## Attachment 1:

Life History for the Threatened and Endangered Species

1

## Table of Contents

1. AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE .................................................................. 7

1.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS ...............................................................................7

1.2. DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................7

1.3. DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................7

1.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................8

1.5. HABITAT .............................................................................................................8

1.6. DIET .....................................................................................................................9

1.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION ...........................................................9

1.8. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................9

2. BLACK-CAPPED VIREO .............................................................................. 11

2.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................11

2.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................11

2.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................11

2.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................12

2.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................12

2.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................12

2.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................12

2.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................13

3. BLACK-FOOTED FERRET .......................................................................... 14

3.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................14

3.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................14

3.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................14

3.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................17

3.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................18

3.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................18

3.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................18

3.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................19

4. CALIFORNIA CONDOR............................................................................... 20

4.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................20

4.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................20

4.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................20

4.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................21

4.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................22

4.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................22

4.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................23

4.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................23

5. CANADA LYNX .............................................................................................. 26

5.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................26

5.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................26

25.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................26

5.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................27

5.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................27

5.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................28

5.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................28

5.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................28

6. CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG ................................................................ 29

6.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................29

6.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................29

6.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................30

6.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................31

6.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................31

6.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................33

6.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................34

6.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................34

7. ESKIMO CURLEW ........................................................................................ 36

7.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................36

7.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................36

7.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................36

7.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................37

7.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................37

7.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................38

7.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................38

7.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................39

8. GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER ............................................................... 40

8.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................40

8.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................40

8.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................40

8.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................40

8.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................41

8.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................41

8.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................41

8.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................41

9. GRAY WOLF ................................................................................................... 43

9.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................43

9.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................44

9.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................45

9.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................46

9.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................47

9.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................48

9.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................49

9.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................50

10. GRIZZLY BEAR ............................................................................................. 52

310.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................52

10.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................52

10.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................52

10.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................53

10.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................53

10.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................54

10.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................54

10.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................55

11. GULF COAST JAGUARUNDI ...................................................................... 56

11.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................56

11.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................56

11.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................56

11.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................57

11.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................57

11.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................57

11.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................57

11.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................58

12. JAGUAR ........................................................................................................... 58

12.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................58

12.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................59

12.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................59

12.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................60

12.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................60

12.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................60

12.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................60

12.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................61

13. MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL ......................................................................... 62

13.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................62

13.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................62

13.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................62

13.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................63

13.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................69

13.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................70

13.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................70

13.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................70

14. NEW MEXICAN RIDGE- NOSED RATTLESNAKE ................................. 72

14.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................72

14.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................72

14.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................72

14.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................73

14.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................73

14.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................74

14.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................74

414.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................74

15. NORTHERN APLOMADO FALCON .......................................................... 76

15.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................76

15.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................76

15.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................76

15.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................77

15.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................77

15.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................78

15.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................78

15.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................79

16. OCELOT .......................................................................................................... 81

16.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................81

16.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................81

16.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................81

16.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................83

16.5. HABITAT ...........................................................................................................83

16.6. DIET ...................................................................................................................83

16.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .........................................................84

16.8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................84

17. PIPING PLOVER ............................................................................................ 86

17.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS .............................................................................86

17.2. DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................86

17.3. DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................86

17.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ..........................................................................89

17.5. HABITAT .........................................................................................................104

17.6. DIET .................................................................................................................104

17.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .......................................................104

17.8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................105

18. PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE .............................................. 107

18.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS ...........................................................................107

18.2. DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................107

18.3. DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................107

18.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................109

18.5. HABITAT .........................................................................................................110

18.6. DIET .................................................................................................................110

18.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .......................................................111

18.8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................111

19. SALT CREEK TIGER BEETLE ................................................................. 113

19.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS ...........................................................................113

19.2. DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................113

19.3. DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................113

19.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................115

519.5. HABITAT .........................................................................................................117

19.6. DIET .................................................................................................................118

19.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .......................................................119

19.8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................119

20. SONORA TIGER SALAMANDER ............................................................. 121

20.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS ...........................................................................121

20.2. DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................121

20.3. DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................121

20.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................122

20.5. HABITAT .........................................................................................................123

20.6. DIET .................................................................................................................123

20.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .......................................................124

20.8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................125

21. WHOOPING CRANE ................................................................................... 127

21.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS ...........................................................................127

21.2. DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................127

21.3. DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................127

21.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................129

21.5. HABITAT .........................................................................................................130

21.6. DIET .................................................................................................................132

21.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION .......................................................132

21.8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................133

61. AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE

1.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS) on July 13, 1989 (USFWS, 1989) . A recovery plan was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce on September 27, 1991. A five-year review was released on June 16, 2008. To date, the USFWS ha s not published a critical habitat designation for the American burying beetle (USFWS, 2010).

1.2. DESCRIPTION
N. americanus, a shiny black beetle of the order Coleopter a, is a member of the Silphidae family, a group of beetles known for burying vertebrate carcasses (USFWS, 1991). These vertebrate

carcasses are used as sites of ma ting and egg laying (USFWS, 1991).

Beetles of this group have hardened forewings that meet in a strai ght line on the back, and orange-tipped antennae that abru ptly terminate in a club-like manner (USFWS, 1991). American burying beetles are active at night, and typically only wh en temperatures exceed 15 o C (60 o F) (USFWS, 1991). The antennae of N. americanus have chemoreceptors which are used to locate carrion (USFWS, 1991). Many individuals appear to carry on a mutualistic relationship with phoretic mites ( Poecilochirus sp.), which consume microbes and fly eggs associated with the carcass (USFWS, 1991).

N. americanus is the largest species of the genus a nd grows to a length of 25-35 mm (USFWS, 1993). It can be distinguished from the 15 other beetles of the genus sharing a North American distribution by a large orange-red marking on the anterior dorsal plate (USFWS, 1991).

Nicrophorous beetles make large investments in pa rental care, tending, guarding, and feeding their offspring (USFWS, 1991). Many entomologists consider Nicrophorous to have the highest level of sociality within the order Coleoptera (USFWS, 1991).

1.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range The American burying beetle was once found in 150 counties in 35 different states, with the majority of documentation coming from the area bounded by Nebraska to the west, Maine to the east, and Florida to the south (USFWS, 1991). The historical distribution of N. americanus also had fringe populations in places like southweste rn Texas, central Montana, and Nova Scotia (USFWS, 1991). Documentation of N. americanus exists in greater spatial and temporal specificity among the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states (USFWS, 1991).

American burying beetle declines are traced to the early 1900’s (USFWS, 1991). By 1930, many previously recorded populations along the eastern seaboard ha d been extirpated (USFWS, 1991).

Current range The American burying beetle is known to occu r in the following states: Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missour i, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma , Rhode Island, South Dakota,

7and Texas (USFWS, 2010). N. americanus is considered to exist statewide in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Rhode Island (USFWS, 2010).

• In Arkansas, N. americanus has been documented in the following counties: Franklin, Little River, Logan, Scott, and Sebastian (USFWS, 2010).

• In Kansas, N. americanus distribution occurs in the follo wing counties: Chautauqua, Elk, Montgomery, and Wilson (USFWS, 2010).

• In Missouri, N. americanus is known to occur in Newton County (USFWS, 2010).

• In Nebraska, N. americanus is distributed in 16 counties: Blaine, Boyd, Brown, Cherry, Custer, Dawson, Frontier, Garfield, Gosper , Holt, Keya Paha, Lincoln, Loup, Rock, Thomas, and Wheeler (USFWS, 2010).

• In Ohio, N. americanus is known to occur in the follo wing colonies: Athens, Hocking, Morgan, Perry, and Vinton (USFWS, 2010).

• In Oklahoma, N. americanus is known to occur in the following 34 counties: Adair, Atoka, Bryan, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coal, Cr aig, Creek, Delaware, Haskell, Hughes, Johnston, Latimer, Le Flore, Marshall, Mayes, McCurtain, McIntosh, Muskogee, Nowata, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pushmataha, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagone r, and Washington (USFWS, 2010).

• In South Dakota, N. americanus is known to occur in the following counties: Bennett, Brookings, Gregory, Haakon, Todd, Tri pp, and Union (USFWS, 2010).

• In Texas, N. americanus is known to occur in Lamar and Red River counties (USFWS, 2010).

Captive-reared individuals were used to es tablish colonies in Ohio (1998-2000 and 2003-2006) and Massachusetts (Penikese Island 1990-1993, and Nantucket Island 1994-2006) (USFWS, 2008). The Block Island, Rhode Island population is currently being provisioned with carcasses in efforts to sustain the colony (USFWS, 2008).

1.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for the American burying beetle.

1.5. HABITAT

Records of historical distribution indicate that the American burying beetle is a habitat generalist (USFWS, 1991). Its distribution is entirely within the eastern deciduous forest biome. Recent

documentation of N. americanus has identified populations inhabi ting riparian deciduous forests, grasslands, pastures, and maritime scrub thic kets (USFWS, 1991). Soil types at three 1989 Oklahoma capture sites were identified separately as; Shermore fine sandy loam, Neff and Nexor silt loam, and Counts-Wing Complex silt loam (USFWS, 1991). These sites were further quantified as topographically level, well-draine d, and having a subs tantive detr itus layer (USFWS, 1991). Theoretically, an y mesic region with a top-soil or humus layer of sufficient depth for carcass burial is a poten tial habitat of the American burying beetle (USFWS, 1990).

It is plausible that the American burying beetle is drawn to a habitat ba sed not on the occurrence of some specific plant community or soil structure, but rather on the availability of preferred carrion (USFWS, 1991). Research by Holloway and Schnell (1997) found a positive correlation between the abundance of small vertebrate speci es and the occurrence of the American burying beetle, irrespective of vegetative cover characterization (USFWS, 2008).

81.6. DIET American burying beetle adults are known to f eed on a broad range of available carrion, and possibly prey on live insects (USFWS, 1991). As it relate s to brood-rearing, N. americanus preys on large (100-200g) mammal and bird carcasses, although they may bury and successfully rear a brood from a carcass as small as 35g (USFW S, 1991). Two avian species, the ring-necked pheasant and American woodcock, are preferred size carrion of the American burying beetle (USFWS, 1991). As these sorts of carrion at tract numerous other predatory mammals, the American burying beetle commonly faces inte rspecific resource competition from raccoons, opossum, mustelids, and canids (USFWS, 1991). One popular hypothesis as to why N.

americanus populations have persisted on islands cont ends that reduced competition for carrion resources (as presented by other pr edators) enables the beetle to secure more carcasses in which to reproduce (USFWS, 1991).

1.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The American burying beetle is generally cons idered active from Ap ril through September; although collection records indicate that it may be seen as early as February and as late as October (USFWS, 1991). For the Block Island popul ation, breeding tends to take place between June and July (USFWS, 1991). In Oklahoma, breeding may take place any time between late April and mid-August (USFWS, 1991). N. americanus reproduction can be divided into three stages which include locating a suitable vertebra te carcass; digging and burying the carcass; and mating (USFWS, 1991). Eggs are laid in a brood chamber adjacent to the buried carrion, with brood sizes ranging between three and 31 indivi duals (USFWS, 1991). Following hatching, the first instar larvae are moved to the carcass by th e adult beetle(s) that remained with the brood, who feed the larvae regurgitated meat (USFWS, 2008). Once capable of feeding themselves, the larvae burrow away from the carcass and form pupation cells, and they will emerge as new adults within 45 days (USFWS, 2008). Dependi ng on the latitude of th e site, the recently emerged American burying beetle adult may beco me reproductively active, although the species is generally considered univol tine (having one generation pe r year) (USFWS, 1991). The life expectancy of the American burying beetle is approximately 12 months (USFWS, 2008).

N. americanus overwinters by burrowing into the soil and will remain buried until soil temperature rises again in the sp ring (USFWS, 1991). Overwinteri ng may result in mortality for 25-70 percent of the population (USFWS, 2008). Ev en if they do survive overwintering it is not thought that N. americanus remains reproductively viable for longer than a single season (USFWS, 1991).

1.8. REFERENCES

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Federal Register 54, No. 133, pp.

29652-29655. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/doc s/federal_register/fr1559.pdf (Accessed June 17, 2010)

Matthews, John R. and Charles J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. Vol. II, pp.1093-1094.

9United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1991. American burying beetle Recovery Plan. West Kingston, Rhode Island. 81 pages. Prepared by Christopher Raithel, Rhode Island

Division of Fish and Wildlife

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2008. American burying beetle 5-Year Review. 53 pages

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the American burying beetle. Environmental Conservation Online System

. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile .action?spcode=I028 (Accessed June 17, 2010).

102. BLACK-CAPPED VIREO

2.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The black-capped vireo ( Vireo atricapillus ) was listed as endangered on October 6, 1987 (52 FR 193) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S) (USFWS, 1987). The recovery plan for the black-capped vireo was approved and publishe d on September 30, 1991 (USFWS, 1991). No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the black-capped vireo (USFWS, 1987).

2.2. DESCRIPTION The black-capped vireo is an 11 cm (4 in) insect ivorous bird (USFWS, 1987) . It is one of the smallest of the vireos and weighs 9 to 10 gr ams (USFWS, 1991). It was discovered when two specimens were collected along the Rio San Pedr o (now called Devil’s Ri ver) in Sutton County, Texas on May 26, 1851 (USFWS, 1987). “Adult male black-capped vireos are olive green on the upper surface and white beneath and have fa intly yellowish green flanks” (USFWS, 1987). “The crown and upper half of the head is black with a partial white ey e-ring and lores; this pattern is unique in the family Vireonidae” (USFW S, 1987). “The iris is brownish red, the bill black” (USFWS, 1987). The black-c apped vireo is “[u]nique among vireos in being sexually dichromatic” (USFWS, 1991). “Adult females are duller colored, with th e crown slate gray instead of black and the underparts washed with greenish yellow” (USFWS, 1987).

2.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range The black-capped vireo’s historic breeding range is believed to have extended “in a strip from south-central Kansas, broadly through central Oklahoma south through central Texas to the Edwards Plateau, then south and west to central Coahuila (Mexico) and Big Bend National Park” (USFWS, 1991). “The vireo may also have o ccasionally bred in Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas” (USFWS, 1991). The black-capped vireo’s historic wintering range is less well known than the breeding range but is generally on the Pacific slope of Mexico (USFWS, 1991). “Records are primarily from Sinaloa and Nayarit but extend no rth to southern Sonora, and east to Oaxaca” (USFWS, 1991). “Reports where vireos were c onsidered to have occu rred ‘accidentally’ exist for eastern Nebraska, northeastern Kansas, L ouisiana, Arizona, and Nuevo Leon (Mexico)” (USFWS, 1991).

Current range No recent breeding records exist for Kansas w ith the last sighting occurring in the 1950’s (USFWS, 1991). As for Oklahoma, black-capped vi reos have been reduced to three focal areas in the west-central part of the state (USFWS, 1991). The focal area on the border of Canadian and Caddo counties is diminished with only one bird sighted there in 1990 (USFWS, 1991). The second focal area, in Blaine County, is also at very high risk with six breeding pairs during the 1990 season (USFWS, 1991). The most substantial population in Oklahoma, and the third focal area, is within Wichita Mountai ns Wildlife Refuge and adjacent Fo rt Sill Military Reservation

with over 225 adults observe d in 1990 (USFWS, 1991).

11Black-capped vireo populations are still present in a number of areas across Texas (USFWS, 1991). Populations are concentrated on the Lamp asas Cut Plains and Edwards Plateau (USFWS, 1991). “The eastern and southe rn edges of the range follow the Balcones Escarpment closely from Waco (McLennan County) to Brackettville (Kinney County). However, the range is likely discontinuous across the Llano Up lift and deterioration of these populations may be extensive, particularly from north-central Texas south broadly to the Sa n Antonio Region” (USFWS, 1991). “From 1985 to 1990, about 1,500 adult birds have been observed in Texas, summing only site maximums, or most recent counts for ar eas with multiple-yea r data” (USFWS, 1991).

2.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been ma de for the black-cappe d vireo (USFWS, 1987, 1991, and 2007).

2.5. HABITAT Black-capped vireo breeding habita t consists of “shrubby growth of a forest-grassland ecotone from Kansas (formerly) to Coahuila, Mexico” (USFWS, 1991). “From Oklahoma through Texas, this type of vegetational configuration oc curs most frequently on rocky substrates with shallow soils, in rocky gullies, on edges of ra vines, and on eroded slopes” (USFWS, 1991). Due to processes such as fire, grazing or other forms of periodic site disturbance, shrubland habitat can be successional and pass thr ough periods of suitability and unsuitability for the black-capped vireo (USFWS, 1991). High densities of deciduous vegetation up to three meters tall is common in black-capped vireo habitat (USFWS, 1991). Of secondary im portance is within-territory heterogeneity in vegetation structure (USFWS, 1991). Additionally, total woody cover of 35% to 55% in height zones relevant to the black-ca pped vireo is an indicato r of appropriate habitat (USFWS, 1991).

2.6. DIET The black-capped vireo is insecti vorous, with beetles and caterpi llars making up a large part of their diet. They will also forage for sp iders and some fruits (NatureServe, 2010).

2.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Black-capped vireos arrive from their wintering grounds in Mexico to Texa s from late-March to mid-April and arrive in Oklahoma from mid- April to early May (USFWS, 1991). Migration back to the wintering grounds occurs by late A ugust to September for Oklahoma populations and mid-September for Texas populations (USFWS, 1991). Black-capped vire o breeding pairs will occupy a territory ranging in size from one to 10 acres with an av erage size of two to four acres (USFWS, 1991). These territories are often clustered in groups av eraging in size from 10 to 15 territories per cluster dependi ng on the amount of habitat avai lable (USFWS, 1991). Larger groupings of territories have a tend ency to inspire more site fideli ty as black-capped vireos from previous seasons return to the same breeding si te (USFWS, 1991). “Adul t males breeding in the larger groupings exhibit the greate st site fidelity, returning to virtually the same territory, and

have never been detected movi ng to another location in subseq uent years” (USFWS, 1991). Females also have site fidelity but not to the same extent as males (USFWS, 1991).

“Nesting begins when the females arrive and co ntinues through August” (USFWS,1991). “Nests are placed in small forks of bushes. Different species are used in different areas, but the

12frequently used species are deciduous” (USFWS, 1991). Nests are built by the male and female (USFWS, 1991). Complete clutch es have been found as early as April 4 and the latest known nesting start is July 21 (USFWS, 19 91). A complete clutch consists of three to four white eggs and as many as six nesting attempts may be ma de per season (USFWS, 1991). Incubation lasts 14 to 19 days with incubation initiated at the laying of the second or third egg (USFWS, 1991). Incubation is performed by both the female and male (USFWS, 1991). The nestling stage lasts 9 to 12 days and the fledgling stage is 30 to 45 days post-hatching (USFWS, 1991). The young may leave the nest one or two days prior to fledging but are attended by one or both parents (USFWS, 1991). “The female may leave care of the young to the male and attempt another nesting effort or she may desert the male to re mate with another male” (USFWS, 1991). “Males will often keep the young within the confines of their territo ries, but females attending young

often wander off the male’s territory” (USF WS, 1991).

2.8. REFERENCES NatureServe: NatureServe Explorer [web a pplication]. Updated February 2010. Arlington, Virginia (USA): Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ (Accessed on: May 12, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 1987. Determination of the Black-capped Vireo To Be an Endangered Species. Federal Register Vo. 52, No. 193, pp. 37420-37423.

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1338.pdf (Accessed on: September 3, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 1991. Black-capped Vireo Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Al buquerque, New Mexico. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/910930h.pdf (Accessed on: September 3, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Serv ice (USFWS). 2007. Black-capped Vireo ( Vireo atricapilla ) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas.

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ five_year_review/doc1073.pdf (Accessed on: September 3, 2010)

133. BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

3.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The black-footed ferret (BFF) ( Mustela nigripes ) was listed as endangered throughout its entire range on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 2008). The most recent recovery plan for the BFF was approved on August 8, 1988, and a five-year review was published by the USFWS in 2008 (USFWS, 2008). No critical habitat has been designated by th e USFWS for the BFF (USFWS, 2010).

3.2. DESCRIPTION The BFF is a medium-sized member of the weasel family ( Mustelidae ), exhibiting the typical short legs and slender body (USFWS, 2008). Adult individuals weigh between 1.4 and 2.5 pounds, and lengths have been recorded between 19 and 24 inches, including a 5 or 6 inch tail (USFWS, 2008). The BFF has large ears and eyes , and a black “mask” stripe which extends across the eyes (USFWS, 2008). Its short-haired coat is predominantly buff and brown in coloration, with white fur on the snout and chest, and black fur on the legs and tail tip (USFWS, 2008). Some individuals exhibit lighter coat co loration during the winter months (Matthews, 1990). The BFF is nocturnal, and is thought to have a very keen sense of smell that would aid in dark burrow hunting (USFWS, 2008).

3.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range The BFF is endemic to North America and once occupied an estimated 100 million acres of grassland habitat between Saskatchewan, Cana da and the Chihuahua province of northern Mexico (USFWS, 2008). Over this range, the BF F shared the same distribution as the blacktailed prairie dog (BTPD), the white-tailed prairie dog (WTPD), and Gunnison’s prairie dog (GPD) (USFWS, 1988). Perhaps as many as 5.6 milli on ferrets inhabited this area in the late 1800’s (USFWS, 1988).

A fringe area of the historical BFF distribution in Meeteetse, Wyoming is now considered to have been a refugium isolated following th e last ice age (USFWS, 2008). This remnant population of 186 individuals was di scovered in 1981, eight years afte r the collapse of the last known wild BFF population (USFWS, 1988). Cani ne distemper decimated this population’s numbers in the years between 1984 and 1987, and by 1987 the 18 surviving BFFs had been removed from Meeteetse for a cap tive breeding program (USFWS, 1988).

Current range BFF distribution sharply declined because of BTPD habitat frag mentation (USFWS , 1988). At present, it appears th at all wild BFF populations have been extirpated (USFWS, 2008). However, efforts to reintroduce BFFs (captive-b red from surviving members of the last known wild population in Meeteetse, Wyoming) to various locations within the hist oric range have been ongoing since 1991 (USFWS, 2008).

14The current BFF range accounts presented by both the 2008 5-Year Review and the USFWS Species Profile website are included below.

According to the 5-Year Review, the site s of BFF reintroduction—through October 2008—are listed alphabetica lly by state in Table 1 (USFWS, 2008).

Table 1. Sites of BFF reintroduction between 1991 and October 2008.

State Site

Arizona Aubrey Valley

Arizona Espee Ranch

Colorado Wolf Creek

Kansas Logan County

Montana BLM 40 Complex

Montana Fort Belknap

Montana Northern Cheyenne

Montana UL Bend NWR

New Mexico Vermejo Ranch

South Dakota Badlands NP

South Dakota Cheyenne River

South Dakota Conata Basin

South Dakota Lower Brule

South Dakota Rosebud

South Dakota Wind Cave NP

Utah Coyote Basin Wyoming Shirley Basin

The USFWS Species Profile website reports cu rrent BFF range by state and county. This information is presented in Table 2. Further, th e Species Profile has listed the BFF as occurring statewide in Colorado, Montan a, and Utah (USFWS, 2010).

Table 2. U.S. counties in which the BFF is known to occur (USFWS, 2010)

State County State County

Arizona Coconino Nebraska Gosper

Arizona Yavapai Nebraska Antelope

Arizona Navajo Nebraska Webster

Arizona Apache Nebraska Sheridan

Kansas Logan Nebraska Scotts Bluff

Nebraska Nance Nebraska Nuckolls

Nebraska Loup Nebraska Hooker

Nebraska Knox Nebraska Hayes

Nebraska Kearney Nebraska Hall

Nebraska Cheyenne Nebraska Garfield

Nebraska Brown Nebraska Frontier

Nebraska Wheeler Nebraska Dundy

15Nebraska Howard Nebraska Dawson

Nebraska Grant Nebraska Blaine

Nebraska Garden Nebraska Adams

Nebraska Furnas New Mexico Colfax

Nebraska Dawes North Dakota Grant

Nebraska Custer North Dakota Adams

Nebraska Buffalo North Dakota Dunn

Nebraska Thomas North Dakota Stark

Nebraska Sioux North Dakota Morton

Nebraska Morrill North Dakota Mercer

Nebraska McPherson North Dakota Hettinger

Nebraska Holt North Dakota McKenzie

Nebraska Cherry North Dakota Golden Valley

Nebraska Arthur North Dakota Billings

Nebraska Rock North Dakota Oliver

Nebraska Red Willow North Dakota Sioux

Nebraska Hitchcock North Dakota Slope

Nebraska Harlan North Dakota Bowman

Nebraska Clay South Dakota Ziebach

Nebraska Chase South Dakota Tripp

Nebraska Box Butte South Dakota Todd

Nebraska Banner South Dakota Dewey

Nebraska Valley South Dakota Shannon

Nebraska Sherman South Dakota Mellette

Nebraska Hamilton South Dakota Pennington

Nebraska Greeley South Dakota Gregory

Nebraska Boone South Dakota Jackson

Nebraska Phelps Wyoming Uinta

Nebraska Logan Wyoming Sublette

Nebraska Lincoln Wyoming Fremont

Nebraska Kimball Wyoming Hot Springs

Nebraska Keya Paha Wyoming Big Horn

Nebraska Keith Wyoming Sweetwater

Nebraska Franklin Wyoming Natrona

Nebraska Deuel Wyoming Lincoln

Nebraska Boyd Wyoming Carbon

Nebraska Perkins Wyoming Washakie

Nebraska Merrick Wyoming Park

In 2009, Scott Larson of the South Dakota USFW S Field Office provided the Environmental

Fate and Effects Division of EP A’s Office of Pesticide Programs with a list of counties into which the BFF has specifically been introduced a nd adjacent counties into which the species may have expanded. This list, in Table 3 below, does not necessarily represent all areas where the BFF may occur, nor does it necessa rily represent all areas where BFF habitat may be at issue.

Table 3. U.S. counties where the BFF has been introduced (USFWS, 2009b)

State County

Kansas Logan *

16Montana Big Horn

Montana Blaine

Montana Phillips

Montana Rosebud

New Mexico Colfax *

South Dakota Corson

South Dakota Custer

South Dakota Dewey

South Dakota Fall River

South Dakota Jackson*

South Dakota Lyman

South Dakota Meade

South Dakota Mellette *

South Dakota Pennington *

South Dakota Shannon

South Dakota Stanley

South Dakota Todd*

South Dakota Zeibach * * indicates county reported in Table 2

In 2009, the USFWS published a map of block-clea red counties in Colorado which included all BTPD habitat in eastern Colorado (USFWS, 2009a) . “Block-clearance means that activities

within these areas that result in the removal of black-t ailed prairie dogs and/or their habitat will no longer required to meet the USFWS survey gui delines for black-footed ferrets, or undergo consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Speci es Act” (USFWS, 2009a). This information is presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4. USFWS block-cleared areas, by county, for bl ack-footed ferret surveys in Colorado (USFWS, 2009a)

Adams Kit Carson
Arapahoe Larimer

Baca Las Animas

Bent Lincoln

Boulder Logan

Broomfield Morgan Cheyenne Otero Crowley Phillips

Denver Prowers Douglas Pueblo

El Paso Sedgwick

Elbert Washington

Jefferson Weld

Kiowa Yuma

3.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been ma de for the black-footed ferret (USFWS, 2008).

173.5. HABITAT The BFF is associated with short and midgra ss prairie habitat consistent with the North American grassland biome (Nowak, 1999 and USFWS, 1988). The BFF is a prairie dog obligate species (USFWS, 1988). It has be en known to take advantage of prairie dog burrows for shelter and travel, and “may modify pr airie dog burrows for its own use” (Nowak, 1999). The historical range of the BFF coincided overwhelmingly with that of the BTPD—perhaps on the order of 85 percent—although the BFF also inhabited WTPD and GPD areas (USFWS, 2008). The USFWS is considering whether to designa te BFF distinct population segmen ts and target recovery based on host species of prairie dog (USFWS, 2008).

Habitat models that consider relationships betw een the BFF and prairie dog have been mentioned in USFWS assessments and are considered help ful in identifying the parameters that would

indicate a successful BFF recove ry (USFWS, 1988). The developm ent of these models has led to an understanding of the importance of prairie dog complex size in the su ccessful recovery of the BFF; where “complex” is defined as “a group of prairie dog colonies distributed so that individual black-footed ferrets (and thus [B FF] genetic material) can migrate among them commonly and frequently” (USFWS, 1988). In the recovery plan, this minimum size requirement is quantified as 124 acres of prairi e dog habitat per individual BFF (USFWS, 1988). A linear relationship has been obs erved between prairie dog habitat reduction and the number of individual BFFs supported by an area (USFWS, 1988).

3.6. DIET The BFF predominantly consumes prairie dogs ( Cynomys spp.) (Nowak, 1999). Scat analyses indicate that the prairi e dog may comprise as much as 87 or 91 percent of the BFF’s diet (USFWS, 1988). Using data on captive-fed B FF consumption, specific metabolic demands, and projected activity, intake was estimated at 124 kc al of prairie dog per da y (USFWS, 1988). The BFF has also been observed to consume pr airie dog carrion, and may cache prairie dogs (USFWS, 1988). BFFs in captivity consume between 60 and 360 grams of whole prey and ground food per day (USFWS, 1988). Female B FFs with young likely consume many more calories, as lactating weasels are considered to require three times as much energy as nonlactating adult weas els (USFWS, 1988).

While prairie dogs are the main food item of the BFF, it may also consume lagomorphs, mice, voles, ground squirrels, pocket gophers, birds, and insects (USFWS, 1988).

3.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The BFF reaches sexual maturity within one year of birth (USFWS, 1988). For wild populations, breeding takes place be tween the months of March and May, with BFF females in estrus for 8 or 9 days (USFWS, 1988). Generally solitary dwellers, male and female BFFs will share common burrows during this time (USFWS , 1998). The gestation period lasts for 41-45 days, and wild BFF litters vary in size from one to five young (USFWS, 1988). Survival of the young into adulthood is sex-variable, as evidence d by the 2:1 female to male ratio recorded (USFWS, 1988). As the sex ratio at birth is approximately 1:1, it is likely that males face increased mortality as a consequence of th eir larger home ranges (USFWS, 1988). Natural predators of the BFF include great-horned ow ls, golden eagles, and coyotes (USFWS, 1988). Life expectancy for wild BFFs is generally cons idered to be less than five years (USFWS, 1988).

183.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1988. Black-footed ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2008. Black-footed fe rret 5-Year Status Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Field Office, Pie rre, South Dakota. 38 pp.

Matthews, John R. and Charles J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. Vol. I, pp.500-502.

Nowak, Ronald M.. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, pp.713-714.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2009a. USFWS block-cleared areas for black-footed ferret surveys in Colorado. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferre t/statewide_block_clearance_map_090809_final.pdf (Accessed July 14, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2009b. Personal communication with Scott

Larson of the USFWS South Dakota Field Office.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Species Profile for the black-footed

ferret. Environmental Conservation Online System

. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/p rofile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004 (Accessed June 24, 2010).

194. CALIFORNIA CONDOR

4.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ) was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service (USFWS, 1996) . Critical habitat was designated on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 187) (USFWS, 1976 and 1996). The first 5-year review of the species was initiated by the USFWS on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12878 12883) (USFWS, 1996 and 2009a).

4.2. DESCRIPTION The California condor is one of seven species of th e Cathartidae family, and is one of the largest flying birds in the world with an adult wings pan of up to 9.5 feet (2.9 m) (USFWS, 1996). Adults weigh up to 22 pounds (10 kg) (USFWS, 1996) . Males can weigh slightly more than females, at an average of 8.8 kg, with females averaging 8.1 kg (Synder and Schmitt, 2002). Condors are sexually monomorphic a nd adults are black except for a naked head and neck with gray skin that grades into red, orange and ye llow shades (USFWS, 1996). White feathers are present on the underwing linings and on the upper secondary cove rts (USFWS, 1996). Juveniles up to three years old have mottled or dark wing lin ings which then turn whiter, and grayish-black heads which turn yellow so that by five or six years of age they look like adults (USFWS, 1996). Chicks hatched from wild-laid eggs at the Zo ological Society of San Diego had an average weight of 185.3 g, with a range of 156.6 g to 205.7 g (n=12) (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). Chicks reared in this facility have reached adult size in 100 to 110 days, about two months before fledging (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002).

4.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range

Before the late Pleistocene North American ex tinctions, the California condor ranged over most of the southern United States from Nuevo Leon, Me xico to Florida, incl uding nesting sites in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona (USFWS, 1996). Fossils have been found in the Rancho La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, and bones have also been found in upstate New York (USFWS, 1996). At the time of European settlement of North America, condors inhabited the west coast from British Columba, Canada to Baja Califor nia Norte, Mexico (USFWS, 1996). Condors were observed in the Columbia River Gorge of the nor th Pacific Coast until the mid-1800’s, and were in northern Baja California until the early 1930’s (USFWS, 1996). Th e range between the late1930’s and the early1960’s included a wi shbone shaped area around the southern San Joaquin Valley and included pa rts of San Benito, Monterey, Fresno, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Kern, and Tulare counties in California (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). By the 1980’s the northwest area of this range was nearly completely unused by the condors, leaving only Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Kern, all but northern San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). In the 1984 California Condor Recovery Plan, the wishbone shap ed area that encompassed six counties north of Los Angeles were designated the range of primary con cern by the California Condor Recovery Team (USFWS, 1996).

20Current Distribution The last wild condor was taken into captivity in 1987 (USFWS, 1996). The condor was taken captive at Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Kern Count y, southern California (Los Angeles Times, 1987). Releases of captive Cali fornia condors began in 1992 by the USFWS at sites north of Los Angeles in Southern Californi a including Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Monterey counties (Snyder and Scm itt, 2002). The California Condor Recovery website of the Arizona Game and Fish Departme nt (AZGFD) indicates th at California condor

release sites are curren tly located in the California counties cited above, with the addition of Kern County (AZGFD, 2009). California condor releases began in 1996 in the Grand Canyon area of northern Arizona, at Vermillion Cli ffs in Coconino County (USFWS, 1996). This designated non-essen tial experimental reintroduct ion area in Arizona also includes southern Utah and part of Nevada to accommodate fo r future condor movement (61 FR 54043 54060) (USFWS, 1996). In central Calif ornia, condor releases also began in Big Sur in 1997 and in Pinnacles National Monument in 2003 (Ventana Wildlife Society, 2009). In 2002, a release site was added in Baja California, Mexico (AZGFD , 2009). These reintroduc ed populations are not self-sustaining (Snyder and Scm itt, 2002 and American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), 2008).

California condor release sites ar e currently managed by different entities (USFWS, 2009b). The Southern California sites are managed by the USFW S, the Big Sur, California site is managed by Ventana Wildlife Society, the Pinnacles Nationa l Monument, California site is managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the northern Arizon a site is managed by the Peregrine Fund, and the Baja California, Mexico site is managed by the Zoological Society of San Diego (USFWS, 2009b). Condors are currently housed at the following zoos: the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City, the Los Angeles Zoo, the Oregon Zoo in Po rtland, the San Diego Wild Animal Park, the San Diego Zoo, the Santa Barbara Zoo, and the Worl d Center for Bird of Prey in Boise, Idaho (USFWS, 2009b).

According to the USFWS Species Profile, the Calif ornia condor is curren tly known to exist in Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, M onterey, San Benito, San Bern ardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura counties in Calif ornia (USFWS, 2010b). In Arizona, the California condor is known to exist in Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai counties (USFWS, 2010b). In Utah, the California co ndor is known to exist in Gr and, Piute, Garfield, Sevier, Emery, Iron, Washington, Kane, Millard, San Juan, Beaver, and Wayne counties (USFWS, 2010b).

4.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat designated for the California condor in 1976 included the “land, water, and airspace” no less than 3,000 feet above the terrai n of several areas: Sespe-Piru Condor Area that includes the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, in Ventur a and Los Angeles coun ties, Mantilija Condor Area in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, Si squoc-San Rafael Condor Area in Santa Barbara County, the Hi Mountain-Beartr ap Condor Area in San Luis Obispo County, Mount Pinos Condor Area in Ventura and Kern counties, th e Blue-Ridge Condor Ar ea in Tulare County, Tejon Ranch in Kern County, Kern County Ra ngelands between California State Highway 65 and the western boundary of Sequoia National Fo rest, and Tulare Count y Rangelands between California State Highway 65, State Highway 198, and the western boundary of Sequoia National Forest (41 FR41914) (USFWS, 1976).

21Primary Constituent Elements (PCE’s) are not described. However, several factors were considered in designating critical habitat. The Sespe-Piru, Mant ilija, Sisquoc-San Rafael, and the Hi Mountain-Beartrap areas were considered critical for nesting and related year-long activities (USFWS, 1976). The Mount Pinos and Bl ue-Ridge area were cons idered critical for roosting (USFWS, 1976). The Tejon Ranch, Kern County Rangelands, and Tulare County Rangelands were considered critic al for feeding and other relate d activities; specifically, the Tejon County Rangelands are important because it is the only feeding area close to the SespePiru nesting area (USFWS, 1976). Further, areas of open range w ith limited disturbance that provide food are needed within the designated areas to main tain the species, since food availability is directly re lated to condor distribution and reproduction (USFWS, 1976).

