DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Compatibility Determination for Fish Stocking at Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Compatibility Determination for Fish Stocking at Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge DRAFT Compatibility Determination for Fish Stocking at Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon Date Established: 1909 Establishing and Acquisition Authorities Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge (E.O. 7691). In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. Refuge Purposes “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]). “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary … may accept and use … real … property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k- 460k-4], as amended). National Wildlife Refuge System Mission The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee et seq.]). Description of Use: The Service coordinates with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) on management of sport fisheries, and fishing seasons and regulations at Deer Flat NWR. The statewide, multi-year Fisheries Management Plan provides guidance and policy direction to fishery biologists for each major river basin in Idaho (IDFG 2019a). IDFG has also prepared the Lake Lowell Fisheries Management Plan (IDFG 2019b). IDFG’s fishery management activities on the Refuge include regulating harvest, fish population monitoring, and fish stocking. Fish stocking of the Refuge’s Lake Lowell Unit by IDFG in support of sport fishing was included in the Refuge’s CCP (USFWS 2015), which states: “The Refuge will continue to coordinate with IDFG on the stocking of the following fish species at the Lake Lowell Unit: largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, black crappie, yellow perch, rainbow trout, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. Stocking of any other fish species will require additional planning.” Because Lake Lowell is an artificially created off-channel reservoir, no fish were originally native to its waters. Fish occurring in the lake were introduced intentionally or unintentionally, or entered the lake via entrainment. The current practice of stocking nonnative fish is inconsistent with USFWS policies (7 RM 10 and 601 FW 3). However, fish native to Idaho and naturalized species that have been historically stocked species come as close to meeting the policy as possible given the human- made quality of the lake (CCP; USFWS 2015). IDFG’s fish stocking program supports recreational fishing on the Refuge’s Lake Lowell Unit, a compatible, priority public use. Due to its proximity to Idaho’s population center, Lake Lowell receives substantial fishing pressure, with largemouth bass being of primary interest to recreational and tournament anglers (IDFG 2009). Currently, spring and summer fishing on Lake Lowell focuses on large and smallmouth bass from boats. The majority of bank fishing is focused on catfish. Panfish (black crappie, bluegill, and yellow perch) are also popular despite widely fluctuating populations that have led to inconsistent use (USFWS 2015). Fish stocking of Lake Lowell has occurred by two entities, the U.S. Fish Commission in the early 1900s, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Historical stocking records for Lake Lowell prior to the late 1960s are incomplete. Stocking and translocation records from 1967 on are available at https://idfg.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingPlanner/stocking/ (IDFG n.d.). The lake has been stocked by IDFG with species both nonnative (i.e., channel catfish, black crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass) and native (i.e., Lahontan cutthroat and rainbow trout from hatchery sources) to Idaho. Plants of Lahontan cutthroat trout fingerlings have ranged from 40,000 to 103,000 annually, but this species has not been stocked in the lake since 2009 (IDFG n.d.). Since 2003, approximately 6,000 to 10,000 fingerling channel catfish have been planted annually. This is the only species that has been planted in Lake Lowell since 2010. In the last decade, most stocking in Lake Lowell has occurred between May 1 and August 1 (IDFG n.d.). Changes to Described Use IDFG would provide additional sport fishing opportunities in Lake Lowell by adding one species, tiger muskellunge (Esox masquinongy x E. lucius), to species that may be stocked in Lake Lowell (IDFG 2019b). Tiger Muskellunge are preferred over their parental species due to their superior performance under hatchery conditions (Graff 1978; Pecor 1978) and because of sterility (Crossman and Buss 1965). Sterility allows agencies to stock tiger muskellunge with no threat of creating self- sustaining populations. Tiger muskellunge would also exert additional predation pressure on carp and sucker in Lake Lowell (IDFG 2019b). Generally, tiger muskellunge are stocked at rates of 1-2 fish per hectare (ha). However, due to the large size of Lake Lowell (10,000 ac/4,000 ha) and limited availability of hatchery stock, IDFG plans to stock 1,000-2,000 hatchery-raised juvenile tiger muskellunge per stocking