The White-Tailed Deer of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The White-Tailed Deer of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona The white-tailed deer of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Henry, Robert Stephen Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 06:35:33 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555138 THE WHITE-TAILED DEER OF THE ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA . by Robert Stephen Henry A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the I SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WILDLIFE ECOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: 9 - & K 1YLE K. SOWLS Date Professor of Wildlife Ecology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided by the National Park Service under contract number CX-8000-6-0040e Additional support and facilities were provided by the Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, at The University of Arizona. I wish to thank superintendent Ray Martinez and the staff at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for their cooperation and assis­ tance throughout this study. The support of Terry Peters, the Resource Management Specialist, was invaluable. I also thank Kevin Coates for his help in the field and lab, Dr. Lyle Sowls for his constant advice and support, and Drs. Paul Krausman and Phil Ogden for reviewing the manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................ vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS....................................... vii ABSTRACT . ............................. viii INTRODUCTION.............. 1 STUDY A R E A .................................................... 3 METHODS AND M A T E R I A L S ........................................ 9 Distribution and Abundance .......... .......... 9 Habitat .................................................. 9 D i e t ............ 10 Water Use ........... ............ ...... 12 Competition ........................................... 12 P r e d a t i o n ............................................... 13 R E S U L T S ................................... 14 Distribution and Abundance ................ 14 H a b i t a t .................... 21 Vegetation ....................... .......... 21 Topography............................................ 2? Diet . ............... 35 Water Use . ................. 40 Waterholes ......................... 40 Behavior at Watering Sites ........................... 43 Interspecific Competition ..................... ..... 45 Predation ........................ 54 Human Interference ......................... ....... 57 Park Visitors .... ................. ....... 57 H u n t i n g .......................... 6l DISCUSSION.................................................... 63 Factors Affecting Present Distribution in Ajos ...... 63 Vegetation............................................ 63 Topography.................... 64 W a t e r ............................................... 65 iv V TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued Page Factors Affecting Abundance ..... ................. 65 Extinction Probability ......................... ....• 68 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 72 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................... 75 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Rainfall, in inches, at four elevations in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, from 1976 to 1978 ........ .. 7 2. Results of three time-lapse camera surveys of waterholes in the A jo Mountains .................................... 20 3. Percentage cover and composition of vegetation in the Bull Pasture study site, Ajo Mountains, Arizona .... 28 4. Percentage cover and composition of vegetation in the North Alamo Canyon study site, Ajo Mountains, Arizona • 30 5» Percentage cover and composition of vegetation in the South Alamo Canyon study site, Ajo Mountains, Arizona . 32 6. Percentage occurrence of plant species in the diet of white-tailed deer in the Ajo Mountains, Arizona, 1976 to 1978 . .......................................... 36 7. Occurrence of plant species in the habitat and in the diet of white-tailed deer in the Ajo Mountains, Arizona, 39 8. Percent composition of major food items in the diets of white-tailed deer and bighorn sheep in the Ajo Moun­ tains, 1976 to 1978 ................................... 51 9. Frequency of prey items in the diet of bobcats and mountain lions in the Ajo Mountains, 1976 to 1978 . 36 10. Number of visitors to the Bull Pasture by month in 1977* 60 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Location of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument ..... 4 2. Distribution of the white-tailed deer in southwestern A r i z o n a .................................................. 15 3. Locations of sightings of white-tailed deer in the Ajo Mountains, June 1976 to July 1978 ................. 18 4. Vegetation types of the Ajo Mountains, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument .................... 22 5. The jojoba-mixed scrub association, Bull Pasture, Ajo Mountains............ ...... ............................. 24 6. The juniper-rosewood relict woodland association, South Alamo Canyon, Ajo Mountains .......... ......... 26 7. Spring #2 Tinaja in the Bull Phsture, Ajo Mountains . 4l 8. Locations of waterholes in the Ajo Mountains .......... 42 9. Time of day of watering of white-tailed deer and bighorn sheep in June and July, 1977 and 1978 ................... 46 10. Locations of sightings of white-tailed deer, mule deer, and bighorn sheep, and approximate range of cattle in the vicinity of the Ajo Mountains, 1976 to 1978 ............. 47 11. Elevations-of sightings of white-tailed deer and bighorn sheep in the Ajo Mountains, 1976 to 1978 30 12. Diet preferences of white-tailed deer (shaded bars) and bighorn sheep ............................................ 