DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology and Conservation of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl in Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecology and Conservation of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl in Arizona W. Scott Richardson Jean-Luc E. Cartron David J. Krueper Lauren Turner Thomas H. Skinner Chapter 3 The Status of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl in Arizona: Population Surveys and Habitat Assessment In 1993, the Arizona Game and Fish Department survey efforts and an increased number of cactus (AGFD) began formal population surveys in an at- ferruginous pygmy-owl detections, the Arizona popu- tempt to document the numbers and distribution of lation of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls still appears cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls (Glaucidium brasil- small; 2) the currently known population of cactus ianum cactorum) in Arizona. Surveys were initiated to ferruginous pygmy-owls occurs chiefly in desertscrub gather information on this little-known subspecies habitats rather than riparian habitats reported in which was considered for listing at the time. Prior to historical accounts (see Chapter 2); 3) the population 1993, birders and avian biologists had conducted of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls appears patchily many informal surveys in a sporadic and opportunis- distributed across suitable habitat with population tic fashion. However, the information derived from pockets occurring in northwest Tucson, southern those surveys was limited and often inaccessible, and Pinal County, the Altar Valley, Organ Pipe Cactus contributed little to the overall understanding of the National Monument, and the Tohono O’odham distribution and abundance of the species. From 1993 Reservation. to 1997, even the more formal cactus ferruginous In this chapter, we discuss some of the difficulties pygmy-owl surveys were limited in number and area and challenges of developing an effective and practi- covered and resulted in only a handful of cactus fer- cal survey protocol including results and insights ruginous pygmy-owl detections. With the listing of the from previous surveys. We then describe important cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl as an endangered spe- riparian and desertscrub habitats which represent cies, significantly more surveys were conducted in occupied cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitats or 1998 and 1999 by the AGFD, licensed consultants, habitats presumed suitable for cactus ferruginous land management agencies, and agency contractors. pygmy-owls. We then briefly describe initial agency The increased number of pygmy-owl detections during efforts to better characterize and describe suitable those two years resulted from this additional survey cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat. Finally, we pre- effort. sent our recommendations for future survey efforts. While there is a considerable amount of potentially suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat that remains unsurveyed, we have learned the following 1. Survey Protocol _________________ information about the distribution of cactus ferrugi- In the last two decades, broadcast surveys have nous pygmy-owls within Arizona: 1) despite increased been promoted as a reliable and effective technique USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-43. 2000 27 to study the distribution and size of many small owl ability to detect an owl. Additionally, it has been populations (Johnson et al. 1981, Lynch and Smith suggested that, at least for the boreal owl (Aegolius 1984, McGarigal and Fraser 1985, Smith et al. 1987, funereus), the physiological state of individual owls, Ganey 1990, Stahlecker and Rawinski 1990, Noon et al. the amount of competition among males for nest 1992, Wauer et al. 1993). Because of the lack of ad- sites, and mating success can all influence rates of equate information regarding the numbers and distri- detection (Hayward et al. 1992). In Arizona, low popula- bution of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls in Arizona, tion densities of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls, and the AGFD developed a broadcast survey protocol as perhaps reduced competition for nest sites, may be they initiated formal cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl associated with lower rates of responsiveness. Thus, if population surveys in 1993 (Felley and Corman 1993). call points are too far apart and/or the time spent at This original protocol was developed based on the little each point is too short, some owls may escape detec- information known at that time about the biology of tion. The challenge has been to develop a protocol cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls and similar survey which balances the significant repercussions of not protocols employed for other small owl species. As detecting an owl, when it could potentially be im- surveys progressed and the effectiveness of the pro- pacted by some activity, with increased costs and tocol was evaluated, a revision of the AGFD protocol logistical difficulties resulting from a conservative took place in 1996 (Abbate et al. 1996). The 1996 survey protocol. Direct costs are associated with revisions included increasing the distance between actually conducting surveys; there are also indirect call points and increasing the amount of time spent at costs if the protocol results in the delay of project each call point. Other slightly different protocols were implementation. Another question considered is the utilized by contractors surveying for special projects in need for two protocols, one dealing with project clear- 1998. Adjustments