LISTED CATS OF

TEXAS AND ARIZONA

‘4 RECOVERY PLAN

(With Emphasis On The Ocelot)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1990

S.~4 -~‘~E

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Cover illustration by Sandy Truett. Used with the permission of

Dr. Joe C. Truett
LISTED CATS OF TEXAS AND ARIZONA

RECOVERY PLAN

(With Emphasis On The Ocelot)

Prepared by

Gary Harwell, D.V.M.

D. Peter Siminski, M.S.

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

Tucson, Arizona

For

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Edited by

Alisa II. Shull, Steve Van Riper, Steven P. Thompson,

Sonja E. Jahrs oe r

Approved: _______

eiona or, Region 2

Date: _____________________________ /
DISCLAIMER

This is the completed Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan (With

Emphasis on the Ocelot). It has been approved by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. It does not necessarily represent official positions or

approvals of cooperating agencies and does not necessarily represent the

view of all individuals who played a role in preparing this plan. This

plan is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in

species status, and completion of tasks described in the plan. Goals and

objectives will be attained and funds expended contingent upon

appropriations, priorities, and other constraints.

Literature Citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona

Recovery Plan (With Emphasis on the Ocelot). U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 131 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

6011 Executive Blvd.

Rockville, Maryland 20852

301/770-3000

or

Toll Free

1/800—582—3421

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.

i
SUMMARY

To remove the ocelot and jaguarundi from the Federal

list of endangered and threatened species.

RECOVERY CRITERIA:

ACTIONS NEEDED:

Specific criteria for downlisting and delisting the

listed cats are difficult to determine. The

implementation of tasks specified in this recovery

plan will aid in establishing these criteria.

The major steps needed to meet the recovery criteria

include: determining the precise population sizes and

habitat sizes required for viability and the necessary

spatial arrangement of habitat, and determining the

impact of disease and other factors on the population;

increasing ocelot numbers in Texas, in part by

protecting at least 20,000 hectares of prime ocelot

habitat in Texas (either in a single block or

continuous blocks connected by corridors); determining

ocelot distribution and status in Arizona and the

northern states of Mexico; and determining the status,

ecology, and conservation needs of the jaguarundi in

Texas, Arizona, and the northern states of Mexico.

GOAL:

ii
Table of Contents

DISCLAIMER

SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

i

ii

iii

INTRODUCTION 1

Races and Historical Ranges of Ocelots in

the United States

Legal Status of the Ocelot

Status of the Sonora Ocelot in Arizona....

Background

Distribution

Conclusions/Recommendations

Status of the Texas Ocelot

Background

Distribution

Ecology/Life History

Prey

Predators

Competitors

Habitat Characteristics

Current Corrective Actions

Conclusions

RECOVERY

Objectives

Step-Down Outline

Narrative

References Cited

3

5

6

6

7

9

10

10

11

12

14

15

15

16

19

21

23

24

25

30

51

Part III.

APPENDIX I.

APPENDIX II.

APPENDIX III.

APPENDIX IV.

APPENDIX V.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Figures Cited in Text

“Land Protection Plan for the Lower Rio

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in

Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy

Counties, Texas” (1985), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Status of other Neotropical Felids in the

United States

Agency Draft — List of Reviewers

Comments Received

Responses to Comments

Final Draft — List of Reviewers

Comment Received

Responses to Comments

Part I.

Part II.

62

68

83

97

100

101

118

121

123

130

iii
PART I

INTRODUCTION

Four Neotropical felid species have ranged into the United States in

recorded history. The ocelot, Felis (LeoDardus) Dardalis; margay, Felis

(Leopardus) wiedii; jaguarundi, Felis (Herpailurus) VaQouaroundi; and

jaguar, Felis (Panthera) onca have been documented as either transient or

resident in Arizona and/or Texas. Of these, only the ocelot has been

regularly documented recently in the United States.

Sightings of jaguarundi have been reported in numerous habitats and

localities in Arizona and Texas, but recent, good documentation is limited.

On April 21, 1986, a road—killed jaguarundi was recovered from Cameron

County, Texas; however, this is the only confirmed specimen from Texas

since 1969. No data exist on the status of the margay within the

boundaries of the United States. Except for occasional wanderers from

Mexico, the jaguar can now be considered extirpated from the United States.

These latter three species are discussed in Appendix III. Should new

information become available on the status of these three species in

Arizona and Texas, the recovery plan will be revised to include appropriate

recovery actions.

The ocelot is a medium—sized spotted cat (Figure 1) that ranges from

southern Texas and Arizona to northern Argentina. Within this area, the

ocelot can be found in humid tropical and subtropical forests, coastal
2

mangroves, swampy savannas, and semi—arid thornscrub (IUCN 1978, Leopold

1959). Population estimates throughout its range are largely unavailable.

It is thought to be rare and threatened in many parts of its range, but not

so in areas such as the Chaco region of Paraguay (IUCN 1978). Considered

more adaptable than the jaguar, the ocelot may persist in partly—cleared

forests, second growth woodland, and abandoned cultivation that has gone

back to brush (IUCN 1978).

Ocelots are primarily crepuscular and nocturnal, spending the day in

heavy brush (Tewes and Everett 1982, Grzimek 1975, Leopold 1959). Their

prey consists of small to medium—sized mammals and birds, but may also

include reptiles, fish and invertebrates (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, Grzimek

1975, Norris 1965, Leopold 1959). Tewes and Everett (1982) report males

ranging wider than females, and one male’s home range may overlap more than

one female’s home range. Adult males’ home ranges are exclusive of other

adult males and adult females often exclude other adult females (Tewes

1986)

In captivity, first estrus has been seen as early as 8 months old, but 2

years is the usual age of first conception (Seager and Demorest 1978).

Estrus generally lasts 7-10 days, 5.3 days if conception occurs (Eaton

1977) . Captive ocelots are polyestrous all year (ISIS 1985, Seager and

Demorest 1978). This observation has also been confirmed at the ArizonaSonora Desert Museum (ASDM). Hall and Kelson (1959) report births from

September to January. Cahalane (1961) reports births in Texas in September

and October. Tewes (1986). also in Texas, reports births in late summer,
3

late fall, early winter, and one in late spring. Laack and Rappole (1986)

report the birth of twin ocelots in late November in south Texas.

Gestation has been recorded as 80 and 89 days (Seager and Demorest 1978)

and as 70 days (Nowak and Paradiso 1983). ASDM has reported a known

gestation of 80 days.

Usually one or two kittens are born, but litter sizes ranging up to four

have been reported (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, Seager and Demorest 1978,

Eaton 1977, Morris 1965, Cahalane 1961, Hall and Kelson 1959). The age at

weaning and length of dependence on the mother have not been recorded

precisely. However, Tewes (1986) delimits lactation in one case to

92 days. Nursing has been observed at ASDM until 6 months old. Tewes and

Everett (1982) report juvenile ocelots traveling with their mother even

after lactation had ceased; and Tewes (1986) reports two subadult females

up to 2 years old occupying home ranges that considerably overlapped their

respective mother’s home range.

RACES OF OCELOT AND HISTORIC RANGES IN THE UNITED STATES

Two ocelot subspecies historically ranged into the United States: the

Texas ocelot, Felis pardali s albescens, and the Sonora ocelot, F. IIsonoriensis (Hall 1981, Figure 2). The Texas ocelot may have ranged

through southern and eastern Texas, north to Hedley, Texas, and west to

Marfa, Texas. The type specimen for the Texas ocelot is from an

unspecified locality in southwestern Arkansas along the Red River

(Sealander 1979). It is possible that the Texas ocelot also ranged into
4

western Louisiana but documentable records since the Pleistocene are

lacking (Navarro Lopez 1985, Lowery 1974, Kurten 1965, Ray et al. 1963).

In Mexico, the Texas ocelot was found from the foothills of the Sierra

Madre Oriental in Coahuila, through Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas to the Gulf

Coast (Figure 2). The Texas ocelot is isolated from the Sonora ocelot by

the Sierra Madre highlands.

The Sonora ocelot historically ranged into southeastern Arizona as far

north as Fort Verde (Hall 1981, Cockrum 1960). Brown (1985a) questions the

true origin of the Fort Verde specimen and suggests the specimen came from

further south in Arizona. Hoffmeister (1986) also questions the origin of

the Fort Verde specimen. He suspects that the specimen may have been

obtained in Mexico or Texas. Brown (1985a) suggests that the Sonora

ocelot, like the coati and the javelina, is a recent invader of

southeastern Arizona from its range in Sonora. He lists six reports of

ocelots in southeastern Arizona since 1963. In Mexico, the Sonora ocelot

is found in the foothills of the Sierra Madre Occidental through Sonora and

probably into northern Sinaloa (Hall 1981, Burt 1938). The Sonora ocelot

is absent from the desert scrub of western Sonora.

The races of ocelot in North America were last revised by Goldman in

1943. He observed an intergrading chain of geographic races along western

Middle America. In western Mexico the northern part of the species’ range

is inhabited by the smallest and palest race, F. ~. sonoriensis. The

southernmost part of the species’ range in North America is inhabited by

the largest and darkest North American race, F. p.. mearnsi, in Panama. The
5

northernmost limit on the eastern side of the continent is inhabited by F.

~. albescens. This race is as pale—colored as the Sonora ocelot, but is

isolated from it by the Sierra Madre highlands. The Texas ocelot is larger

than the Sonora ocelot, and has a distinctly longer and more angular skull.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE OCELOT

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 listed the ocelot as an

endangered “foreign” species. Separate listing procedures for “native”

species were required under the 1969 Act, but were not carried out for the

ocelot. Hence, when the 1969 Act was replaced by the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, the U.S. ocelot population was inadvertently omitted. Not

until 1980 was a proposal submitted to correct this oversight. Finally in

July, 1982, the U.S. ocelot population was included with all foreign

populations as a federally endangered animal under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (Federal Register, Volume 47, number 140, 1982).

In Texas, the ocelot is protected by state law and receives state

endangered species status (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 1987). The

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is the state agency responsible for

protection of the Texas ocelot.

In Arizona, the ocelot has been protected by order of the Arizona Game

and Fish Commission (AGFC) since 1970. Further, under Arizona Live

Wildlife Regulation (R—12--4—319, 1980), all live wild felids are considered

prohibited wildlife.’’ The ocelot is thus afforded some protection from
6

“live” taking; and possession, importation, exportation, and propagation

are regulated, but only in a general sense. However, because no major

threats to its habitat have been identified, the ocelot is not included in

the Arizona List of Threatened Native Wildlife (AGFC 1982).

The IUCN Red Data Book (1978) lists the ocelot as “vulnerable.” The

IUCN (1972) also lists the Texas ocelot as an endangered subspecies. The

Texas Organization for Endangered Species, TOES, (1979) lists the ocelot as

endangered. Neither of these organizations have enforcement capability.

The IUCN Red Data Book acts as an international source of advice on

endangered species. The TOES advises on the state level.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES 1983)

lists two races in Appendix I: F. p.. mearnsi, the Costa Rican ocelot, and

F. p. mitis, the Brazilian ocelot. The U.S. and other signatory nations to

CITES agree to certain regulations controlling international commerce of

listed species and their parts. Appendix I listing requires export

documentation from the country of origin and import documentation from the

country of destination.

