DOCSLIB.ORG

Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2013 Disclaimer CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisitions. Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1. Introduction and Planning Background .............................................................................1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for a Plan .....................................................................................................2 1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...........................................................................................4 1.4 The National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................................................4 1.5 Refuge Complex Purpose and Authority .................................................................................6 1.6 Legal and Policy Guidance .........................................................................................................6 1.6.1 The Refuge Improvement Act .......................................................................................6 1.6.2 Refuge System Policies ...................................................................................................7 1.7 Refuge Acquisition History .......................................................................................................7 1.7.1 Hopper Mountain NWR ................................................................................................8 1.7.2 Bitter Creek NWR ..........................................................................................................8 1.7.3 Blue Ridge NWR .............................................................................................................8 1.8 Refuge Management History ....................................................................................................9 1.8.1 Hopper Mountain NWR Management History ...........................................................9 1.8.2 Bitter Creek NWR Management History.................................................................. 11 1.8.3 Blue Ridge NWR Management History .................................................................... 13 1.9 Interim Refuge Goals ...............................................................................................................14 1.10 Refuge Vision Statements ........................................................................................................ 14 1.10.1 Hopper Mountain NWR Vision Statement ................................................................ 14 1.10.2 Bitter Creek NWR Vision Statement ......................................................................... 14 1.10.3 Blue Ridge NWR Vision Statement ............................................................................ 15 1.11 Existing Partnerships ...............................................................................................................15 Chapter 2. Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process ...................................................................... 17 2.1 Overview of the Planning Process and Policies ..................................................................... 17 2.1.1 The Planning Process .................................................................................................... 17 2.2 The Planning Process for Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and Blue Ridge NWRs ...... 19 2.2.1 Public Outreach and Initiation of CCP and NEPA Processes ................................. 19 2.2.2 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities Identified by the Public and the Service .... 19 2.2.3 Public Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Scoping Comments Received ....................................................................................... 20 2.2.5 Development of the Refuge Vision .............................................................................. 26 2.2.6 Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .................................... 26 2.2.7 Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives ........................................... 26 2.2.8 Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action ................................................................... 26 September 2013 Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii Chapter 3. Refuge Resources and Environment .................................................................................. 27 3.0 Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex ......................................................... 27 3.1 Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................... 29 3.1.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 29 3.1.2 Climate and Climate Change ....................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 Historic Role of Fire ...................................................................................................... 35 3.1.4 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................36 3.1.5 Water ...............................................................................................................................38 3.1.6 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................39 3.1.7 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................42 3.1.8 Special Status Species ................................................................................................... 