event, which would equal a stocking density of 0.25 to 0.50 fish per ha. Stocking would occur annually if fish are available; however, stocking may occur only every other year due to intermittent availability. Tiger muskellunge will be acquired from other states, most likely Nebraska or Wyoming. Prior to importation, the rearing source would be certified as disease free under the guidelines outlined in the American Fisheries FHS Blue Book (AFS-FHS 2016) by the rearing or exporting agency. Transportation would occur in well water to eliminate the potential for any water-borne contamination. After importation, the next step(s) would depend on fish size. If tiger muskellunge were approximately 250 mm or longer, stocking would proceed immediately during spring-summer, as fish would be long enough (250-300 mm) to avoid significant largemouth bass predation (Stein et al. 1981). If average fish length were less than 250 mm, tiger muskellunge would need to be reared for additional time at an IDFG facility. Each tiger muskellunge will be measured and tagged with a passive integrated transponder (PIT tag) prior to stocking to allow estimation of survival and growth rates if encountered during periodic fisheries assessment efforts (IDFG 2019b). Availability of Resources Fish stocking and associated monitoring is conducted by IDFG; therefore, no Refuge resources are required for this use. Refuge staff time is required to coordinate with IDFG. There are sufficient resources to conduct the use. Anticipated Impacts of the Use Impacts to Habitat and the Fish Community The most recent comprehensive survey (2006) documented presence of 12 fish species in Lake Lowell. Nine of these species are considered introduced game fish, including brown bullhead (Ameirus nebulosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) , bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu), white crappie (P. annularis), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) (Kozfkay et al. 2007). For the most part, these species are self-sustaining. IDFG monitors harvest and fish populations in the lake (IDFG 2019a). Refuge fishing regulations and harvest are coordinated with the IDFG to avoid excess pressure on populations. Idaho’s Fisheries Management Plan (IDFG 2019a) also lists rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss) and Lahontan cutthroat trout (O. clarkii) as occurring in Lake Lowell. Two other species are considered native to the Boise River drainage, largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) and redside shiner (Richardsonius
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crows and Ravens Wildlife Notes
    12. Crows & Ravens Crows and ravens belong to the large family Corvidae, along with more than 200 other species including jays, nutcrackers and magpies. These less-than-melodious birds, you may be surprised to learn, are classified as songbirds. raven American Crow insects, grain, fruit, the eggs and young of other birds, Crows are some of the most conspicuous and best known organic garbage and just about anything that they can find of all birds. They are intelligent, wary and adapt well to or overpower. Crows also feed on the carcasses of winter – human activity. As with most other wildlife species, crows and road-killed animals. are considered to have “good” points and “bad” ones— value judgements made strictly by humans. They are found Crows have extremely keen senses of sight and hearing. in all 50 states and parts of Canada and Mexico. They are wary and usually post sentries while they feed. Sentry birds watch for danger, ready to alert the feeding birds with a sharp alarm caw. Once aloft, crows fly at 25 Biology to 30 mph. If a strong tail wind is present, they can hit 60 Also known as the common crow, an adult American mph. These skillful fliers have a large repertoire of moves crow weighs about 20 ounces. Its body length is 15 to 18 designed to throw off airborne predators. inches and its wings span up to three feet. Both males Crows are relatively gregarious. Throughout most of the and females are black from their beaks to the tips of their year, they flock in groups ranging from family units to tails.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting Deer in California
    HUNTING DEER IN CALIFORNIA We hope this guide will help deer hunters by encouraging a greater understanding of the various subspecies of mule deer found in California and explaining effective hunting techniques for various situations and conditions encountered throughout the state during general and special deer seasons. Second Edition August 2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME L. Ryan Broddrick, Director WILDLIFE PROGRAMS BRANCH David S. Zezulak, Ph.D., Chief Written by John Higley Technical Advisors: Don Koch; Eric Loft, Ph.D.; Terry M. Mansfield; Kenneth Mayer; Sonke Mastrup; Russell C. Mohr; David O. Smith; Thomas B. Stone Graphic Design and Layout: Lorna Bernard and Dana Lis Cover Photo: Steve Guill Funded by the Deer Herd Management Plan Implementation Program TABLE OF CON T EN T S INTRODUCT I ON ................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: THE DEER OF CAL I FORN I A .........................................................................................................7 Columbian black-tailed deer ....................................................................................................................8 California mule deer ................................................................................................................................8 Rocky Mountain mule deer .....................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • Carpals and Tarsals of Mule Deer, Black Bear and Human: an Osteology Guide for the Archaeologist
