2019, we monitored 34 elk and 42 brown bears overall. In February, the project hired a second PhD student, Sarah Schooler, to focus on Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis). Student Shannon Finnegan carried out her PhD proposal defense at SUNY ESF in March 2019. In March, we collected 155 fecal samples from 5 herds of elk to examine winter diet. In February, we determined average den entry dates for brown bears, the average den entry date for female brown bears on Afognak and Raspberry Islands was 24 October 2018, and 2 November 2018 for males. On Sitkalidak Island the average den entry date for females was 25 November 2018. We are ordering new equipment and preparing for captures in fall 2019. 2 Summary ➢ We have continued to monitor 34 elk and 42 brown bears collared in 2017 and 2018. ➢ We have continued to update our project website (www.campfirewildlife.com), Facebook page (www.facebook.com/campfirewildlife), and Twitter page (https://twitter.com/campfirewild) with project results.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion
    THE AUTHORS : MARY L. SOMMER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE BRANCH 1812 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 REBECCA L. BARBOZA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4665 LAMPSON AVENUE, SUITE C LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 RANDY A. BOTTA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ERIC B. KLEINFELTER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 MARTHA E. SCHAUSS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 J. ROCKY THOMPSON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION P.O. BOX 2330 LAKE ISABELLA, CA 93240 Cover photo by: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Suggested Citation: Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRAL ECOREGION 4 Description 4 Ecoregion-specific Deer Ecology 4 MAJOR IMPACTS TO MULE DEER HABITAT 6 IN THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRA L CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND SPECIFIC 7 HABITAT GUIDELINES Long-term Fire Suppression 7 Human Encroachment 13 Wild and Domestic Herbivores 18 Water Availability and Hydrological Changes 26 Non-native Invasive Species 30 SUMMARY 37 LITERATURE CITED 38 APPENDICIES 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ule and black-tailed deer (collectively called Forest is severe winterkill. Winterkill is not a mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus ) are icons of problem in the Southwest Deserts, but heavy grazing the American West.
    [Show full text]
  • Monterey Bay Chapter Archive of Field Trips 2016
    22-Oct-19 California Native Plant Society – Monterey Bay Chapter Archive of Field Trips 2016- Table of Contents 2019 ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Sunday, December 29 ......................................................................................................................... 11 Williams Canyon Hike to Mitteldorf Preserve................................................................................. 11 Saturday, December 21....................................................................................................................... 11 Fly Agaric Mushroom Search .......................................................................................................... 11 Saturday, December 7......................................................................................................................... 11 Buzzards Roost Hike, Pfeiffer State Park ......................................................................................... 11 Saturday, November 23 ...................................................................................................................... 11 Autumn in Garzas Creek, Garland Ranch ........................................................................................ 11 Wednesday, November 13 ................................................................................................................. 11 Birds and Plants of Mudhen Lake, Fort
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1. Washington Elk Roosevelt Elk (Cervus Elaphus Roosevelti, Fig
    Elk Elk are members of the deer family and share many physical traits with deer and moose. They are much larger than deer, but not as large as the moose. Adult bull (male) elk weigh 600 to 800 pounds, and adult cows (female elk) typically weigh 400 to 500 pounds. With thick bodies, short tails, and long legs, adult elk stand 4½ to 5 feet high at the shoulder (Fig. 1). Elk range in color from light brown in winter to reddish tan in summer, and have characteristic buffcolored rumps. In winter, a Figure 1. Elk have been an intrinsic part of dark brown, shaggy mane hangs from the neck to the chest. Bull Washington tribal culture for thousands of elk have large, spreading antlers. years (a bull Roosevelt elk is shown here). Like other members of the deer family, the antlers of bull elk grow They have helped Indian people survive throughout the centuries by providing a during spring and summer beneath a hairy skin covering known continual source of meat and marrow for as velvet. In late summer the velvet dries and falls off to reveal the sustenance and vitamins. Elk also have been bonelike structure of the fully-grown antlers. Elk shed their antlers used for religious purposes, clothing, and beginning in late February for the largest males, extending to late drum making. To this day, the elk is part of April and even early May for younger ones. New antler growth traditional ceremonies and is essential for begins soon after shedding. (For additional information on antlers maintaining tribal culture.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology
    CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic conditions within the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Area. Section 4.1.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting, including important water bodies and related infrastructure, surface and groundwater hydrology, geomorphology, and flooding. Section 4.1.3, “Regulatory Setting” details the federal, state, and local laws related to hydrology. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1.4, “Impact Analysis” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and mitigation measures are proposed that could reduce, eliminate, or avoid such impacts. Other impacts to related resources are addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Water Quality; impacts to fish are addressed in Chapter 4.3, Fisheries Resources; and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, Recreation. 4.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for hydrology includes all areas that could be affected by activities associated with the Proposed Project. As stated in Chapter 3, Background and Project Description, the objective of the Fish Flow Project is to manage Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma water supply releases to provide instream flows that will improve habitat for threatened and endangered fish, while updating the Water Agency’s existing water rights to reflect current conditions. The Water Agency would manage water supply releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to provide minimum instream flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek that would improve habitat for listed salmonids and meet the requirements of the Russian River Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • American Elk (Cervus Elaphus)
    American Elk (Cervus elaphus) November 1999 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 11 General Information Before European settlement, an estimated ten million elk roamed the North American continent. The American elk (Cervus elaphus), or wapiti, a Native American word meaning “white rump,” once had the largest range of any deer species in North America. For centuries, the elk has been a picturesque icon of the American west and has pro- vided recreational opportunities for hunters, photographers, artists, and other wildlife enthusiasts. Unregulated hunting, grazing compe- tition from domestic livestock, and habitat destruction from unre- strained timber harvesting, urbanization, and westward expansion throughout the nineteenth century reduced American elk populations to less than 100,000 individuals continent-wide by the early 1900s. Fortunately, the elk’s ability to use a variety of habitats, its opportun- istic feeding habits, and positive response to management efforts has Bull elk enabled the species to survive natural and human-induced pressures over time. These factors, coupled with concentrated wildlife management efforts, have returned the American elk to stable, and in some areas increasing, populations in the United States and Canada. This pamphlet is designed to serve as an introduction to elk habitat requirements and to assist private landowners and managers in developing elk management plans. Success of any individual species management plan depends on targeting the specific needs of the desired species, analyzing the desig- nated habitat area as a whole to ensure that all required habitat elements are present, and determining what management techniques will best improve the land as elk habitat. Range Four subspecies of American elk live in North America today.
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Hydrologic Region
    California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC REGION Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update Contents Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ........................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................... 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions........................................................................... 4 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ......................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management.................................................. 4 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Groundwater Basin Assessments
    [Show full text]