DOCSLIB.ORG

CAMP Implementation Plan Organization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAMP Implementation Plan Organization Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP) Implementation Plan A Comprehensive Plan to Evaluate the Effectiveness of CVPIA Actions in Restoring Anadromous Fish Production Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Central Valley Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program Ofice 33 10 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95821 Contacts: James McKevitt, CVPIA Program Manager Larry Puckett, CAMP Program Manager Prepared by: Montgomery Watson 777 Campus Commons Road, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95825 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2600 V Street, Suite 100 Sacramento. CA 958 18 CH2M HILL 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95833 March 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .......................................................... ii Executive Summary ....................................................... S- 1 Glossary ................................................................ G-1 Section 1. Introduction Background .............................................................. 1-1 CVPIA Actions ............................ .,. ..................... 1-1 Anadromous Fish Restoration Program ................................... 1-2 Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program .............................. 1-3 CAMP Assumptions .................................................. 1-4 The First Five Years of CAMP Implementation ............................. 1-4 TechnicalReview .................................................... 1-5 CAMP Implementation Plan Organization ....................................... 1-5 Section 2. Recommended Monitoring Programs Introduction ............................................................. 2-1 Recommended Adult Monitoring Programs ...................................... 2-2 ChinookSalmon .................................................... 2-2 Fall-Run Chinook Salmon .............................................2-7 Late Fall-run Chinook Salmon ..........................................2-9 Winter-run Chinook Salmon ........................................... 2-11 Spring-run Chinook Salmon ............................................ 2-12 SteelheadTrout .................................................... 2-14 StripedBass ....................................................... 2-15 American Shad ..................................................... 2-15 White Sturgeon .................................................... 2-16 Greensturgeon .................................................... 2-16 Recommended Juvenile Monitoring Program ....................................2-17 Target Species and Races ..................................................2-17 Criteria Used for Selection of Target SpeciedRaces ....: .................... 2-18 Target Juvenile Lifestages .................................................. 2-21 Target Watersheds ........................................................ 2-22 Criteria for Selection of Target Watersheds ............................... 2-23 Recommended Target Watersheds ...................................... 2-25 Recommended Juvenile Monitoring Methods .................................... 2-27 Comparison and Selection of Monitoring Methods ..........................2-27 Recommended Sampling Design, Level of Effort, Timing, and Data ............. 2-29 Recommended Juvenile Abundance Estimation Methods ...........................2-30 Existing Monitoring Programs Consistent with CAMP Juvenile Chinook Salmon Monitoring Needs ........................................................ 2-31 Avaqability of Data on Limiting Factors ..................................2-32 Section 3. Evaluation of Monitoring Program Results Methods for Assessing Progress Toward AFRP Production Targets ................... 3-1 Methods to Compare Effectiveness of Action Categories ............................ 3-2 Compare Changes in Juvenile Abundance over time within a Watershed ........... 3-2 Compare Juvenile Abundance Among Watersheds ........................... 3-4 Integration of AFRP Site-Specific Monitoring With CAMP Juvenile Watershed-Level Monitoring .......................................................... 3-5 Relationship of Juvenile Abundance to Adult Production ...................... 3-6 Consideration of Limiting Factors in Juvenile Outrnigration Assessment ........... 3-7 Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Action Categories ..................... 3-8 Section 4. Data Management and Reporting Introduction ............................................................. 4-1 DataTypes .............................................................. 4-1 AdultData ......................................................... 4-1 JuvenileData ....................................................... 4-2 Data Compilation and Entry .................................................. 4-2 AdultData ......................................................... 4-2 Juvenile Data ....................................................... 4-3 IEP Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines ........................ 4-3 Data Availability and Timing ................................................. 4-4 AdultData ......................................................... 4-4 JuvenileData .......................................................4-5 Data Processing ........................................................... 4-6 AdultData ......................................................... 4-6 Juvenile Data ....................................................... 4-8 Datastorage ............................................................ 4-10 AdultData ........................................................4-10 Juvenile Data ...................................................... 4-11 Data Accessibility ........................................................ 4-11 Home-Page ......................................................... 4-12 Data Access Pages .................................................. 4-12 Section 5 . Staffing and Budget Requirements Introduction ............................................................. 5-1 Summary Assumptions ..................................................... 5-1 Adult Programs ..................................................... 5-2 Recommended Monitoring Program Costs - First Year Capital, Operating and Overhead .... 5-4 Existing Monitoring Programs that Partially or Fully Meet CAMP Needs ................ 5-4 Adult Monitoring Programs ............................................ 