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship 2009 Carpals and tarsals of mule deer, black bear and human: an osteology guide for the archaeologist Tamela S. Smart Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Smart, Tamela S., "Carpals and tarsals of mule deer, black bear and human: an osteology guide for the archaeologist" (2009). WWU Graduate School Collection. 19. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/19 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non-exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWu. I represent and warrant this is my original work, and does not infringe or violate any rights of others. I warrant that I have obtained written permissions from the owner of any third party copyrighted material included in these files. I acknowledge that I retain ownership rights to the copyright of this work, including but not limited to the right to use all or part of this work in future works, such as articles or books.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W
    Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W. Rideout, Wildlife Biologist, Texas Parks and Wildlife 1. Do not try to carry more cattle arrowleaf clover and ryegrass to than the land can support over the benefit cattle and deer. long term. Graze native pastures on a rotating basis wherever 5. Minimize use of herbicides in possible, resting pastures for at pastures. Mowing or spot treat- 9. Control feral (wild) hogs by least as long they are grazed. ment of undesirable weeds with shooting or trapping whenever Consider using stocker operation 2-4D (1 pt./acre) is preferred over possible. Winter months are most from March through August broadcast spraying. effective to control these direct instead of continuous cow/calf competitors of deer. operation. 6. In May, plant 1-5% of acreage in summer supplemental food plots 10. Do not try to carry more deer 2. Fence off or exclude wooded areas fenced-off/excluded from cattle. Plots than the land can support over the from cattle wherever possible from should be long and narrow, and at long term. Generally, one deer/ mid August through February, least five acres due to usually heavy 10 acres in bottomland and one especially bottomlands to prevent use by deer. Bottomland plots, not deer/25 acres in upland is the competition with deer for browse. subjected to standing water, are recommended carrying capacity in Include in fenced-off areas, one or more productive. A combination of the Post Oak Savannah, depending more acres of native pasture to iron and clay cowpeas, alyce clover on cattle stocking rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Heraldry & the Parts of a Coat of Arms
    Heraldry reference materials The tomb of Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou (died 1151) is the first recorded example of hereditary armory in Europe. The same shield shown here is found on the tomb effigy of his grandson, William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury. Heraldry & the Parts of a Coat of Arms From fleur-de-lis.com Here are some charts from Irish surnames.com, but you can look up more specific information for you by searching “charges” and the words that allude to your ancestors’ backgrounds and cultures, if you prefer. Also try: http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/heraldry/charges/crowns.html for a good reference source on charges. THE COLORS ON COATS OF ARMS Color Meaning Image Generosity Or (Gold) Argent (Silver or White) Sincerity, Peace Justice, Sovereignty, Purpure (Purple) Regal Warrior, Martyr, Military Gules (Red) Strength Azure (Blue) Strength, Loyalty Vert (Green) Hope, loyalty in love Sable (Black) Constancy, Grief Tenne or Tawny (Orange) Worthwhile Ambition Sanguine or Murray Victorious, Patient in Battle (Maroon) LINES ON COATS OF ARMS Name Meaning Image Irish Example Clouds or Air Nebuly Line Wavy Line Sea or Water Gillespie Embattled Fire, Town-Wall Patterson Line Engrailed Earth, Land Feeney Line Invecked Earth, Land Rowe Line Indented Fire Power Line HERALDIC BEASTS Name Meaning Image Irish Example Fierce Courage. In Ireland the Lion represented the 'lion' season, Lawlor Lion prior to the full arrival of Dillon Summer. The symbol can Condon also represent a great Warrior or Chief. Tiger Fierceness and valour Of Regal origin, one of high nature. In Ireland the Fish is associated with the legend of Fionn who became the first to Roche Fish taste the 'salmon of knowledge'.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Rule 8.2 Regulations for Enclosures Preventing The