42 3.1.9 Contaminants .................................................................................................................49 3.1.10 Local Population Base ................................................................................................... 50 3.1.11 Industry and Economy ................................................................................................. 50 3.1.12 Land Use .........................................................................................................................51 3.1.13 Public Use .......................................................................................................................51 3.1.14 Structures and Facilities ............................................................................................... 52 3.1.15 Archaeological and Historical Resources ................................................................... 53 3.0 Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 54 3.0.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 54 3.2 Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 60 3.2.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 60 3.2.2 Climate and Climate Change ....................................................................................... 60 3.2.3 Historic Role of Fire ...................................................................................................... 62 3.2.4 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................63 3.2.5 Water ...............................................................................................................................64 3.2.6 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................64 3.2.7 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................67 3.2.8 Special Status Species ................................................................................................... 68 3.2.9 Contaminants .................................................................................................................80 3.2.10 Local Population Base ................................................................................................... 81 3.2.11 Economy .........................................................................................................................81 3.2.12 Land Use .........................................................................................................................82
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FIVE Years of Protecting Wild Places and Wildlife Along California’S Central Coast
    FIVE YEARS OF PROTECTING WILD PLacES AND WILDLIFE ALONG CALIFORNIA’S CENTraL COasT 2004-2009 COMMUNITY REPORT Los Padres ForestWatch is the only nonprofit organization dedicated solely to protecting wildlife habitat and wilderness landscapes in the Los Padres National Forest. Founded in 2004, ForestWatch has safeguarded more than 88,000 acres of these public lands along California’s Central Coast, from the famed Big Sur coastline OUR REGION . 2 to the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Carrizo Plain, to the rugged backcountry of OUR BEGINNINGS . 3 Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and beyond. We have also organized more than OUR GROWING SUCCESS . 4 a dozen habitat restoration projects, improving the health of our region’s largest open spaces and the communities that depend on them. OUR COMMUNITY. 10 OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE . 11 In five short years, ForestWatch has become one of our region’s premier conservation OUR PARTNERS . 12 forces, combining education, advocacy, and science skills with innovative strategy OUR TEAM . 14 and field work. With a solid track record of success, we work tirelessly on behalf of our region’s wild forests, free-flowing rivers, untrammeled chaparral, and the creatures that inhabit these spectacular places. Join us as we share our story… 1 Monterey OUR REGION BIG Sur ADVOCACY KinG City RESToraTION OUTREacH Dear Friends, The great scientist and writer Aldo Leopold urged us to look beyond ourselves when he wrote, “A thing is right when it CAMBRIA tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” As Leopold knew well, the world of scientific complexity, CarriZO PLain competing land uses, and shifting politics often makes it hard San Luis ObisPO to see how things tend.
    [Show full text]
  • Campground East of Highway
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide California Byway Highway # "Route 33--Jacinto Reyes Scenic Byway" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Start of Jacinto Reyes Start of Jacinto Reyes Scenic Byway, at the Junction of State Route Scenic Byway #150, near Ojai, California, a small town in Ventura County, California, where a Tennis Academy (Tenis Akademia Kilatas) is situated, and near Mira Monte, California. This road lies just across Ojai Valley Inn and Spa on the State Route #150 Altitude: 771 feet 0.0 Altitude: 3002 feet 0.7 East ElRoblar Drive East ElRoblar Drive, Cuyama Road, Meiners Oaks, California, located in Ventura County, California on State Route 33, Ojai Valley Community Hospital Altitude: 751 feet 1.5 North La Luna Avenue Fairview Road goes east-north to Camp Ramah, a Jewish summer camp in Ojai, CA. To the south, North La Luna Avenue becomes S La Luna Avenue and terminates at CA State Highway 150. Altitude: 797 feet 2.5 Cozy Ojai Road/Forest This road runs into Los Padres National Forest. Altitude: 833 feet Route 5N34 3.9 Camino Cielo A spectacular view of Kennedy Canyon is offered from here on the Jacinto Reyes Scenic Byway, in California. Altitude: 912 feet 4.2 Matilija Hot Springs Road To Matilija Lake. Altitude: 955 feet 4.2 North Fork Matilija Creek, Crossing. Altitude: 958 feet CA 4.9 Matilija Canyon Road To Matilija Lake. Altitude: 1178 feet 6.4 Nordhoff Ridge Road Nordhoff Fire Tower, Wheeler Springs, California. Altitude: 1486 feet 7.7 Blue Mist Water Fall On State Highway #33 in Los Padres National Forest Area, California.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
    UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title Archaeoastronomical Implications of a Northern Chumash Arborglyph Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/94n052j7 Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 29(1) ISSN 0191-3557 Authors Saint-Onge, Rex W., Sr. Johnson, John R. Talaugon, Joseph R. Publication Date 2009 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology\6OL .O \PPn Archaeoastronomical Implications of a Northern Chumash Arborglyph REX W. SAINT-ONGE, SR. Confdential Environmental, P.O. Box 180, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0180 JOHN R. JOHNSON Department of Anthropology, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Rd., Santa Barbara, CA 93105 JOSEPH R. TALAUGON Chumash Contributor, Guadalupe Cultural Arts and Education Center, 1065 Guadalupe Street, Guadalupe, CA 93434 The frst known Chumash tree carving from south-central California was recently discovered in the Santa Lucia Range of San Luis Obispo County. We present Saint-Onge’s hypothesis that the principal symbolic element of this arborglyph represents Ursa Major, known as ’ilihiy, and Polaris (the North Star), known as Shnilemun or the Coyote of the Sky, in Chumash oral literature. Some of the most famous rock art sites in south-central California contain a similar motif. Furthermore, the position of this image at many of these sites appears to be one that affords unobstructed views of the North Star. This research builds upon previous studies of archaeoastronomical links between Chumash ritual and rock art. We present further evidence that periodic celebrations were held in conjunction with certain predictable celestial events throughout the year, and that the symbolism of the counterclockwise rotation of Ursa Major around the North Star was embodied in Chumash ceremonial behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany Geologic Map of the Apache Canyon 7.5
    GEOLOGIC MAP AND DIGITAL DATABASE OF THE APACHE CANYON 7.5’ QUADRANGLE, VENTURA AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA By Paul Stone1 Digital preparation by P.M. Cossette2 Pamphlet to accompany: Open-File Report 00-359 Version 1.0 2000 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U. S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U. S. Government. This database, identified as "Geologic map and digital database of the Apache Canyon 7.5’ quadrangle, Ventura and Kern Counties, California," has been approved for release and publication by the Director of the USGS. Although this database has been reviewed and is substantially complete, the USGS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. This database is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U. S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its use. U.S. Geological Survey 1 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2 West 904 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 1 CONTENTS Geologic Explanation............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3 Stratigraphy................................................................................................................................ 4 Structure ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota Federal Lands
    atlas TM nationalWhere We Are .gov SOUTH DAKOTA FEDERAL LANDS AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS NORTH DAKOTA Bureau of Indian Affairs MT Bureau of Land Management / Standing Rock Wilderness Shadehill Sand Lake Lake Traverse Custer Reservoir Indian Reservation Mud Lake NF Grand NWR Indian Reservation Bureau of Reclamation Grand River R Lake Traverse Buffalo NG Sisseton Department of Defense Custer Grand River MN NF Custer Bison NG Mobridge Selby (includes Army Corps of Engineers lakes) National Forest Aberdeen Fish and Wildlife Service / Wilderness Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Milbank River B Moreau i Forest Service / Wilderness g Cheyenne River Dupree Indian Reservation Gettysburg National Park Service / Wilderness Lake Oahe Redfield Watertown Belle Fourche James Reservoir S Some small sites are not shown, especially in io urban areas. u WY Belle Fourche x MILES Spearfish River 0 20 40 60 80 Sturgis Bear Butte Albers equal area projection Lead Pierre National Wildlife Refuge Fort Pierre Huron R Black Hills Lake i Sharpe Crow Creek v National Forest Ellsworth er Abbreviations Air Force Base Indian Reservation Deerfield Fort Pierre R Rapid City NG iv Flandreau IR IR Indian Reservation Lake Philip Pactola e Madison NF National Forest Mount Rushmore Reservoir r NG National Grassland National Memorial e Buffalo Gap NG Lower Brule Sheridan n NM National Monument n ver Indian Reservation Lake e Ri Chamberlain NP National Park Jewel Cave NM ey Mitchell h e NWR National Wildlife Refuge Wind Cave NP C hit W Badlands Black Hills National Park Sioux Falls National Forest Angostura Badlands Lake Francis Case Reservoir NP Winner Lake Andes Edgemont Mission NWR Pine Ridge Lacreek Rosebud Indian Reservation NWR Indian Reservation Buffalo Gap NG Yankton Pine Ridge Karl E.