DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 23/Thursday, February 4, 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 23/Thursday, February 4, 2010 5732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36. In § 40.329, the section heading Appendix B to Part 40—DOT Drug (b) Uncorrected Flaw (number) and paragraph (b) are revised, to read as Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory or 4. Number of specimens forwarded to an follows: IITF Report to Employers HHS-certified laboratory for additional drug testing and/or specimen validity § 40.329 What information must Laboratory Report to Employer testing. laboratories, MROs, and other service The following items are required on each 39. Appendix C is revised, to read as agents release to employees? laboratory report: follows: * * * * * Reporting Period: (inclusive dates) (b) As a laboratory or IITF, you must Laboratory Identification: (name and address) Appendix C to Part 40—DOT Drug provide, within 10 business days of Employer Identification: (name; may include Testing Semi-Annual Laboratory or receiving a written request from an Billing Code or ID code) IITF Report to DOT employee, and made through the MRO, C/TPA Identification: (where applicable; name and address) Mail, fax, or e-mail to: U.S. Department of the records relating to the results of the 1. Specimen Results Reported (total number) Transportation, Office of Drug and Alcohol employee’s drug test (i.e., laboratory or By Test Reason: Policy and Compliance, W62–300, 1200 New IITF) report and data package). You may (a) Pre-employment (number) Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, charge no more than the cost of (b) Post-Accident (number) Fax: (202) 366–3897, E-mail: preparation and reproduction for copies (c) Random (number) [email protected]. of these records. (d) Reasonable Suspicion/Cause (number) The following items are required on each laboratory report: * * * * * (e) Return-to-Duty (number) (f) Follow-up (number) 37. In § 40.355, the introductory text, Reporting Period: (inclusive dates) (g) Type of Test Not Noted on CCF Laboratory Identification: (name and address) paragraphs (a) through (c), and (number) 1. DOT Specimen Results Reported (number) paragraph (l) are revised, to read as 2. Specimens Reported 2. Negative Results Reported (number) follows: (a) Negative (number) Negative (number) (b) Negative and Dilute (number) Negative-Dilute (number) § 40.355 What limitations apply to the 3. Specimens Reported as Rejected for 3. Rejected for Testing Reported (number) activities of service agents? Testing (total number) By Reason (number) As a service agent, you are subject to By Reason 4. Positive Results Reported (number) the following limitations concerning (a) Fatal flaw (number) By Drug (number) your activities in the DOT drug and (b) Uncorrected Flaw (number) 5. Adulterated Results Reported (number) alcohol testing program. 4. Specimens Reported as Positive (total By Reason (number) (a) You must not require an employee number) By Drug 6. Substituted Results Reported (number) to sign a consent, release, waiver of (a) Marijuana Metabolite (number) 7. Invalid Results Reported (number) (b) Cocaine Metabolite (number) By Reason (number) liability, or indemnification agreement (c) Opiates (number) The following items are required on each with respect to any part of the drug or (1) Codeine (number) IITF report: alcohol testing process covered by this (2) Morphine (number) part (including, but not limited to, (3) 6–AM (number) Reporting Period: (inclusive dates) collections, laboratory or IITF testing, (d) Phencyclidine (number) IITF Identification: (name and address) MRO, and SAP services). No one may (e) Amphetamines (number) 1. DOT Specimen Results Reported (number) 2. Negative Results Reported (number) do so on behalf of a service agent. (1) Amphetamine (number) (2) Methamphetamine (number) Negative (number) (b) You must not act as an Negative-Dilute (number) intermediary in the transmission of drug (3) MDMA (number) (4) MDA (number) 3. Rejected for Testing Reported (number) test results from the laboratory or IITF (5) MDEA (number) By Reason (number) to the MRO. That is, the laboratory or 5. Adulterated (number) 4. Specimens forwarded to an HHS-certified IITF must not send results to you, with 6. Substituted (number) laboratory for additional testing you in turn sending them to the MRO 7. Invalid Result (number) (number) For Drugs (number) for verification. For example, a practice IITF Report to Employer in which the laboratory or IITF For SVT (number) transmits results to your computer The following items are required on each [FR Doc. 2010–2315 Filed 2–3–10; 8:45 am] IITF report: system, and you then assign the results BILLING CODE P to a particular MRO is not permitted. Reporting Period: (inclusive dates) IITF Identification: (name and address) (c) You must not transmit drug test Employer Identification: (name; may include results directly from the laboratory or Billing Code or ID code) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IITF to the employer (by electronic or C/TPA Identification: (where applicable; other means) or to a service agent who name and address) Fish and Wildlife Service forwards them to the employer. All 1. Specimen Results Reported (total number) confirmed laboratory or IITF results By Test Reason: 50 CFR Part 17 must be processed by the MRO before (a) Pre-employment (number) (b) Post-Accident (number) they are released to any other party. [FWS–R2–ES–2009–0077; 92220–1113– (c) Random (number) 0000; ABC Code: C3] * * * * * (d) Reasonable Suspicion/Cause (number) (l) In transmitting documents to (e) Return-to-Duty (number) RIN 1018–AW63 laboratories or IITFs, you must ensure (f) Follow-up (number) that you send to the laboratory or IITF (g) Type of Test Not Noted on CCF Endangered and Threatened Wildlife that conducts testing only the laboratory (number) and Plants; Establishment of a copy of the CCF. You must not transmit 2. Specimens Reported Nonessential Experimental Population other copies of the CCF or any ATFs to (a) Negative (number) of Sonoran Pronghorn in the laboratory or IITF. (b) Negative and Dilute (number) 3. Specimens Reported as Rejected for Southwestern Arizona * * * * * Testing (total number) 38. Appendix B is revised, to read as By Reason AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, follows: (a) Fatal flaw (number) Interior. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:45 Feb 03, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM 04FEP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5733 ACTION: Proposed rule; public hearing, Information Relay Services (FIRS) at guarantee that we will be able to do so. and availability of draft environmental 800–877–8339. Comments and materials we receive, as assessment. Public Hearing: We will hold our well as supporting documentation we public hearing at Logan Auditorium, used in preparing this proposed rule, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Gila Bend High School, 308 North will be available for public inspection Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Martin Avenue, Gila Bend, AZ 85337. on http://www.regulations.gov, or by reestablish the Sonoran pronghorn, a For information requesting reasonable appointment, during normal business federally listed endangered mammal, accommodations to attend the hours, at the Cabeza Prieta NWR or the into its historical habitat in King Valley, information session or hearing, see the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (Kofa PUBLIC COMMENTS section. ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER NWR), in Yuma County, and to the INFORMATION CONTACT). Barry M. Goldwater Range—East FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (BMGR–E), in Maricopa County, in Curtis McCasland, Refuge Manager, Public Hearing southwestern Arizona. We propose to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, 1611 North Second Avenue, Ajo, AZ Persons needing reasonable reestablish the Sonoran pronghorn accommodations in order to attend and under section 10(j) of the Endangered 85321; by telephone (520–387–6483) or by facsimile (520–387–5359). participate in a public hearing should Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), contact the Refuge Manager, Cabeza SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and to classify that reestablished Prieta NWR, at the address or phone population as a nonessential Public Comments number listed in the FOR FURTHER experimental population (NEP). This INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as proposed rule provides a plan for We want the final rule to be as effective as possible and the final EA on possible. In order to allow sufficient establishing the NEP and provides for time to process requests, please call no allowable legal incidental taking of the proposed action to evaluate all potential issues associated with this later than one week before the hearing. Sonoran pronghorn within the defined Information regarding this proposal is NEP area. We have prepared a draft action. Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific available in alternative formats upon environmental assessment (EA) on this request. proposed action. community, industry, and other DATES: We request that you send us interested parties to submit comments Background or recommendations concerning any comments on this proposal by the close Regulatory of business on April 5, 2010, or at the aspect of this proposed rule and the public hearing. We will hold a public draft EA. Comments should be as We listed the Sonoran pronghorn information session from 4:30 p.m. to specific as possible. subspecies (Antilocapra americana 5:30 p.m., followed by a public hearing To issue a final rule to implement this sonoriensis) as endangered throughout from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on February proposed action and to determine its range on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 23, 2010. whether to prepare a finding of no 4001), under the Endangered Species ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You significant impact or an environmental Preservation Act of October 15, 1966, may submit information by one of the impact statement, we will take into without critical habitat. This subspecies following methods: consideration all comments and any was included as an endangered species • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// additional information we receive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GNUSLETTER Volume 37 Number 1