    RULE 8.2 REGULATIONS FOR ENCLOSURES PREVENTING THE FREE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF WILD ANIMALS. Public Notice W1 3780 is hereby amended. A. Possession of White-tailed Deer 1. No person may possess a live white-tailed deer in Mississippi unless that person possesses a valid permit issued by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP). 2. No person may sell a live white-tailed deer pursuant to Section 49-7-51, Mississippi Code of 1972. 3. Orphaned and Injured White-tailed Deer: Orphaned or injured white-tailed deer may not be placed in high-fenced enclosures without written permission from the MDWFP. B. Facility Permit 1. The owner of a high-fenced enclosure containing white-tailed deer must obtain an annual Facility Permit from the MDWFP. 2. The fee for a Facility Permit shall be Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per year for high-fenced enclosures containing 300 acres or less. The fee for a Facility Permit shall be One Dollar ($1.00) per enclosed acre for high-fenced enclosures containing more than 300 acres. 3. The permit will be valid from July 1 through June 30. 4. Additional commercial enclosure fees may apply pursuant to Section 49-11-5, Mississippi Code of 1972. C. Enclosure Size 1. All high-fenced enclosures constructed for the purpose of confining white-tailed deer only or confining both white-tailed deer and non-native ungulates after the adoption of this rule, must contain a minimum of 300 contiguous acres of which at least 50 percent of the total enclosed area must contain suitable habitat for white-tailed deer and is not susceptible to flooding under ordinary conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Deer Legislation
    Introduction This guide describes the general principles of the law relating to wild deer, it is not a full description of It is therefore advisable to carry written permission that law. It is important to study the full legislation as proof of your right to be on the land. to which this guide relates (see Further Information) Practitioners need to be fully conversant with current Exemptions. An offence is not committed if the legislation in order to make informed management perpetrator did so in the belief that he would have decisions and be sure that their actions are legal. been given consent if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances, or he has other The following defi nitions apply: lawful authority. “Deer” means deer of any species and includes the Ownership of deer. Deer which can roam carcass or any part thereof freely are wild animals and are not owned by, or “Night” means the period between 1 hour after the responsibility of, anyone. A wild deer becomes sunset and 1 hour before sunrise the property of the landowner when “reduced into “Vehicle” includes any vehicle including aircraft, possession” i.e. killed or captured, thus a culled deer hovercraft or boat is the property of the owner of the land on which it dies, a deer killed in a road accident is the property The law specifi cally relating to deer in England and of the owner of the highway, verge or land on which Wales is contained in the Deer Act 1991(Deer Act) it falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester Design Standards
    Appendix A Appendix A MANCHESTER DESIGN STANDARDS for the Manchester Village Commercial District Adopted with the 2007 Manchester Community Plan December 2007 A-1 Appendix A TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: THE CHARACTER OF MANCHESTER .......................................... A-4 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE MANCHESTER VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONE (MVC) ......................................................................... A-5 Intent .............................................................................................................................A-5 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................ A-5 Flexibility in Administration ............................................................................................A-5 Applicability....................................................................................................................A-6 Minor Changes ..............................................................................................................A-6 Mandatory Standards and Permissive Guidelines. .......................................................A-6 CHAPTER 3: SITE PLANNING ..................................................................................... A-7 Intent .............................................................................................................................A-7 Building Location and Orientation .................................................................................A-7 Setbacks
    [Show full text]
  • Ruminant Animal? Many Different Species of Ruminant Animals Are Found Around the World