4.5. HABITAT The California condor is not a habitat specia list (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). The condor inhabited a diversity of habitat types, with nesting habita t ranging from scrubby chaparral to forested montane areas, mostly on cliffs but also occasionally in cavities of giant sequoia trees ( Sequoiadendron giganteum ) (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). Foraging habitat has been observed to be separate, occurring mostly in open grassla nd, but condors were also known historically to forage from beaches to high montane meadow s (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). Condors forage on open terrain on foothill grasslands and oak savann ah without steep terrain or brush, to enable location of food as well as space for take o ff and landing (USFWS, 1996). The condor requires open habitat to locate food by sight, as well as mass air movements and thermal cells that provide uplift and allow for soaring flight during foraging activities (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). California condors can soar on thermal updrafts fo r several hours, reaching up to 15,000 feet in altitude and speeds of 55 mile pe r hour (USFWS, 2010a). Nesting birds have been reported to travel up to 180 km from the nest in search of food, and ranges of non-breeding birds have been observed to cover 7,000 km (AOU, 2008). Condors r oost on large trees, snags, cliffs and rocky outcrops where they can easily take off for flight (USFWS, 2010a). They often roost in groups at the same sites, and spend most of their time preening a nd sunning while perched (USFWS, 2010). After feeding, condors bathe in rock pools, but if no water is avai lable, they will clean their necks and heads on grass, tree branches, and rocks (USFWS, 2010a).

4.6. DIET California condors forage exclusiv ely on the carcasses of dead an imals one to three days per week (USFWS, 1996). Condors eat up to 3 or 4 pounds of meat at a ti me (USFWS, 2010a). Before European settlement, condors likely ate mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), tule elk ( Cervus elaphus nannoides ), and pronghorn antelope ( Antilocapra americana ), as well as whales, sea lions, and other marine species along the shore (USFWS , 1996). It was estimated by Kolford in 1953 that the diet within the past 200 years has primarily (95%) consisted of cattle, domestic sheep, mule deer, horses, and ground s quirrels, though feeding on 24 different species had been observed (USFWS, 1996). Other species in this list include burros ( E. asinus ), mules ( E. caballus x asinus ), pigs ( Sus scrofa ), sheep ( Ovis aries ), goats ( Capra sp.), domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ), domestic cats ( Felis catus ), coyotes ( Canis latrans ), bobcats ( Lynx rufus ), black-tailed jackrabbits ( Lepus californicus ), desert cottontails ( Sylvilagus audubonii ), mountain lions ( Felis concolor ), grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ), skunks ( Mephitis mephitis ), and salmon ( Oncorhynchus sp.) (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). Cat tle, and especially calves, made up

22over half of observations, likely due to their ava ilability, but deer were noted to be preferred (USFWS, 1996). Further studies confirm the impor tance of these species, but also suggest the importance of smaller to medium sized mamma ls as well, including coyotes, rabbits, ground squirrels, gray foxes ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), long tailed weasels ( Mustela frenata ), kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys sp.), Botta’s pocketgophers ( Thomomys bottae ), and occasionally a coachwhip snake ( Masticophis flagellum ) or carrion of other bird species (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). Condors fly long distances to locate food, and circle above a located meal to notify other condors before landing, where they then wait on the ground as other condors or golden eagles feed (USFWS, 1996). California condors eat according to the hi erarchy in the group (USFWS, 2010a).

4.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Condors are long lived and have very low repr oductive rates (AOU, 2008). California condors can reproduce at six years of age, but have been observed in captivity to attempt to breed earlier (USFWS, 1996). Condors remain with the same mate unless one of the birds dies (USFWS, 2010). Courtship rituals include a display by the male, who partially holds the wings out with the head down and neck arched forward, while both birds will perform aerobatic flights where one partner follows the other (USFWS, 2010a). Wild California condors court and nest between December and spring, with one egg laid between la te January and early April which hatches after 56 days of incubation by both parents (USFWS, 1996). If the first or even second egg fails, another may be laid, depending upon the stage of incubation, time of year, and variation in the individual, its genetics, or in the climate (USFW S, 1996). Nests are located in rock formations such as crevices, overhanging ledges, potholes, and rarely in giant se quoia trees (USFWS, 1996). The factors affecting nest site choice are poo rly understood, but all shar e certain characteristics in entrance and chamber size, substrate, and accessibility of landing points (USFWS, 1996). Both parents feed the chick daily for about tw o months (USFWS, 1996). Two to three month old

chicks leave the nest while still staying in the area to continue to be fed by the parents, though less frequently (USFWS, 1996). Chicks don’t fl y until six to seven months of age (USFWS, 1996). The parents may continue to provide the chicks with food during this period (USFWS, 1996). The juvenile may not be independent until up to a year after it be gins to fly, which may determine whether the parents reproduce again th at year, which is unlikely if chick fledging occurs later in the year (USFWS, 1996). In a three year period, a pair may produce two fledglings (AOU, 2008). The lifespan of Califor nia condors is not known precisely, but it is thought that they don’t live to be much older than 40 years of ag e in the wild (USFWS, 2010a).

California condors are non-migrator y, and there is no evidence for seasonal absences from the historic range or of the condor using part of its range only in the winter season (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). However, there were some seas onal changes in the use of parts of the range (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). Portions of Tulare County, California were used more frequently in the summer, by the remnant condor population of the mid-1900’s (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002).

4.8. REFERENCES American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 2008. Stat us of the California Condor and Efforts to Achieve its Recovery. AOU Committee on Conserva tion Report. Available online from AOU

at: http://www.aou.org/committees/cons ervation/docs/AOU_Condor_Report.pdf Accessed on

23Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). 2009. California Condor Recovery. Available

online from AZGFD at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor.shtml Accessed on

Smollar, David. 1987. California’s Last Wild Condor Captured . The Los Angeles Times. Available from the Los Angeles Times online at: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-20/news/mn-1161_1

Snyder, Noel F.R. and Schmitt, John N. 2002. California Condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ).

In The Birds of North America, No.135 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1976. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for th e American Crocodile, Ca lifornia Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee (Final Rule). Fede ral Register 41 (187) 41914 -41916. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fede ral_register/fr115.pdf. Accessed on July 16,

2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Recovery Plan for the California Condor,

Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se rvice, Region 1. Portland, Oregeon. 62 pp.

Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960425.pdf

. Accessed on July 16, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Re views of 58 Species in Californi a, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah; Availability of Completed 5-Year Reviews in Cali fornia and Nevada (Notic e). Federal Register 74 (56) 12878-12883. Availabl e from USFWS online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2009_register&docid=fr25mr09-125 . Accessed on July 16, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Spotlight Species Action Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. Sacramen to, California. 11 pp. Available online from

USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/doc s/action_plans/doc3163.pdf . Accessed on July 16, 2008.

Ventana Wildlife Society. 2009. California Condor Conservation and Recovery Goals.

Available online from the Ve ntana Wildlife Society at: http://mycondor.org/conservation-and-recovery-goals.html . Accessed on July 16, 2008.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 201 0a. Biology of the California Condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ) Fact Sheet. Hooper Mountain Nati onal Wildlife Refuge Complex, Pacific Southwest Region. Availabl e online from USFWS at: http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/CACORecoveryProgram/CACO%20Biology.html

Accessed on

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Species Profile for the California Condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ) Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online from

24USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=B002

. Accessed July 16, 2010.

255. CANADA LYNX

5.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx ( Felis

canadensis ), hereafter referred to as lynx, was liste d as threatened on April 24, 2000 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF WS) (USFWS, 2000). A recove ry outline for the contiguous United States DPS of the species was published by the USFWS on September 14, 2005 (USFWS, 2010). The most recent critical habitat rule for the lynx was published by the USFWS on February 25, 2009 (USFWS, 2010).

5.2. DESCRIPTION Taxonomically, the lynx is a member of the family Felidae (Nowak, 1999). The lynx is a medium-sized cat, weighing between 5.1 and 17.2 kg (11-38 lbs) (Nowak, 1999). Length from snout to tail is typically between 80 and 100 cm (31- 39 in); the tail measuring only 5.1 to 13.8 cm (Nowak, 1999). The lynx has relatively long legs and large paws; both are thickly furred (Nowak, 1999). Its hind legs are longer than the front legs, which leads to its stooped appearance (USFWS, 2000). Coat color is va riable, but the long, thick fur is commonly yellowish brown or gray. Color of the underbelly pelage is lighter, and may have a pattern of dark spots (Nowak, 1999). Distinctive black fur tufts crown the tria ngular ears of the lynx (Nowak, 1999). The species is mainly nocturnal (Nowak, 1999).

Individual lynx occupy territories between 4 and 70 square kilomete rs in area (males) or between 4 and 25 square kilometers in area (females) (Now ak, 1999). Variable home range size is tied to factors including the abundance of prey, the density of the lynx population, animal age, and season (USFWS, 2010). As most records come from trapping—and thus the winter months— seasonal range changes are a USFWS inference (USFWS, 2000). The USFWS suspects that some segregation of spring, summer, and fall habitat occurs among the lynx and coincident species of bobcat, mountain lion, and coyot e (USFWS, 2000). Additionally, long-range exploratory movement is freque ntly recorded, and one individua l was identified 483 kilometers

from the site of its release (Nowak, 1999).

5.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range

F. canadensis historically occurred throughout the boreal forest (taiga) of Canada and wherever

the boreal forest extended into United States te rritory (USFWS, 2009). In the contiguous United States, this included the Cascad es Range of Washington and Or egon; the Rocky Mountain Range in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Wash ington, eastern Oregon, northern Utah, and Colorado; the western Great Lake s Region; and the northeastern U. S. Appalachian corridor from New York to Maine (USFWS, 2000). At the time of species listi ng, the USFWS defined historical range of the lynx in the United States to include 15 states: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (USFWS, 2000).

Current range

26F. canadensis is currently listed by the USFWS as occu rring in 15 of the 48 contiguous United States (USFWS, 2010). Of the 15 states, the lynx is listed as known to occur statewide in California, New Hampshire, Ne w York, and Vermont (USFWS, 2010) . Lynx distribution in the other 11 states— Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Mich igan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—i ncludes 191 counties (USFWS, 2010).

5.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT The USFWS published a critical habitat rule for th e contiguous United States DPS of the Canada lynx on March 27, 2009 (USFWS, 2009). In this ru le, boreal forest of multiple successional stages was identified as the sole primary cons tituent element (PCE) of lynx critical habitat (USFWS, 2009). Landscape level parameters were identified as subcat egories, including:

• The presence of snowshoe hares and their pr eferred habitat conditions, which include low and dense vegetation that protrudes above the snow, and mature multistoried stands with conifer boughs at the snow surface;

• Winter snow conditions of deep powder present for extended periods of time;

• Potential den sites characterized by abundant coarse woody debris; and

• Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest , non-forest, or other habitat types that do not support snowshoe hares) which connect pa tches of boreal forest foraging sites used by the lynx within a home range (USFWS, 2009).

Five discreet critical habitat units were desi gnated based on the representation of the above factors (USFWS, 2009).

• Unit 1 is located in northern Maine and enco mpasses 9,497 square miles of private, state, and federal land in portions of Aroostook, Fra nklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Somerset counties (USFWS, 2009).

• Unit 2 is located in northeastern Minnes ota and encompasses 8,065 square miles of private, state, and federal land in portions of Cook, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis counties, plus tracts in Superior National Forest (USFWS, 2009).

• Unit 3 includes 10,102 square miles of private, state, and federal land in northwestern Montana and northeastern Idaho in portions of Boundary County, Idaho, and Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Linc oln, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, and Teton counties in Montana, plus National Forest lands and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

lands in the Garnet Re source Area (USFWS, 2009).

• Unit 4 includes 1,836 square miles in portions of Chelan and Okanogan counties of north-central Washington, plus BLM lands in the Spokane District (USFWS, 2009).

• Unit 5 includes 9,500 square miles in Yello wstone National Park and surrounding areas

in southwestern Montana and northwester n Wyoming (USFWS, 2009). Portions of Carbon, Gallatin, Park, Stillwat er, and Sweetgrass counties in Montana; and Freemont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton counties in Wyoming are part of Unit 5 (USFWS, 2009).

5.5. HABITAT In the contiguous Unites States, the lynx is associ ated with the southern, transitional reaches of the cool and moist boreal forest (USFWS, 2009). Where it occurs at these lower latitudes, the

boreal forest forms a mixed conifer and c onifer-hardwood landscape (USFWS, 2005). More specific lynx habitat associations vary from stat e to state. Montana l ynx populations have been

27associated with older age-class multistory stands where the stem density is low (USFWS, 2009). In Maine, lynx are associated with 15 to 30 yea r-old regenerating stands of spruce and fir marked by high stem density (USFWS, 2009). In Minnesot a, lynx are associated with upland stands of pine, spruce, and fir less than 50 years old (USFW S, 2009). In areas where the lynx occurs in the north Cascades (Washington) and northern Rock ies, elevation is considered an important habitat parameter as most documentation co mes from above 4,000 feet (USFWS, 2009). Throughout its range, lynx occupied ha bitat is nearly coincident with that of the snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ) (USFWS, 2005). L. americanus is found in boreal forest landscapes in association with shrubby areas and high-density stands having a high percentage of horizontal branches (USFWS, 2009). The USFWS Recovery Outline for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx (2005) states that “a lynx population can only persist in a large boreal forested landscape that c ontains the appropriate fore st types, snow depths and high snowshoe hare densities.”

Areas of downed timber serve as potential den si tes for the lynx, providing security and thermal cover for lynx kittens (USFWS, 2009). The lynx has also been documented to den under rock ledges and shrubs (Nowak, 1999).

5.6. DIET The snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ) is the lynx’s primary prey (USFWS, 2000). When snowshoe hare populations are not abundant, th e lynx will opportunistically feed on small mammals and birds (USFWS, 2009). Other prey is considered to incl ude rodents and fish (Nowak, 1999). Lynx also prey on ungulates which are “utilized heavily in certain areas” during the winter (Nowak, 1999).

5.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Lynx kittens are born between the months of May a nd June in litters of 1-8, and weigh between 197 to 211 grams at birth (Nowak, 1999). Postpartum mortality of kittens resulting from lack of food is not uncommon, particularly when hare po pulations are experiencing cyclic lows (Nowak, 1999). When hare density is low, there is even a reduced rate of pregnancy in females (Nowak, 1999). Kittens are weaned after 5 months, although some meat ma y be eaten by kittens as early as the first month (Nowak, 1999). Sexual maturity is attained prior to tw o years of age (Nowak, 1999). Mating takes place in February and March, and the gestation period lasts 9 or 10 weeks (Nowak, 1999).

5.8. REFERENCES Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, pp.807-808.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Final rule: Determination of

Threatened Status for the Con tiguous U.S. Distinct Populatio n Segment of the Canada Lynx. Federal Register 65, No. 58, pp. 16052-16086. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr3552.pdf (Accessed July 19, 2010)

28United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2005. Recovery Outline for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 21 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/fin al%20draft%20Lynx%20Recovery%20Outline%209- 05.pdf (Accessed July 19, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2009. Revised designati on of critical habitat for the contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segm ent of the Canada lynx. Federal Register 74, No. 36, pp. 8615-8702. http://frwebgate2.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISd ocID=NECrfp/0/2/0&WAISaction

=retrieve (Accessed July 19, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Species Profile for the Canada lynx. Environmental Conservation Online System

. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=A073 (Accessed July 19, 2010)

6. CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG

6.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Chiricahua leopard frog (CLF) ( Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis ) was listed as threatened on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with an effective date of July 15, 2002 (USFW S, 2002). The genus name of “ Lithobates ” is now being used by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, as well as ot her authorities, for all leopard frog species (USFWS, 2010 a). Leopard frogs were previously in the genus “ Rana ”; however, this change is controversial and sti ll under debate (USFWS, 2010 a). The recovery plan for the CLF was approved on June 4, 2007 (USF WS, 2007 a). No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the CLF (USFWS, 2002).

6.2. DESCRIPTION The CLF is a medium-to-large sized frog about 109 mm (4.3 inches) in length (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 a). The snout-to-vent length of adults ranges from 54 to 139 mm (2.1 to 5.4 inches) in length (USFWS, 2002 and 2007 b). Adu lts can weigh up to 100 grams ( Center for Biological Diversity, 1989). The CLF is green or brown with numerous, relatively small dark dorsal spots (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 a). It has pale yellow to white skin on its underside (Pima County, Arizona, 2010). It has a distin ctive color pattern of small, raised, cream-colored spots or tubercles on the rear of its thighs which c ontrasts against a dark background (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2010 b). It has relatively rough skin on its back and sides and is often greenish on its head and back (USFWS, 2007 b and 2010 b). It also has a raised fold of skin running down each side of its back (dorsolateral fo lds) (USFWS, 2007 a and b). Its ca ll, a distinctive snore of one to two seconds, distinguishes this species from other leopard frogs (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2010 b). It is also distinguished from other leopard frogs by its dist inctive salt and pepper pattern on the rear of its thighs, dorsolateral folds that are interrupted and inset towards the

29posterior (deflected medially), stocky body, rela tively high and upturned eyes, and rough skin on its back and sides (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2010 a).

6.3. DISTRIBUTION The range of the CLF is divided into two gr oups: 1) “a southern gr oup of populations (the majority of the species’ range) located in mount ains and valleys south of the Gila River in southeastern Arizona, extreme southwestern Ne w Mexico, and Mexico; and 2) northern montane populations in west-central Ne w Mexico and along the Mogollon Rim in central and eastern Arizona” (USFWS, 2002, 2006, and 2007 a and b). Recent genetic analyses support describing the northern populations as a distinct species (USFWS, 2002 and 2007 a and b).

Historical range The CLF was historically found in “central, east- central, and southeastern Arizona (Santa Cruz, Apache, Gila, Pima, Cochise, Greenlee, Grah am, Yavapai, Coconino, and Navajo counties);

west-central and southwestern New Mexico (Catron, Grant, Hida lgo, Luna, Soccoro, and Sierra counties); and in Mexic o, northeastern Sonora and the Sierra Madre Occidental of northwestern Chihuahua” (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2008). Distribution of th e CLF in Mexico is poorly known (USFWS, 2008). “A total of 298 and 182 hist orical localities are known for the species in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. An additional 34 localitie s are known from Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico” (USFWS, 2008)

Current range

The CLF “occurs in the mountains of central an d east-central Arizona in to west-central New Mexico, and also in the mountai ns and high valleys of southeas tern Arizona, the bootheel of southwestern New Mexico, and south through we stern Chihuahua and northeastern Sonora, Mexico” (USFWS, 2007 a and b and 2010 a). “Specifically in Arizona, it is found in the montane central part of the state, east and s outh of the Mogollon Rim” (Pima County, Arizona, 2010). “It is also found in the southeastern montane sector and adjacent Sonora” (Pima County, Arizona, 2010). “Elevational range is from 3,500 to 8,040 feet, and 1,219 to 4,023 feet at the Arizona/Mexico” border (Pim a County, Arizona, 2010).

“The species’ current range is similar to its hist orical range, but the frog is not well-represented in many areas now, and has apparently disappeared from some drainages and mountain ranges. At the time of listing (2002) the frog was likely extant at an es timated 87 and 31-41 localities in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively” (USFWS , 2008). As of February 2008, it was estimated that “the frog is extant at 49 and 30-35 local ities in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively; which represents extirpation from 82-84 percent of historical U.S. localities. The status of the 34

collection locali ties in Mexico is poorly known” (USFWS, 2008).

The USFWS lists Arizona and New Mexico as th e only states where the CLF is known to occur in the U.S. (Table 1).

Table 1 . Counties where the CLF is known to occu r in the United States (USFWS, 2010 b)

State County

Arizona Apache

30Arizona Cochise

Arizona Coconino

Arizona Gila

Arizona Graham

Arizona Greenlee

Arizona Navajo

Arizona Pima

Arizona Santa Cruz

Arizona Yavapai

New Mexico Catron

New Mexico Grant

New Mexico Hidalgo

New Mexico Luna

New Mexico Sierra

New Mexico Socorro

6.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been ma de for the CLF (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2010b).

6.5. HABITAT The CLF is known currently or historically from montane streams and springs, and river valley bottom cienegas (mid-elevation wetland communiti es often surrounded by arid environments or wet meadows), springs, pools, liv estock/cattle tanks (i.e., small earthen ponds or existing or future impoundments in an epheme ral drainage or upland site cons tructed primarily as a watering site for livestock), lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers at elevations of 1,000 to 2,710 meters (3,281 to 8,890 feet) (USFWS, 2002 and 2007 a and b) . Historically, CLFs “in southeastern

Arizona were most abundant under natural conditi ons in lowland cienegas and marshy streams, which are more productive and had a greater ae rial extent than suitable montane aquatic systems” (USFWS, 2007 a). “In natural cienega settings, water levels would have fluctuated over long periods and on a seasonal basis, cr eating significant areas in which leopard frog tadpoles would have thrived in the presence of little competition or predation from fishes. Current situations in cienegas retain little of th is possibility; most cien egas have been reduced, dammed, or otherwise simplified, and fish, even na tive fish, tend to have been spread throughout the waters of cienegas” (USFWS, 2007 a). CL Fs “are rarely found in abundance in natural montane settings in southern Arizona; rather they sometimes achieve high reproductive success and population density in constructed ponds in th e mountains. The optimal setting appears to include a stream or tinaja-st udded canyon within dispersal dist ance of suitable pond habitats. The ponds provide reproductive habitat, whereas na tural waters provide either drought refugia, habitat complexity as a buffer against unpredictability, additi onal reproductive output, or a

combination or some or all of these factors” (USFWS, 2007 a).

Historically, prior to introducti on of non-native predators, adu lt CLFs were aquatic habitat generalists that were found in a variety of natu ral and man-made aquatic habitat types, but now are limited primarily to the comparatively few aq uatic systems that suppo rt few or no non-native

31predators (e.g. American bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish) (USFWS, 2007 a and b, 2008, and 2010 a). “Natural systems include rivers, permanent streams, permanent pools in intermittent streams, beaver ponds, cienegas, and spri ngs. Artificial systems in whic h they have been recorded

included earthen cattle ta nks, livestock drinkers, irrigation sl oughs or acequias, wells, abandoned swimming pools, ornamental back yard ponds, a nd mine adits at elevations of 3,281 to 8,890 feet” (USFWS, 2007 a). It seems that CLFs ar e now limited to livestock tanks and other manmade waters, as well as headwater streams, ci enegas, and springs in the upper portions of watersheds where non-native predat ors either have yet to invade or habitats are marginal (USFWS, 2010 a and 2008). “In the Southwest, leopard frogs are currently so strongly impacted by harmful non-native species, which are most preval ent in perennial waters, that their occupied niche is increasingly restricted to environmen ts that tend to be ephemeral and unpredictable” (USFWS, 2007 a).

CLFs are highly aquatic frogs and have been de scribed as “probably the most aquatic of the Southwestern leopard frogs” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 a). As a result, the CLF needs “permanent to semi-permanent water for survival” (USFWS, 2007 a). “The tadpole is fully aquatic, thus water must be available in sufficient quality and quantity long enough ( > 3 months) for metamorphosis” (USFWS, 2007 a). The CLF requi res “water characterized by low levels of contaminants and moderate pH, and may be ex cluded or exhibit periodic die-offs where a pathogenic chytridiomycete fungus is present” (USFWS, 2007 a and b). “Highly polluted waters do not support” CLFs (USFWS, 2007 a).

“Except during overland dispersal during wet periods, these frogs rarely are found far from these water bodies” (USFWS, 2007 a). However, “dur ing summer rains it can move overland and along normally dry drainages” (USFWS, 2010 a). Frogs may form a metapopulation (a set of local populations that interact via individuals moving among lo cal populations) “between nearby (within 5 miles) habitats with adults moving between sites via connecting waters or overland during seasonal rainfall events” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b). “Small patches of suitable aquatic habitat must be within the dispersal ra nge of metamorphs” as “t hese aquatic corridors may be critical in the conservati on” of CLFs (USFWS, 2007 a). “Tadpoles may be washed into new habitats by higher streamflows after rain s” (USFWS, 2010 b). Even though CLFs “are found in intermittent bodies of water, mechanis ms by which they survive the loss of surface water are unknown” (USFWS, 2007 a). However, Southwestern leopard frogs, including the CLF, “have been observed to survive drought by burrowing into muddy cracks and holes around drying water sources” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Where water is not permanent, adult frogs may persist but reproduction is likely no t successful” (USFWS, 2010 b).

The CLF is “usually found on the edges of ponds or streams” (USFWS, 2010 a). “Habitats with a variety of plants, depths, in-water structure, and other complexities are desired” (USFWS, 2010 b). “The role of habitat heterogeneity within the aquatic and terrestri al environment is unknown, but is likely to be important: shallow water w ith emergent and perimete r vegetation provide egg deposition, tadpole and adult thermo regulation or basking sites, a nd foraging sites, while deeper water, root masses, and undercut banks provide refuge from predators and potential hibernacula” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Shoreside ve getation and rooted aquatic vege tation that provide cover are important for the conservation and maintena nce of” CLF populations (USFWS, 2007 a). “Vegetation cover sufficient to provide refuge fr om predators and desiccation must be present

32for long-term survival” (USFWS, 2 007 a). Sites that lack some vegetation cover tend to have a relatively “depauperate inverteb rate fauna and thus less potential prey for leopard frogs” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Aquatic sites sh ould have substrate (some mud and not just bare rocks as in some tinaja pools) that will allo w for the growth of algae and diatoms to serve as food for developing tadpoles and to allow for overwinteri ng hibernation sites” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Those populations that occur in aquati c habitats that are only seas onally inundated and have only muddy banks with no vegetative cover generally cons ist of metamorphs that will soon disperse from these sites” (USFWS, 2007 a). “However, a few large adults may inhabit these sites if

cover exists in the form of r ooted aquatic vegetation, deep m uddy water, root wads, undercut banks, or flood debris” (USFWS, 2007 a). The lack of cover at these sites increases the predation pressure and populations tend to be small and secretive” (USFWS, 2007 a). Most perennial waters supporting CLFs have “fractured rock substrata, emergent or submergent vegetation, deep water, root masse s, undercut banks, or some combination of these features that frogs may use as refugia from predators and extreme climatic conditions” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Surrounding upland vegetation includes oak an d mixed oak and pine woodlands, and ranges into areas of chaparral, grassland, and desert” (Pima County, Arizona, 2010). “Male home range sizes (dry season mean = 1,733 feet 2 : wet season, mean = 4,044 feet 2 ) tended to be larger than those of females (dry season mean = 614 feet 2 : wet season, mean = 992 feet 2 )” (USFWS, 2007 a). CLFs “likely overwinter at or near breeding sites, although microsites for these “hibernacula” have not been studied” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Oth er leopard frogs typically overwinter at the bottom of well-oxygenated ponds or lakes, and ma y bury themselves in the mud” (USFWS, 2007 a).

Juvenile CLF habitat requirements are not we ll studied; however, “some spatial and temporal separation of adults and juveniles may enhance survivorship” (USFWS, 2007 a). Observations of the lowland leopard frog “found that juveniles were more frequently associated with small pools and marshy areas while adults were asso ciated with large pool s” (USFWS, 2007 a). Furthermore, juveniles tend to be more active dur ing the day, whereas the adults are more active at night (USFWS, 2007 a).

6.6. DIET Larval CLFs are primarily herbivorous (USFWS , 2007 a). “Available food items at one site examined within the range of this species in clude bacteria, diatoms, phytoplankton, filamentous green algae, water milfoil ( Myriophyllum sp.), duckweed ( Lemna minor ), and detritus” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b; and Pima County, Arizona, 2010). “Metamorphs and adults will eat aquatic or terrestrial invertebrates and small fish, frogs, or toads” (USFWS, 2010 b). The CLF is expected to be an invertebrate generalist, “c onsuming a wide variety of flying and terrestrial insects and other arthropods” (U SFWS, 2007 a). “Stomach contents of other members of the leopard frog complex from the western United States show a wide variety of prey items including many types of aquatic a nd terrestrial inverteb rates (e.g., snails, spiders, and insects) and vertebrates (e.g., fish, other anurans (frogs and toads) (including co nspecifics), and small birds)” (USFWS, 2007 a). The CLF may also eat fresh-water shrimp ( Pima County, Arizona, 2010).

336.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The eggs and larvae of the CLF are entirely aquatic and the adults are primarily aquatic (USFWS, 2007 a). CLF eggs masses have been reported in all months except November, December, and January, “but reports of ovi position in June are uncommon” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 a). CLF populations at elevations below 5,900 feet tend to oviposit (lay their eggs) from spring through late summer (March through J une), with most activity taking place before June (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b). “Populations above 5,900 feet breed in June, July, and August” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b). Breeding in the early part of the year appears to be limited to sites where the water temperatures do not get too low, incl uding spring-fed sites (USFWS, 2007 a). “Frogs at some of thes e sites may oviposit year -round” (USFWS, 2007 a). The minimum-maximum water temperatures for CLF embryos is around 53.6-88.7°F (USFWS, 2007 a).

Spherical egg masses of 300 to 1,485 eggs are la id in quiet pools, and are typically found suspended within two inches of the surface attached to ro oted aquatic vegetation (e.g., Polygonum

, Potamogeton

, Ranunculus

, Rorippa

, Echinochloa

, Leersia , Cyperaceae, and Gramineae) (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 a). “However , the lack of such vegetation does not preclude egg deposition, and eggs are occasi onally deposited on submerged or partially submerged debris includ ing Russian thistle ( Salsola sp.) and other wind blown debris” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Nothing is known about the survivorship of eggs attached to r ooted aquatic vegetation versus debris” (USFWS, 2007 a). The number of eggs in an egg mass is apparently correlated with the female’s body size (USFWS, 2007 a). Ha tching occurs within a week or two and tadpoles remain in the water where they feed and grow (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b). “Metamorphosis may occur in 3 to 9 months de pending on the temperature of the site and in some sites, tadpoles may overwinter” (USFWS, 2007 a and 2010 b). “Adult status is dependent on size rather than age” (USFWS, 2010 b). Post-m etamorphic CLFs are “generally inactive from November through February; howev er, this is regulated by temp erature and warmer sites may have more winter activity” (USFWS, 2007 a a nd 2010 b). However, a “detailed study of wintertime activity or habitat use has not been done” (USFWS, 2007 a).

6.8. REFERENCES Center for Biological Diversity. 1989. Petit ion to List the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ( Rana

Chiricahuensis ) as an Endangered Species. Southwes t Center for Biological Diversity. Endangered Species Series No. 39. Available online at: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/amphi bians/Chiricahua_leopard_frog/pdfs/petition1998.pdf (Accessed on August 9, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ( Rana chiricahuensis ); Final Rule. Federal Register 67, No. 114, pp. 40789-40811. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr3885.pdf (Accessed August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2006. Notice of Availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Chiricahua Leopa rd Frog. Federal Register 71, No. 70, pp. 18767.

Available online at:

34http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docum ents/SpeciesDocs/CLF/DraftRP/CLF_dRP_FR. pdf (Accessed August 23, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2007 a. Chiricahua Leopard Frog ( Rana

chiricahuensis ) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070604_v3.pdf (Accessed on August 23, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2007 b. Questions and Answers: Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan. Arizona Ec ological Services. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/D ocuments/SpeciesDocs /CLF/CLF_fRP_QnA.pdf (Accessed August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Chiricahua leopard frog ( Lithobates
[ Rana ] chiricahuensis ). Arizona Ecological Services. Ge neral Species Information. Available

online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Chiricahua%20Leopard%20Frog %20RB.pdf (Accessed on August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2010 a. Biology of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Arizona Ecological Serv ices. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/CLF_Biology.htm (Accessed on August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010 b. Species Profile for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Environmental Conservation Online System . Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=D02F (Accessed August 23, 2010)

Pima County, Arizona. 2010. Chiricahua Leopard Frog ( Rana chiricahuensis)

. Sonoran Desert

Conservation Plan . Available online at: http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp /species/fsheets/clf.html (Accessed August 23, 2010)

357. ESKIMO CURLEW

7.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Eskimo curlew ( Numenius borealis ) was listed in 1967 as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 ( 32 FR 4001) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1967). Th e Eskimo curlew was also list ed as an endangered species in Canada in 1980 (Gollop et. al., 2006).

7.2. DESCRIPTION There are four species of curlew in the Western Hemisphere, and the Eskimo curlew is the smallest (USFWS, 2006). The Eskimo curlew is a medium sized shoreb ird, about 30 cm long, with a bill about 5 cm long th at is curved down slightly (USFWS, 1980). The range of body length is given as 32 to 37 cm (Environment Canada, 2007). The Eskimo curlew is easily confused with,other species of curlew such as the whimbrel ( N. phaeopus ), and with other shorebird species like sandpipers (Environment Canada, 2007). Eskimo curlews have smaller

bodies and shorter and more slender bills than Wimbrels (USFWS, 1980). The wings are 19 to 23 cm in length and the wing tips cover the ta il (Environment Canada, 2007). The primary feathers are uniformly dark in color, with greenish colored le gs, and a dark unstriped crown (USFWS, 1980). There is no eye stripe (Envi ronment Canada, 2007). The body and crown are solid brown, with a rusty-yellow underside a nd streaks on the side of the neck and face (Environment Canada, 2007). There are no bars on the undersides of the primaries, with wing linings that are a “pale to rich cinnamon” co lor (Environment Canada, 2007). Eskimo curlews weigh 270 to 454 g (Environment Canada, 2007).

7.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range

The Eskimo curlew once nested in two known breed ing areas in the Northw est Territories, in the

south of Bathurst Peninsula in the area of the Anderson River, and in the Amundsen Gulf/Coronation Gulf/Coppermine River area (Envir onment Canada, 2007). This area is also

described as the Arctic tundra between the McKe nzie and Coppermine Rivers in northwestern McKenzie, Northwest Territories, Canada (USFWS, 1980). The Eskimo cu rlew probably also

nested west of this area as far as the Bering Sea (USFWS, 1980) . It may also have bred in Alaska, the Yukon, and in western Russia (Environ ment Canada, 2010). The birds migrated to South America for the winter, with a staging area in Labrador, Canada (USFWS, 1980). During the fall migration they were seen in every Canadian province except for British Columbia (Environment Canada, 2010). They also staged for migration in Newfoundland and in some years in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes in Ca nada as well as in New England in the United States (Environment Canada, 2010). From there th e migration route went over the Atlantic to South America (Environment Canada, 2010). The spring migration northward returned via the Gulf of Mexico and up into Texas, the Midwestern United States and then the prairies of Canada (Environment Canada, 2010).

36Current Distribution While the Eskimo curlew was once a species popul ation of hundreds of thousands of birds, since the 1870’s it has been very rare, and possibly ex tinct, primarily due to overhunting (Environment Canada, 2007). There are very few if any Eskimo curlews left, with no confirmed sightings in the world since the 1960’s, and no nests identified since 1866, though searches have been made in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s in the breedi ng ranges that were used historically (Environment Canada, 2007). Estimates from sear ches in these decades placed the population at 23 to 100 birds, but these were based upon “ guesswork” (Environment Canada, 2007). The sightings in the 1960’s were in Galveston Island, Texas; Barbados, West Indies; and North Point on James Bay in Ontario (USFWS, 1980). Eighty possible sightings between 1945 and 1985 were reported in North America, but may be misidentified shorebirds of other species (Environment Canada, 2007). Winter range ar ea searches also found no Eskimo curlews in 1992-1993 (Environment Canada, 2007).

The online USFWS Species Profile i ndicates that the Eskimo curlew is known to occur statewide in Alaska, Kansas, Montana, and Nebraska (U SFWS, 2010). The Eskimo curlew is also known to occur in Canadian, Osage, Woods, and W oodward counties in Oklahoma; in Brown and Yankton counties in South Dakota; and in Galveston County, Texas (USFWS, 2010).

7.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT

No critical habitat has been established for the Eskimo curlew (USFWS, 2010).

7.5. HABITAT The Eskimo curlew breeds beginning in May in the tundra and woodland transition zones, which consist of dwarf shrub-graminoid tundra comple x (“barrens”) and grassy meadows (Environment Canada, 2007 and 2010). This habitat supports grass species such as polargrass ( Arctagrostis latifolia ), Artic bluegrass ( Poa arctica ), and glaucus bluegrass ( P. glauca ), sedges such as Carex sp., and cottongrass ( Eriophorum sp. and Dryas sp. ) and shrubs such as glandular birch ( Betula glandulosa ) (Environment Canada, 2007). During th e fall migration, Eskimo curlews fed in coastal and crowberry areas such as those found in Labrador as well as terrestrial habitats (Environment Canada, 2007 and 2010). Curlews we re found in such habitats as salt marsh, intertidal flats, sand dunes, meadows, pastures, and old fields in Ma ssachusetts (Environment Canada, 2010). Ericaceous heath habitat was used in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, northern Ontario, southern Quebec, Newfoundland, Labra dor, and the Maritime Provinces (Environment Canada, 2007). Eskimo curlews wintered in Sout h America in treeless pampas with permanent or ephemeral wetlands in Argentin a and possibly in the wet meadow s and intertidal areas in the south of Patagonia (Environment Canada, 2007) . During spring migration, curlews used tallgrass and eastern mixed-grass prairies, often disturbed by fire or cu ltivation (USFWS, 2007).

Records from Nebraska and Illi nois indicate that cu rlews stopped in burned prairies, wetlands, and plowed fields while migrati ng (Gollop et. al., 2006). Areas near water sources disturbed by bison were also used (Environment Canada, 2007). Other sources note that curlews were rarely

found near water in the Midw est (Gollop et. al., 2006).

377.6. DIET Eskimo curlews ate berries including blueberries ( Vaccinium sp.) and crowberries ( Empetrium nigrum ), Dipteran larvae and adult snails, coas tal invertebrates including amphipods and isopods, earthworms, and insects such as beetles, young grasshoppers and grasshopper eggs before the fall migration (Environment Canada, 2007 and 2010). The Labrador and Newfoundland heath shrub habitats provide berries, and nearby litt oral areas provided crustaceans and insects (USFWS, 2006). Curlews also ate ants on the breeding grounds, and ate ant egg capsules from unplowed land during spring migration (USFWS, 1980) . On plowed land, curlews ate grubs and cutworms (USFWS, 1980). Other spring migration food consisted primarily of juvenile grasshoppers and their larvae, particul arly the Rocky Mountain grasshopper ( Melanoplus

spretus ) (now extinct), as well as other insects, berries, and earthworms (Environment Canada, 2007; and USFWS, 2006).

