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 

2
5.3. 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

3
10.1. 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 

4
14.8. 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 

5
19.5. 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 

6
1. 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 (USFWS) on July 13, 1989 (USFWS, 1989). A recovery plan was 

approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 27, 1991. A five-year review was 

released on June 16, 2008. To date, the USFWS has 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 Coleoptera, 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 mating and egg laying (USFWS, 1991). 

Beetles of this group have hardened forewings that meet in a straight line on the back, and 

orange-tipped antennae that abruptly terminate in a club-like manner (USFWS, 1991). American 

burying beetles are active at night, and typically only when temperatures exceed 15oC (60 oF) 

(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 and 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 parental 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 southwestern 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 had been extirpated (USFWS, 1991). 

Current range 

The American burying beetle is known to occur in the following states: Arkansas, Kansas, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, 

7
and 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 following 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 following 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, Craig, 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, Wagoner, and Washington (USFWS, 2010). 

• In South Dakota, N. americanus is known to occur in the following counties: Bennett, 

Brookings, Gregory, Haakon, Todd, Tripp, 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 establish 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 inhabiting riparian deciduous forests, 

grasslands, pastures, and maritime scrub thickets (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-drained, and having a substantive detritus layer 

(USFWS, 1991). Theoretically, any mesic region with a top-soil or humus layer of sufficient 

depth for carcass burial is a potential habitat of the American burying beetle (USFWS, 1990). 

It is plausible that the American burying beetle is drawn to a habitat based 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 species and the occurrence of the American burying 

beetle, irrespective of vegetative cover characterization (USFWS, 2008). 

8
1.6. DIET 

American burying beetle adults are known to feed on a broad range of available carrion, and 

possibly prey on live insects (USFWS, 1991). As it relates 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 (USFWS, 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 attract numerous other predatory mammals, the 

American burying beetle commonly faces interspecific resource competition from raccoons, 

opossum, mustelids, and canids (USFWS, 1991). One popular hypothesis as to why N. 

americanus populations have persisted on islands contends that reduced competition for carrion 

resources (as presented by other predators) 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 considered active from April 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 population, 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 vertebrate 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 individuals (USFWS, 1991). Following hatching, the 

first instar larvae are moved to the carcass by the 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). Depending on the latitude of the site, the recently 

emerged American burying beetle adult may become reproductively active, although the species 

is generally considered univoltine (having one generation per 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 spring (USFWS, 1991). Overwintering may result in mortality for 

25-70 percent of the population (USFWS, 2008). Even 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/docs/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. 

9
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 (USFWS). 2008. American burying beetle 5-Year 

Review. 53 pages 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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). 

10
2. 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 (USFWS) (USFWS, 1987). The recovery plan for the 

black-capped vireo was approved and published 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) insectivorous bird (USFWS, 1987). It is one of the 

smallest of the vireos and weighs 9 to 10 grams (USFWS, 1991). It was discovered when two 

specimens were collected along the Rio San Pedro (now called Devil’s River) 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 faintly yellowish green flanks” (USFWS, 1987). 

“The crown and upper half of the head is black with a partial white eye-ring and lores; this 

pattern is unique in the family Vireonidae” (USFWS, 1987). “The iris is brownish red, the bill 

black” (USFWS, 1987). The black-capped vireo is “[u]nique among vireos in being sexually 

dichromatic” (USFWS, 1991). “Adult females are duller colored, with the 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 occasionally 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 north to southern Sonora, and east to Oaxaca” 

(USFWS, 1991). “Reports where vireos were considered to have occurred ‘accidentally’ exist 

for eastern Nebraska, northeastern Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Nuevo Leon (Mexico)” 

(USFWS, 1991). 

Current range 

No recent breeding records exist for Kansas with the last sighting occurring in the 1950’s 

(USFWS, 1991). As for Oklahoma, black-capped vireos 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 Mountains Wildlife Refuge and adjacent Fort Sill Military Reservation 

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

11
Black-capped vireo populations are still present in a number of areas across Texas (USFWS, 

1991). Populations are concentrated on the Lampasas Cut Plains and Edwards Plateau (USFWS, 

1991). “The eastern and southern 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 Uplift and deterioration of these populations may be extensive, 

particularly from north-central Texas south broadly to the San 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 areas with multiple-year data” (USFWS, 1991). 

2.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

No critical habitat designation has been made for the black-capped vireo (USFWS, 1987, 1991, 

and 2007). 

2.5. HABITAT 

Black-capped vireo breeding habitat 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 occurs most frequently on rocky substrates with 

shallow soils, in rocky gullies, on edges of ravines, 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 through 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 importance is within-territory 

heterogeneity in vegetation structure (USFWS, 1991). Additionally, total woody cover of 35% 

to 55% in height zones relevant to the black-capped vireo is an indicator of appropriate habitat 

(USFWS, 1991). 

2.6. DIET 

The black-capped vireo is insectivorous, with beetles and caterpillars making up a large part of 

their diet. They will also forage for spiders and some fruits (NatureServe, 2010). 

2.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

Black-capped vireos arrive from their wintering grounds in Mexico to Texas 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 August to September for Oklahoma populations and 

mid-September for Texas populations (USFWS, 1991). Black-capped vireo breeding pairs will 

occupy a territory ranging in size from one to 10 acres with an average size of two to four acres 

(USFWS, 1991). These territories are often clustered in groups averaging in size from 10 to 15 

territories per cluster depending on the amount of habitat available (USFWS, 1991). Larger 

groupings of territories have a tendency to inspire more site fidelity as black-capped vireos from 

previous seasons return to the same breeding site (USFWS, 1991). “Adult males breeding in the 

larger groupings exhibit the greatest site fidelity, returning to virtually the same territory, and 

have never been detected moving to another location in subsequent 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 continues through August” (USFWS,1991). “Nests 

are placed in small forks of bushes. Different species are used in different areas, but the 

12
frequently used species are deciduous” (USFWS, 1991). Nests are built by the male and female 

(USFWS, 1991). Complete clutches have been found as early as April 4 and the latest known 

nesting start is July 21 (USFWS, 1991). A complete clutch consists of three to four white eggs 

and as many as six nesting attempts may be made 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 remate with another male” (USFWS, 1991). “Males 

will often keep the young within the confines of their territories, but females attending young 

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

2.8. REFERENCES 

NatureServe: NatureServe Explorer [web application]. 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 (USFWS). 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 (USFWS). 1991. Black-capped Vireo Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/910930h.pdf (Accessed on: September 3, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla) 

5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas. 

Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1073.pdf (Accessed on: 

September 3, 2010) 

13
3. 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 the 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 coloration 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, Canada and the Chihuahua province of northern 

Mexico (USFWS, 2008). Over this range, the BFF 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 million 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 the last ice age (USFWS, 2008). This remnant 

population of 186 individuals was discovered in 1981, eight years after the collapse of the last 

known wild BFF population (USFWS, 1988). Canine 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 captive breeding program (USFWS, 1988). 

Current range 

BFF distribution sharply declined because of BTPD habitat fragmentation (USFWS, 1988). At 

present, it appears that all wild BFF populations have been extirpated (USFWS, 2008). 

However, efforts to reintroduce BFFs (captive-bred from surviving members of the last known 

wild population in Meeteetse, Wyoming) to various locations within the historic range have been 

ongoing since 1991 (USFWS, 2008). 

14
The 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 sites of BFF reintroduction—through October 2008—are 

listed alphabetically 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 current BFF range by state and county. This 

information is presented in Table 2. Further, the Species Profile has listed the BFF as occurring 

statewide in Colorado, Montana, 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 

15
Nebraska 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 USFWS Field Office provided the Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs with a list of counties into 

which the BFF has specifically been introduced and 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 necessarily 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 * 

16
Montana 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-cleared 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-tailed prairie dogs and/or their habitat will 

no longer required to meet the USFWS survey guidelines for black-footed ferrets, or undergo 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act” (USFWS, 2009a). This information 

is presented in Table 4 below. 

Table 4. USFWS block-cleared areas, by county, for black-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 made for the black-footed ferret (USFWS, 2008). 

17
3.5. HABITAT 

The BFF is associated with short and midgrass 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 been known to take advantage of prairie dog burrows for shelter 

and travel, and “may modify prairie 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 designate BFF distinct population segments and target recovery based 

on host species of prairie dog (USFWS, 2008). 

Habitat models that consider relationships between the BFF and prairie dog have been mentioned 

in USFWS assessments and are considered helpful in identifying the parameters that would 

indicate a successful BFF recovery (USFWS, 1988). The development of these models has led 

to an understanding of the importance of prairie dog complex size in the successful recovery of 

the BFF; where “complex” is defined as “a group of prairie dog colonies distributed so that 

individual black-footed ferrets (and thus [BFF] 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 prairie dog habitat per individual BFF (USFWS, 1988). 

A linear relationship has been observed 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 prairie dog may comprise as much as 87 or 91 percent of the BFF’s diet 

(USFWS, 1988). Using data on captive-fed BFF consumption, specific metabolic demands, and 

projected activity, intake was estimated at 124 kcal of prairie dog per day (USFWS, 1988). The 

BFF has also been observed to consume prairie 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 BFFs with young likely consume many more 

calories, as lactating weasels are considered to require three times as much energy as nonlactating adult weasels (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 between 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 evidenced 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 their larger home ranges (USFWS, 1988). Natural 

predators of the BFF include great-horned owls, golden eagles, and coyotes (USFWS, 1988). 

Life expectancy for wild BFFs is generally considered to be less than five years (USFWS, 1988). 

18
3.8. REFERENCES 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Black-footed ferret Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Black-footed ferret 5-Year Status 

Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Field Office, Pierre, 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 (USFWS). 2009a. USFWS block-cleared areas for 

black-footed ferret surveys in Colorado. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/statewide_block_clearance_map_090809_final.pdf

(Accessed July 14, 2010) 

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

Larson of the USFWS South Dakota Field Office. 

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

ferret. Environmental Conservation Online System. 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004

(Accessed June 24, 2010). 

19
4. 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 Wildlife 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 the Cathartidae family, and is one of the largest 

flying birds in the world with an adult wingspan 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 and adults are black except for a naked head and neck with 

gray skin that grades into red, orange and yellow shades (USFWS, 1996). White feathers are 

present on the underwing linings and on the upper secondary coverts (USFWS, 1996). Juveniles 

up to three years old have mottled or dark wing linings 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 Zoological 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 extinctions, the California condor ranged over most 

of the southern United States from Nuevo Leon, Mexico to Florida, including 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 California Norte, Mexico (USFWS, 1996). Condors were 

observed in the Columbia River Gorge of the north Pacific Coast until the mid-1800’s, and were 

in northern Baja California until the early 1930’s (USFWS, 1996). The range between the 

late1930’s and the early1960’s included a wishbone shaped area around the southern San 

Joaquin Valley and included parts 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 shaped area that encompassed six counties north of Los Angeles 

were designated the range of primary concern by the California Condor Recovery Team 

(USFWS, 1996). 

20
Current 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 County, southern California (Los 

Angeles Times, 1987). Releases of captive California condors began in 1992 by the USFWS at 

sites north of Los Angeles in Southern California including Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis 

Obispo, and Monterey counties (Snyder and Scmitt, 2002). The California Condor Recovery 

website of the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) indicates that California condor 

release sites are currently 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 Cliffs in Coconino County (USFWS, 1996). This 

designated non-essential experimental reintroduction area in Arizona also includes southern Utah 

and part of Nevada to accommodate for future condor movement (61 FR 54043 54060) 

(USFWS, 1996). In central California, 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 reintroduced populations are not 

self-sustaining (Snyder and Scmitt, 2002 and American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), 2008). 

California condor release sites are currently managed by different entities (USFWS, 2009b). The 

Southern California sites are managed by the USFWS, the Big Sur, California site is managed by 

Ventana Wildlife Society, the Pinnacles National Monument, California site is managed by the 

National Park Service (NPS), the northern Arizona 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 Portland, the San Diego Wild Animal Park, the 

San Diego Zoo, the Santa Barbara Zoo, and the World Center for Bird of Prey in Boise, Idaho 

(USFWS, 2009b). 

According to the USFWS Species Profile, the California condor is currently known to exist in 

Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Monterey, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa 

Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura counties in California (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 condor is known to exist in Grand, 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 terrain of several areas: Sespe-Piru Condor Area that 

includes the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, Mantilija Condor 

Area in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, Sisquoc-San Rafael Condor Area in Santa Barbara 

County, the Hi Mountain-Beartrap Condor Area in San Luis Obispo County, Mount Pinos 

Condor Area in Ventura and Kern counties, the Blue-Ridge Condor Area in Tulare County, 

Tejon Ranch in Kern County, Kern County Rangelands between California State Highway 65 

and the western boundary of Sequoia National Forest, and Tulare County Rangelands between 

California State Highway 65, State Highway 198, and the western boundary of Sequoia National 

Forest (41 FR41914) (USFWS, 1976). 

21
Primary Constituent Elements (PCE’s) are not described. However, several factors were 

considered in designating critical habitat. The Sespe-Piru, Mantilija, 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 Blue-Ridge area were considered critical for 

roosting (USFWS, 1976). The Tejon Ranch, Kern County Rangelands, and Tulare County 

Rangelands were considered critical for feeding and other related 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 with limited disturbance that 

provide food are needed within the designated areas to maintain the species, since food 

availability is directly related to condor distribution and reproduction (USFWS, 1976). 

4.5. HABITAT 

The California condor is not a habitat specialist (Snyder and Schmitt, 2002). The condor 

inhabited a diversity of habitat types, with nesting habitat 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 grassland, but condors were also known historically to 

forage from beaches to high montane meadows (Synder and Scmitt, 2002). Condors forage on 

open terrain on foothill grasslands and oak savannah without steep terrain or brush, to enable 

location of food as well as space for take off 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 for several hours, reaching up to 15,000 feet in 

altitude and speeds of 55 mile per 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 roost 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 and sunning while perched (USFWS, 

2010). After feeding, condors bathe in rock pools, but if no water is available, they will clean 

their necks and heads on grass, tree branches, and rocks (USFWS, 2010a). 

4.6. DIET 

California condors forage exclusively on the carcasses of dead animals one to three days per 

week (USFWS, 1996). Condors eat up to 3 or 4 pounds of meat at a time (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 squirrels, 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). Cattle, and especially calves, made up 

22
over half of observations, likely due to their availability, but deer were noted to be preferred 

(USFWS, 1996). Further studies confirm the importance of these species, but also suggest the 

importance of smaller to medium sized mammals 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 hierarchy in the group (USFWS, 

2010a). 

4.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

Condors are long lived and have very low reproductive 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 late 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 (USFWS, 1996). Nests are located in rock formations 

such as crevices, overhanging ledges, potholes, and rarely in giant sequoia trees (USFWS, 1996). 

The factors affecting nest site choice are poorly understood, but all share certain characteristics 

in entrance and chamber size, substrate, and accessibility of landing points (USFWS, 1996). 