    What is a Ruminant Animal? Many different species of ruminant animals are found around the world. Ruminants include cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, deer, elk, giraffes and camels. These animals all have a digestive system that is uniquely different from our own. Instead of one compartment to the stomach they have four. Of the four compartments the rumen is the largest section and the main digestive centre. The rumen is filled with billions of tiny microorganisms that are able to break down grass and other coarse vegetation that animals with one stomach (including humans, chickens and pigs) cannot digest. Ruminant animals do not completely chew the grass or vegetation they eat. The partially chewed grass goes into the large rumen where it is stored and broken down into balls of “cud”. When the animal has eaten its fill it will rest and “chew its cud”. The cud is then swallowed once again where it will pass into the next three compartments—the reticulum, the omasum and the true stomach, the abomasum. Dairy calves have a four-part stomach when they are born. However, they function primarily as a monogastric (simple-stomached) animal during the first part of their lives. At birth the first three compartments of a calf’s stomach—rumen, reticulum, and omasum—are inactive and undeveloped. As the calf grows and begins to eat a variety of feeds, its stomach compartments also begin to grow and change. The abomasum constitutes nearly 60 percent of the young calf’s stomach, decreasing to about 8 percent in the mature cow. The rumen comprises about 25 percent of the young calf’s stomach, increasing to 80 percent in the mature cow.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Michigan Black Bear Digest
    2021 Michigan Black Bear Digest Reminders • NEW Season date changes for hunt periods 1 and 2; see page 11. • NEW Bait barrels no longer allowed on DNR-managed lands. • NEW Archery-only season in Baldwin and Gladwin bear management units. Drawing results available July 6. Application Period: May 1 - June 1, 2021 RAP (Report All Poaching): Call or text - (800)-292-7800 Table of Contents Managing Black Bears ......................................................................3 Black Bear Management ......................................................................3 Bear Drawing and Preference Point System .......................................5 2021 Hunting Information ................................................................6 How to Apply for a Limited License Hunt .............................................6 2021 Bear Hunts ................................................................................11 License Purchase ................................................................................14 Leftover Licenses ................................................................................15 Mentored Youth Hunting .....................................................................16 Apprentice Hunting License ...............................................................16 Bear Hunt Transfer Program ...............................................................17 Hunting Hours .....................................................................................18 Hunting Methods .................................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Mountain Wildlife Management Area
    Bird Mountain Wildlife Management Area General Description of the parents. The peregrine falcon was listed as both a Bird Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is a state and federal endangered species. 770-acre parcel of land owned by the State of Vermont and DDT was banned in 1972. With that and the help of an managed by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. The intense captive breeding program, peregrine falcons have WMA is located approximately six miles west of the city of made a dramatic recovery. The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Rutland. It lies within the towns of Ira, Castleton and Department, in cooperation with the Peregrine Fund and the Poultney. Vermont Institute of Natural Science, released 93 young birds between 1982-87. By 1989, Bird Mountain once History again had peregrine falcons nesting on its rocky ledges. The The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department purchased state’s population has steadily increased, and in 2002 this land from H. Tyler Benner, Jr. in 1976. The WMA’s reached a high of 30 breeding pairs. They were removed name is derived from the prominent 2,216-foot rock outcrop from the federal endangered species list in 1999 and the known as “Birdseye Mountain.” A portion of this mountain state endangered species list in 2005. is publicly owned and occupies the northeast corner of the The relatively diverse habitats on the parcel provide WMA. opportunities to encounter numerous other species of birds. The abundance of early successional habitat preferred by ruffed grouse and woodcock accounts for their relatively Habitat Features high numbers. Turkeys are often found on Bird Mountain Bird Mountain WMA is situated within the Western WMA, which is in the heart of prime turkey range.
    [Show full text]