DOCSLIB.ORG

Trapping Results of the Endangered Key Largo Cotton Mouse and Key Largo Woodrat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trapping Results of the Endangered Key Largo Cotton Mouse and Key Largo Woodrat Trapping results of the endangered Key Largo cotton mouse and Key Largo woodrat Daniel U. Greene and Jeffery A. Gore Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Introduction • Sub-species • Endemic KLCM: Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola • Historically ranged throughout the island • Over two-thirds of historic habitat lost KLWR: Neotoma floridana smalli Population Decline • Concern for population declines in all rodent species in Key Largo since 1970’s • Habitat loss and proposed developments led to Federal listing under the ESA on August 31,1984 • Land purchase: – Majority of North Key Largo protected under State & Federal management Present Habitat • Managed by: – Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical SP – Crocodile Lake NWR • 790-945 ha of upland hardwood hammocks – 851 ha used Habitat Quality • Habitat - range of disturbances • Farming, hurricanes, fire • Fragmentation • 2 inactive military sites • Aquaculture • Residences • Waste transfer station • Large raccoon and feral cat populations • Exotic species • Pythons/boas, iguanas, fire ants, invasive plants Objectives • Develop a standardized methodology for reliably assessing population trends – Based on results from 2007 – Feasible given the personnel & budgetary constraints » Allow for long-term monitoring – 2008-Present – test method • Describe population structure – Fulfill needs in Multi-Species Recovery Plan Methods Stratified Random Design • Randomly selected 34 7 x 7 trapping grids with 10 m spacing (0.36 ha each, 12.24 ha total) Proportional allocation Young - 95 ha (Disturbed >1971) » 6 grids Medium - 325 ha (Disturbed 1940-71) » 12 grids Old - 430 ha (Disturbed <1940) » 16 grids Methods Trapping • 3 sessions in 2007 – 1 March - 11 May – 4 July - 7 Sept. – 29 Oct. - 31 Dec. Methods • Data collected: – Weight, sex, reproductive status, & unique characteristics – ectoparasites – tissue samples • Double marked • PIT tags • Ear tags Methods Data analysis - KLCM • Programs CAPTURE and MARK using Pollock’s Robust Design – Full Closed Captures with Heterogeneity – 23 candidate models incorporating time, behavior, and heterogeneity • Conducted subset analysis in CAPTURE to determine appropriate model(s) Methods • Model averaged – Survival – Emigration and Immigration – Capture and Recapture – Mixture distribution • Goodness of fit • Adjusted variance inflation factor • Calculated effective trapping area • Used mean maximum distance moved (29.62m) to account for an edge effect and to correct the naïve estimates 0.36 ha to 0.56 ha Capture/Recapture Probabilities Parameter Estimate SE L 95% CI U 95% CI Capture Probabilities 0.050 0.046 0.008 0.258 0.387 0.108 0.205 0.606 0.288 0.068 0.174 0.437 0.630 0.121 0.382 0.825 0.229 0.050 0.145 0.341 M 0.760 0.093 0.538 0.896 Recapture Probabilities 1 March-11 May F 0.025 0.146 0.000 1.000 M 0.765 0.069 0.604 0.874 4 July-7 Sept F 0.288 0.054 0.195 0.403 M 0.490 0.066 0.364 0.618 29 Oct-31 Dec F 0.260 0.061 0.159 0.396 M 0.815 0.045 0.712 0.887 Trapping P OF 12 GRIDS 3 sessions in 2007 – 1 March - 11 May – 4 July - 7 Sept – 29 Oct - 31 Dec 10 - 14 March, 2008 8 - 18 Dec 2009 30 Dec 2010 - 9 Jan 2011 KLCM Population Estimates Captures per Minimum # Total Survey Period Trap nights 100 trap known alive Captures nights Barbour and Humphrey Summer 1979 38 93 1,696 5.5 Humphrey May-April 1986 423 1,118 8,956 12.5 Greene et al. 1 March-11 May 2007 93 333 6,664 5.0 Greene et al. 4 July-Sept. 2007 111 486 6,664 7.3 Greene et al. 29 Oct.-31 Dec. 2007 120 721 6,664 10.8 Greene and Gore 8-18 Dec. 2009 65 127 2,940 4.3 Greene and Gore 30 Dec. 2010-09 Jan 2011 80 176 2,940 6.0 *inflated estimate KLCM Density Extrapolations Surveyors Survey Period Mice / hectare Total N Estimate Barbour & Jan-Aug 1979 21.8 - Humphrey Humphrey May-April 1986 21.2 18,000 Sasso & Gaines July 1996-April 9.1 1998 Greene et al. 1 March-11 May 11.7 9,947 2007 Greene et al. 4 July-Sept. 2007 17.5 14,913 Greene et al. 29 Oct.