Both parents feed the chick daily for about two 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 fly 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 begins to fly, which may 

determine whether the parents reproduce again that 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 California condors is not known precisely, but it is 

thought that they don’t live to be much older than 40 years of age in the wild (USFWS, 2010a). 

California condors are non-migratory, 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 seasonal 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. Status of the California Condor and Efforts to 

Achieve its Recovery. AOU Committee on Conservation Report. Available online from AOU 

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

23
Arizona 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 the American Crocodile, California Condor, Indiana 

Bat, and Florida Manatee (Final Rule). Federal Register 41 (187) 41914-41916. Available from 

USFWS online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_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 Service, 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 Reviews of 58 Species in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah; 

Availability of Completed 5-Year Reviews in California and Nevada (Notice). Federal Register 

74 (56) 12878-12883. Available 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. Sacramento, California. 11 pp. Available online from 

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

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

Available online from the Ventana Wildlife Society at: 

http://mycondor.org/conservation-and-recovery-goals.html. Accessed on July 16, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Biology of the California Condor (Gymnogyps 

californianus) Fact Sheet. Hooper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Pacific 

Southwest Region. Available 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 

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

Accessed July 16, 2010. 

25
5. 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 listed as threatened on April 24, 2000 by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS, 2000). A recovery 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 variable, 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 triangular ears of the lynx 

(Nowak, 1999). The species is mainly nocturnal (Nowak, 1999). 

Individual lynx occupy territories between 4 and 70 square kilometers in area (males) or between 

4 and 25 square kilometers in area (females) (Nowak, 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 coyote (USFWS, 2000). Additionally, long-range 

exploratory movement is frequently recorded, and one individual 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 territory (USFWS, 2009). In the contiguous United 

States, this included the Cascades Range of Washington and Oregon; the Rocky Mountain Range 

in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northern Utah, and 

Colorado; the western Great Lakes Region; and the northeastern U.S. Appalachian corridor from 

New York to Maine (USFWS, 2000). At the time of species listing, 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 

26
F. canadensis is currently listed by the USFWS as occurring 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, New York, and Vermont (USFWS, 2010). Lynx distribution in the 

other 11 states— Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—includes 191 counties (USFWS, 2010). 

5.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

The USFWS published a critical habitat rule for the contiguous United States DPS of the Canada 

lynx on March 27, 2009 (USFWS, 2009). In this rule, boreal forest of multiple successional 

stages was identified as the sole primary constituent element (PCE) of lynx critical habitat 

(USFWS, 2009). Landscape level parameters were identified as subcategories, including: 

• The presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred 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 patches of boreal forest foraging sites used 

by the lynx within a home range (USFWS, 2009). 

Five discreet critical habitat units were designated based on the representation of the above 

factors (USFWS, 2009). 

• Unit 1 is located in northern Maine and encompasses 9,497 square miles of private, state, 

and federal land in portions of Aroostook, Franklin, Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Somerset 

counties (USFWS, 2009). 

• Unit 2 is located in northeastern Minnesota 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, Lincoln, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, and Teton 

counties in Montana, plus National Forest lands and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands in the Garnet Resource 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 Yellowstone National Park and surrounding areas 

in southwestern Montana and northwestern Wyoming (USFWS, 2009). Portions of 

Carbon, Gallatin, Park, Stillwater, 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 associated 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 conifer-hardwood landscape (USFWS, 2005). More 

specific lynx habitat associations vary from state to state. Montana lynx populations have been 

27
associated with older age-class multistory stands where the stem density is low (USFWS, 2009). 

In Maine, lynx are associated with 15 to 30 year-old regenerating stands of spruce and fir marked 

by high stem density (USFWS, 2009). In Minnesota, lynx are associated with upland stands of 

pine, spruce, and fir less than 50 years old (USFWS, 2009). In areas where the lynx occurs in 

the north Cascades (Washington) and northern Rockies, elevation is considered an important 

habitat parameter as most documentation comes from above 4,000 feet (USFWS, 2009). 

Throughout its range, lynx occupied habitat 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 contains the appropriate forest types, snow depths 

and high snowshoe hare densities.” 

Areas of downed timber serve as potential den sites 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, the lynx will opportunistically feed on small 

mammals and birds (USFWS, 2009). Other prey is considered to include 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 and 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 populations 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 may be eaten by kittens as early 

as the first month (Nowak, 1999). Sexual maturity is attained prior to two 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 Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population 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) 

28
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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/final%20draft%20Lynx%20Recovery%20Outline%209-

05.pdf

(Accessed July 19, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Revised designation of critical habitat 

for the contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx. Federal Register 74, 

No. 36, pp. 8615-8702. 

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NECrfp/0/2/0&WAISaction

=retrieve

(Accessed July 19, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Canada lynx. 

Environmental Conservation Online System. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/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 (USFWS, 2002). The genus name of “Lithobates” is now being 

used by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, as well as other authorities, for all 

leopard frog species (USFWS, 2010 a). Leopard frogs were previously in the genus “Rana”; 

however, this change is controversial and still under debate (USFWS, 2010 a). The recovery 

plan for the CLF was approved on June 4, 2007 (USFWS, 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). Adults 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 distinctive color pattern of small, raised, cream-colored spots or 

tubercles on the rear of its thighs which contrasts 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 folds) (USFWS, 2007 a and b). Its call, 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 distinctive salt and pepper 

pattern on the rear of its thighs, dorsolateral folds that are interrupted and inset towards the 

29
posterior (deflected medially), stocky body, relatively 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 groups: 1) “a southern group of populations (the 

majority of the species’ range) located in mountains and valleys south of the Gila River in 

southeastern Arizona, extreme southwestern New Mexico, and Mexico; and 2) northern montane 

populations in west-central New 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, Graham, Yavapai, Coconino, and Navajo counties); 

west-central and southwestern New Mexico (Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, Luna, Soccoro, and Sierra 

counties); and in Mexico, northeastern Sonora and the Sierra Madre Occidental of northwestern 

Chihuahua” (USFWS, 2002, 2007 a, and 2008). Distribution of the CLF in Mexico is poorly 

known (USFWS, 2008). “A total of 298 and 182 historical localities are known for the species 

in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. An additional 34 localities are known from Sonora 

and Chihuahua, Mexico” (USFWS, 2008) 

Current range 

The CLF “occurs in the mountains of central and east-central Arizona into west-central New 

Mexico, and also in the mountains and high valleys of southeastern Arizona, the bootheel of 

southwestern New Mexico, and south through western 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 south 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 (Pima County, Arizona, 2010). 

“The species’ current range is similar to its historical 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 estimated 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 localities in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively; 

which represents extirpation from 82-84 percent of historical U.S. localities. The status of the 34 

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

The USFWS lists Arizona and New Mexico as the only states where the CLF is known to occur 

in the U.S. (Table 1). 

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

State County

Arizona Apache 

30
Arizona 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 made 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 communities often surrounded by arid environments or 

wet meadows), springs, pools, livestock/cattle tanks (i.e., small earthen ponds or existing or 

future impoundments in an ephemeral drainage or upland site constructed 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 conditions in lowland cienegas and marshy streams, 

which are more productive and had a greater aerial 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, creating 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 this possibility; most cienegas have been reduced, 

dammed, or otherwise simplified, and fish, even native fish, tend to have been spread throughout 

the waters of cienegas” (USFWS, 2007 a). CLFs “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 the mountains. The optimal setting appears to 

include a stream or tinaja-studded canyon within dispersal distance of suitable pond habitats. 

The ponds provide reproductive habitat, whereas natural waters provide either drought refugia, 

habitat complexity as a buffer against unpredictability, additional reproductive output, or a 

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

Historically, prior to introduction of non-native predators, adult CLFs were aquatic habitat 

generalists that were found in a variety of natural and man-made aquatic habitat types, but now 

are limited primarily to the comparatively few aquatic systems that support few or no non-native 

31
predators (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 springs. Artificial systems in which they have been recorded 

included earthen cattle tanks, livestock drinkers, irrigation sloughs or acequias, wells, abandoned 

swimming pools, ornamental back yard ponds, and mine adits at elevations of 3,281 to 8,890 

feet” (USFWS, 2007 a). It seems that CLFs are now limited to livestock tanks and other manmade waters, as well as headwater streams, cienegas, and springs in the upper portions of 

watersheds where non-native predators 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 prevalent in perennial waters, that their occupied 

niche is increasingly restricted to environments that tend to be ephemeral and unpredictable” 

(USFWS, 2007 a). 

CLFs are highly aquatic frogs and have been described 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 requires “water characterized by low levels of 

contaminants and moderate pH, and may be excluded 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, “during 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 local 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 range of metamorphs” as “these aquatic corridors 

may be critical in the conservation” of CLFs (USFWS, 2007 a). “Tadpoles may be washed into 

new habitats by higher streamflows after rains” (USFWS, 2010 b). Even though CLFs “are 

found in intermittent bodies of water, mechanisms 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 not 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 terrestrial environment is unknown, 

but is likely to be important: shallow water with emergent and perimeter vegetation provide egg 

deposition, tadpole and adult thermoregulation or basking sites, and foraging sites, while deeper 

water, root masses, and undercut banks provide refuge from predators and potential hibernacula” 

(USFWS, 2007 a). “Shoreside vegetation and rooted aquatic vegetation that provide cover are 

important for the conservation and maintenance of” CLF populations (USFWS, 2007 a). 

“Vegetation cover sufficient to provide refuge from predators and desiccation must be present 

32
for long-term survival” (USFWS, 2007 a). Sites that lack some vegetation cover tend to have a 

relatively “depauperate invertebrate fauna and thus less potential prey for leopard frogs” 

(USFWS, 2007 a). “Aquatic sites should have substrate (some mud and not just bare rocks as in 

some tinaja pools) that will allow for the growth of algae and diatoms to serve as food for 

developing tadpoles and to allow for overwintering hibernation sites” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Those 

populations that occur in aquatic habitats that are only seasonally inundated and have only 

muddy banks with no vegetative cover generally consist 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 rooted aquatic vegetation, deep muddy 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 masses, 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 and 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 feet2

: wet season, mean = 4,044 feet2) tended to be larger than 

those of females (dry season mean = 614 feet2

: wet season, mean = 992 feet2)” (USFWS, 2007 

a). CLFs “likely overwinter at or near breeding sites, although microsites for these “hibernacula” 

have not been studied” (USFWS, 2007 a). “Other leopard frogs typically overwinter at the 

bottom of well-oxygenated ponds or lakes, and may bury themselves in the mud” (USFWS, 2007 

a). 

Juvenile CLF habitat requirements are not well 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 associated with large pools” (USFWS, 2007 a). 

Furthermore, juveniles tend to be more active during 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 include 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, “consuming a wide variety of flying and terrestrial 

insects and other arthropods” (USFWS, 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 and terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., snails, spiders, and insects) 

and vertebrates (e.g., fish, other anurans (frogs and toads) (including conspecifics), and small 

birds)” (USFWS, 2007 a). The CLF may also eat fresh-water shrimp (Pima County, Arizona, 

2010). 

33
6.7. 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 oviposition 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 June), 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, including spring-fed sites 

(USFWS, 2007 a). “Frogs at some of these 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 laid in quiet pools, and are typically found 

suspended within two inches of the surface attached to rooted 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 occasionally deposited on submerged or partially 

submerged debris including Russian thistle (Salsola sp.) and other wind blown debris” (USFWS, 

2007 a). “Nothing is known about the survivorship of eggs attached to rooted 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). Hatching 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 depending 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-metamorphic CLFs are “generally inactive from 

November through February; however, this is regulated by temperature and warmer sites may 

have more winter activity” (USFWS, 2007 a and 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. Petition to List the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana 

Chiricahuensis) as an Endangered Species. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. 

Endangered Species Series No. 39. Available online at: 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/amphibians/Chiricahua_leopard_frog/pdfs/petition1998.pdf (Accessed on August 9, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 (USFWS). 2006. Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Federal Register 71, No. 70, pp. 18767. 

Available online at: 

34
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/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 (USFWS). 2007 b. Questions and Answers: Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog Recovery Plan. Arizona Ecological Services. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/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. General 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 Services. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/CLF_Biology.htm (Accessed on August 23, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010 b. Species Profile for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/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) 

35
7. 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). The Eskimo curlew was also listed 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 shorebird, about 30 cm long, 

with a bill about 5 cm long that 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 tail (Environment Canada, 2007). The primary 

feathers are uniformly dark in color, with greenish colored legs, and a dark unstriped crown 

(USFWS, 1980). There is no eye stripe (Environment Canada, 2007). The body and crown are 

solid brown, with a rusty-yellow underside and 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” color (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 breeding areas in the Northwest Territories, in the 

south of Bathurst Peninsula in the area of the Anderson River, and in the Amundsen 

Gulf/Coronation Gulf/Coppermine River area (Environment Canada, 2007). This area is also 

described as the Arctic tundra between the McKenzie and Coppermine Rivers in northwestern 

McKenzie, Northwest Territories, Canada (USFWS, 1980). The Eskimo curlew 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 (Environment 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 Canada as well as in New England in the United 

States (Environment Canada, 2010). From there the 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). 

36
Current Distribution 

While the Eskimo curlew was once a species population of hundreds of thousands of birds, since 

the 1870’s it has been very rare, and possibly extinct, 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 breeding ranges that were used historically 

(Environment Canada, 2007). Estimates from searches 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 area searches also found no Eskimo curlews in 

1992-1993 (Environment Canada, 2007). 

The online USFWS Species Profile indicates that the Eskimo curlew is known to occur statewide 

in Alaska, Kansas, Montana, and Nebraska (USFWS, 2010). The Eskimo curlew is also known 

to occur in Canadian, Osage, Woods, and Woodward 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 complex (“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 the 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 were found in such habitats as salt marsh, 

intertidal flats, sand dunes, meadows, pastures, and old fields in Massachusetts (Environment 

Canada, 2010). Ericaceous heath habitat was used in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, northern 

Ontario, southern Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador, and the Maritime Provinces (Environment 

Canada, 2007). Eskimo curlews wintered in South America in treeless pampas with permanent 

or ephemeral wetlands in Argentina and possibly in the wet meadows 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 cultivation (USFWS, 2007). 

Records from Nebraska and Illinois indicate that curlews stopped in burned prairies, wetlands, 

and plowed fields while migrating (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 Midwest (Gollop et. al., 2006). 

37
7.6. DIET 

Eskimo curlews ate berries including blueberries (Vaccinium sp.) and crowberries (Empetrium 

nigrum), Dipteran larvae and adult snails, coastal 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 littoral 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, particularly 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 (Environment 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 the 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). Eggs hatched from early to mid July and only 

one brood was raised in a season (Environment Canada, 2010). Species related to the Eskimo 

curlew are monogamous and share incubation responsibilities (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 following 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 possible 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 primarily 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). Additionally, there was another migration route 

used by fewer birds traveling down the western side 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 wintering grounds is unknown (USFWS, 1980). The return 

migration in the spring began in April or May and traveled along the Pacific coast of South 

America, progressed to Central America, over the Gulf of Mexico, and into the Midwest of the 

United States and then Canada (Environment Canada, 2010). Other sources report the spring 

migration beginning in late February, arriving in Texas and Louisiana 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). 