7.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Eskimo curlews were migratory birds (Environm ent Canada, 2007). They arrived at breeding grounds in the McKenzie District of the Northwest Territories in May and established a nesting territory (Environment Canada, 2010). Breeding age of the curlew is not known, but related species do not breed until three years of age (Environment Canada, 2010). Nests were made by scraping a shallow depression in th e ground, where clutches of four eggs were laid from mid to late June (Environment Canada, 2010). At Fort Anderson, McKenzie, eggs were present on the nests from May 27 to June 13 (USFWS, 1980). E ggs hatched from early to mid July and only one brood was raised in a season (Environment Ca nada, 2010). Species related to the Eskimo curlew are monogamous and share incubation res ponsibilities (Environment Canada, 2010). It is presumed that the Eskimo curlew also uses this mating system (Environment Canada, 2010). Chicks fed themselves beginning on the first day after hatching (Environment Canada, 2010). The young left the nest with their parents on the first or second day follo wing hatching and were able to migrate at the end of the month (Environment Canada, 2010). By July, the breeding season was over and adults left to head south, with the juveniles soon to follow (USFWS, 1980). Related species live ten to 30 years (Environment Canada, 2010). It is po ssible that the Eskimo curlew also lives this long (Environment Canada, 2010).

The Eskimo curlew migrated from July to October to winter over in South America (Environment Canada, 2010). After staging pr imarily in Labrador and Newfoundland, Canada, they flew nonstop over the Atlantic Ocean probably to the pampas of Argentina, and also to Uruguay and further south (Environment Canada , 2010). The curlews arrived at wintering grounds by early September (USFWS, 1980). Add itionally, there was another migration route used by fewer birds traveling down the western si de of the Hudson Bay with some birds reaching areas in the Great Lakes, Hamilton County, Ohio, and Cooke County, Texas; however, the remainder of the migration route to winteri ng grounds is unknown (USF WS, 1980). The return migration in the spring began in April or May and traveled along the P acific coast of South America, progressed to Central Am erica, over the Gulf of Mexic o, and into the Midwest of the United States and then Canada (Environment Ca nada, 2010). Other sources report the spring migration beginning in late Febr uary, arriving in Texas and Loui siana by early March, and then heading north through the Midwestern states to eastern South Dakota and then to breeding grounds in Canada by the end of May (USFWS, 1980).

38Special roosting requirements ar e unknown, and were probably in the same open habitat as those used for nesting, migration, and winter feeding (USFWS, 1980).

7.8. REFERENCES Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew ( Numenius borealis ) in

Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottowa. v+10pp.

Available online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/f iles/plans/rs_eskim o_curlew_final_0507_e.pdf

. Accessed on July 5, 2010.

Environment Canada. 2010. Speci es Profile, Eskimo Curlew. Species at Risk Public Registry.

Available online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/spec ies/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=21

. Accessed on July 5, 2010.

Gollop, J.B., Barry, T.W., and Iverson, E.H. 1986. Eskimo Curlew: A Vanishing Species? Nature Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Natural Histor y Society. Regina, Saskatchewan. Available online from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/curlew/ . Accessed on July 5, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 1967. List of Enda ngered Fish and Wildlife and Plants (Final Rule). Federal Register 32 (48) 4001. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr18.pdf . Accessed on August 5, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species of the Seacoast of the United States. Prepared by National Fish and Wildlife Laborator y, Washington, DC. 658 p. Available online at: http://www.archive.org/deta ils/selectedvertebra00usfi . Accessed on July 5, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e. 2006. Eskimo Curlew ( Numenius borealis ). Factsheet.

Available online at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/62_ESCU_Factsheet.pdf

. Accessed on July 5, 2010.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Eskimo curlew ( Numenius borealis ). Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online from

USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=B01A

. Accessed August 5, 2010.

398. GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER

8.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The golden-cheeked warbler ( Dendroico chrysoparia ) was listed as an endangered species under an emergency rule on May 4, 1990 (55 FR 18844) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1990 a). A final rule was issu ed to list the golden- cheeked warbler as an endangered species on December 27, 1990 (55 FR 53153) (USFWS, 1990 c). The recovery plan for the golden-cheeked warbler was approved and published on September 30, 1992 (USFWS, 1992). No critical habitat has been designate d by the USFWS for the golden-cheeked warbler (USFWS, 1990 b).

8.2. DESCRIPTION The golden-cheeked warbler is a small bird with yellow cheeks (USFWS, 1990 b). In males, the cheeks are outlined in black (USFWS, 1990 b). Male golden-cheeked warblers, in breeding plumage, have a “black stripe extending throug h the eye to the side of the nape. Its crown, upperparts, throat, neck, upper breast, and streak ing along the flanks are jet black. Wings are black with two distinct white bars, and the ta il is blackish”(USFWS. 1990 b). “Winter plumage of adult males is similar to the breeding plumage except that the black feat hers of the throat are edged with yellow or cream” (USFWS, 1992). “The female is less colorful than the male. Her upperparts are yellowish-olive green, the wings a nd tail are grayish, and the cheeks are not as bright yellow as the males” (USFWS, 1990 b). “J uveniles are similar to adult females. Their

backs are brownish olive. Wi ngs are dark drab, wing-bars br ownish, and cheeks are dull buffcolored. Throat, chest, an abdomen are drab or grayish white” (USFWS, 1992). “[A]verage breeding weights were 10.2 g for 7 adult males, and 9.4 g for 11 adult females” (USFWS, 1992).

8.3. DISTRIBUTION Current distribution of the golden-cheeked warble r reflects historic di stribution though habitat

within the distribu tion is limited due to habitat destructi on (USFWS, 1992). “This species is the only endemic breeding bird of Texas whose entire nesting range occurs within the state. It

occurs in central Texas from Palo Pinto and Bosque Counties, south through the eastern and south-central portions of the Edward Plateau” (USFWS, 1990 b) . “[This species] has been reported as a breeding species from the followi ng counties: Bandera, Bastrop, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Bosque, Burnet, Comal, Concho, Coryell, Dallas, Eastland, Edwards, Erath, Gillespie, Hamilton, Hays, Hood, Johnson, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Lampasas, Lee, Llano, McLennan, Medina, Palo Pinto, Real, San Saba, Somervell, Stephens, Tom Green, Travis, Uvalde, and Williamson”(USFWS, 1992). However, this species “may no longer nest in Tom Green, Concho, Dallas, Lee, McLennan, and Bast rop counties”(USFWS, 1992). “In the period of July-October, [the species migrates] southw ard through the coniferous -oak woodlands of the Sierra Madre Oriental of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Queretaro, Veracruz, and Chiapas” (USFWS, 1992). “[The species] winters in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and possibly Belize” (USFWS, 1990 b).

8.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been ma de for the golden-cheeked warbler (USFWS, 1987 and 1990 b).

408.5. HABITAT

“Golden-cheeked warbler habita t consists of Ashe juniper [ Juniperus ashei ] and various species of oak, such as Quercus durandii breviloba (scrub oak) and Quercus buckleyi = Q. texana (Texas oak). Oaks (especially deci duous species) apparently provide essential foraging substrate” (USFWS, 1990 b). “The breeding range of the golden-cheeked warbler co incides closely with the range of Juniperus ashei (Ashe juniper). The golden-ch eeked warbler depends on Ashe juniper for nesting materials and substrate, a nd singing perches” (USFWS, 1990 b). “[It] is [a] mature forest dweller because of its dependen ce on several old-growth attributes of Ashe juniper-oak woodland including ne arly closed canopy, canopy height , and shredding bark of old junipers” (USFWS, 1990 b). “The species has a narrow tolerance in habita t requirements. If habitat is destroyed, the bird s that are dependent upon it are eliminated from the breeding population” (USFWS, 1990 b). Ha bitat quality may also depe nd on the proximity to “free water” and the presence of st eep slopes or rugged terrain (USFWS, 1992). “Estimates of territory size range from 1.3-2.4 ha/territory [3.2-5.9 acr es/territory]” (USFWS, 1992).

8.6. DIET “The golden-cheeked warbler f eeds on whatever insects are avai lable, including caterpillars, green lacewings, small green cicadas, katydids, walkingsticks, flies, adult moths and small

butterflies. The birds also eat spiders” (USFWS, 1990 b). “[M]os t foraging time is spent on foot moving from branch to branch gleaning sma ll insects from the foliage” (USFWS, 1992).

8.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION “[The golden-cheeked warbler] migrates to cen tral Texas from their wintering grounds by midMarch” (USFWS, 1992). “Females begin building nests the first week of April” (USFWS, 1992). “[B]reeding season is mainly in Ap ril and May” (USFWS, 1900 b). “[The goldencheeked warbler] uses strips of Ashe juniper bark to construct its nest. The strips of bark are bound together with cobwebs to form a compact little cup, which is then lined with fur and

feathers. The nest is commonl y located about 4.5 meters (1 5 feet) from the ground, although it varies from 1.5-10 meters (5-32 feet)” (USFWS, 1990 b). During the breedi ng season, “[u]sually three or four eggs, rarely five, are laid. Th e eggs are white or creamy white with varying amounts of brown and less predominant shades of purple”(USFWS, 1990 b). “Most complete sets of [golden-cheeked warbler] eggs have b een found during the period of 3 April to 27 June. Clutches laid after the end of April probably are second renest attempts following failed or abandoned first attempts”(USFWS, 1992). “The female incubates the eggs for 12 days. The male plays an active role in feeding and care of the young. The young leave the nest when 8 or 9 days old, but remain nearby in a loose family group while being cared for by both parents. Second nesting attempts are made only when the first nest is destroye d or deserted” (USFWS, 1990 b).

8.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1990 a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Emergency Rule to List the Gold en-cheeked Warbler as Endangered. Federal Register Vo. 55, No. 87, pp. 18844-18845. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr1700.pdf (Accessed on: September 6, 2010)

41United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 1990 b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the Golden-ch eeked Warbler as Endangered. Federal Register Vo. 55, No. 87, pp. 18846-18849. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr1701.pdf (Accessed on: September 6, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1990 c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Golden-cheek ed Warbler as Endangered. Federal Register Vo. 55, No. 249, pp. 53153-53160. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr1804.pdf (Accessed on: September 6, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 1992. Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery Plan. USFWS Region 2, Albuquerque, Ne w Mexico. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920930f.pdf (Accessed on: September 5, 2010)

429. GRAY WOLF

9.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) was listed as endangered by th e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the lower 48 states, except for in Mi nnesota where it was listed as threatened, in 1978 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (43 FR 9607) (USFWS, 2010a). Prior to this listing four subspecies of wolf, the timber wolf ( C. l. lycaon ), the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf ( C. l. irremotus ), the Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ), and the Texas gray wolf ( C. l.

monstrabilis ) had been listed separa tely in specific geographic areas (USFWS, 1978). The timber wolf ( C. l. lycaon ) had been listed previously by th e USFWS as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangere d Species Preservation Act of 1966 (USFWS, 1967). Beginning in 1974, two subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered, the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf ( C. l. irremotus ), thought to still be f ound in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and the eastern timber wolf ( C.l. lycoan ) in the Great Lakes region (39 FR 1158) (USFWS, 1978 and 2010a). At the time of the 1974 listing the timber wolf was the subspecies thought to have inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains a nd from Maine to Georgia (USFWS, 1978 and 2006). The Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ) was listed as endangered in the southwest and in Mexico (41 FR 17736) and the Te xas gray wolf was listed as endangered in Texas ( C. l. monstrabilis ) (41 FR 24062) in 1976 (USFWS, 2010a). Relisting the gray wolf at the species level as Canus lupus in 1978 addressed problems rega rding the uncerta inty of wolf taxonomy, the narrowly defined geographic areas of subspecies protection, and the possibility that unlisted subspecies may yet occur in th e lower 48 states (USFWS , 1998 and 2005). This species-wide listing still “recognized valid biolog ical subspecies for re search and conservation purposes” (USFWS, 1998). Critical habitat was designated in the same final rule, in Michigan and Minnesota (USFWS, 1978).

An experimental non-essential population of the Mexican gray wolf was established in 1998 in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Ar izona and New Mexico (USFWS, 1998). In the Rocky Mountain area, experimental non-essential populations of gray wolves were established in 1994 in central Idaho and part of Montana ( 59 FR 60266) and in Yellowstone National Park, which is primarily located in Wyoming as well as in parts of Idaho and Montana (59 FR 60252) (USFWS, 1994a and 1994b). An additional recove ry area was located in northwest Montana, where the wolves were classified as endangere d (USFWS, 2002). By 2000, these efforts had met the recovery criteria, with regard to the num ber of breeding pairs, for delisting the Rocky Mountain wolf population in Montana, Idaho, a nd Wyoming (USFWS, 2002). As a result, the USFWS revised the status of the gray wolf in most of the lower 48 states from endangered to threatened in 2003, a final rule that was chal lenged in court and overturned in 2005 (USFWS, 2005).

A Western Great Lakes (WGL) distinct popul ation segment (DPS) of gray wolves was established in 2007, in the area in cluding the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as

well as in the eastern halves of North and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, northern areas of Illinois and Indiana, and the northwestern area of Ohio (72 FR 6051) (USFWS, 2007). In the same final rule, the WGL DPS was delisted (USFWS, 2007). A Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) DPS was established in 2008 in an ar ea including the eastern third of Oregon and

43Washington, a small area in nor th-central Utah, and in the st ates of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (73 FR10513) (USFWS, 2008). In the same final rule, the NRM DPS was delisted, except for in Wyoming, where gray wolves would remain designated as an experimental nonessential population (USFWS, 2008). In 2008, both the WGL DPS and the NRM DPS were relisted as endangered, except for in Minnesota where they were relisted as threatened. This decision was court ordered ( 73 FR 75356) (USFWS, 2008).

In 2009, the NRM DPS was once again removed from the Endangered Specie s list, except for in Wyoming, where gray wolves remain designated as an experimental non -essential population (74 FR 15123) (USFWS, 2009a). The WGL DPS was also removed fr om the Endangered Species list in 2009 (74 FR 15069); however, it was then relisted as enda ngered except for in Minnesota, where it was relisted as threatened (74 FR 47483) (USFWS, 2009a). In summary, the gray wolf is now listed as endangered in th e lower 48 states, except for where it is listed as a non-essential experimental population in all of Wyoming and parts of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, in

Minnesota where it is listed as th reatened, and where it has been delisted in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north central Utah (USFWS, 2010b and 2010c). It should be noted that the online USFWS Species Profile indicates that the gray wolf is endangered statewide in Oregon, Washington, an d Utah except where delisted and where experimental, but that the gray wolf is also shown to be delisted as part of the NRM DPS statewide in Oregon and Utah, and in Okanogan County in Washington (U SFWS, 2010c). Also, the gray wolf is shown to be both endangere d and experimental statewide in New Mexico (USFWS, 2010c).

9.2. DESCRIPTION Gray wolves are members of the Canidae family, and are the largest wild canids (USFWS, 2009). There were 32 recognized subspecies of the gray wolf, 24 of which were believed to have inhabited North America, at the time of the writ ing of the Timber Wolf Recovery Plan in 1992 (USFWS, 1992). Taxonomists have si nce suggested that only five or fewer subspecies of gray wolf are native to North America (USFWS, 1994a).

Adult males are 5 feet to 6.5 feet from nose to tip of tail, and fe males are 4.5 feet to 6 feet in length (USFWS, 1987). Wolves measure 26 to 32 inches at the shoulder (USFWS, 1987). Adults range from 40 lbs (18 kg) to 175 lbs ( 80 kg), depending upon the se x of the animal and the region where it is found (USFWS, 2009a). Ma le wolves in Wisconsin average 77 lbs (35 kg) and range from 57 lbs (26 kg) to 102 lbs (46 kg) (USFWS, 2006). Wisconsin females average 62 lbs (28 kg) and range from 46 lbs (21 kg) to 75 lbs (34 kg) (USFWS, 2006). In the NRM DPS, male wolves average 100 lbs (45 kg) but can weigh up to 130 lbs (60 kg) and females weigh a little less (USFWS, 2009a). Fur co lor can vary from pure white to black, but is often gray (USFWS, 2006). Wolves have longer legs, bigger f eet, a wider head and s nout, and a straighter tail than either coyotes ( Canis latrans ) or domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) (USFWS, 2006). They also have a deep, narrow chest and are well suited to traveling long distances (USFWS, 1987). Wolves also appear to have sharp sigh t for detecting movement, and can hear other wolves from up to six miles away (USFWS, 1987).

449.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range Gray wolves in North America were once found from Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central mountains and down to the high plateau of southern Mexico (USFWS, 2006). California, as well as parts of the eastern and southeastern United States which we re inhabited by the red wolf ( Canis rufus ) or possibly by a speculative species of eastern wolf ( Canis lycaon ), probably never had gray wolves (USFWS, 2006). The so utheastern corner of Georgia may be the southern boundary of the historic gray wolf range, but others contend that the gray wolf did not extend into the southeast at all, or may have to a limited degree at hi gher elevations (USFWS, 2003). Instead, it is thought that the red wolf was historically found in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern states and possibl y into the northeast, though the am ount of range overlap with the gray wolf is not known (USFWS, 2003). Other areas excluded from its historic range include southern and interior Greenland, coastal areas in Mexico, coas tal areas and other areas in California, all of Cent ral America, and mountaintops and ar id deserts in th e western U.S. (USFWS, 2003). The USFWS considers the histor ical range of the gray wolf, pending further evidence, as areas “north of the Ohio River, the southern borders of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and southern Missouri, and west fr om central Texas and Oklahoma” (USFWS, 2003).

Current Distribution The gray wolf is endangered in the lower 48 states except for where it is listed as a non-essential experimental population in all of Wyoming and parts of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, in

Minnesota where it is listed as th reatened, and where it has been delisted in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north central Utah (USFWS, 2010b and 2010c). The USFWS species profile for the gray wolf indicates that the endange red population of gray wolves is known to occur statewide in Colorado, Ut ah, South Dakota, Oregon, and Washington (USFWS, 2010c). In New Mexico, the endangered population of gray wolves is known to occur in Catron, Grant, and Sierra counties (USFWS, 2010c). In North Dakota, the endangered population of gray wolves is known to occur in Adams, Barnes, Benson, Billings, Bottineau, Bowman, Burke, Burleigh, Cass, Cavalier, Di ckey, Divide, Dunn, Eddy, Emmons, Foster, Golden Valley, Grand Forks, Grant, Griggs, Hettinger, Kidder, LaMoure, Logan, McHenry, McIntosh, McKenzie, McLean, Mercer, Morton, Mountrail, Nelson, Oliver, Pembina, Pierce, Ramsey, Ransom, Renville, Richland, Rolette, Sa rgent, Sheridan, Sioux, Slope, Stark, Steele, Stutsman, Towner, Traill, Walsh, Ward, Wells , and Williams counties (USFWS, 2010c).

In Michigan, the endangered popul ation gray wolves are known to occur in Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft counties (USFWS, 2010c). In Wisconsin, the endangered population of gray wolves is known to occur in Adams, Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Clark, Douglas, Eau Clai re, Florence, Forest, Iron, Jack son, Juneau, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, M onroe, Oconto, Oneida, Polk, Portage, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, Was hburn, and Wood counties (USFWS, 2010c).

The threatened population of gray wolves in Mi nnesota is known to o ccur in Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clear water, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbar d, Itasca, Isanti, Kanabec,

45Kittson, Koochiching, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Otter Tail, Pine, St. Louis, Mahnomen, Pennington, Rosea u, and Wadena countie s (USFWS, 2010c).

The experimental non-essential population of gray wolves in Wyoming is known to occur in Big Horn, Fremont, Hot Springs, Lincoln, Park, Sublet te, and Teton counties (USFWS, 2010c). The experimental non-essential population in the southwest is known to o ccur statewide in New Mexico, statewide in Texas, and in Apache, Gi la, Greenlee, and Navajo counties in Arizona (USFWS, 2010c).

The USFWS Gray Wolf Population and Range in the United States map, available from the USFWS Midwest Region website, in dicates the presence of gray wolves in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the northern half of Wisconsin and the northern half of Minnesota, the majority of central and northern Idaho, the northwestern corner of Wyoming, and in Montana from the

southwest corner to the northwest corner in th e western third of the st ate (Figure 1) (USFWS, 2009b). The southwest recovery area is located centrally on the western border of New Mexico and the Eastern border of Arizona, with an additional area in south central New Mexico (USFWS, 2009b).

Figure 1. Current range occupied by gray wolv es in the NRM DPS, WGL DPS and the Southwest Recovery Area (USFWS, 2009).

9.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat was designated in Michigan a nd Minnesota for gray wolves in 1978 when the species was reclassified as Canis lupus on the Endangered Species List (USFWS, 1978). In Michigan, Isle Royal National Park was designa ted as critical habitat (USFWS, 1978). In Minnesota, critical habitat was de signated as “areas of land, wate r, and airspace” in Beltrami, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Roseau, and St. Louis counties (USFWS, 1978). The boundaries of this criti cal habitat are the same as those for Zones 1, 2, and 3, located

46in northern Minnesota, described in the same final rule (USFWS, 1978) . Zone 1 is 4,488 mi 2 in size, Zone 2 is 1,856 mi 2 in size, and Zone 3 is 3,501 mi 2 in size (Figure 2) (USFWS, 1978). Primary constituent elements (PCEs) are not de scribed. However, key habitat components are described in the Recovery Plan and de scribed below in the Habitat section.

Figure 2. Zones 1, 2, and 3 in Minnesota are designa ted as critical habitat for the gray wolf

9.5. HABITAT Wolves have historically used a variety of hab itats, and primarily require an abundance of prey, and in recent times, a lack of human disturban ce (USFWS, 1987). Nearly all habitat types found in the northern hemisphere have been used by wolves, except for true deserts (USFWS, 1987). Wolves in different social units, such as pairs versus packs, use different key habitat components (USFWS, 1987). Wolves may also use different combinations of key habitat components or use

them in different areas of their territory, or switch te rritories all together (USFWS, 1987). The key components are a year-round abundance of ungulate prey and alternate prey, secluded and suitable denning and rendezvous sites, and sufficient space with low human disturbance (USFWS, 1987). Wolf habitat requirements are highly related to those of their ungulate prey, which vary between regions (USFWS, 1987). Each component is discussed generally below.

47Denning sites may be dug weeks before pups are born (USFWS, 1987). Sites are usually located on moderately steep southern slopes that are overlooking lower lying areas, with well drained soils and within 400 yards of a source of water (USFWS, 1987). Dens may also be located in rock caves or in abandoned beaver lodges (U SFWS, 1987). Certain dens may be used every year, or an area with several dens , typically five square miles in size, may be used in different years (USFWS, 1987). Wolves are sensitive to human disturbance near den sites and will

abandon the den as a result of hum an disturbance (USFWS, 1987).

Wolves move to a rendezvous site, a gathering an d resting area, when the pups are eight to ten weeks old in late May to early July, within one to six miles fr om the den site (USFWS, 1987). A series of rendezvous sites, one to four miles aw ay from the previous site, are used as the pups grow and until they can travel with the adult wolves in September or early October (USFWS, 1987). Sites, especially the first one, may be used year after year and are occupied for between ten and 67 days (USFWS, 1987). Complexes of mea dows with adjacent forested hills with water nearby have been observed as rendezvous site s (USFWS, 1987). Bogs, abandoned beaver ponds,

and streams serve as water sour ces (USFWS, 1987). Sites vary fr om 0.5 acre to a 0.6 mile long drainage, but most are approximate ly 1.0 acre in size (USFWS, 1987).

Cover is needed in the sense that wolves requi re areas free of human di sturbance and concealing vegetation at certain times of the year (USF WS, 1987). Den and rendezvous sites are near forested cover and far from human activity (U SFWS, 1987). Cover needs are also indirectly

related to the cover requirements of the main pr ey species (USFWS, 1987).

9.6. DIET Wolves hunt medium to large sized mammals , and are opportunistic predators (USFWS, 1987 and 2009). Given the availability of two prey sp ecies, wolves will choose the smaller and most easily caught (USFWS, 1987). However, wolves are inefficient hunters of small mammals which can dodge into small spaces, and are more e fficient hunters of larger prey, even though it is more difficult to kill and less abundant (U SFWS, 1987). In addition, the most vulnerable in terms of age, sex, and condition wi th regard to disease, nutriti on and infirmity are chosen as prey, as well as solitary or rutting adult males (USFWS, 1987).

Prey species include white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), mule deer ( O. hemionus ), moose ( Alces alces ), elk ( Cervus elaphus ), woodland caribou ( Rangifer caribou ), barren ground caribou ( R. articus ), bison ( Bison bison ), muskox ( Ovibos moschatus ), bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ), Dall sheep ( Ovis dalli ), and mountain goats ( Oreamnos americanus ) (USFWS, 2006). Beaver ( Castor canadensis ), snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ), muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus ), and small mammals, birds and large invertebrates can also be prey (U SFWS, 2006). Domestic animals can also be preyed upon by wolves (U SFWS, 2006). Horses, cattle, sheep, goats, llamas, and pigs, geese and other fowl, dogs and ca ts, and captive white tailed deer have been

documented as kills in the WGL DPS in the la st 25 years (USFWS, 2006). Wolves depend more upon large ungulates in the winter, and add in sma ller prey in the spring through the fall, such as beaver (USFWS, 1987). When they are abundant in spring through fall, beaver can make up

25% to 75% of the wolf diet in some areas, though ungulates stil l make up most of the biomass consumed (USFWS, 1987). Where beaver are not plentiful, the diet is 90% ungulates, and in the Rocky Mountains elk, moose, and deer are the primary prey (USFWS, 1987).

48Wolves have been estimated to consume betw een two and twenty pounds of food per wolf per day, with six to 13 pounds per wolf per day the common estimate (USFWS, 1987). Winter consumption is estimated at eight pounds per wolf per day (USFWS, 1987). Wolves can go for several days without eating, and have a large stomach to eat la rge amounts of food in a short period of time (USFWS, 1987).

9.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Wolves live in packs of two to twelve animals a nd defend territories from other wolves and wolf packs (USFWS, 2009a). Packs are family groups composed of the breeding alpha pair, their pups from the current year and from one to two y ears previous, and an unr elated wolf on occasion (USFWS, 2006). There may be a positive relationsh ip between the size of main prey species and the size of the pack (USFWS, 1987). The average pack size in protected areas of the NRM DPS is 10 wolves, but larger packs have formed in Yellowstone (USFWS, 2009a). The average pack size in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is 2.7 to 4.6 wolves, with a range of 2 to 14 wolves per pack during winters for the 1995 to 2005 peri od (USFWS, 2006). Wisconsin pack sizes averaged 3.8 to 4.1 wolves, ranging from 2 to 11 wolves in 2004 to 2005 (USFWS, 2006). Minnesota average wolf pack size was 5.55, 5.4, and 5.3 wolves for the periods of 1988-1989, 1997-1998, and 2004-2005 winters, resp ectively (USFWS, 2006). In general, territory sizes range from 20 mi 2 to 214 mi 2 (50 km 2 to 550 km 2 ) (USFWS, 2006). Territories in the NRM DPS range from 200 mi 2 to 500 mi 2 (518 km 2 to 1,295 km 2 ) (USFWS, 2009a). The midwestern wolves typically have smaller territories , with an average in Minnesota of 102 km 2 from 2003- 2004, an average in the Upper Peninsula of 267 km 2 from 2000-2001, and an average in

Wisconsin of 37 km 2 from 2004-2005 (USFWS, 2006). Once terr itories are occupied by wolves, the population grows and is regulated by mortalit y from conflict with other wolves, the amount of available food, dispersal and other causes of mortality (USFWS, 2009a).

The breeding season is later for wolves further north, but generally begins between January and April (USFWS, 1987). Wolves breed beginning at two years of age and continue up until 10 years old and over, though only the alpha male and female in the pack breed and produce a litter of pups (USFWS, 2009a). Wolves can produce pups annually, with an average litter of five pups but the size can range from one to eleven pups (UFW S, 2009a). Although usually only one litter is produced per year, two or three litters have been observed in Yellowstone (USFWS, 2006). The gestation period is 63 days (USFWS, 1987) , and pups are born in April and May (USFWS, 2006). In the NRM DPS, pups are born anywhere fr om late March to late April, and sometimes in early May (USFWS, 1987). Typically, four ou t of five pups survive until winter (USFWS, 2009). When wolves are a year old they usually disperse, but some remain with the natal pack (USFWS, 2006). Less frequently, wolves leave the pack at five months or as adults (USFWS, 2006). Lone wolves may range over large areas as so litary animals or start their own pack with a wolf of the opposite sex in an unoccupied terr itory (USFWS, 2006). Only 1% to 15% of an established wolf population is composed of lone wolves (USFWS, 1987). In northwestern Minnesota, pairing of dispersed wolves occurred in the fall, within a month of leaving the natal pack (USFWS, 1987).

Packs have a social hierarchy th at is “adaptable and resilient” (USFWS, 2009a). If the breeding pair dies the pups can be raised by other pack me mbers, and the breeding pa ir is replaced from

49within or from outside of the pack (USFWS, 2009 a). Population increase s of almost 100% per year have been observed in suitab le habitat with low wolf densiti es, and in two years, packs can

more than double in size if mort ality decreases (USFWS, 2009a). Wo lves can live up to thirteen years, but the wolves of the NRM DPS average le ss than a four year lif espan (USFWS, 2009a).

9.8. REFERENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with the Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota (Final Rule). Federal Register 43 (47) 9607- 9615. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fe deral_register/fr186.pdf (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 119 pp. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/870803.pdf Accessed July 28, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of an Experimental Nonessential Population of Gray Wolves in Central Idaho and Southwestern Montana (Final Rule ). Federal Register 59 (224) 60266- 60281.

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2735.pdf (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of an Experimental N onessential Population of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming Idaho, and Montana (Final Rule). Federal Register 59

60252- 60266. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/FR11221994Yellowstone.htm (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of an Experimental Noness ential Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (Final Rule). Fede ral Register 63 (7) 1752. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr3202.pdf (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Nez Perce Tribe, Nati onal Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2002. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2001 Annual Report. T. Meir, ed. USFWS, Ecological Services, Helena, M ontana. 43 pp. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/specie s/mammals/wolf/annua lrpt01/2001report.htm

. (Accessed on: August 3, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions to Esta blish the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) and to remove the Gray Wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Popula tion Segment from the List of Threatened and Endangered Species (Notice). Federal Register 70 (206) 61770-61775. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr4480.pdf . (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

50U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Western Gr eat Lakes Population of Gray Wo lves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Dis tinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered W ildlife (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 71 (58)15166-15305. Available from the Govern ment Printing Office (GPO) online at: http://frwebgate 3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=jQHB L3/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Western Gr eat Lakes Population of Gray Wo lves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Dis tinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (Final Rule). Federal Register 73 (39)10513-10560. Available from the GPO online at: http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=jQHB L3/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (Final Rule). Federal Register 74 (62)15123-15188. Available online at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbna me=2009_register&docid=fr02ap09-8 (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b . Gray Wolf Populati on and Range in the

United States. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/a boutwolves/graywolfpoprange08to09.pdf (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding on a Petition to List a Di stinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf in

the Northeastern United States as Endangered (Notice). Fede ral Register 75 (111) 32869-32872.

Available online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2010_register&docid=fr10jn10-19 (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. Albuquerque , New Mexico. 130 pp. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100505_ Mexican%20Wollf%20Conservation%20Assess ment_Final.pdf (Accessed on: August 3, 2010).

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010c . Species Profile for the Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ). Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=A00D (Accessed on: July 28, 2010).

5110. GRIZZLY BEAR

10.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) was listed as threatened on July 28, 1975 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) (USFWS, 1993). A recovery pl an for the grizzly bear was first approved by the USFWS on January 29, 1982, and a revised recovery plan was approved by the USFWS on September 10, 1993 (USFWS, 19 93). On March 29, 2007 a USFWS ruling declared a Yellowstone distinct population segment (DPS) of grizzly bears and in the same rule delisted the Yellowstone DPS; however, a court order on September 21, 2009 overturned this rule so that all grizzlies in the Greater Yello wstone Area (GYA) have been reinstated as a threatened species, and the GYA DPS designation nullified (75 FR 14496). Within the lower 48 States today, every grizzly bear is protected by the provisions wh ich apply to threatened species (75 FR 14496).

10.2. DESCRIPTION The grizzly bear earns its name from the silver -tipped, or grizzled, hairs which comprise its commonly brown coat, although the actual coat color may vary from black to beige depending on habitat and diet (USFWS, 1993). The humpe d shoulders and concave facial disk are identifying features of this spec ies (USFWS, 1993). It is the larg est of extant carnivores, with populations exhibiting weight va riability across geographic re gions (Nowak, 1999). Grizzly bears of the lower 48 states will grow to an average weight of 400-600 pounds for males, and an average of 250-350 pounds for females (72 FR 14866) . Full-grown adults in the Yellowstone region typically weigh between 102 and 324 kg (225 to 714 pounds) (Nowak, 1999). From snout to tail, the adult grizzly’s size may range from 1,700 to 2,800 mm (5.5-9.1 feet), and shoulder height is typically between 900 a nd 1,500 mm (3.1-4.8 feet) (Nowak, 1999).

Grizzlies are rarely seen togeth er in the wild, although exceptions include mothers with cubs and pairing during the mating season (USFWS, 1993). Ho wever, range overlap frequently occurs as adults, particularly males, roam over large areas (USFWS, 1993).

The grizzly enters hibernation between the months of October and December and will exit its den at some point between March and May (N owak, 1999). Remote, sheltered areas at high elevations are typically selected as hibernation den sites. Bears will excavate a burrow beneath a large rock or the roots of a mature tree (Nowa k, 1999). Hibernation intervals may be reduced or non-existent in “certain southerly areas” (Now ak, 1999). This statement was ambiguous in its original context, and it was not clear to what “certain southerly areas” referred. It was implied

that in these areas the warmer climate resulted in a lack of hibernation.

10.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range The grizzly bear once inhabited areas throughout much of Western North America, with populations in Arizona, Californi a, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas, in addition to a Great Plains population (USFWS, 19 93). A grizzly bear skull found in Labrador, Canada offers

evidence of a historical distri bution extending east of Hudson Ba y (Nowak, 1999). Estimates of

52grizzly bear numbers in the c onterminous United States during the early nineteenth century exceed 50,000 individuals (USFWS, 1993).

Current Distribution Of the contiguous 48 states, grizzly bears pres ently inhabit only sections of Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana (USFWS, 1993). Grizzly population remnants have been

identified in six areas in the Rocky Mountains within the United States; the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (C YE), the Selkirks Ecosystem (SE), and the Northern Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (USFWS, 1993). In the GYE, encompassing Yellowstone

and Grand Teton National Park and interconn ected tracts of the Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Targhee, and Gallatin, Beaverhead, and Custer Na tional Forests, grizzlies inhabit more than 9,500 square miles; in the NCDE, including Glacie r National Park, sections of Flathead and Blackfeet Indian Reservations, and areas with in five national forests (Flathead, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo), 9,600 square miles have been designated grizzly-occupied habitat; in the CYE of northwestern Montana an d northeastern sections of the Idaho panhandle, 2,600 square miles are considered grizzly habitat; in the SE of northwestern Idaho and northeastern Washington , 1,081 square miles have been designated as a recovery range (USFWS, 1993). Additionally, the Bitterroot Ecosystem of northeas tern Idaho and Montana, and the North Cascades Ecosystem of northern Washi ngton have been designat ed as grizzly habitat (USFWS, 1993). Among these sites, grizzly pop ulation density is quit e variable, corresponding to habitat type and foraging opportunities (USFWS, 1993). Curre nt total grizzly population numbers within the contiguous 48 states are es timated to be between 1,200 and 1,400 individuals (USFWS, 2007).

10.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat was proposed for the grizzl y bear on November 5, 1976 (41 FR 48757). Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), critical habita t is defined as the specific area within the known range of the species containing either bi otic or abiotic features which are deemed essential to the conservation of the species, or which may require tailored management or protection plans (ESA, 1973). Critical habitat designation may also include tracts outside of the known range of the species if such areas are deem ed essential for the conservation of the species (ESA, 1973). Four critical habitat zones which coincide with the di stribution of the grizzly in the contiguous 48 States have been designated; 1: The juncture sh ared among Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, including Yellowstone National Park a nd adjacent areas; 2: The northwestern corner of Montana, including Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and Flathead National forest; 3: The border area between northwestern Montan a and the upper Idaho panhandle, predominantly in the Kootanai, Kaniksu, and Lolo National Fo rests in the Cabinet Mountains region; and 4: The northern reaches of the Idaho panhandle and Northeastern Washington in the Kaniksu Na tional Forest (USFWS, 1976).

10.5. HABITAT Grizzly bears inhabit areas which are relatively is olated and distant from direct anthropogenic influence (USFWS, 1993). Beyond concerns of ha bitat fragmentation as a result of human construction of roads and houses, such activities facilitate contact and thus conflict between

53humans and grizzlies (USFWS, 1993). Highw ays are thought to constrict grizzly bear movements, and are implicated in po pulation fragmenta tion (USFWS, 1993).

Prime grizzly habitat will offer diversity of terrain, cover, and natu ral food sources (USFWS, 1993). The grizzly chiefly achieves these va riations through a wande ring lifestyle, and individuals range over as much as 1,500 mi 2 (USFWS, 1993). A range of this size encompasses

mountainous areas that are suitable for denning, forested areas uti lized for temporary cover, and an array of natural food sources that preclud e dependence on unpredictably available foods (USFWS, 1993). Migrations among habitats ar e common, and they follow a seasonal pattern (USDA Forest Service, 1991). For instance, the gr izzly is found in low elevation riparian sites, wet meadows, and alluvial plains in the sp ring (USDA Forest Service, 1991). During the summer and fall, grizzlies will inhabit higher el evation forests, meadows, and open, grassy timber sites (USDA Forest Service, 1991).