5-4 Juvenile Monitoring Programs which include Screw Trapping for Juvenile Chinook Salmon ............................................................ 5-5 CAMP Monitoring Program Funding Requirements ................................ 5-5 Data Analyses and Reporting ................................................. 5-6 Comprehensive Budget ..................................................... 5-6 Section 6. Citations Published References ....................................................... 6-1 Personal Communications ................................................... 6-5 Appendix A. Adult Production Calculations Appendix B . Existing Adult and Juvenile Monitoring Programs 1. Lower American River Salmon Escapement Survey .......................... B-2 2 . Battle Creek Escapement Survey ........................................ B-6 3. Butte Creek Escapement and Snorkel Survey .............................. B- 11 4 . Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead and Project-Spawning Escapement Survey ... B-15 5. Feather River Chinook Salmon Escapement Survey ......................... B-20 6 . Merced River Salmon Escapement Survey ................................ B-24 7 . Stanislaus Salmon Escapement Survey ................................... B-28 8. Tuolumne Salmon Escapement Survey ................................... B-32 9 . Yuba River Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement Survey ................... B-36 10. Mokelumne River Salmon and Steelhead Monitoring ........................B-40 11. Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Program .............................B-43 12. Nimbus Salmon Hatchery Coded-Wire Tagging ............................B-47 13. Coleman National Fish Hatchery Coded-Wire Tagging ....................... B-50 14. Feather River Hatchery Coded-Wire Tagging .............................. B-53 15. Merced River Fish Facility Coded-Wire Tagging ........................... B-56 16 . Mokelumne River Hatchery Coded-Wire Tagging ..........................B-59 17. Nimbus Salmon Hatchery-Salmon and Steelhead Program .................... B-62 18. Coleman National Fish Hatchery-Salmon and Steelhead Stock Composition .......B-66 19. Feather River Hatchery Assessment ..................................... B-69 20 . Merced River Fish Facility Assessment ...................................B-73 2 1. Mokelurnne River Hatchery Assessment ..................................B-76 22 . Estuarine Monitoring Program-Adult Striped Bass Study ..................... B-79 23 . Estuarine Monitoring Program-Sturgeon Study ............................ B-83 24 . Estuarine Monitoring Program ......................................... B-87 25. Ocean Salmon Project ............................................... B-90 26 . Upper Sacramento River Escapement Survey .............................. B-94 1. Lower American River Emigration Survey ................................ B-97 2 . Butte Creek Spring-run Chinook Salmon Juvenile Life History and Emigration Study ........................................................... B-100 3 . Deer Creek Salmon Rearing~EmigrationMonitoring ........................B-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report
    Draft Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Technical Report Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2013 Contents Contents Chapter 1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Fisheries Resources......................................................................................... 1-13 1.1.3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ............................................................................ 1-48 Chapter 2 Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 References ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Printed Sources .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Personal Communications ....................................................................................... 3-14 Tables Table 1-1. Fish Species Known to Occur in Primary Study Area ............................................. 1-13 Table 1-2. Central Valley Fish Species Potentially Affected
    [Show full text]
  • Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report
    Pardee Reservoir Calaveras County, California Tunnel Leakage Report July 2013 Prepared by: Jacobs Associates 465 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Distribution To: Bilgin Atalay East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, CA 94607 From: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Jan Van Greunen, PhD, PE Jacobs Associates Todd Crampton, CEG AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Reviewed By: Michael T. McRae, DEng, PE, GE Jacobs Associates Jacobs Associates -ii- Rev. No. 1 / July 2013 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Tunnel Inspections and Evaluation of Seepage .............................................................................. 7 4.1 Previous Tunnel Inspections ............................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Tunnel Inspection, 1962 ......................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Tunnel Inspection, 1982 (from the EBMUD 2003 Seepage Report) ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area
    Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area A report to: The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project1 By: Eric M. Ginney2 Bidwell Environmental Institute, California State University, Chico December 2001. 1Please direct correspondence to: TNC, Sac. River Project Attn: D. Peterson 505 Main Street, Chico CA 95928 [email protected] 2Bidwell Environmental Institute CSU, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0555 [email protected] Cover: An abstract view of the Sacramento River, looking upstream. Big Chico Creek enters from the east, in the lower portion of the image. Photograph and image manipulation by the author. Table of Contents Section I Study Purpose, Methods, and Objectives 1 Purpose 1 Methods and Objectives 2 Section II Tributary Confluences: Restoration 3 Opportunities Waiting to Happen Ecological Importance of Tributary Confluences and 3 Adjacent Floodplain Importance of Sacramento River Confluence Areas in 5 Collaborative Restoration Efforts Conservation by Design 7 Site-Specific Planning 8 Section III Critical Habitat Identification and Analysis 10 of Physical Processes Location and Description of Study Area 10 Landscape Level 10 Historic Conditions of Study Area and Changes 10 Through Time Current Conditions and Identification of Critical Habitat 16 Hydrologic Data 16 Soils 17 Hydro-geomorphic Processes 17 Site-Level Description: Singh Orchard Parcel 18 On-The-Ground Observations: Singh Parcel 19 Critical Habitat for Species of Concern