STATUS OF THE SONORA OCELOT IN ARIZONA

BACKGROUND: The paleontological evidence of ocelots in the United States

is scant, with fossil records only from Florida, California, and Arizona

(Navarro Lopez 1985). There are no recent reports of ocelots from Florida

or California. The single Holocene specimen from Arizona is a skull
7

recovered from an archeological midden near Redington on the San Pedro

River in southeastern Arizona (Burt 1961). There is no known Papago or

other native Arizona Indian word for ocelot (Saxton and Enos 1983), and

other archeological material is lacking.

DISTRIBUTION: Accounts of ocelots are absent from the reports of early

Arizona explorers (Davis 1982). The only historic literature record is a

skin sent to the U.S. National Museum by E.A. Mearns in 1887 (Hoffmeister

1986, Cockrum 1960). The skin, without the skull, supposedly originated at

Fort Verde, Arizona, but this is questionable. Goldman (1943) did assign

the specimen on the basis of pelt characteristics and location to the

Sonora race, the type specimen of which was taken on the Rio Mayo near

Camoa, Sonora (Figure 3).

The next ocelot was recorded in the state summary of the Predatory and

Rodent Control Branch of the U.S. Biological Survey for fiscal year 1931—32

(Brown 1985b). Hoffmeister (1986) says this ocelot was taken near Camp

Verde.

In 1963, John S. Phelps reported seeing an ocelot on the San Simon

River, north of San Simon in Cochise County. (Mr. Phelps is now the

predator and furbearer biologist with Arizona Game and Fish Department.)

Two seasonal employees of the Bureau of Land Management also observed this

ocelot (Figure 3).

In September 1964, a large ocelot was killed by Sewell Goodwin and Ted
8

Fergusen on Pat Scott Peak in the Huachuca Mountains, and this ocelot

constitutes the first documentable specimen since the Redington specimen,

as well as the last documented ocelot in Arizona (Figure 3).

Undocumentable reports of additional ocelots being taken after 1964

exist, but the protected status imposed in 1979 may have prevented them

from being reported (Brown 1985b). Since 1980, at least four ocelots may

have been inadvertently trapped in Arizona: two said to be from the San

Pedro Valley (including a lactating female), a male reported taken in the

Holbrook-Concho area, and an animal of unknown sex reported from the area

of Sasabe (Brown 1985b).

Ocelots are known to occur in northern Sonora, though museum material is

lacking. Brown (1985b) reports records of trapper and hunter takes of

ocelots in 1966, 1970, and 1974 in northern Sonora.

At least two curio shops openly display and sell ocelot pelts in

Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. The origin of these pelts is unknown. Prices

range from $75 to $125.

The possibility that reported ocelots are escaped or released captives

cannot be discounted. Another possibility is that individual animals have

wandered into Arizona via corridors of tropic—subtropic vegetation in the

Rio Yaqui and Rio San Miguel drainages described by Gentry (1982) and

discussed by Lawler and Van Devender (1984) and Brown (1985b).
9

Brown (1985a) also points out that the ocelot may be duplicating the

northward expansion of the javelina, coatimundi, and other recent

Neotropical invaders. Dense subtropical riparian forest occurs along the

drainages in the Rio Yaqui, Rio Mayo, Sonora, and the San Pedro River

Valley, Arizona. These dense forests are being rapidly cleared north and

south of the border, particularly the extensive mesquite bosques along the

San Pedro River.

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Virtually nothing is known of the ocelot in

Arizona, but recent reports of ocelots in southeastern Arizona warrant

further investigation of its status in Arizona and northern Sonora. An

infornal survey of residents along the upper Rio Yaqui and Rio San Miguel

may shed much light on the animal’s distribution. More information from

the field is necessary to assess the ocelot’s status in these areas.

Immediately, plans should be designed and implemented to survey hunters

and licensed trappers in Arizona using guidelines employed in Texas (Tewes

and Everett 1982) and by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Information

could also be obtained on jaguarundis, which are frequently reported, but

as yet undocumented, in Arizona.

The only information available to date has originated from lay persons

and trappers. Professional biologists should be involved to assist in

obtaining information on the status of these cats. Timely acquisition of

basic information may be critical to the survival of the ocelot in Arizona.
10

STATUS OF THE TEXAS OCELOT

BACKGROUND: The Texas ocelot type specimen was taken in Arkansas in 1855.

Bailey (1905) reported that ocelots were found in the Texas Hill Country as

late as 1905, but records are scant (Navarro Lopez 1985). Distribution is

now most likely limited to the Tamaulipan Biotic Province. It once

occurred from Texas to Florida, with fossil evidence from Florida in the

Illinoian period of the Pleistocene (Kurten 1965). Occasional hunter and

trapper takes have been reported from deep south Texas for years, but it

was not until 1980 that the first scientific surveys of ocelots and

jaguarundis were undertaken. It became evident in following years that

ocelots and probably jaguarundis were present in the brush country of south

Texas, but documentation was lacking. Tewes and Everett (1986) conducted a

trapper survey by mail of a 25—county area during 1982 (Figure 4). Of

1,572 trapper surveys mailed, 472 (30%) were returned, and 87 (6%)

contained positive responses. Criteria for evaluation of credibility and

approximate locations are in Figures 5, 6, and 7. Only a portion of the

Edwards Plateau Region that once supported ocelots (Bailey 1905) was

surveyed.

The Edwards Plateau, northwest of present ocelot range, remains to be

surveyed thoroughly. Additionally, public interest was generated through

numerous newspaper and magazine articles that resulted in unsolicited

responses and leads on ocelot sightings (Tewes and Everett 1986).
11

In 1981, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Endangered Species, contracted with the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research

Institute, Texas A&I University, Kingsville, Texas, to begin field

investigations on the ecology of the jaguarundi and ocelot in south Texas

(contract #14—16—0002—81—229). Research has focused on investigation of

basic biology, habitat inventory, status, and distribution. The majority

of the field investigations has been centered at and coordinated with

personnel of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

Information obtained to date is summarized in the remainder of this

discussion.

DISTRIBUTION: The complete distribution of the jaguarundi and ocelot

remains unknown in Texas. The ocelots recorded so far by trapping (Figure

8) and photo-documentation have occurred at different sites in four

counties: Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, and Hidalgo. The Fish and Wildlife

Service map of ocelot habitat in Texas (Figure 9) is modified from a report

by Tewes and Laack (1989). Areas that are designated as occupied habitat

represent “... the occurrence of ocelots that have either been radio—

tracked or extremely good reports of sightings” (Tewes and Laack 1989),

with an enlarged ten—mile radius to accomodate the known movement patterns

of ocelots. Counties that contain areas identified as occupied habitat

are: Cameron, Duval, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak,

Nueces, San Patricio, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata. These areas (except for

human habitations) are considered to be occupied by ocelots at some time of

the year.
12

The northern boundary of present ocelot range runs from the northern

edge of Maverick County in west Texas to Calhoun County in east Texas. Any

area south of that boundary line is considered potential habitat if it

contains suitable brush (Figure 9). These areas have not been surveyed to

determine ocelot presence.

The present distribution for ocelot and jaguarundi will probably not be

completely known until thorough surveys are completed in Class I sighting

areas, through trapping and remote sensor photo-documentation.

ECOLOGY/LIFE HISTORY: Ocelots have been trapped successfully using

modified tomahawk live traps baited with live chickens and, in some cases,

supplemented with feline lures (Figure 10). No jaguarundis have been

captured or photographed. Ocelots have also been photo—documented using

remote sensor cameras (Twedt and Rappole 1986) (Figure 11).

Over 20 ocelots have been radio-tagged and their movements and

activities periodically followed until loss of transmission or death of the

animal. The average composite home range for adult resident ocelots (N =

8) in south Texas was 15.18 km2 (SD =6.47). The average home range of

adult male ocelots (N = 5) was 17.67 km2 and of adult females (N = 3) was

11.04 km2 (Tewes 1986). Male ocelots tend to travel more than females, the

male generally covering an extensive area in a short time, with the female

covering less area but using the home range more intensively (Tewes and

Everett 1982). Ocelots home range was also significantly larger during

winter than summer on the Laguna Atascosa NWR (Tewes 1986).
13

Ocelot activity in general begins about sunset and continues

intermittently through most of the night, early morning, and until shortly

after sunrise. Some diurnal activity was noted during the winter (Tewes

and Everett 1982). Other persons working in the field report similar

activities.

One radio-tagged ocelot was known to be lactating on three separate

occasions (October 1982, June 1983, and November 1983). Another ocelot was

known to be lactating in December 1982 (Tewes 1986). A single kitten was

found on September 11, 1985. On December 19, 1985, a den with two 3—week

old kittens was found just south of Laguna Atascosa NWR (Laack and

Rappole 1986). Five of these six parturitions occurred between August and

early December, and the sixth was in late spring. Although little

knowledge of the length of dependence of kittens on their mother exists,

Tewes (1986) found that two subadult females still had considerable home

range overlap with their mothers at about 2 years.

To date, remains of nine ocelots have been recovered, and six of the

deaths appear attributable to motor vehicle injuries. Five of these roadkills were just south of Laguna Atascosa NWR and the other was a cat

dispersing from a private ranch. The cause of death of the three cats that

were not hit by vehicles is unknown. Two of these cats were found on

Laguna Atascosa NWR and one on Santa Ana NWR.

A necropsy of one of the road—killed specimens revealed no pathological

conditions other than insignificant parasitism by ascarids (Toxocara cati)
14

and tapeworms (Taenia taeniaeformis). Test results for feline leukemia

virus and feline infectious peritonitis virus were negative. No moribund

ocelots have been observed in existing study areas. However, two moribund

bobcats were collected on the Santa Ana NWR, and were necropsied at the

National Wildlife Health Lab, Madison, Wisconsin. A definitive reason for

the emaciated condition of each specimen was not identified, though

numerous notations of pathological conditions were made.

Viral titering of live ocelots to determine their exposure to various

feline viral pathogens has been initiated. Blood samples of road—killed

and live-trapped ocelots currently are being analyzed (R. Rauch, Refuge

Manager, Laguna Atascosa NWR, pers. comm. 1988). Some feline diseases such

as feline panleukopenia (distemper) could exert a limiting effect on kitten

survivorship. Investigators with the Florida panther recovery effort

report a high incidence of Florida panther exposure to panleukopenia, based

on titers from captured and road—killed panthers (Roelke et al. 1985).

Viral titering of bobcat, raccoon, and other associated carnivores, and

additional viral titering of ocelot, need to be performed before further

discussion of disease potentials.

PREY: The importance of available prey has not been determined. Tewes and

Everett (1982) evaluated potential prey in three habitat types adjacent or

within core areas used by two radio—collared ocelots. They found that the

Mexican spiny pocket mouse (Liomys irroratus) significantly dominated the

brush site and may therefore be an important part of the ocelots’ diet. In

the brush—grass ecotone, the dominant species were the fulvous harvest
15

mouse (Reithrodontomvs fulvescens) and the pygmy mouse (Baiomys taylori)

.

In the grass habitat, pygmy mice, cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and

hispid pocket mice (Pero~nathus hisDidus) codominated. Composition of

collected ocelot scats has not been determined.