    GNUSLETTER Volume 37 Number 1 ANTELOPE SPECIALIST GROUP July 2020 ISSN 2304-0718 IUCN Species Survival Commission Antelope Specialist Group GNUSLETTER is the biannual newsletter of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Antelope Specialist Group (ASG). First published in 1982 by first ASG Chair Richard D. Estes, the intent of GNUSLETTER, then and today, is the dissemination of reports and information regarding antelopes and their conservation. ASG Members are an important network of individuals and experts working across disciplines throughout Africa and Asia. Contributions (original articles, field notes, other material relevant to antelope biology, ecology, and conservation) are welcomed and should be sent to the editor. Today GNUSLETTER is published in English in electronic form and distributed widely to members and non-members, and to the IUCN SSC global conservation network. To be added to the distribution list please contact [email protected]. GNUSLETTER Review Board Editor, Steve Shurter, [email protected] Co-Chair, David Mallon Co-Chair, Philippe Chardonnet ASG Program Office, Tania Gilbert, Phil Riordan GNUSLETTER Editorial Assistant, Stephanie Rutan GNUSLETTER is published and supported by White Oak Conservation The Antelope Specialist Group Program Office is hosted and supported by Marwell Zoo http://www.whiteoakwildlife.org/ https://www.marwell.org.uk The designation of geographical entities in this report does not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of IUCN, the Species Survival Commission, or the Antelope Specialist Group concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning the delimitation of any frontiers or boundaries. Views expressed in Gnusletter are those of the individual authors, Cover photo: Peninsular pronghorn male, El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (© J.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 87/Thursday, May 5, 2011/Rules
    Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 25593 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Service’s Arizona Ecological Services or result in the destruction or adverse Office at 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, modification of designated critical Fish and Wildlife Service Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: affect activities undertaken on private or 50 CFR Part 17 Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, other non-Federal land unless they are [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0077; Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 authorized, funded, or carried out by a 92220–1113–0000; ABC Code: C3] W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Federal agency. Phoenix, AZ 85021 (telephone 602– Under section 10(j) of the Act, the RIN 1018–AW63 242–0210, facsimile 602–242–2513). If Secretary of the Department of the Interior can reestablish populations Endangered and Threatened Wildlife you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal outside the species’ current range and and Plants; Establishment of a designate them as ‘‘experimental.’’ With Nonessential Experimental Population Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. the experimental population of Sonoran Pronghorn in designation, the relevant population is Southwestern Arizona SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: treated as threatened for purposes of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Background section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species’ designation elsewhere in its Interior. It is our intent to discuss only those ACTION: Final rule. range. Threatened designation allows us topics directly relevant to this final rule discretion in devising management establishing a Sonoran pronghorn SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stopping the Border Wall: Criteria and Priority Areas for Conservation and Restoration
    Stopping the Border Wall: Criteria and Priority Areas for Conservation and Restoration February 23, 2021 This document is endorsed by the following organizations: #NotAnotherFoot Coalition, 350 Central Mass, Animal Welfare Institute, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Arizona Trail Association, Azul, Born Free USA, Center for Biological Diversity, Christian Council of Delmarva, Clean Water Action, Conservation Council For Hawaii, Covenant Tribal Solar Initiative, Defenders of Wildlife, Eagle Pass Border Coalition, Earth Island Institute, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, Endangered Species Coalition, Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest, Inc., Friends of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, Friends of the Earth U.S., Friends of the Sonoran Desert, Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, GreenLatinos, Greenvironment, LLC, Hands Across the River, Harambee House, inc/ Citizens For Environmental Justice, Heartwood, Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition (HA-HC), Howling For Wolves, Indivisible Tohono, International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute, Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, NM café, No Border Wall Coalition | Laredo, TX, Northern Jaguar Project, Ocean Conservation Research, Oceanic Preservation Society, OneNature, Partnership for the National Trails System, Predator Defense, Progress Arizona, ProgressNow New Mexico, Project Coyote, Rachel Carson Council, Raptors Are The Solution,
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana Sonoriensis) on an Active Air Force Tactical Range
    DISTRIBUTION OF SONORAN PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA SONORIENSIS) ON AN ACTIVE AIR FORCE TACTICAL RANGE by Samuel C. Price A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY) May 2015 Copyright 2015 Samuel C. Price ii DEDICATION I dedicate this document to my parents for their continuous encouragement throughout my education, and to my fiancé for her sacrifice of time, and her dealing with a grouchy and tired me. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisor Nicole Tautfest for helping and recommending ideas while planning the early stages of this project. I also thank those up at Luke AFB who agreed to let me use these data for my thesis, specifically Aaron Alvidrez, whom I was in contact with. Much thanks as well to my advisor, Dr. Travis Longcore, for being patient with my ever-changing schedule. iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: RELATED WORK 4 2.1 Sonoran Pronghorn 4 2.2 Areas of Intensive use by Sonoran Pronghorn 7 2.2.1 Kernel Density Estimation 7 2.2.2 Hotspots 9 2.3 Maximum Entropy Modelling 10 CHAPTER 3: METHODS 13 3.1 Study Area 13 3.2 Data Collection 14 3.3 Data Analysis 16 3.3.1 Hotspots 17 3.3.2 Maximum Entropy Modelling 18 3.3.2.1 Layer Preparation 18 3.3.2.2 Maxent Settings 21 iv v CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 27 4.1 Hotspots 28