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997
    oo Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997 NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4125 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Their Relations with Environmental Variables in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Drainages, California, 1993-1997 ByLarry R. Brown and Jason T. May1 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4125 National Water-Quality Assessment Program iON i O CO CN California State University Sacramento Foundation, Placer Hall, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, California 95619 Sacramento, California 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 Placer Hall Denver, CO 80225-0286 6000 J Street Sacramento, California 95819-6129 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Improve understanding of the primary (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the natural and human factors that affect earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ water-quality conditions. tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- This information will help support the development ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • Walter R. Mclean Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7779n9g3 No online items Walter R. McLean papers Processed by the Water Resources Collections and Archives staff. Special Collections & University Archives The UCR Library P.O. Box 5900 University of California Riverside, California 92517-5900 Phone: 951-827-3233 Fax: 951-827-4673 Email: [email protected] URL: http://library.ucr.edu/libraries/special-collections-university-archives © 2008 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Walter R. McLean papers WRCA 077 1 Descriptive Summary Title: Walter R. McLean papers Date (bulk): bulk 1930-1968 Collection Number: WRCA 077 Extent: 19 linear feet40 boxes Repository: Rivera Library. Special Collections Department. Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Languages: English. Access Collection is open for research. Publication Rights Copyright has not been assigned to the Water Resources Collections and Archives. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Director of Distinctive Collections. Permission for publication is given on behalf of the Water Resources Collections and Archives as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the reader. Preferred Citation [identification of item], [date if possible]. Walter R. McLean papers (WRCA 077). Water Resources Collections and Archives. Special Collections & University Archives, University of California, Riverside. Biographical Information Walter Reginald McLean, the son of Walter Reginald and Sarah Jane (Patterson) McLean, was born on July 16, 1903 in the town of Broderick in Yolo County, California. His distinguished career embraces fifty-three years of service to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, plus fifteen years as a consultant to water-related projects in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Butte County, California
    Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Butte County, California Prepared by: Butte County Resource Conservation District (BCRCD) 150 Chuck Yeager Way, Suite A, Oroville, CA 96130 (530) 693-3173, [email protected] April 2020 Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Big Chico Creek Forest Health Restoration Project Contents MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................ 1 Stage of CEQA Document Development ................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Initial Study ........................................................................................................................ 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 3 Project Location .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2018 Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct Sara Chalian San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Chalian, Sara, "Evaluation of the Fragility of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Mokelumne Aqueduct" (2018). Master's Theses. 4895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.a7y5-fy24 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4895 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Sara Chalian May 2018 © 2018 Sara Chalian ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY May 2018 Laura Sullivan-Green, Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Manny Gabet, Ph.D. Geology Department Yogesh Prashar, P.E., G.E. Associate Engineer, East Bay Municipal Utility District ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF THE FRAGILITY OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCT by Sara Chalian The East Bay Municipal Utility District provides water to the eastern region of the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area
    Where Does Your Water Come From? Water in the S.F. Bay Area NPS California Science Project The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves ~1.3 million people in a 332 square mile region. The population is the service area is expected to increase to ~1.6 million by 2030. EBMUD is a publicly owned utility established in 1921 by the California Legislature to provide EBMUD water service. EBMUD serves 20 cities and unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. 90% of EBMUD water comes from the protected Mokelumne River watershed. This 627 square mile watershed is located NE of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on the western slopes of the Sierra. EBMUD Snowmelt and runoff from parts of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties contribute to the Mokelumne watershed. EBMUD Most of the watershed is protected and undeveloped - consists of open space and forest land. EBMUD The waters of the Mokelumne River are collected in the Pardee Reservoir by the Pardee Dam (38 miles NE of Stockton). Its capacity is equivalent to a 10- month supply for 1.3 million customers. This reservoir has a maximum capacity of 10 months water supply for EBMUD EBMUD Drinking water supplied to the East Bay is transferred from the Pardee Reservoir by the 2.2 mile Pardee tunnel to the Mokelumne Aqueducts. The Mokelumne Aqueducts transport water 82 miles to the East Bay. The Aqueducts consist of 3 steel pipelines ranging in diameter from 5 feet 5 inches to 7 feet 3 inches in diameter. The Aqueducts carry 200 million gallons/day (MGD) by gravity flow but can be increased to 325 MGD with pumping.