38
Special roosting requirements are 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/files/plans/rs_eskimo_curlew_final_0507_e.pdf. 

Accessed on July 5, 2010. 

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

Available online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/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 History 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 Service (USFWS). 1967. List of Endangered 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 Laboratory, Washington, DC. 658 

p. Available online at: http://www.archive.org/details/selectedvertebra00usfi. Accessed on July 

5, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B01A. 

Accessed August 5, 2010. 

39
8. 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 issued 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 designated 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 through the eye to the side of the nape. Its crown, 

upperparts, throat, neck, upper breast, and streaking along the flanks are jet black. Wings are 

black with two distinct white bars, and the tail is blackish”(USFWS. 1990 b). “Winter plumage 

of adult males is similar to the breeding plumage except that the black feathers 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 and tail are grayish, and the cheeks are not as 

bright yellow as the males” (USFWS, 1990 b). “Juveniles are similar to adult females. Their 

backs are brownish olive. Wings are dark drab, wing-bars brownish, 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 warbler reflects historic distribution though habitat 

within the distribution is limited due to habitat destruction (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 following 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 Bastrop counties”(USFWS, 1992). “In the period 

of July-October, [the species migrates] southward 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 made for the golden-cheeked warbler (USFWS, 1987 

and 1990 b). 

40
8.5. HABITAT 

 “Golden-cheeked warbler habitat 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 deciduous species) apparently provide essential foraging substrate” 

(USFWS, 1990 b). “The breeding range of the golden-cheeked warbler coincides closely with 

the range of Juniperus ashei (Ashe juniper). The golden-cheeked warbler depends on Ashe 

juniper for nesting materials and substrate, and singing perches” (USFWS, 1990 b). “[It] is [a] 

mature forest dweller because of its dependence on several old-growth attributes of Ashe 

juniper-oak woodland including nearly closed canopy, canopy height, and shredding bark of old 

junipers” (USFWS, 1990 b). “The species has a narrow tolerance in habitat requirements. If 

habitat is destroyed, the birds that are dependent upon it are eliminated from the breeding 

population” (USFWS, 1990 b). Habitat quality may also depend on the proximity to “free 

water” and the presence of steep slopes or rugged terrain (USFWS, 1992). “Estimates of 

territory size range from 1.3-2.4 ha/territory [3.2-5.9 acres/territory]” (USFWS, 1992). 

8.6. DIET 

 “The golden-cheeked warbler feeds on whatever insects are available, including caterpillars, 

green lacewings, small green cicadas, katydids, walkingsticks, flies, adult moths and small 

butterflies. The birds also eat spiders” (USFWS, 1990 b). “[M]ost foraging time is spent on foot 

moving from branch to branch gleaning small insects from the foliage” (USFWS, 1992). 

8.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

 “[The golden-cheeked warbler] migrates to central 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 April 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 commonly located about 4.5 meters (15 feet) from the ground, although it 

varies from 1.5-10 meters (5-32 feet)” (USFWS, 1990 b). During the breeding season, “[u]sually 

three or four eggs, rarely five, are laid. The 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 been 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 destroyed 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 Golden-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) 

41
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990 b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the Golden-cheeked 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-cheeked 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 (USFWS). 1992. Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery 

Plan. USFWS Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920930f.pdf (Accessed on: September 5, 2010) 

42
9. GRAY WOLF 

9.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS 

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) in the lower 48 states, except for in Minnesota 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 separately in specific geographic areas (USFWS, 1978). The 

timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) had been listed previously by the USFWS as an endangered species on 

March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered 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 found 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 and 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 Texas 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 regarding the uncertainty of wolf 

taxonomy, the narrowly defined geographic areas of subspecies protection, and the possibility 

that unlisted subspecies may yet occur in the lower 48 states (USFWS, 1998 and 2005). This 

species-wide listing still “recognized valid biological subspecies for research 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 Arizona 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 recovery area was located in northwest Montana, 

where the wolves were classified as endangered (USFWS, 2002). By 2000, these efforts had met 

the recovery criteria, with regard to the number of breeding pairs, for delisting the Rocky 

Mountain wolf population in Montana, Idaho, and 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 challenged in court and overturned in 2005 (USFWS, 

2005). 

 A Western Great Lakes (WGL) distinct population segment (DPS) of gray wolves was 

established in 2007, in the area including 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 area including the eastern third of Oregon and 

43
Washington, a small area in north-central Utah, and in the states 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 Species 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 from the Endangered Species 

list in 2009 (74 FR 15069); however, it was then relisted as endangered 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 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 threatened, 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, and 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 (USFWS, 2010c). Also, 

the gray wolf is shown to be both endangered 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 writing of the Timber Wolf Recovery Plan in 1992 

(USFWS, 1992). Taxonomists have since 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 females 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 sex of the animal and 

the region where it is found (USFWS, 2009a). Male 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 color can vary from pure white to black, but is often gray 

(USFWS, 2006). Wolves have longer legs, bigger feet, a wider head and snout, 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 sight for detecting movement, and can hear other 

wolves from up to six miles away (USFWS, 1987). 

44
9.3. 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 were 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 southeastern 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 higher elevations (USFWS, 

2003). Instead, it is thought that the red wolf was historically found in the mid-Atlantic and 

southeastern states and possibly into the northeast, though the amount 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, coastal areas and other areas in 

California, all of Central America, and mountaintops and arid deserts in the western U.S. 

(USFWS, 2003). The USFWS considers the historical 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 from 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 threatened, 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 endangered population of gray wolves 

is known to occur statewide in Colorado, Utah, 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, Dickey, 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, Sargent, Sheridan, Sioux, Slope, Stark, Steele, 

Stutsman, Towner, Traill, Walsh, Ward, Wells, and Williams counties (USFWS, 2010c). 

In Michigan, the endangered population 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 Claire, Florence, Forest, Iron, Jackson, Juneau, Langlade, Lincoln, 

Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Monroe, Oconto, Oneida, Polk, Portage, Price, 

Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, Washburn, and Wood counties (USFWS, 2010c). 

The threatened population of gray wolves in Minnesota is known to occur in Aitkin, Becker, 

Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Isanti, Kanabec, 

45
Kittson, Koochiching, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Otter Tail, 

Pine, St. Louis, Mahnomen, Pennington, Roseau, and Wadena counties (USFWS, 2010c). 

The experimental non-essential population of gray wolves in Wyoming is known to occur in Big 

Horn, Fremont, Hot Springs, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton counties (USFWS, 2010c). The 

experimental non-essential population in the southwest is known to occur statewide in New 

Mexico, statewide in Texas, and in Apache, Gila, 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, indicates 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 the western third of the state (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 wolves in the NRM DPS, WGL DPS and the 

Southwest Recovery Area (USFWS, 2009). 

9.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

Critical habitat was designated in Michigan and 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 designated as critical habitat (USFWS, 1978). In 

Minnesota, critical habitat was designated as “areas of land, water, and airspace” in Beltrami, 

Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Roseau, and St. Louis counties (USFWS, 

1978). The boundaries of this critical habitat are the same as those for Zones 1, 2, and 3, located 

46
in northern Minnesota, described in the same final rule (USFWS, 1978). Zone 1 is 4,488 mi2

 in 

size, Zone 2 is 1,856 mi2

 in size, and Zone 3 is 3,501 mi2 in size (Figure 2) (USFWS, 1978). 

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) are not described. However, key habitat components are 

described in the Recovery Plan and described below in the Habitat section. 

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

9.5. HABITAT 

Wolves have historically used a variety of habitats, and primarily require an abundance of prey, 

and in recent times, a lack of human disturbance (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 territories 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. 

47
Denning 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 (USFWS, 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 human disturbance (USFWS, 1987). 

Wolves move to a rendezvous site, a gathering and resting area, when the pups are eight to ten 

weeks old in late May to early July, within one to six miles from the den site (USFWS, 1987). A 

series of rendezvous sites, one to four miles away 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 meadows with adjacent forested hills with water 

nearby have been observed as rendezvous sites (USFWS, 1987). Bogs, abandoned beaver ponds, 

and streams serve as water sources (USFWS, 1987). Sites vary from 0.5 acre to a 0.6 mile long 

drainage, but most are approximately 1.0 acre in size (USFWS, 1987). 

Cover is needed in the sense that wolves require areas free of human disturbance and concealing 

vegetation at certain times of the year (USFWS, 1987). Den and rendezvous sites are near 

forested cover and far from human activity (USFWS, 1987). Cover needs are also indirectly 

related to the cover requirements of the main prey 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 species, 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 efficient hunters of larger prey, even though it 

is more difficult to kill and less abundant (USFWS, 1987). In addition, the most vulnerable in 

terms of age, sex, and condition with regard to disease, nutrition 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 (USFWS, 2006). Domestic 

animals can also be preyed upon by wolves (USFWS, 2006). Horses, cattle, sheep, goats, 

llamas, and pigs, geese and other fowl, dogs and cats, and captive white tailed deer have been 

documented as kills in the WGL DPS in the last 25 years (USFWS, 2006). Wolves depend more 

upon large ungulates in the winter, and add in smaller 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 still 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). 

48
Wolves have been estimated to consume between 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 large 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 and 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 years previous, and an unrelated wolf on occasion 

(USFWS, 2006). There may be a positive relationship 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 period (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, respectively (USFWS, 2006). In general, territory sizes 

range from 20 mi2

 to 214 mi2 (50 km2 to 550 km2) (USFWS, 2006). Territories in the NRM DPS 

range from 200 mi2

 to 500 mi2 (518 km2 to 1,295 km2) (USFWS, 2009a). The midwestern 

wolves typically have smaller territories, with an average in Minnesota of 102 km2 from 2003-

2004, an average in the Upper Peninsula of 267 km2

 from 2000-2001, and an average in 

Wisconsin of 37 km2 from 2004-2005 (USFWS, 2006). Once territories are occupied by wolves, 

the population grows and is regulated by mortality 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 (UFWS, 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 from late March to late April, and sometimes 

in early May (USFWS, 1987). Typically, four out 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 solitary animals or start their own pack with a 

wolf of the opposite sex in an unoccupied territory (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 that is “adaptable and resilient” (USFWS, 2009a). If the breeding 

pair dies the pups can be raised by other pack members, and the breeding pair is replaced from 

49
within or from outside of the pack (USFWS, 2009a). Population increases of almost 100% per 

year have been observed in suitable habitat with low wolf densities, and in two years, packs can 

more than double in size if mortality decreases (USFWS, 2009a). Wolves can live up to thirteen 

years, but the wolves of the NRM DPS average less than a four year lifespan (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/federal_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 Nonessential 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 Nonessential Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in 

Arizona and New Mexico (Final Rule). Federal 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, National Park Service, and USDA 

Wildlife Services. 2002. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2001 Annual Report. T. Meir, ed. 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Helena, Montana. 43 pp. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt01/2001report.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 Establish the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct 

Population Segment of Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and to remove the Gray Wolf in the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Distinct Population 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). 

50
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Designating the Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population 

Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf 

from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 71 

(58)15166-15305. Available from the Government Printing Office (GPO) online at: 

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=jQHBL3/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on: July 28, 

2010). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Designating the Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population 

Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct 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=jQHBL3/0/2/0&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.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2009_register&docid=fr02ap09-8 

(Accessed on: July 28, 2010). 

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

United States. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/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 Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf in 

the Northeastern United States as Endangered (Notice). Federal 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/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D (Accessed on: 

July 28, 2010). 

51
10. 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 plan 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, 1993). 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 Yellowstone 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 which 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 humped shoulders and concave facial disk are 

identifying features of this species (USFWS, 1993). It is the largest of extant carnivores, with 

populations exhibiting weight variability across geographic regions (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 and 1,500 mm (3.1-4.8 feet) (Nowak, 1999). 

Grizzlies are rarely seen together in the wild, although exceptions include mothers with cubs and 

pairing during the mating season (USFWS, 1993). However, 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 (Nowak, 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 (Nowak, 1999). Hibernation intervals may be reduced or 

non-existent in “certain southerly areas” (Nowak, 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, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas, in addition to a 

Great Plains population (USFWS, 1993). A grizzly bear skull found in Labrador, Canada offers 

evidence of a historical distribution extending east of Hudson Bay (Nowak, 1999). Estimates of 

52
grizzly bear numbers in the conterminous United States during the early nineteenth century 

exceed 50,000 individuals (USFWS, 1993). 

Current Distribution 

Of the contiguous 48 states, grizzly bears presently 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 (CYE), the Selkirks Ecosystem (SE), and the 

Northern Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (USFWS, 1993). In the GYE, encompassing Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton National Park and interconnected tracts of the Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, 

Targhee, and Gallatin, Beaverhead, and Custer National Forests, grizzlies inhabit more than 

9,500 square miles; in the NCDE, including Glacier National Park, sections of Flathead and 

Blackfeet Indian Reservations, and areas within 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 and 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 northeastern Idaho and Montana, and 

the North Cascades Ecosystem of northern Washington have been designated as grizzly habitat 

(USFWS, 1993). Among these sites, grizzly population density is quite variable, corresponding 

to habitat type and foraging opportunities (USFWS, 1993). Current total grizzly population 

numbers within the contiguous 48 states are estimated to be between 1,200 and 1,400 individuals 

(USFWS, 2007). 

10.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

Critical habitat was proposed for the grizzly bear on November 5, 1976 (41 FR 48757). Under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), critical habitat is defined as the specific area within the 

known range of the species containing either biotic 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 deemed essential for the conservation of the species 

(ESA, 1973). Four critical habitat zones which coincide with the distribution of the grizzly in the 

contiguous 48 States have been designated; 1: The juncture shared among Wyoming, Montana, 

and Idaho, including Yellowstone National Park and 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 Montana and the upper Idaho 

panhandle, predominantly in the Kootanai, Kaniksu, and Lolo National Forests in the Cabinet 

Mountains region; and 4: The northern reaches of the Idaho panhandle and Northeastern 

Washington in the Kaniksu National Forest (USFWS, 1976). 

10.5. HABITAT 

Grizzly bears inhabit areas which are relatively isolated and distant from direct anthropogenic 

influence (USFWS, 1993). Beyond concerns of habitat fragmentation as a result of human 

construction of roads and houses, such activities facilitate contact and thus conflict between 

53
humans and grizzlies (USFWS, 1993). Highways are thought to constrict grizzly bear 

movements, and are implicated in population fragmentation (USFWS, 1993). 

Prime grizzly habitat will offer diversity of terrain, cover, and natural food sources (USFWS, 

1993). The grizzly chiefly achieves these variations through a wandering lifestyle, and 

individuals range over as much as 1,500 mi2 (USFWS, 1993). A range of this size encompasses 

mountainous areas that are suitable for denning, forested areas utilized for temporary cover, and 

an array of natural food sources that preclude dependence on unpredictably available foods 

(USFWS, 1993). Migrations among habitats are common, and they follow a seasonal pattern 

(USDA Forest Service, 1991). For instance, the grizzly is found in low elevation riparian sites, 

wet meadows, and alluvial plains in the spring (USDA Forest Service, 1991). During the 

summer and fall, grizzlies will inhabit higher elevation 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), lodgepole 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 also constitute important habitat (USDA Forest Service, 1991). 