to the original protocol were in ance and another for population assessment and re- response to changes in research objectives, manage- search activities. ment needs, and experience gained from previous In an effort to address issues regarding survey survey experience. protocol and associated management issues, the U.S. Protocol development attempts to maximize cactus Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the AGFD ferruginous pygmy-owl response to tapes by directing developed a survey protocol that was released for surveys to be performed during the highest known public comment in late 1998 (Appendix 3-1). This activity periods (i.e., dawn and dusk), and at the proposed survey protocol received significant review appropriate time of year (i.e., the courtship and nest- by a wide variety of public interests. Public comment ing season) (Gilman 1909, Terres 1991, Wauer et al. is currently being evaluated and a finalized protocol is 1993). There has been considerable discussion about expected sometime in 1999. While economic interests the effectiveness of surveys outside the peak breeding such as development, grazing, and mining may be best season. The original survey protocol defined a survey served by a stable protocol that can be considered in season extending from September to April (Felley and long-term planning efforts, the cactus ferruginous Corman 1993) but, while there appears to be some pygmy-owl survey protocol must be adaptive enough calling activity in the early fall, the vast majority of to incorporate advances in our understanding of this recent cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl detections have species. For example, it is only within the past two occurred during the spring courtship and nesting years that radio telemetry has been utilized to help us period, with a decrease in calling and responsiveness understand aspects of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl observed through the remainder of the year (Richardson biology such as home range, territoriality, and habitat unpubl. data). use. Telemetry will also allow us to test responsive- Another debated issue has been the recommended ness of known owls to tape broadcasts. This new distance between calling stations for a survey. Results information must be utilized in order to develop the of initial response distance testing in Texas indicate most effective survey protocol. that owls will respond to a taped call from a distance of at least 700 m (Chapter 5). However, current proto- cols for surveying in Arizona recommend call point 2. Responses of other bird species to distances ranging from 150 m to 400 m. While shorter broadcast surveys _________________ distances between call points decrease survey cover- age and thus present some logistical and economic The ferruginous pygmy-owl is known as the “terror concerns, they do address reduced responsiveness or of small birdlife” (Sprunt 1955). Judging from the ability to detect owls because of local demographic numerous accounts describing the owl as mobbed by and physical factors. Many of the cactus ferruginous songbirds and hummingbirds (Gilman 1909, Sprunt pygmy-owls found in Arizona occur in urbanized 1955, Tyler and Phillips 1978, Abbate et al. 1996, areas with significant background noises from auto- Russell and Monson 1998), the occurrence of this owl mobiles, humans, dogs, etc. which reduce a surveyor’s is likely perceived as a threat by the local avifauna. 28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-43. 2000 Mobbing is a behavior specifically directed against as the birds most often reacting to cactus ferruginous potential enemies during the reproductive season pygmy-owls (Abbate et al. 1996). In the Coronado Na- (Kruuk 1964, Hoogland and Sherman 1976, Shields tional Forest, where no pygmy-owl was found, several 1984) and raids of neighboring songbird nests by bird species responded with movement, vocalization, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls have been documented and/or agitation during 1997 surveys (Table 3-2). Of in Texas and Arizona (see Chapter 1). Mobbing was these, however, only two identified species exhibited observed at all nest sites monitored in Arizona and agitated behavior and the bushtit (Psaltriparus involved a wide variety of species (Abbate et al. 1996, minimus) alone is a local year-round resident. Richardson unpubl. data). If bird
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 6.5 Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus Brunneicapillus Sandiegensis) – Category SO Management Units with Known Occurrences
    Volume 2D: Goals and Objectives for Species Focus Management Species 6.0 Birds 6.5 Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) – Category SO Management Units with Known Occurrences Coastal cactus wrens are restricted to cactus-dominated coastal sage scrub habitats in Southern California, from Ventura south to San Diego County and inland to western San Bernardino and western Riverside Counties. These wrens differ ecologically from more common desert wrens in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Coastal cactus wrens began significantly declining in San Diego County in the early 1980s due to habitat loss to agriculture and urban development (Rea and Weaver 1990). By 1990 there was a 33% population decline from the previous decade as a result of the loss of coastal birds and smaller populations, and a decline in abundance of remaining populations. Coastal cactus wren surveys and cactus mapping were implemented on Conserved Lands in the MSPA in 2009 and 2011 (USFWS 2011). Cactus wrens were documented on Conserved Lands in MUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (see Occurrence Table and online map: http://arcg.is/2kU1bka). A range-wide genetics and banding study was conducted across occupied cactus scrub habitats in 2011–2013 by USGS to determine coastal cactus wren population genetic structure, connectivity, and genetic diversity in Southern California (Barr et al. 2015). The study found 3 main genetic clusters in San Diego County: Otay; San Diego/El Cajon (Sweetwater/Encanto/Lake Jennings); and San Pasqual. In the San Diego/El Cajon genetic cluster, wrens in the Sweetwater River watershed are connected to occurrences in Fletcher Hills and Lake Jennings to the northeast in MU4 and to occurrences in Encanto Canyon and other urban canyons to the west in MU2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]
