Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Cwcs)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Cwcs) UtahComprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Effective October 1 2005–2015 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication Number 05-19 UTAH COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (CWCS) Accepted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service September 9, 2005 Janet V. Sutter, Matthew E. Andersen, Kevin D. Bunnell, Michael F. Canning, Alan G. Clark, Dana E. Dolsen, Frank P. Howe Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-6301 Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy – Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. In Utah, the complexities of the geology and climate result in biologically diverse habitats that have historically supported approximately 700 species of vertebrate wildlife. However, introduction of non-native plant and animal species, changes in land management practices, and habitat loss and fragmentation have altered Utah’s wildlife communities. Like other states, Utah is now facing reductions in native wildlife populations. The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program was created by Congress in 2001 to provide states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS) have been developed by every state and territory to ensure that SWG funds are spent to effectively restore and enhance wildlife populations and their habitat, and prevent the need for additional listings on the Endangered Species List. Conservation and management of wildlife throughout the state of Utah, in light of growing environmental pressures, will require broad public support for, and involvement in, conservation efforts. Therefore, when the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) initiated its Draft CWCS in 2002, nine public and private entities were solicited for active participation in the plan’s development. This group of organizations acts as the Partner Advisory Group to the UDWR and has been and will continue to be essential in the development and implementation of Utah’s CWCS. Since the formation of the Partner Advisory Group, UDWR has made efforts to incorporate the comments and concerns of additional stakeholders, including Indian Tribes, local governments, local and regional interest groups, and non-profit organizations, and many of these have committed to advising the UDWR. In addition, UDWR has encouraged public participation through two legislated processes: Regional Advisory Councils and the Utah Wildlife Board. To address wildlife species in the CWCS, UDWR adopted a three-tiered system that defines and prioritizes Utah’s native animal species according to conservation need. Tier I includes federally listed species and species for which a Conservation Agreement has been completed and implemented. Tier II species include those listed on the Utah Species of Concern List under sole state authority. Tier III includes species that are of conservation concern because they are linked to an at-risk habitat, have suffered marked population declines, or there is little information available regarding the ecology or status of the species. The tiered ranking system provides a perspective for wildlife managers to prioritize conservation activities. A parallel process to identify the most valuable habitat types for sensitive species statewide was developed through dialog between the Partner Advisory Group and UDWR. As a result, the CWCS describes the ten most at risk habitat types (out of 24) found in Utah, specifying their relative priority based on the degree of threat faced by each habitat type and the presence of prioritized species. After identifying species and habitats of greatest conservation need, UDWR wildlife and habitat managers identified the general and specific threats associated with priority species and habitats. These threats were reviewed and revised by members of the Partner Advisory Group. The Partner Advisory Group also identified and prioritized general and II Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy – Executive Summary specific conservation actions to manage these threats so that the CWCS will be more useful in directing on-the-ground conservation activities for priority species and habitats. While the CWCS provides a framework for conservation, actual implementation of conservation actions will require the cooperation and coordination of affected stakeholders and resource managers. At an organization or agency level, actions recommended in the CWCS can be incorporated into planning efforts and management practices. Based on the CWCS, the UDWR, the Partner Advisory Group, and additional stakeholders will cooperatively develop implementation priorities. As conservation actions are implemented, adaptive management will be used to promote continual improvement of conservation through learning from past conservation actions. Adaptive management must contain a monitoring component that assesses species and habitat responses to management actions while simultaneously measuring environmental conditions that may confound monitoring results. As ongoing conservation actions are implemented and new actions are developed the CWCS will be used as a guide so that study design, evaluation, and adaptive management are thoroughly integrated into UDWR and Partner projects. The CWCS, through review and adaptation, will be an evolving document. For the CWCS to be adopted, implemented, and adapted over the next decade, the UDWR must facilitate a statewide, regional and local dialog between agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and citizens. The UDWR and its partners will convene annually in the next ten years to review and consider the status of efforts made through the CWCS, and additional evaluations will take place as needed. At the mid-point of CWCS implementation, UDWR and partners will discuss and readjust conservation efforts to more effectively progress towards the 10-year horizon of the plan. In ten years, a new CWCS will be drafted based on new data and will reflect adjustments made through adaptive management. The CWCS addresses species and habitats of conservation need and the necessity of partner and public involvement to effectively implement future conservation actions. Chapter 1 outlines the purpose of the CWCS. Chapter 2 presents the approach