Other habitat with which the grizzly is associated 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 preferentially for these reasons, and grizzlies 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 compose a large part of the bear’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 grams (11.9-23.8 oz) (Nowak, 1999). 

They are weaned after about 5 months, although they may remain with their mother for as many 

as four years (Nowak, 1999). Grizzlies reach puberty between four and six years, but will 

continue to grow after that point (Nowak, 1999). Captive holding of grizzlies indicates that they 

are a long-lived species, potentially attaining ages in excess of 50 years (Nowak, 1999). 

Mating in grizzly populations takes place between the months of May and July, but researchers 

contend that individual female estrus periods do not exceed one month (Nowak, 1999). 

Implantation of the blastocyst(s) is delayed until after the female enters hibernation, some four or 

five months later (USFWS, 1993). The average number of young in a litter is two, but litters of 

as many as four cubs have been recorded (Nowak, 1999). Mated females will not enter estrus 

54
again for at least two years, the average period being three years between 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 reproductive rates of terrestrial 

mammals (USFWS, 1993). 

10.8. REFERENCES 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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/docs/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, Rocky 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 Servheen, 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-prairie/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). 

55
11. 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 Species Act of 1973 (USFWS, 1976). Although included in the 

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

no jaguarundi-specific recovery plan has subsequently 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 slender cat, a little larger than a house cat, but much longer (USFWS, 

1990). Jaguarundis have a combined head and body length of 55 to 77 cm, and a tail length of 

33 to 60 cm (Nowak, 1999). Adult weights for this 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 jaguarundi 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 nonexistent (USFWS, 2001). The 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) wrote that there exists “no documented record for 

Arizona, Sonora, [or] Chihuahua” in a discussion 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 counties, however, it is thought 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 Profile webpage, the GCJ is known to occur in 26 

counties in Texas (Table 1). 

Table 1. Texas counties where the GCJ is listed 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 

56
Maverick 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 (Matthews, 1990). The USFWS has stated that “brushy 

tracts along waterways, especially the Rio Grande, are the most valuable and sensitive areas used 

by ocelots and jaguarundi” (USFWS, 1990). Brushy zones along more significant 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 jaguarundis will den in thickets, dense brush, or fallen 

trees (AGFD, 2004). 

11.6. DIET 

While the jaguarundi is an expert 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 cottontail rabbits, and grass were found in stomach 

content analyses conducted on 13 Venezuelan jaguarundis (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, typically around March or August 

(Nowak, 1999). Kittens have light spots for a short period of time after birth (AGFD, 2004). Fur 

colors expressed within a single litter may represent all three color phases (AGFD, 2004). After 

two months, the kittens are weaned; and within 10 months of birth the young are fully 

independent (AGFD, 2004). Jaguarundis reach sexual maturity between 2 and 3 years of age 

(Nowak, 1999). 

Jaguarundis are solitary cats, but are seen in breeding pairs at various times in the year (AGFD, 

2004). Females are in estrus for approximately three days, and gestation lasts between 70 and 75 

days (Nowak, 1999). It is unknown whether a female jaguarundi will give birth in both March 

and August (Nowak, 1999). Jaguarundis may live for as long as 15 years (Nowak, 1999). 

57
11.8. REFERENCES 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 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 (USFWS). 1976. Endangered status for 159 taxa of 

animals. Federal Register 41, No. 115, pp. 24061-24067. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 Service (USFWS). 2001. Jaguarundi general species 

information. Arizona Ecological 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 (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Gulf Coast 

jaguarundi. Environmental Conservation Online System. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/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 protection 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 (ESA) of 1973, the jaguar, because of a mistake 

in its listing, lost endangered species protection under the ESA (USFWS, 2007). The jaguar did 

not regain endangered status until 1997 (USFWS, 2007a). Although included in a 1990 USFWS 

recovery plan for the listed cats of Texas and Arizona, no jaguar-specific recovery plan has been 

produced since its relisting (USFWS, 1997 and 2007b). 

58
12.2. 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 that measures between 17.5 and 29 inches (450-

750 mm) long (Nowak, 1999). It is the largest species of cat native to the western hemisphere, 

and may weigh between 80 and 348 pounds (USFWS, 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 characteristic black spots occur on the head, neck, and 

limbs; with rosette-forming large spot aggregations present from the shoulders to the flanks 

(Nowak, 1999). The species is most active in the hours around 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, California, 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 19th century (USFWS, 2010a). South 

of the United States, the species’ distribution extended through Mexico, Central America and 

South America (USFWS, 1997). The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) states that 

occupied jaguar range has declined in northern Mexico, northern Brazil, southern Argentina, and 

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

Current range 

The jaguar has been extirpated from 37% of its historical range, and the species’ status in another 

18% is unknown (USFWS, 2007b). The current distribution of the jaguar extends from northern 

Mexico through Central and South America as far south as northern Argentina (USFWS, 1997). 

Individual jaguars seen in the United States are identified as wanderers of a Sonora, Mexico 

population (USFWS, 2007b). Since 1996, every jaguar sighting on U.S. territory has been 

within 40 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border (USFWS, 2010a). These sightings 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 extant 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 National Wildlife Refuge (Near 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) 

59
State County 

Arizona Cochise 

Arizona Pima 

Arizona Santa Cruz 

New Mexico Hidalgo 

12.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

As of 2010, no critical habitat has been designated for the jaguar (USFWS, 2010b). In 1997, it 

was determined by the USFWS that a critical habitat designation would not be prudent because 

of increased threats of take as a direct result of the designation (USFWS, 1997). In 2006, 

following a Center for Biological Diversity complaint, the USFWS re-evaluated the best 

available information but maintained that a critical 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 argued against the 2006 conclusion, the USFWS was 

ordered by the court, to issue a new determination (USFWS, 2010a). The USFWS determined in 

2010 that a critical habitat designation for the jaguar would be prudent (USFWS, 2010a). 

Critical habitat is expected to be proposed in January 2011 (USFWS, 2010a). 

12.5. HABITAT 

In the humid tropics of Central America, the jaguar occupies wet, lowland habitat characterized 

by swampy savannas and tropical rain forests (AGFD, 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’ distribution (AGFD, 2003). Jaguars—particularly male jaguars of the 

northern reaches—are known to have large home ranges that encompass a variety of plant 

communities, including; Madrean evergreen-woodland, subalpine conifer forest, semidesert 

shrubland, and Sonoran desert scrub (USFWS, 1997). Washes and riparian areas with dense 

vegetative growth may also be valuable movement 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 approximately 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’ range are considered to have a spring mating season 

(USFWS, 1997). Estrus for breeding females lasts 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, 

60
and September (Nowak, 1999). While wild jaguars do not typically live beyond 11 years, a 

captive jaguar at Germany’s Wuppertal Zoo lived to be 24 years old (USFWS 1997 and Nowak 

1999). 

12.8. REFERENCES 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Proposed endangered status for the 

jaguar in the United States. Federal 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. Characterizing and mapping potential jaguar 

habitat in Arizona. 32pp. 

http://azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/jaguar/characterizing_mapping.pdf

(Accessed July 12, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. 4(f)(1) Determination regarding 

recovery planning for the jaguar. 5pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/Jaguar/Exclusion%20from%

20Recovery%20Planning.pdf

(Accessed July 9, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 (USFWS). 2010a. Determination that designation of 

critical habitat is prudent for the jaguar. Federal Register 75, No. 8, pp. 1741-1744. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/Jaguar/jaguarFedRegCHprud

encyfinding1-13-1-10.pdf

(Accessed July 9, 2010) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Species Profile for the jaguar. 

Environmental Conservation Online System. 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/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. 

61
13. 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 plan for the MSO was published on October 16, 

1995 (USFWS, 2010). Critical habitat was designated 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) (USFWS, 1995). MSOs have the lightest appearance of any 

subspecies, attributed to the mottled plumage and numerous irregular white and brown splotches 

on the abdomen, back, and head (USFWS, 1995). Dark eyes distinguish the spotted owl from 

other owl species (USFWS, 1995). However, as the MSO is nocturnal, vocalizations are used 

more frequently than phenotypic characteristics in identification of subspecies (and gender) 

(USFWS, 1995). Adult male MSOs average 519 grams (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 total 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 elevation riparian forests (USFWS, 1993). In Colorado, historical 

records come from the San Juan Mountains and 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, Sacramento, 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 (USFWS, 1993). In Utah, the MSO has been 

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

Current range 

The current range of the MSO is presumed to approximate the historical 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 Mexico (USFWS, 1993). 

Additional suitable habitat is found on state, tribal, and private lands in the southwestern United 

States, amounting to a total of 6,815,557 acres reported by federal and state agencies in 1990 

(USFWS, 1993). 

62
The USFWS lists the MSO as known to occur in 13 counties in Arizona, 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 containing physical and biological 

features necessary to the species’ conservation, and that may require special management 

consideration to protect the listed species (USFWS, 2004). Designations of critical habitat may 

also include areas outside of the species’ geographical location at the time of listing if features of 

those areas are determined to be essential to the conservation of the 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) (USFWS, 2004). The 2004 designation was a 

revision of the 2001 USFWS critical habitat designation 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 conifer, pine-oak, and riparian 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 when measured 4.5 feet from the ground 

• A shade created by the forest canopy which covers at least 40 percent 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 maintenance of adequate prey species: 

• High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris 

• A wide range of tree and plant 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 crevices, ledges, or caves 

• High percent of ground litter and woody debris 

State and private lands were excluded from the 2004 critical habitat designation; they are 

considered by the USFWS non-essential to the 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 not included in the designation (USFWS, 2004). 

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

Table 1. Counties identified in the 2004 USFWS critical habitat 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 designation (USFWS, 2004). These counties include Yavapai, Gila, 

Maricopa, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Greenlee counties in Arizona; and Santa Fe, San Miguel, Mora, 

Cibola, Lincoln, Otero, Torrence, Catron, Grant, 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 managed 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 near Deckers within the South Platte ranger district of 

the Pike/San Isabel National 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). 

64
Unit 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 Santa 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 includes 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 east 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, and 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 southeast of Gallup in west-central New Mexico, 

primarily within the USFS-managed Cibola 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 acres 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, Garfield, and Wayne counties, Utah

This unit consists of 627,267 acres primarily in the Waterpocket Fold landform that 

extends to Lake Powell (USFWS, 2004). 

65
Unit 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/Cloudcroft in Lincoln County, New Mexico

This unit includes 54,185 acres in the Sacramento 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 Sacramento 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 USFS-maintained land (Smokey Bear ranger 

district, Lincoln National Forest) in the Capitan Mountains, north of Capitan, New 

Mexico (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit BR-E-4. Carrizo in Lincoln County, New Mexico

This unit includes 13,753 acres in the Carrizo Mountains in Lincoln National Forest 

(Smokey Bear ranger district), seven miles east of Carrizozo, New Mexico (USFWS, 

2004). 

Unit BR-E-5. Manzano Mountains, Torrance County, New Mexico

This unit includes 25,642 acres in the Manzano 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 designated 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 Mountains (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit BR-W-3. Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Arizona

This unit of 15,580 acres is located 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 boundary is the northern slope of Lane 

Mountain (USFWS, 2004). 

66
Unit BR-W-4. Tonto National Forest, Yavapai, Gila, and Maricopa counties, Arizona

This unit of 158,624 acres is located within the Mazatzal Wilderness on the Tonto 

National Forest, Arizona (USFWS, 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 located within the Tonto National Forest in Arizona and 

includes the northern half of the Salome Wilderness and the Sierra Ancha Wilderness 

(USFWS, 2004). Boundaries are delineated 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, Arizona (USFWS, 2004). 

It is bordered by U.S. Route 60 to the north and State Highway 77 to the east (USFWS, 

2004). 

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

Located south of the San Carlos Indian Reservation 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 located 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 Galiuro Mountains, and falls within the 

Safford ranger district of the Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit BR-W-10. Winchester Mountains Area, Cochise County, Arizona

This unit of 10,485 acres is located northwest of Willcox, Arizona in the Winchester 

Mountains (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit BR-W-11. Santa Catalina and Rincon Mountains 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 Mountains Area, Santa Cruz County, Arizona

This unit of 54,735 acres in the Nogales ranger district of the Coronado National Forest is 

located west of Nogales, Arizona (USFWS, 2004). 

67
Unit BR-W-14. Patagonia Mountains Area, Santa Cruz County, Arizona

This unit of 52,158 acres is located south of Patagonia, 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 located 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 Coronado National Forest (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-2. Magdalena Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico

This unit of 33,794 acres is located six miles south of Magdalena, New Mexico in the 

Magdalena ranger district of Cibola National Forest (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-3. San Mateo Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico

This unit of 135,287 acres is located 36 miles southwest of Magdalena, New Mexico in 

the Magdalena ranger district of Cibola National Forest (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-5a. Gila National Forest, Catron and Grant counties, New Mexico

This unit of 666,481 acres is located 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 located 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 located in the Gila Mountains north of Silver City, New 

Mexico, in the Reserve ranger district of Gila National Forest (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-7. Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests; Catron County, New Mexico, and 

Graham and Greenlee counties, Arizona

This unit of 863,344 acres is located 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, Gila, Yavapai counties, Arizona

This unit of 562,988 acres is located north, northwest, east, and southeast of Payson, 

Arizona (USFWS, 2004). The western border is parallel to the Yavapai-Coconino county 

68
line as far south as the Mogollon Rim (USFWS, 2004). The unit includes the Coconino 

County portion of West Clear Creek, and Jacks Canyon of the Coconino National Forest 

(USFWS, 2004). Portions of West Chevelon, Chevelon, and Wildcat Canyons on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest fall within the unit, which extends south along the 

Tonto National Forest boundary to Gentry Mountain (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-11. Coconino National Forest, Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona

This unit of 144,790 acres is located south of Mountainaire, 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 Forest, Coconino County, Arizona

This unit of 17,359 acres is located east of Flagstaff, Arizona (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-13. Coconino National Forest, Kaibab National Forest, Prescott National Forest, and 

Camp Navajo Army Depot; Coconino and Yavapai counties, Arizona

This unit of 238,092 acres is located between Williams and Flagstaff, Arizona, to the 

north, and extends south to the Mogollon Rim (USFWS, 2004). 

Unit UGM-14. Coconino National Forest, 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-conifer 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 evergreen woodlands occur at lower elevations than the mixedconifer forests, and are divided into two categories: 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 areas and canyons (USFWS, 1995). 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 the 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 forests, pinyon-juniper woodland, mountain shrublands, 

desert scrubland, and desert grasslands (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; and a location near water (USFWS, 1993). 