    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001] Area Overview Size and Location: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) encompasses 37,330 acres. This area is located in the Tumacacori and Atacosa Mountains, which are part of the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona (see Map 4 at the end of this document). The Tumacacori PWA is overlapped by 30,305 acres of the Tumacacori Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 81 percent of the PWA. Vicinity, Surroundings and Access: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area is approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The Tumacacori PWA is centrally located within the mountain range and encompasses an area from Sardina and Tumacacori Peaks at the northern end to Ruby Road at the southern end and from the El Paso Natural Gas Line on the eastern side to Arivaca Lake on its western side. The PWA is adjacent to the Pajarita Wilderness Area, Arivaca Lake and Peña Blanca Lake. Both Pena Blanca and Arivaca Lakes are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Interstate 19 (I-19) connects the Tucson metropolitan area to the City of Nogales and the incorporated community of Sahuarita. The unincorporated communities of Green Valley, Arivaca Junction-Amado, Tubac, Tumacacori-Carmen and Rio Rico, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are within close proximity to the eastern side of the Tumacacori Mountains and the PWA. State Highway 289 provides access from I-19 across private and National Forest System lands into the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area to Peña Blanca Lake and Ruby Road (NFS Road 39).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trail Inventory of U.S
    The Trail Inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stations in Arizona Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. AZ STATE SUMMARY Table of Contents 1-1 List of Refuges 1-2 Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface 1-3 2-9. REFUGE SUMMARIES Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface X-1 Trail Location Map X-2 Trail Identification X-3 Condition and Deficiency Sheets X-4 Photographic Sheets X-5 10. APPENDIX Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-1 Trail Classification System 10-4 1-1 FWS Stations in Arizona with Trails Station Name Trail Miles Chapter Bill Williams River NWR 0.27 2 Buenos Aires NWR 6.62 3 Cabeza Prieta NWR 0.16 4 Cibola NWR 0.91 5 Havasu NWR 0.22 6 Imperial NWR 1.31 7 Leslie Canyon NWR 1.47 8 San Bernardino NWR 2.39 9 1-2 Arizona NWR Trail and Summaries Trail Miles and Percentages by Surface Type and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Surface Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Type MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % Native 7.91 59% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 8.43 Gravel 0.96 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.96 Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Concrete 0.27 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.27 Turnpike 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Boardwalk 0.26 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.26 Puncheon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Woodchips 0.05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.05 Admin Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 25% 3.36 Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 Trail Miles and Percentages by Trail Classification and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Classification MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % TC1 2.60 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60 TC2 1.88 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.88 TC3 1.04 8% 0% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0.97 7% 2.33 TC4 3.61 27% 0.20 2% 0% 0% 0% 2.39 18% 6.20 TC5 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.32 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 * Admin Roads are included in the inventory but are not rated for condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
    Structure and mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Knight, Louis Harold, 1943- 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 20:13:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565224 STRUCTURE AND MINERALIZATION OF THE ORO BLANCO MINING DISTRICT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA by * Louis Harold Knight, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Louis Harold Knight, Jr._______________________ entitled Structure and Mineralization of the Pro Blanco______ Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona_________ be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy________________________________ a/akt/Z). m date ' After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* SUtzo. /16? QJr zd /rtf C e f i, r --------- 7-------- /?S? This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate1s adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • PETRIFIED FOREST: a Playground for Wildlife Baseball’S Back!