for including the public, stakeholders and partners. Chapter 3 addresses Partners’ authorities and missions and coordinating their involvement with the CWCS. Chapter 4 outlines the State of Utah’s efforts to merge the CWCS with other strategic plans, and lists other federal, state, and regional plans to which the CWCS will be linked. Chapter 5 outlines the approach used to identify species in greatest need of conservation while Chapter 6 provides information about species abundance and distribution and identifies threats and proposed conservation actions for those species. Priority habitats and their condition are identified in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 describes problems, threats, and conservation actions for those habitats. Chapter 9 discusses plans for monitoring conservation success through identifying measures and then tracking our effectiveness and ability to adapt to changing conditions. Finally, Chapter 10 describes the proposed process for biennial plan review. III Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy – Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................II TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.......................................................1-1 PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY.................................................................................................................1-1 OVERVIEW OF UTAH..............................................................................................1-1 Utah’s CWCS...........................................................................................................1-2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF CWCS.........................................................................1-3 STRUCTURE OF THE CWCS...................................................................................1-4 CHAPTER 2 . PUBLIC AND PARTNER INVOLVEMENT ........................................2-1 PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS .......................................................................2-1 LEGISLATED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...............................................................2-2 Regional Advisory Councils and Utah Wildlife Board Processes...........................2-2 Utah’s designation of State Species of Concern process.........................................2-3 OTHER CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES ........................................2-3 CHAPTER 3 . COORDINATING CWCS EFFORTS WITH MANAGEMENT AGENCIES......................................................................................................................3-1
Recommended publications
  • The Wasatch Fault
    The WasatchWasatchThe FaultFault UtahUtah Geological Geological Survey Survey PublicPublic Information Information Series Series 40 40 11 9 9 9 9 6 6 The WasatchWasatchThe FaultFault CONTENTS The ups and downs of the Wasatch fault . .1 What is the Wasatch fault? . .1 Where is the Wasatch fault? Globally ............................................................................................2 Regionally . .2 Locally .............................................................................................4 Surface expressions (how to recognize the fault) . .5 Land use - your fault? . .8 At a glance - geological relationships . .10 Earthquakes ..........................................................................................12 When/how often? . .14 Howbig? .........................................................................................15 Earthquake hazards . .15 Future probability of the "big one" . .16 Where to get additional information . .17 Selected bibliography . .17 Acknowledgments Text by Sandra N. Eldredge. Design and graphics by Vicky Clarke. Special thanks to: Walter Arabasz of the University of Utah Seismograph Stations for per- mission to reproduce photographs on p. 6, 9, II; Utah State University for permission to use the satellite image mosaic on the cover; Rebecca Hylland for her assistance; Gary Christenson, Kimm Harty, William Lund, Edith (Deedee) O'Brien, and Christine Wilkerson for their reviews; and James Parker for drafting. Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department
    [Show full text]
  • Coexistence and Origin of Trophic Ecotypes of Pygmy Whitefish
    doi: 10.1111/jeb.12011 Coexistence and origin of trophic ecotypes of pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in a south-western Alaskan lake C. P. GOWELL*†,T.P.QUINN† &E.B.TAYLOR‡ *Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA, USA †School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA ‡Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre and Beaty Biodiversity Museum, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Keywords: Abstract Coregoninae; Ecologically, morphologically and genetically distinct populations within sin- diet analysis; gle taxa often coexist in postglacial lakes and have provided important fish; model systems with which to investigate ecological and evolutionary pro- morphometrics; cesses such as niche partitioning and ecological speciation. Within the Sal- phylogeography; monidae, these species complexes have been well studied, particularly population genetics; within the Coregonus clupeaformis–C. laveratus (lake and European whitefish, sympatric populations. respectively) group, but the phenomenon has been less well documented in the other whitefish genera, Prosopium and Stenodus. Here, we examined the morphology, feeding biology and genetic structure of three putative forms of the pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulterii (Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1892), first reported from Chignik Lake, south-western Alaska, over 40 years ago. Field collections and morphological analyses resolved a shal- low water (< 5 m depth) low gill raker count form (< 15 first arch gill rakers), a deepwater (> 30 m), low gill raker form and a deepwater, high gill raker count (> 15 gill rakers) form. The two low gill raker count forms fed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates (mostly chironomids), while the deepwater, high gill raker count form fed almost exclusively on zooplank- ton; differences in diet were also reflected in differences both in d13C and d15N stable isotopes.