    [Show full text]
  • Species Risk Assessment
    Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Kaibab National Forest: Species Diversity Report Ver. 1.2 Prepared by: Mikele Painter and Valerie Stein Foster Kaibab National Forest For: Kaibab National Forest Plan Revision Analysis 22 December 2008 SpeciesDiversity-Report-ver-1.2.doc 22 December 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: Species Diversity.............................................................................................................. 1 Species List ................................................................................................................................. 1 Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment Sources................................................................................................................ 3 Screening Results.................................................................................................................... 4 Habitat Associations and Initial Species Groups........................................................................ 8 Species associated with ecosystem diversity characteristics of terrestrial vegetation or aquatic systems ......................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Table of Contents
    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Re-Analysis of Cumulative Impacts on the Sonoran Pronghorn ORGAN PIPE CACTUS National Monument • Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Re-Analysis of Cumulative Effects on the Sonoran Pronghorn Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement For the 1997 General Management Plan/ Development Concept Plans For Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Summary At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the National Park Service (NPS) is re-analyzing the cumulative impact of actions on the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriense). The “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. The Sonoran pronghorn is an endangered species that inhabits Sonoran desert habitats found primarily on federally-managed lands in southwestern Arizona, and in northern Sonora, Mexico. Current estimates indicate that approximately 100 pronghorn exist in the United States today. Factors threatening the continued survival of the pronghorn include lack of recruitment (survival of fawns), insufficient forage and/or water, drought coupled with predation, physical manmade barriers to historical habitat, illegal hunting, degradation of habitat from livestock grazing, diminishing size of the Gila and Sonoyta rivers, and human encroachment. The NPS is re-analyzing cumulative impacts on the pronghorn in response to a court order ruling (civil action No. 99-927) that found the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the 1997 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument General Management Plan/Development Concept Plans/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/DCP/EIS) failed to address the cumulative impacts of activities on the pronghorn.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronghorn Workshop
    Proceedings of the 25th Biennial Western States and Provinces PPrroonngghhoorrnn WWoorrkksshhoopp December 10–13, 2012 Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico Proceedings of the 25th Biennial Western States and Provinces Pronghorn Workshop Editors Ryan N. Walker Kevin W. Rodden Published by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Organizing Committee Kevin W. Rodden, Workshop Co-Chair, NMDGF Stewart G. Liley, Workshop Co-Chair, NMDGF Ryan N. Walker, Workshop Co-Chair, NMDGF Darrel L. Weybright, NMDGF Eric M. Rominger, NMDGF Elise J. Goldstein, NMDGF Julie A. Cummings, NMDGF Leland J. Pierce, NMDGF Sponsored by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Arizona Antelope Foundation New Mexico Chapter of The Wildlife Society Artwork by Rita Mae Frey, www.ritasgraphics.com Suggested Citation Walker, R. N., and K. W. Rodden, editors. 2012. Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Biennial Western States and Provinces Pronghorn Workshop. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, USA. The Western State and Provinces Pronghorn Workshop is a biennial event sanctioned by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2 Proceedings of the 25th Biennial Western States and Provinces Pronghorn Workshop Table of Contents Dedication—James D. Yoakum, 1926–2012 ............................................................................................... 5 Technical Session Arizona Antelope Foundation Southeastern Arizona Grasslands Pronghorn Initiative ........... 7 Glen Dickens, John Millican, Caroline Patrick, Shane Stewart, and Tice Supplee Pronghorn (Antilocapra
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert Research Center