The specific composition of forested areas most frequented by the grizzly bear include subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)-whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), lodgepol e pine (P. contorta)-Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and spruce (Picea spp. )western redcedar (Thujaplicata)-hemlock (Tsuga spp.) forests (USDA Forest Service, 1991 ). Meadows, shrubfields, and low- and highelevation riparian communities al so constitute important habita t (USDA Forest Service, 1991). Other habitat with which the grizzly is associat ed includes seeps, alpine slabrock areas, and avalanche chutes (USDA Forest Service, 1991).

10.6. DIET The grizzly has the physiology of a carnivore but typically maintains an omnivorous lifestyle (USFWS, 1993). Grizzlies are considered to be opportunistic feeders that will prey or scavenge upon available food sources such as ungulates, ground squirrels, carrion, and garbage (USFWS, 1993). Since grizzlies lack a caecum, their diets tend towards easily digestible foods that are high in starch, sugar, protein, or stored fat (USFWS, 1993). Freshly emergent herbaceous vegetation is consumed preferenti ally for these reasons, and griz zlies may follow spring weather from the lowlands up to higher elevations to keep pace with plant phenology (USFWS, 1993). Grasses, sedges, roots, tubers, and berries compos e a large part of the be ar’s diet in many areas (Nowak, 1999). The grizzly bear has also been documented to prey on mice, ground squirrels, and marmots after digging them out of their burrows (Nowak, 1999).

10.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Grizzly bear cubs are born weighing between 340 and 680 gram s (11.9-23.8 oz) (Nowak, 1999). They are weaned after about 5 months, although th ey may remain with their mother for as many as four years (Nowak, 1999). Grizzlies reach puberty between four a nd six years, but will continue to grow after that point (Nowak, 1999). Captive holding of grizzlies indicates that they are a long-lived species, potenti ally attaining ages in excess of 50 years (Nowak, 1999).

Mating in grizzly populations take s place between the months of May and July, but researchers contend that individual female estrus pe riods do not exceed one month (Nowak, 1999). Implantation of the blastocyst(s) is delayed until af ter the female enters hibernation, some four or five months later (USFWS, 1993). The average nu mber of young in a litter is two, but litters of as many as four cubs have been recorded (N owak, 1999). Mated females will not enter estrus

54again for at least two years, the average period being three years betwee n estrus (Nowak, 1999). If the young do not survive, however, the female may enter estrus and breed in that same year (USFWS, 1993). Long intervals between litters, small litter size, and late-onset reproductive maturity combine to leave the grizzly with one of the lowest reproductiv e rates of terrestrial mammals (USFWS, 1993).

10.8. REFERENCES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration (NOAA). Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 3. p5

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1976. Federal Register 41, No. 215, pp.

48757-48759. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/doc s/federal_register/fr119.pdf (Accessed on June 2, 2010).

Snyder, S. A., Ursus arctos horribilis. 1991. In: Fire Effects Information System. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ro cky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/urarh/all.html (Accessed on June 8, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 181 pages. Prepared by Chris Se rvheen, University of Montana

Nowak, Ronald M.. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, pp.685-688.

Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program, Grizzly Bear Recovery. 2007. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prai rie/species/mammals/grizzly/ (Accessed on June 2, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Federal Register 72, No. 60, pp. 14866-

14938. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/ mammals/grizzly/FR_Final_YGB_rule_032 92007.pdf (Accessed on June 2, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Federal Register 75, No. 58, pp. 14496-

14498. http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92302211219+0+2+0

&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on June 2, 2010).

5511. GULF COAST JAGUARUNDI

11.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Gulf Coast jaguarundi (GCJ) ( Herpailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli ) was listed as endangered on June 14, 1976 by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 4 of the Endangered Sp ecies Act of 1973 (USFWS, 1976) . Although included in the

1990 USFWS Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Reco very Plan (With Emphasis On The Ocelot)

, no jaguarundi-specific recovery plan has subs equently been produced (USFWS, 2010). No critical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the GCJ (USFWS, 2010).

11.2. DESCRIPTION The jaguarundi is a long slende r cat, a little larger than a house cat, bu t much longer (USFWS, 1990). Jaguarundis have a combined head and bo dy length of 55 to 77 cm, and a tail length of 33 to 60 cm (Nowak, 1999). Adult weights for th is species range from 4.5 to 9.0 kg (Nowak, 1999). Jaguarundis have a small, flattened head with short, rounded ears (Nowak, 1999). Two distinct fur color phases have been recorded; blackish to brownish gray, and fox red to chestnut (Nowak, 1999). Jaguarundis are most active at night , although they tend to be seen during the daylight hours as they seek out water to drink (USFWS, 2001).

11.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range Four subspecies of H. yagouaroundi have been identified in North and Central America: H. y. fossata, H. y. panamensis, H. y. cacomitli, and H. y. tolteca (Matthews, 1990). H. y. cacomitli (the Gulf Coast jaguarundi ) and H. y. tolteca (the the Sinaloan jaguarundi) have historically ranged into the United States (Matthews, 1990). Subspecies of jaguarund i were once distributed across a range that included southern Texas, the east and west coasts of Mexico, southern Mexico, and Central and South America (USFWS, 2001). The USFWS notes that historical evidence in support of jaguarundi occurrence in Arizona is n onexistent (USFWS, 2001). The Arizona Game and Fish Departme nt (AGFD) wrote that there exists “no documented record for Arizona, Sonora, [or] Chihuahua” in a discussi on of jaguarundi total range (AGFD, 2004).

Current range

The current distribution of the jaguarundi in the United States is extremely limited (USFWS, 2001). Willacy and Cameron counties in southern Texas are locations of confirmed jaguarundi sightings (USFWS, 2001). Within these count ies, however, it is t hought that only a few jaguarundis survive (Matthews, 1990 ). The reported sightings in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona, were never confirmed and have since been determined to be errors (USFWS, 2001). According to the USFWS Species Profil e webpage, the GCJ is known to occur in 26 counties in Texas (Table 1).

Table 1 . Texas counties where the GCJ is list ed as known to occur (USFWS, 2010)

Aransas Atascosa Bee Brooks

Cameron* Dimmit Duval Frio
Hidalgo Jim Hogg Jim Wells Karnes
Kenedy Kleberg La Salle Live Oak

56Maverick McMullen Nueces Refugio

San Patricio Starr Webb Willacy*
Zapata Zavala

*Counties included in a 2001 USFWS GCJ distribution statement

11.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been made for the GCJ (USFWS, 2010).

11.5. HABITAT Jaguarundis are found in chaparral plant communities, and the species is associated with dense brushy areas near streams and rivers (Matthew s, 1990). The USFWS has stated that “brushy tracts along waterways, especially the Rio Grande, are the most va luable and sensi tive areas used by ocelots and jaguarundi” (USFWS, 1990). Brus hy zones along more signi ficant waterways are thought to provide critical links to corridors used by dispersing cats (USFWS, 1990). Cacti, cat claw ( Uncaria spp .) , mesquite ( Prosopis spp.), and granjeno ( Celtis spp.) are among the spiny vegetation characteristic of the jaguarundi’s preferred habitat (USFWS, 2001). Cleared areas may be suitable habitat for the jaguarundi, as long as thickets are also in the vicinity (USFWS, 2001).

Prior to giving birth to kittens, female jaguar undis will den in thickets, dense brush, or fallen trees (AGFD, 2004).

11.6. DIET While the jaguarundi is an expe rt tree climber, it forages mainly on the ground (Nowak, 1999). Jaguarundis prey on small mammals, birds, and reptiles (USFWS, 2001). The remains of lizards, rodents (mice and rats), small birds, and cotto ntail rabbits, and grass were found in stomach content analyses conducted on 13 Venezuelan ja guarundis (USFWS, 2001). The jaguarundi also swims, and is presumed to prey on fish and other aquatic animals (AGFD, 2004).

11.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Jaguarundi kittens are born in litters of one to four individuals, typica lly around March or August (Nowak, 1999). Kittens have light spots for a sh ort period of time after birth (AGFD, 2004). Fur colors expressed within a single litter may repres ent all three color phases (AGFD, 2004). After two months, the kittens are w eaned; and within 10 months of birth the young are fully independent (AGFD, 2004). Ja guarundis reach sexual maturity between 2 and 3 years of age (Nowak, 1999).

Jaguarundis are solitary cats, but are seen in breeding pairs at va rious times in the year (AGFD, 2004). Females are in estrus for approximately three days, and gestati on lasts between 70 and 75 days (Nowak, 1999). It is unknown whether a fema le jaguarundi will give birth in both March and August (Nowak, 1999). Jaguarundis may live for as long as 15 years (Nowak, 1999).

5711.8. REFERENCES Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGF D). 2004. AGFD Animal Abstract: Jaguarundi. Compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/documents/Herpyato.d.pdf (Accessed July 16, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1976. Endangered status for 159 taxa of animals. Federal Register 41, No. 115, pp. 24061-24067.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With Emphasis On The Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 137 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/900822.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Servi ce (USFWS). 2001. Jaguarundi general species information. Arizona Ecologica l Services Field Office. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Jaguarundi%20RB.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Species Profile for the Gulf Coast jaguarundi. Environmental Conservation Online System

. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=A05H (Accessed July 16, 2010)

Matthews, John R. and Charles J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. Vol. I, pp.478-479.

Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, p.818.

12. JAGUAR

12.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS In 1972, the jaguar ( Panthera onca ) was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) of 1969 (USFWS, 2010a). The USFWS granted the jaguar protectio n under ESCA as a foreign species, since at that time the jaguar was believed to be extinct in the U.S. (USFWS, 2010a). When the ESCA was superseded by the Endangered Species Act (E SA) of 1973, the jaguar, because of a mistake in its listing, lost endanger ed species protection under the ESA (USFWS, 2007). The jaguar did not regain endangered status until 1997 (USFWS, 2007a). Alt hough included in a 1990 USFWS recovery plan for the listed cats of Texas and Ar izona, no jaguar-specific recovery plan has been produced since its relis ting (USFWS, 1997 and 2007b).

5812.2. DESCRIPTION The jaguar is a large, muscular cat that attains a combined head and body length in the range of 44 to 72 inches (1,120 to 1,850 mm), plus a tail th at measures between 17.5 and 29 inches (450- 750 mm) long (Nowak, 1999). It is the largest species of cat nativ e to the western hemisphere, and may weigh between 80 and 348 pounds (U SFWS, 1997 and 2007b). In Mexico, male jaguars have been recorded to weigh between 140 and 250 pounds, and female jaguars between 100 and 180 pounds (USFWS, 2007b). On average, males are between 10 and 25 percent heavier than females (USFWS, 2007b). Jaguar coat coloration may be buff, tan, reddish yellow or reddish brown (Nowak, 1999). The characterist ic black spots occur on the head, neck, and limbs; with rosette-forming large spot aggregatio ns present from the shoulders to the flanks (Nowak, 1999). The species is most active in the hours arou nd dawn and dusk (Nowak, 1999).

12.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range The jaguar once ranged across the southern United States, from Florida to California (Nowak, 1999). Historical records of jaguars in the U.S. come from Arizona, Calif ornia, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas (USFWS, 1994). A mid-1900’s Grand Canyon sighting was the northernmost jaguar observance on record (USFWS, 2007b). Sightings in California, Louisiana,

and Texas have not been documented since the turn of the 19 th century (USFWS, 2010a). South of the United States, the speci es’ distribution extended throug h Mexico, Central America and South America (USFWS, 1997). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) states that occupied jaguar range has declin ed in northern Mexico, northern Br azil, southern Argentina, and

the southern United States si nce the 1800’s (AGFD, 2003).

Current range The jaguar has been extirpated from 37% of its hist orical range, and the spec ies’ status in another 18% is unknown (USFWS, 2007b). The current dist ribution of the jaguar extends from northern Mexico through Central and South America as far south as nort hern Argentina (USFWS, 1997). Individual jaguars seen in the United States are identified as wanderers of a Sonora, Mexico population (USFWS, 2007b). Sin ce 1996, every jaguar sighting on U.S. territory has been within 40 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border (USF WS, 2010a). These sighti ngs are not considered indicative of a breeding population, and no female jaguars have been confirmed in the U.S. since 1963 (USFWS, 1997 and 2007a). The northernmost ex tant jaguar population has been identified outside the Sonora, Mexico towns of Huasabas and Sahuaripa, approximately 130 miles south of the U.S.-Mexico border (USFWS, 2007b).

The USFWS lists Arizona and New Mexico as the only states where the jaguar is known to occur in the U.S. (Table 1). The website also identifies three USFWS Refuges in which the jaguar is known to occur, including: Buenos Aires Nati onal Wildlife Refuge (N ear Arivaca, Arizona), Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge (Cochise County; 16 miles north of Douglas, Arizona), and San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge (Cochise County; near Douglas, Arizona) (USFWS, 2010b).

Table 1. Counties where the jaguar is known to occur in the United States (USFWS, 2010b)

59State County

Arizona Cochise

Arizona Pima

Arizona Santa Cruz

New Mexico Hidalgo

12.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT As of 2010, no critical habitat has been desi gnated for the jaguar (USFWS, 2010b). In 1997, it was determined by the USFWS that a critical ha bitat designation would not be prudent because

of increased threats of take as a direct result of the de signation (USFWS, 1997). In 2006, following a Center for Biological Diversity co mplaint, the USFWS re-evaluated the best

available information but maintained that a crit ical habitat designation was not prudent, stating that jaguar critical habitat did not exist within the United States (USFWS, 2010a). After a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit that argue d against the 2006 conclusion, the USFWS was ordered by the court, to issue a new determina tion (USFWS, 2010a). The USFWS determined in 2010 that a critical habitat designation for th e jaguar would be pr udent (USFWS, 2010a). Critical habitat is expected to be pr oposed in January 2011 (USFWS, 2010a).

12.5. HABITAT In the humid tropics of Central America, the ja guar occupies wet, lowla nd habitat characterized by swampy savannas and tropical rain forests (AGF D, 2003). The northern and southern reaches of current jaguar distribution are marked by far more arid habitat than is found in the areas central to the species’ distribu tion (AGFD, 2003). Jaguars—partic ularly male jaguars of the

northern reaches—are known to have large home ranges that en compass a variety of plant communities, including; Madrean evergreen-w oodland, subalpine conifer forest, semidesert shrubland, and Sonoran desert sc rub (USFWS, 1997). Washes a nd riparian areas with dense vegetative growth may also be valuable move ment corridors for the jaguar (USFWS, 2007b).

12.6. DIET While the jaguar is an able tree climber, most of its hunting occurs on the ground where prey is stalked or ambushed (Nowak, 1999). Jaguars of the U.S.-Mexico borderlands prey predominantly on javelina (50-80 lb wild pig), deer, and livestock (USFWS, 2007b). The jaguar is considered a predator to more than 85 species ; including the capybara ( 75-135 lb rodent), paca (large pig-like rodent), armadillo, caiman (alligator-like reptile), and various species of turtles, birds, and fish (USFWS, 2007b).

12.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Jaguar birth weights range between 24.5 and 31.5 oz (700 and 900 grams) (Nowak, 1999). Litter size ranged from one to four kittens but averages two kittens per litter (Nowak, 1999). Jaguar kittens remain with their mother for approxima tely two years, and become sexually mature between two and four years of age (Nowak, 1999). In captivity and much of the species’ range, breeding takes place year-round (USFWS, 1997). However, jaguar populations toward the northern and southern limits of the species’ rang e are considered to have a spring mating season (USFWS, 1997). Estrus for breeding females last s between 6 and 17 days, and gestation extends for 93 to 105 days (Nowak, 1999). In Mexico, most births occur in the months of July, August,

60and September (Nowak, 1999). While wild jagu ars do not typically live beyond 11 years, a captive jaguar at Germany’s Wuppertal Zoo liv ed to be 24 years old (USFWS 1997 and Nowak 1999).

12.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1994. Proposed endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. Fe deral Register 59, No. 133, pp. 35674-35679. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr2622.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1997. Final rule to extend endangered status for the jaguar in the United States . Federal Register 62, No. 140, pp. 39147-39157. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/Jaguar/Jaguar_finalrule.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2010)

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2003. Characterizi ng and mapping potential jaguar habitat in Arizona. 32pp. http://azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/jagu ar/characterizing_mapping.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2007a. 4(f)(1) Determination regarding recovery planning fo r the jaguar. 5pp. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docum ents/SpeciesDocs/Ja guar/Exclusion%20from% 20Recovery%20Planning.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2007b. Biological opinion on the proposed pedestrian fence along the U.S. and Mexico border near Sassabe, Naco, and Douglas. 41pp. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/070416_PedestrianFence.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010a. Determination that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the ja guar. Federal Regist er 75, No. 8, pp. 1741-1744. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docum ents/SpeciesDocs/Jagua r/jaguarFedRegCHprud encyfinding1-13-1-10.pdf (Accessed July 9, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2010b. Species Profile for the jaguar. Environmental Conservation Online System

. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/p rofile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A040 (Accessed July 9, 2010)

Nowak, Ronald M.. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, pp.831-832.

6113. MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL

13.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Mexican spotted owl (MSO) ( Strix occidentalis lucida ) was listed as threatened on March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248) (effective April 15, 1993) by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1993). A USFWS recovery pl an for the MSO was published on October 16, 1995 (USFWS, 2010). Critical habitat was desi gnated for the MSO on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53181) (USFWS, 2004).

13.2. DESCRIPTION The MSO is the fifth largest North American owl, and is one of three subspecies of S.

occidentalis (spotted owl), the other two are S.o. occidentalis (California spotted owl) and S.o.

caurina (northern spotted owl) (U SFWS, 1995). MSOs have the lightest appearance of any subspecies, attributed to the mottled plumage a nd numerous irregular white and brown splotches on the abdomen, back, and head (USFWS, 1995). Da rk eyes distinguish the spotted owl from other owl species (USFWS, 1995). However, as the MSO is nocturnal, vocalizations are used more frequently than phenotypi c characteristics in identifica tion of subspecies (and gender) (USFWS, 1995). Adult male MSOs average 519 gr ams (SD 32.6 grams; sample size of 37 male MSOs) while adult female MSOs average 579 grams (SD 31.2 grams; sample size of 31 female MSOs) (USFWS, 1995).

13.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range A large part of the MSO’s tota l range occurs throughout much of northern Mexico (NatureServe, 2009). Historical records of the MSO in the United States date back to 1872 and come from five states: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah (USFWS, 1993). In Arizona, the MSO historically occurred in low el evation riparian fore sts (USFWS, 1993). In Colorado, historical

records come from the San Juan Mountains a nd the Front Range as far north as Denver (USFWS, 1993). In New Mexico, the MSO was observed in nine major mountain ranges: the Sangre de Cristo, Jemez, Manzano, Sacrament o, Mogollon, Tularosa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Black Range (USFWS, 1993). In Texas, all MSO records are from the Guadalupe Mountains near the New Mexico border (U SFWS, 1993). In Utah, the MSO has been

documented as far north as the Book Cliffs in th e northeastern part of the state (USFWS, 1993).

Current range The current range of the MSO is presumed to approximate the historic al distribution (USFWS, 1995). However, the MSO has not recently been observed along major riparian corridors in New Mexico and Arizona (USFWS, 1995). In 1990, the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) estimated that it managed 4,698,807 acres of MSO-suitable habitat within 18 national forests (USFWS, 1993). Potential MSO habitat in excess of 725,000 acres occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexi co (USFWS, 1993). Additional suitable habitat is found on state, trib al, and private lands in the southwestern United States, amounting to a total of 6,815,557 acres reported by federa l and state agencies in 1990 (USFWS, 1993).

62The USFWS lists the MSO as known to occur in 13 counties in Ar izona, 33 counties in Colorado, 22 counties in New Mexico, 4 counties in Texas, and 11 counties in Utah (USFWS, 2010). US counties where the Mexican spotted owl is known to occur

13.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat is defined in the Endangered Species Act as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species at the time of its listing c ontaining physical and biological features necessary to the species’ conservati on, and that may require special management consideration to protect the lis ted species (USFWS, 2004). Designa tions of critical habitat may also include areas outside of the species’ geograph ical location at the time of listing if features of

those areas are determined to be essential to the conservation of th e species (USFWS, 2004). Critical habitat is designated specific to habitat areas that meet life-cycle needs of the species or contain primary constituent elements (PCEs) (USFWS, 2004). Critical habitat was designated for the MSO on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53181) (U SFWS, 2004). The 2004 designation was a revision of the 2001 USFWS critical habitat designa tion which excluded all Forest Service lands

in Arizona and New Mexico and certain tribal lands (USFWS, 2004) . In the 2004 critical habitat designation, PCEs were identified for both canyon and forested habitat areas and presented under three headings: PCEs related to forest structure, PCEs related to maintenance of adequate prey species, and PCEs related to canyon habitat (USFWS, 2004). PCEs specific to the three categories are listed below.

PCEs related to forest structure:

• A range of tree species, including mixed coni fer, pine-oak, and ripa rian forest types, composed of varying tree sizes and ages, 30 to 45 percent of which are large trees with a

trunk diameter of at least 12 inches wh en measured 4.5 feet from the ground

• A shade created by the forest canopy which cove rs at least 40 per cent of the ground area

• Large dead trees with a trunk diameter of at least 12 inches when measured 4.5 feet from the ground

PCEs related to maintenan ce of adequate prey species:

• High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris

• A wide range of tree and plan t species, including hardwoods

• Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow plant regeneration

PCEs related to canyon habitat:

• Presence of water

• Clumps or stringers of mixed-conifer, pine-oak, pinyon-juniper, and/or riparian vegetation

• Canyon wall containing crev ices, ledges, or caves

• High percent of ground litter and woody debris

State and private lands were excluded from th e 2004 critical habitat designation; they are considered by the USFWS non-essential to th e conservation of the MSO (USFWS, 2004).

Where MSO critical habitat boundaries extend into state and private lands, the extensions are declared unintentional and by definition are no t included in the designation (USFWS, 2004).

63MSO critical habitat units were designated in porti ons of 26 counties in four states (Table 1).

Table 1. Counties identified in th e 2004 USFWS critical ha bitat rule* (USFWS, 2004)

State County State County

Arizona Apache New Mexico McKinley

Arizona Cochise New Mexico Rio Arriba

Arizona Coconino New Mexico Sandoval

Arizona Graham New Mexico Socorro

Arizona Pima Utah Carbon

Colorado Custer Utah Emery

Colorado Douglas Utah Garfield

Colorado El Paso Utah Grand

Colorado Fremont Utah Iron

Colorado Huerfano Utah Kane

Colorado Jefferson Utah San Juan

Colorado Pueblo Utah Washington

Colorado Teller Utah Wayne

* Descriptions of the 52 critical habitat units indicate that additional counties are included in the MSO critical habitat designati on (USFWS, 2004). These counties include Yavapai, Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Greenlee countie s in Arizona; and Santa Fe, San Miguel, Mora, Cibola, Lincoln, Otero, Torrence, Catron, Gran t, and Sierra counties in New Mexico. Conversely, Apache County in Arizona and Rio Arriba County in New Mexico are among USFWS listed counties (Table 1), but neither is identified in the MSO critical habitat unit descriptions.

MSO critical habitat unit descriptions are provided below.

Unit SRM-C-1a. El Paso, Freemont, and Teller counties, Colorado This unit includes 108,545 acres of land manage d by the USFS (Pike/ San Isabel National Forests) and the BLM (Royal Gorge Field Office) (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-C-1b. Custer, Freemont, Huerfano, and Pueblo counties, Colorado This unit includes 110,045 acres in the Wet Mountains, west of the city of Pueblo (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-C-2. Douglas and Jefferson Counties, Colorado This unit includes 103,735 acres n ear Deckers within the South Platte ranger district of

the Pike/San Isabel Natio nal Forests (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-NM-1. Cebollita Mesa, Jemez Mountains, Sandoval County, New Mexico This unit includes 85,758 acres in the Jemez Mountains in north-central New Mexico, mostly maintained by the USFS (Santa Fe National Forest) (USFWS, 2004).

64Unit SRM-NM-4. Peralta, Jemez Mountains, Sandoval County, New Mexico This unit includes 57,297 acres in the Jemez Mountains south of Los Alamos, in northcentral New Mexico mostly maintained by the USFS (Santa Fe National Forest) (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-NM-5a. Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe County, New Mexico This 14,100-acre unit is nine miles east of Sant a Fe in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of north-central New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-NM-5b. Santa Fe National Forest, San Miguel, Mora counties, New Mexico Located 18 miles west of Las Vegas, New Mexico, this 70,728-acre unit is within the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of north-central New Mexico and incl udes Santa Fe National Forest land (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-NM-11. Jicarilla Division, Carson National Forest, New Mexico This 12,459-acre unit is located 40 miles eas t and 12 miles south of Bloomfield in northwestern New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit SRM-NM-12. Jicarilla Division, Carson National Forest, New Mexico This 10,495-acre unit is located 40 miles east and six miles north of Bloomfield in northwestern New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-1. Mount Taylor, Cibola, a nd McKinley counties, New Mexico This 32,469 acre-unit is located in west-central New Mexico 12 miles northeast of Grants in Cibola National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-2. Zuni Mountains, Cibola, and McKinley counties, New Mexico This unit of 161,557 acres is 30 miles southeas t of Gallup in west- central New Mexico, primarily within the USFS-managed Ci bola National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-10. Arizona Strip, and Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona This unit consists of 918,847 acres in northwestern Arizona, mostly within Kaibab National Forest and Grand Canyon National Park (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-11. Iron, Washington, and Kane counties, Utah This unit in southwestern Utah, 22 miles northeast of St. George, consists of 260,105 acres of MSO roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-12. Kaiparowits Plateau, Kane , and Garfield counties, Utah. This unit consists of 402,895 acr es in the vicinity of the Kaiparowits Plateau and the

Cockscomb in Kane and Garfield counties, Utah (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-13. Glen Canyon Reef, Kane, Ga rfield, and Wayne counties, Utah This unit consists of 627,267 acres primarily in the Waterpocket Fold landform that extends to Lake Powell (USFWS, 2004).

65Unit CP-14. Dark Canyon Primitive and Wilderness, San Juan, Wayne, and Grand counties, Utah This unit includes 941,068 acres of BLM (Dark Canyon Primitive) and USFS (Dark Canyon Wilderness) land in Utah (USFWS, 2004).

Unit CP-15. West Tavaputs Plateau, in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah This 21,522-acre unit is located largely along the Desolation Canyon area of the Green River, 30 miles east of Price (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-1a. White Mountain, Lincoln/Cl oudcroft in Lincoln County, New Mexico This unit includes 54,185 acres in the Sacram ento Mountains of New Mexico, mostly within Lincoln National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-1b. Lincoln/Cloudcroft in Otero County, New Mexico This unit includes 212,882 acres in the S acramento Mountains of New Mexico, predominantly within Lincoln National Forest (Sacramento ranger district) (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-3. Capitan Mountains This unit includes 44,216 acres, mostly on U SFS-maintained land (Smokey Bear ranger district, Lincoln National Fo rest) in the Capitan Mountai ns, north of Capitan, New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-4. Carrizo in Li ncoln County, New Mexico This unit includes 13,753 acres in the Carrizo Mountains in Lincoln National Forest (Smokey Bear ranger distri ct), seven miles east of Ca rrizozo, New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-5. Manzano Mountains , Torrance County, New Mexico This unit includes 25,642 acres in the Manza no Mountains (largely on Cibola National Forest land), 24 miles east of Belen, New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-E-7. Sandia Mountain, New Mexico This unit of 3,048 acres is located 12 miles to the east of Albuquerque, New Mexico in

the Cibola National Forest lands of the Sandia Mountains (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-2. Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Arizona This unit of 55,210 acres is found south of Prescott, Arizona in the Prescott National Forest (USFWS, 2004). The desi gnated area reaches beyond the Gila-Salt Meridian to the east, and extends southwards between Iron Springs and Mount Francis as far as Crooks Canyon, encompassing Maverick and Lookout Mountai ns (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-3. Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Arizona This unit of 15,580 acres is loca ted in the Bradshaw Mountains within Prescott National Forest (USFWS, 2004). The northern boundary of the unit is the southern slope of Tuscumbia Mountain, and the southeastern boun dary is the northern slope of Lane Mountain (USFWS, 2004).

66Unit BR-W-4. Tonto National Forest, Yavapai, Gila, and Maricopa counties, Arizona This unit of 158,624 acres is located with in the Mazatzal Wilderness on the Tonto National Forest, Arizona (USF WS, 2004). The unit extends between North Peak and Buckhorn Mountain; encompassing the Mazatzal Mountains (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-5. Tonto National Forest, Gila County, Arizona This unit of 118,940 acres is lo cated within the T onto National Forest in Arizona and

includes the northern half of the Salome W ilderness and the Sierra Ancha Wilderness (USFWS, 2004). Boundaries are delineate d by Pine Mountain, Greenback Peak, and Round Mountain (USFWS, 2004).

Unit Br-W-6. Pinal Mountains Area, Gila County, Arizona This unit of 51,782 acres is located south of Miami and Globe, Ariz ona (USFWS, 2004). It is bordered by U.S. Route 60 to the nor th and State Highway 77 to the east (USFWS, 2004).

Unit Br-W-7. Santa Teresa Mountai ns Area, Graham County, Arizona

Located south of the San Carlos Indian Rese rvation and north of Klondyke, Arizona, this unit of 17,791 acres falls mostly on the Safford ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-8. Pinaleno Mountains Area, Graham County, Arizona This unit of 107,838 acres is lo cated primarily on the Safford ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-9. Galiuro Mountains Area, Graham County, Arizona This unit of 63,259 acres encompasses the Ga liuro Mountains, and falls within the Safford ranger district of the Co ronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-10. Winchester Mountains Area, Cochise County, Arizona This unit of 10,485 acres is located northwes t of Willcox, Arizona in the Winchester Mountains (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-11. Santa Catalina and Rincon Mountai ns Area, Pima and Pinal counties, Arizona This unit of 233,228 acres north and east of Tucson falls mostly on Coronado National Forest land (Santa Catalina ranger district) (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-12. Santa Rita Mountains Area, Santa Cruz and Pima counties, Arizona This unit of 54,220 acres is located west of Sonoita, Arizona on the Nogales ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-13. Atascosa and Pajarito Mount ains Area, Santa Cruz County, Arizona This unit of 54,735 acres in the N ogales ranger district of th e Coronado National Forest is located west of Nogales, Arizona (USFWS, 2004).

67Unit BR-W-14. Patagonia Mountains Ar ea, Santa Cruz County, Arizona This unit of 52,158 acres is located south of Pa tagonia, Arizona in the Sierra Vista ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-15. Huachuca Mountains Area, Cochise County, Arizona This unit of 50,844 acres is locate d southwest of Sierra Vista, Arizona, in the Sierra Vista ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-16. Whetstone Mountains Area, Cochise County, Arizona This unit of 20,999 acres southwest of Benson, Arizona, is located largely within the Sierra Vista ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit BR-W-18. Chiricahua Mountains Area, Cochise County, Arizona This unit of 179,439 acres northeast of Douglas , Arizona, is located largely within the Douglas ranger district of the Co ronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-2. Magdalena Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico This unit of 33,794 acres is located six mile s south of Magdalena, New Mexico in the Magdalena ranger district of Ci bola National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-3. San Mateo Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico This unit of 135,287 acres is lo cated 36 miles sout hwest of Magdalena, New Mexico in the Magdalena ranger district of Ci bola National Forest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-5a. Gila National Forest, Ca tron and Grant counties, New Mexico This unit of 666,481 acres is locat ed in Gila National Forest north of Silver City, New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-5b. Gila National Forest, Sierra , Catron, and Grant counties, New Mexico This unit of 295,680 acres is locat ed in Gila National Forest 30 miles west of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-6. Gila Mountains, Catron County, New Mexico This unit of 63,451 acres is loca ted in the Gila Mountains north of Silver City, New Mexico, in the Reserve ranger district of Gila National Fo rest (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-7. Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila Natio nal Forests; Catron C ounty, New Mexico, and Graham and Greenlee counties, Arizona This unit of 863,344 acres is lo cated on USFS lands in the Mogollon Rim of Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-10. Coconino National Forest, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forest, and Tonto National Forest; Coconino, G ila, Yavapai counties, Arizona This unit of 562,988 acres is lo cated north, northwest, east, and southeast of Payson, Arizona (USFWS, 2004). The western border is parallel to the Yavapai-Coconino county

68line as far south as the Mogollon Rim (USF WS, 2004). The unit includes the Coconino County portion of West Clear Creek, and J acks Canyon of the Coconino National Forest (USFWS, 2004). Portions of West Ch evelon, Chevelon, and Wildcat Canyons on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Fo rest fall within the unit, which extends south along the Tonto National Forest boundary to Gentry Mountain (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-11. Coconino National Forest, Co conino and Yavapai counties, Arizona This unit of 144,790 acres is lo cated south of Mountainair e, Arizona (USFWS, 2004). Interstate 17 is the western boundary, and Willow Valley Dam forms the southern boundary of the unit (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-12. Coconino National Fo rest, Coconino County, Arizona This unit of 17,359 acres is located east of Flagstaff, Arizona (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-13. Coconino National Forest, Kaibab Na tional Forest, Prescott National Forest, and Camp Navajo Army Depot; Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona This unit of 238,092 acres is lo cated between Williams and Fl agstaff, Arizona, to the north, and extends south to th e Mogollon Rim (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-14. Coconino National Fo rest, Coconino County, Arizona This unit of 55,533 acres directly north of Flagstaff, Arizona includes the San Francisco Peaks (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-15. Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona This unit of 22,286 acres is located west of U.S. Highway 180 and Northwest of Flagstaff, Arizona (USFWS, 2004).

Unit UGM-17. Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona This unit of 10,914 acres is located north of Parks, Arizona, and includes Sitgreaves Mountain, RS Hill, and Government Hill (USFWS, 2004).

13.5. HABITAT The MSO is found in warm-temperate and cold-temperate forests; particularly mature or oldgrowth mixed-conifer and Madrean evergreen woodlands that have a high percentage canopy cover and relatively high tree density (USFWS, 1993). Mixed-c onifer forests, which are often used by the MSO as roosting sites, are dominated by white fir, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine trees (USFWS, 1993). Madrean ever green woodlands occur at lowe r elevations than the mixedconifer forests, and are divided into two categorie s: the upper oak-pine forest, which occurs from 5,500 to 7,200 feet; and the lower evergreen oak forest, which occurs from 5,000 to 6,500 feet (USFWS, 1993).

The MSO is also associated with riparian ar eas and canyons (USFWS, 19 95). In the northern portion of the MSO’s range—including southern Utah, southern Colorado, northern Arizona, and northern New Mexico—MSOs occur primarily in steep-walled, rocky canyons (USFWS, 1995). Mesa tops, benches, and warm slopes above th e canyons may become preferable to the MSO during the fall and winter, but steep slopes remain high-use areas within MSO home ranges

69(USFWS, 1993). In the summer, cool canyons are the primary MSO habitat (NatureServe,2009). In southern Utah and Colorado, most nests are either in caves or on cliff ledges in steepwalled canyons (USFWS, 1995).

Dispersing juvenile MSOs move through a variety of habitats before selecting a home range, including: spruce-fir and mixed-conifer forest s, pinyon-juniper woodland, mountain shrublands, desert scrubland, and desert gr asslands (USFWS, 1995). Features shared among selected habitat types include a multi-layered canopy; high percentage canopy closure; high tree density; an abundance of dead and down woody material; an d a location near water (USFWS, 1993). Perennial streams, creeks, and springs, ephemera l water, small pools from runoff, and reservoir

emissions are water sources associat ed with MSO habitat (USFWS, 2004).

Radio telemetry studies place MSO home range areas betw een 702 and 2,386 acres (USFWS, 1993). MSO migrations as far as 31 miles have also been recorded with radio telemetry equipment (USFWS, 1995). Observational record s indicate that most MSOs occupy the same general area as their summer ho me ranges year-round (USFWS, 1993).

13.6. DIET The MSO preys chiefly on woodrats ( Neotoma spp.), peromyscid mice ( Peromyscus spp.), and microtine voles ( Microtus spp.) (USFWS, 2004). Hunting almost always takes place from a tree perch, and “cover [trees with dense foliage] must be present within their home range for them to successfully hunt and survive” (U SFWS, 2004). Spotted owls are also known to prey on bats, birds, reptiles, and arthropods (USFWS, 1995).

13.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The MSO is a sporadic breeder and may not nest every year (USF WS, 2010). Typically, however, male and female MSOs will begin r oosting together in Febr uary (USFWS, 2004).

Female MSOs have one of the smallest clutch sizes of North American owls: they lay one to three eggs in late March or ear ly April (USFWS, 1995). The fema le will incubate her eggs for approximately 30 days (USFWS, 1995). If the firs t clutch is not successf ul, a second clutch may be laid (USFWS, 2010). Hatchlings emerge in early May, and the female MSO guards the owlets almost constantly for the first couple of weeks (USFWS, 1995). After four or five weeks, the flight muscles of the owlets have suffici ently developed for flight, although the owlets remain in the general area around the nest (USFWS, 1995). Owlets become increasingly independent through the summer and in to the fall, but continue to beg for food from their parents until late August (USFWS, 1995). The young disp erse between mid September and early October (USFWS, 1995). MSOs reach sexual maturity and breed first at two or three years of age (NatureServe, 2009).