Perennial streams, creeks, and springs, ephemeral water, small pools from runoff, and reservoir 

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

Radio telemetry studies place MSO home range areas between 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 records indicate that most MSOs occupy the same 

general area as their summer home 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” (USFWS, 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 (USFWS, 2010). Typically, 

however, male and female MSOs will begin roosting together in February (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 early April (USFWS, 1995). The female will incubate her eggs for 

approximately 30 days (USFWS, 1995). If the first clutch is not successful, 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 sufficiently developed for flight, although the owlets 

remain in the general area around the nest (USFWS, 1995). Owlets become increasingly 

independent through the summer and into the fall, but continue to beg for food from their parents 

until late August (USFWS, 1995). The young disperse 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, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 348 pp. Available online at: 

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

22, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Final Designation of Critical Habitat 

for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Register 69, No. 168, pp. 53181-53230. Available online 

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

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Strix+occidentalis+lucid

a (Accessed July 28, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl. Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B074 (Accessed July 22, 

2010). 

71
14. 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 (USFWS), and a designation 

of critical habitat was included at the time of species listing (USFWS, 1978). 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 ridgenose rattlesnake, distinguished 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 (horizontal 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 uniqueness necessary to justify the naming of a 

subspecies (USFWS, 1985). 

The NMRR grows to a maximum length of about 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-brown 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 and back edges,” and the underbelly is typically cream to white 

with irregular grayish or reddish brown mottled areas (USFWS, 2010). 

The NMRR is considered to be diurnal; most 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). Sightings 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 between 0900 and 1200 hours (USFWS, 1985). The 

NMRR may become partially nocturnal during hot summer weather (NatureServe, 2009). 

A member of the Viperidae family, the NMRR is venomous, although its venom is considered to 

be of relatively low toxicity (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 (Chihuahua) (Matthews, 1990). The extreme 

southeastern part of the state of Arizona was also included in the NMRR’s historical distribution 

72
(AESFO, 2002). The distribution 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 fragmented enclaves occupying a combined total of 

less than two square miles of habitat in the extreme southwest corner of New Mexico (Matthews, 

1990). The AESFO states that “the subspecies [NMRR] also occurs 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 Mexico, and Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS, 2010). 

14.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

On August 4, 1978, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the NMRR in the same rule that 

accorded the NMRR with protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) (USFWS, 1978). A sole critical habitat unit was designated, encompassing “the entire 

range in the United States where 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 Spring Canyons region of the Animas Mountains 

(USFWS, 1978). 

Before designation, critical habitat areas are determined to “satisfy all known criteria for the 

evolutionary, ecological, behavioral, and physiological requirements of the species” (USFWS, 

1978). While Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are not identified by name, the critical 

habitat listing notice identifies certain attributes and features of the designated critical habitat 

area that are grouped as “constituent elements,” including: 

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

• Vegetation that provides cover for 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 centimeters (Matthews, 1990). The NMRR "prefers to 

hide in leaf litter among cobbles and rocks along canyon floors" (Matthews, 1990). Rocks, leaf 

litter, and mesic conditions are commonalities among all confirmed C. willardi habitat (USFWS, 

1985). 

The vegetative structure of NMRR habitat areas is chiefly comprised of open stands of pine-oak 

forest and associated shrubs and grasses (Matthews, 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 NMRR-associated vegetation (AESFO, 2002). 

73
14.6. DIET 

Ridgenose rattlesnakes prey on a variety of animals, including small mammals, birds, lizards, 

other snakes, and arthropods (USFWS, 1985). The USFWS specifies 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 birth 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 (Matthews, 1990). The gestation period averages 13 

months (Matthews, 1990). Available information regarding the exact time of year that births 

occur is inconsistent. In the recovery plan, births for “most species of rattlesnake” are stated to 

occur between August 1st and October 15th (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, possibly because of the greater abundance of prey at that time” 

(USFWS, 1985). Although young rattlesnakes may be found sharing a hiding place with their 

mother, they typically disperse within a few days of parturition (USFWS, 1985). 

14.8. REFERENCES 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Listing of the New Mexican Ridgenosed Rattlesnake as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Federal Register 43, No. 151, 

pp. 34476-34480. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr232.pdf

(Accessed August 4, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. New Mexico Ridgenose Rattlesnake 

Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 59 pages. 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/docs/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 Services Field Office 

(AESFO). 2002. General species information: New 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 Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Crotalus+willardi+obscu

rus (Accessed August 4, 2010). 

74
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the New Mexican 

Ridge-Nosed Rattlesnake. Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/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/animalbytes/t-rattlesnake.html (Accessed August 5, 2010). 

75
15. 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 (USFWS) (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 three 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 northern Aplomado falcon range overlaps with that 

of F. f. femoralis, but it can be distinguished by its larger 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 sized, 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-Hector, 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 southwestern United States to Tierra del Fuego 

in neotropical lowland savannas, coastal prairies, and grasslands at higher elevations (KeddyHector, 2000).The northern Aplomado falcon’s historic range in the United States extended from 

Trans-Pecos in Texas to southern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona (USFWS, 1990). The 

range extended down to Chiapas, northern Yucatan, and along the Mexican Gulf Coast and the 

Pacific slope of Central America north of Nicaragua (USFWS, 1990). In Guatemala and 

Nicaragua, it was considered a straggler from its northern range (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 southeastern Arizona provided 

savanna and grassland habitat (USFWS, 2006). The 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 scattered sightings that indicate “ephemeral occupancy” by the 

falcon in the United States, and the dispersal of individuals up from Mexico (Keddy-Hector, 

76
2000). There are records of past nesting activity for six generalized areas located in southeastern 

Arizona, western Texas and the southern Texas coast, and south-central New Mexico (KeddyHector, 2000). 

Since 1952, only one wild pair of falcons had successfully produced fledglings in Arizona and 

New Mexico (USFWS, 2006). The USFWS Arizona Ecological Services Office indicates that 

there has been a recent confirmed report, as well as other unconfirmed reports, of the falcon in 

Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS, 2010d). Since 1980, the falcon has been documented in 

New Mexico in Hidalgo, Grant, Eddy, Socorro, Grant, Dona Ana and Otero counties (KeddyHector, 2000). The USFWS New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office indicates that the 

falcon is located in Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, 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 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, the 

White Sands Missile Range, and on New Mexico state lands (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 private 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, falcons had been seen in the Rio Grande Valley 

NWR located near Harlingen, Texas, in the Gabrielson and Palmview units of the refuge 

(USFWS, 1990). The Peregrine Fund first released 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 currently occurs statewide in Texas (USFWS, 2010c). 

15.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

No critical habitat has been designated for 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 habitat is “probably open savanna or grassland surrounded by or 

bordering extensive woodland or wetlands (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 (USFWS, 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 habitat do not form a continuous tree crown because 

they are sparsely scattered (USFWS, 1990), or located along stream and marsh edges (KeddyHecotr, 2000). Suitable habitat has been found in one study to have the following cover 

characteristics: (1) inter-tree distances averaged 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 have been observed to have 2.6 trees/ha (KeddyHector, 2000). 

77
The falcon also requires nesting platforms such as stick nests or bromeliads (USFWS, 1985). The 

falcon kleptoparasitizes the nests of other birds (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 falcon nest sites had an average 

of nine small birds/ha, and similarly, in coastal brushland areas of Texas 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 and thorn scrub habitat (Keddy-Hector, 2000). 

15.6. DIET 

The falcon preys upon small birds, insects, rodents, and reptiles (USFWS, 1990). In eastern 

Mexico, 97% of prey biomass comes from birds; however, 65% of individual 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). Preferred 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 before 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 still be dependent on their parents as late as 

August (USFWS, 1990). The average clutch contains 2.6 eggs and the fledging rate is 1.8 young 

per nest (USFWS, 1990). 

The falcon does not construct its own stick platform for nesting but relies on a preexisting 

platform for nesting (USFWS, 1990). Nests are found in large arboreal bromeliads 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 tree trunks, and on other larger 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 crossarms of power-line poles 

(Keddy-Hector, 2000). The falcon is tolerant of close proximity to humans, and has been 

observed to nest in association with well-managed livestock grazing operations in Mexico and 

Texas, as well as within 100 m of roadways in eastern Mexico (USFWS, 2006). In a sample of 

78
five 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 survey 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 resident 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 sites 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. historically, where numerous specimens were collected there during that 

season (USFWS, 1990). Pairs also remain in their nesting territories 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 Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Proposal to Determine the Northern Aplomado 

Falcon to be an Endangered Species. Federal Register 50 (97) 20810-20814. Available online 

at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_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 New Mexico and Arizona. Federal Register 71 

(143) 42298-42315. Available online at: 

http://frwebgate.access.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.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2010_register&docid=fr29mr10-87. 

(Accessed on: August 2, 2010) 

79
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species 

Lists, Information for the northern Aplomado Falcon. USFWS Region 2, New Mexico 

Ecological Field Services Office. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/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/profile/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/arizona/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). 

80
16. OCELOT 

16.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS 

The ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) was listed as an endangered foreign species, but not as a native 

species, under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (USFWS, 1982 and 1990). 

This Act had separate procedures 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 over to the 1973 combined endangered species list, 

but the procedures for listing the U.S. population were not completed (USFWS, 1982 and 1990). 

The ocelot was officially listed as an endangered species in the U.S. on July 21, 1982 (47 FR 

31670) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1982). Critical habitat has not been 

determined for the ocelot (USFWS, 1982). According to the USFWS 2009 Action Plan for the 

ocelot, there is currently an internal 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 (USFWS, 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 also 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 ocelot is larger and has a longer and more angular skull (USFWS, 1990). 

The coat has brown spots with black borders that resemble chain links and sweep downward in 

lines (USFWS, 2010a). A black line above each eye extends to the back of the head (USFWS, 

2010a). The tail is ringed or has dark bars on the 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 historically 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 the 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 since the 1960’s (USFWS, 2009a). The USFWS Listed 

Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery 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 six known reports of ocelots since 1963 in 

81
southeastern Arizona, that this subspecies is a recent arrival from its range in Sonora, Mexico 

(USFWS, 1990). 

The Recovery Plan indicates that the northern ocelot 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 ranged from southern and eastern 

Texas to Hedley, Texas in the north and to Marfa, Texas in the west (USFWS, 1990). While it 

may also have ranged into western Louisiana, records 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 United States, believed to number less than 50 individuals, is 

the northern ocelot subspecies (USFWS, 2009a). 

Current Distribution 

The range of the ocelot is on the edge of the United States, and is primarily located in Central 

and South America (USFWS, 1980). Near the time of its listing, the ocelot was only known to 

occur in the Rio Grande area of southeastern Texas, where evidence indicated their presence in 

eastern Cameron County and in Willacy and Kenedy counties (USFWS, 1980). The ocelot was 

thought to have never firmly established in Arizona, and at the time of its official listing in 1982 

was presumed to have been eliminated there from 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 individuals, 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 are split into two separate populations, one located in eastern 

Cameron County, Texas at the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and the other 

in northern Willacy County, Texas within the Yturria Ranch and 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 private ranch in the area (USFWS, 2010a). 

The Recovery Plan indicates that trapping and photo-documentation 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 northern boundary of the range in west Texas, with 

Calhoun County the boundary in the east (USFWS, 1990). All suitable brush habitat located 

south of this area is presumed to be potential 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 Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, Kleberg, La Salle, Live Oak, Maverick, 

McMullen, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala counties in 

Texas (USFWS, 2010b). 

82
16.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

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

16.5. HABITAT 

A variety of habitats can be used by ocelots (USFWS, 2010a). Ocelots appear to use areas of 

dense cover, and in the northern part of the range hunt in brushy forests and semi-arid deserts 

(USFWS, 2010a). In the southern part of its range, ocelot habitat includes tropical forests, 

mountain slopes, and pampas (grasslands) (USFWS, 2010a). 

In studies cited in the 1990 Recovery Plan, dense thornscrub was found to be the habitat 

preferred by ocelots (USFWS, 1990). Ocelot habitat is located within the Tamaulipan biotic 

province, which is made up of many plant communities of subtropical 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 characterizing 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 least 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 overgrazing 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 woodlands adjacent to thornscrub 

habitat (USFWS, 1990). The Laguna Atascosa NWR contains 20,000 acres of the native 

brushland used by ocelots (USFWS, 1982). The total 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 soil 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 flats, and mixed sandy land (USFWS, 1990). 

16.6. DIET 

Ocelots eat a variety of prey species, including rabbits, mice, birds, fish, agoutis (small Central 

and South American rodents), snakes, lizards, and other small to medium sized prey (USFWS, 

2010). In habitat types used by two radio collared ocelots, the Mexican spiny pocket mouse 

(Liomys irroratus) was found to be dominant in the brush 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). Other 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.), 

83
nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), feral pigs (Sus scrofa), poultry, quail, doves, 

chachalaca, passerine birds, waterfowl, and both colubrid and crotalis snakes (USFWS, 1990). 

16.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

Ocelots are crepuscular or nocturnal (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 are primarily terrestrial 

but can climb, jump and swim as well (Nowak, 1999). 

The ranges of each sex often exclude other members 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 Texas, the average home range for adults was 15.18 

km2

, with 17.67 km2 the average for males and 11.04 km2 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 solitary, they come into contact with one 

another and probably maintain social connections (Nowak, 1999). Ocelots communicate with 

mewing sounds, but during courtship use yowls (Nowak, 1999). 

Females typically breed at two years of age, although in captivity they enter estrus as early as 8 

months old (USFWS, 1990). Estrus lasts seven to ten days, but only 5.3 days if the female 

becomes pregnant (USFWS, 1990). Ocelots in captivity are ployestrous throughout the year 

(USFWS, 1990). There is probably no breeding season in the tropics (Nowak, 1999). Gestation 

has been recorded to last 70, 80, or 89 days (USFWS, 1990). Births have been recorded from 

September to January (USFWS, 1990). Births in Texas have been documented in September and 

October, but also in late summer, late fall, early winter, and one record from late spring 

(USFWS, 1990). Typically one or two kittens are born, but litters can range up to four kittens 

(USFWS, 1990). Young weigh 220 g to 340 g at birth (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 territories of females under two years of age can significantly 

overlap that of their mother (USFWS, 1990). An ocelot in captivity 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 Service (USFWS). 1972. List of Endangered Fish and Wildlife and 

Plants (Final Rule). Federal Register 37 (62) 6476. Available from USFWS online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/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. Populations of Five Species (Proposed Rule). 

Federal Register 45 (145) 49844-49847. Available from USFWS online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr443.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010. 

84
U.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_register/fr609.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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/R2ES/Plan%20for%20Translocation%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/action_plans/doc3052.pdf. 

Accessed on July 20, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). Fact Sheet 

prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A084. Accessed July 20, 

2010. 