    [Show full text]
  • User Manual V2.3 July 21St, 2015
    FishGen User Manual v2.3 July 21st, 2015 FishGen.net is a final repository for genetic information of fish species that are of conservation and management importance to federal, state and tribal agencies in the United States and Canada. The repository currently houses salmon and steelhead genetic data as part of Genetic Stock Identification and Parentage Based Tagging projects in the Columbia River basin and throughout the Pacific Coast of North America. FishGen.net was developed by Resource Data, Inc. (RDI) for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game with funding from the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and the Bonneville Power Administration. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. 2 Questions/Help ............................................................................................................ 4 Home Page .................................................................................................................. 5 Request Account Page ................................................................................................ 6 Uploading Genetic Markers ......................................................................................... 7 Uploading Microsatellite Markers .......................................................................... 8 Uploading SNP Markers ........................................................................................ 11 Uploading Taqman SNP markers ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Volunteering Issue Exploring the Benefits of Volunteering and Celebrating Our Froglife Volunteers
    Froglife’s newsletter - amphibians, reptiles & nature news spring/summer 2017 the volunteering issue Exploring the benefits of volunteering and celebrating our Froglife volunteers Plus...An interview with the Froglife Trustees : The volunteers of Froglife nature reserves 1 contents froglifers Chair of Trustees: Lin Wenlock ‘from the CEO’: Kathy Wormald on the Patrons: Mike Dilger & Jules Howard latest developments 3. Chief Executive Officer: Kathy Wormald 10 good reasons to volunteer by Jenny Head of Learning & Communications: Jenny Tse-Leon 4. Tse-Leon Head of Conservation: Dr Laurence Jarvis Finance Manager: Anne Davies My experience as a volunteer by Alex Finance & Administration Officer: Marie Homewood Kirby-Lambert 5. Conservation Officer: Liz Morrison Volunteering for amphibian research by Conservation Youth Worker: Louise Smith 6. Dr. Laurence Jarvis Conservation Youth Worker: Gail Lydall Kirklees Project Officer: Rebecca Houlding An interview with key nature reserves Kirklees Project Officer: Gary Wilkinson 7. volunteer Judith Turner Kirklees Sessional Worker: Mike Sims The volunteers of Froglife nature Conservation Youth Worker: Ross Edgar 8. reserves by Liz Morrison Scottish Dragon Finder Project Manager: Dr Victoria Larcombe / Caroline Griffin My Froglife journey from volunteer to 10. employee by Ashlea Jarvis Scottish Dragon Finder Project Officer: James Stead Scottish Dragon Finder Trainee: Alasdair Lemon Volunteering from an employer’s London Dragon Finder Project Manager: Alan Shearman 12. perspective by Dr Victoria Larcombe London Dragon Finder Project Officer: Emily Millhouse River Nene Dragon Finder Project Manager: James McAdie An interview with the Froglife Trustees 14. River Nene Dragon Finder Project Officer: Catherine Duerden Toads are a major asset for your garden, River Nene Trainee: Alex Kirby-Lambert so why not join in the fight to stop Trainee Conservation Youth Worker: Ashlea Jarvis 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Collection Survey on Forest Conservation in Southern Africa for Addressing Climate Change
    DATA COLLECTION SURVEY ON FOREST CONSERVATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA FOR ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE Final Report April 2013 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) RECS International Inc. Remote Sensing Technology Center of Japan MAP OF SOUTHERN AFRICA (provided by SADC) Data Collection Survey on Forest Conservation in Southern Africa for Addressing Climate Change Final Report DATA COLLECTION SURVEY ON FOREST CONSERVATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA FOR ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... S-1 Part I: Main Report Chapter 1 Survey Outline .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Objectives and Expected Outputs ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Survey Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Structure of Report ............................................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2 Current Status of Forest Resources and Management and International Cooperation in Southern Africa .................................................................................. 2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Boating Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Program Previous Recipients