32 13. Visitor use of Mount Ajo and the lower Bull Pasture trail, both in the Ajo Mountains ............ 59 vii ABSTRACT A smallt isolated population of white-tailed deer (Odoeoileus virginianus couesi) in the Ajo Mountains of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was studied from June 1976 to July 19?8 to evaluate the fac­ tors influencing their distribution, abundance, and probability of sur­ vival. The population, estimated at 6 to 12 individuals, is separated from the nearest neighboring population by 20 miles of lowland desert. The deer were most commonly observed below 4000 ft elevation, where the vegetation is described as Sonoran desertscrub. Key factors determining suitability of habitat were forage, topography, and water availability. Preferred forage species were abundant throughout the Ajo Range and were not considered to be limit­ ing the deer's distribution. Areas of relatively gentle slope were preferred to steeper, rockier terrain. Permanent water may be the most important factor affecting white-tailed deer distribution in this desert region. Measures of competitive overlap with desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana), indicated that severe competition was probably not occurring. White-tailed and mule deer (0. hemionus crooki) occu­ pied exclusive territories, and thus avoided competition. Range of domestic cattle overlapped that of white-tailed deer only in limited areas. Predation, intraspecific aggression, and human interference viii were suggested as possible factors contributing to deer mortality. Threat of extinction is great due to the extremely wmqll size of the population. INTRODUCTION The Coues white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi Coues and Yarrow) is a common species in most of the higher desert mountain ranges of southeastern Arizona. They are generally found at elevations where there is oak(Quercus)-woodland, pinyon(Firms)-juniper (Juniperus), or other coniferous forest. They are seldom found in desert habitat (White 1957)• National Park Service records (OPCNM wildlife observation cards) indicated that there was a small population of white-tailed deer in the Ajo Mountains, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM), Arizona. This rugged, isolated range rises from less than 2000 ft (610 m) above sea level to a height of 4808 ft (1465 m) on Mount Ajo. The majority of the mountain mass is less than 4000 ft (1220 m ) , and is characterized by desert-shrub vegetation (Brown, Lowe and Pase 1977)i high temperatures, and limited water. Published information on white-tailed deer which inhabit many of the desert mountain ranges in southwestern Arizona is limited. Emory (1857) recorded
Recommended publications
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist
    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plant Press the ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
    The Plant Press THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Volume 36, Number 1 Summer 2013 In this Issue: Plants of the Madrean Archipelago 1-4 Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Conference 5-8 Abstracts of Botanical Papers Presented in the Madrean Archipelago Conference Southwest Coralbean (Erythrina flabelliformis). Plus 11-19 Conservation Priority Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Setting for Arizona G1 Conference and G2 Plant Species: A Regional Assessment by Thomas R. Van Devender1. Photos courtesy the author. & Our Regular Features Today the term ‘bioblitz’ is popular, meaning an intensive effort in a short period to document the diversity of animals and plants in an area. The first bioblitz in the southwestern 2 President’s Note United States was the 1848-1855 survey of the new boundary between the United States and Mexico after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 ended the Mexican-American War. 8 Who’s Who at AZNPS The border between El Paso, Texas and the Colorado River in Arizona was surveyed in 1855- 9 & 17 Book Reviews 1856, following the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Besides surveying and marking the border with monuments, these were expeditions that made extensive animal and plant collections, 10 Spotlight on a Native often by U.S. Army physicians. Botanists John M. Bigelow (Charphochaete bigelovii), Charles Plant C. Parry (Agave parryi), Arthur C. V. Schott (Stephanomeria schotti), Edmund K. Smith (Rhamnus smithii), George Thurber (Stenocereus thurberi), and Charles Wright (Cheilanthes wrightii) made the first systematic plant collection in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. ©2013 Arizona Native Plant In 1892-94, Edgar A. Mearns collected 30,000 animal and plant specimens on the second Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site
    Powell, Schmidt, Halvorson In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site Plant and Vertebrate Vascular U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Open-File Report 2005-1167 Southwest Biological Science Center Open-File Report 2005-1167 February 2007 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt , and William L. Halvorson Open-File Report 2005-1167 December 2006 USGS Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B. F, C. A. Schmidt, and W. L. Halvorson. 2006. Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Fort Bowie National Historic Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals
    J. Ethnobiol. 10(2):169-181 Winter 1990 ANTELOPE, DEER, BIGHORN SHEEP AND MOUNTAIN GOATS: A GUIDE TO THE CARPALS PAMELA J. FORD Mount San Antonio College 1100 North Grand Avenue Walnut, CA 91739 ABSTRACT.-Remains of antelope, deer, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep appear in archaeological sites in the North American west. Carpal bones of these animals are generally recovered in excellent condition but are rarely identified beyond the classification 1/small-sized artiodactyl." This guide, based on the analysis of over thirty modem specimens, is intended as an aid in the identifi­ cation of these remains for archaeological and biogeographical studies. RESUMEN.-Se han encontrado restos de antilopes, ciervos, cabras de las montanas rocosas, y de carneros cimarrones en sitios arqueol6gicos del oeste de Norte America. Huesos carpianos de estos animales se recuperan, por 10 general, en excelentes condiciones pero raramente son identificados mas alIa de la clasifi­ cacion "artiodactilos pequeno." Esta glia, basada en un anaIisis de mas de treinta especlmenes modemos, tiene el proposito de servir como ayuda en la identifica­ cion de estos restos para estudios arqueologicos y biogeogrMicos. RESUME.-On peut trouver des ossements d'antilopes, de cerfs, de chevres de montagne et de mouflons des Rocheuses, dans des sites archeologiques de la . region ouest de I'Amerique du Nord. Les os carpeins de ces animaux, generale­ ment en excellente condition, sont rarement identifies au dela du classement d' ,I artiodactyles de petite taille." Le but de ce guide base sur 30 specimens recents est d'aider aidentifier ces ossements pour des etudes archeologiques et biogeo­ graphiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection
    FI.NAL REP.ORT (R.ESEARCH) State: Alaska Cooperators: Randall L. Zarnke and Kenneth A. Neiland Project No.: W-21-1 Project Title: Big Game Investigations Job No.: l8.1R Job Title: Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of contag1ous Ecthyma Infection Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to J~~? ~0, 1~80 SUMMARY Contagious ecthyma (C. E. ) antibody prevalence in domestic sheep and goats in Interior Alaska du~ing 1978 was quite low (7-10%). This suggested a low level of transmission of the virus among these species during this time period. C. E. antibody prevalence in Dall sheep increased .from 30 percent in 1971 to 100 percent in 1978. This suggested an increased level of transmission to, and/or among, these animals during this period. Following a C.E. epizootic in a band of captive Dall sheep in 1977, antibody prevalence was 80 percent in this group of sheep. Less than l year later, prevalence had dropped to 10 percent in the ·same band. Thus it appeared that antibody produced in response to this . strain of C.E. is short-lived. Antibody was also detected in 10 of 22 free­ ranging muskoxen taken by sport hunters on Nunivak Island in 1978. Detectable antibody levels were not found in any of 19 muskoxen captured on the island in 1979. No antibody was found in a small number of captive muskoxen from Unalakleet. Several of the captive muskoxen were ·known to have been infected with C.E. within 1 to 2 years prior to the time of sampling. This further substantiates the belief that anti­ body produced in response to infection by the Alaskan strain of C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats
    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats Brock Hoenes Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program WACs: 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. 220-415-070 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons and permit quotas. 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons and permit quotas. 1. Special Hunting Season Permits 2. Moose – Status, recommendations, public comment 3. Mountain Goat – Status, recommendations, public comment 4. Bighorn Sheep – Status, recommendations, public comment 5. Questions Content Department of Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL HUNTING SEASON PERMITS White‐Tailed DeerWAC 220-412-080 • Allow successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the Department for any Agree 77% reason two weeks prior to the Neutral 9% opening day of the season and to have their points restored Disagree 14% 1,553 Respondents • Remove the “once‐in‐a‐lifetime” Public Comment restriction for Mountain Goat Conflict • 223 comments, 1 email/letter Reduction special permit category • General (90 agree, 26 disagree) • Reissue permit (67) • >2 weeks (21) • No change (12) Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE • Primarily occur in White‐Tailed DeerNE and north-central Washington • Most recent estimate in 2016 indicated ~5,000 moose in NE • Annual surveys to estimate age and sex ratios (snow dependent) • Recent studies (2014-2018) in GMUs 117 and 124 indicated populations were declining • Poor body condition (adult female) • Poor calf survival • Wolf predation • Tick infestations • Substantial reduction in antlerless permits in 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
    Responses of Plant Communities to Grazing in the Southwestern United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Daniel G. Milchunas General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169 April 2006 Milchunas, Daniel G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-169. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p. Abstract Grazing by wild and domestic mammals can have small to large effects on plant communities, depend- ing on characteristics of the particular community and of the type and intensity of grazing. The broad objective of this report was to extensively review literature on the effects of grazing on 25 plant commu- nities of the southwestern U.S. in terms of plant species composition, aboveground primary productiv- ity, and root and soil attributes. Livestock grazing management and grazing systems are assessed, as are effects of small and large native mammals and feral species, when data are available. Emphasis is placed on the evolutionary history of grazing and productivity of the particular communities as deter- minants of response. After reviewing available studies for each community type, we compare changes in species composition with grazing among community types. Comparisons are also made between southwestern communities with a relatively short history of grazing and communities of the adjacent Great Plains with a long evolutionary history of grazing. Evidence for grazing as a factor in shifts from grasslands to shrublands is considered. An appendix outlines a new community classification system, which is followed in describing grazing impacts in prior sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Cottontail Rabbits