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism Submitted to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee of the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee of the Judiciary of the United States Senate May 2021 Page 1 of 40 Table of Contents I. Overview of Reporting Requirement ............................................................................................. 2 II. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 III. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2 IV. Strategic Intelligence Assessment ................................................................................................... 5 V. Discussion and Comparison of Investigative Activities ................................................................ 9 VI. FBI Data on Domestic Terrorism ................................................................................................. 19 VII. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 151/Tuesday, August
    43672 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 10, 2021 / Notices technological collection techniques or PRAMain. Find this particular 49 CFR 1544.219. Eligibility is based on other forms of information technology, information collection, OMB control requirements stated in 49 CFR 1544.219. e.g., permitting electronic submissions number 1652–0034, by selecting TSA will gather information, including, of responses. ‘‘Currently under Review—Open for but not limited to, agency name and Public Comments’’ and by using the address, and name of each individual Analysis find function. who will receive the training from law Agency: Department of Homeland FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: enforcement agencies that have Security (DHS). Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, requested the LEOs Flying Armed Title: Office of the Immigration Information Technology (IT), TSA–11, training course. Applicant verification Detention Ombudsman Intake Form. Transportation Security Administration, ensures that only LEOs with a valid OMB Number: 1601–0030. 6595 Springfield Center Drive, need to fly armed aboard commercial Frequency: Every 3 years. Springfield, VA 20598–6011; telephone aircraft receive training. Applicants Affected Public: Members of the come from territorial, tribal, Federal, Public or non-government (571) 227–2062; email TSAPRA@ tsa.dhs.gov. municipal, county, State, and organizations. authorized railroad law enforcement Number of Respondents: 30,000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TSA agencies throughout the country. For Estimated Time per Respondent: 1. published a Federal Register notice, Total Burden Hours: 30,000. more information about the program, with a 60-day comment period soliciting please see https://www.tsa.gov/travel/ Robert Dorr, comments, of the following collection of law-enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump V. Sierra Club, Et
    No. 19A60 In the Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Applicants, v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL., Respondents, _______________________________ RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR STAY _______________________________ Sanjay Narayan Cecillia D. Wang Gloria D. Smith Counsel of Record SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW PROGRAM UNION FOUNDATION 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 39 Drumm Street Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 343-0770 Mollie M. Lee [email protected] Christine P. Sun AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Dror Ladin UNION FOUNDATION OF Noor Zafar NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. Jonathan Hafetz 39 Drumm Street Hina Shamsi San Francisco, CA 94111 Omar C. Jadwat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES David Donatti UNION FOUNDATION Andre I. Segura 125 Broad Street AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES New York, NY 10004 UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS P.O. Box 8306 David D. Cole Houston, TX 77288 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for Respondents CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with United States Supreme Court Rule 29.6, respondents make the following disclosures: 1) Respondents Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition do not have parent corporations. 2) No publicly held company owns ten percent or more of the stock of any respondent. 1 INTRODUCTION Defendants ask this Court, without full briefing and argument and despite their own significant delay, to allow them to circumvent Congress and immediately begin constructing a massive, $2.5 billion wall project through lands including Organ Pipe National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 194/Tuesday, October 9, 2007