13.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1993. Final rule to list the Mexican Spotted Owl as a Threatened Species. Federal Register 58, No. 49, pp. 14248-14271. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr2244.pdf (Accessed July 22, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuque rque, New Mexico. 348 pp. Available online at:

70http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/MSO_Recovery_Plan.pdf (Accessed July 22, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2004. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Regi ster 69, No. 168, pp. 53181-53230. Available online

at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fe deral_register/fr4341.pdf (Accessed July 22, 2010).

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Onlin e Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/Nat ureServe?searchName=Strix+occidentalis+lucid

a (Accessed July 28, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Environmental Conservation Online System . Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=B074 (Accessed July 22, 2010).

7114. NEW MEXICAN RIDGE- NOSED RATTLESNAKE

14.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The New Mexican ridge-nosed rattlesnake (NMRR) ( Crotalus willardi obscurus ) was listed as threatened on August 4, 1978 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS), and a designation of critical habitat was included at the time of sp ecies listing (USFWS, 19 78). A recovery plan for the NMRR was approved by the USFWS on March 22, 1985 (USFWS, 1985).

14.2. DESCRIPTION

Crotalus willardi obscurus is a subspecies of ri dgenose rattlesnake, dis tinguished from the other four subspecies of C. willardi by the absence of a white vertical line on the rostral or mental, and the absence of a prominent white flash-mark (hor izontal line on the sides of the head) (USFWS, 1985). Its most distinguishing characteristic is a prominent ridge on the snout (Matthews, 1990).

The C. w. obscurus subspecies is not universally accepted, either because the initial description “deviated from accepted nomenclatural procedures,” or because there is no consensus regarding

what constitutes the taxonomic level of uni queness necessary to justify the naming of a subspecies (USFWS, 1985).

The NMRR grows to a maximum length of a bout 60 cm (24 inches) (Matthews, 1990). According to the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (AESFO) of the USFWS, lengths range between 30 and 61 centimeters (AESFO, 2002). NMRR weights have been recorded between 85 and 113 grams (San Diego Zoo, 2010).

Adults typically exhibit a pale gray or gray-bro wn coloration, and juveniles have dark gray or light yellow tails (USFWS, 2010). The dorsal region is “marked with pale crossbars lined with darker coloration along the front a nd back edges,” and the underbell y is typically cream to white with irregular grayish or reddish brown mottled areas (USFWS, 2010).

The NMRR is considered to be diurnal; mo st active between the hours of 0800 and 1100 (and also around 1700) during July and August; and most active between the hours of 1100 and 1600 during September and October (USFWS, 1985). Si ghtings prior to July are less common, and C.

willardi is thought to be inactive during June “unless it rains” (USFWS, 1985). In May, C.

willardi is considered to be most active be tween 0900 and 1200 hours (USFWS, 1985). The NMRR may become partially nocturnal during ho t summer weather (NatureServe, 2009).

A member of the Viperidae family, the NMRR is venomous, although its venom is considered to be of relatively low toxi city (NatureServe, 2009).

14.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range The NMRR subspecies was “never common,” and has only ever been documented in a small

area of the Animas Mountains of southwestern New Mexico and adjacent portions of the Sierra San Luis Mountains in northern Mexico (C hihuahua) (Matthews, 1990). The extreme southeastern part of the state of Arizona was al so included in the NMRR’s historical distribution

72(AESFO, 2002). The di stribution of other C. willardi subspecies is less restricted, extending

from southern Arizona and New Mexico and as far south as Durango and Zacatecas in Mexico (Matthews, 1990).

Current range The NMRR is presently known to exist in fragmen ted enclaves occupying a combined total of less than two square miles of habitat in the extr eme southwest corner of New Mexico (Matthews, 1990). The AESFO states that “the subspecies [NMRR] also occu rs in Pelloncillo Mountains of Arizona” (AESFO, 2002). The USFWS lists the NMRR as known to occur in two counties in the United States: Hidalgo County, New Mexic o, and Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS, 2010).

14.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT On August 4, 1978, the USFWS designated critical ha bitat for the NMRR in the same rule that accorded the NMRR with protection as a threaten ed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 1978). A sole crit ical habitat unit was designat ed, encompassing “the entire range in the United States wher e this subspecies is known to occur” (USFWS, 1978). This unit—in Hidalgo County, New Mexico—exclusively pertains to those elevations between 6,200 and 8,532 feet within the Bear, Indian, and Sp ring Canyons region of the Animas Mountains (USFWS, 1978).

Before designation, critical habi tat areas are determined to “sa tisfy all known criteria for the evolutionary, ecological, behavi oral, and physiological requireme nts of the species” (USFWS, 1978). While Primary Constituent Elements (PCE s) are not identified by name, the critical habitat listing notice identifies cert ain attributes and features of the designated critical habitat area that are grouped as “const ituent elements,” including:

• Dens and/or denning habitat that provides sh elter during the summer and winter months;

• Vegetation that provides cover fo r the NMRR and habitat for prey;

• Abundance of prey (lizards and rodents) (USFWS, 1978)

14.5. HABITAT The NMRR occurs in narrow mountain canyons at elevations between 5,500 and 9,000 feet where annual precipitation averages 51 centimet ers (Matthews, 1990). The NMRR "prefers to hide in leaf litter among cobbles and rocks al ong canyon floors" (Matthews, 1990). Rocks, leaf litter, and mesic conditions ar e commonalities among all confirmed C. willardi habitat (USFWS, 1985).

The vegetative structure of NMRR habitat areas is chiefly compri sed of open stands of pine-oak forest and associated shrubs and grasses (Ma tthews, 1990). Specifically, plant species of the typical habitat include Arizona white oak ( Quercus emoryi ), Alligator juniper ( Juniperus deppeana ), Mexican pinyon ( Pinus cembroides ), Chihuahua pine ( Pinus leiophylla ), Gambel oak ( Quercus gambelii ), Arizona Madrone ( Arbutus arizonica ), skunkbush ( Rhus trilobata ), Manzanita ( Arctostaphylos pungens ), and birchleaf rhamnus ( Rhamnus betulaefolia ) (USFWS, 1985). The AESFO also lists bunchgrass as NM RR-associated vegeta tion (AESFO, 2002).

7314.6. DIET Ridgenose rattlesnakes prey on a variety of an imals, including small mammals, birds, lizards, other snakes, and arthro pods (USFWS, 1985). The USFWS specifi es that “diets of small-bodied

rattlesnakes such as Crotalus willardi generally consist more of lizards than small mammals” (USFWS, 1985). Additionally, “the natural feeding of C. Willardi may include scavenging,” as captive individuals have been known to consume carrion (USFWS, 1985).

14.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Female NMRR’s are ovoviviparous, and give bi rth to live young (Matthews, 1990). The NMRR is a biennial species: mating occurs in the summer and fertilized eggs are retained in the oviducts until ready to hatch the following summer (Matth ews, 1990). The gestation period averages 13 months (Matthews, 1990). Available information regarding the exact time of year that births

occur is inconsistent. In the re covery plan, births for “most speci es of rattlesnake” are stated to occur between August 1 st and October 15 th (USFWS, 1985), but Matthews reports that most NMRR births are in April and May (Matthews, 1990). “Parturition in Mexican rattlesnakes coincides with the rainy season, pos sibly because of the greater a bundance of prey at that time” (USFWS, 1985). Although young rattlesnakes may be found sharing a hi ding place with their mother, they typically disperse within a few days of parturition (USFWS, 1985).

14.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1978. Listing of the New Mexican Ridgenosed Rattlesnake as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Fede ral Register 43, No. 151, pp. 34476-34480. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fe deral_register/fr232.pdf (Accessed August 4, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1985. New Mexico Ridgenose Rattlesnake Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 59 pa ges. Prepared by William H. Baltosser and John P. Hubbard, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Endangered Species Division.

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/doc s/recovery_plan/850322.pdf (Accessed August 4, 2010).

Matthews, John R. and Charles J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. Vol. II, pp.729-730.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) : Arizona Ecological Se rvices Field Office (AESFO). 2002. General species information: Ne w Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake. Available

online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/New%20Mexico%20Ridgenose %20Rattlesnake%20RB.pdf (Accessed August 5, 2010).

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Onlin e Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/N atureServe?searchName= Crotalus+willardi+obscu

rus (Accessed August 4, 2010).

74United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Species Profile for the New Mexican Ridge-Nosed Rattlesnake. Environmental Conservation Online System . Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=C01S (Accessed August 4, 2010).

San Diego Zoo. 2010. San Diego Zoo’s Animal Bytes: Rattlesnake. Available online at: http://www.sandiegozoo.org/an imalbytes/t-rattlesnake.html (Accessed August 5, 2010).

7515. NORTHERN APLOMADO FALCON

15.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The northern Aplomado falcon ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis ) (falcon) was listed as an endangered species on February 25, 1986 within its range in Texas (51 FR 6686) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF WS) (USFWS, 1986). A recovery plan for the falcon, the Aplomado Falcon Recovery Plan , (Recovery Plan) was established in June 1990 (USFWS, 1990). The falcon was included in the initiation of a 5-year status review of 14 southwestern species on March 29, 2010 (USFWS, 2010a). The USFWS established a non-essential experimental population (NEP) of falcons in all of New Mexico and Arizona on July 26, 2006 (71 FR 42298-42315) (USFWS, 2006).

15.2. DESCRIPTION The northern Aplomado falcon is one of th ree subspecies of the Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis) (USFWS, 1990). The weak differentiation between the subspecies is based upon size and coloration (Keddy-Hector, 2000) . The other two subspecies ( F. f. femoralis and F. f. pichincae ) are smaller and darker than F. f. septentrionalis and range from Central America to eastern South America (USFWS, 1990). The north ern Aplomado falcon range overlaps with that

of F. f. femoralis

, but it can be distinguished by its larg er size and lighter dorsal coloring (USFWS, 1990). Adult northern Aplomado falcons can also be indentified by their rust-colored underparts, a gray dorsum, a long banded tail, long legs and a distinctive black and white facial pattern (USFWS, 1986). The falcon is medium size d, about 14 to 18 inches long, with a 31 to 40 inch wingspan (USFWS, 2007). Aplomado falcons weigh 208 g to 500 g, similar in size to a Cooper’s Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ) (Keddy-Hector, 2000). Females are larger than males (USFWS, 2007), at least by 45% (Keddy-Hect or, 2000). Upon hatching, Aplomado falcon chicks are 17.5 g (Keddy-Hector, 2000).

15.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range The Aplomado falcon in general ranges from the s outhwestern United States to Tierra del Fuego in neotropical lowland savannas, coastal prairies, and grasslands at higher elevations (KeddyHector, 2000).The northern Aploma do falcon’s historic range in th e United States extended from

Trans-Pecos in Texas to southern New Mexico and southeastern Arizon a (USFWS, 1990). The range extended down to Chiapas, northern Yuca tan, and along the Mexican Gulf Coast and the Pacific slope of Central Amer ica north of Nicaragua (USFWS, 1990). In Guatemala and Nicaragua, it was considered a straggler from its northern rang e (Keddy-Hector, 2000). In the United States, the southern Gulf Coast of Texas provided coastal prairie habitat, and the border

area of Mexico and Texas as well as southern New Mexico and southeas tern Arizona provided savanna and grassland habitat (USFWS, 2006). Th e falcon was prolific in these habitat areas until the 1940’s when the subspecies rapidly declined (USFWS, 2006).

Current Distribution Since 1950, there have been sca ttered sightings that indicate “ephemeral occupancy” by the falcon in the United States, and the dispersal of individuals up from Mexico (Keddy-Hector,

762000). There are records of past nesting activity for six generalized areas located in southeastern Arizona, western Texas and the southern Texas coast, and south-centr al New Mexico (KeddyHector, 2000).

Since 1952, only one wild pair of falcons had suc cessfully produced fledglings in Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS, 2006). The USFWS Arizona Ec ological Services Of fice indicates that there has been a recent confirmed report, as we ll as other unconfirmed reports, of the falcon in Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS, 2010d). Sin ce 1980, the falcon has been documented in New Mexico in Hidalgo, Grant, Eddy, Socorr o, Grant, Dona Ana and Otero counties (KeddyHector, 2000). The USFWS New Mexico Ecological Services Fi eld Office indicates that the falcon is located in Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Gran t, Hidalgo, Lea, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro counties (USFWS, 2010b). In 2007, falcons were reintroduced as a nonessential experimental population in New Mexico on Bu reau of Land Management (BLM) lands, the White Sands Missile Range, and on Ne w Mexico state la nds (USFWS, 2007).

In Texas, since 1980, falcons have been reported in Presido and Culberson counties as well as in the Laguna Atascosa NWR in Cameron County (Keddy-Hector, 2000). The Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Texas and some surrounding privat e lands were the only areas to be categorized as habitat occupied by the falcons at the time of the writing of the Recovery Plan in 1990 (USFWS, 1990). Also, falc ons had been seen in the Rio Grande Valley NWR located near Harlingen, Texas, in the Ga brielson and Palmview units of the refuge (USFWS, 1990). The Peregrine Fund first releas ed falcons in 1985 on King Ranch in Texas, and then later in Laguna Atascosa NWR and Matagorda Island, with a total of eight release sites along the Gulf Coast of Texas (Keddy-Hector, 2000). The USFWS Species Profile website

indicates that the falcon cu rrently occurs statewide in Texas (USFWS, 2010c).

15.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated fo r the northern Aplomado falcon (USFWS 1990).

15.5. HABITAT Northern Aplomado falcon habitat is made up of open terrain with scattered trees or shrubs (USFWS, 1990). The ideal habita t is “probably open savanna or grassland surrounded by or bordering extensive woodland or we tlands (Keddy-Hector, 2000).” Habitats within the United States include sand ridges covered with yucca ( Yucca torreyi

, Y. elata

, Y. treculeana ) found in coastal prairies, desert grasslands with scattered yucca and mesquite ( Prosopis glandulosa ), and riparian woodlands in open grasslands (U SFWS, 1990 and Keddy-Hector, 2000). These areas are also described as riparian “gallery forests” and oak woods within desert grasslands (KeddyHector, 2000). Trees and shrubs in falcon hab itat do not form a continuous tree crown because they are sparsely scattered (USFWS, 1990), orlocated along stream and marsh edges (KeddyHecotr, 2000). Suitable habita t has been found in one study to have the following cover characteristics: (1) inter-tree distances averag ed 30 m (range 15 – 45 m); (2) tree densities averaged 19 trees per 100 acres; (3) tree height averaged 9 m; and (4) ground cover vegetation was around 92% within 75 cm of the ground and 70% within 50 cm of the ground (USFWS, 1990). In south Texas, falcon foraging areas ha ve been observed to ha ve 2.6 trees/ha (KeddyHector, 2000).

77The falcon also requires nesting platforms such as stick nests or bromeliads (USFWS, 1985). The falcon kleptoparasitizes the nests of other bi rds (Keddy-Hector, 2000). For this reason, the

abundance of small birds that build such nests is probably an important factor in determining falcon nesting density (USFWS, 1990) . For example, at active fa lcon nest sites had an average of nine small birds/ha, and similarly, in coasta l brushland areas of Texa s there were an average of ten small birds/ha (USFWS, 1990). Birds that construct nesting platforms that are used by the falcon, as well as prey species, require forest an d thorn scrub habitat (K eddy-Hector, 2000).

15.6. DIET The falcon preys upon small birds, insects, rode nts, and reptiles (USF WS, 1990). In eastern Mexico, 97% of prey biomass comes from bird s; however, 65% of indi vidual prey items are insects (USFWS, 1990). Avian prey items can be as large as the bird Chachalaca ( Ortalis vetula ; 570 grams) but the observed average avian prey size is 67 grams with 77% of observed avian prey being less than 100 grams (USFWS, 1990). Pr eferred avian prey in eastern Mexico include mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura ), white-winged dove ( Z. asiatica ), common ground-dove ( Columbina passerine ), yellow-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus ), groove-billed ani ( Crotophaga sulcirostris ), common nighthawk ( Chordeiles acutipennis ), whip-poor-will ( Caprimulgus vociferous ), golden-fronted woodpecker ( Melanerpes formicivorous ), great-tailed grackle ( Quiscalus mexicanus ), eastern meadowlark ( Sturnella magna ), melodious blackbird ( Dives dives ), various orioles ( Icterus spp.), indigo bunting ( Passerina cyanea ), Cassin’s sparrow ( Aimophila cassinii ), lark sparrow ( Chondestes grammacus ), dickcissel ( Spiza americana ), and lark bunting ( Calamospiza melanocorys ) (USFWS, 1990). Other vertebrate prey include frogs, lizards, bats, kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys spp.), pocket mice ( Perognathus spp.), and white-footed mice ( Peromyscus spp.) (USFWS, 1990). Falcons also prey upon invertebrates such as grasshoppers, beetles, dragonflies, cicadas, crickets, butterflies, moths, wasps, and bees (USFWS, 1990). Fiddler crabs ( Uca subcylindrica ) have been observed as prey in southern Texas (Keddy-Hector, 2000).

15.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The falcon nests in eastern Mexico during the dry season between January and June (USFWS, 1990). Falcons are presumed to be monogamous (Keddy-Hector, 2000). Clutches may be produced as early as January but most clutches are produced between March and May (USFWS, 1990). Clutches are incubated for 31-32 days be fore hatching (USFWS, 1990). Nestlings fledge at 32-40 days (USFWS, 1990). After fledging, the young are still dependent for four more weeks (USFWS, 1990). Based on this, young must stil l be dependent on their parents as late as August (USFWS, 1990). The average clutch cont ains 2.6 eggs and the fledging rate is 1.8 young per nest (USFWS, 1990). The falcon does not construct its own stick pl atform for nesting but relies on a preexisting platform for nesting (USFWS, 1990). Nests are found in large arboreal br omeliads and on stick platforms previously built by crows, ravens, hawks and kites (USFWS, 1990). The bases of palm fronds, the joint of large branches with tr ee trunks, and on other larg er branches serve as nest platforms (Keddy-Hector, 2000) . Falcons released in southern Texas have been observed to nest directly on the ground, and on platforms located on the crossarm s of power-line poles (Keddy-Hector, 2000). The falcon is tolerant of close proxim ity to humans, and has been

observed to nest in associati on with well-managed livestock gr azing operations in Mexico and Texas, as well as within 100 m of roadways in eastern Mexico (USFWS, 2006). In a sample of

78five falcon nests, nests were found to range in size from 28 cm to 100 cm, with nest cup diameters ranging from 6 cm to 18 cm (USFWS, 1990).

Falcons have nesting territories, which males surv ey by soaring flights and by perching within 1 km of the nest (Keddy-Hector, 2000 ). Males have been observed to fly long distances in eastern Mexico to challenge an intruding male, but resi dent adult falcons do not respond predictably to female intruders (Keddy-Hector, 2000). Soaring pairs passing through a nesting territory may be tolerated (Keddy-Hector, 2000).

There is little knowledge regarding the migratory behavior of the falcon (USFWS, 1990). In eastern Mexico, pairs remain at their nest si tes year-round (USFWS, 1990). The falcon appears to be non-migratory throughout its range (USFWS, 2010c). The falcon apparently spent the

winter in the U.S. historicall y, where numerous specimens were collected there during that season (USFWS, 1990). Pairs also remain in th eir nesting territorie s year-round in eastern Mexico (USFWS, 1990).

15.8. REFERENCES Keddy-Hector, D.P. 2000. Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis). In The Birds of North America, No. 549 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Acad emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 1985. Proposal to De termine the Northern Aplomado Falcon to be an Endangered Species. Federa l Register 50 (97) 20810-20814. Available online

at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/fe deral_register/fr954.pdf (Accessed on: August 2, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Determination of the Northern Aplomado Falcon to be an Endangered Species. Federal Register 51 (37) 6686-6690. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr1088.pdf (Accessed on: August 2, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Northern Aplomado Falcon Recovery Plan. Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 65 pp. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/900608.pdf (Accessed on: August 2, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Northern Aplomado Falcons in Ne w Mexico and Arizona. Federal Register 71 (143) 42298-42315. Available online at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname =2006_register&docid=fr26jy06-20 (Accessed on: August 2, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. 5-Year Status Reviews of 14 Southwestern Species. Federal Register 75 ( 59) 15454-15456. Available online at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname =2010_register&docid=fr29mr10-87

. (Accessed on: August 2, 2010)

79U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b . New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species Lists, Information for the northern Aplo mado Falcon. USFWS Region 2, New Mexico Ecological Field Services Office. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/New Mexico/SBC_view_cnOsn.cfm?tp=com . (Accessed on: August 10, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010c . Species Profile: Northern Aplomado Falcon. ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis ). Environmental Conservation Online System. Available

online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/prof ile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06V (Accessed on: August 2, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010d. Statewide Species List. USFWS Region 2, Arizona Ecological Field Services Office. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ariz ona/Documents/CountyLists/Statewide.pdf . (Accessed on: August 10, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2007. Aplomado Falcon ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis ). Available online at: http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/fws-fact_aplomado-falcon.pdf (Accessed on: August 10, 2010).

8016. OCELOT

16.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ) was listed as an endangered forei gn species, but not as a native species, under the Endangered Species Cons ervation Act of 1969 (USFWS, 1982 and 1990). This Act had separate proce dures and lists for endangered domestic and foreign species (USFWS, 1982 and 1990). With the passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), foreign populations of ocelots were carried ove r to the 1973 combined endangered species list, but the procedures for listing the U.S. populatio n were not completed (USFWS, 1982 and 1990). The ocelot was officially listed as an endange red species in the U.S. on July 21, 1982 (47 FR 31670) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS, 1982). Critical habitat has not been determined for the ocelot (USFWS, 1982). A ccording to the USFWS 2009 Action Plan for the ocelot, there is currently an intern al working draft of the Ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ) Recovery Plan, dated November 2007 (USFWS, 2009b).

16.2. DESCRIPTION The ocelot is a spotted, medium-sized cat (U SFWS, 1990). Ocelots are 50 cm to 100 cm long from the head to the end of the body, with a tail from 30 cm to 45 cm long (Nowak, 1999). Ocelots weigh between 11.3 kg and 15.8 kg (Nowak, 1999) . The ocelot may vary in color from pale to dark tawny (USFWS, 2010a). Color may al so be whitish to tawny yellow, reddish gray, and gray (Nowak, 1999). The two subspecies that historically ranged in the United States, the Sonoran ocelot ( L. p. sonorienses ) and the northern ocelot ( L. p. albescens ), are both pale in color, but the northern o celot is larger and has a longer a nd more angular skull (USFWS, 1990). The coat has brown spots with black borders that resemble ch ain links and sweep downward in lines (USFWS, 2010a). A black line above each ey e extends to the back of the head (USFWS, 2010a). The tail is ringed or has dark bars on th e upper side, and there are one to two transverse stripes on the inside of the legs (Nowak, 1999).

16.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range There are two ocelot subspecies known to occur hist orically within the U.S, the Sonoran ocelot (L. p. sonorienses) and the northern ocelot ( L. p. albescens ) (USFWS, 1990). These two subspecies are isolated from one another by th e highlands of the Sierra Madre (USFWS, 1990).

The Plan for Translocation of Northern Ocelots in Texas and Tamaulipas (Translocation Plan)

indicates that the Sonoran ocelot ranged from Sonora, Mexico through southeastern Arizona, but

has not been documented in Arizona sin ce the 1960’s (USFWS, 2009a). The USFWS Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recover y Plan with Emphasis on the Ocelot (Recovery Plan) notes that while the Sonoran ocelot may have reached as far north as Fort Verde, Arizona, the validity of the specimen from this location has been questioned (USFWS, 1990). It has also been suggested by Brown (1985), who cited the si x known reports of ocelots since 1963 in

81southeastern Arizona , t hat this subspecies is a recent arri val from its range in Sonora, Mexico (USFWS, 1990).

The Recovery Plan indicates that the northern oc elot ranged in Mexico from Coahuila in the foothills of the Sierra Madre Oriental through Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas to the Gulf Coast (USFWS, 1990). This subspecies is noted to have possibly ra nged from southern and eastern Texas to Hedley, Texas in the north and to Ma rfa, Texas in the west (USFWS, 1990). While it may also have ranged into western Louisiana, re cords other than Pleistocene fossils are lacking (USFWS, 1990). The Translocation Plan indicates that the northern ocelot ranged from northern Coahuila, Mexico up into Texas and parts of Louisiana and Arkansas (USWS, 2009a). The population currently found in the Un ited States, believed to number less than 50 individuals, is

the northern ocelot subs pecies (USFWS, 2009a).

Current Distribution The range of the ocelot is on the edge of the Un ited States, and is primarily located in Central and South America (USFWS, 1980). Near the time of its listing, the oc elot was only known to

occur in the Rio Grande area of southeastern Te xas, where evidence indicated their presence in eastern Cameron County and in Willacy and Ke nedy counties (USFWS, 1980). The ocelot was thought to have never firmly established in Arizon a, and at the time of its official listing in 1982 was presumed to have been eliminated there fr om predator control programs, apart from the presence of wandering ocelots from Mexico (USFWS, 1982).

The Translocation Plan indicates that the population currently found in the United States,

believed to number less than 50 indi viduals, is the northern ocelot ( L. p. albescens ) subspecies (USFWS, 2009a). Other estimates place the number of ocelots in the United States at less than 100 (USFWS, 2010a). The ocelots ar e split into two separate populat ions, one located in eastern Cameron County, Texas at the La guna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and the other in northern Willacy County, Texa s within the Yturria Ranch a nd centered at the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (USFWS, 2009a) . Ocelots are also present at Santa Ana NWR located near Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, and on a pr ivate ranch in the ar ea (USFWS, 2010a).

The Recovery Plan indicates th at trapping and photo-documentati on records of ocelots in Texas exist for four counties, including Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, and Hidalgo (USFWS, 1990). Areas considered to be occupied by ocelots based upon both radio tracked animals and sighting reports include Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata counties in Texas (USFWS, 1990). The northern edge of Maverick County is indicated to be the norther n boundary of the range in west Texas, with Calhoun County the boundary in th e east (USFWS, 1990). All suit able brush habitat located south of this area is presumed to be pot ential ocelot habitat (USFWS, 1990).

The current USFWS Species Profile indicates that the ocelot occurs in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona, and in Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Brooks, Cameron, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim We lls, Karnes, Kenedy, Kleberg, La Salle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala counties in Texas (USFWS, 2010b).

8216.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT

No critical habitat has been estab lished for the ocelot (USFWS, 1982).

16.5. HABITAT A variety of habitats can be us ed by ocelots (USFWS, 2010a). O celots appear to use areas of dense cover, and in the northern part of the range hunt in brushy forest s and semi-arid deserts (USFWS, 2010a). In the southern part of its ra nge, ocelot habitat in cludes tropical forests, mountain slopes, and pampas (grasslands) (USFWS, 2010a).

In studies cited in the 1990 Recovery Plan, dense thornscrub was f ound to be the habitat preferred by ocelots (USFWS, 1990). Ocelot hab itat is located within the Tamaulipan biotic province, which is made up of many plant co mmunities of subtropi cal thornscrub brush (USFWS, 1990). Ocelots have been found in the Mesquite-Granjeno Parks, MesquiteBlackbrush Brush, Live Oak Woods /Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian plant communities of the lower Rio Grande valley (USFWS , 1990). A study characterizi ng ocelot habitat considered

suitable habitat to be at least 99 acres in size for one brush stand (or 74 acres for two adjacent stands) with an optimal habitat classification requiring at leas t 95% canopy cover, suboptimal habitat ranging from 75% to 95% cover, and inadequate habitat at 75% cover or less (USFWS, 1990). This type of thornscrub plant community is dominant in many uncultivated areas north of the Rio Grande Plain due to overg razing and agricultural activities that have altered the native mixed grassland and brush communities (USFWS, 1990). Mesquite ( Prosopis glandulosa ), post oak ( Quercus stellata ), live oak ( Q. virginiana ), cacti, and acacia species have increased in this area (USFWS, 1990). Ocelots have also been captured in w oodlands adjacent to thornscrub habitat (USFWS, 1990). The Laguna Atascosa NWR contains 20,000 ac res of the native brushland used by ocelots (USFWS, 1982). The tota l ocelot habitat remaining in the Rio Grande Valley is estimated to be less than 20,000 hectares , with Laguna Atascosa NWR being the largest area of thorn forest, at 8,280 acres in size (USFWS, 1990).

Within the Tamaulipan biotic province in the South Texas Plain, many so il types exist with varying moisture retention, which determines vegetative cover types (USFWS, 1990). The Laredo silty clay loam found in Cameron County promotes mixed vegetation and optimal ocelot habitat (USFWS, 1990). Typical ocelot sites in south Texas include deep sands, hardlands, shallow ridges, bottomlands, alkali flat s, and mixed sandy land (USFWS, 1990).

16.6. DIET Ocelots eat a variety of prey sp ecies, including rabbits, mice, bi rds, fish, agoutis (small Central and South American rodents), snakes, lizards, an d other small to medium sized prey (USFWS, 2010). In habitat types used by two radio coll ared ocelots, the Mexican spiny pocket mouse ( Liomys irroratus ) was found to be dominant in the brus h habitat and was speculated to be an important part of the ocelot diet (USFWS, 1990). In the brush-grass habitat, the fulvous harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys fulvescens ) and the pygmy mouse ( Baiomys taylori ) were dominant, and in the grass habitat, pygmy mice, cotton rats ( Sigmodon hispidus ) and hispid pocket mice ( Perognathus hispidus) were co-dominant (USFWS, 1990). Ot her potential prey species include other rodents, opossums ( Didelphis virginiana ), raccoons ( Procyon lotor ), javelina ( Tayassu tajacu ), white tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), skunks ( Memphitis spp., Conepatus spp.),

83nine-banded armadillo ( Dasypus novemcinctus ), feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ), poultry, quail, doves, chachalaca, passerine birds, waterfowl, and bot h colubrid and crotalis snakes (USFWS, 1990).

16.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Ocelots are crepuscular or noctu rnal (USFWS, 1990). Days are spent sleeping on high tree limbs or in a den located in a tree, small cave, or depression under vegetation (USFWS, 2010a). Some diurnal activity has been reported in the winter (USFWS, 1990). Ocelots ar e primarily terrestrial but can climb, jump and swim as well (Nowak, 1999).

The ranges of each sex often exclude other memb ers of the same sex (USFWS, 1990). However, the home range of males may be wider than that of females, and may overlap with the ranges of more than one female (USFWS, 1990). In Te xas, the average home range for adults was 15.18

km 2 , with 17.67 km 2 the average for males and 11.04 km 2 for females (USFWS, 1990). Males travel farther distances, but females tend to use the home range more intensively (USFWS, 1990). At Laguna Atascosa NWR, ranges during the winter were significantly larger than ranges in the summer (USFWS, 1990). Though ocelots are so litary, they come into contact with one another and probably maintain social connect ions (Nowak, 1999). O celots communicate with mewing sounds, but during courtshi p use yowls (Nowak, 1999).

Females typically breed at two years of age, alth ough in captivity they enter estrus as early as 8 months old (USFWS, 1990). Estr us lasts seven to ten days, bu t only 5.3 days if the female becomes pregnant (USFWS, 1990). Ocelots in captivity are ployestr ous throughout the year (USFWS, 1990). There is proba bly no breeding season in the tr opics (Nowak, 1999). Gestation has been recorded to last 70, 80, or 89 days (U SFWS, 1990). Births have been recorded from September to January (USFWS, 19 90). Births in Texas have b een documented in September and October, but also in late summer, late fall, early winter, and one r ecord from late spring (USFWS, 1990). Typically one or two kittens ar e born, but litters can range up to four kittens (USFWS, 1990). Young weigh 220 g to 340 g at bi rth (Nowak, 1999). Weaning information is not well known, but nursing has been observed at up to 6 months, though in one case lactation was observed to only last 92 days (USFWS, 1990). Juveniles may travel with their mother long after nursing has ceased, and terr itories of females under two y ears of age can significantly overlap that of their mother (U SFWS, 1990). An ocelot in captivit y at the Phoenix Zoo lived for 21 years, 5 months (Nowak, 1999).

16.8. REFERENCES Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World , Sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. Vol. I, pp. 816-817.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 1972. List of Enda ngered Fish and Wildlife and Plants (Final Rule). Federal Register 37 (62) 6476. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_regi ster/fr29.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Proposed Endangered Status for U.S. Po pulations of Five Species (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 45 (145) 49844-49847. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_regist er/fr443.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010.

84U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Endangered Status for U.S. Population of the Ocelot (Final Rule). Federal Register 47 (140) 31670-31672. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_regist er/fr609.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With Emphasis on the Ocelot). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 137 pp. Available from the USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/900822.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Plan for Translocation of Northern Ocelots ( Leopardus pardalis albescens ) in Texas and Tamaulipas. 38 pp. Prepared by the Translocation Team, a Subcommittee of the Ocelot Recovery Team. Available online from the USFWS at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R 2ES/Plan%20for%20Tra nslocation%20of%20No rthern%20Ocelots%20in%20Texas%20and%20Tamaulipas.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Spotlight Species Action Plan. 9 pp. Available online from the USFWS at: http ://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ac tion_plans/doc3052.pdf. Accessed on July 20, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 2010a. Ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ). Fact Sheet prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice. Available from the USFWS online at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/ pdf/ocelot.pdf. Accessed on July 20, 2010.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Species Profile for the Ocelot ( Leopardus pardalis ) Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=A084 . Accessed July 20,

2010.

8517. PIPING PLOVER

17.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS A determination of threatened and endangered status for populations of the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ) was published on December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50725) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1985). In th is rule, the piping plover was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes basin area (Illinoi s, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Ca nada) and threatened throughout the remainder of the species’ range: in the northern Great Pl ains—Iowa, northwestern Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada (Alberta, Manitoba, a nd Saskatchewan); the Atlantic coast—Newfoundland, Quebec, the Ca nadian Maritime Provinces, and Atlantic Seaboard states from Maine to Florida; the Gu lf Coast—from Florida to Mexico; the Bahamas and West Indies; and “anywhere else found in the wild except where li sted as endangered” (USFWS, 1985). A recovery plan for the pi ping plover was approved by the USFWS on May 12, 1988 for the Great Lakes and northern Great Plai ns populations. A revised recovery plan for the Atlantic coast piping plover population wa s approved on May 2, 1996. Critical habitat was first designated for the Great Lakes breeding pop ulation of the piping plover on May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22938); and for the wintering population of the piping plover on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36137).

17.2. DESCRIPTION The piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird recorded to weigh between 42 and 64 grams (1.5 to 2 ounces) (USFWS, 1985). It measures appr oximately 17 centimeters from bill to rump, and its wings measure approximately 35 centimeters from tip to tip (USFWS, 1985). Piping plover

field marks that aid in summer identification in clude a dark band below the collar and a dark forecrown stripe (USFWS, 1985). The plumage of the back is a light beige color, while the underparts and rump are white (USFWS, 1996). Le gs and bill are orange colored during the summer months, and the bill has a black tip. Duri ng the winter, leg color fades to pale yellow, bill color reverts from orange to black, and th e black bands of the pelage disappear (USFWS, 1996).

17.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range Piping plovers were historically distributed over a wide geographic range, in three regions that

include the Northern Great Plai ns, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Coast (USFWS, 1996). However, information on historic distribution is irregular for some areas and lacking for others, and comprehensive censusing did not begin until the 1980’s (USFWS, 1996). Further, the current range of the piping plover is similar to its historic range, except for its near extirpation from the Great Lakes (USFWS, 1988).

The Great Lakes population of piping plovers once nested on the beaches of the Great Lakes in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michiga n, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as in Ontario, Canada (U SFWS, 2003). By the 1970’s the plover was gone from Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohi o, Pennsylvania and Ontario (USFWS, 2003).

86The population on the Atlantic Coast breeds on th e east coast beaches from Newfoundland to North Carolina and occasionally into South Ca rolina (USFWS, 1996). The piping plover was described as common in scattered qualitative records along the Atlantic beaches, but was declining by the early 1900’s (USFWS, 1996). Th e most recent population decline began in the late 1940’s or early 1950’ s, with numerous reports of loca l and statewide declines between 1950 and 1985 (USFWS, 1996).

The Northern Great Plains population of plovers breeds on alkali wetlands and along rivers in the prairie from Alberta and Manitoba in Canada to Nebraska in the U.S. (USFWS, 1988). Records of plover breeding grounds exist in Montana, Wyoming, North Da kota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and New Mexico, with instances of occasi onal summer residents and migrants present in Colorado (USFWS, 1988).

Current range The current range of the piping plov er is similar to its historic range, except for its decline from the Great Lakes (USFWS, 1988). Information on wint ering birds is sparse, and migratory routes are not described (USFWS, 1988).

From 1984 to 2002, Great Lakes plover nests were recorded in 12 counties in Michigan and two counties in Wisconsin (USFWS, 2003). In 2002, 25% of all breeding pairs in the Great Lakes nested in the Sleeping Bear Dunes located in Leelanau and Benzie counties in Michigan (USFWS, 2003). The USFWS Species Profile indicates that the endangered Great Lakes population of plover is present statewide in In diana and New York, and in Erie County in Pennsylvania, and in Lake of the Woods Count y, in Minnesota (USFWS, 2010). The plover is also present in Bond, Clinton, Cook, Fayette, Fr anklin, Jefferson, Lake, Moultrie, Shelby, and Porter counties in Illinois (USF WS, 2010). In Michigan, the plover is present in Alger, Alpena, Benzie, Berrien, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippe wa, Delta, Emmet, Iosco, Leelanau, Luce, Mackinac, Mason, Muskegon, Presque Isle, and Sc hoolcraft counties (USFWS, 2010). In Ohio, plovers are present in Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Erie, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Ottawa, and Sandusky counties (USFWS, 2010). In Wisconsin, plovers are present in Ashland and Douglas counties (USFWS, 2010).