85
17. 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 this rule, the piping plover was listed as 

endangered in the Great Lakes basin area (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada) and threatened throughout the remainder 

of the species’ range: in the northern Great Plains—Iowa, northwestern Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Canada (Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan); the 

Atlantic coast—Newfoundland, Quebec, the Canadian Maritime Provinces, and Atlantic 

Seaboard states from Maine to Florida; the Gulf Coast—from Florida to Mexico; the Bahamas 

and West Indies; and “anywhere else found in the wild except where listed as endangered” 

(USFWS, 1985). A recovery plan for the piping plover was approved by the USFWS on May 

12, 1988 for the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains populations. A revised recovery plan for 

the Atlantic coast piping plover population was approved on May 2, 1996. Critical habitat was 

first designated for the Great Lakes breeding population 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 approximately 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 include 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). Legs and bill are orange colored during the 

summer months, and the bill has a black tip. During the winter, leg color fades to pale yellow, 

bill color reverts from orange to black, and the 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 Plains, 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, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and 

Wisconsin, as well as in Ontario, Canada (USFWS, 2003). By the 1970’s the plover was gone 

from Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Ontario (USFWS, 2003). 

86
The population on the Atlantic Coast breeds on the east coast beaches from Newfoundland to 

North Carolina and occasionally into South Carolina (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). The most recent population decline began in the 

late 1940’s or early 1950’s, with numerous reports of local 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 Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

Iowa, and New Mexico, with instances of occasional summer residents and migrants present in 

Colorado (USFWS, 1988). 

Current range 

The current range of the piping plover is similar to its historic range, except for its decline from 

the Great Lakes (USFWS, 1988). Information on wintering 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 Indiana and New York, and in Erie County in 

Pennsylvania, and in Lake of the Woods County, in Minnesota (USFWS, 2010). The plover is 

also present in Bond, Clinton, Cook, Fayette, Franklin, Jefferson, Lake, Moultrie, Shelby, and 

Porter counties in Illinois (USFWS, 2010). In Michigan, the plover is present in Alger, Alpena, 

Benzie, Berrien, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Delta, Emmet, Iosco, Leelanau, Luce, 

Mackinac, Mason, Muskegon, Presque Isle, and Schoolcraft 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 Atlantic Coast populations taken in the 1980’s and 1990’s 

record increasing estimates of piping plover populations, though unevenly distributed, in Maine, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina (USFWS, 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 Prince 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 Atlantic 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 County, on the shore of Big Dry Arm of Fort Peck 

87
Reservoir in Garfield and McCone Counties, and in Sheridan county in saline wetlands near 

Dagmar and Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (USFWS, 1988). In North 

Dakota, plovers breed in 25 counties located along 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 sites 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 (USFWS, 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 the 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 threatened population of plovers, which includes 

the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations, is found statewide in Alabama, 

Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, 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, and 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 (USFWS, 2010). The plover is known to occur in Charlotte, 

Collier, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Sarasota, and St. Lucie counties in Florida (USFWS, 

2010). In Maine the plover is present in Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York counties (USFWS, 

2010). The plover is present in Barnstable, Bristol, 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 counties (USFWS, 2010). The plover is found in 

Bronx, Nassau, Queens, Suffolk counties in New York (USFWS, 2010). In North Carolina, 

plovers are present in Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, and 

Pender counties (USFWS, 2010). Plovers are present in Newport and Washington counties in 

Rhode Island (USFWS, 2010). In South Carolina, 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 counties (USFWS, 2010). In Virginia, the plover 

is known to occur in Accomack, Hampton, North Hampton, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach 

counties (USFWS, 2010). 

In Colorado, the plover is known to occur in Adams, Arapahoe, Bent Boulder, Broomfield, Clear 

Creek, Crowley, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, Gilpin, Jackson, Jefferson, Kiowa, Larimer, 

Lincoln, Morgan, Otero, Park, Prowers, Sedgwick, Teller, Washington, and Weld counties 

(USFWS, 2010). In Iowa, the plover occurs in Pottawattamie and Woodbury counties (USFWS, 

2010). In Kansas, the plover occurs in Barton, Clark, Pottawattamie, Riley, and Wabaunsee 

counties (USFWS, 2010). Known plover occurrence 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, Colfax, 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, 

88
and Stanton counties (USFWS, 2010). In New Mexico, the plover is found in Colfax and 

Socorro counties (USFWS, 2010). In Oklahoma, the plover is found in Adair, Alfalfa, Atoka, 

Beaver, Beckham, Blaine, Bryan, Caddo, Canadian, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cimarron, 

Cleveland, Coal, Comanche, Cotton, Craig, Creek, Custer, Delaware, 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, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Pushmataha, 

Roger Mills, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Stephens, Texas, Tillman, Tulsa, Wagoner, 

Washington, Washita, Woods, and Woodward counties (USFWS, 2010). In Texas, the plover 

occurs in Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, 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 Coast 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 northern Mexico (USFWS, 1988). 

17.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

GREAT LAKES POPULATION PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS 

“The primary constituent elements for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover 

are those habitat components that 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 sandy habitats, such as sand spits or sand beaches, that are 

associated with wide, unforested systems of dunes and inter-dune wetlands. In order for habitat 

to be physically and biologically suitable for piping plovers, it must have a total shoreline length 

of at least 0.2 km (0.12 mi) of gently sloping, sparsely vegetated (less than 50 percent 

herbaceous and low woody cover) sand beach with a total 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, the level of disturbance 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 high water line to where the forest begins) is 

more than 50 m (164 ft). Beach width is defined as the distance from the normal high water line 

89
to the foredune (a low barrier dune ridge immediately inland from the beach) edge, or to the 

sand/vegetation boundary in areas where the foredune 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 cover for nests and chicks consists of small 

patches of herbaceous vegetation, cobble (stones larger than 1 cm (0.4 inches (in)) diameter), 

gravel (stones smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in) in diameter), or debris such as driftwood, wrack, root 

masses, or dead shrubs” (USFWS, 2001). 

“The dynamic ecological processes that create and maintain piping plover habitat are also 

important primary constituent elements. These geologically dynamic lakeside regions are 

controlled by processes of erosion, accretion, plant succession, and 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 nature, 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 processes and the dynamic character 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 Upper Peninsula of Michigan” (USFWS, 2001). 

Unit MI-2: Point Aux Chenes 

“This unit encompasses approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline 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). 

90
Unit 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 Michigan 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 Michigan shoreline in 

Charlevoix County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001). 

Unit MI-9: Indian Point to McCauley’s Point, Beaver Island 

“This unit encompasses approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline on Beaver 

Island in Charlevoix County, 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 County, 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 County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001). 

Unit MI-12: Cathead Bay to Christmas Cove 

“This unit encompasses approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline 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 County, 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 County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001). 

Unit MI-15: Crystal Run to Empire Beach 

“This unit encompasses approximately 18.6 km (11.6 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline in 

Leelanau County, Michigan” (USFWS, 2001). 

91
Unit 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 State 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 shoreline 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 shoreline in Marinette 

County, Wisconsin” (USFWS, 2001). 

Unit WI-5: Point Beach State Forest 

“This unit encompasses approximately 8 km (5 mi) of Lake Michigan shoreline 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). 

93
The 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 PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS 

“Primary constituent elements for the northern Great Plains population of piping plovers are 

those habitat components (physical and biological) essential for the biological needs of 

courtship, nesting, sheltering, broodrearing, foraging, roosting, intraspecific communication, and 

migration” (USFWS, 2002). “The one overriding 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 dynamic ecological processes that create 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 the essential combination of prey, forage, nesting, brooding and chickrearing areas. The annual, seasonal, daily, and even hourly availability of the habitat patches is 

dependent on local weather, hydrological 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 habitat types found in the northern Great Plains, including mixosaline 

to hypersaline wetlands” “rivers, reservoirs, and inland lakes. These habitat types or physical 

primary constituent elements that sustain the northern Great Plains breeding population of piping 

plovers are described as follows:” (USFWS, 2002). 

“i. On prairie alkali lakes and wetlands, the physical primary constituent elements include—(1) 

shallow, seasonally to permanently flooded, mixosaline to hypersaline wetlands with sandy to 

gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches, salt-encrusted mud flats, and/or gravelly 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 alkali lake or wetland” (USFWS, 2002). 

“ii. On rivers the physical primary constituent elements include—sparsely vegetated channel 

sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands, temporary pools on sandbars and islands, and the 

interface with the river” (USFWS, 2002). 

“iii. On reservoirs the physical primary constituent elements include—sparsely vegetated 

shoreline beaches, peninsulas, islands composed of sand, gravel, or shale, and their interface with 

the water bodies” (USFWS, 2002). 

“iv. On inland lakes (Lake of the Woods) the physical primary constituent elements include—

sparsely vegetated and windswept sandy to gravelly islands, beaches, and peninsulas, and their 

interface with the water 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 interface 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 northeast 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 beaches, peninsulas, and islands composed of sand 

gravel, or shale that interface with these water bodies. 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 gravel 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 occupied by and provide essential 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 Mountrail 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 northwestern 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-central 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-central and central North Dakota” (USFWS, 2002). 

95
Unit 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 northeastern 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 North 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-central 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 riverine 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 downstream to the Montana/North Dakota border, 

Richland County, Montana, and McKenzie County, 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 Montana/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 Emmons Counties, North Dakota, and Corson and 

Campbell Counties, South Dakota, at RM 1232.0” (USFWS, 2002). 

96
South 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 Reservoir)” (USFWS, 2002). 

Unit SD–2, Missouri River

“Approximately 127.8 mi (204.4 km) from RM 880.0, 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 PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS 

The primary constituent elements (PCEs) that support foraging, roosting, and sheltering habitat 

components for the wintering piping plover are: 

(1) “Intertidal sand beaches (including sand flats) or mud flats (between the MLLW [mean 

lower low water] and annual high tide) with no, or very sparse, emergent vegetation for 

feeding. In some cases, these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of bluegreen algae. 

(2) Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above annual high tide for 

roosting. Such sites may have debris or detritus and may have micro-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 water 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 irregularly flushed with sea water. 

(7) Unvegetated washover areas with little or no topographic relief for feeding 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. dredge spoil sites).” (USFWS, 2009) 

WINTERING POPULATION CRITICAL HABITAT 

Unit TX–3: Padre Island 

“Subunit TX–3A: South Padre Island – Gulf of Mexico 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 Madre 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 Madre 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 Mexico. 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 triangular 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 consists 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 Corpus 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 mouth 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 Wilson’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 Texas” (USFWS, 2009). 

“Unit TX–23: West Matagorda Peninsula Beach This unit consists of 1,808 ac (732 ha) of 

shoreline in Matagorda County, Texas” (USFWS, 2009). 

“Unit TX–27: East Matagorda Bay/ Matagorda Peninsula Beach West This unit consists of 905 

ac (366 ha) of shoreline in Matagorda 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 Counties, 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 Brazoria 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 County” (USFWS, 2001). 

“Unit NC–4: Hatteras Inlet. 516 ha (1273 ac) in Dare and Hyde Counties” (USFWS, 2001). 

“Unit NC–5: Ocracoke Island. 80 ha (197 ac) in Hyde County” (USFWS, 2001). 

South Carolina 

“Unit SC–1: Waites Island-North. 75 ha (186 ac) in Horry County” (USFWS, 2001). 

“Unit SC–2: Waites Island-South. 58 ha (142 ac) in Horry County” (USFWS, 2001). 

“Unit SC–3: Murrells Inlet/Huntington 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 Georgetown 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 Colleton 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 County” (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 (3540 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 County” (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 County” (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 (48 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 City. 62 ha (153 ac) in Harrison 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 Barrier 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 Parish” (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 Plaquemines Parishes” (USFWS, 2001). 

“Unit LA–6: Mississippi River Delta. 105 ha (259 ac) in Plaquemines Parish, LA” (USFWS, 

2001). 

“Unit LA–7: Breton Islands and Chandeleur Island Chain. 3,116 ha (7,700 ac) in Plaquemines 

and St. Bernard Parishes, LA” (USFWS, 2001). 

103
17.5. HABITAT 

Habitat for wintering piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast consists of “accreting ends of barrier 

islands, along sandy peninsulas, and near coastal inlets. Plovers 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-shields), 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 Coast situate their nests “above the high tide line 

on coastal beaches, sandflats at the end of sand spits and barrier islands, gently sloping 

foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, and washover areas cut into or between dunes” 

(USFWS, 1996). Lake habitat generally 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 midstream in wide, open channel beds. Vegetative 

cover on nesting islands is usually less than 25%” (USFWS, 1988). 

“Feeding areas include intertidal portions of ocean beaches, washover areas, mudflats, sandflats, 

wrack lines, and shorelines of coastal ponds, lagoons, or salt marshes” (USFWS, 1996). “During 

courtship, nesting, and brood-rearing, feeding territories are generally contiguous to nesting 

territories”, though separation of these areas occurs regularly (USFWS, 1996). Adults 

concentrate their foraging efforts within five meters 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 invertebrates 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 from intertidal areas indicate that plovers 

feed in areas with higher 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). Plovers arrive at breeding sites in the Great Plains between 

mid-April and mid-May (USFWS, 1988). 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 flights, digging of several nest scrapes and a ritualized stone-tossing 

behavior” (USFWS, 1988). “Finished 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 “actively defended” by both adults 

(USFWS, 1988). Nests are usually spaced 200 feet between adjacent pairs (USFWS, 1996). 

Territories are defended by performing “horizontal threat, parallel run and aerial displays” 

104
(USFWS, 1996). “Parallel runs may cover distances up to 100 meters, while aerial displays may 

be performed from just above ground level up to approximately 35 m and are generally 

accompanied by continuous vocalization” (USFWS, 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 begins 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 are shared by males and females” (USFWS, 

1988). “Broods generally remain on nesting territories but may expand their movements as they 

mature or are disturbed” (USFWS, 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 ending in early August (USFWS, 1988). Juveniles 

often depart as late as late August and breeding males are sometimes reported to depart with their 

young (USFWS, 1988). Plovers are known to begin breeding at one year of age (USFWS, 

1996). Pairs are predominantly monogamous during 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 Piping Plover. Federal Register 50, No. 238, pp. 

50725-50734. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Great Lakes & Northern Great Plains 

Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office, Grand Island, NE. 

170 pages. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/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 Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office, 

Hadley, Massachusetts. 236 pages. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960502.pdf (Accessed on: August 10, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Final Rule: Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Northern Great Plains 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://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=YnDmX3/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed on: August 9, 

2010). 

105
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.590-593. 

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus). Environmental Conservation Online System. Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079. (Accessed on: 

August 11, 2010). 

106
18. 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 and 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 petitions to delist the 

PMJM from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, based upon research 

suggesting that it was not a separate subspecies (USFWS, 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 subspecies was conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), who found that the PMJM should remain 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 petition to delist the PMJM (69 FR 16944) and was 

approved on February 2, 2008 (USFWS, 2008). The 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 PMJM 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). Adult PMJM are 187 mm to 255 mm long, with a 

tail 108 mm to 155 mm long (USFWS, 2008). Juvenile meadow jumping mice weigh less than 

13 g, sub-adults weigh 13-14 g, and adults weigh 15 g or more (USFWS, 2003). PMJM gain 

weight during late August to mid-September before 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 before 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 females can reach weights of 28 g (USFWS, 2003). 