    Boating Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Program Previous Recipients 2017 2017 Boating Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Ranger First Class Bart Hendrix, Georgia Northern Region Officer Joel Brosius, Delaware CPO Scott Wagner, Illinois Officer Robert Duff, Indiana Conservation Officer Brent Koppie, Iowa Game Warden Cody Lounder, Maine Officer David Wright, Massachusetts Conservation Officer Michael Hearn, Michigan Conservation Officer Joel Heyn, Minnesota Hugh "Chip" Dougherty, New Hampshire District Game Warden Zane Manhart, North Dakota WCO Corey Girt, Pennsylvania Officer Anthony Esposito, Rhode Island Conservation Officer Chad Williams, South Dakota Conservation Warden Josh Loining, Wisconsin Southern Region Corporal Trent Whitehead II, Arkansas Ranger First Class Bart Hendrix, Georgia Senior Agent Kyle Wagner, Louisiana Corporal Hubert F. Brohawn, Maryland Sergeant David Echternacht, Missouri Private First Class Blake Baxley, South Carolina Wildlife Officer Josh Landrum, Tennessee Game Warden Patricia Vannoy, Texas Senior Conservation Police Officer Kenneth R. Williams, Virginia Deputy Wade Hilliard, Washington Natural Resources Police Officer Seth C. Rader, West Virginia Western Region Matt Schuler, Colorado Deputy Michael Vasquez, Idaho Game Warden Ryan Smidt, Kansas Officer Greg Claesson, New Mexico Game Warden Daniel Beach, Wyoming *Regional Boating Officers of the Year are listed in bold print. 2016 2016 Boating Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Officer Jarrod Molnar Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Northern Region Officer Alexander Johnston, Connecticut Sr. Cpl. Nate Evans, Delaware Conservation Police Officer Trent Reeves, Illinois ICO Jonathan Watkins, Indiana Conservation Officer Steve Reighard, Iowa Marine Patrol Officer Sean Dow, Maine Detective Sergeant Eric Baldwin, Massachusetts CO Marvin O. Gerlach, Michigan Conservation Officer Chad Thesing, Minnesota Sergeant Cheryl A.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • References a - B
    References A - B References BIBLIOGRAPHY Addley, Craig, Bethany Neilson, Leon Basdekas, and Thomas Hardy. 2005. Virgin River Temperature Model Validation (Draft). Institute for Natural Systems Engineering, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT: Utah State University. Alder, Douglas D., and Karl F. Brooks. 1996. A History of Washington County: From Isolation to Destination. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State Historical Society. Aliison, James R. 2000. “Craft Specialization and Exchange in Small-Scale Societies: A Virgin Anasazi Case Study.” Unpublished PhD diss., Arizona State University. Allison, James R. 1990. “Anasazi Subsistence in the St. George Basin, Southwestern Utah.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University. Altschul, J. H., and H. C. Fairley. 1989. Man, Models, and Management: An Overview of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Cultural Resources. St. George, UT: U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum. 2015. “Western Banded Gecko.” Accessed February. http.//www.desertmuseum. org/books/nhsd_banded-gecko.php. Audubon. 2015. “Ferruginous Hawk.” Accessed February. http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/ ferruginous-hawk. Audubon. 2015. “Burrowing Owl.” Accessed February. http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/burrowing-owl. Audubon and Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2013. “Range and Point Map.” Accessed November. http://www.ebird.org/ content/ebird/html. Brennan, Thomas C. 2014. “Online Field Guide to The Reptiles and Amphibians of Arizona.” Accesed October 23. http://www.retilesofaz.org/html. Bernales, Heather H., Justin Dolling, and Kevin Bunnel. 2009. Utah Cougar Annual Report 2009. Salt Lake City: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Bernales, Heather H., Justin Dolling, and Kevin Bunnel.