    [Show full text]
  • A.12 Central Valley Steelhead
    Appendix A. Species Account Butte County Association of Governments Central Valley Steelhead A.12 Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) A.12.1 Legal and Other Status The Central Valley steelhead evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)1 was federally listed as threatened on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347). This listing included, “only natural spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally and manmade impassable barriers (e.g., impassible waterfalls and dams)... in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries” (63 FR 13347). Steelhead in San Pablo and San Francisco Bays and their tributaries were not included in this ESU. On June 14, 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed that all West Coast steelhead be reclassified from ESUs to Distinct Population Segments (DPS)2 and proposed to retain Central Valley steelhead as threatened (69 FR 33102). Threatened status of the Central Valley DPS was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). This decision included the Coleman National Fish Hatchery and Feather River Hatchery steelhead populations. Although previously included in the ESU, these populations were not deemed essential for conservation and were, therefore, not included in the listed steelhead population. Critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead was designated throughout the Central Valley on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). Critical habitat was further characterized in the Federal Register Final Rule for steelhead on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Critical habitat for the species is divided into 22 hydrologic units by watersheds. Of these, two occur in Butte County and include the Marshville and Butte Creek Hydrologic Units.
    [Show full text]
  • In of T Alifornia
    IN OF T NTRAL VALLEV, ALIFORNIA, TUBE MAPS AND S ONS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1401-C Geology of the Fresh Ground-Water Basin of the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and Sections By R. W. PAGE REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1401-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1986 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Page, R. W. Geology of the fresh ground-water basin of the Central Valley, California. (Regional aquifer-system analysis) (U.S. Geological Survey professional paper ; 1401-C) Bibliography: p. C50 Supt. of Docs, no.: I. 19.16:1401-C 1. Geology California Central Valley (Valley) 2. Water, Underground California Central Valley (Valley) I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1401-C. QE90.C46P34 1985 557.94'5 85-600316 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD THE REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS PROGRAM The Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) Program was started in 1978 following a congressional mandate to develop quantitative appraisals of the major ground-water systems of the United States. The RASA Program represents a systematic effort to study a number of the Nation's most important aquifer systems, which in aggregate underlie much of the country and which represent an important component of the Nation's total water supply. In general, the boundaries of these studies are identified by the hydrologic extent of each system and accordingly transcend the political subdivisions to which investigations have often arbitrarily been limited in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 15B - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information
    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 15b - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15b 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 15b - Animals of Conservation Concern, Supplemental Information Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.15b The Ecology Graduate Student Project Collective (Jessica Blickley, Esther Cole, Stella Copeland, Kristy Deiner, Kristen Dybala, P. Bjorn Erickson, Rebecca Green, Katie Holzer, Chris Mosser, Erin Reddy, Meghan Skaer, Jamie Shields, Anna Steel, Zachary Steel, Evan Wolf) University of California, Davis Graduate Group in Ecology One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Mark W. Schwartz University of California, Davis John Muir Institute of the Environment One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 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.
    [Show full text]