Numerous censuses of nesting pairs in Atlant ic Coast populations taken in the 1980’s and 1990’s record increasing estimates of piping plover populations, though une venly distributed, in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Ne w York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina (U SFWS, 1996). However, the birds are absent from many of the nesting beaches they once used on the Atlantic Coast (USFWS, 1996). Piping plovers breed successfully at the extreme ends of their historic range, on the southern coast of Newfoundland, the Magdalen Islands, and on Prin ce Edward Island, and in South Carolina near the North Carolina border at Waites Island, as well as at Holden Beach in North Carolina (USFWS, 1996). Nesting sites are also distributed along the Atlant ic Coast from Maine to South Carolina (USFWS, 1996).

In the Northern Great Plains population, plover breeding occurs in Montana on sandflats above the west end of Fort Peck dam in Valley Count y, on the shore of Big Dry Arm of Fort Peck

87Reservoir in Garfield and McCone Counties, and in Sheridan c ounty in saline wetlands near Dagmar and Medicine Lake National Wildlif e Refuge (NWR) (USFWS, 1988). In North Dakota, plovers breed in 25 counties located alo ng the Missouri River and in the alkali wetlands located in the center of the state (USFWS, 1988) . Plover breeding in South Dakota also occurs on sandbars along the Missouri River, with other isolated nesting s ites located in Lake Oahe and saline wetlands in the northeast (USFWS, 1988) . In Nebraska, plover breed along the upper Missouri River, the lower Niobrara, and the mid- to lower Platte Rivers, as well as the Middle Loup and Loup Rivers, and Lake McConaughy (U SFWS, 1988). Ash ponds along the Missouri River in Woodbury and Pottawattamie counties in Iowa have served as breeding grounds (USFWS, 1988). In Minnesota plovers nest in habitat similar to th e Great Lakes and the prairie at Lake of the Woods County, as well as several other sites (USFWS, 1988).

The USFWS Species Profile indicates that the th reatened population of plovers, which includes

the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations, is found statewide in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missis sippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well as in Puerto Rico (USFWS, 2010). The plover is found in Sussex County in Delaware, in Worcester County in Maryland, an d in Rockingham County in New Hampshire (USFWS, 2010). In Connecticut, the plover is known to occur in Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London counties (U SFWS, 2010). The plover is know n to occur in Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Saraso ta, and St. Lucie counties in Florida (USFWS, 2010). In Maine the plover is present in Cu mberland, Sagadahoc, and York counties (USFWS, 2010). The plover is present in Barnstable, Br istol, Dukes, Essex, Nantucket, Plymouth, and Suffolk counties in Massachusetts (USFWS, 2010) . The plover is found in New Jersey in Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean coun ties (USFWS, 2010). The plover is found in Bronx, Nassau, Queens, Suffolk counties in New York (USFWS, 2010). In North Carolina, plovers are present in Brunswi ck, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, and Pender counties (USFWS, 2010). Pl overs are present in Newpor t and Washington counties in Rhode Island (USFWS, 2010). In South Caroli na, plovers are found in Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Georgetown, Horry, Jasper, Bon Homme, Brule, Buffalo, Campbell, Charles Mix, Clay, Corson, Day, Dewey, Gregory, Haakon, Hughes, Kingsbury, Lyman, Potter, Stanley, Sully, Union, Walworth, Yankton, and Ziebach coun ties (USFWS, 2010). In Virginia, the plover is known to occur in Accomack, Hampton, No rth Hampton, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach counties (USFWS, 2010).

In Colorado, the plover is known to occur in Adam s, Arapahoe, Bent Boul der, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Crowley, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert , Gilpin, Jackson, Jefferson, Kiowa, Larimer, Lincoln, Morgan, Otero, Park, Prowers, Sedgwick, Teller, Wa shington, and Weld counties (USFWS, 2010). In Iowa, the plover occurs in Pottawattamie and W oodbury counties (USFWS, 2010). In Kansas, the plover occurs in Bart on, Clark, Pottawattamie, Riley, and Wabaunsee counties (USFWS, 2010). Known plover occurre nce is in Cameron, Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, and Vermillion counties in Louisiana (USFWS, 2010). In Montana, the plover is present in Garfield, McCone, Phillips, Pondera, Richland, Roosevelt, Sheridan, and Valley counties (USFWS , 2010). In Nebraska, the plover is found in Boyd, Brown, Buffalo, Butler, Cass, Cedar, Colf ax, Cuming, Custer, Dakota, Dawson, Deuel, Dixon, Dodge, Douglass, Gosper, Hall, Hamilton, Holt, Howard, Kearney, Keith, Keya Paha, Knox, Madison, Merrick, Nance, Phelps, Platte, Red Willow, Rock, Sarpy, Saunders, Sheridan,

88and Stanton counties (USFWS, 2010). In New Mexico, the plover is found in Colfax and Socorro counties (USFWS, 2010). In Oklahoma, th e plover is found in Adair, Alfalfa, Atoka, Beaver, Beckham, Blaine, Bryan, Caddo, Canadi an, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cimarron, Cleveland, Coal, Comanche, Cotto n, Craig, Creek, Custer, Dela ware, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Garvin, Grady, Grant, Greer, Harmon, Harper, Haskell, Hughes, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnston, Kay, Kingfisher, Kiowa, Latimer, Le Flore, Lincoln, Logan, Love, Major, Marshall, Mayes McClain, McCurtain, McIntosh, Murray, Muskogee, Noble, Nowata, Okfuskee, Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Payne, Pitt sburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Pushmataha, Roger Mills, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Stephens, Texas, Tillman, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington, Washita, Woods, and Woodward c ounties (USFWS, 2010). In Texas, the plover occurs in Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Came ron, Chambers, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Galveston, Grayson, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Throckmorton, and Willacy counties (USFWS, 2010).

The wintering grounds of the three populations of piping plover overlap (USFW, 2003). The winter range of the Great Lakes and Atlantic Co ast populations extend from the Atlantic Coast of North Carolina to Florida, and the Gulf Coast of Florida to Texas and Mexico, the West Indies, and the Bahamas (USFES, 1996 and 2003). The Northern Great Plains plovers winter from the

Gulf Coast of Florida to nor thern Mexico (USFWS, 1988).

17.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT

GREAT LAKES POPULATION PR IMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS “The primary constituent elements for the Gr eat Lakes breeding populati on of the piping plover are those habitat components th at are essential for successful foraging, nesting, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, genetic exchange, roosting, dispersal, or sheltering” (USFWS, 2001). “The primary constituent elements required to sustain the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover are found on Great Lakes islands and mainland shorelines that support open, sparsely vegetated sa ndy habitats, such as sand spits or sand beaches, that are associated with wide, unforested systems of dune s and inter-dune wetlands. In order for habitat to be physically and biologically suitable for pipi ng plovers, it must have a total shoreline length of at least 0.2 km (0.12 mi) of gently slopi ng, sparsely vegetated (less than 50 percent herbaceous and low woody cover) sand beach with a tota l beach area of at least 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac) and a low level of disturbance from human activities and from domestic animals. As the nesting season progresses, th e level of disturban ce tolerated by piping plovers increases. A

lower level of disturbance is required at the beginning of the nesting period during nest site selection, egg laying, and incubation. Beach activities that may be associated with a high level of disturbance include, but are not limited to, walking pets off leash, loud noise, driving ATVs, or significantly increased human presence. The level of disturbance is relative to the proximity to the nest, intensity, and frequency of these and other similar activities” (USFWS, 2001).

“Appropriately sized sites must also have areas of at least 50 meters (m) (164 feet (ft)) in length where the beach width is more than 7 m (23 ft), there is protective cover for nests and chicks, and the distance to the treeline (from the normal hi gh water line to where the forest begins) is more than 50 m (164 ft). Beach width is define d as the distance from the normal high water line

89to the foredune (a low barrier dune ridge imme diately inland from the beach) edge, or to the sand/vegetation boundary in areas where the fo redune is absent. The beach width may be narrower than 7 m (23 ft) if appropriate sand and cobble areas of at least 7 m (23 ft) exist

between the dune and the treeline. Protective co ver for nests and chicks consists of small patches of herbaceous vegetation, cobble (stones la rger than 1 cm (0.4 inches (in)) diameter), gravel (stones smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in) in di ameter), or debris such as driftwood, wrack, root masses, or dead shrubs” (USFWS, 2001).

“The dynamic ecological processe s that create and maintain pi ping plover habitat are also important primary constituent elements. Thes e geologically dynamic lakeside regions are controlled by processes of eros ion, accretion, plant succession, a nd lake-level fluctuations. The integrity of the habitat components depends upon regular sediment transport processes, as well as episodic, high-magnitude storm events. By their na ture, Great Lakes shorelines are in a constant state of change; habitat features may disappear , or be created nearby. The critical habitat boundaries reflect these natural pr ocesses and the dynamic characte r of Great Lakes shorelines” (USFWW, 2001).

GREAT LAKES POPULATION CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat was designated for the Great Lakes population of piping plovers on May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22938-22969) (USFWS, 2001). Thirty-five units of critical habitat were designated in the Great Lakes region (USFWS, 2001). The boundaries of these units extend from the normal high water mark 500 m (1640 feet) inland, though the inland boundary that contains the primary constituent elements (PCE’s) varies depending upon how extensive the dune habitat is, which provides foraging and occasionally nesting habitat (USFWS, 2001).

The Michigan critical habitat units include:

Unit MI-1: Whitefish Point to Grand Marais “This unit encompasses approximately 83.5 km ( 50 mi) of Lake Superior shoreline on in Chippewa, Luce, and Alger Counties on the U pper Peninsula of Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-2: Point Aux Chenes “This unit encompasses approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi ) of Lake Michigan s horeline in Mackinac County on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-3: Port Inland to Hughes Point “This unit encompasses approximately 3 km (1.8 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in western

Mackinac and eastern Schoolcraft Counties on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-4: Waugoshance Point to McCort Hill Beach “This unit encompasses approximately 32 km (19.2 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan, and includes Temperance and Waugoshance Islands” (USFWS, 2001).

90Unit MI-5: Sevenmile Point to Thornswift Nature Preserve “This unit encompasses approximately 7 km (4.3 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-6: Petoskey State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 2 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Emmet County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-7: North Point “This unit encompasses approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) of Lake Mich igan shoreline in Charlevoix County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-8: Fisherman’s Island State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) of Lake Mich igan shoreline in Charlevoix County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-9: Indian Point to McCaul ey’s Point, Beaver Island “This unit encompasses approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on Beaver

Island in Charlevoix Count y, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-10: Greenes Bay, Beaver Island “This unit encompasses approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on Beaver

Island in Charlevoix Count y, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-11: High Island “This unit encompasses approximately 1.8 km (1 .1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on High

Island in Charlevoix Count y, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-12: Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove “This unit encompasses approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi ) of Lake Michigan s horeline in Leelanau County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-13: South Fox Island “This unit encompasses approximately 6 km (3.8 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on South Fox

Island in Leelanau Count y, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-14: North and South Manitou Islands “This unit encompasses approximately 3.3 km (2.1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on North

Manitou Island in Leelanau C ounty, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-15: Crystal Run to Empire Beach “This unit encompasses approximately 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake Mich igan shoreline in Leelanau County, Mich igan” (USFWS, 2001).

91Unit MI-16: Esch Road to Sutter Road and Point Betsie “This unit encompasses approximately 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Benzie County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-17: Nordhouse Dunes and Ludington State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 13.4 km (8.3 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Mason County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-18: Muskegon State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Muskegon County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-18: Muskegon State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Muskegon County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-19: Lake Superior Stat e Forest-St. Vital Point “This unit encompasses approximately 3.0 km (1.9 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline in Chippewa County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-20: Lighthouse Point to Cordwood Point “This unit encompasses approximately 5.2 km (3 .3 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline in Cheboygan County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-21: Hoeft State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi ) of Lake Huron shoreline in Presque Isle County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-22: Thompson’s Harbor State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 2.8 km (1.7 mi ) of Lake Huron shoreline in Presque Isle County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit MI-23: Tawas Point State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of Lake Huron shoreline in Iosco County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001).

The Minnesota/Wisconsin critical habitat units include:

Unit MN/WI-1: Interstate Island “This unit encompasses approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi ) of Lake Superior s horeline on Interstate Island in St. Louis County, Minnesota and Douglas County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

The Wisconsin critical habitat units include:

Unit WI-1: Wisconsin Point

92“This unit encompasses approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of Lake Superior shoreline in Douglas County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit WI-2: Long Island/Chequamegon Point “This unit encompasses approximately 25.3 km (15.7 mi) of Lake Superior shoreline in Ashland County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit WI-3: Western Michigan Island Beach and Dunes “This unit encompasses approximately 6.5 km (4 mi) of Lake Superior shoreline on Michigan Island in Ashland County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit WI-4: Seagull Bar “This unit encompasses approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi ) of Lake Michigan s horeline in Marinette County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit WI-5: Point Beach State Forest “This unit encompasses approximately 8 km (5 mi ) of Lake Michigan sh oreline in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001).

The Illinois critical habitat units include:

Unit IL-1: Illinois Beach State Park and Nature Preserve to Waukegan Beach “This unit encompasses approximately 10.2 km (6.3 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Lake County, Illinois” (USFWS, 2001).

The Indiana critical habitat units include:

Unit IN-1: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Indiana Dunes State Park Beaches “This unit encompasses approximately 7.9 km (4.9 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in Porter County, Indiana” (USFWS, 2001).

The Ohio critical habitat units include:

Unit OH-1: Sheldon Marsh “This unit encompasses approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline in Erie County, Ohio” (USFWS, 2001).

Unit OH-2: Headland Dunes “This unit encompasses approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline in Lake County, Ohio” (USFWS, 2001).

The Pennsylvania critical habitat units include:

Unit PA-1: Gull Point Natural Area, Presque Isle State Park “This unit encompasses approximately 6.0 km (3.7 mi) of Lake Erie shoreline in Erie County, Pennsylvania” (USFWS, 2001).

93The New York critical habitat units include:

Unit NY-1: Salmon River to Stony Point “This unit encompasses approximately 27.4 km (17 mi) of Lake Ontario shoreline in Jefferson and Oswego Counties, New York” (USFWS, 2001).

GREAT PLAINS POPULATION PR IMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS “Primary constituent elements for the northern Great Plains population of piping plovers are those habitat components (physical and biologi cal) essential for the biological needs of courtship, nesting, sheltering, broodrearing, foraging, roosting, intraspe cific communication, and migration” (USFWS, 2002). “The one overrid ing primary constituent element (biological) required to sustain the northern Great Plains breeding population of piping plovers that must be present at all sites is the dyna mic ecological processes that cr eate and maintain piping plover habitat. Without this biological process the physical components of the primary constituent elements would not be able to develop. These processes develop a mosaic of habitats on the landscape that provide th e essential combination of prey, forage, nesting, brooding and chickrearing areas. The annual, seasona l, daily, and even hourly availabi lity of the habitat patches is dependent on local weather, hydr ological conditions and cycles, and geological processes. The biological primary constituent element, i.e. , dynamic ecological processes, creates different physical primary constituent elements on the landscape. These physical primary constituent

elements exist on different habi tat types found in the northern Gr eat Plains, including mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands” “rivers, reservoirs, and inland lakes. Th ese habitat types or physical primary constituent elements that sustain the no rthern Great Plains br eeding population of piping plovers are described as fo llows:” (USFWS, 2002).

“i. On prairie alkali lakes and wetlands, the phys ical primary constituent elements include—(1) shallow, seasonally to permanently flooded, mixo saline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, salt-encrust ed mud flats, and/or gr avelly salt flats; (2) springs and fens along edges of alkali lakes and wetlands; and (3) adjacent uplands 200 ft (61 m) above the high water mark of the al kali lake or wetland” (USFWS, 2002). “ii. On rivers the physical primary constituent elements include—sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, te mporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the interface with the river” (USFWS, 2002). “iii. On reservoirs the physical primary c onstituent elements include—sparsely vegetated shoreline beaches, peninsulas, isla nds composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with the water bodies” (USFWS, 2002). “iv. On inland lakes (Lake of the Woods) the ph ysical primary constituent elements include— sparsely vegetated and windswept sandy to grave lly islands, beaches, and peninsulas, and their

interface with the wate r body” (USFWS, 2002).

GREAT PLAINS POPULATION CRITICAL HABITAT

Minnesota Unit MN–1, Rocky Point, Pine and Curry Island, and Morris Point

94“This unit includes approximately 235.2 ac (95.1 ha ) of unique habitat, including sparsely vegetated windswept islands, peninsulas, and sandy points or spits that inte rface with Lake of the Woods in Lake of the Woods County” (USFWS, 2002).

Montana Unit MT–1, Sheridan County “This unit includes approximately 19,222.9 ac (7,779.4 ha) of 20 alkali lakes and wetlands in Sheridan County, located in the extreme nor theast corner of Montana” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit MT–4, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge “This unit encompasses approximately 3,294.5 ac (1,333.2 ha) on Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge with sparsely vegetated shoreline beach es, peninsulas, and islands composed of sand gravel, or shale that interface with these water bo dies. The site is located in east-central Phillips County, approximately 170.8 mi (275 km) west of the North Dakota border and 37.3 mi (60 km) south of Canada” (USFWS, 2002).

Nebraska Unit NE–1, Platte, Loup, and Niobrara Rivers “This unit encompasses approximately 440 mi ( 707.9 km) of river. The river habitat includes sparsely vegetated channel sandbars, sand and grav el beaches on islands within the high bank for nesting, temporary pools on sandbars and islands , and the interface of sand and river where plovers forage. All three of these rivers are o ccupied by and provide es sential habitat for the piping plover” (USFWS, 2002).

North Dakota

Unit ND–1 “This unit encompasses approximately 7,456.9 ac (3,017.7 ha) of 13 alkali lakes and wetlands in Divide and Williams Counties, located in the extreme northwestern corner of North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–2 “This unit encompasses approximately 20,683.8 ac (8,370.6 ha) of 14 alkali lakes and wetlands in Burke, Renville, and Mount rail Counties, in northwestern North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–3 “This unit encompasses approximately 2,524.5 ac (1,021.6 ha) of 11 alkali lakes and wetlands in

Mountrail and Ward Counties in northwe stern North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–4 “This unit encompasses approximately 5,150.7 ac (2,084.4 ha) of eight alkali lakes and wetlands in McLean County in north-cent ral North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–5 “This unit encompasses approximately 3,925.6 ac (1,588.7 ha) of 10 alkali lakes and wetlands in McHenry and Sheridan Counties in north-centr al and central North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

95Unit ND–6 “This unit encompasses approximately 6,075.2 ac (2,458.6 ha) of 11 alkali lakes and wetlands in Benson and Pierce Counties, in northeas tern North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–7 “This unit encompasses approximately 30,125.7 ac (12,191.7 ha) of nine alkali lakes and wetlands in Burleigh and Kidder Counties, in south-central Nort h Dakota” (USFWS, 2002). Production Areas owned and managed by the Service.

Unit ND–8 “This unit encompasses approximately 4,056.7 ac (1,641.7 ha) of three alkali lakes and wetlands in Stutsman County, in south-cen tral North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–9 “This unit encompasses approximately 2,658 ac (1,075.6 ha) of six alkali lakes and wetlands in Logan and McIntosh Counties in south-central North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit ND–10 “This unit encompasses approximately 641.6 ac (259.6 ha) of one alkali lake in Eddy County in northeastern North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002).

Missouri River Units

“Missouri River Units —Missouri River units consist of rive rine and reservoir (Fort Peck Lake, Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon, Lake Oahe, and Lewis and Clark Lake) reaches” (USFWS, 2002).

Montana

Unit MT–2 “This unit encompasses approximately 125.4 mi (201.8 km) from just west of Wolf Point, McCone County, Montana, at RM 1712.0 downstr eam to the Montana/North Dakota border, Richland County, Montana, and McKenzie C ounty, North Dakota, at RM 1586.6” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit MT–3, Fort Peck Reservoir “This unit encompasses approximately 77,370 ac ( 31,311 ha) of Fort Peck Reservoir, located entirely within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge which is in Federal ownership, managed by the Service” (USFWS, 2002).

North Dakota
Unit ND–11, Missouri River “Approximately 354.6 mi (570.6 km) from the M ontana/North Dakota border just west of Williston, McKenzie County, North Dakota, at RM 1586.6 downstream to the North

Dakota/South Dakota border in Sioux and Emmo ns Counties, North Dakota, and Corson and Campbell Counties, South Dakota, at RM 1232.0” (USFWS, 2002).

96South Dakota

Unit SD–1 Missouri River “Approximately 159.7 mi (257 km) from the North Dakota/South Dakota border northeast of McLaughlin, Corson County, South Dakota, at RM 1232.0 downstream to RM 1072.3, just north of Oahe Dam (Oahe Rese rvoir)” (USFWS, 2002).

Unit SD–2, Missouri River “Approximately 127.8 mi (204.4 km) from RM 8 80.0, at Fort Randall Dam, Bon Homme and Charles Mix Counties, South Dakota, downstream to RM 752.2 near Ponca, Dixon County, Nebraska” (USFWS, 2002). erDate Sep<

WINTERING POPULATION PRIM ARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS The primary constituent elements (PCEs) that support foraging, roosting, and sheltering habitat components for the winter ing piping plover are: (1) “Intertidal sand beaches (including sand flats) or mud flats (between the MLLW [mean lower low water] and annual hi gh tide) with no, or very spar se, emergent vegetation for feeding. In some cases, these flats may be c overed or partially covered by a mat of bluegreen algae. (2) Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, m ud, or algal flats above annual high tide for roosting. Such sites may have debris or de tritus and may have micr o-topographic relief (less than 20 in (50 cm) above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and

cold weather. (3) Surf-cast algae for feeding. (4) Sparsely vegetated backbeach, which is the beach area above mean high tide seaward of the dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure, or road. Backbeach is used by plovers for roosting and refuge during storms. (5) Spits, especially sand, running into wa ter used for foraging and roosting. (6) Salterns, or bare sand flats in the center of mangrove ecosystems that are found above mean high water and are only irregu larly flushed with sea water. (7) Unvegetated washover areas with little or no t opographic relief for fe eding and roosting. Washover areas are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surges, or

other extreme wave actions. (8) Natural conditions of sparse vegetation and little or no topographic relief mimicked in artificial habitat types (e.g. dre dge spoil sites).” (USFWS, 2009)

WINTERING POPULATION CRITICAL HABITAT

Unit TX–3: Padre Island

“Subunit TX–3A: South Padre Island – Gulf of Mexi co Shoreline. This subunit consists of 2,891 ac (1170 ha) in Cameron and Willacy Counties, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Subunit TX–3B: South Padre Island –Laguna Madr e side. This bayside subunit consists of 44,137 ac (17,862 ha) in Cameron and Willacy Counties, Texas” (USFWS, 2002).

“Subunit TX–3C: North Padre Island – Laguna Madr e side. This bayside unit consists of 50,897 ac (20,597 ha) in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

97“Subunit TX–3D: North Padre Island – Gulf of Mexi co. This gulfside subunit consists of 270 ac (109 ha) of beach in Kleberg County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Subunit TX–3E: North Padre Island – Mesquite Rincon. This triangula r bayside subunit of 9,6238 acres (3,894 hectares) lies on the western shore of the lower Laguna Madre in Kenedy County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–4: Lower Laguna Madre Mainland This bayside unit cons ists of 17,223 ac (6,970 ha) in Cameron and Willacy Counties, Texas, and lies along the western shoreline of the Lower Laguna Madre” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–7: Newport Pass/Corpus Christi Pass Beach This unit consists of 294 ac (119 ha) in Nueces County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–8: Mustang Island Beach This unit consists of 623 ac (252 ha) in Nueces County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–9: Fish Pass Lagoons This bayside unit consists of 168 ac (68 ha) in Nueces County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

Unit TX–10: Shamrock Island and Adjacent Mustang Island Flats

“ Subunit TX–10A: Shamrock Island. This 12-ac (5 -ha) island in Nueces County, Texas, was a peninsula extending off of Mustang Island in Co rpus Christi Bay until erosion separated the island from the mainland” (USFWS, 2009).

“Subunit TX–10B: Mustang Island: Unnamed sand flat. This 2-ac (1-ha) subunit in Nueces County, Texas, is a small, unnamed sand flat near the north edge of the mo uth of Wilson’s Cut in Corpus Christi Bay” (USFWS, 2009).

“Subunit TX–10C: Mustang Island: Lagoon Complex. This 331-ac (134-ha) subunit in Nueces County, Texas, is an extensive lagoon complex that consists of 11 polygons within a larger polygon that extends 2.2 mi (3.5 km) south of W ilson’s Cut in Corpus Christi Bay” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–14: East Flats This bayside unit consists of 591 ac (239 ha) in Nueces County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009)..

“Unit TX–15: North Pass This bayside unit consists of 805 ac (326 ha) in Aransas County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–16: San Jose Beach This unit consists of 1,378 ac (558 ha) in Aransas County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–18: Cedar Bayou/Vinson Slough This bayside unit consists of 2,465 ac (998 ha) in Aransas County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

98“Unit TX–19: Matagorda Island Beach This unit consists of 2,413 ac (976 ha) in Calhoun County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–22: Decros Point This unit consists of 544 ac (220 ha) at the Matagorda/Calhoun County line, in Texa s” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–23: West Matagorda Peninsula Beach This unit consists of 1,808 ac (732 ha) of shoreline in Matagorda C ounty, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–27: East Matagorda Bay/ Matagorda Peninsula Beach West This unit consists of 905 ac (366 ha) of shoreline in Matagor da County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–28: East Matagorda Bay/Matagorda Peninsula Beach East This gulfside unit consists of 481 ac (194 ha) in Matagorda County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–31: San Bernard NWR Beach This gulfside unit consists of 401 ac (162 ha) in Matagorda and Brazoria Countie s, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–32: Gulf Beach Between Brazos and San Bernard Rivers This gulfside unit consists of 556 ac (225 ha) of shoreline in Braz oria County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009).

“Unit TX–33: Bryan Beach and Adjacent Beach This unit consists of 211 ac (85 ha) in Brazoria County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009). VerDate Nov<


WINTERING POPULATION CRITICAL HABITAT The designated critical habitat is divided into 142 critical habitat units listed below (USFWS, 2001).

North Carolina “Unit NC–1: Oregon Inlet. 404 ha (997 ac) in Dare County” (USFWS, 2001)

“Unit NC–2: Cape Hatteras Point. 465 ha (1149 ac) in Dare Count y” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit NC–4: Hatteras Inlet. 516 ha (1273 ac) in Dare and H yde Counties” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit NC–5: Ocracoke Island. 80 ha ( 197 ac) in Hyde County” (USFWS, 2001).

South Carolina

“Unit SC–1: Waites Island-No rth. 75 ha (186 ac) in Horry County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–2: Waites Is land-South. 58 ha (142 ac) in Horry County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–3: Murrells Inlet/Hunt ington Beach. 135 ha (334 ac) in Georgetown County” (USFWS, 2001).

99“Unit SC–4: Litchfield. 11 ha (28 ac) in Georgetown County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–5: North Inlet. 99 ha (245 ac) in Georgeto wn County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–6: North Santee Bay Inlet. 305 ha (753 ac) in Georgetown County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–7: Cape Romain. 315 ha (777 ac) in Charleston County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–8: Bull Island. 134 ha (332 ac) in Charleston County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–9: Stono Inlet. 495 ha (1223 ac) in Charleston County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–10: Seabrook Island. 117 ha (290 ac) in Charleston County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–11: Deveaux Bank. 130 ha (322 ac) in Charleston County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–12: Otter Island. 68 ha (169 ac) in Collet on County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–13: Harbor Island. 50 ha (122 ac) in Beaufort County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–14: Caper’s Island. 238 ha (589 ac) in Beaufort County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit SC–15: Hilton Head. 43 ha (106 ac) in Beaufort County” (USFWS, 2001).

Georgia “Unit GA–1: Tybee Island. 37 ha (91 ac) in Chatham County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–2: Little Tybee Island. 719 ha ( 1776 ac) in Chatham County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–3: North Wassaw Island. 108 ha (267 ac) in Chatham Count y” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–4: South Wassaw Island. 61 ha (151 ac) in Chatham County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–5: Ossabaw Island. 434 ha (1072 ac) in Chatham County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–6: St. Catherine’s Island Bar. 54 ha (135 ac) in Liberty County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–7: McQueen’s Inlet. 215 ha (532 ac) in Liberty County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–8: St. Catherine’s Island. 60 ha ( 147 ac) in Liberty County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–9: Blackbeard Island. 129 ha (319 ac ) in McIntosh County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–10: Sapelo Island. 85 ha (210 ac) in McIntosh County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–11: Wolf Island. 238 ha (590 ac) in McIntosh County” (USFWS, 2001).

100“Unit GA–12: Egg Island Bar. 61 ha (151 ac) in McIntosh County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–13: Little St. Simon’s Island. 609 ha (1505 ac) in Glynn County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–14: Sea/St. Simon’s Island. 191 ha (471 ac) in Glynn County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–15: Jekyll Island. 49 ha (121 ac) in Glynn County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit GA–16: Cumberland Island. 1454 ha (3591 ac) in Camden County” (USFWS, 2001).

Florida “Unit FL–1: Big Lagoon. 8 ha (19 ac) in Escambia County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–2: Big Sabine. 182 ha (450 ac) in Escambia County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–3: Navarre Beach. 48 ha (118 ac) in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–5: Shell/Crooked Islands. 1789 ha (4419 ac) in Bay County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–6: Upper St. Joe Peninsula. 182 ha (449 ac) in Gulf County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–7: Cape San Blas. 158 ha (390 ac) in Gulf County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–8: St. Vincent Island. 146 ha (361 ac) in Franklin County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–9: East St. George Island. 1433 ha (35 40 ac) in Franklin County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–10: Yent Bayou. 153 ha (378 ac) in Franklin County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–11: Carabelle Beach. 56 ha (139 ac ) in Franklin County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–12: Lanark Reef. 260 ha (643 ac) in Franklin County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–13: Phipps Preserve. 42 ha (104 ac) in Franklin Co unty” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–14: Hagens Cove. 486 ha (1200 ac) in Taylor County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–15: Anclote Key and North Anclote Bar. 146 ha (360 ac) in Pasco and Pinellas Counties” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–16: Three Rooker Bar Island. 76 ha ( 188 ac) in Pinellas County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–17: North Honeymoon Island. 45 ha ( 112 ac) in Pinellas County” (USFWS, 2001).

101“Unit FL–18: South Honeymoon Island. 28 ha ( 70 ac) in Pinellas County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–19: Caladesi Island. 120 ha (296 ac ) in Pinellas County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–20: Shell Key and Mullet Key. 190 ha ( 470 ac) in Pinellas C ounty” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–21: Egmont Key. 153 ha (377 ac) Hillsborough County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–22: Cayo Costa. 175 ha (432 ac) in Lee County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–23: North Captiva Island. 36 ha (88 ac) in Lee County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–25: Bunche Beach. 187 ha (461 ac) in Lee County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–26: Estero Island. 86 ha (211 ac) in Lee County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–27: Marco Island. 245 ha (606 ac) in Collier County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–28: Marquesas Keys. 2,937 ha (7,256 ac) in Monroe County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–29: Boca Grande/Woman/Ballast Keys. 56 ha (138 ac) in Monroe County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–30: Bahia Honda/Ohio Keys. 372 ha ( 918 ac) in Monroe County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–31: Lower Matecumbe Key. 19 ha (4 8 ac) in Monroe County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–32: Sandy Key/Carl Ross Key. 67 ha ( 165 ac) in Monroe County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–33: St. Lucie Inlet. 114 ha (282 ac) in Martin County” (USFWS, 2001).

”Unit FL–34: Ponce de Leon Inlet. 68 ha ( 168 ac) in Volusia County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–35: Nassau Sound-Huguenot. 950 ha ( 2347 ac) in Duval County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit FL–36: Tiger Islands. 53 ha (130 ac) in Nassau County” (USFWS, 2001).

Alabama ”Unit AL–1: Isle Aux Herbes. 227 ha (561 ac) in Mobile County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit AL–2: Dauphin, Little Dauphin, and Pelican Islands. 880 ha (2,174 ac) in Mobile County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit AL–3: Fort Morgan. 67 ha (166 ac) in Baldwin County” (USFWS, 2001).

Mississippi

102“Unit MS–1: Lakeshore through Bay St. Louis. 41 ha (101 ac) in Hancock County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–2: Henderson Point. 34 ha (84 ac) in Harrison County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–3: Pass Christian. 77 ha (190 ac) in Harrison County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–4: Long Beach. 38 ha (94 ac) in Harrison County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–5: Gulfport. 39 ha (96 ac) in Harrison County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–6: Mississippi C ity. 62 ha (153 ac) in Harri son County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–10: Ocean Springs West. 11 ha ( 27 ac) in Jackson County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–11: Ocean Springs East. 7 ha (17 ac) in Jackson County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–12: Deer Island. 194 ha (479 ac) in Harrison County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–13: Round Island. 27 ha (67 ac) in Jackson County” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–14: Mississippi Ba rrier Islands. 3,168 ha (7,828 ac) in Harrison and Jackson Counties” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit MS–15: North and South Rigolets. 159 ha (393 ac) in Jackson County, MS, and 12 ha (30 ac) in Mobile County, AL” (USFWS, 2001).

Louisiana

“ Unit LA–1: Texas/Louisiana border to Cheniere au Tigre. 2,650 ha (6,548 ac) in Cameron and Vermilion Parishes” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–2: Atchafalaya River Delta. 921 ha (2,276 ac) in St. Mary Parish, LA” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–3: Point Au Fer Island. 195 ha (482 ac) in Terrebonne Pa rish” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–4: Isles Dernieres. 795 ha (1,964 ac) in Terrebonne Parish” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–5: Timbalier Island to East Grand Terre Island. 2,321 ha ( 5,735 ac) in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemi nes Parishes” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–6: Mississippi River De lta. 105 ha (259 ac) in Plaq uemines Parish, LA” (USFWS, 2001).

“Unit LA–7: Breton Islands and Chandeleur Island Chain. 3,116 ha (7,700 ac) in Plaquemines

and St. Bernard Parish es, LA” (USFWS, 2001).

10317.5. HABITAT Habitat for wintering piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast consists of “accreting ends of barrier islands, along sandy peninsulas, a nd near coastal inlets. Plover s appear to prefer sandflats adjacent to inlets or passes, sandy mudflats along prograding spits, and overwash areas as foraging habitats” (USFWS, 1996). “Roosting plovers [ on the Atlantic Coast] are generally found along inlet and adjacent ocean and estuarine shorelines and their associated berms (with

wrack and other debris often used as wind-shie lds), and on nearby exposed tidal flats” (USFWS, 1996).

“In north-central North America, Piping Plovers nest on barren sand and gravel Great Lakes shorelines, and along sand and gravel shores of rivers and lakes in the Great Plains” (USFWS, 1988). Piping plovers nesting on the Atlantic Coas t situate their nests “a bove the high tide line on coastal beaches, sandflats at the end of sa nd spits and barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, a nd washover areas cut into or between dunes” (USFWS, 1996). Lake habitat gene rally consists of “[w]ide beaches (>20 m) with less than 5% vegetative cover, with highly clumped vegetation and/or with extensive gravel” (USFWS, 1988). Lake habitat may vary from these conditions when unavailable in a given shoreline area (USFWS. 1988). “Piping Plovers nesting on the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara, and other rivers use beaches and dry, barren sandbars located midstr eam in wide, open channel beds. Vegetative cover on nesting islands is usually less than 25%” (USFWS, 1988).

“Feeding areas include intertidal portions of o cean beaches, washover areas, mudflats, sandflats, wrack lines, and shorelin es of coastal ponds, lagoons, or salt marshes” (USFWS, 1996). “During courtship, nesting, and brood-rearing, feeding te rritories are generally contiguous to nesting territories”, though separation of these areas occurs regula rly (USFWS, 1996). Adults concentrate their foraging efforts within five me ters of the water’s edge while chicks are more likely to feed on firmer sand at further distances from the shoreline than adults (USFWS, 1988).

17.6. DIET The diet of the piping plover consists of invertebra tes such as marine worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, and mollusks (USFWS, 1996). Marine worms consumed have average lengths of 2.5 to 7.5 cm (USFWS, 1988). Core samples taken fr om intertidal areas i ndicate that plovers feed in areas with highe r densities of polychaete worms (USFWS, 1996).

17.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Piping plovers “spend approximately 3-4 months on northern U.S. and southern Canadian breeding sites” (USFWS, 1988). Pl overs arrive at breeding sites in the Great Plains between mid-April and mid-May (USFWS, 1 988). Arrival in Virginia has been observed as early as February 24, March 11 in New York and March 15 in Massachusetts (USFWS, 1996). Courtship

behavior consists of “aerial fli ghts, digging of several nest scra pes and a ritualized stone-tossing behavior” (USFWS, 1988). “Finis hed nest cups, frequently lined with small pebbles or shell fragments, are shallow depressions approximately two cm deep and six cm in diameter” (USFWS, 1988). The nest site and surrounding territory is “ac tively defended” by both adults (USFWS, 1988). Nests are usually spaced 200 f eet between adjacent pa irs (USFWS, 1996). Territories are defended by perf orming “horizontal threat, para llel run and aerial displays”

104(USFWS, 1996). “Parallel runs ma y cover distances up to 100 mete rs, while aerial displays may be performed from just above ground level up to approximately 35 m and are generally accompanied by continuous vocalization” (USFW S, 1996). Egg laying begins the second or third week of May in the Great Plains or mid- April on the Atlantic Coast and continues until a four-egg clutch is laid (USFWS , 1988 and 1996). Incubation lasts for 25-31 days and both adults incubate the egg (USFWS, 1988). Hatching begi ns in late May and extends to mid-June (USFWS, 1988). Chicks hatch within 12 to 24 hours apart and “are able to feed themselves within hours” (USFWS, 1988). “Brooding duties ar e shared by males and females” (USFWS, 1988). “Broods generally remain on nesting territo ries but may expand their movements as they mature or are disturbed” (USF WS, 1988). Chicks fledge between 21 days after hatching in Manitoba to 30-35 days on Long Island in New York (USFWS, 1988). Adults migrate from breeding grounds beginning in mid-July and e nding in early August (USFWS, 1988). Juveniles often depart as late as late A ugust and breeding males are sometime s reported to depart with their young (USFWS, 1988). Plovers are known to begi n breeding at one year of age (USFWS, 1996). Pairs are predominantly monogamous duri ng a single breeding season but different pairs may be formed each breeding season regardless of previous reproductive success (USFWS, 1988).