Other potential prey species include other rodents, opossum (Didelphis

virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), white—

tailed deer (Odocoileus vir~inianus), skunks (Mephitis spp., Conepatus

spp.), nine—banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), feral swine (Sus

scrofa), poultry, guail, doves, chachalaca, numerous passerine birds and

waterfowl, colubrid and crotalid snakes, and lizards. Joy (Director,

Abilene Zoological Gardens, pers. comm. 1985) reports observing an adult

ocelot adeptly attacking a large (2.0 m) Totonacan rattlesnake (Crotalus

durissus totonacus). This observation was made near Soto la Marina,

Tamaulipas, Mexico, south of Brownsville, Texas, in 1977. Joy subsequently

collected the snake, which later died of injuries inflicted by the ocelot.

PREDATORS: Potential predators sympatric with existing ocelot populations

include man, feral dogs, coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Felis rufus)

,

mountain lion (Felis concolor), feral swine, large raptors (e.g. great

horned owl [Bubovir~inianus]), American alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis), colubrid constrictors, and crotalid pit vipers. Young

ocelots would presumably be more vulnerable than adults to these predators.

COMPETITORS: Competitors for food resources may include the jaguarundi,

coyote, fox, bobcat, mountain lion, raptors, and reptiles.
16

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS: The current known distribution of ocelots is

within the Tamaulipam Biotic Province, which contains many variations of

subtropical thornscrub brush. Sightings and trappings have occurred in

several different habitat types, all within the Tamaulipan Province. The

major plant communities of southernmost Texas are mapped in Figure 12.

Ocelots have been found in four habitat types in the Lower Rio Grande

Valley. These include: Mesquite—Granjeno Parks, Mesquite—Blackbrush

Brush, Live Oak Woods/Parks, and Rio Grande Riparian.

The total habitat available to ocelots in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is

estimated to be less than 20,000 hectares (49,400 ac), with the largest

block of thorn forest being the Laguna Atascosa NWR, with 3,352 hectares

(8,280 ac) of remaining thorn forest. Laguna Atascosa NWR probably

supports 25 to 30 ocelots (R. Rauch, pers. comm. 1987). The remaining

habitat in the area exists as numerous smaller thorn forest tracts, most

less than 100 hectares (247 ac) and widely separated from other blocks

(J. Rappole, Assistant Professor, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research

Institute, pers. comm. 1985) . Lack of corridors between these thorn forest

islands may restrict the use of these potential habitat sites.

Within the Tamaulipan Biotic Province lies the South Texas Plain (Rio

Grande Plains), within which existing study sites occur. Average annual

precipitation in this area ranges from 41 to 89 cm (16 to 35 inches), with

sporadic periods of drought and occasional inundation due to tropical

storms and hurricanes. Monthly, rainfall is lowest during January and
17

February and highest in May or June. After a midsummer depression, another

peak is reached in September. The South Texas Plain topography is level to

rolling and dissected by dry washes oriented towards the Gulf of Mexico.

Elevations rise from sea level to 305 m (1001 feet). Soil types range from

clay to sandy loams and vary from calcareous to slightly acidic. A wide

range of soil profile types is responsible for great differences in soil

drainage or moisture retention, and subsequently cover types. Rappole

(pers. comm. 1985) maintains that in Cameron County vegetation found in

association with Laredo silty clay loam (Williams et al. 1977) provides

prime ocelot habitat in that a greater variety of mixed vegetation occurs

on this soil type. Typical range sites through South Texas include deep

sands, hardlands, shallow ridges, bottomlands, alkali flats, and mixed

sandy land.

Historically, the South Texas Plain supported grassland or savanna-type,

mixed, climax vegetation with dense mixed brush along dry washes and flood

plains of the Rio Grande (Inglis 1964). Overgrazing and other agricultural

uses have altered the plant communities to such a degree that severely

disturbed brush (thornscrub) communities are dominant in many areas north

of the Rio Grande Plain (Johnston 1963). Many tree and shrub species have

increased in the area, including mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), post oak

(Quercus stellata), live oak (Q. virginiana), cacti, and several acacias.

Although large areas of privately owned lands are cultivated, some areas of

rangeland, though altered, still exist north and west of the Rio Grande

Plain.
18

Preferred habitat used by ocelots studied thus far can be characterized

as being dense thornscrub. Tewes and Everett (1986) classified prime

habitat by three parameters. Class A or optimal habitat consisted of 95%

or greater canopy cover of the shrub layer; Class B or suboptimal habitat

was 75% to 95% canopy cover; Class C or inadequate cover was 75% or less.

Available habitat was quantified by flying aerial transects over most of

the lower 13 counties of Texas with follow—up ground verification in some

areas. The minimum area required for an area to be classified as suitable

habitat was 40 ha (99 ac) per brush stand or 30 ha (74 ac) for two or more

proximate brush stands. Little thorn forest classified as optimal habitat

for ocelots remains in south Texas (Figure 13).

Four ocelots have been captured in oak woodland—type habitat adjacent to

thornscrub communities (Twedt and Rappole 1986, Navarro Lopez 1985). These

findings may indicate that the species occupies a broader range of habitat

types.

Aerial evaluation, satellite composite evaluation, and ground

verification all indicate that very little optima] habitat remains in the

current U.S. range of the ocelot (Figure 13). The smallest area

continuously occupied by an ocelot was 122 ha (301 ac) in Willacy County

(Navarro Lopez 1985). This ocelot was a young male, less than 2 years old.

It may have been driven out of its home area by an older male cat whose

hone range north of the young cat’s was disturbed when the landowner

cleared 15 ha (37 ac) of brush around a residence structure (J. Rappole,
19

pers. comm. 1985). The young cat was found 1 month later 10 km (6.2 mi)

north of its former home range in oak savanna-type habitat.

Habitat has been lost even within managed refuge areas inhabited by

ocelots. It has been common practice to provide grain crops such as

sorghum, wheat, clover, Austrian winter peas, corn, and rye grass for

overwintering waterfowl along the lower Gulf Coast and Laguna Atascosa NWR.

However, the majority of the farm fields (445 ha/1,100 ac) on Laguna

Atascosa are on soils that do not produce high quality brush. About 202 ha

(500 ac) of the 445 ha (1,100 ac) are suitable for brush and the refuge

plans to convert these 202 ha to brush. Some farm fields that are located

on the best soils to produce brush have been removed from farming, and the

phase—out of farming on the rest of the 202 ha is planned (R. Rauch, pers.

comm. 1987). In addition, a little over 3,238 ha (8,000 ac) of Laguna

Atascosa NWR are now in brush (R. Rauch, pers. comm. 1987). Much of the

refuge’s 18,000 ha (45,000 ac) is salt marsh.

CURRENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: Land protection is essential to securing longterm survival of the ocelot and other endangered and threatened species in

south Texas. Critical cat habitat in the Rio Grande Valley should be

identified. A land protection plan should be developed for areas around

Laguna Atascosa NUR, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and counties north of

this area to protect important ocelot and jaguarundi habitat. Several

areas of undisturbed brushland remain in the southcentral Texas region, and

initial surveys in these areas are in progress.
20

A long-term plan for ecological management of remaining native habitat

in the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been formulated by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. The plan outlines in detail the minimum steps necessary

to preserve remaining wildlife habitat in a meaningful manner. This plan

is included as Appendix II. Two points summarize the plan:

1. At least 40,000 ha (100,000 ac) must come under the control of

various wildlife management agencies and under a comprehensive plan to

salvage lmportant habitat along the Rio Grande in the Rio Grande Valley.

Only about 16,188 ha (40,000 ac) are currently under management authority

(B. Hawthorne, Associate Manager — Oklahoma/Texas, FYS, pers. comm. 1989).

2. The 1985 plan states that trends suggest that the remaining Lower

Rio Grande Valley brushland in private ownership will be developed within 5

years. In 1990, some brushland in private ownership remains, but it is at

r2sk of being cleared at any time.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a general strategy for

managing ocelot habitat. Within the occupied habitat (Figure 9), no

activities that potentially could impact an ocelot are allowed, unless the

activities are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

If an activity is proposed within the potential habitat that could

impact the ocelot, a visual inspection should be made of the activity area.

If there is a reasonable potential for the ocelot to occur there, a

professionally regulated live—trapping project should be conducted to
21

assess ocelot occurrence, with overview provided by the Fish and Wildlife

Service. The trap effort should include the activity area and a ten—mile

radius from this area. The magnitude of live-trapping will be guided

minimally by the location of known ocelot populations relative to the

proposed activity, the presence of ocelot sightings and amount of ocelot

habitat present, and the judged impact of the proposed activity.

All live-trapping projects must be authorized by and coordinated with

the Fish and Wildlife Service. Any necessary state permits must also be

obtained. These guidelines will be refined as additional biological

information on the ocelot is acquired.

CONCLUSIONS: Much information has been obtained recently concerning ocelot

biology in south Texas. Some data remain to be analyzed, and much more

data need to be gathered; therefore, only preliminary conclusions can be

drawn now. Tewes and Miller (1987) have identified areas of research that

will contribute to the recovery of ocelots.

Habitat loss and fragmentation in Texas, especially along the Rio

Grande, critically threaten the long—term survival of the ocelot and

jaguarundi in this area. A coordinated effort at recovery of these species

must be developed and implemented as soon as possible. Hesitation may

result in loss of key habitat and biological corridors necessary for

survival of the entire ocelot population (Tewes and Schmidly 1987).

Thorough and continued field investigation must continue for many years to

approach a complete understanding of the biology of this species.
22

The survival of this species will depend on the intense and multifaceted

cooperation of Federal, state, and private organizations, and private land

owners. Early emphasis of this concept will aid implementation of a

recovery effort for the ocelot.
23

PART II

RECOVERY

Studies to determine the status and ecological needs of listed cats in

Texas are ongoing, but have not been formally initiated in Arizona. The

margay (Felis weidii) no longer occurs in the United States. The margay

does occur approximately 200 miles to the south in Mexico. The jaguar (F.

onca) has been extirpated from Texas but is still a rare disperser into

Arizona. The jaguarundi (F. yagouaroundi) is frequently reported in south

Texas with occasional unconfirmed reports in Arizona. Until recently the

last confirmed jaguarundi in Texas was captured in 1969 in Willacy County.

However, on April 21, 1986, a road—killed specimen was recovered from

Cameron County, Texas. The presence of other jaguarundi in the area has

not yet been confirmed. The ocelot (F. pardalis) is known from eleven

counties in south Texas, and a reproducing population exists on Laguna

Atascosa NWR in Cameron County. Ocelots were last confirmed in Arizona in

1964; however, the species’ status in the state is largely unknown.

The historic and present status of the margay, jaguar and jaguarundi in

the United States is addressed in more detail in Appendix III. Although it

is assumed that actions taken to recover the ocelot would also benefit

other listed cats, plans for the recovery of these species cannot be
24

developed until their presence is confirmed. For the present, plans for

recovery of the listed cats of Arizona and Texas will have to be limited

largely to ocelot preservation.

Criteria for downlisting and delisting of the ocelot are difficult to

determine for two reasons. First, the U.S. population is only a small

fraction of the overall species and its range. The Texas ocelot population

will likely become geographically isolated from the Mexican population in

this century as habitat corridors of travel are lost. Secondly, so little

is known about the population dynamics and viability of wild felids that we

can only estimate numbers and habitat needs. With these limitations in

mind, the following step—down outline and narrative recommend preliminary

objectives and tasks leading to the downlisting of the ocelot in the United

States. As additional data are obtained, more specific downlisting and

delisting criteria will be established and refined.