    Spring PETRIFIED FOREST: A Playground for Wildlife Baseball’s Back! arizonahighways.com march 2003 MARCH 2003 page 50 COVER NATURE 55 GENE PERRET’S WIT STOP 6 14 If you’d like a good Surprise, drive northwest of Survival in the Grasslands A Bevy of Blooms Phoenix — and don’t ask Why. Preserving masked bobwhite quail and and Butterflies pronghorn antelope also rebuilds the habitat 44 HUMOR at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. Delicate-winged beauties and dazzling floral displays await at the Phoenix Desert Botanical 2 LETTERS AND E-MAIL Garden’s Butterfly Pavilion. 22 PORTFOLIO 46 DESTINATION Arizona’s in Love with INDIANS Lowell Observatory 18 Visitors get telescope time, too, at this noted Baseball Spring Training Butterfly Myths institution, home to 27 full-time astronomers doing pioneering research. The Cactus League’s 10 major league teams The gentle, fluttering insects take on varied have a devoted following, including visitors symbolic roles in many Indian cultures. 3 TAKING THE OFF-RAMP from out of state. Explore Arizona oddities, attractions and pleasures. HISTORY TRAVEL 32 54 EXPERIENCE ARIZONA 38 Hike a Historic Trail Go on a hike or pan for gold in Apache Junction to Life in a Stony Landscape Retrace the southern Arizona route of Spain’s commemorate treasure hunting in the Superstition Come spring, the Petrified Forest National Juan Bautista de Anza, who led the 18th-century Mountains; help the Tohono O’odham Indians celebrate Park is abuzz with critters and new plants. colonization of San Francisco. their heritage and see their arts and crafts in Ajo; and enjoy the re-enactment of mountain man skills in Oatman.
    [Show full text]
  • Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 ON THE COVER Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus). Photo by Moez Ali. Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 Authors Moez Ali Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Kristen Beaupré National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network 7660 E. Broadway Blvd, Suite 303 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Patricia Valentine-Darby University of West Florida Department of Biology 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, Florida 32514 Chris White Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Project Contact Robert E. Bennetts National Park Service Southern Plains Network Capulin Volcano National Monument PO Box 40 Des Moines, New Mexico 88418 May 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colora- do, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource manage- ment, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Raid in Cactus Canyon Written and Illustrated by Jim Arnosky
    Coyote Raid in Cactus Canyon Written and Illustrated by Jim Arnosky Lesson plan by Linda Troutt A group of bullying coyotes chases the native wildlife in Cactus Canyon. When there are no more animals to chase, they brawl among themselves, disturbing a nearby rattlesnake. The coyotes back down, run away and all the animals come back out again to a peaceful canyon. Language Arts Reading/Literature Standard 5: Comprehension/Critical Literacy 3. a. Retell or act out narrative text by identifying story elements and sequencing the events. Using stick puppets made from pictures, the students will act out the actions of the animals in the story. The students may research the animals and create their own puppet face, or photos may be printed from the internet. Cut out and attach the pictures to a popsicle stick, ruler, or tongue depressor. Resources: Deserts by Nicola Davies. Kingfisher, 2005. The Dry Desert : a Web of Life by Philip Johansson. Enslow, 2004. Life in the Desert by Gerald Legg. Children’s Press, 2005. A Walk in the Desert by Rebecca L. Johnson. Carolrhoda Books, 2001 http://www.desertanimals.net/index.html http://www.enchantedlearning.com/coloring/desert.shtml coyote: http://sdsnake.com/Coyote/Coyote6RC.jpg cactus wren: http://caplter.asu.edu/explorers/protocol/birds/cactuswren.htm cottontail: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.saguaro- juniper.com/i_and_i/mammals/rabbits%26hares/06- 05cottont_4762.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.saguaro- juniper.com/i_and_i/mammals/rabbits%26hares/cottontail.html&h=365&w=720&sz=44&tbnid= iWEatBOEsesJ::&tbnh=71&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddesert%2Brabbit&hl=en&sa= X&oi=image_result&resnum=3&ct=image&cd=1 gambrel quail: http://www.finatic-photography.com/birds/gambrelsquail/slides/IMG_5062_04a.html antelope squirrel: http://fireflyforest.net/firefly/2005/05/05/harris-antelope-squirrel/ rattlesnake: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/JServoss/Sonoran_Sidewinder2 .jpg Visual Art Standard 3: Visual Art Expression 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]