17.8. REFERENCES

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Final Rule: Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for the Pi ping Plover. Federal Register 50, No. 238, pp.

50725-50734.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 1988. Great Lakes & No rthern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fi eld Office, Grand Island, NE. 170 pages. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/doc s/recovery_plan/880512.pdf (Accessed on: September 1, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) Atlantic Coast Population Revised Recovery Pla n. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office, Hadley, Massachusetts. 236 pa ges. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960502.pdf (Accessed on: August 10, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 2002. Final Rule: Designation of Critical

Habitat for the Northern Great Pl ains Breeding Population of the Piping Plover. Federal Register 67, No. 176, pp. 57637-57717. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr3943.pdf (Accessed on: August 9, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2009. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) in Texas. Federal Register 74, No. 95, pp. 23475-23600. Available online at: http://frwebgate 3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=YnDm X3/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on: August 9, 2010).

105Matthews, John R. and Charles J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Beacham Publishing, Washington, D.C. Vol. II, pp.590-593.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Environmental Conservation On line System. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=B079 . (Accessed on: August 11, 2010).

10618. PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE

18.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei ) was listed as a threatened species on March 13, 1998 within its range in Colorado and Wyoming (63 FR 26517) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1998 a nd 2008). A Recovery Team for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) was established in June 2000 (USFWS, 2003). However, recovery planning stopped in December 2003 with the receipt of two pe titions to delist the PMJM from the Federal List of Endangered a nd Threatened Wildlife, based upon research suggesting that it was not a sepa rate subspecies (USF WS, 2008). The USFWS proposed a rule to delist the PMJM on February 12, 2005 (70 FR 5404) (USFWS, 2005 and 2008). Genetic analysis of the PMJM and four neighboring subs pecies was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), who found that the PMJM should re main a separate subspecies (USFWS, 2008). The USFWS final rule issued on July 10, 2008 determined that the PMJM is a separate subspecies that should not be delisted, and further specified that it is threatened only in its current range in Colorado, and not threatened in Wyoming (73 FR 39789) (USFWS, 2008). The Colorado portion of the PMJM range represents a Significant Portion of the Range (SPR), where it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (USFWS, 2008). Critical habitat that had been previously designated by the USFWS on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275) was amended by this final rule, eliminating critical habitat designated in Wyoming (USFWS, 2003 and 2008).

Revised critical habitat for the PMJM that will include additional areas within the Colorado SPR was proposed by the USFWS on October 8, 2009 (74 FR 52065-52107) (USFWS, 2009). Additionally, a 5-year review of the species was initiated by the USFWS on March 31, 2004 in conjunction with the 90-day finding for the pet ition to delist the PMJM (69 FR 16944) and was approved on February 2, 2008 (USFWS, 2008). Th e Recovery Team was reconvened in 2009 to review and update the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan of 2003 (USFWS, 2009).

18.2. DESCRIPTION The PMJM is one of 12 subspecies of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) in the family Zapodidae (USFWS, 1998). These mice are small to medium sized with long feet and tails adapted for jumping (USFWS, 1998). The P MJM has coarse gray to orange-brown hair on

its dorsal side with a distinct dark stripe down the middle of the back from head to tail, with finer white fur on its underside (USFWS, 2003). Adu lt PMJM are 187 mm to 255 mm long, with a tail 108 mm to 155 mm long (USFWS, 2008). Juven ile meadow jumping mice weigh less than 13 g, sub-adults weigh 13-14 g, and adults we igh 15 g or more (USFWS, 2003). PMJM gain weight during late August to mid-September be fore hibernation and reach up to 25 g to 34 g (USFWS, 2003). Some have been measured at 38 g during this time (USFWS, 2003). When PMJM emerge from hibernation in May they can weigh as little as 14 g (USFWS, 2003). A sample of PMJM captured during the summer be fore June 18th weighed 18 ± 2 g (n=78) for adult males and 18.2 ± 2.8 g (n=47) for adult females (USFWS, 2003). However, ten females were pregnant (USFWS, 2003). Pregnant female s can reach weights of 28 g (USFWS, 2003).

18.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range

107There is little information on the historical distribution or abundance of the PMJM (USFWS, 2009). The PMJM is likely a relic of the Ice Age, restricted to moist ripa rian corridors of semiarid eastern Colorado and south eastern Wyoming (USFWS, 2003). The western boundary of the PMJM range is determined by elevation (USFWS, 2003, 2008 and 2009). A similar subspecies, the western meadow jumping mouse ( Zapus princeps ), is located at higher elevations than the PMJM and further to the west, though their ra nges do overlap in areas (USFWS, 2003, 2008, and 2009). To the east, the PMJM’s range is restrict ed by the semiarid climate and defined by the dry shortgrass prairie (USFWS, 2003, 2008, and 2009). The PMJM has not been found east of Cheyenne Wyoming or on the far eastern pl ains of Colorado (USFWS, 2003 and 2008).

At the time of its listing in 1998 (63 FR 26517), the historic ra nge of the PMJM was thought to be in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, D ouglas, El Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties in Colorado, and in the counties of Albany, Laramie, Platte, Goshen, and Converse in Wyoming (USFWS, 1998 and 2008). Wh en the PMJM was originally listed, it was also assumed to be primarily located in Colora do and to be less abundant in Wyoming (USFWS, 2008). The PMJM current range at the time of the 1998 USFWS listing, based on 1992 records, was thought to include seven counties in Colora do, including Boulder, Jefferson, Douglas, El Paso, Weld, Larimer, and Elbert (USFWS, 1998) . The PMJM had not been found since 1991 in Denver, Arapahoe, and Adams counties in Colo rado, formerly part of its range (USFWS, 2003 and 2009). The range in Wyoming was only known to include two counties, based upon surveys performed in 1995 that found only two locations of PMJM, in Laramie and Albany counties (USFWS, 1998).

The PMJM Draft Recovery Plan of 2003 indicated that the PMJM range generally extended from southeastern Wyoming in the Nort h and South Platte River basins, from the eastern side of the

Laramie Mountains and the Laramie Plains to the south along the eas tern side of the Front Range in Colorado, to the headwaters of the Arkansas River Basin n ear Colorado Springs, Colorado in El Paso County (USFWS, 2003).

Current Distribution Since the USFWS listing in 1998 (63 FR 26517), increased trapping e fforts have expanded knowledge of the range of th e PMJM (USFWS, 2008). The PMJM is more widespread in Wyoming than previously thought, especially in the North Platte River Basin (USFWS, 2008). In contrast, trapping efforts in 2007 found that the PMJM is rare or extirpated from much of its former range in Colorado, in general along the ea stern extent of its hi storical range (USFWS, 2008). As of the 2008 USFWS final rule (73 FR 39789) that amended the PMJM listing to include only its Colorado SPR, confirmed PMJM trapping locations were in Albany, Laramie, Platte, and Converse counties in Wyoming, and Boulder, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties in Colorado (U SFWS, 2008). Trapping and habitat modeling

indicate that the PMJM does not occur in Gosh en, Niobrara, and eastern Laramie counties in Wyoming (USFWS, 2008). The northernmost conf irmed PMJM location is at the North Platte River near Douglas, Wyoming and the southernmost is in Colorado Springs, Colorado (USFWS, 2008).

While trapping confirms the presen ce of the PMJM, it is one of ma ny factors used to estimate the actual range of the PMJM (USFWS, 2008). The cu rrent USFWS species profile indicates that

108the PMJM occurs in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Bromfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, Teller and Weld c ounties in Colorado, and statewide in Wyoming (USFWS, 2010). The 5 potential th reat analysis factors used by the USFWS in issuing the July 10, 2008 final rule (73 FR 39789) to determine wh ether the PMJM was threatened or endangered over all or part of its range found that the Wyoming population is self sustaining, with an absence of significant threats to its conservation stat us (USFWS, 2008). The SPR defined in the 2008 final rule is located only in Colorado, west of 103 degrees 40 minutes West, north of 38 degrees 30 minutes North, and east of 105 degrees 50 minutes West (USFWS, 2008).

18.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat was designated for the PMJM on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275) (USFWS, 2003 and 2009). This critical habitat was revised wi th the July 10, 2008 final rule (73 FR 39789) listing the PMJM as threatened only in the SPR in Colorado, removing all critical habitat previously designated in Wyoming which ha d included Cottonwood Creek, Chugwater Creek, and Lodgepole Creek including Upper Middle Lodgepole Creek, an area 10,542 acres in size with 125.1 miles of rivers and streams (USF WS, 2003, 2008 and 2009). Exis ting critical habitat is within the SPR as defined in the July 10, 2008 final rule (73 FR 39789) and includes the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River, the Cache la Poudre River, Buckhor n Creek, Ralston Creek and the Upper South Platte River, for a total of 20,680 acres and 234 miles of rivers and streams (USFWS, 2009).

The 2009 proposed revised critical habitat incl udes Boulder, Bromfi eld, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, and Teller counties in Colorado (74 FR 52065) (USFWS, 2009). These proposed boundaries would add 18,4 62 acres and 184 miles of rivers and streams to the existing critical habitat designation, by including Cedar Creek, Sout h Boulder Creek, Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Cherry Creek, West Plum Creek, and Monument Creek, all of which were previously proposed but not adopted in th e 2003 critical habitat final rule (USFWS, 2009). A final rule regarding critical habitat must be published in the Federal Register by September 2010 to comply with a settlement with the City of Greeley, Colorado (USFWS, 2009).

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are physical a nd biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. PCEs were established for the PMJM in 2003 (68 FR 37275) (USFWS, 2003). PCEs proposed by the USFWS in 2009 (74 FR 52065) as part of the revised critical habitat proposed rule ar e essentially th e same as those designated in 2003. These PCEs include “riparian corridors fo rmed and maintained by normal, dynamic, geomorphological, and hydrologic processes that create and maintain river and stream ch annels, floodplains, and floodplain benches and promote patterns of ve getation favorable” to the PMJM, “containing dense, riparian vegetation consisti ng of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, or any combination thereof, in areas along rivers and streams, that normally provide open water” through the PMJM active season (USFWS, 2009). The riparian areas must also include “sp ecific movement corridors that provide connectivity between and within populati ons” (USFWS, 2009). These could be riparian corridors with less vegetative cover, or include human disturbances such as erosion control, travel ways under bridges, along ditches and canal s, and through culverts (USFWS, 2009). Also included are adjacent areas of low disturbance in floodplains and uplands, such as hayed fields, grazed pasture, and other unplowed agricultural fi elds, restored mine la nds, recreational trail areas and “urban-wildland interfaces” (USFWS, 2009).

10918.5. HABITAT The PMJM is found in well developed riparian ve getation, with a water source nearby that can range in size from a river to a small drainage only 1 m to 3 m wide, next to undisturbed grassland (USFWS, 2008). The upper limit of PMJM habi tat is at approximately 2,360 m (7,750 ft) in elevation in Colorado, and in southeastern Wyoming is at 2,317 m (7,600 feet) (USFWS, 2009). Flood events that occur commonly every 5 to 20 y ears in the Platte and Arkansas River Basins promote PMJM habitat by stimulating willow re-sprouting and depositing soil for forbs and grasses (USFWS, 2003). Seasonal streams, low mo ist areas, dry gulches, agricultural ditches, wet meadows, and seeps near streams also prov ide habitat for the PMJM (USFWS, 2003). Areas located along intermittent streams, wet meadows and seeps are important in dry periods (USFWS, 1998). Trees, tall shr ubs, short shrubs, an herbaceo us layer and ground cover have been noted as necessary components for PMJM habitat (USFWS, 1998). PMJM habitat vegetation is multistoried with an understory of grasses, forbs, or a combination, and the shrub layer is often composed of willow ( Salix spp.) (USFWS, 2008). Th e shrub and tree canopy can include snowberry ( Symphoricarpus sp.), chokeberry ( Prunus virginiana ), hawthorn ( Crataegus sp.), Gambell’s oak ( Quercus gambelli ), alder ( Alnus incana ), river birch ( Betula fontinalis ), skunkbrush ( Rhus trilobata ), wild plum ( Prunus americana ), lead plant ( Amorpha fruticosa ), dogwood ( Cornus sericea ), and others (USFWS, 2003). Dens e vegetation provides burrowing or nesting opportunities (USFWS, 1998). In a range -wide comparison study of existing habitat data in Colorado, meadow jumping mice were present, especially in areas 15 m to 25 m from streams, in locations with higher sub-sh rub cover and higher plant spec ies richness (USFWS, 2003). However, in a study comparing two capture sites, the site with lower species richness had more PMJM, indicating that abundance and density of riparian vege tation and not species richness alone is important to determining PMJM density (USFWS, 2003).

The PMJM use uplands for feeding and resting at least as far out as 100 meters from the 100- year floodplain (USFWS, 2003 and 2008). Uplands close to streams are also used for hibernacula (USFWS, 1998 and 2003). In a 24-hour period, the PMJM has been recorded to move over 1 km along streams, but the mouse does not appear to cross uplands to reach other drainages (USFWS, 1998 and 2003). Uplands used vary from open grassland to Ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ) woodlands, with Douglas fir ( Pseudostuga menziesii ), spruce ( Picea

pungens ), and sometimes aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) (USFWS, 2003). Clumps of shrubs set back from the drainage, downed wood, and occasionally hayfields ar e also used (USFWS, 2003).

18.6. DIET PMJM eat primarily arthropods and fungus when they emerge from hibernation, shifting to fungus, moss and pollen in July through Augus t, and then consuming arthropods again in September (USFWS, 2003). Also present in scat samples were lamb’s quarters ( Chenopodium sp.), Russian thistle ( Salsola sp.), sunflower ( Helianthu s sp.), sedge ( Carex sp.), mullein ( Verbascum sp.), grasses ( Poa

, Agropyron

, Festuca

, Bromus , and Sporobolus spp.), bladderpod ( Lesquerella sp.), rushes ( Equisetum sp.), and seeds (USFWS, 2003). Willows ( Salix sp.) were also found in Larimer county scats (USFWS, 2003) . Fecal analysis, however, under-represents the more digestible parts of the diet, su ch as some vegetation (USFWS, 2003).

11018.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION The PMJM may be active during the day but is primarily nocturnal or crepuscular (USFWS, 2008). They hibernate from September or October until May (USFWS, 2008). Adults

accumulate fat stores earlier and so enter hibern ation by the third week of August, while the young of the year wait until September or Oc tober (USFWS, 2003). Meadow jumping mice hibernate alone and dig their own hibernation burrows close to a stream, though they may be

located close to the burrows of other mice (USFWS, 2003). Su rveys have found hibernacula within 100 m of the 100-year floodplain of a main stream, but distances range from 0.6 m from the edge of the water to 76 m from the creek be d, while at other locations, burrows have been located between 1 m and 78 m, with one at 750 m, away from the creek (USFWS, 2003).

Summer survival rates are lower than for wi nter, when the PMJM is hibernating (USFWS, 2003). Between June and August or October, su rvival is 9% to 37%, and from August or October to May or June is 9% to 76% (USFWS, 2003).

Little research has been conducted on the repr oduction of PMJM mice but it is assumed to be similar to that of other subspecies of ju mping mice (USFWS, 2003). Meadow jumping mice have 2 to 3 litters per year of 2 to 8 young each, with 5 on average (USFWS, 2003). The young mature in 4 weeks to adult size (USFWS, 2003). Mice born in June may reproduce at 2 months of age and mice born later in the summer repr oduce the following year (USFWS, 2003).

Little is known about the beha vior of meadow jumping mice (U SFWS, 2003). Meadow jumping mice are not antagonistic towards each other, but do compete with meadow voles (USFWS, 2003). However, some social interactions have been observed. E.A. Preble noted two PMJM in a single aboveground nest, and several PMJM ha ve been observed jumping in the air and squeaking close to each other (USFWS, 2003). Three radio collared PMJM were observed to travel from three separate nests to meet at a lo cation for the month that their collars were active in 1999 and 2000 (USFWS, 2003). PMJM construct day nests under debris at the base of shrubs and trees or in open grasslands, made of grasses, forbs, sedges, rushes, and other plant material (USFWS, 2003). The nests are usually a bove ground but can be underground, are globular shapes or mats of litter, a nd are abandoned after a week (USFWS ,2003). Several nests can be used at the same time by one mouse at locatio ns in both riparian and grassland communities (USFWS, 2003).

18.8. REFERENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse as a Threatened Species (Final Rule). Federal Register 63 (92) 265 17-26530. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_regist er/fr3260.pdf. Accessed on July 2, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat fo r the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei ) (Final Rule). Federal Register 68 (120) 37275-37332. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) on line at: http://frwe bgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2003_register&docid =fr23jn03-16. Accessed on July 2, 2010.

111U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice (USFWS) 2003. Preble’s M eadow Jumping Mouse Recovery Plan, Colorado. Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. XX pages. Available online from the USFWS at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain prairie/species/mammals/preble/Nov2003Draft RecoveryPlan.pdf Accessed on July 2, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Deli st the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei ) and Proposed Delisting of the Preble’s Meadow Ju mping Mouse (Notice of 12-Month Petition Finding; Proposed Rule). Federal Register 70 (21) 5404-5411. Available

from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_re gister/fr4386.pdf. Accessed on July 2, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to amend the Listing for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei ) to Specify Over What Portion of It s Range the Subspecies is Threatened (Final Rule). Federal Register 73 (133 ) 39789-39838. Available from GPO online at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname =2008_register&docid=fr10jy08-18. Accessed on July 2, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ( Zapus hudsonius preblei ) (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 74 (194) 52065-52107. Available from GPO online

at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname =2009_register&docid=fr08oc09-25. Accessed on July 2, 2010.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (( Zapus hudsonius preblei ). Environmental Conservation Online System.

Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile /profile/speciesProfile.action? spcode=A0C2. Accessed July 2,

2010.

11219. SALT CREEK TIGER BEETLE

19.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Salt Creek tiger beetle ( Cicindela nevadi ca lincolniana ) was listed as endangered on November 7, 2005 (50 FR 58335) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 2005 b). There is a recovery out line for the Salt Creek tiger beet le but no approved recovery plan (USFWS, 2010). Critical habitat was desi gnated by the USFWS for the Salt Creek tiger beetle on April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17465) (USFWS, 2010).

19.2. DESCRIPTION “Eighty-five species and more than 200 s ubspecies of tiger beetles of the genus Cicindela are known from the United States” (USFWS, 2005 a). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is 1 of 32 species and subspecies of tiger beetles that have been recorded in Nebraska” (USFWS, 2005 a). The Salt Creek tiger beetle was originally described as a separate species, C. lincolniana . It was later identified as a subspecies of C. nevadica

, C. n. lincolniana . “This is the currently accepted taxonomic classification” (USFWS, 2005 a).

“The Salt Creek tiger beetle is metallic brown to dark olive green above, with a metallic dark green underside, and measures 1.3 centimeters (cm) (0.5 inch (in.)) in total length. It is distinguished from other tiger beetles by its dist inctive form and the co lor pattern on its dorsal and ventral surfaces. The elytra (wing covers) are metallic brown or dark olive green, and the head and pronotum (body segment behind the h ead) are dark brown” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 a).

19.3. DISTRIBUTION “The Salt Creek tiger beetle has one of the most restricted rang es of any insect in the United States” “and the habitat currently occupied by th e subspecies is highly limited and isolated” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; 2009 a; and 2010). It “i s endemic to the saline wetlands of eastern

Nebraska and associated streams in the northern third of Lancaster County and southern margin of Saunders County in Nebraska” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). “Intensive visual surveys conducted by” University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) “entomologists since 1991 have documented Salt Creek tiger beetles at 13 sites in northern Lancaster County and the southern margin of Saunders County; although beetles were not found, nor were surveys conducted, at all sites in all years” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 a). It was “determined these 13 sites can be gr ouped into 6 discrete populations of Salt Creek tiger b eetles” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Half of these populations have been extirpated since annual surveys began in 1991 (a population is considered extirpated after 2 consecutive years of negative survey results)” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 a). The following text describes each of the 6 populations in order of abundance.

1) “ Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake Population: The Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population contains the largest number of Salt Creek tiger be etles. This population occurs across a large, relatively intact saline wetland complex. The Little Salt Cree k-Arbor Lake population is located approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile (m i)) north of the Inters tate 80 and North 27 th Street Interchange on the northern city limits of Lincoln, Nebraska. It exists along the saline stream

113edge of Little Salt Creek and on the barren salt flats of an adjacent saline wetland” (USFWS, 2009 a).

2) “ Little Salt Creek-Roper Population: The Little Salt Creek-R oper population is the second largest remaining population of Sa lt Creek tiger beetles. This population is located immediately

south of the Interstate 80 and North 27 th Street Interchange, and approximately 1.6 km (1 mi)

downstream of the Little Salt Cr eek-Arbor Lake population. Simila r to the Little Salt CreekArbor Lake population, this populati on is associated with a saline wetland and stream complex located along Little Sa lt Creek” (USFWS, 2009 a).

3) “ Upper Little Salt Creek-North Population: The Upper Little Salt Creek-North population is the third and last extant (i.e., existing) population of Salt Creek tig er beetles. This population is located approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) upstr eam from the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population, and exists only on the saline stream edges of Little Salt Creek. Although former saline wetlands (i.e., barren salt flats) exist adjacent to this population, these wetlands are degraded (drained because of the incisement of Little Salt Creek) and no longer provide suitable habitat for the Salt Creek tiger beetle” (USFWS, 2009 a).

4) “ Upper Little Salt Creek-South Population: The Upper Little Sa lt Creek-South population was located approximately 5 km (3 mi) upstrea m from the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population. Degraded and non-functi oning saline wetlands exist adja cent to Little Salt Creek. Although this site was once devoid of vegetation, saline stream edge ha bitats here are now vegetated. This population was surveyed at its only known site. The Upper Little Salt CreekSouth population is considered to be extirpated; no Salt Creek tiger beetles have been found there since 1995” (USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 a).

5) “ Jack Sinn Wildlife Management Area Population: This population was made up of one survey site located on Rock Creek in southe rn Saunders and northern Lancaster Counties, approximately 20 km (10 mi) northeast of the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population. This population of Salt Creek tiger beetles was on pr operty owned by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC). The Jack Sinn Wildlife Mana gement Area Population is considered to be extirpated; no Salt Creek tiger beetles have b een found there since 1998. Loss and fragmentation of barren salt flats and stream habitats likely re sulted in the loss of th is population” (USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 a)

6) “ Capitol Beach Population: Capitol Beach was once one of th e largest saline wetland tracts in eastern Nebraska, with a size of approximately 162 hectares (h a) (400 acres (ac))” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Although we do not have hi storic population estimates from this site, historic records indicate that Capitol Beach (i.e ., Salt Basin) was once home to a la rge, sustainabl e population of Salt Creek tiger beetles. All that remains of suitable habitat at Capitol Beach now is a 10- to 20- meter (m) (40- to 50-foot (ft)) wide ditch that parallels Interstate 80 for approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi), southwest of the Inters tate 80 and Airport Interchange. No individuals have been found at Capitol Beach since 1998” leading to the conc lusions “that this population is now extirpated” (USFWS, 2009 a).

114Historical range “All known Salt Creek tiger beetle specimens were collected in ar eas identified as either Salt Basin or Salt Lake (and now known as Capita l Beach) or the City of Lincoln, Nebraska” (USFWS, 2005 a). “As recently as 1994, six pop ulations of Salt Creek tiger beetles were distributed along Oak, Little Salt, and Rock Cr eeks” (USFWS, 2010). “Larvae have been found only on moist salt flats and salt-encrusted banks of Little Salt Creek in northern Lancaster County” “and saline wetlands associated with Ro ck Creek in the southern margin of Saunders County” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Since 1994, half of th ese populations have been extirpated and the remaining three extant populations are all located along a single waterway: Little Salt Creek” (USFWS, 2010).

Current range Currently, the three extant populations of the Sa lt Creek tiger beetle onl y occur “along limited segments of Little Salt Creek and adjacent remn ant salt marshes in Lancaster County, Nebraska” (USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 c). “The Salt Creek tig er beetle is currently restricted to” “approximately 6 ha (15 ac) of not highly degrad ed barren salt flats and saline stream edge

habitats contained within the eastern Nebraska saline wetlands and associated saline streams (i.e., Little Salt Creek). Eighty- nine percent of all remaining Sa lt Creek tiger beetles are located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) apar t” (USFWS, 2005 b). Ninety-nine “percent of the remaining Salt Creek tiger beetles are located within a 1.6 km (1-mi) radius of the Interstate 80 and North

27 th Street Interchange” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Alt hough tiger beetles are mobile and can fly, the lack of suitable habitat along li ttle Salt Creek within movement limits for the Salt Creek tiger beetle (distances of less than 805 m (2,640 ft)) prohi bits recolonization of other suitable habitats on other stream segments” (USFWS, 2009 a).

19.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT Critical habitat was designated by the USFWS fo r the Salt Creek tiger beetle on April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17465) (USFWS, 2010). “In total, approx imately 1,933 acres (ac) (782 hectares (ha)) located in Lancaster and Saunders Counties, Nebras ka, fall within the bounda ries of the critical habitat designation” (USFWS , 2009 b and 2010). The USFWS has designated the following primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the Salt Creek tiger beetle:

1) “Non-vegetated streambanks and mid-channel ar eas, located adjacent to and between saline stream edges and barren salt flats in saline a nd freshwater wetlands, in assemblages that are within 4 mi (6 km) of one another” (USFWS, 2010).

2) “Moist, barren salt flats with: (a) Salmo and Saltillo soils or Lamo, Gibbon-Salt ine, Obert, and Zoe soils with Salmo and Saltillo inclusions; (b) Soil electroconductivity rangi ng from 2,016.0 mS/m to 2,992.2 mS/m; (c) Soil moisture ranging from 43.5 percent to 5 1.7 percent; and (d) Differential hydraulic pressure s that create evaporation and result in exposed salt on soil surfaces” (USFWS, 201).

1153) “A natural hydrologic regime resulting in annual high flows in saline streams in the early spring and summer, and natural elevation cha nges in groundwater levels to hydrate saline

wetlands located on the fl oodplain” (USFWS, 2010).

4) “The presence of abundant and diverse flyi ng and non-flying invert ebrate prey species belonging to the orders Coleopter a, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Hyme noptera, Odonata, Diptera, or Lepidoptera” (USFWS, 2010).

The “final designation of critical habitat includes f our units – three occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing in 2005 (and currently occupied ) and that contain the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to th e conservation of the subspecies, and one area outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of listing (but known to be occupied as recently as 1998)” (USFWS, 2010). “The four areas designated as critical habitat are: (1) Upper Little Salt Creek North, (2) Little Salt Creek-Arb or Lake, (3) Little Salt Creek-Roper, and (4) Jack Sinn-Rock Creek” (USFWS, 2010).

Unit 1 – Upper Little Salt Creek North, Lancaster County, Nebraska

“Unit 1 consists of 327 ac (132 ha) of occupi ed Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located approximately 5.5 mi (8.8 km) north of the Interstate 80 and North 27 th Street interchange in Lincoln, Nebraska. It is 4.5 mi (7.2 km) upstream from Unit 2 (Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake). The unit includes 3.1 mi (4.9 km) of Little Salt Creek, and cons ists of a saline stream and wetland complex extending along the floodplain of Little Salt Creek” (USFWS, 2010). This “unit provides habitat for the third largest existin g population of the subspecies” (USFWS, 2010).

Unit 2 – Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake, Lancaster County, Nebraska

“Unit 2 consists of 232 ac (94 ha) of occupi ed Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north of the Interstate 80 and North 27 th Street interchange on the northern city limits of Lincoln, Nebraska. The unit includes 1.53 mi (2.5 km) of Little Salt Creek, and has a large, relatively intact saline wetland and stream complex located within the Little Salt Creek floodplain” (USFWS, 2010). “This unit provides habitat for the largest population of Salt Creek tiger beetles” (USFWS, 2010).

Unit 3 – Little Salt Creek-Roper, Lancaster County, Nebraska

“Unit 3 consists of 346 ac (140 ha) of occupi ed Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located immediately south of the Interstate 80 and North 27 th Street interchange, north of the confluence of Little Salt and Salt Creeks, and approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) downstream of Unit 2 (Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake). The unit includes 2.8 mi (4.5 km) of Little Salt Creek, and consists of a saline stream and wetland complex along the floodplain of Little Salt Creek” (USFWS, 2010).

116Unit 4 – Jack Sinn-Rock Creek, Lancaster and Saunders Counties, Nebraska

“To reduce the risk of extinc tion of the Salt Creek tiger beetle” the USFWS “included an

additional critical habitat area al ong Rock Creek, an area where the Salt Creek tiger beetle has been extirpated” (USFWS, 2010). “Unit 4 c onsists of 1,028 ac (416 ha) of unoccupied Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located approximately 3 mi (5 km) southeast of the City of Ceresco, Nebraska, and east of Highway 77. It is 8.5 mi (13.7 km) upstream from th e confluence of Rock and Salt Creeks” (USFWS, 2010). “Unit 4 in cludes 10.62 mi (17.1 km) of Rock Creek, and consists of a saline stream and wetland comple x along the floodplain of Rock Creek” (USFWS, 2010).

19.5. HABITAT The Salt Creek tiger beetle is an inhabitant of an extremely limited habitat type which includes

“barren salt flats and saline stre am edges of the saline wetlands and associated streams of eastern Nebraska” (USFWS, 2005 a). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle has very specific habitat requirements and occurs in saline wetlands – on exposed sali ne mud flats or along m ud banks of streams and seeps that contain salt deposits and are sparsely vegetated” (U SFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2009 a). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is ad apted to brief periods of high water inundation and highly saline conditions” (USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 a).

“Saline wetlands in eastern Nebr aska occur in swales and depre ssions within the floodplain of

Salt Creek and its tributaries in northern Lancaster and southe rn Saunders counties” (USFWS, 2005 a). At one time saline wetland “represe nted approximately 65,065 acres (ac) (26,342 hectares (ha)) within the floodplain of Salt Creek and its tributaries” (USFWS, 2010). It has been suggested that “the saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska receive their salinity from groundwater passing through an underground rock formation containing salt deposited by an ancient sea that once covered Nebraska” (USF WS, 2005 a and b). Saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska are characterized by saline soils and halophytes (plants adapted to saline conditions)

and are often associated with a saline stream within the Salt Creek basin” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2010). “Saline wetlands usually have a centr al area that is devoid of vegetation, and when dry, exhibit salt encruste d mudflats (barren salt flats)” (U SFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2010). “This is the area used by the Salt Creek tiger beetle and numerous other saline-adapted insects” (USFWS, 2005 a and b).

“Salmo and Saltillo soils or La mo, Gibbo-Saltine, Obert, and Zoe soils with Salmo and Saltillo inclusions provide salt in suffici ent content to result in creati on of salt barrens” (USFWS, 2010). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is found in association with Salm o soils” “and probably is also

found in association with Saltillo soils when ba rren salt flats are pr esent” (USFWS, 2010).

These soils “must have electr oconductivity within the range of 2,016.0 mS/m to 2,992.2. mS/m to be used by the Salt Creek tiger beetle” b ecause “Salt Creek tiger beetles were found using

areas with a mean soil electro conductivity of 2,504.1” mS/m (USFS, 2010). “Salt Creek tiger beetles prefer mean soil moistures of 47.6 percen t” (USFWS, 2010). “In addition, the process of evaporation also must occur to create exposed salt on the soil surface, resulting in the formation of barren salt flats” (USFWS, 201).

117“Salt Creek tiger beetles require water to prevent larval desicca tion, to maintain moist conditions at larval burrows for breeding and foraging activ ities, and for drinking ” (USFWS, 2010). “Adult Salt Creek tiger beetles are confin ed to moist, muddy areas within a few meters of wetlands and stream edges, and larval burrows are only found in association with hydr ated salt flats located along saline stream edges and sali ne wetlands” (USFWS, 20 10). “The density of larval burrows decreases as vegetative cover in creases” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). “T he earliest emerging adults sometimes move from creek banks to the salt flats, presumably for early prey. However, a week or two into emergence, this behavior stops a nd adults are found almost exclusively in wetter areas, like creek edges or seeps along the creek ” (USFWS, 2005 b). “During peak emergence, adults often wander from their emergence sites, presumably looking for new areas to colonize or search for prey” (USFWS, 2005 b). “It is during this time that adults often appear on sand or gravel bars, or on less saline soils along the stream” (USFWS, 2005 b).

Salt Creek tiger beetles require moist, open, barr en salt flat areas for construction of larval burrows, thermoregulation, reproduction, foragin g, and as dispersal corridors (USFWS, 2005 a and b; 2009 a; and 2010). “Salt Creek tiger beetle s require non-vegetated stream banks and midchannel areas, located adjacent to and between saline stream edges and barren salt flats in saline and freshwater wetlands, to allow movement for thermoregulation, hunting, and dispersal” (USFWS, 2010). “Salt Creek tiger beetles move between habitats consisting of saline wetlands and streams” “but open salt flats must be sepa rated by a reasonable dispersal distance for the subspecies” (USFWS, 2010). “T wo Salt Creek tiger beetles we re documented moving distances of 1,509 and 1,198 feet (ft) (460 and 365 meters (m)), respectively, between a saline stream and saline wetland, through a small asse mblage of saline banks, presumably to meet the life requirements described above” (USFWS, 2010). “S alt Creek tiger beetles also have been observed moving among salt flats and seeps alo ng saline streams edges, using barren midchannel and scoured bank habitats” (USFWS, 20 10). “Mid-channel habitats and scoured bank lines are created through natural hydrological processes in streams with sufficient flow to cause sediment scour, transport, and redeposition. Salt Creek tiger beetles can disperse from one midchannel bar to the next, which enables them to move up and down stream courses in response to habitat changes. These shor t-range movement corridors ar e necessary to repopulate areas extirpated due to habitat loss or extreme weather events” (USFWS, 2010).

“The Salt Creek tiger beetle probably has some long-range dispersal capability, an adaptation that has been documented in other tiger beetle species and is thought to enable colonization of transient or well-separated habi tat that may be important for long-term species survival” (USFWS, 2010). Although there are “no data on long-range dispersal distances, the approximately 14-mi (22-km) separation between pr eviously occupied habitats on Oak and Rock Creeks suggests that the Salt Creek tiger beetle ma y be capable of some level of aerial dispersal” (USFWS, 2010).

19.6. DIET “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is an active, gr ound-dwelling, predatory insect that captures smaller or similar-sized arthropods in a “tiger-lik e” manner by grasping prey with its mandibles (mouthparts). Salt Creek tiger beetle larvae live in permanent burrows in the ground and are voracious predators, fastening themselves by m eans of abdominal hooks to the tops of their burrows and rapidly extending outward to sei ze passing prey” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). “The

118small larva waits at the top of its burrow and ambushes prey that passe s too near the burrow entrance. Once it has captured its prey, the larva pulls it into the burrow with the aid of three hooks on the dorsum of the fifth abdominal segment. These hooks also function to prevent the larva from being pulled from its burrow by la rger prey or predators” (USFWS, 2005 a).

“Salt Creek tiger beetles require an abundant an d diverse prey base consisting of flying and nonflying invertebrates. Tiger beetles have been observed to eat insect s from many orders and families” (USFWS, 2010). “Most common are pr ey belonging to the orders Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Hymenopter a, Odonata, Diptera, and Lepidopt era. Ants (Formicidae) are the most commonly observed prey of adult Salt Cr eek tiger beetles in th e field” (USFWS, 2010). “Although adults can prey on a greater diversity of available prey than larvae, both adults and larvae are predators of similar-sized insects. Adults can capture flying insects; larval prey consists only of insects and arthropods living on the soil surface that wander within striking distance of their burrows” (USF WS, 2010). Typical prey of la rval tiger beetles includes dragonflies, millipedes, earthworms, and amphibians” (USFWS, 2010).

19.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION “Adults are first observed as early as the end of May or as late as mid-June. Their numbers peak

about 2 weeks after the first indi viduals appear and begin to feed and mate. After mating, the male rides atop the female, presumably preventi ng her from re-mating (a phenomenon known as mate-guarding). Females lay their eggs along sl oping banks of creeks in areas where the salt layer is exposed in the soil horizon, on barren salt flats of sali ne wetlands, or along saline stream edges that are found in close association with water, near a seep or stream. It is believed that, during the night, female Salt Creek tiger be etles lay about 50 eggs” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 a). “After the egg hatches, the young larva digs a burrow and uses its h ead to scoop out soil.

The larva takes these small mud clods to the burr ow entrance and flips th em outside the hole.