OBJECTIVES

:

I. The Texas population of the ocelot can be delisted when it has

reached a level that is considered demographically stable and

genetically viable, and when existing and potential threats are

eliminated or controlled. If disease epidemics are determined to

constitute a significant threat, then the Texas population must

consist of at least three demographic units (each must meet viability

standards) that are sufficiently separated that disease epidemics

would not be likely to be transmitted among them. The impact of

disease, precise population numbers and habitat sizes required for
25

viability, and the necessary habitat spatial arrangement will be

determined as individual recovery tasks. The current, although

incomplete, understanding of habitat requirements suggests that full

recovery and delisting may not be a practical objective, although

downlisting to threatened may be attainable.

II. As a preliminary approach to Objective I, increase ocelot numbers in

Texas by protecting at least 20,000 hectares (49,400 ac) of prime

ocelot habitat in Texas, either in a single block or continuous

blocks connected by corridors that allow sufficient movement for gene

flow and recolonization.

III. Determine ocelot distribution and status in Arizona and the northern

states of Mexico. Also, identify the location and status of

additional sub-populations of ocelots in Texas.

IV. Determine status, ecology, and conservation needs of the jaguarundi

in Texas, Arizona, and the northern states of Mexico.

STEP-DOWN OUTLINE

1. Maintain existincy ocelot nopulations in Texas while continuing status

surveys

11. Monitor ocelots in Texas

111. Actively survey known populations

112. Expand surveys in Class I and II sighting areas

113. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of the ocelot

in northern Tamaulipas

12. Gather data on the biology of captured ocelots

121. Radio tag and mark captured ocelots
26

122. Determine habitat use parameters

123. Determine potential influence of disease

1231. Serological survey

1232. Survey parasites

1233. Assess general health status

124. Determine potential effects of inbreeding

125. Assess possible contaminant problems

13. Protect and manage occupied habitat

131. Implement an ocelot habitat protection plan

132. Implement plans outlined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Plan for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife

Refuge

133. Minimize human disturbance on protected habitats

14. Identify and protect potential habitat

141. Preserve habitat adjacent to occupied habitat

142. Encourage private sector habitat protection

143. Increase habitat through restoration and restoration

research.

144. Identify potential habitat sites in south Texas

145. Identify potential habitat sites in other areas of Texas

within the historic range of ocelots

15. Develop contingency glans for captive maintenance of unplanned

ocelot acquisitions

2. Increase ocelot populations and distribution in Texas

21. Identify potential sites for establishing additional populations
27

3. Access the

31. Survey

311.

22. Investigate regulations relating to augmentation of existing

populations

23. Develop techniques for translocation of new founder stock

231. Translocate and/or reintroduce ocelots to new locations, if

suitable habitat exists and ocelots are unable to recolonize

naturally

232. Determine parameters for long—term species survival by

performing a population viability analysis (PVA)

__ status of the jaguarundi in Texas and northern Mexico

for jaguarundi

Develop better techniques for capturing and documenting

j aguarundi

312. Actively survey areas of confirmed presence

313. Expand surveys in Class I and II sighting areas

314. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of the

jaguarundi in northern Tamaulipas

32. Gather data on the biology of captured laguarundi

321. Radio tag and mark captured jaguarundi

322. Determine habitat use parameters

323. Determine potential influence of disease

3231. Serological survey

3232. Survey parasites

3233. Assess general health status

Determine potential effects of inbreeding

Assess possible contaminant problems

324.

325.
28

33. Protect and manage occupied habitat

331. Implement a jaguarundi habitat acquisition program

332. Implement objectives outlined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Plan for the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife

Refuge

333. Minimize human disturbance on protected habitats

34. Identify and Protect potential habitat

341. Preserve habitat adjacent to occupied habitat

342. Encourage private sector habitat protection

343. Increase habitat through restoration and restoration

research

344. Identify potential habitat sites in south Texas

345. Identify potential habitat sites in other areas of Texas

within the historic range of jaguarundi

35. Develop contingency glans for captive maintenance of unplanned

jaguarundi acquisitions

4. Assess the status of listed cats in Arizona and Sonora

41. Monitor listed cats in Arizona and Sonora

411. Actively survey areas of confirmed presence

412. Identify and survey in Class I and II sighting areas

413. Expand surveys of trappers and hunters

414. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of listed cats

in northern Sonora

42. Gather data on the biology of captured listed cats

421. Radio tag and mark captured cats

422. Determine habitat use parameters
29

423. Determine potential influence of disease

4231. Serological survey

4232. Survey parasites

4233. Assess general health status

43. Protect and manage occupied habitat

431. Develop and implement plans to manage occupied habitat

432. Minimize human disturbance on protected habitats

44. Identify and Protect potential habitat

441. Preserve habitat adjacent to occupied habitat

442. Encourage private sector habitat protection

443. Increase habitat

444. Identify potential habitat sites in Arizona

45. Develop contingency glans for captive maintenance of unplanned

listed cat acquisitions

5. Encourage Mexican authorities and cooperate with them to assess the

status, distribution, and ecology of jaguar and margay populations

occurring in northern Mexico

6. Develop an education and information program
30

NARRATIVE

1. Maintain existing ocelot populations in Texas while continuing status

surveys

11. Monitor ocelots in Texas

Continue surveillance of known populations in south Texas through

trapping and photo—documentation.

111. Actively survey known populations

Continued field investigations are essential to gather a

broad data base at this stage of the overall investigation.

112. Expand surveys in Class I and II sightincy areas

Begin trapping and photo-documentation surveys in Class I

and II (Figure 5) sighting areas that have not been

surveyed. Potentially prime ocelot habitat within these

sighting areas should be identified as soon as possible and

surveyed. Techniques to broaden capture probability should

be considered and employed where possible.

113. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of the

ocelot in northern Tamaulipas

The ocelot’s status, distribution, and ecology in

northern Tamaulipas should be assessed as soon as

possible, cooperatively with Mexican biologists and

government authorities.

12. Gather data on the biology of captured ocelots

Much information remains to be gathered to understand the life

history and biology of this species.
31

121. Radio ta~ and mark captured ocelots

All captured ocelots should be permanent~.y marked for future

identification and photo—identified. Marking can be by

tattoo or ear tag. As many ocelots as feasible should be

radio—tagged and monitored. Realistic goals for field

surveillance of radio-tagged cats should be established. A

minimum 20—year commitment should be made to gathering data

on the biology of this species through field surveillance.

122. Determine habitat use parameters

Determination of parameters such as territory, home range,

and corridor habitat size and distribution are essential to

the long—term planning for this species. The habitat type

used and the amount needed to support breeding cats should

also be determined and described in detail. Other

parameters include carrying capacity and interaction with

other species within used habitat. Predator and prey

associations need to be investigated.

123. Determine potential influence of disease

The presence of at least three other species that can serve

as reservoirs of disease agents that may affect ocelots

makes monitoring these diseases important in determining

disease and mortality patterns in relation to the population

dynamics of the ocelot. Results of this monitoring should

be considered when managing for the ocelot.
32

1231. Serological survey

Bacterial, viral, fungal, and other diseases that are

possible pathogens of cats should be serologically

monitored in captured ocelots, bobcats, feral house

cats, raccoons, and other associated carnivores.

Testing should initially include feline panleukopenia,

calicivirus, and feline infectious peritonitis.

1232. Survey parasites

Ticks, fleas, and other ectoparasites on ocelots and

associated carnivores should be identified and

quantified. Dead ocelots should be examined for

internal parasites, and necropsied for evidence of

disease, and tissue samples should be obtained for

analysis. Field collected scats should be examined

for parasites (as well as food habits).

1233. Assess general health status

A general physical examination of captured ocelots,

bobcats, and associated carnivores should be

performed. Additionally, serum and whole blood should

be taken for baseline data on the health of

individuals. Tests should include packed cell volume,

plasma protein, and presence of hemoparasites.

Guidelines developed from the Florida Panther Recovery

Plan should be evaluated for applicability during

development of this step.
33

124. Determine potential effects of inbreeding

Unnaturally low population numbers and social structures may

limit gene flow and genetic diversity that may, in turn,

limit the future of wildlife populations. Known ocelot

populations should be examined for genetic diversity and

breeding behavior should be evaluated to determine the

feasibility of maintaining viable wild populations.

125. Assess possible contaminant problems

In Texas, the ocelot inhabits areas adjacent to agricultural

lands that receive intensive application of various

pesticides and herbicides. The Texas Veterinary Medical

Diagnostic Laboratory System reported finding 0.71 ppm

selenium in a road—killed ocelot’s liver. However, they did

state that they cannot interpret the significance of this

value because they “have not established normal limits for

hepatic selenium concentration in ocelots. .

13. Protect and manage occupied habitat

Habitat currently used by ocelots that is now under Federal or

state management authority should be protected and modified to

enhance probability of continued use by ocelots. A variety of

methods should be considered to protect habitat used by ocelots

that is not now under Federal or state management authority.

131. Implement an ocelot habitat protection plan

Important ocelot habitat adjacent to Laguna Atascosa NWR and

corridors known to be used by ocelots should be protected.

A variety of methods to protect this land should be
34

considered, including acquisition. Laguna Atascosa NWR

contains the largest known U.S. ocelot population and may

now be at or near its carrying capacity for ocelots.

Adjacent habitat and travel corridors to this habitat should

be protected. This habitat is needed to connect the core

population with the wildlife corridor along the lower Rio

Grande. Five ocelots have been hit by vehicles when the

cats left Laguna Atascosa NWR.

132. Imnlement clans outlined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Plan for the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuae

The goals outlined in this plan should be attained as soon

as possible. Critical ocelot habitat should be identified

and incorporated into the acquisition process. Addition of

important habitat adjacent to existing used habitats is also

essential to population survival of the ocelot in south

Texas. Loss of target habitat to other uses such as

agriculture and development is a distinct possibility, and

once lost future retrieval is unlikely.

133. Minimize human disturbance on Protected habitats

Recreational activities on Federal lands normally will not

affect ocelots. However, plans to alter occupied habitat

for recreational purposes should be reviewed. Establishment

of even minimal picnic areas in occupied habitat areas may

alter use by ocelots. Normal hunting programs on management

authority lands do not appear to have any negative impacts

on ocelots. However, cautions to hunters on management
35

authority lands should be considered. Predator control or

furbearer trapping in areas occupied by the ocelot or

jaguarundi could have a significant adverse effect on these

populations. Techniques (chemical, mechanical, and other

means) lethal to the ocelot and jaguarundi that are used to

control predators and collect furbearers should not be used

in habitat occupied by either the ocelot or jaguarundi.

14. Identify and protect potential habitat

Unless major habitat sites and supporting corridor habitats are

acquired or otherwise protected, it is unlikely that ocelots will

exist as more than isolated remnant populations in south Texas.

141. Preserve habitat adiacent to occupied habitat

Loss of habitat adjacent to currently occupied habitat may

result in the loss of corridors and the formation of

biological barriers to ingress and egress of ocelots within

a deme. This habitat may be particularly important around

Laguna Atascosa NWR where the largest known ocelot

population exists and where five cats have been hit by

vehicles when the cats left the refuge.