    57342 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Notices SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency expected, FEMA asks that comments be leaders and emergency management Management Agency (FEMA) is submitted using this form. practitioners. At the same time, they accepting comments on the draft Docket: For access to the docket to inform emergency management supporting documents to the National read background documents or practitioners, explaining the operating Response Framework (NRF). Composed comments received, go to the Federal structures and tools used routinely by of the Emergency Support Functions eRulemaking Portal at http:// first responders and emergency Annexes, Support Annexes, and www.regulations.gov and search for managers at all levels of government. Incident Annexes, these supplemental docket number FEMA–2007–0007. The Department is providing the documents provide additional guidance Submitted comments may also be current draft of the NRF supplemental that may be used in implementing the inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief documents for public comment; these NRF. Combined with the NRF, these Counsel, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., draft documents do not necessarily documents incorporate lessons-learned Washington, DC 20472. reflect the final policy of the from recent disasters, and articulate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration. The NRF support more clearly the roles of the States, Andrew Slaten, Acting National documents are available online in the tribal, and local jurisdictions and the Response Framework Branch Chief, NRF Resource Center located at http:// private sector to guide a successful Federal Emergency Management www.fema.gov/NRF, and the docket for response to natural disasters or terrorist Agency, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, this notice at www.regulations.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Region of the San Andreas Fault, Western Transverse Ranges, California
    Thrust-Induced Collapse of Mountains— An Example from the “Big Bend” Region of the San Andreas Fault, Western Transverse Ranges, California By Karl S. Kellogg Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5206 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. iii Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Geology of the Mount Pinos and Frazier Mountain Region …………………………………… 3 Fracturing of Crystalline Rocks in the Hanging Wall of Thrusts ……………………………… 5 Worldwide Examples of Gravitational Collapse ……………………………………………… 6 A Spreading Model for Mount Pinos and Frazier Mountain ………………………………… 6 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………………………… 8 References …………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Illustrations 1. Regional geologic map of the western Transverse Ranges of southern California …………………………………………………………………………… 2 2. Simplified geologic map of the Mount Pinos-Frazier Mountain region …………… 2 3. View looking southeast across the San Andreas rift valley toward Frazier Mountain …………………………………………………………………… 3 4. View to the northwest of Mount Pinos, the rift valley (Cuddy Valley) of the San Andreas fault, and the trace of the Lockwood Valley fault ……………… 3 5.
    [Show full text]
  • PREDATION of the ENDANGERED BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD (GAMBELIA SILA) in the SAN JOAQUIN DESERT of CALIFORNIA Author: David J
    PREDATION OF THE ENDANGERED BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD (GAMBELIA SILA) IN THE SAN JOAQUIN DESERT OF CALIFORNIA Author: David J. Germano Source: The Southwestern Naturalist, 63(4) : 276-280 Published By: Southwestern Association of Naturalists URL: https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-63-4-276 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Southwestern-Naturalist on 22 Oct 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Southwestern Association of Naturalists THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 63(4): 276–280 PREDATION OF THE ENDANGERED BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD (GAMBELIA SILA) IN THE SAN JOAQUIN DESERT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID J. GERMANO Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099 Correspondent: [email protected] ABSTRACT—Predation can significantly affect prey populations, which could be significant for recovering species threatened with extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use and Home Range of Long-Nosed Leopard Lizards (Gambelia Wislizenii) in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(2):312–323. Submitted: 2 March 2011; Accepted: 14 July 2011. HABITAT USE AND HOME RANGE OF LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARDS (GAMBELIA WISLIZENII) IN CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, COLORADO 1,3 1 2 ROBERT A. SCHORR , BRAD A. LAMBERT , AND ERIC FREELS 1Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA 2Dolores Public Lands Office, San Juan Public Lands, 100 North Sixth Street, Box 210, Dolores, Colorado 81323, USA 3Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—An understanding of species’ habitat requirements is needed for effective land management decisions, but for many North American reptiles, habitat use information is lacking. Gambelia wislizenii (Long-nosed Leopard Lizard) is a predatory lizard of most North American deserts, and, although common in the interior of its range, appears to be declining at some peripheral populations. To understand habitat use and movement patterns, we used telemetry and two habitat comparison methods to study a G. wislizenii population at the eastern boundary of the range. Gambelia wislizenii home ranges at Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado, are the largest recorded. Habitat analysis using microsite-attribute comparisons and compositional analysis documented second-order habitat preference for Big Sagebrush- or Utah Juniper-dominated landscapes. Gambelia wislizenii were found in areas with moderate shrub and forb cover with much bare ground, but were not found in areas dominated with grass cover. Incorporating management strategies that limit grass encroachment and maintain bare ground cover with moderate tree and shrub cover may help sustain G. wislizenii populations.
    [Show full text]