18.3. DISTRIBUTION 

Historical Range 

107
There 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 riparian corridors of semiarid eastern Colorado and southeastern 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 ranges do overlap in areas (USFWS, 2003, 2008, and 

2009). To the east, the PMJM’s range is restricted 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 plains of Colorado (USFWS, 2003 and 2008). 

At the time of its listing in 1998 (63 FR 26517), the historic range of the PMJM was thought to 

be in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, 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). When the PMJM was originally listed, it was 

also assumed to be primarily located in Colorado 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 Colorado, 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 Colorado, 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 North and South Platte River basins, from the eastern side of the 

Laramie Mountains and the Laramie Plains to the south along the eastern side of the Front Range 

in Colorado, to the headwaters of the Arkansas River Basin near Colorado Springs, Colorado in 

El Paso County (USFWS, 2003). 

Current Distribution

Since the USFWS listing in 1998 (63 FR 26517), increased trapping efforts have expanded 

knowledge of the range of the 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 eastern extent of its historical 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 (USFWS, 2008). Trapping and habitat modeling 

indicate that the PMJM does not occur in Goshen, Niobrara, and eastern Laramie counties in 

Wyoming (USFWS, 2008). The northernmost confirmed 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 presence of the PMJM, it is one of many factors used to estimate the 

actual range of the PMJM (USFWS, 2008). The current USFWS species profile indicates that 

108
the PMJM occurs in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Bromfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, 

Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, Teller and Weld counties in Colorado, and statewide in Wyoming 

(USFWS, 2010). The 5 potential threat analysis factors used by the USFWS in issuing the July 

10, 2008 final rule (73 FR 39789) to determine whether 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 status (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 with 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 had 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 (USFWS, 2003, 2008 and 2009). Existing 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, Buckhorn 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 includes Boulder, Bromfield, Douglas, El Paso, 

Jefferson, Larimer, and Teller counties in Colorado (74 FR 52065) (USFWS, 2009). These 

proposed boundaries would add 18,462 acres and 184 miles of rivers and streams to the existing 

critical habitat designation, by including Cedar Creek, South 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 the 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 and 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 are essentially the same as those designated in 2003. These PCEs 

include “riparian corridors formed and maintained by normal, dynamic, geomorphological, and 

hydrologic processes that create and maintain river and stream channels, floodplains, and 

floodplain benches and promote patterns of vegetation favorable” to the PMJM, “containing 

dense, riparian vegetation consisting 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 “specific movement corridors that 

provide connectivity between and within populations” (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 canals, 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 fields, restored mine lands, recreational trail 

areas and “urban-wildland interfaces” (USFWS, 2009). 

109
18.5. HABITAT 

The PMJM is found in well developed riparian vegetation, 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 habitat 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 years 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 moist areas, dry gulches, agricultural ditches, 

wet meadows, and seeps near streams also provide habitat for the PMJM (USFWS, 2003). Areas 

located along intermittent streams, wet meadows and seeps are important in dry periods 

(USFWS, 1998). Trees, tall shrubs, short shrubs, an herbaceous 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). The 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). Dense 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-shrub cover and higher plant species 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 vegetation 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 are 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 August, 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 (Helianthus 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, such as some vegetation (USFWS, 2003). 

110
18.7. 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 hibernation by the third week of August, while the 

young of the year wait until September or October (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). Surveys 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 bed, 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 winter, when the PMJM is hibernating (USFWS, 

2003). Between June and August or October, survival 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 reproduction of PMJM mice but it is assumed to be 

similar to that of other subspecies of jumping 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 reproduce the following year (USFWS, 2003). 

Little is known about the behavior of meadow jumping mice (USFWS, 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 have 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 location 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 above ground but can be underground, are globular 

shapes or mats of litter, and are abandoned after a week (USFWS ,2003). Several nests can be 

used at the same time by one mouse at locations 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) 26517-26530. Available from USFWS online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/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 for 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) online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2003_register&docid=fr23jn03-16. Accessed on July 2, 2010. 

111
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003. Preble’s Meadow 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/Nov2003DraftRecoveryPlan.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 Delist the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) and Proposed Delisting of the Preble’s Meadow Jumping 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_register/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 Its Range the Subspecies is Threatened 

(Final Rule). Federal Register 73 (133) 39789-39838. Available from GPO online at: 

http://frwebgate.access.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.access.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. 

112
19. SALT CREEK TIGER BEETLE 

19.1. SPECIES LISTING STATUS 

The Salt Creek tiger beetle (Cicindela nevadica 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 outline for the Salt Creek tiger beetle but no approved recovery 

plan (USFWS, 2010). Critical habitat was designated 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 subspecies 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 distinctive form and the color 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 head) are dark brown” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 

a). 

19.3. DISTRIBUTION 

“The Salt Creek tiger beetle has one of the most restricted ranges of any insect in the United 

States” “and the habitat currently occupied by the subspecies is highly limited and isolated” 

(USFWS, 2005 a and b; 2009 a; and 2010). It “is 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 grouped into 6 discrete 

populations of Salt Creek tiger beetles” (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 beetles. This population occurs across a large, 

relatively intact saline wetland complex. The Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population is located 

approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile (mi)) north of the Interstate 80 and North 27th Street 

Interchange on the northern city limits of Lincoln, Nebraska. It exists along the saline stream 

113
edge 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-Roper population is the second 

largest remaining population of Salt Creek tiger beetles. This population is located immediately 

south of the Interstate 80 and North 27th Street Interchange, and approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) 

downstream of the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake population. Similar to the Little Salt CreekArbor Lake population, this population is associated with a saline wetland and stream complex 

located along Little Salt 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 tiger beetles. This population is 

located approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) upstream 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 Salt Creek-South population 

was located approximately 5 km (3 mi) upstream from the Little Salt Creek-Arbor Lake 

population. Degraded and non-functioning saline wetlands exist adjacent to Little Salt Creek. 

Although this site was once devoid of vegetation, saline stream edge habitats 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 southern 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 property owned by the Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission (NGPC). The Jack Sinn Wildlife Management Area Population is considered to be 

extirpated; no Salt Creek tiger beetles have been found there since 1998. Loss and fragmentation 

of barren salt flats and stream habitats likely resulted in the loss of this population” (USFWS, 

2005 b and 2009 a) 

6) “Capitol Beach Population: Capitol Beach was once one of the largest saline wetland tracts in 

eastern Nebraska, with a size of approximately 162 hectares (ha) (400 acres (ac))” (USFWS, 

2009 a). “Although we do not have historic population estimates from this site, historic records 

indicate that Capitol Beach (i.e., Salt Basin) was once home to a large, sustainable 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 Interstate 80 and Airport Interchange. No individuals have been found 

at Capitol Beach since 1998” leading to the conclusions “that this population is now extirpated” 

(USFWS, 2009 a). 

114
Historical range 

“All known Salt Creek tiger beetle specimens were collected in areas identified as either Salt 

Basin or Salt Lake (and now known as Capital Beach) or the City of Lincoln, Nebraska” 

(USFWS, 2005 a). “As recently as 1994, six populations of Salt Creek tiger beetles were 

distributed along Oak, Little Salt, and Rock Creeks” (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 Rock Creek in the southern margin of Saunders 

County” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Since 1994, half of these 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 Salt Creek tiger beetle only occur “along limited 

segments of Little Salt Creek and adjacent remnant salt marshes in Lancaster County, Nebraska” 

(USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 c). “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is currently restricted to” 

“approximately 6 ha (15 ac) of not highly degraded 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 Salt Creek tiger beetles are located 

approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) apart” (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 

27th Street Interchange” (USFWS, 2009 a). “Although tiger beetles are mobile and can fly, the 

lack of suitable habitat along little Salt Creek within movement limits for the Salt Creek tiger 

beetle (distances of less than 805 m (2,640 ft)) prohibits recolonization of other suitable habitats 

on other stream segments” (USFWS, 2009 a). 

19.4. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT 

Critical habitat was designated by the USFWS for the Salt Creek tiger beetle on April 6, 2010 

(75 FR 17465) (USFWS, 2010). “In total, approximately 1,933 acres (ac) (782 hectares (ha)) 

located in Lancaster and Saunders Counties, Nebraska, fall within the boundaries 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 areas, located adjacent to and between saline 

stream edges and barren salt flats in saline and 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-Saltine, Obert, and Zoe soils with Salmo and 

Saltillo inclusions; 

(b) Soil electroconductivity ranging from 2,016.0 mS/m to 2,992.2 mS/m; 

(c) Soil moisture ranging from 43.5 percent to 51.7 percent; and 

(d) Differential hydraulic pressures that create evaporation and result in exposed salt on soil 

surfaces” (USFWS, 201). 

115
3) “A natural hydrologic regime resulting in annual high flows in saline streams in the early 

spring and summer, and natural elevation changes in groundwater levels to hydrate saline 

wetlands located on the floodplain” (USFWS, 2010). 

4) “The presence of abundant and diverse flying and non-flying invertebrate prey species 

belonging to the orders Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Odonata, Diptera, or 

Lepidoptera” (USFWS, 2010). 

The “final designation of critical habitat includes four 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 the 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-Arbor 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 occupied Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located 

approximately 5.5 mi (8.8 km) north of the Interstate 80 and North 27th 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 consists 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 existing 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 occupied Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located 

approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north of the Interstate 80 and North 27th 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 occupied Salt Creek tiger beetle habitat located 

immediately south of the Interstate 80 and North 27th 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). 

116
Unit 4 – Jack Sinn-Rock Creek, Lancaster and Saunders Counties, Nebraska 

“To reduce the risk of extinction of the Salt Creek tiger beetle” the USFWS “included an 

additional critical habitat area along Rock Creek, an area where the Salt Creek tiger beetle has 

been extirpated” (USFWS, 2010). “Unit 4 consists 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 the confluence of Rock 

and Salt Creeks” (USFWS, 2010). “Unit 4 includes 10.62 mi (17.1 km) of Rock Creek, and 

consists of a saline stream and wetland complex 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 stream 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 saline mud flats or along mud banks of streams and 

seeps that contain salt deposits and are sparsely vegetated” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2009 a). 

“The Salt Creek tiger beetle is adapted to brief periods of high water inundation and highly saline 

conditions” (USFWS, 2005 b and 2009 a). 

“Saline wetlands in eastern Nebraska occur in swales and depressions within the floodplain of 

Salt Creek and its tributaries in northern Lancaster and southern Saunders counties” (USFWS, 

2005 a). At one time saline wetland “represented 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” (USFWS, 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 central area that is devoid of vegetation, and when 

dry, exhibit salt encrusted mudflats (barren salt flats)” (USFWS, 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 Lamo, Gibbo-Saltine, Obert, and Zoe soils with Salmo and Saltillo 

inclusions provide salt in sufficient content to result in creation of salt barrens” (USFWS, 2010). 

“The Salt Creek tiger beetle is found in association with Salmo soils” “and probably is also 

found in association with Saltillo soils when barren salt flats are present” (USFWS, 2010). 

These soils “must have electroconductivity within the range of 2,016.0 mS/m to 2,992.2. mS/m 

to be used by the Salt Creek tiger beetle” because “Salt Creek tiger beetles were found using 

areas with a mean soil electroconductivity of 2,504.1” mS/m (USFS, 2010). “Salt Creek tiger 

beetles prefer mean soil moistures of 47.6 percent” (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 desiccation, to maintain moist conditions 

at larval burrows for breeding and foraging activities, and for drinking” (USFWS, 2010). “Adult 

Salt Creek tiger beetles are confined to moist, muddy areas within a few meters of wetlands and 

stream edges, and larval burrows are only found in association with hydrated salt flats located 

along saline stream edges and saline wetlands” (USFWS, 2010). “The density of larval burrows 

decreases as vegetative cover increases” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). “The 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 and 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, barren salt flat areas for construction of larval 

burrows, thermoregulation, reproduction, foraging, and as dispersal corridors (USFWS, 2005 a 

and b; 2009 a; and 2010). “Salt Creek tiger beetles 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 separated by a reasonable dispersal distance for the 

subspecies” (USFWS, 2010). “Two Salt Creek tiger beetles were 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 assemblage of saline banks, presumably to meet the life 

requirements described above” (USFWS, 2010). “Salt Creek tiger beetles also have been 

observed moving among salt flats and seeps along saline streams edges, using barren midchannel and scoured bank habitats” (USFWS, 2010). “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 short-range movement corridors are 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 habitat 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 previously occupied habitats on Oak and Rock 

Creeks suggests that the Salt Creek tiger beetle may be capable of some level of aerial dispersal” 

(USFWS, 2010). 

19.6. DIET 

 “The Salt Creek tiger beetle is an active, ground-dwelling, predatory insect that captures smaller 

or similar-sized arthropods in a “tiger-like” 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 means of abdominal hooks to the tops of their 

burrows and rapidly extending outward to seize passing prey” (USFWS, 2005 a and b). “The 

118
small larva waits at the top of its burrow and ambushes prey that passes 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 larger prey or predators” (USFWS, 2005 a). 

“Salt Creek tiger beetles require an abundant and diverse prey base consisting of flying and nonflying invertebrates. Tiger beetles have been observed to eat insects from many orders and 

families” (USFWS, 2010). “Most common are prey belonging to the orders Coleoptera, 

Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Odonata, Diptera, and Lepidoptera. Ants (Formicidae) are 

the most commonly observed prey of adult Salt Creek tiger beetles in the 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” (USFWS, 2010). Typical prey of larval 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 individuals appear and begin to feed and mate. After mating, the 

male rides atop the female, presumably preventing her from re-mating (a phenomenon known as 

mate-guarding). Females lay their eggs along sloping banks of creeks in areas where the salt 

layer is exposed in the soil horizon, on barren salt flats of saline 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 beetles lay about 50 eggs” (USFWS, 2005 a and 2009 

a). “After the egg hatches, the young larva digs a burrow and uses its head to scoop out soil. 

The larva takes these small mud clods to the burrow entrance and flips them 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 and hibernates. The Salt Creek tiger beetle has 

three instars. It probably overwinters as a third instar, pupates in May, and emerges as an adult. 

Before pupation, the larva seals 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 speculated “that adult Salt Creek tiger 

beetles live for approximately 6 weeks” (USFWS, 2005 a). “The adult populations begin to 

disappear in late July, and by August, 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 cycle” which is “not uncommon for 

tiger beetles” (USFWS, 2005 a and b; and 2009 a). 

19.8. REFERENCES 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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). 

119
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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%20Beetle%20recovery%20outl

ine_02-20-2009.pdf (Accessed on September 3, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009 b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle (Cicindela nevadica 

lincolniana); Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period. Federal Register 74, No. 80, 

pp. 19167-19184. Available online at: http://edocket.access.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/docs/action_plans/doc3027.pdf (Accessed on September 3, 2010). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle; Final Rule. Federal 

Register 75, No. 65, pp. 17465-17509. Available online at: 

http://edocket.access.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/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0QR

(Accessed September 3, 2010) 

120
20. 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 (USFWS) (USFWS, 1997). 