142. Encourage private sector habitat protection

Habitat that cannot be obtained or managed by conventional

methods must be managed by the owner. Intense efforts to

educate and work with owners in managing their lands in a

manner beneficial to ocelots must be made.
36

143. Increase habitat throuah restoration and restoration

research

Non—usable habitat that is adjacent to occupied or potential

habitat and under management authority should be modified to

enhance use by ocelots. Agricultural areas and practices on

Federal lands should be examined to identify modifications

that would benefit wild ocelots. Modifications of current

agricultural practices on Federal refuge land should be

considered from two standpoints: first, to enhance ocelot

use and thereby increase total usable habitat for these

cats, and second, to develop models for educating private

landowners in developing multiuse habitats on their lands.

Ocelot habitat creation on lands not currently under

management authority should also be attempted. A variety of

methods may be feasible for accomplishing this task,

including working with local landowners. The creation of

travel corridors between suitable habitat should especially

be attempted.

144. Identify potential habitat sites in south Texas

Tracts of potentially suitable habitat should be identified

for potential future use in the recovery effort. Such sites

may exist in Jim Wells, Live Oak, and McMullen Counties.

Initial plans for protection of potential habitat sites

should be considered by cooperating management authorities.
37

145. Identify potential habitat sites in other areas of Texas

within the historic range of ocelots

Potential habitat sites outside the Tamaulipan Biotic

Province should be identified, but plans for management

authority should be delayed until ocelot population

stabilization is accomplished in south Texas, unless such

plans affect other needs.

15. Develop contingency plans for captive maintenance of unplanned

ocelot acquisitions

A protocol should be developed early in the recovery effort to

care for unplanned ocelot acquisitions that may occur through such

situations as border confiscations, field emergencies, vehicle

trauma cases, or other injury or debilitation. At least temporary

captive maintenance of such specimens is humanely and

scientifically warranted.

2. Increase ocelot populations and distribution in Texas

The current major ocelot population on Laguna Atascosa NWR appears to be

secure within the refuge boundary. However, as this habitat becomes

full and cats disperse from the refuge they are having trouble finding

sufficient habitat or a safe corridor to sufficient habitat, limiting

the potential for expansion of this population. Therefore, the

establishment of additional populations should be considered.

21. Identify potential sites for establishing additional copulations

Results from ongoing studies will be used in selecting specific

sites.
38

22. Investiage regulations relating to augmentation of existing

populations

Review legal requirements for capture and translocation, captive

holding, and release of wild obtained cats.

23. Develop techniques for translocation of new founder stock

Before large scale translocations occur, translocation of a few

ocelots should be attempted to develop the techniques.

231. Translocate and/or reintroduce ocelots to new locations

Careful evaluation should be made of which cats to

translocate. Cats likely to disperse, with an increased

mortality risk (due to such things as crossing roads),

should be used. Translocation should be into areas with

suitable habitat that do not contain ocelots. Translocation

techniques for wild cats must be evaluated and monitored by

field personnel.

232. Determine Parameters for long—term species survival by

performing a population viability analysis (PVA

)

Parameters for population levels and a sufficient genetic

base for long—term species survival should be developed with

the idea that the Texas ocelot population will likely become

geographically isolated from the Mexican population in this

century.
39

3. Assess the status of the jaguarundi in Texas and northern Mexico

The recent road—killed jaguarundi in Cameron County, Tc~xas, indicates

that the species may still exist in the state. The status of any

existing populations in the wild must be determined before a management

plan can be focused on this species.

31. Survey for jaguarundi

Survey for possible populations in south Texas through capture and

photo—documentation.

311. Develop better technigues for capturing and documenting

j aguarundi

Despite an intensive trap program for ocelots and

jaguarundis in south Texas, no jaguarundi have been caught.

Different techniques may be necessary for capturing and/or

documenting jaguarundi.

312. Actively survey areas of confirmed presence

Set—cameras and other means must be used to determine the

presence of additional jaguarundi in the area of the

recently road—killed specimen and in areas where there have

been credible sightings.

313. Expand surveys in Class I and II sighting areas

Begin trapping and photo—documentation surveys in Class I

and II sighting areas that have not been surveyed.

Potential jaguarundi habitat within these sighting areas
40

should be identified as soon as possible and surveyed.

Techniques to broaden the capture probability should be

considered and used where possible.

314. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of the

jaguarundi in northern Tamaulipas

The status, distribution, and ecology of the jaguarundi in

northern Tamaulipas should be assessed as soon as possible,

cooperatively with Mexican biologists and government

authorities.

32. Gather data on the biology of captured jaguarundi

With data collected on only one decomposed jaguarundi in the U.S.,

we lack sufficient information to understand the life history and

biology of this species.

321. Radio taa and mark cantured iaauarundi

All captured jaguarundi should be permanently marked for

future identification and photo-identified. Marking can be

by tatoo or ear tag. As many jaguarundi as feasible should

be radio-tagged and monitored and realistic goals for field

surveillance established. A minimum 20-year commitment

should be made to gathering data on the biology of this

species through field surveillance.

322. Determine habitat use parameters

Determination of parameters such as territory, home range,

and corridor habitat size and distribution are essential to

the long-term planning for this species. The habitat type

used and the amount needed to support breeding cats should
41

also be determined and described in detail. Other

parameters include carrying capacity and interaction with

associated species. Predator and prey relationships need to

be investigated.

323. Determine potential influence of disease

The presence of at least three other species that can serve

as reservoirs of disease agents that may affect jaguarundi

makes monitoring these diseases important in determining

their disease and mortality effects on the population

dynamics of the jaguarundi. Results of this monitoring

should be considered when managing for jaguarundi.

3231. Serological survey

Bacterial, viral, fungal, and other diseases that are

possible pathogens of cats should be serologically

monitored in captured jaguarundi, ocelots, bobcats,

feral house cats, raccoons, and other associated

carnivores. Testing should initially include feline

panleukopenia, calicivirus, and feline infectious

peritonitis.

3232. Survey parasites

Ticks, fleas, and other ectoparasites on jaguarundi

and associated carnivores should be identified and

quantified. Dead jaguarundi should be examined for
42

internal parasites, and necropsied for evidence of

disease, and tissue samples obtained for analysis.

Field collected scats should be examined for parasites

(as well as food habits).

3233. Assess general health status

A general physical examination of captured jaguarundi,

ocelots, bobcats, and associated carnivores should be

performed. Additionally, serum and whole blood should

be taken for baseline data on the health of

individuals. Tests should include packed cell volume,

plasma protein, and presence of hemoparasites.

Guidelines developed from the Florida Panther Recovery

Plan should be evaluated for applicability during

development of this step.

324. Determine potential effects of inbreeding

Unnaturally low population numbers and social structures may

limit gene flow and genetic diversity that may, in turn,

limit the future of wildlife populations. Known jaguarundi

populations should be examined for genetic diversity and

breeding behavior should be evaluated to determine the

feasibility of maintaining viable wild populations.

325. Assess possible contaminant problems

In Texas, the jaguarundi inhabits areas adjacent to

agricultural lands that receive intensive application of

various pesticides and herbicides.
43

33. Protect and manage occupied habitat

Habitat used by jaguarundi that is under Federal or state

management authority should be protected and managed to enhance

probability of continued use by jaguarundi.

331. Implement a jaguarundi habitat acquisition program

Other habitat found to be used by jaguarundi, outside the

scope of the Lower Rio Grande plan, should be protected.

332. Implement glans outlined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

nlan for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife

Refuge

The goals outlined in this plan should be attained as soon

as possible. Addition of important habitat likely to be

used by the jaguarundi is essential to population survival

of this species in south Texas. Loss of target habitat to

other uses such as agriculture and development is a distinct

possibility and once lost, future retrieval is unlikely.

333. Minimize human disturbance on Protected habitats

Normal recreational activities on Federal lands will not

affect jaguarundi in most cases. However, plans to alter

jaguarundi habitat for recreational purposes should be

carefully reviewed. Establishment of even minimal picnic

areas in occupied habitat areas may significantly alter use

by jaguarundi. Normal hunting programs on management

authority lands do not appear to be a negative factor in the

preservation of jaguarundi. However, cautions to hunters on

management authority lands should be considered. Predator
44

control or furbearer trapping in areas occupied by the

ocelot or jaguarundi could have a significant adverse effect

on these populations. Techniques (chemical, mechanical, and

other means) lethal to the ocelot and jaguarundi that are

used to control predators and collect furbearers should not

be used in habitat occupied by either the ocelot or

j aguarundi.

34. Identify and protect potential habitat

Unless major habitat sites and supporting corridor habitats are

acquired and protected, it is unlikely that jaguarundi will exist

as more than isolated remnant populations in south Texas.

341. Preserve habitat adjacent to occupied habitat

Loss of habitat adjacent to occupied habitat may result in

the loss of corridors and the formation of biological

barriers to ingress and egress of jaguarundi within a deme.

342. Encourage private sector habitat protection

Habitat that cannot be obtained or managed by conventional

methods must be managed by the owner. Intense efforts to

educate and work with owners in managing their lands in a

manner beneficial to jaguarundis must be made.

343. Increase habitat through restoration and restoration

research

Non—usable habitat that is adjacent to occupied or potential

habitat and under management authority should be modified to

enhance use by jaguarundi. Agricultural areas and practices

on Federal lands should be examined to identify
45

modifications that would benefit wild jaguarundis.

Modifications of current agricultural practices on Federal

refuge land should be considered from two standpoints:

first, to enhance jaguarundi use and thereby increase total

usable habitat for these cats, and second, to develop models

for educating private landowners in developing multiuse

habitats on their lands. Jaguarundi habitat creation on

lands not currently under management authority should also

be attempted. A variety of methods may be feasible for

accomplishing this task, including working with local

landowners. The creation of travel corridors between

suitable habitat should especially be attempted.

344. Identify potential habitat sites in south Texas

Tracts of potentially suitable habitat should be identified

for potential future use in the recovery effort. Initial

plans for protection of potential habitat sites should be

considered by cooperating management authorities.

345. Identify potential habitat sites in other areas of Texas

within the historic range of jaguarundi

Potential habitat sites outside the Tamaulipan Biotic

Province should be identified, but plans for management

authority should be delayed until jaguarundi population

stabilization is accomplished in south Texas, unless such

plans affect other needs.
46

35. Develop contingency clans for captive maintenance of unplanned

iaguarumdi acuuisitions

A protocol should be developed early in the recovery effort to

care for unplanned jaguarundi acquisition that may occur through

such situations as border confiscations, field emergencies,

vehicle trauma cases, or other injury or debilitation. At least

temporary captive maintenance of such specimens is humanely and

scientifically warranted.

4. Assess the status of listed cats in Arizona and Sonora

Evidence indicates that at least the ocelot continues to exist in

Arizona and adjacent areas of Sonora, Mexico. However, the status and

distribution of listed cats in the area is essentially unknown and must

be investigated before recovery actions can be initiated.

41. Monitor listed cats in Arizona and Sonora

Initiate surveys to determine the probable distribution of listed

cats in Arizona. Although all species should be evaluated,

initial emphasis should be on ocelot distribution.

411. Actively survey areas of confirmed presence

Areas where listed cats have been reported as captured

should be actively surveyed through the use of set—cameras

and/or traps.