Larval burrows occur within a few inches of the water’s edge” (USFWS , 2005 a). “The larva will plug its burrow and retreat inside during periods of high water, very hot weather, or very dry conditions. As the larva grows, it molts to a larger instar (a life stage between molts), enlarging and lengthening its burrow. For the most part, a Salt Creek tiger beetle larva will remain active until cold weather, and then it plugs its burrow a nd hibernates. The Salt Creek tiger beetle has three instars. It probably overwin ters as a third instar , pupates in May, and emerges as an adult. Before pupation, the larva s eals its burrow entrance and digs a side chamber about 5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 in) below the soil surface. After the adult emerges from the pupa, it remains in the chamber

until its cuticle hardens” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). It is specu lated “that adult Salt Creek tiger beetles live for approximately 6 weeks” (USF WS, 2005 a). “The adult populations begin to disappear in late July, and by A ugust, almost all of the adults have died” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2009 a). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle has a 2-year life cycl e” which is “not uncommon for tiger beetles” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2009 a).

19.8. REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2005 a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle ( Cicindela nevadica

lincolniana ); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70 , No. 20, pp. 5101-5117. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr4397.pdf (Accessed September 3, 2010).

119United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2005 b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle ( Cicindela

nevadica lincolniana ); Final Rule. Federal Register 70, No. 193, pp. 58335-58351. Available

online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr4461.pdf (Accessed September 3, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009 a. Recovery Outline for the Salt Creek tiger beetle ( Cicindela nevadica lincolniana ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office. 18 pp. Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Salt%20Creek%20Tiger%20Bee tle%20recovery%20outl ine_02-20-2009.pdf (Accessed on September 3, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2009 b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Hab itat for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle ( Cicindela nevadica

lincolniana ); Revised proposed rule; reopening of co mment period. Federal Register 74, No. 80, pp. 19167-19184. Available online at: http://edocket.acce ss.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-9234.pdf (Accessed September 3, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009 c. Spotlight Species Action Plan for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle ( Cicindela nevadica lincolniana ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MountainPrairie Region (Region 6), Denver Colorado. 5 pp. Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/doc s/action_plans/doc3027.pdf (Accessed on September 3, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for th e Salt Creek Tiger Beetle; Final Rule. Federal Register 75, No. 65, pp. 17465-17509. Available online at: http://edocket.acc ess.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-7121.pdf (Accessed September 3, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2010. Species Profile for the Salt Creek tiger beetle ( Cicindela nevadica lincolniana ). Environmental Conservation Online System . Available

online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/prof ile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0QR (Accessed September 3, 2010)

12020. SONORA TIGER SALAMANDER

20.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The Sonora tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ) was listed as endangered on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 665) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS) (USFWS, 1997). The recovery plan for the Sonora tiger sala mander was approved on September 24, 2002 and published in October 2002 (USFWS, 2002). No cr itical habitat has been designated by the USFWS for the Sonora tiger sa lamander (USFWS, 2001 and 2002).

20.2. DESCRIPTION The Sonora tiger salamander was described in 1 954, “and subsequent field surveys and genetic analyses in the 1980’s and 1990’s reinforced the status of the Sonora tiger salamander as a distinct subspecies” (USFWS, 2002) . Sonora tiger salamanders “are one of three subspecies of tiger salamander found in Arizona; the other tw o subspecies are Ariz ona tiger salamanders, A. t.

nebulosum , and barred tiger salamanders, A. t. mavortium ” (USFWS, 2002). There is evidence that suggests that the Sonora tiger salamander “is an endemic subspecies th at evolved ‘naturally,’

and not as a result of human introductions of Arizona and barred tiger salamanders” (USFWS, 2002).

Sonora tiger salamanders begin thei r life “as jelly-coated eggs laid in water. They hatch and grow as aquatic larvae with gills, and then either mature as gilled aquatic adults called branchiate adults, neotenes, or paedomorphs, or metamorphose into terrestrial salamanders without gills” (USFWS, 2002). The larval stage of the Sonora tiger salamander is “aquatic with plume-like gills and well developed tail fins” (USFWS, 1997 and 2001). “Larvae ar e gray on the dorsum, head, and tail, with little pigment on the vent ral surface” (USFWS, 2002). “They have external gills and hatch without legs, but grow hind a nd fore-limbs early in development” (USFWS, 2002). “Branchiate adults are gray to olive on the dorsum, head, and tail, and off-white to yellow on the ventral side” (USFWS, 2002). “They have three external gills on each side of their head, and measure between 65 and 165 mm SVL” (USFWS, 2002). The metamorphosed terrestrial Sonora tiger salamander is described as “a large salamander with light-colored

blotches or reticulations on a dark background” (USFWS, 1997 and 2001). They “have a color pattern ranging from ‘a reticulate pattern with an irregular network of light coloration, often coupled with light spots, on a dark background color’, to a pattern of large, well-defined light or yellow spots or transverse bars, some of whic h encroach on the dark venter” (USFWS, 1997 and 2002). The snout-to-vent length (SVL) of me tamorphosed individuals is 4.5-15.0 cm (1.8-5.9 inches) (USFWS, 2001 and 2002). The rela ted California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum californiense ) weighs 50 grams (The Sacramen to Zoological Society, 2003).

20.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical range “Because so few sites were sampled prior to the 1980’s, it is impossible to determine the historical distribution of Sonora tiger salamanders” (USFWS, 2002). “However, based on

collections and observations of salamanders and the distribution of the plains grassland and adjacent Madrean evergreen woodlands” “in whic h the salamander has been found, the range of

121the subspecies and its occupied and potentiall y occupied habitat is thought to extend from the

crest of the Huachuca Mountains west to the crest of the Patagonia Mountains, including the” San Rafael Valley (SRV) “and adjacen t foothills from its origins in Sonora north to the Canelo Hills” (USFWS, 2002). The Sonora tiger salama nder “probably inhabited springs, streams, backwaters, and cienegas containing a permanent or nearly permanent water source in the area of San Rafael Valley, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico” (USFWS, 2001).

Current range The Sonora tiger salamander was initially f ound “in ponds in the SRV, where most known Sonora tiger salamander populations exist” (USFWS, 2002). “The SRV lies between the Huachuca and Patagonia mountains, is bordered by the Canelo Hills to the north, and extends from Santa Cruz County in Arizona south fo r approximately 30 km into Sonora, Mexico” (USFWS, 2002). The Sonora tiger salamander “br eeds at about 50 sites located within a 31 km (19 mile) radius of Lochiel, Arizona. All sites are within the headwaters of the Santa Cruz and

San Pedro rivers. These include sites in San Rafael Valley, and the foothills of the Patagonia and Huachuca mountains, located in Sa nta Cruz and Cochise counties, Arizona, and Sonora, Mexico” (USFWS, 1997 and 2001).

As of 2002, this subspecies had “been found in 53 ponds in the San Rafael Valley of Arizona” (USFWS, 2002). About half of the 53 Sonora tiger salamander populations were discovered between 1999 and 2002, and only within this time period “were ponds with salamanders sampled consistently, making it difficult to determine tr ends in the proportion of ponds occupied by salamanders and suitability of those ponds fo r salamander breeding habitat” (USFWS, 2002). More data on the ecology of Sonora tiger salamande rs are needed to make definitive statements about the long-term viability of Sonora tige r salamanders in the SRV (USFWS, 2002).

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) “reported salamanders at Kunde Tank in the Redrock Canyon area north of the San Rafael Valle y, which have tentativel y been identified as Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi using genetic markers” (USF WS, 2007). “This finding would represent a range extension of approximately 6.8 miles north of the nearest known locality. Whether the subspecies dispersed to or was purposely introduced to this local ity is unknown” (USFWS, 2007). The 5-year review states that this extension is unconfirmed (USFWS, 2007). It further states that, “the subspecies may be preclu ded from habitats at the southern portion of its range (Rancho Los Fresnos) by introduced, non-native predators” (USFWS, 2007).

“Surveys conducted by AGFD demons trate that Sonora tiger salama nders are found at relatively few sites (37 of 139 stock tanks sampled during 2001-2006), consistent with the findings of the recovery plan. As described in the recovery plan, these site s are all impoundments created as livestock waters” (USFWS, 2007). “The historical habitats of the subspecies have either disappeared or are occupied by non-native fishes with which the Sonora tiger salamander cannot coexist” (USFWS, 2007).

20.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat designation has been ma de for the Sonora tiger salamander (USFWS, 1997 and 2002).

12220.5. HABITAT “Historically, the Sonora tiger salamander prob ably inhabited springs, cienegas, and possibly backwater pools where permanent or nearly pe rmanent water allowed survival of mature branchiates” (USFWS, 1997). “The most important habitat requirement for Sonora tiger

salamanders is the availabili ty of standing water for breed ing from January through June” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “This gives the salama nders enough time to breed, grow as larvae, and metamorphose before the pond dries” (USFWS, 2002). “Permanent bodies of water can be good breeding sites, except they often contain introduced fish and bullfrogs” which prey on salamanders (USFWS, 2002). “Erosion and arroyo cutting in the late 19 th and early 20 th
centuries caused the SRV to dry and natural st anding water habitats to disappear” (USFWS, 2002). “As a result, ponds created by ranchers fo r watering their cattle are now almost the only suitable breeding sites remaining” (USF WS, 1997, 2001, 2002, and 2010). “Aquatic and bankline vegetation is missing from many ponds with salamanders, suggesting that these factors, although beneficial, are not necessa ry for the persistence of Sonora tiger salamanders” (USFWS, 2002). “Sonora tiger salamanders are tolerant of a wide range of temperatures, with temperatures in ponds varying from less than 5°C at the beginning of the year up to 30°C during the summer” (USFWS, 2002).

“Aquatic breeding habitats are us ed by all life stages; however, upl and habitats are also used by

terrestrial adults when not at the breeding ponds” (USFWS, 2002). “Adult metamorphosed salamanders inhabit adjacent gra ssland and oak woodland terrestri al habitat when not in ponds” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “The SRV is a broad, ope n valley that forms the headwaters of the

Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers. The dominant te rrestrial plant community in the SRV is plains grassland” (USFWS, 2002). “Typical grasses include, among others, plains lovegrass, Eragrostis intermedia , side-oats grama, Bouteloua curtipendula , and curly mesquite, Hilaria belangeri . Within the grasslands, stringers or gr oves of cottonwoods and other wetland plants grow along some drainages and at ponds and springs . Upslope, at the edges of the SRV, juniper and several species of oaks form patchy woodlands or savannas that gradually give way to pineoak woodlands at higher eleva tion” (USFWS, 2002). “Typical ha bitat ranges in elevation from 1,219 to 1,920 m (4,000 to 6,300 ft)” (USFWS, 2001). “Mammal burrows or loosened soils outside the pond likely provide refugia for me tamorphosed salamanders in the terrestrial environment, enabling them to burrow undergrou nd to avoid extreme environmental conditions” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Temperatures in the terrestrial environment range from below freezing to over 35°C” (USFWS, 2002). The terres trial life stage of the Sonora tiger salamander likely “spends much of the year in rodent burro ws, rotted logs, and other moist cover sites” (USFWS, 2001).

20.6. DIET “Small tiger salamander larvae feed primarily on zooplankton (daphnids, copepods, bosminids, ostracods, etc.), but incorporate larger aquatic macroinvertebrates (chironomids, trichopterans, molluscs, zygopterans, etc.) into their diet as they grow” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Branchiate adult tiger salamanders prey on zooplankton an d a variety of macroi nvertebrates, and eat salamander eggs and larvae during the breeding season” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Outside the pond, metamorphosed tiger salamanders c onsume terrestrial insects and other macroinverterbates” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “In the pond, metamorphosed individuals eat aquatic macroinvertebrates and terrestrial insects th at fall in the water” (USFWS, 2002).

12320.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Sonora tiger salamanders “begin breeding as earl y as January, and eggs can be found in ponds as late as May” (USFWS, 2002 a nd 2010). “Breeding after monsoon rains in July and August is rare” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Terrestrial adults , which are often outs ide the pond during the rest of the year, return to ponds to breed, and br anchiate adults in the pond also breed” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Although there is little data on breeding site fidelity for Sonora tiger salamanders, other Ambystoma species usually return to breed in the ponds where they were born” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “After fertilizati on, female tiger salamanders lay 200 to 2000” jelly-coated eggs in water, “attaching them to aquatic vegetation, sticks , rocks, or substrate individually or in clumps of up to 50” (USFWS , 2002 and 2010). “Eggs take from 2-4 weeks to hatch; the colder the water, the longer the eggs take to develop” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Transition probabilities from one life history stage to the next (e.g., likelihood of an egg becoming a larva or a larva becoming an adult) have not been determined for Sonora tiger salamanders in the field” (USFWS, 2002).

“Following hatching, Sonora tiger salamander larvae can develop to the minimum size necessary to metamorphose in as little as two mont hs. However, because many SRV sites with salamanders hold water all year, larvae often remain in the water longer before metamorphosing, or develop into branchiate adults instead of metamor phosing” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Salamander larvae in permanent water often devel op into branchiate adults that stay in the pond throughout their lives” (USFWS, 2002). “SRV ponds that do not dry support up to several hundred branchiates” (USFWS, 2002). “Branchiat e adults can sometimes metamorphose into the terrestrial form in response to stressful events such as pon d drying, but branchiates are often unable to complete metamorphosis or even die during the process” (USFWS, 2002). “The lifespan of branchiate adult Sonor a tiger salamanders in the field is not known, but Arizona tiger

salamanders have survived as branchiates for up to 8 years in captivity” (USFWS, 2002). “The reason that branchiates have not been kept longe r is that they eventually metamorphose, even after years as branchiates” (USFWS, 2002).

“When larvae are large enough (>45 mm SVL), they can metamorphose into terrestrial salamanders” (USFWS, 2002). “The proportion of larvae that metamorphose depends heavily on pond permanence” (USFWS, 2002). “In ponds that dry, all larvae that are large enough metamorphose” (USFWS, 2002). “In ponds that do not dry, approximately 17 percent of larvae that are large enough metamorphose” (USFWS, 2002) . “The number of metamorphs in each population is difficult to estimate because most metamorphosed salamanders leave the pond after breeding, and” it is not k nown “what fraction of salamanders in the terrestrial environment return each year to breed” (USFWS, 2002). Metamorphs are “the only life history stage that can disperse from pond to pond and establish new populations” (USFWS, 2002). “Metamorphs often re-populate ponds following dr ying or disease outbreaks that ki ll most branchiate adults and larvae” (USFWS, 2002).

“The ecology of Sonora tiger salamanders outside of ponds has been little studied, but other Ambystoma species spend much of their time in mammal burrows or buried in soft earth to avoid environmental extremes common on land” (USFWS, 2002). “The dispersa l patterns of Sonora tiger salamanders, which are critical for determining metapopulation dynamics, are also

124unknown” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Radio-tracking of other Ambystoma species has shown that they frequently move up to 250 m from their breeding ponds” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010).
However, Ambystoma occasionally disperse longer distan ces” and have been “found in ponds 1.5 to 2.0 km from their natal pond, and 3-4 km fr om the nearest likely natal site” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). The 5-year review stated that new research wa s available on “upland use by terrestrial adult California tiger salamanders ( Ambystoma californiense )” (USFWS, 2007). This related species “may provide some implications for management of upland sites as habitat for terrestrial Sonora tiger salamanders” (USFWS , 2007). Research performed in 2005 on California tiger salamanders “excav ated burrows and found tiger sala manders at a mean distance of 356 m, but as far away as 510 m, from the nearest breeding pond in gopher burrows, riprap, and in rocks associated with gopher burrows” (U SFWS, 2007). This research suggested that “upland habitat should be protected and manage d for healthy small mammal populations within 500 m of breeding sites” (USFWS, 2007). “The lifespan of metamorphosed Sonora tiger salamanders in the wild is not known, but me tamorphosed Arizona tiger salamanders have survived 17 years in cap tivity” (USFWS, 2002).

20.8. REFERENCES The Sacramento Zoological Soci ety. 2003. Sonora Tiger Salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum

stebbinsi ). Available online at: http://www.saczoo.com/Document.Doc?id=148 (Accessed August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U SFWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Stat us for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern Arizona and Northern Sonora, Mexico; Fina l Rule. Federal Regist er 62, No. 3, pp. 665-689.

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3030.pdf (Accessed August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Servi ce (USFWS). 2001. Sonora tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ). Arizona Ecological Services. Ge neral Species Information. Available

online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Doc uments/Redbook/Sonora%20Tiger%20Salamander %20RB.pdf (Accessed on August 23, 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2002. Sonora tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum

stebbinsi ) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. Iv + 67 pp.

Available online from USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/020924.pdf (Accessed on August 23, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Servi ce (USFWS). 2007. Sonora Tiger Salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1154.pdf (Accessed August 23, 2010)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Species Profile for the Sonora Tiger Salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ). Environmental Conservation Online System

. Available online at:

125http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/pro file/speciesProfile .action?spcode=D01H (Accessed August 23, 2010)

12621. WHOOPING CRANE

21.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS The whooping crane ( Grus americana ) was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 1967). In Canada, the species was listed in 1978 by the Committee on th e Status of Endangered Wildlife (COSEWIC) (Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS ) and USFWS, 2007). A recovery plan for the whooping crane was approved by the USFWS on January 23, 1980, the first revision wa s approved on December 23, 1986, and the second revision was approved on February 11, 1994 (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The third and current revision, the Intern ational Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane,

is a combined effort of the USFWS and the Canadian Wildlife Se rvice dated May 27, 2007 (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Crit ical habitat for the whooping crane was designated by the USFWS in 1978 (43 FR 20938) (USFWS, 1978). A 5-year review of the species was initiated by the USFWS on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15454) (USFWS, 2010).

21.2. DESCRIPTION The whooping crane is in the family Gruidae (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The common name likely originated from the loud, single not e call of alarmed cranes (WDNR, 2006). The whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. Males r each 1.5 meters (5 ft) and captive bird weight averages 7.3 kg (16 lbs), while females are shorter and captive bird weight averages 6.4 kg (14 lbs) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Ma ximum weights are observed in December and January and minimum weights are observed in July and August (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Crane species generally weigh between 100 and 230 grams at birth (Ellis, et al., 1996) Weights of captive whooping crane chicks have been observed at 100 to 150 grams at birth, after which they experience rapid growth, reaching 1,750-2,500 grams at 40 days, 4,300-4,950 grams at 100 days, and are near adult size of 5,700-6,700 grams at 250 days (Lewis, 1995). Wild chicks weigh 6 to 10% more than captive chicks (L ewis, 1995). Whooping cr anes are sexually monomorphic and are predominantly white with bl ack primary feathers on the wing tips and red post occipital skin on the head, while chicks are mottled cinnamon to rust in color (White, 2001). The crane has long legs and a long sinuous neck, with a wingspan of 7.5 feet (USFWS, 1983). The guard and unison calls are distinct betw een the sexes (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The whooping crane can live from 35 to 40 years in ca ptivity, and are estimated to live 30 years in the wild (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

21.3. DISTRIBUTION

Historical Range The historical range of the whooping crane extended from the Arctic coast down to central Mexico and from Utah east to New Jersey, S outh Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Whooping crane fossils from th e Pleistocene era found in California, Kansas, and Florida indicate that the range may have been even wider (CWS and USFWS, 2007). It is estimated, based upon current densities and the k nown historical distribu tion, that there could have been 10,000 whooping cranes in North Amer ica prior to European settlement, although they may never have formed large flocks and thus reports of sightings were infrequent (CWS and

127USFWS, 2007). Historically, there have been migrating a nd non-migrating populations of whooping cranes (Lewis, 1995). In the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the nesting area extended from central Illinois to northwestern Iowa and Minnesota, to northeas tern North Dakota to southwestern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewa n, and east central Albe rta (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Wintering grounds were tall grass prairies in southwestern Louisiana, the Gulf coast and interior tablelands of Texas, and the Rio Grande Delta and central high plateaus of Mexico (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Two distinct migrati on routes began in thes e wintering grounds, one from Louisiana to Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, No rth Dakota, and Manitoba, and the other from

Texas and the Rio Grande Delta to North Dakot a, the Northwest Territories, and Canadian Provinces (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Additionall y, cranes nested in the Hudson Bay area of Canada, migrated across the Appalachians, and wintered on the Atlantic Coast of the United States in Cape May and Great Egg Bay in New Jersey, the Waccamaw River in South Carolina,

the Savannah and Altamaha river deltas and St. Simon’s Island in Georgia, and St. Augustine Florida, as well as in Mobile Bay, Alabama and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi (CWS and USFWS, 2007). There are records of crane sightings from inland areas of south eastern states including Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Kentucky, alt hough it is not clear whether these birds were wintering, non-migratory remnants, or wandering (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

Current Distribution By the 1890’s the crane was extirpated from its historic breeding range in the north central United States and by 1944 a total of only 21 cran es were left between two populations, three birds in the non-migratory southwestern Loui siana population and 18 birds in the migratory Aransas Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) (C WS and USFWS, 2007). Currently, three populations of whooping cranes ex ist in the wild, and include th e AWBP, the only self sustaining wild population, the introduced Fl orida Population (FP), and the introduced Eastern Migratory Population (EMP) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Th e Florida Population (FP) is designated experimental non-essential by the USFWS (58 FR 5647-5658) (USFWS, 1993 and CWS and USFWS, 2007). The EMP is also designated ex perimental non-essentia l by the USFWS (66 FR 33903-33917) (USFWS, 2001 and WDNR, 2006). A dditionally, as of 2006, there were 135 cranes in captive populations in nine locations in the United States and Canada (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The AWBP nests in the Wood Buffalo Nationa l Park (WBNP) located in the Northwest Territories of Canada and in Alberta, Ca nada (CWS and USFWS, 2007). This population migrates south to a stop over location in Saskat chewan, before heading south through eastern Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska , Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to the winter grounds of Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on the Gulf Coast of Texas (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The ANWR is a marshy estuarine area 48-56 km long with bays and tidal flats extending from San Jose Island and Lamar Penins ula to the south up to Welder Point and Matagorda Island to the north (CWS and USFW S, 2007). As of February 2006, there were 215 individuals in this population (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In Oc tober 2009 there were 247 birds in the AWBP (USFWS, 2009).

The FP is non-migratory and located on the Kiss immee Prairie, an area of predominantly freshwater marsh and open grassland, located south of Orlando in Osceola and Polk counties (CWS and USFWS, 2007). As of February 2006, th ere were 59 captive raised individuals in this

128population (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In Oct ober 2009, the population had declined to 29 individual birds (USFWS, 2009).

The EMP was reintroduced to the Necedah Nationa l Wildlife Refuge (NWR ) in Wisconsin with captive birds trained by ultra-li ght aircraft to migrate to Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge on the Gulf Coast of Florida (CWS a nd USFWS, 2007). As of February 2006, there were 64 captive raised individua ls in this population (CWS an d USFWS, 2007). In October 2009, there were 106 birds in this population (USFWS, 2009).

An experimental non-essential migratory popu lation of Rocky Mountain Whooping cranes was introduced by placing whooping crane eggs into sandhi ll crane nests in a cross fostering program (62 FR 38932-38939) (USFWS, 1997). The cranes used summer grounds in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah, with a stop-over at Monte Vista N W R in Colorado, and wintering grounds in New Mexico (CWS and USFWS, 2007). No Ro cky Mountain whooping cranes survived from the introduction attempts and the last one disa ppeared in 2002 (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

In addition, as of February 2006 th ere were 135 whooping cranes in captivity in nine locations in North America, including the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, Maryland,

the International Crane Founda tion (ICF) in Baraboo, Wisconsin, the Audubon Species Survival Center (SSC), in Belle Chase, Louisiana, the Devonian Wildlife Cons ervation Center and the Calgary Zoo, in Alberta, Canada, the San Ant onio Zoo (SAZ) in San Antonio, Texas, the New Orleans Zoo in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Lowry Park Zoo in Tampa, Florida, and the Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Refuge, in Homosassa, Florida (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

21.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT

As summarized in the 2007 Inte rnational Recovery Plan for th e Whooping Crane, critical habitat is defined by the U.S. Endangered Species Act as “habitat that cont ains those physical or biological features, esse ntial to the conservation of the species, which may require special management considerations or protection (C WS and USFWS, 2007).” Critical habitat was designated in 1978 (43 FR 20938), orig inally in nine areas in se ven states which had included Monte Vista NWR and Alamosa NWR in Colorado, Grays Lake NWR and vicinity in Idaho, and Bosque del Apache NWR in New Mexico (USFW S, 1978). These four critical habitat designations were removed with the failure of the Rocky Mountain popula tion reintroduction (62 FR 38932) (USFWS, 1997). Critical ha bitat is currently in effect in five areas in four states in the U.S. and include the crane’s only winteri ng grounds at ANWR in Te xas, migration stopovers at Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Manageme nt Area and Quivira NWR in Kansas, Platte River Bottoms between Lexington and Denman, Nebraska, and Salt Plains NWR in Oklahoma (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Additional habita t was proposed in 1979 (44 FR 12382) but was withdrawn (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The USFWS considers five requirements for su rvival and recovery of the species when designating critical habitat. These requirements generally incl ude space for individual and population growth, nutritional and ph ysiological requirements, shelte r, sites for reproduction, and habitats protected from disturbance or repres entative of the species ’ geographic distribution (USFWS, 1978). Whooping cranes are territorial; pair s require hundreds of acres of undisturbed wetland habitat and unmated birds require undefe nded territory in ANWR (USFWS, 1978). The

129refuges in Idaho, Colorado, and New Mexico were or iginally designated as part of the critical habitat to add space for a growing new flock (USFWS, 1978). However, these refuges were later removed from the critical habitat designation due to the failure of w hooping crane reintroduction in these areas (USFWS, 1997). All of the desi gnated critical habitat areas provide for the nutritional and physiological needs of the cranes (USFWS, 1978). This in cludes the tidal flats and marshes of Aransas that provide crustaceans and mollusks, the spring migration marshes that provide frogs, fish, crayfish, and other small animals, and the fall migration stopover locations where cranes feed primarily on waste grains and insects (USFWS, 1978). Whooping cranes require open spaces, primarily sand and gravel bars in rivers and lakes, for nightly roosting (USFWS, 1978). These features appear to be one of the major factors in the selection of habitat by cranes (USFWS, 1978). With regard to breeding, the Grays Lake NWR in Idaho was previously designated as critical habitat in or der to provide additional nesting habitat (USFWS, 1978). However, all of the designated critical habitat provides areas e ssential to rearing young (USFWS, 1978). Cranes also require undisturbed wetland roosti ng sites and do not tolerate

disturbance to themselves or their habitat (USFWS, 1978).

Critical habitat in Canada will be designated upon publication of a final Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Recovery Strategy or Acti on Plan on the SARA Pub lic Registry, and may

include the marshes of the WBNP breeding grounds located in the northeast corner of the park and adjacent marshes, as well as potential rein troduction marsh areas in other locations (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The breeding habitat in th e WBNP is already protected by the Canada National Parks Act and by designations as a We tland of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention and Important Bird Area by Birdlife International (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

21.5. HABITAT The whooping crane depends upon different habitats for nesting, migrating, and for wintering grounds. For the AWBP cranes, nesting habitat once included wetlands in prairies and aspen parkland, but currently the cranes nest primarily in the Wood Buffalo National Park located in the Northwest Territories and Alberta, Canada (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The cranes nest between the headwaters of four rivers, the Nyar ling, Sass, Klewi, and Little Buffalo, which is a poorly drained area of potholes interspersed with ridges covere d in lichen and sphagnum moss that supports trees and shrubs such as tamarack ( Larix laricina ), white spruce ( Picea alauca ), black spruce ( Picea mariana ), willow ( Salix spp.), dwarf birch ( Betula glandulosa ), Labrador tea ( Ledum groenlandicum ), and bearberry ( Arctosta phylos uva-ursi ) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Nest sites are predominantly located in shallow ponds as well as potholes, which vary in size and depth and are filled with emergent vegetation dominated by bulrush ( Scirpus validus ) (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

While AWBP cranes migrate, they stop frequently in wetland mosaic areas (except in Nebraska) to feed in croplands and emergent wetlands a nd to roost in seasonally and semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands that vary in aver age size from less than 0.5 ha to 508 ha, and are within 1 km away from a f eeding site (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Families choose more vegetated wetlands where they also feed, but non-families choose less vegetated wetlands and feed in croplands (CWS and USFWS, 2007). These areas are found in Quivira NWR and Cheyenne Bottoms State Wildlife Refuge in Kansas, Salt Plains NWR in Oklahoma, Last Mountain Lake NWA in Saskatchewan, and the e dges of reservoirs in the Dakotas (CWS and

130USFWS, 2007). Riverine areas used in Nebraska include the Platte, North and Middle Loup, and Niobrara Rivers, in addition to the South Sask atchewan River in Saskatchewan, the Missouri

River and North Dakota and the Red River in Te xas, which all provide wide channels with submerged sandbars (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The salt flats of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge on the Gulf Coast of Texas provide the majority of AWBP wintering habitat (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The marshes and inland grasslands are used by the cranes (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Dominant marsh species include salt grass ( Distichlis spicata ), saltwort ( Batis maritima ), smooth cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ), and sea ox-eye ( Borrichia frutescens ), while the grasslands are intermixed with swales, ponds, and Oak Savanna that include live oak ( Quercus virginiana ), redbay ( Persea

borbonia ), and bluestem ( Andropogon spp) (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The EMP has been observed to nest in diverse wetland habitats in Wisconsin, Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan (CWS and USFWS, 2007) . In Wisconsin, cranes are found mainly in the lower two-thir ds of the state, and suitable habitat has been observed to include any wetland with minimal di sturbance, even small isolated ones, as well as lacustrine marshes, riverine wetlands, sloughs, and oxbow lakes (CWS and USFWS, 2007). At the Necedah NWR, the cranes use shallow waters and emergent wetlands on the borders of impoundments as well as palustri ne and upland scrub-sh rub areas associated with the marshes; some cranes also use the sedge meadows (W DNR, 2006). In late spring and early summer following prescribed burns that expose invertebrates the cranes will use oak savannahs, and in midsummer they forage in upland scrub areas for blueberries and sars aparilla (WDNR, 2006). Cranes have also been introduced into nesting habitat in other parks and refuges in Wisconsin (WDNR, 2006).

The EMP cranes stop opportunistically at wetl ands at the end of the day during migration, including natural or managed palustrine, lacust rine, and riverine wetlands including river sandbars, as well as man-made features such as farm ponds, reservoirs, reclaimed surface mines, catfish farms, and flooded agricultural fields (WDNR, 2006). If whooping cr anes associate with sandhill cranes, they stop at Jasper-Pulaski State Fish and Wildlife Area in Indiana and at Hiwassee State Wildlife Refuge in Tennessee (WDNR, 2006). The cranes feed in nearby harvested grain fields (WDNR, 2006).

The EMP was trained to winter in the salt marshes of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge on the Gulf Coast of Florida (CWS and US FWS, 2007). However, tidal and other habitat conditions have prevented territory establishment by returning bird s, and the cranes have moved inland to use freshwater habitat, while some have been observed to winter over in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee (WDNR, 2006). The cranes choose smaller highland or flatwood marshes adjacent to cattle pastures where they forage (WDNR, 2006). The most important aspect of wetland choice is shallow wa ter for roosting, whether it’s a flag marsh, saw grass marsh, cattail marsh, or wet prairie (WDNR, 2006).

The non-migratory FP cranes on the Kissimm ee Prairie live in saw palmetto ( Serenoa repens ) grassland which is interspersed with shallow wetlands and lakes (Lewis, 1995). Much of the prairie is improved livestock pasture used by the cranes fo r foraging (CWS, USFWS, 2007).

131They also forage in harvested corn and peanut fields (WDNR, 2006). The Florida cranes are upland grassland and wetland dwel lers, feeding in uplands at the margins of open grasslands with low growth vegetation on mast crops such as dewberries ( Rhus spp.) and acorns ( Quercus spp.) (WDNR, 2006). The cranes roost in em ergent palustrine we tlands dominated with pickerelweed ( Pontederia cordata ) and maidencane ( Panicum hemitomon ) with firm, shallow bottoms and surrounded by denser vegetation (W DNR, 2006). The marshes are also used to forage with the young chicks in the mix of open shallow water and vegetation that allows for movement and feeding (WDNR, 2006).

21.6. DIET Whooping cranes are omnivorous and forage mainly in brackish bays, marshes, and salt flats for larval and nymphal insects, frogs, rodents, berrie s, small birds and minnows in summer and blue crabs ( Callinectes sapidus ), numerous species of clams, and wolfberry ( Lycium carolinianum ) in the winter (CWS and USFWS, 2007). When water le vels are low in late wi nter due to the tides or drought, the cranes move from feeding on blue crabs and wolfberry in the flooded tidal flats to the shallow bays to feed on clams (CWS a nd USFWS, 2007). During migration, cranes eat mainly waste agricultural grains like barely, but also frogs, fish, insects, tubers, and crayfish (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Cranes will forage on occasion in uplands for fresh water, acorns, snails, crayfish, and insects, particularly wh en they are flooded, open due to burning, or when

there is less food available in the salt fl ats and marshes (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

Chicks beg for food and are initially fed earthwo rms and insects by their parents (Lewis, 1995). As the chick grows, the size and vari ety of food increases (Lewis, 1995).

21.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION Whooping cranes nest at the average age of 5 year s, although 3 year olds have been observed to nest (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The cranes are m onogamous and form pairs in sub-adult flocks on wintering grounds, during spri ng migration, or at the breed ing grounds in a bonding process that can be lengthy or occur quickly (CWS a nd USFWS, 2007). The cranes have courtship rituals that include calling, fl apping wings, head bowing, and leap ing in the air (USFWS, 1983).

The crane is a territorial nester and returns to the same area each year, which in WBNP averages

4.1 km 2 (2.5 mi 2 ) in size (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Most clutches contain 2 eggs laid from April to mid-May at breeding grounds locate d in WBNP or in Wisconsin, Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, Illinois, a nd Michigan (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Incubation lasts for a month and begins when the first egg is laid, and the second egg, laid 48-60 hours later, only hatches if the first egg does not hatch or the new hatchling dies (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The parents and young return to the nest at night for 3 to 4 days afte r hatching, and venture out to within an average of 1.8 km away from the nest site for the first twenty days (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Juveniles and sub-adults st ay in the general area of the ne st site at the breeding grounds

for the remainder of the summer e ither alone, in pairs, or in small groups (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Pairs with young are among the last to leave at the end of the summer for the autumn migration to the crane’s winteri ng grounds (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The molt takes place after the offspring fledge, and before fall migration in the summer months for 2 to 3 year old birds, during which time they loose their primary and secondary feathers and are unable to fly for four to six weeks (WDNR, 2006). The cranes become reclusive during this

132time and stay in marshes and lake edges (WDNR, 2006). A molt of contour plumage occurs every summer and early fall fo r all cranes (WDNR, 2006).

AWBP cranes migrate in the fall during a peri od beginning in mid-September and ending by mid

November to winter at the Aransas Nationa l Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The EMP cranes migrate from late October to early December (WDNR, 2006). Migration is not an innate beha vior, but learned from following parents and other birds (Lewis, 1995). Prior to the migration, the restless cranes r un, leap into the air, bow their heads, fly, and call in unison (CWS and USFWS, 20 07). Cranes migrate alone, in pairs, or small groups during the day and stop over to feed a nd rest (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

The AWBP cranes stop in northwest Saskatchewan or northeast Alberta, Canada, where they stay for two to four weeks to forage on waste grain in agricultural fields and roost in wetlands before completing the rest of the trip in a week, depending upon weather (CWS and USFWS, 2007). At ANWR, cranes occupy territories comp rised of pairs and family groups (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In spring, the migration begins between March 25 and April 15 takes and less time than the fall migration (between two to four weeks) and there is no known stop over location (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The EMP cran es leave their wintering grounds between the end of February and mid-April (WDNR, 2006). Young from the previous year are separated from their parents during the migration or s oon after reaching the breeding grounds (CWS and USFWS, 2007).

21.8. REFERENCES Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping cran e. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) and USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 162 pp. Available online from

USFWS at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070604_v4.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

David H. Ellis, George F. Gee, and Claire M. Mirande, editors. 1996. Cranes: Their Biology, Husbandry and Conservation. U.S. De partment of the Interior , National Biological Service, Washington, DC and the International Crane Foundat ion, Baraboo, Wisconsin. 308 pp. Available online from the Unit ed States Geological Survey at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/resshow/gee/cranbook/cranebook.htm . Accessed on June 21,

2010.

Lewis, J.C. 1995. Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ). In The Birds of North America, No.135 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Native Fish and Wildlife; Endangered Species (Notice). Fede ral Register 32 (48) 4001. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr18.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Whooping Crane (Fin al Rule). Federal Register 43 (94) 20938-20942. Availabl e from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr214.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

133U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experime ntal Population of Whooping Cranes in Florida (Final Rule). Federal Register 58 (13) . 5647-5658. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr2213.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Designate the Whooping Cran es of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental

Nonessential and to Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habita t Designations from Four Locations (Final Rule). Fe deral Register 62 (139).38932-38939. Available from USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_regist er/fr3106.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experi mental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States (Final Rule). Fede ral Register 66 (123) .33903-33917. Available from

USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ federal_register/fr3773.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Intern ational Whooping Crane Recovery Activities, October 2008-October 2009. 27 pp. Available online from the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership at http://www.br ingbackthecranes.org/ recovery/pdf/recv09.pdf l

. Accessed on June 21, 2010.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status Revi ews of 14 Southwestern Species (Notice). Federal Register 75(59)15454-15456. Available online from GPO at: http://frwebgate.ac cess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname =2010_register&docid=fr29mr10-87

. Accessed on June 21, 2010.

White, J.L. 2001. Status of the Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Manage ment Division, and Al berta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 34, Ed monton, AB. 21 pp. Available online from the Government of Alberta, Sustai nable Resource Development at: http://srd.alberta.ca/BioDiver sityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/ DetailedStatus/documents/whooper .pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2010.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006. Wisconsin Whooping Crane Management Plan. 91 pp. Available online from WDNR at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/bi rds/wcrane/pdfs/WC_Mgmt_Plan.pdf . Accessed on June 21,

2010.

134