Conservation Post
-
In February of 2001, Inyo National Forest issued a Decision Notice that implemented a 10-year period of rest on the Templeton and Whitney grazing allotments in the Golden Trout Wilderness to facilitate recovery of watershed and channel conditions. The Notice indicated that grazing on the two allotments would be reconsidered at the end of the 10-year period. The Inyo National Forest has initiated an analysis and review of the Monache, Mulkey, Templeton and Whitney grazing allotments in the Kern Plateau/Golden Trout Wilderness on the Mt Whitney Ranger District. This review will culminate in proposed actions that are analyzed through the NEPA process (EIS) that involves analyzing different alternatives to the proposed action, requires public notice and comment, and results in a NEPA decision. Final NEPA decisions are subject to administrative appeal.
SWC-FFF is providing this webpage as a resource for those interested in this important issue.
"Source of Map: California Golden Trout Conservation Assessment and Strategy, page 22
USFS Inyo National Forest Webpage for Kern Plateau Grazing Assessment
http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=34380 This page is the central link for the Forest Service studies and reports. Information regarding the NEPA review process is available at this site.DFG Resources, Studies, and Reports:
DFG Golden Trout Homepage:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/REsources/WildTrout/WT_CaGoldenDesc.aspPister 2008 Golden Trout report:
Restoration of the California golden trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004 (PDF)
This report provides an excellent history of the restoration efforts for the golden trout.Weaver, J. and Mehalick, S. Golden Trout Wilderness summary report 2008. California Department of Fish and Game. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=31252 Fish and fish habitat survey results for Golden Trout Creek, Siberian Creek, Stokes Stringer, and Mulkey Creek.
Weaver, J. and Mehalick, S. South Fork Kern River summary report 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=29689 Fish and fish habitat survey results for South Fork Kern River and tributaries in Monache and Strawberry Meadows.
Additional Research Reports and Websites
David B. Herbst, Michael T. Bogan, Sandra K. Roll and Hugh D. Safford. Effects of livestock exclusion on in-stream habitat and benthic invertebrate assemblages in mountain streams Freshwater Biology (2012) 57, 204–217.
Andrew Skaggs California Golden Trout Literature Review May 2013
Website for UC Davis Genomics Variations Lab. Reports available at:
http://genome-lab.ucdavis.edu/People/Stephens/Research%20Golden%20Trout2.htmWebsite for publications by Roland Knapp:
http://vesr.ucnrs.org/pages/knapp/publications/publications.htmlPublications by Kathleen Matthews:
Roland A. Knapp, Vance T. Vredenburg, and Kathleen R. Matthews. Effects of Stream Channel Morphology on Golden Trout Spawning Habitat and Recruitment. Ecological Applications (1998) 8(4): 1104-1117.
Roland A. Knapp and Kathleen R. Matthews. Livestock Grazing, Golden Trout, and Streams in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California: Impacts and Management Implications. N. American Journal of Fisheries Management (1996) 16: 805-820.
Kathleen Matthews. Habitat Selection and Movement Patters of California Golden Trout in Degraded and Recovering Stream Sections in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California. N. American Journal of Fisheries Management (1996) 16-579-590.
Kathleen R. Matthews. Diel Movement and Habitat Use of California Golden Trout in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (1996) 125: 78-86.Kathleen R. Matthews. California Golden Trout and Climate Change: Is Their Stream Habitat Vulnerable to Gobal Warming? Wild Trout X Symposium – Conserving Wild Trout (2010)
General References:Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the California Golden Trout, 2004. CA DFG, USFS, and USFWS. Available at: http://www.tucalifornia.org/cgtic/GTCAssessmnt&Strategy9-04.pdf
Calfornia Golden Trout Does Not Warrant Listing Under the Endangered Species Act
http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=287 This is a brief summary of the federal decision.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-11/html/2011-25652.htm This is a link to federal listing decision in the Federal Register.
Other Useful links:
Golden Trout Project website: http://www.californiagoldentrout.org
-
In the fall of 2012 the Southwest Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, now the Southwest Council of Fly Fishers international (SWCFFI), did a Fly Fishing Faire in Mammoth Lakes, California. At the Faire Dawne Emery, from the CADFW, gave a talk about Silver Creek on the recovery efforts for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT). Dawne talked about how brook trout were illegally put in the creek and killing off the LCT by predation. At the Faire we did a fishing sur-vey on Silver Creek. Debbie Sharpton, the Southwest Conservation Coordinator, asked Dawne if the next year, 2013 the Southwest Council (SWC) could help the CADFW. In f2013 from July to September the CADFW, Caltrout, and the SWC removed brook trout. The SWC, received $5000 each year for the years of 2013 and 2014 from the Sierra Pacific Fly Fishers club to hire an intern. In 2015 the CADFW, Caltrout, Trout Unlimited (TU) and the SWC worked together on the project. In 2016 the CADFW, Trout Unlimited, and the SWC manned the project. In 2017 the CADFW, TU and the SWC continued to work on the project. This project is scheduled to go on for 10 years or until the brook trout are removed. The SWC has been there every year working on the brook trout removal with the CADFW.
-
by Debbie Sharpton
Conservation DirectorThere are many good laws on the books of our society – the Clean Water Act of 1972 is one of them. It’s hard to believe it is over 40 years old, and although the big polluters were the first targets, the hardest one for everyone to get their hands around is what is called “non-point source pollution”. This is the type that comes from many different points instead of one discharge pipe.
In California the State Water Board and its multiple regional water quality control boards are responsible, and under court order, to create and implement the regulations to meet the Clean Water Act objectives. Several regulations have been in place dealing with acceptable levels of pollutants in waters of the state, one being trash. The acceptable level of trash in the water is zero. That’s a pretty lofty goal, but how could anyone say that trash is acceptable at any other level? There was much resistance from the jurisdictional agencies but the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board passed the regulation some time ago. This means that agencies must do their part in cleaning up trash from the waters, if they don’t they stand to be in violation of the regulation and their permits.
Several years ago Erick Burres, Conservation Biologist and head of the State’s Clean Water Team, passed on some great information about how people can be part of the solution. Here is an excerpt form the IBM Research Lab’s internet site about one of the great things Erick is doing;