412. Identify and survey in Class I and II sighting areas

Arizona sightings that meet the Class I and II criteria

employed in south Texas should be evaluated through photo—

documentation and/or trapping. Potentially prime habitat

for listed cats within these sighting areas should be
47

identified as soon as possible and subsequently surveyed.

Techniques to broaden the capture probability should be

considered and employed where possible.

413. Expand surveys of tra~ners and hunters

Use mail questionnaires and interview surveys to establish

if Class I areas exist peripheral to identified Class I

and II sighting areas. Develop and implement a public

information program to assist in obtaining unsolicited

information.

414. Assess the status, distribution, and ecology of listed cats

in northern Sonora

The status, distribution, and ecology of listed cats in

northern Sonora should be assessed as soon as possible,

cooperatively with Mexican biologists and government

authorities.

42. Gather data on the biology of captured listed cats

Much information remains to be gathered on the ocelot and other

listed cats to understand the life history and biology of these

species. Data gathered in Arizona should be compared with those

gathered in Texas to determine areas of similarity as well as

differences.

421. Radio tag and mark caDtured cats

All captured cats should be permanently marked for future

identification and photo—identified. Marking can be by
48

tattoo or ear tag. As many cats as feasible should be

radio—tagged and monitored. Realistic goals for field

surveillance of radio—tagged cats should be established.

422. Determine habitat use Parameters

Determination of parameters such as territory, home range,

and corridor habitat size and distribution are essential to

the long—term planning for these species. The habitat type

used and the amount needed to support breeding cats should

also be determined and described in detail. Other

parameters include carrying capacity and interaction with

other species within used habitat. Predator-prey

associations need to be investigated.

423. Determine potential influence of disease

The presence of other species that can serve as reservoirs

of disease agents that may affect listed cats makes

monitoring these diseases important in determining disease

and mortality patterns in relation to population dynamics.

Results of this monitoring should be considered when

managing for the listed cats.

4231. Serological survey

Bacterial, viral, fungal and other diseases that are

possible pathogens of cats should be serologically

monitored in captured listed cats, bobcats, feral

house cats, raccoons, and other associated carnivores.

Testing should initially include feline panleukopenia,

calicivirus, and feline infectious peritonitis.
49

4232. Survey parasites

Ticks, fleas, and other ectoparasites on captured

listed cats and other carnivores should be identified

and quantified. Dead listed cats should be examined

for internal parasites, necropsied for evidence of

disease, and tissue samples should be obtained for

complete analyses. Field collected scats should be

examined for parasites (as well as food habits).

4233. Assess general health status

A general physical examination of captured listed

cats, bobcats, and associated carnivores should be

performed. Additionally, serum and whole blood should

be obtained for baseline data on the health of

individuals. Tests should include packed cell volume,

plasma protein, and presence of hemoparasites.

Guidelines developed from the Florida Panther Recovery

Plan should be evaluated for applicability during

development of this step.

43. Protect and manage occupied habitat

Habitat currently used by listed cats that is now under Federal or

state management authority should be protected and modified to

enhance probability of continued use.

431. Develop and implement plans to manage occupied habitat

Plans developed should outline actions to be taken to manage

occupied habitat as soon as such habitat is identified.

Plans should also provide for the management of important
50

habitat adjacent to occupied habitats. Loss of target

habitat to other uses such as agriculture and development is

a distinct possibility, and once lost future retrieval is

unlikely.

432. Minimize human disturbance on Protected habitats

Normal recreational activities on Federal lands will not

affect listed cats in most cases. However, plans to alter

used habitat for recreational purposes should be carefully

reviewed. Establishment of even minimal picnic areas in

occupied habitat areas may significantly alter use by listed

cats. Normal hunting programs on management authority lands

do not appear to have any negative impacts on listed cats.

However, cautions to hunters on management authority lands

should be considered. Predator control or furbearer

trapping in areas containing ocelot or jaguarundi could have

a significant effect on these populations. Techniques

(chemical, mechanical, and other means) lethal to the ocelot

and jaguarundi that are used to control predators and

collect furbearers should not be used in habitat occupied by

either the ocelot or jaguarundi.

44. Identify and protect potential habitat

Unless major habitat sites and supporting corridor habitats are

identified and protected, it is unlikely that listed cats will

exist as more than isolated remnant populations in Arizona.
51

441. Preserve habitat adiacent to occupied habitat

Loss of habitat adjacent to occupied habitat may result in

the loss of corridors and the formation of biological

barriers to ingress and egress of listed cats within a deme.

442. Encourage private sector habitat protection

Habitat that cannot be obtained or managed by conventional

methods must be managed by the owner. Intense efforts to

educate and work with owners in managing their lands in a

manner beneficial to listed cats must be made.

443. Increase habitat

Non-usable habitat that is adjacent to occupied habitat and

under management authority should be modified to enhance use

by listed cats. Agriculture areas present on Federal lands

should be examined to identify modifications that would

benefit wild listed cats. Modifications of current

agricultural practices on Federal land should be considered

from two standpoints. Modification should enhance listed

cat use and thereby increase total usable habitat.

Modifications could be used as a model in educating private

landowners in developing multiuse habitats on their lands.

444. Identify potential habitat sites in Arizona

Large tracts of potentially suitable habitat should be

identified for potential future use in the recovery effort.

Initial plans for protection of potential habitat sites

should be considered by cooperating management authorities.
52

45. Develop contingency plans for captive maintenance of unplanned

listed cat acquisitions

A protocol should be developed early in the recovery effort to

care for unplanned listed cat acquisitions that may occur through

such situations as border confiscations, field emergencies,

vehicle trauma cases, or other injury or debilitation. Captive

maintenance of such specimens is humanely and scientifically

warranted.

5. Encourage Mexican authorities and cooperate with them to assess the

status, distribution and ecolo~v of jaguar and margay populations

occurrincy in northern Mexico

The status, distribution, and ecology of jaguar and margay populations

occurring near the United States should be examined. Jaguars

historically occupied areas within Texas and Arizona. They may still be

immigrating into the United States from Mexico.

6. Develop an education and information program

Listed cats are essentially non—controversial species and public

attitude can be expected to be positive. However, land management

issues relating to their survival will be at issue in some instances.

The Information and Education (I&E) program should focus on the listed

cats and on the need to preserve and manage habitat for the benefit of

listed cats. Slide/tape presentations, video or film presentations,

brochures, and other media could be used.
53

REFERENCES CITED

Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 1982. Threatened native wildlife in

Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Pub., Phoenix. 12 pp.

Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. North Amer. Fauna 25:1—222.

1931. Mammals of New Mexico. North Amer. Fauna 53:1—412

Brown, D.E. 1983. On the status of the jaguar in the Southwest.

Southwestern Naturalist 28(4) :459—479

1985a. Tigerillo — southwest mystery cat.

pp. 28—29.

Arizona Hunter.

Natural

Burt, W.H.

mammals

No. 39,

1985b. The status of ocelots in the United States. Southwest

History Association. Unpub. report.

1938. Faunal relationships and geographical distribution of

in Sonora, Mexico. Univ. Michigan, Mus. Zool. Misc. Publ.

Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 77 pp.

_________ 1961. A fauna from an Indian site near Redington, Arizona.

J. Mamm. 42:115—116.

April.
54

Cahalane, V. 1961. Mammals of North America. MacMillan Co., N.Y.

682 pp.

Cockrum, L.E. 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona: The taxonomy and

distribution. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 276 pp.

Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES). 1983. CITES appendices — Mammals. U.S. Dept. Interior,

Wash., D.C.

Davis, G.P. 1982. Man and wildlife in Arizona: the American exploration

period 1824—1865. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 232 pp.

Davis, W.B. 1966. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dept.

Bull. 41, Austin. p.119.

_________ 1974. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dept.

Bull. 41, Austin. 252 pp.

Eaton, R. 1977. Breeding biology and propagation of the ocelot (Leopardus

(Felis) pardalis). Zool. Garten. 47:9—23.

Gentry, H.S. 1982. Sinaloan deciduous forest. In Biotic Communities of

the American Southwest United States and Mexico, (D.E. Brown, ed.),

Desert Plants. Pp. 72—77.
55

Goldman, E.A. 1932. The jaguars of North America. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.

45:143—146.

_________ 1943. The races of the ocelot and margay in middle America.

3. Mamm. 24:372—385.

Goodwin, F., Jr. 1970. Behavior, life history and present status of the

jaguarundi, Felis yaqouaroundi (Lacepede) in South Texas. Unpubl. M.S.

Thesis, Texas A&I Univ., Kingsville, Tx. 63 pp.

Grzimek, B. 1975. Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia, Vol. 12. Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co., N.Y. 657 pp.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vol. II. John Wiley and

Sons., N.Y.

Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America, Vol. II.

Ronald Press Co., N.Y.

Halloran, A.F. 1946. The carnivores of the San Andres Mountains, New

Mexico. 3. Mamm. 27:154—161.

Hill, J.E. 1942. Notes on mammals of northeastern New Mexico. 3. Mamm.

23:75—82.
56

Hock, R.J. 1955. Southwestern exotic felids. Amer. Midl. Nat. 53:324-

328.

Hoffmeister, D.F.

Press, Chicago.

__________ 1986.

XIX + 602 pp.

Inglis, J. 1964.

Texas Parks and

1971. Mammals of the Grand Canyon. Univ. Illinois

183 pp.

Mammals of Arizona. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson.

A history of the vegetation of the Rio Grande Plain.

Wildl. Dept. Bull. 45, Austin. 122 pp.

ISIS. 1985. ISIS studhook—like report, Felis pardalis. International

Species Inventory System. Apple Valley, MN.

IUCN. 1972. Red data book, I. Mammalia. Texas ocelot. International

Union for Conservation of Nature. Morges, Switzerland.

_________ 1978. Red data book, I. Mammalia. Ocelot. International

Union for Conservation of Nature. Morges, Switzerland.

Johnston, M.C. 1963. Past and present grasslands of south Texas and

northeastern Mexico. Ecol. 44:456—465.

Kurten, B. 1965. The Pleistocene Felidae of Florida. Bull. Florida State

Museum 9(6) :215—273.
57

Laack, L. and J.H. Rappole. 1986. Investigation into the basic ecology of

the ocelot in south Texas. Final report to the USFWS, Albuquerque, New

Mexico.

Lange, K.I. 1960. The jaguar in Arizona. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.

63:96—101.

Lawler, H. and T. Van Devender. 1984. Tropical Sonora: Rancho la Brisca.

Sonorensis 6:5—10.

Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico: the game birds and mammals.

Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 568 pp.

Little, E.L. 1938. A record of the jaguarundi in Arizona. J. Mamm.

19(4) :500—501.

Lowery, G.M. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters.

Louisiana State Univ. Press, Baton Rouge. 565 pp.

McMahan, C.A., R.G. Frye, and K.L. Brown. 1984. The vegetation types of

Texas, An illustrated synopsis to accompany the map. Texas Parks and

Wildl. Dept., Pittman—Robertson Project W—107—R, Austin, Texas.

Morris, D. 1965. The mammals: a guide to living species. Harper and Row

Publ., Inc., N.Y. 448 pp.
58

Navarro Lopez, D. 1985. The status and distribution of the ocelot (Felis

pardalis) in Texas. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&I University,

Kingsville, Texas. 92 pp.