    Krausman, Morgart, Harris, O’Brien, Cain III, & Rosenstock In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Sonoran Pronghorn Literature: An Annotated Bibliography Sonoran Pronghorn Literature: An Annotated Bibliography Open-File Report 2005-1265 Southwest Biological Science Center Open-File Report 2005-1265 July 2005 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Sonoran Pronghorn Literature: An Annotated Bibliography By Paul R. Krausman, John R. Morgart, Lisa K. Harris, Chantal S. O’Brien, James W. Cain III, Steve S. Rosenstock. Open-File Report 2005-1265 July 2005 USGS Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources 125 Biological Sciences East U.S. Geological Survey Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 Note: This document contains information of a preliminary nature and was prepared primarily for internal use in the U.S. Geological Survey. This information is NOT intended for use in open literature prior to publication by the investigators named unless permission is obtained in writing from the investigators named and from the Station Leader. Suggested Citation Krausman, P.R., J.R. Morgart, Lisa K. Harris, C.S. O’Brien, J.W. Cain, III, S.S. Rosenstock. 2005. Sonoran Pronghorn Literature: An Annotated Biobliography. USGS Open-File Report 2005-1265. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetic Analysis of Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana Sonoriensis)
    Journal of Mammalogy, 86(4):000–000, 2005 POPULATION GENETIC ANALYSIS OF SONORAN PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA SONORIENSIS) CATHERINE L. STEPHEN,* JAMES C. DEVOS,JR., THOMAS E. LEE,JR., JOHN W. BICKHAM, JAMES R. HEFFELFINGER, AND OLIN E. RHODES,JR. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA (CLS, OER) Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 W Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023, USA (JCD) Department of Biology, Abilene Christian University, Box 27868, Abilene, TX 79699, USA (TEL) Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA (JWB) Arizona Game and Fish Department, 555 North Greasewood Road, Tucson, AZ 85745, USA (JRH) Present address of CLS: Department of Biology, Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT 84058, USA ?1 The endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) consists of only 2 small populations, 1 in Arizona and 1 in Mexico. Mitochondrial DNA sequence data and 5 microsatellite loci were used to compare levels of genetic diversity and differentiation between the 2 Sonoran pronghorn populations and between this subspecies and other selected pronghorn populations, both proximate and distant to the Sonoran pronghorn’s current range. The data support a history of recent isolation of Sonoran pronghorn populations from those in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Loss of genetic diversity due to bottlenecks and drift has been severe in both populations of the Sonoran pronghorn, but is most pronounced in the Arizona population. These results are discussed in terms of conservation management strategies. Key words: Antilocapra, microsatellites, mitochondrial DNA, phylogeography, population genetics, pronghorn antelope, subspecies Four extant subspecies of pronghorns inhabit the open plains In 1967, the Sonoran pronghorn subspecies was listed as of western North America (Lee 1992; Lee et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Adult and Fawn Mortality of Sonoran Pronghorn Author(S): Jill L
    Adult and fawn mortality of Sonoran pronghorn Author(s): Jill L. Bright and John J. Hervert Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(1):43-50. Published By: The Wildlife Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[43:AAFMOS]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/0091-7648%282005%2933%5B43%3AAAFMOS%5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne 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. 06 SC (Bright and Hervert).qxp 6/24/2005 12:28 PM Page 43 SPECIAL COVERAGE 43 Adult and fawn mortality of Sonoran pronghorn by Jill L. Bright and John J. Hervert Abstract We documented adult mortality and fawn recruitment of Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) in Arizona. This population is endangered (N<30) and is decreasing due to low fawn recruitment and adult mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn to Southeastern California
    REESTABLISHMENT OF SONORAN PRONGHORN TO SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA A PROPOSED NONESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION under SECTION 10(j) of the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) • Pronghorn are the only surviving species of the genus Antilocapra and family Antilocapridae, which are endemic to North America Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) • Pronghorn were once as prominent as Bison in North America—from southern Canada to central Mexico • Pronghorn subspecies: I. American Pronghorn (A. a. americana), II.Sonoran Pronghorn (A. a. sonoriensis), and III.Baja California Pronghorn (A. a. peninsularis) American Sonoran Baja California Pronghorn Pronghorn Pronghorn Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) • The smallest and lightest in color of all U.S. subspecies • Native to Sonoran Desert and adapted to hot, arid environments • Diet consists of shrubs, cacti, herbs, and grasses • Threats: • historical – cattle grazing, hunting • today – habitat loss & fragmentation, human activities Sonoran Pronghorn Historical Range History of the Sonoran Pronghorn 1940s – Extirpated from California 1967 -- Listed under Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 2002 -- US population declined from several hundred to 21 animals in 2002 during prolonged drought 2003 - Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) established captive breeding population 2010 – Designated a Nonessential Experimental Population in Arizona 2011 – Established a second captive breeding population at Kofa NWR 2016 – Revised Recovery Plan – with objective
    [Show full text]