    [Show full text]
  • George E. Wahlen Va Medical Center |Salt Lake City, Ut
    The American Legion SYSTEM WORTH SAVING GEORGE E. WAHLEN VA MEDICAL CENTER | SALT LAKE CITY, UT Date: May 11-12, 2016 Deputy Director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation (VA&R) Division: Roscoe Butler Assistant Director for Health Care: April Commander Health Administration Committee Members: Terry Schow and Karen O’Donohue Overview Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) in Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. The medical center has an active academic affiliation with the Uni- versity of Utah and a host of other education institutions. A full range of tertiary services is provided, including a regional heart transplant program operated in conjunction with the University of Utah. VASLCHCS is part of the Veteran Integrated System Network (VISN) 19, which includes facilities in Utah, Wyo- ming, Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. Additionally, VASLCHCS is one of two VISN 19 facilities in- volved in pilot programs for Virtual Lifetime Electronic Re- cords (VLER). The Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) pro- gram will expand to Salt Lake City (SLC) to provide primary care providers the opportunity for specialty consultative ser- vices with affiliated medical schools at both tertiary medical centers. VASLCHCS will also further expand Primary and Spe- The George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical cialty Care Services through the development of Specialty Care Center is a mid-sized, affiliated, tertiary care facility with 121 Neighborhood Teams. authorized active beds. It is a teaching facility that provides a Due to the recruitment challenges faced by rural areas, VAS- full range of patient care services, with state-of-the-art technol- LCHCS is also piloting a mental health hub to assist with mental ogy as well as education and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon
    United States DeDanment... of Lh.e Interior Fish and Wildlife Se:vice Arizona EcJlogic:l1 Se..-.rices Field Office 2:321 w. Roy.I P::.1.r:l Road. Suite 103 Ph.oeni:::. ArizoC!.2. 85021-:'9S1 • [n Reply R.efC" To: (602) 640-2:7"-0 M..::; (602) 640-ZT.!Q ABSO/SE 2-21-93-F-167 February 16, 1996 MEM:ORAND illvf TO: Regional Director, Bureau of Reciamation. Salt La.1ce Cicy, Utah FRO~!: Field Supervisor SUBJECT: Biological and Conference Opinions on OpeT:arion of Glen Canyon Dam ­ Conrrolled Rele3.Se for Habitat and Beach Building (Your Refere:lce UC-320, aN-l.OO) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed. test of beachlhabir:at-building flow (rest flow) from Glen Canyon Dam. in spring 1996 in the CoLorado Rivet: located in Coconino County, Arizona. Your November 20, 1995, request for formal consultation was received on November 21, 1995. This doc..uneru: represents the Service's biological and conference opinions on the effects of that action on the following endangered •• species: humpback: chub (Gila cypha); Kanab ambermail (Oxy{oma. haydeni kCJwbensis); and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidon.ax traillii e:xtimus); and on critic:tl habitat for the humpback: chub and proposed. critical habitat for southwes-..ern willow flyC3.!Cher, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as ame::lde:i, (16 U.S.C. 1531 ec seq.). Tnese biologiCJ..1 and confere~ opinions are based. on information provided in the November 1995 biological assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utah State Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 1929
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Utah State Magazine Publications 11-1929 The Utah State Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 1929 Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/utahstatemagazine Recommended Citation Utah State University, "The Utah State Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 1929" (1929). Utah State Magazine. 19. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/utahstatemagazine/19 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah State Magazine by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. November, 1929 e Volume 6.: Number 2 'The 'Tower, Looking ?Y..,orth October 19, 1929 School Directory. When I was working for Extracts from Other Letters and Notes. Dear Editor: the Summer School and the Alumni Associa- I was 90 miles from civilization on a land tion I used to run across a number of our A graduate of the class of 1905, referring to the introduction of the word "State" into survey for the Great Northern R.R. proposed graduates who were lacking addresses on our the name of the College, calls it "an absurd extension in east central Montana when I records. The U. E. A. State office would superfluity; the ill egitimate progeny of child­ received word of the Aggie victory over send you one of these directories free of ishness." A 1907 alumnus, in a personal Bobcats, 9 to 0, October 5. Yea, Aggies! charge or the President's office would loan letter to one of the officers of the Alumni you their copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]