-31 Dec. 23.2 19,757 2007 Greene and Gore 8-18 Dec. 2009 13.5* 11,528* Greene and Gore 30 Dec. 2010 - 9 12.7 10,801 Jan 2011 *inflated estimate KLCM Individuals LOCATION PERIOD Nov-Dec Dec 2010-Jan Grid Ownership Mar-Apr 2007 July-Aug 2007 March 2008* Dec 2009 2007 2011 2 KLH 3 5 8 n/a 7 6 4 KLH 4 10 12 n/a 7 6 9 KLH 9 10 7 n/a 1 2 17 CLNWR 3 6 10 n/a 8 12 19 KLH 8 7 10 n/a 4 6 21 KLH 8 11 10 8 3 6 22 KLH 8 12 10 7 4 7 23 KLH 13 11 9 n/a 5 11 24 CLNWR 11 8 11 n/a 6 12 26 CLNWR 8 8 11 n/a 9 3 30 KLH 7 13 8 n/a 4 5 34 KLH 11 10 14 n/a 7 8 Total 93 111 120 15 65 84 * Indicates a partial sample KLWR Individuals LOCATION PERIOD July-Aug Nov-Dec Dec 2010-Jan Grid Ownership Mar-Apr 2007 March 2008* Dec 2009 2007 2007 2011 2 KLH - - - n/a - - 4 KLH - 1m 1m n/a 1m 1f 9 KLH 1m, 2f 2m, 2f 3m, 1f n/a 1m - 17 CLNWR - 1m - n/a - - 19 KLH - - - n/a 1f 1m 21 KLH 2m 1m, 1f 3m 2m 1m, 1f 1m 22 KLH - 2m 4m, 3f 4m, 2f - - 23 KLH - - - n/a - - 24 CLNWR - - - n/a - - 26 CLNWR - - - n/a - - 30 KLH - - - n/a - - 34 KLH - 1m 1m, 1f n/a - - Total 5 11 17 8 5 3 * Indicates a partial sample Management Recommendations • Resolve or minimize predation impacts, particularly from non-native predators. • Continue monitoring populations to assess long-term fluctuations in population size. – Causation? • Continue restoring impacted habitat and test habitat alterations to determine effects on populations. • Better define habitat used by KLCM and KLWR and highlight management practices that benefit both subspecies. – Connectivity Reintroduction? 1964 April,1988 Jan,1994 Dec, 2010 Recommendations Habitat restoration Acknowledgments Steve Klett, Pat Wells, FAVOR Steven Castleberry and Mike Mengak Jeff Bach, Clay Degayner, Ralph DeGayner, Jessica Demarco, Sarah Dewees, Jim Duquesnel, Janice Duquesnel, Emily Evans, Trudy Ferraro, Mike Gillikin, Alison Higgins, Susan Kolterman, Sandra Sneckenberger, Megan Mayo, Bob McCleery, and Anne Morkill.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ordway- Swisher Biological Station Weekend Lab Field Manual for Wildlife Techniques (WIS 4945C)
    Ordway- Swisher Biological Station Weekend Lab Field Manual For Wildlife Techniques (WIS 4945c) Tentative schedule of activities for Ordway Field trip This schedule is meant to give you a rough outline of the weekend field trip. However it is likely that changes will be made based on conditions in the field, weather, and logistics. The 1s and 2s are to indicate the groups that will be assigned to each activity. Friday Saturday Sunday 7:00 -10:00 1. Small mammals 2. Small mammals 2. Bird/meso-mam. 1. Bird/meso-mam. 10:00-12:30 1. Amphibians 2.Insect lab 2. Insect lab 1. Amphibian 12:30 - 1:30 Lunch/break Clean camp/ Clean Traps/ Depart 2:00-3:30 Arrival/ set up 1 & 2. camp Frogs, gopher 3:30 -4:30 1. S. mammal set tortoise, P. gopher up 2. Amphibians, 4:30-6:00 meso-mammal 2. Small Mammal traps setup 1. Meso mammals /Squirrels 6:00-7:00 Dinner Dinner 7:30- 10:00 1. Call backs, FLIR, 1. Call backs, FLIR, (gators) spotlighting spotlighting 7:45- 10:00 2. Gators 2. Gators (Spotlight) Field Notebook Using a field notebook Being a wildlife professional means that you are a naturalist who makes observations about the natural environment and the interaction among animals, plants and the land. It is through these types of observations that you will develop an understanding of the natural world. These observations can also help us ask questions that lead to scientific research. From Darwin to Leopold on to the present the best method for recording observations, thoughts and activities in the field has been the field notebook.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma Floridana Smalli) Lauren J
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 11-12-2014 Habitat Use of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) Lauren J. Barth Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI14110745 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Barth, Lauren J., "Habitat Use of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli)" (2014). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1644. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1644 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida HABITAT USE OF THE KEY LARGO WOODRAT (NEOTOMA FLORIDANA SMALLI) A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES by Lauren J. Barth 2014 To: Interim Dean Michael R. Heithaus College of Arts and Sciences This thesis, written by Lauren J. Barth, and entitled Habitat Use of the Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli), having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this thesis and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Michael Gaines _______________________________________ Phillip Hughes _______________________________________ Joel Heinen _______________________________________ Jennifer Rehage, Co-Major Professor _______________________________________ Michael Ross, Co-Major Professor Date of Defense: November 12, 2014 The thesis of Lauren J.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminole State Forest Soils Map