Nelson, E.W. and E.A. Goldman. 1933. Revision of the jaguars. J. Mamm.

14: 221—240.

Nowak, R.M. 1973. A possible occurrence of the jaguar in Louisiana.

Southwestern Nat. 17(4):~430—432.

Nowak, R.M. and J.L. Paradiso. 1983. Walker’s Mammals of the World. Vol.

II. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.

Ray, C.E., S.d. Olsen, and H.J. Gut. 1963. Three mammals new to the

Pleistocene fauna of Florida, and a reconsideration of five earlier

records. J. Mamm. 44(3):373—395.

Roelke, M.E., et al. 1985. Medical management and biomedical findings on

the Florida panther, Felis concolor xoeyi. Unpubl. data, College of

Veterinary Medicine, U. Fla., Gainesville, FL 32610.

Saxton, D.L. and S. Enos. 1983. Dictionary: Papago/Pima - English; ——

English-Papago/Pima, Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson. 145 pp.
59

Seager, S.W.J. and C.M. Demorest. 1978. Reproduction of captive wild

carnivores. Pp. 667—706 In M.E. Fowler (ed.), Zoo and Wild Animal

Medicine. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 951 pp.

Sealander, J.A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. River Road Press,

Conway, AR. 313 pp.

Shurfeldt, R.W. 1921. The mountain lion, ocelots, lynxes and their kin.

Amer. Forest. 27:629—636, 659.

Taylor, W.P. 1947. Recent record of the jaguar in Texas. J. Mamm.

28(1) :66.

Tewes, N.E. 1986. Ecological and behavioral correlates of ocelot spatial

patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 128 pp.

_________ and Everett, D.D. 1982. Year End Report — “Studies of the

endangered ocelot occurring in Texas”, Contract #14—16—0002—81—229,

Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Box 218, Texas A&I

University, Kingsville, Texas.

_________ and __________. 1986. Status and distribution of the

endangered ocelot and jaguarundi in Texas. Pp. 147-158 In Cats of the

World: Biology, Conservation, and Management (S.D. Miller and D.D.

Everett, eds.). National Wildl. Federation, Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
60

_________ and L.L. Laack. 1989. Status report on ocelot distribution in

south Texas. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,

New Mexico. 2 pp.

________ and S.D. Miller. 1987. Future research for the endangered

ocelot population of the United States. Pp. 164—166 In Proceedings of

the Third Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium (O4om,

R.R., K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier, eds.). Georgia Dept. of Nat.

Res., Athens, GA. 253 pp.

_________ and D.J. Schmidly. 1987. The Neotropical felids: jaguar,

ocelot, margay and jaguarundi. ~fl,Wild Furbearer Management and

Conservation in North America (M. Novak and J. Baker, eds.). Ontario

Ministry of Nat. Resources, Toronto. 1,150 pp.

Texas Organization for Endangered Species. 1979. TOES watch-list of

endangered, threatened, and peripheral vertebrates of Texas. Texas

Organization for Endangered Species, Austin. 14 pp.

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). 1987. Regulations for taking,

possessiag, transporting, exporting, processing, selling or offering for

sale, or skipping endangered species. 31 T.A.C. Sec. 65.181—65.184.

Twedt, D.J. and J.H. Rappole. 1986. Distribution, abundance, and habitat

preferences of ocelot and jaguarundi in south Texas. Final Report to

the USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
61

Walker, E.P. 1964. Mammals of the World, Vol. II. John Hopkins Press,

Baltimore, MD.

Williams, D., C.M. Thompson, and J.L. Jacobs. 1977. Soil survey of

Cameron County, Texas. Soil Conservation Service, USDA,

Washington, D.C.
62

PART III

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Implementation Schedule that follows is a summary of scheduled actions

and costs for the listed cats of Texas and Arizona recovery program. It is

a guide to meet the objectives of the recovery plan for these species, as

elaborated upon in Part II, Narrative. This schedule indicates the general

category for implementation (I = information gathering, M = management,

A = acquisition, 0 = other), recovery plan tasks, corresponding action

outline numbers, task priorities, duration of the tasks (“ongoing” means

that once the task is begun it will be conducted on an annual basis), the

agencies responsible for performing these tasks, and the estimated costs

for FWS tasks. Part III is the action of the recovery plan, that when

accomplished, should lead toward the recovery of the listed cats of Texas

and Arizona and protection of their habitats. It should be noted that

monetary needs for agencies other than FWS are not identified and therefore

Part III does not reflect the total financial requirements for the recovery

of these species.

Recovery Action Priorities

Priorities in column four of the implementation schedule are assigned using

the following guidelines:

1 = Actions absolutely necessary to prevent

extinction of the species.

2 = Actions necessary to maintain the species’

current population status.

3 = All other actions necessary to provide for

full recovery of the species.

Abbreviations Used

FWS — USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service

SE - Division of Endangered Species

ES — Ecological Services Field Office

RW — Division of Refuges and Wildlife

LE - Division of Law Enforcement

BLM - USD1 Bureau of Land Management

FS — USDA Forest Service

AZ - Arizona Game and Fish Department

TX — Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

CKWRI - Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research

Institute

AAZPA — American Association of Zoological

Parks and Aquariums
63

GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Information Gathering — I or R (Research)

1. Population status

2. Habitat status

3. Habitat requirements

4. Management techniques

5. Taxonomic studies

6. Demographic studies

7. Propagation

8. Migration

9. Predation

10. Competition

11. Disease

12. Environmental contaminant

13. Reintroduction

14. Other information

Management - M

1. Propagation

2. Reintroduction

3. Habitat maintenance and manipulation

4. Predator and competitor control

5. Depredation control

6. Disease control

7. Other management

Acquisition - A

1. Lease

2. Easement

3. Management agreement

4. Exchange

5. Withdrawal

6. Fee title

7. Other

Other - 0

1. Information and education

2. Law Enforcement

3. Regulations

4. Administration
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

GENERAL

CATEGORY

Ii

PLAN TASK TASK PRIORITY TASK

DURATION

**

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COSTS

(EST. ) *

FUS OTHER FYi FY2 FY3

REGION PROGRAM

Nonitor ocelots 11 2 ongoing 2 SE TX 8,000 8,000 8,000

in Texas ES CKURI

RU

14, Radio tag ocelots 121 2 ongoing 2 SE TX 10,000 10,000 10,000

15 RU CKURI

13 Determine habitat 122 2 ongoing 2 SE TX 10,000 10,000 10,000

use parameters RU CKURI

Ill Determine 123 2 ongoing 2 SE TX 1,000 1,000 1,000

potential influ— RU CKURI

ence of disease

114 Determine effects 124 3 10 2 SE TX 500 500 500

of inbreeding RU CKURI

AAZPA

112 Assess contaminant 125 2 ongoing 2 SE 700 700 700

problem RU

143 Protect and manage 13 1 ongoing 2 SE TX 5,000 5,000 5,000

occupied habitat ES

RU

LE

143 Identify and 14 2 ongoing 2 SE TX 5,000 5,000 5,000

protect potential ES CKURI

habitat RU

*Costs refer to USFUS expenditures only.

**Task duration is in years.

0”
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

GENERAL

CATEGORY

147

PLAN TASK TASK

I

PRIORITY TASK

DURATION

**

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

FUS OTHER

FISCAL YEAR COSTS

REGION PROGRAM

FYi FY2 FY3

Develop plan for

unplanned captive

maintenance

15 3 1 2 SE TX

CKURI

AAZPA

500 500 500

M2 Increase ocelot

populations and

distribution in

Texas

2 2 10 2 SE TX

ES CKURI

RU AAZPA

30,000 30,000 30,000

Il Survey for

j aguarundi

31 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

ES CKURI

RU

5,000 5,000 5,000

14,

IS

Radio tag

jaguarundi

321 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

RU CKURI

5,000 5,000 5,000

13 Determine

habitat use

parameters

322 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

RU CKURI

2,000 2,000 2,000

Ill Determine

potential

influence of

disease

323 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

RU CKWRI

500 500 500

114 Determine effects

of inbreeding

324 3 10 2 SE TX

RU CKURI

AAZPA

500 500 500

*Costs refer to USFUS expenditures only.

**Task duration is in years.

0’

U,
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

GENERAL

CATEGORY

PLAN TASK TASK

ft

PRIORITY

ft

TASK

DURATION

**

RESPONSIBLE AGEI4CY

FUS OTHER

FISCAL YEAR COSTS

(EST.) *

FYi FY2 FY3

REGION PROGRAM

112 Assess contami—

nant problem

325 2 ongoing 2 SE

RU

500 500 500

143 Protect and

manage occupied

habitat

33 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

ES

LE

5,000 5,000 5,000

143 Identify and

protect

potential habitat

34 2 ongoing 2 SE TX

ES CKWRI

RU

4,000 4,000 4,000

147 Develop plan

for unplanned

captive maintenance

35 3 1 2 SE TX

CKWRI

AAZPA

500 500 500

Ii Monitor listed

cats in Arizona

and Sonora

41 2 10 2 SE AZ

ES BLN

RU FS

20,000 20,000 20,000

14,

IS

Radio tag

captured cats

421 2 20 2 SE AZ

ES

RU

10,000 10,000 10,000

13 Determine

habitat use

parameters

422 2 5 2 SE AZ

ES BLM

4,000 4,000 4,000

*Costs refer to USFUS expenditures only.

**Task duration is in years.

) )

0’

0’
)

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

GENERAL

CATEGORY

PLAN TASK TASK

1

PRIORITY

1

TASK

DURATION

**

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

FWS OTHER

FISCAL YEAR COSTS

(EST.) *

FYi FY2 FY3

REGION PROGRAM

Ill Determine 423 2 10 2 SE AZ 1,000 1,000 1,000

potential

influence of

disease

143 Protect and 43 2 20 2 SE AZ 3,000 3,000 3,000

manage occupied ES BLM

habitat RW FS

LE

143 Identify and 44 2 20 2 SE AZ 1,000 1,000 1,000

protect potential ES BLM

habitat RW FS

147 Develop plan for 45 3 1 2 SE AZ 500 500 500

unplanned captive AAZPA

maintenance

II. Assess status of 5 3 3 2 SE CKWRI 10,000 10,000 10,000

jaguar and margay in ES

Mexico RW

01 Education and 6 3 ongoing 2 SE AZ 1,000 1,000 1,000

information ES TX

program RW CKWRI

AAZPA

*Costs refer to USFWS expenditures only.

**Task duration is in years.

a’
68

Appendix I - Figures Cited in Text

70

. p. mearnsi

F. p. nelsoni

1- iP. pardalis

F. p. sonoriensis

Figure 2. Historic ranges of the five North American races of the ocelot,

Felis pardalls (from Hall 1981).

F. ~p.albescens
71

• SpecImens

A Reported

Figure 3. Reports of ocelots in Arizona and Sonora, from Brown, 1985a.
72

~0’O

S :~.,, ‘OITCA CAASOA GJ,’ Vetiti A

SAOhG .o~,

•Z.Sr.O •t~SS4~ 4*~4

~5~5

COn”

ZOOS., •OG

LOMB ‘.5CC

CO..s.; CO., • ,,NN 1,0’.00 ,LP.r

~CS AwWN SOMOS, SOL,AR, ),,fl.