    Cottontail Rabbits Biology of Cottontail Rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as Prey of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Western United States Photo Credit, Sky deLight Credit,Photo Sky Cottontail Rabbits Biology of Cottontail Rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as Prey of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Western United States U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 1, 2, 6, and 8 Western Golden Eagle Team Front Matter Date: November 13, 2017 Disclaimer The reports in this series have been prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Western Golden Eagle Team (WGET) for the purpose of proactively addressing energy-related conservation needs of golden eagles in Regions 1, 2, 6, and 8. The team was composed of Service personnel, sometimes assisted by contractors or outside cooperators. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Suggested Citation Hansen, D.L., G. Bedrosian, and G. Beatty. 2017. Biology of cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as prey of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States. Unpublished report prepared by the Western Golden Eagle Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/87137 Acknowledgments This report was authored by Dan L. Hansen, Geoffrey Bedrosian, and Greg Beatty. The authors are grateful to the following reviewers (in alphabetical order): Katie Powell, Charles R. Preston, and Hillary White. Cottontails—i Summary Cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.; hereafter, cottontails) are among the most frequently identified prey in the diets of breeding golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States (U.S.).
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan
    UTAH BIGHORN SHEEP STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIGHORN SHEEP I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN A. General This document is the Statewide Management Plan for bighorn sheep in Utah (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”). This Plan provides overall guidance and direction to Utah’s bighorn sheep management program. This Plan assesses current information on bighorn sheep, identifies issues and concerns relating to bighorn sheep management in Utah, and establishes goals and objectives for future bighorn management programs. Strategies are also outlined to achieve goals and objectives. This Plan helps determine priorities for bighorn management and provide the overall direction for management plans on individual bighorn units throughout the state. Unit management plans will be presented to the Utah Wildlife Board when one of the following criteria are met: 1) a new bighorn sheep unit is being proposed, 2) the current unit requires a significant boundary change, 3) a change to the unit population objective is being proposed, or 4) the unit has not yet had a management plan approved by the Utah Wildlife Board. All other changes to unit management plans will be approved by the Division Director. This Plan, among other things, outlines a variety of measures designed to abate or mitigate the risk of comingling and pathogen transmission between domestic and wild bighorn sheep. This Plan is not intended to be utilized to involuntarily alter domestic sheep grazing operations in Utah. The only mechanism acceptable to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for altering domestic sheep grazing practices to avoid risk of comingling is through voluntary actions undertaken by the individual grazers.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona This biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Biological Opinion Issued Under the Endangered Species Act, by the U.S
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DRAFT BIOLOGICAL OPINION ISSUED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ROZOL PRAIRIE DOG BAIT, FOR THE CONTROL OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS, ON THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH FEBRUARY 17, 2012 EPA has initiated formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential effects of Rozol Prairie Dog Bait, for the control of black-tailed prairie dogs, on wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as either threatened or endangered. The Biological Opinion relative to this consultation is posted here at www.epa.gov/espp and included in public docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0909 at Regulations.gov so EPA may receive public input on any changes to this pesticide’s registration recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. BACKGROUND The ESA requires that federal agencies assess their “actions” to determine whether species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may be affected by those actions and/or whether critical habitat may be adversely modified. The registered uses of a pesticide constitute an EPA "action" under the ESA. If EPA determines a pesticide's registered uses are likely to adversely affect a federally listed threatened or endangered species (listed species) and/or modify its critical habitat, EPA initiates "formal consultation" with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Service(s)), as appropriate.
    [Show full text]