    EXHIBIT I Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Lands Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Properties (revised February 2007) These procedures apply to state agencies, local governments, and non-profits that manage state- owned properties. A. General Discussion Historic resources are both archaeological sites and historic structures. Per Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, ‘Historic property’ or ‘historic resource’ means any prehistoric district, site, building, object, or other real or personal property of historical, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. These properties or resources may include, but are not limited to, monuments, memorials, Indian habitations, ceremonial sites, abandoned settlements, sunken or abandoned ships, engineering works, treasure trove, artifacts, or other objects with intrinsic historical or archaeological value, or any part thereof, relating to the history, government, and culture of the state.” B. Agency Responsibilities Per State Policy relative to historic properties, state agencies of the executive branch must allow the Division of Historical Resources (Division) the opportunity to comment on any undertakings, whether these undertakings directly involve the state agency, i.e., land management responsibilities, or the state agency has indirect jurisdiction, i.e. permitting authority, grants, etc. No state funds should be expended on the undertaking until the Division has the opportunity to review and comment on the project, permit, grant, etc. State agencies shall preserve the historic resources which are owned or controlled by the agency. Regarding proposed demolition or substantial alterations of historic properties, consultation with the Division must occur, and alternatives to demolition must be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Ent of the Interior
    United States ent of the interior FiSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 :30m Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 February 9, 2010 Memorandum To: Roxa . 11: David Dell ieid Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Office Subject: Biological opinion addressing effects of issuing a recovery permit (TE206774-0) to Sean Beckmann for research on the Key Largo cotton mouse This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed issuance of a section 10(a)(l)(A) recovery permit to conduct surveys and collect genetic material of the endangered Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypians aflaparicole) (KLCM) Within the hammock habitat on northern Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. This study will examine if anthropogenic habitat fragmentation has led to a decrease in genetic diversity among isolated southeastern cotton mouse populations. The survey protocol employed in these studies may also incidentally trap the endangered Key Largo woodrat (Neoz‘omafloridana smalli) (KLWR). This document is prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 [ISO 1531 et seq.) This biological opinion is based on published literature, research reports, the permit application and subsequent correspondence, telephone conversations, field investigations, the captive propagation and reintroduction plan for the KLWR (Service 2003), and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the South Florida Ecological Services Office (SFESO) in Vero Beach, Fiorida. Consultation History On May 16, 2008, Sean Beckmann of the University of Miami, Florida submitted a recovery permit application to the Service’s Southeast Regional Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Cotton Mouse Peromyscus Gossypinus Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata the Cotton Mouse’S Body Is About Four Inches Long
    cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata The cotton mouse’s body is about four inches long. Class: Mammalia The back has brown fur with black hairs intermixed. Order: Rodentia The belly fur is gray-white. The top of the tail is the same color as the back while the underside is the Family: Cricetidae same color as the belly. The feet are white. ILLINOIS STATUS common, native BEHAVIORS The cotton mouse may be found in the southern tip of Illinois. It lives in swampy woodlands and related brushy areas, bluffs and upland forests. This rodent consumes mostly insects, slugs, spiders and plant material. It climbs well and can swim. The cotton mouse is believed to breed throughout the year. The average litter size is three or four. The nest is placed above ground when possible. Young are born helpless but are ready to live on their own in about four weeks. Sexual maturity is attained about two months after birth. The status of this species in Illinois is unclear. It was not seen from 1909 until the early 1990s when populations were again discovered. It may have been present but misidentified during this time period, or it may have moved into the state again in the early 1990s. ILLINOIS RANGE © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Biodiversity of Illinois. Unless otherwise noted, photos and images © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. © R. W. Van Devender, Mammal Images Library of the American Society of Mammalogists © R. W. Van Devender, Mammal Images Library of the American Society of Mammalogists © Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Key Largo Woodrat Resides in Tropical Hardwood
    Key Largo Woodrat Neotoma floridana smalli he Key Largo woodrat resides in tropical hardwood Federal Status: Endangered (August 31, 1984) hammocks on Key Largo. This small endemic rodent Tonce ranged throughout all of Key Largo, but today Critical Habitat: None Designated is limited to the northernmost portions. Known for its habit Florida Status: Endangered of building large stick houses, Key Largo woodrats depend Recovery Plan Status: Original (May 18, 1999) heavily on the natural vegetation of the tropical hardwood Geographic Coverage: Rangewide hammocks to obtain material for constructing these houses. Although large portions of the remaining habitat are now in Figure 1. Distribution of the Key Largo woodrat; protection, there has been such a reduction in its total range this species is endemic only to Key Largo in the and habitat that the future of this species remains in an Florida Keys. endangered condition. This account represents the range-wide recovery plan for the Key Largo woodrat. Description The color of the Key Largo woodrat is described as sepia or grey-brown above shading into cinnamon on the sides, with cream or white ventral coloration. The forefeet are white to the wrist and the hindfeet are primarily white to the ankles. The Key Largo woodrat has large ears, protuberant eyes, and a hairy tail. The head-and-body-length of the Key Largo woodrat ranges from 120 to 230 mm, their tail length ranges from 130 to 190 mm, and their hindfoot length ranges from 32 to 39 mm. Males, on average, weigh 258 g, while the females tend to be much smaller, weighing only 210 g (Hersh 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Burmese Pythons in South Florida: Scientific Support for Invasive Species Management1 Rebecca G
    WEC242 Burmese Pythons in South Florida: Scientific Support for Invasive Species Management1 Rebecca G. Harvey, Matthew L. Brien, Michael S. Cherkiss, Michael Dorcas, Mike Rochford, Ray W. Snow, and Frank J. Mazzotti2 A Rapidly Growing Problem Burmese pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) are popular pets in the United States because of their attractive color pattern, reputed docility, and the allure (for some) of owning a giant snake. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 99,000 Burmese pythons were imported to the United States between 1996 and 2006 (compared to only 17,000 between 1970 and 1995). The species is classified by the World Conservation Union as “near threatened” in its native range in Southeast Asia due to exportation for the pet trade and hunting for skins. Thousands of pythons are also captive bred each year in the U.S. for sale as pets. Burmese pythons sell at reptile trade shows for as little as $20, and at pet stores for $65-80. An inexperienced snake keeper who takes home a 50-centime- ter (20-inch) hatchling is, within a year, responsible for a brawny 2.4-meter (eight-foot) predator. Unable to handle their giant snakes, and unable to find new homes for them, some owners illegally release them into the wild. Released and escaped Burmese pythons are now breeding in the wild, Figure 19. and their growing numbers may result in dire consequences Credits: Mike Rochford, University of Florida for native wildlife and ecosystems in South Florida. Native to Southeast Asia, Burmese pythons are an exotic (nonnative) species in South Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Pub List 111210
    Jim Boone’s Publications Ph. D. Dissertation Boone, J. L. 1995. Patterns of temporal and geographic variation in the genetics and morphology of cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus). Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, 239 pp. M.S. Thesis Boone, J. L. 1990. Reassessment of the taxonomic status of the Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus anastasae) on Cumberland Island, Georgia, and the implications of this information for conservation. MS Thesis, Univ. of Georgia. 70 pp. B.S. Thesis Boone, J. L. 1986. Morphological differences between populations of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus rubidus) in sand dune and upland habitats. B.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Books Hiatt, H., and J. Boone. 2003. Clark County, Nevada: Species Account Manual. Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada. 218 pp. Refereed Literature Rautenstrauch, K. R., D. L. Rakestraw, G. A. Brown, J. L. Boone, and P. E. Lederle. 2002. Patterns of Burrow Use by Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in Southcentral Nevada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(2):398-405. Boone, J. L., and E. A. Holt. 2001. Field Sexing Young Free-ranging Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) Using External Morphology. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(1):28-33. Boone, J. L., P. E. Lederle, and S. L. Petersen. 1999. More Additions to the Birds of Nevada Test Site. Western Birds, 30:211-213. Laerm, J., W. M. Ford, T. S. McKay, M. A. Menzel, L. T. Lepardo, and J. L. Boone. 1999. Soricid Communities in the Southern Appalachians. Pp. 177-193 in Proceedings of the Appalachian Biodiversity Symposium: Virginia Museum of Natural History, Special Publication Number 7, Blackburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Nest Supplementation As a Recovery Strategy for the Endangered Rodents of the Florida Keys Michael V
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Evaluating nest supplementation as a recovery strategy for the endangered rodents of the Florida Keys Michael V. Cove1,2, Theodore R. Simons3, Beth Gardner4, Andrew S. Maurer5, Allan F. O’Connell6 The Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) and Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola)are federally endangered subspecies endemic to the tropical hardwood hammocks of Key Largo, Florida. Woodrats are considered generalists in habitat and diet, yet a steady decline in natural stick nests and capture rates over the past several decades suggests that they are limited by the availability of nesting habitat due to habitat loss and fragmentation. The more specialized Key Largo cotton mouse appears to rely on old growth hammock, a habitat type that is rare following past land clearing. In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started building supplemental nest structures to restore habitat quality and connectivity for these endangered rodents, but nest use requires evaluation. We used camera traps and occupancy models to evaluate the factors influencing woodrat and cotton mouse use of the supplemental nests. We detected woodrats at 65 and cotton miceat 175 of 284 sampled nest structures, with co-occurrence at 38 nests. Woodrat nest use followed a gradient from low nest use in the north to high nest use in the south, which might relate to the proximity of free-ranging domestic cat (Felis catus) colonies in residential developments. Cotton mouse nest use, however, was related positively to mature hammock and related negatively to disturbed areas (e.g. scarified lands). The two species occurred independently of each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Mice and Mating “Chooser” Mouse in the Middle, but Delaney Explains That This Set-Up Tended to Stress the Mice Out