The recovery plan for the Sonora tiger salamander was approved on September 24, 2002 and 

published in October 2002 (USFWS, 2002). No critical habitat has been designated by the 

USFWS for the Sonora tiger salamander (USFWS, 2001 and 2002). 

20.2. DESCRIPTION 

The Sonora tiger salamander was described in 1954, “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 two subspecies are Arizona 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 that evolved ‘naturally,’ 

and not as a result of human introductions of Arizona and barred tiger salamanders” (USFWS, 

2002). 

Sonora tiger salamanders begin their 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 are gray on the dorsum, 

head, and tail, with little pigment on the ventral surface” (USFWS, 2002). “They have external 

gills and hatch without legs, but grow hind and 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 which encroach on the dark venter” (USFWS, 1997 and 

2002). The snout-to-vent length (SVL) of metamorphosed individuals is 4.5-15.0 cm (1.8-5.9 

inches) (USFWS, 2001 and 2002). The related California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum 

californiense) weighs 50 grams (The Sacramento 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 which the salamander has been found, the range of 

121
the subspecies and its occupied and potentially 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 adjacent foothills from its origins in Sonora north to the Canelo 

Hills” (USFWS, 2002). The Sonora tiger salamander “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 found “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 for approximately 30 km into Sonora, Mexico” 

(USFWS, 2002). The Sonora tiger salamander “breeds 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 Santa 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 trends in the proportion of ponds occupied by 

salamanders and suitability of those ponds for salamander breeding habitat” (USFWS, 2002). 

More data on the ecology of Sonora tiger salamanders are needed to make definitive statements 

about the long-term viability of Sonora tiger 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 Valley, which have tentatively been identified as 

Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi using genetic markers” (USFWS, 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 locality is unknown” 

(USFWS, 2007). The 5-year review states that this extension is unconfirmed (USFWS, 2007). It 

further states that, “the subspecies may be precluded from habitats at the southern portion of its 

range (Rancho Los Fresnos) by introduced, non-native predators” (USFWS, 2007). 

“Surveys conducted by AGFD demonstrate that Sonora tiger salamanders 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 sites 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 made for the Sonora tiger salamander (USFWS, 1997 

and 2002). 

122
20.5. HABITAT 

 “Historically, the Sonora tiger salamander probably inhabited springs, cienegas, and possibly 

backwater pools where permanent or nearly permanent water allowed survival of mature 

branchiates” (USFWS, 1997). “The most important habitat requirement for Sonora tiger 

salamanders is the availability of standing water for breeding from January through June” 

(USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “This gives the salamanders 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 19th and early 20th

centuries caused the SRV to dry and natural standing water habitats to disappear” (USFWS, 

2002). “As a result, ponds created by ranchers for watering their cattle are now almost the only 

suitable breeding sites remaining” (USFWS, 1997, 2001, 2002, and 2010). “Aquatic and bankline vegetation is missing from many ponds with salamanders, suggesting that these factors, 

although beneficial, are not necessary 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 used by all life stages; however, upland habitats are also used by 

terrestrial adults when not at the breeding ponds” (USFWS, 2002). “Adult metamorphosed 

salamanders inhabit adjacent grassland and oak woodland terrestrial habitat when not in ponds” 

(USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “The SRV is a broad, open valley that forms the headwaters of the 

Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers. The dominant terrestrial 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 groves 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 elevation” (USFWS, 2002). “Typical habitat 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 metamorphosed salamanders in the terrestrial 

environment, enabling them to burrow underground 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 terrestrial life stage of the Sonora tiger salamander 

likely “spends much of the year in rodent burrows, 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 and a variety of macroinvertebrates, and eat 

salamander eggs and larvae during the breeding season” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Outside the 

pond, metamorphosed tiger salamanders consume terrestrial insects and other 

macroinverterbates” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “In the pond, metamorphosed individuals eat 

aquatic macroinvertebrates and terrestrial insects that fall in the water” (USFWS, 2002). 

123
20.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

Sonora tiger salamanders “begin breeding as early as January, and eggs can be found in ponds as 

late as May” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Breeding after monsoon rains in July and August is 

rare” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). “Terrestrial adults, which are often outside the pond during the 

rest of the year, return to ponds to breed, and branchiate 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 fertilization, 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 months. 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 metamorphosing” (USFWS, 2002 and 2010). 

“Salamander larvae in permanent water often develop 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). “Branchiate adults can sometimes metamorphose into 

the terrestrial form in response to stressful events such as pond drying, but branchiates are often 

unable to complete metamorphosis or even die during the process” (USFWS, 2002). “The 

lifespan of branchiate adult Sonora 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 longer 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 known “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 drying or disease outbreaks that kill 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 dispersal patterns of Sonora 

tiger salamanders, which are critical for determining metapopulation dynamics, are also 

124
unknown” (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 distances” and have been “found in ponds 1.5 

to 2.0 km from their natal pond, and 3-4 km from the nearest likely natal site” (USFWS, 2002 

and 2010). The 5-year review stated that new research was 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 “excavated burrows and found tiger salamanders 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” (USFWS, 2007). This research suggested that 

“upland habitat should be protected and managed 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 metamorphosed Arizona tiger salamanders have 

survived 17 years in captivity” (USFWS, 2002). 

20.8. REFERENCES 

The Sacramento Zoological Society. 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 (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern 

Arizona and Northern Sonora, Mexico; Final Rule. Federal Register 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 Service (USFWS). 2001. Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

tigrinum stebbinsi). Arizona Ecological Services. General Species Information. Available 

online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Sonora%20Tiger%20Salamander

%20RB.pdf (Accessed on August 23, 2010) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 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 Service (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 (USFWS). 2010. Species Profile for the Sonora Tiger 

Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). Environmental Conservation Online System. 

Available online at: 

125
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D01H (Accessed August 

23, 2010) 

126
21. 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 the 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 was 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 International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane, 

is a combined effort of the USFWS and the Canadian Wildlife Service dated May 27, 2007 

(CWS and USFWS, 2007). Critical 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 note call of alarmed cranes (WDNR, 2006). The 

whooping crane is the tallest bird in North America. Males reach 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). Maximum 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 (Lewis, 1995). Whooping cranes are sexually 

monomorphic and are predominantly white with black 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 between the sexes (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The 

whooping crane can live from 35 to 40 years in captivity, 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, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (CWS and 

USFWS, 2007). Whooping crane fossils from the 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 known historical distribution, that there could 

have been 10,000 whooping cranes in North America prior to European settlement, although 

they may never have formed large flocks and thus reports of sightings were infrequent (CWS and 

127
USFWS, 2007). Historically, there have been migrating and non-migrating populations of 

whooping cranes (Lewis, 1995). In the 19th and 20th centuries, the nesting area extended from 

central Illinois to northwestern Iowa and Minnesota, to northeastern North Dakota to 

southwestern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan, and east central Alberta (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 migration routes began in these wintering grounds, one 

from Louisiana to Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, and the other from 

Texas and the Rio Grande Delta to North Dakota, the Northwest Territories, and Canadian 

Provinces (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Additionally, 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 southeastern states including 

Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Kentucky, although 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 cranes were left between two populations, three 

birds in the non-migratory southwestern Louisiana population and 18 birds in the migratory 

Aransas Wood Buffalo Population (AWBP) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Currently, three 

populations of whooping cranes exist in the wild, and include the AWBP, the only self sustaining 

wild population, the introduced Florida Population (FP), and the introduced Eastern Migratory 

Population (EMP) (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The 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 experimental non-essential by the USFWS (66 FR 

33903-33917) (USFWS, 2001 and WDNR, 2006). Additionally, 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 National Park (WBNP) located in the Northwest 

Territories of Canada and in Alberta, Canada (CWS and USFWS, 2007). This population 

migrates south to a stop over location in Saskatchewan, 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 Peninsula to the south up to Welder Point and 

Matagorda Island to the north (CWS and USFWS, 2007). As of February 2006, there were 215 

individuals in this population (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In October 2009 there were 247 birds 

in the AWBP (USFWS, 2009). 

The FP is non-migratory and located on the Kissimmee 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, there were 59 captive raised individuals in this 

128
population (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In October 2009, the population had declined to 29 

individual birds (USFWS, 2009). 

The EMP was reintroduced to the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Wisconsin with 

captive birds trained by ultra-light aircraft to migrate to Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 

Refuge on the Gulf Coast of Florida (CWS and USFWS, 2007). As of February 2006, there 

were 64 captive raised individuals in this population (CWS and USFWS, 2007). In October 

2009, there were 106 birds in this population (USFWS, 2009). 

An experimental non-essential migratory population of Rocky Mountain Whooping cranes was 

introduced by placing whooping crane eggs into sandhill 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 Rocky Mountain whooping cranes survived from 

the introduction attempts and the last one disappeared in 2002 (CWS and USFWS, 2007). 

In addition, as of February 2006 there 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 Foundation (ICF) in Baraboo, Wisconsin, the Audubon Species Survival 

Center (SSC), in Belle Chase, Louisiana, the Devonian Wildlife Conservation Center and the 

Calgary Zoo, in Alberta, Canada, the San Antonio 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 International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane, critical habitat 

is defined by the U.S. Endangered Species Act as “habitat that contains those physical or 

biological features, essential to the conservation of the species, which may require special 

management considerations or protection (CWS and USFWS, 2007).” Critical habitat was 

designated in 1978 (43 FR 20938), originally in nine areas in seven 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 (USFWS, 1978). These four critical habitat 

designations were removed with the failure of the Rocky Mountain population reintroduction (62 

FR 38932) (USFWS, 1997). Critical habitat is currently in effect in five areas in four states in 

the U.S. and include the crane’s only wintering grounds at ANWR in Texas, migration stopovers 

at Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management 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 habitat was proposed in 1979 (44 FR 12382) but was 

withdrawn (CWS and USFWS, 2007). 

The USFWS considers five requirements for survival and recovery of the species when 

designating critical habitat. These requirements generally include space for individual and 

population growth, nutritional and physiological requirements, shelter, sites for reproduction, and 

habitats protected from disturbance or representative of the species’ geographic distribution 

(USFWS, 1978). Whooping cranes are territorial; pairs require hundreds of acres of undisturbed 

wetland habitat and unmated birds require undefended territory in ANWR (USFWS, 1978). The 

129
refuges in Idaho, Colorado, and New Mexico were originally 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 whooping crane reintroduction 

in these areas (USFWS, 1997). All of the designated critical habitat areas provide for the 

nutritional and physiological needs of the cranes (USFWS, 1978). This includes 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 order to provide additional nesting habitat (USFWS, 

1978). However, all of the designated critical habitat provides areas essential to rearing young 

(USFWS, 1978). Cranes also require undisturbed wetland roosting 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 Action Plan on the SARA Public 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 reintroduction marsh areas in other locations (CWS 

and USFWS, 2007). The breeding habitat in the WBNP is already protected by the Canada 

National Parks Act and by designations as a Wetland 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 Nyarling, Sass, Klewi, and Little Buffalo, which is a 

poorly drained area of potholes interspersed with ridges covered 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 and to roost in seasonally and semipermanently 

flooded palustrine wetlands that vary in average size from less than 0.5 ha to 508 ha, and are 

within 1 km away from a feeding 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 edges of reservoirs in the Dakotas (CWS and 

130
USFWS, 2007). Riverine areas used in Nebraska include the Platte, North and Middle Loup, and 

Niobrara Rivers, in addition to the South Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan, the Missouri 

River and North Dakota and the Red River in Texas, 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-thirds of the state, and suitable habitat has been observed to 

include any wetland with minimal disturbance, 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 palustrine and upland scrub-shrub areas associated with the marshes; 

some cranes also use the sedge meadows (WDNR, 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 sarsaparilla (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 wetlands at the end of the day during migration, 

including natural or managed palustrine, lacustrine, 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 cranes 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 USFWS, 2007). However, tidal and other habitat 

conditions have prevented territory establishment by returning birds, 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 water 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 Kissimmee 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 for foraging (CWS, USFWS, 2007). 

131
They also forage in harvested corn and peanut fields (WDNR, 2006). The Florida cranes are 

upland grassland and wetland dwellers, 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 emergent palustrine wetlands dominated with 

pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) with firm, shallow 

bottoms and surrounded by denser vegetation (WDNR, 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, berries, 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 levels are low in late winter 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 and 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 when they are flooded, open due to burning, or when 

there is less food available in the salt flats and marshes (CWS and USFWS, 2007). 

Chicks beg for food and are initially fed earthworms and insects by their parents (Lewis, 1995). 

As the chick grows, the size and variety of food increases (Lewis, 1995). 

21.7. LIFE HISTORY AND REPRODUCTION 

Whooping cranes nest at the average age of 5 years, although 3 year olds have been observed to 

nest (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The cranes are monogamous and form pairs in sub-adult flocks 

on wintering grounds, during spring migration, or at the breeding grounds in a bonding process 

that can be lengthy or occur quickly (CWS and USFWS, 2007). The cranes have courtship 

rituals that include calling, flapping wings, head bowing, and leaping 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 km2

 (2.5 mi2) in size (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Most clutches contain 2 eggs laid from 

April to mid-May at breeding grounds located in WBNP or in Wisconsin, Minnesota, 

northeastern Iowa, Illinois, and 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 after 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 stay in the general area of the nest site at the breeding grounds 

for the remainder of the summer either 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 wintering 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 

132
time and stay in marshes and lake edges (WDNR, 2006). A molt of contour plumage occurs 

every summer and early fall for all cranes (WDNR, 2006). 

AWBP cranes migrate in the fall during a period beginning in mid-September and ending by mid 

November to winter at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (CWS and USFWS, 

2007). The EMP cranes migrate from late October to early December (WDNR, 2006). 

Migration is not an innate behavior, but learned from following parents and other birds (Lewis, 

1995). Prior to the migration, the restless cranes run, leap into the air, bow their heads, fly, and 

call in unison (CWS and USFWS, 2007). Cranes migrate alone, in pairs, or small groups during 

the day and stop over to feed and 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 comprised 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 cranes 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 soon 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 crane. 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. Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC and the International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin. 308 

pp. Available online from the United 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). Federal 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 (Final Rule). Federal Register 

43 (94) 20938-20942. Available from USFWS online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr214.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2010. 

133
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental 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 Cranes of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental 

Nonessential and to Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Designations from Four 

Locations (Final Rule). Federal Register 62 (139).38932-38939. Available from USFWS online 

at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/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 Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the 

Eastern United States (Final Rule). Federal 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. International Whooping Crane 

Recovery Activities, October 2008-October 2009. 27 pp. Available online from the Whooping 

Crane Eastern Partnership at http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/recovery/pdf/recv09.pdfl. 

Accessed on June 21, 2010. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of 14 Southwestern Species (Notice). Federal Register 

75(59)15454-15456. Available online from GPO at: 

http://frwebgate.access.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 Management Division, and Alberta Conservation 

Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 34, Edmonton, AB. 21 pp. Available online from the 

Government of Alberta, Sustainable Resource Development at: 

http://srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/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/birds/wcrane/pdfs/WC_Mgmt_Plan.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 

2010. 

134