    RIGHT Now a mental architecture for understanding the capacity for learning depends on their abil- gap between what we understand about the world—in fact, they’re attentive learners. “It ity to grasp abstract relationships: “Infants world and what they understand—there are may be that the reason a baby looks longer have an enormous amount to learn about the nevertheless basic, fundamental relation- when an object seems to go through a wall world, about agents, how they behave, what ships that we may apply to the world in the or when someone chooses a reward that is they want, what they care about. What same way that they do. It may be these rela- less valuable,” Spelke says, “is not that they’re makes that possible? I think it’s possible be- tionships that ultimately are going to help thinking, ‘Something’s wrong here’—but cause they’re able to understand patterns of us understand” why humans are “such in- rather they’re thinking, ‘I must have missed activity in terms of variables like cost and credibly flexible, prolific, creative learners.” something. I didn’t expect that object to go reward.” More ambitiously, infant research vmarina bolotnikova through a wall, so maybe I should pay more may also help bring to light building blocks attention and figure out why that happened.’” of human cognition that cut across human elizabeth spelke website: An immediate implication of the study societies. “Even though infants seem to be harvardlds.org/our-labs/spelke-lab- and others like it, Spelke says, is that infants’ utterly different from us—with this huge spelke-lab-members OUTSIDE THE LOVE BOX mate-choice studies tethered the two “stim- uli”—one mouse from each species—at ei- ther end of a Y-shaped chamber, with a third Of Mice and Mating “chooser” mouse in the middle, but Delaney explains that this set-up tended to stress the mice out.
    [Show full text]
  • Kills Rats, Mice & Meadow Voles*
    ™ CONTRACLABEL ® ALL-WEATHER BLOX ™ KILLS RATS, MICE & MEADOW VOLES* Kills Warfarin Resistant Norway Rats KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN CAUTION See back panels for First Aid and additional precautionary statements. ACTIVE INGREDIENT: NET WT: Bromadiolone (CAS #28772-56-7): . 0.005% OTHER INGREDIENTS†: . 99.995% †Contains Denatonium Benzoate TOTAL 100.000% 18 lbs (8.2 kg) *Not permitted for use against the following species in California: Cotton rat, Eastern harvest mouse, Golden mouse, SPECIMANPolynesian rat, Meadow vole, White-throated woodrat, Southern plains woodrat, and Mexican woodrat. FIRST AID DIRECTIONS FOR USE (Continued from other panel) HAVE LABEL WITH YOU WHEN OBTAINING TREATMENT ADVICE IF SWALLOWED: Burrow baiting with Contrac All-Weather Blox is prohibited. • Call a poison control center, doctor, or 1-877-854-2494, or 1-800-858-7378** immediately for treatment advice. ® • Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not place near or inside ventilation duct openings. Do not contaminate water, food, feedstuffs, food or feed handling • Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. equipment, or milk or meat handling equipment or surfaces that come into direct contact with food. When used in USDA IF ON SKIN OR CLOTHING: inspected facilities, this product must be applied in tamper-resistant bait stations. Do not broadcast bait. Do not use this • Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15–20 minutes. CONTRAC product in sewers. • Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice. ALL-WEATHER BLOX ™ IF IN EYES: Do not sell this product in individual containers holding less than 16 pounds of bait.
    [Show full text]
  • SERDP Project ER18-1653
    FINAL REPORT Approach for Assessing PFAS Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species SERDP Project ER18-1653 MARCH 2020 Craig Divine, Ph.D. Jean Zodrow, Ph.D. Meredith Frenchmeyer Katie Dally Erin Osborn, Ph.D. Paul Anderson, Ph.D. Arcadis US Inc. Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]