— ‘.‘. — ,*CA W•fl 05.00 COL~~~ ,,r

StOOL- .ASAttt 7.Ct, COi’G

- -- 00(4 SM.C,(t’ •1I~L*.S tALC ,..ourfl,..t SALLAS .. ~“‘ 0000 ,p~.sA .,*W.

‘ION

Figure 4. Area of trapper survey conducted by Tewes and Everett (1986).
73

Figure 5. Criteria used by Tewes and Everett (1986) to evaluate

ocelot sightings in the lower 13 counties oP Texas.

CRITERIA TO EVALUATE SIGHTINGS

Rating

10 Cat is in my possession or seen by me.

9 Cat in possession of’ observer (via

trapping, hunting, treeing by hounds,

Class I or a road—kill) and seen by second

observer, or evidence seen by me

(i.e. photograph, pelage, skull).

8 Cat in possession of observer and

observer seems reliable or cat

observed by 2 or more reliable

individuals.

7 Detailed description of event

provided and the observer seems

reliable.

6 Observer is “experienced In the

Class II outdoors” or is accustomed to

looking for details (i.e. biologist,

trapper, bird watcher, game warden,

hunter).

5 Observer is not “experienced in the

outdoors.”

14 Details of observer are vague and

not specific or account is

inconsistent.

3 Observer seems to have questionable

credibility and exaggerates other

events.

Class III

2 Observer describes an animal other

than an ocelot or Jaguarundi.

1 Observation is of no value.
Figure 6. Approximate locations of Class I ocelot reports (‘Eewes and Everett 1986)..

0

0

S

0
—I

‘-p

Figure 7. Approximate locations of Class I and II ocelot reports (Tewes and Everett 1986).

0

0

0

0

0

0

00 0
RIO GRANDE VALLEY

0”

0

Ii.t’,gncgc.,5

I

0

U —--I WILLACY~

~1

‘.1=~

= ..- —

I Laguna

Afascoscz

I NWR—~

• CAMERON

T

/

STARR

I

I

//

/

1

I

/

/

/

I

I

I.

1-IIDALGO

/

Santo Aria

P114/I?

/

16 32 4R

Figure 8. Approximate localities for ocelots captured up to June 1, 1985 in South Texas.
77 FIGURE 9.

OCELOT HABITAT IN TEXAS

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. JUNE 1990

7 T>A~> 7 / V

~7

2

T

X ~ < ~K.

RICK I CO~

mx

0Z7~~~~X A\

/

— < ANKAS

c

\4.~

Th/~ ~

Site Location

Lix OCCUPIED HABITAT / ~ ~ 4

m POTENTIAL HABITAT

NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF

PRESENT OCELOT RANGE


80

Figure 12. Legend for Map of vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et

al. 1984)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(3)

(9)

(ila)

(lib)

(12a)

(2b)

‘13a)

‘13b)

(13c)

(IL~)

(15)

(16)

(17’

(13)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(2 6a)

(26b)

Tobosa—Black Grama Grassland

Blue Grana—Buffalograss Grassland

Bluestem Grassland

Silver Bluestem—Texas Wintergrass

Grassland

Yucca—OcotlIlo Shrub

Creosotebush—Tarbush Shrub

Creosotebush—Lechugilla Shrub

Creosotebush—Mesquite Shrub

Fourwing Saltbush—Creosotebush

Sh:’ub

(10) Ceniza—Blackbrush—Creosotebush

Brusb

MesqUIte Shrub/Grassland

Mesquite Brush

Mesquite—Lotebush Shrub

Mesqulte—Lotebush Brush

Mesquite—Juniper Shrub

Mesquite-Juniper Brush

Mesquite-Juniper-Live Oak Brush

Mesquite—Sandsage Shrub

Mesquite-Blackbrush Brush

Mesqulte-Granjeno Parks

Mesquite—Granjeno Woods

Mesquite—Saltoedar Brush/Woods

Mesqulte—Hackberry Brush/Woods

Mesquite—Live Oak—Bluewood Parks

Harvard Shin Oak—Mesquite Brush

Sandsage-Mesquite Brush

Oak—Mesquite—Juniper Parks/Woods

Live Oak-Mesquite Parks

LIve Oak Woods/Parks

LIve Oak-Ashe Juniper Parks

LIve Qak—Mesquite—Ashe Juniper

Parks

(27)

(28)

(29)

Live Oak—Ashe Juniper Woods

Harvard Shin Oak Brush

Gray Oak—Pinyon Pine—

Alligator JunIper Parks!

Woods

(30a) Post Oak Parks/Woods

(30b) Post Oak Woods, Forest

and Grassland Mosaic

(30c) Post Oak Woods/Forest

(31) Willow Oak—Water OakSlaokgum Forest

(32) Sandsage—Harvard Shin Oak Brush

(33) Ashe Juniper Parks/Woods

(34) Juniper—Mixed Br~sh

(35) Elm—Hackberry Parks/Woods

(36) Water Oak-Elrn—Hackberry Forest

(37) Cottonwood-Hackberry-Saltcedar

Brush/Woods

(38) Pecan—Elm Forest

(39) Bald Cypress—Water Tupelo Swamp

(40) Ponderosa Pine—Douglas Fir Parks/

Forest

(ill) Young Forest/Grassland

(42) Pine—Hardwood Forest

(Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum)

(42) Pine—Hardwood Forest

(Shortleaf Pine-Post OakSouthern Bed Oak)

(42) Pine—Hardwood Forest

(Loblolly Pine—Post Oak)

(42) Pine—Hardwood Forest

(Longleaf Pine-Sandjack Oak)

(43) Marsh/Barrier Island

(Fresh Marsh)

(43) Marsh/Barrier Island

(Brackish Marsh)

(43) Marsh/Barrier Island

(Saline Marsh)

(43) Marsh/Barrier Island

(Sea Oats—Seacoast

Bluestem Grassland)

(44) Crops

(45) Other Native or

Introduced Grasses
- i15~~~ ALL MU / LL. K — 3

10 \ ~\ 20~ \—

j K- ~ ~

—“\i P ~A ~

45 ~ \ U’ -~ ~ji5 ~kv--’~)

A 4- V”~ 7 • 7 16 -t —2 “ \ ~-~j ~NSWS 15 15 -~ SAN P R~C~ —

~ \\ “ F1, - ~ _ a 45 ,. .~

45 15~ ~qr~

LO - I NO CE S —46

~LL

— ‘>‘

CD ~

0 CD

—I

CD

03

0

-‘3

CD

0)

03

~ t 45

jiej

~ 1

~ u~w~—~ I C A
Figure 13. Ocelot habitat aerial survey during summer 1982 of the 13 southernmost counties

of Texas. Values expressed in hectares. (Tewes and Everett 1986)

Class A Class B Total A & B A & B Habitat

County Total Acreage Habitat Habitat Habitat Percent

of~ Country

Duval

Webb

Starr

Jim Hogg

Zapata

Jim Wells

Nueces

Brooks

Kleberg

Kenedy 1

Hidalgo1

Willacy1

Cameron

‘469,83~4

856,269

3914,593

296,0142

2147,867

218,859

1314,560

2314,1140

220,1413

361,052 399,61414

153,072

232,068

3,193

1,012

890

—0—

*

81

*

81

*

—0— 1,865

1,781

1,593

33,986

13,189

3,857

2,359

1,926

1,862

1,032

121

81

—0—

37,179

114,201

14,7147

2,359

1,926

1,9143

1,032

202

81

—0— 1,865

1,781

1,593

(7.91)

(1.69)

(1.20)

(0.80)

(0.78)

(0.89)

(0.147)

(0.09)

(0.014)

(—0—) (0.147)

(1.16)

(0.69)

Total 14,218,1413 10,1496(0.25%) 58,1413(1.38%) 68,909 (1.63)

* Class A habitat was present along drainages and was not quantified.

1 Habitat estimates derived for these counties from remote sensing information and ground

truthing. Class B habitat was not estimated.
83

Appendix II - “Land Protection Plan for the Lower Rio Grande Valley

National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties,

Texas” (1984), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Land Protection Plan for Lower Rio Grande Valley National

Wildlife Refuge in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy

Counties, Texas

Purpose

:

This land protection plan (LPP) presents a combination of

alternative actions to protect and maintain 10 distInct wildlife

communities totaling 107,500 acres which represent the best

remaining habitat for certain threatened species on the U.S. side

of the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV). More than 115 species of

wildlife will benefit, including the white—wing dove, chachalaca;

nt~merous endangered species such as the jaguarundi, ocelot, bald

eagle, brown pelican, and peregrine falcon. Permanent protection

protection of these communities will provide an area for the natural

natural occurrence and distribution of those wildlife species and

will eliminate the present threat of habitat destruction.

Present trends suggest that the remaining LRGV brushland in

private ownership will be developed (destroyed as wildlife

habitat) within five years. Some 90 percent has already been

lost. Similar habitat on the Mexico side of the river is also

being developed rapidly, particularly for agriculture. The Santa

Ana National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) established 19142 and Lower Rio

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) established 1979 are

considered in this LPP as a single unit.

Ownership Status

:

15,7142 acres — Total lands now administered by United States Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the two refuges

10,000 acres — Lands owned by other public/private conservation

agencies

1,758 acres - Lands held by about 1,000 private landowners, now

considered unprotected under some form of permanent

basis. The actual ownership of approximately 24,000

acres or 30 percent of the total wildlife community

covered in this plan requires quiet title actions

by local courts to clear long standing land claims,

especially in the Falcon Woodlands area.

107,500 acres — Total

Maps

:

Figures 1 and 2 locate the study area in Cameron, Hidalgo,

Starr, and Willacy Counties, Texas, and the general location of

the wildlife communities and connecting corridors proposed for

additional protection in this LPP. Additional maps, aerial

photos, a slide program and a Spanish/English brochure are

available at the Santa Ana Refuge in Alamo, Texas, Environmental assessments and prior preservation plans and studies of

the LRGV are also available at the refuge office for review.
85

Soc io—Cultural

:

There are no known immediate plans for commercial or

industrial development of these areas especially the wildlife

communities within the flood plain along the Rio Grande. Future

oil, gas, and mineral exploration would be permitted under

existing laws and regulations. One impact would be the loss of

future agricultural production as lands that could be cleared

will remain as brush. There would be a reduction of county tax

revenues if fee title is purchased but this would be offset by

payments to counties by FWS which usually exceed the tax revenues

lost. Such payments would be subject, of course, to the

continued availability of funds under the FWS Revenue Sharing

Program. The few landowners residing on the properties would be

assisted in relocating. It is believed that most of these would

relocate in the local area. Owners of many of the remaining

brush tracts (management units) such as Falcon Woodlands have

historically charged the public for access to their lands for

hunting and bird watching. Records of the early Spanish

explorers to the LRGV in the 1500’s refer to the abundant and

unusual wildlife game species such as the Mexican turkey

(chachalaca) and native Sabal Palm groves along the river. Each

year, thousands still come to the area to hunt white—winged doves

ar±d typically pour ~2O million into the local economy.

Summary of Proposed Action

:

Proposed Action

It is proposed to establish corridors connecting the wildlife

communities which would be permanently protected by the FWS in

fee, although less—than—fee status is desirable on some tracts

(see table in summary of proposed action). Due to the rapid

development of these areas, it is proposed to accomplish the

proposal as quickly as possible depending on landowners

acceptance and availability of funds. It is estimated that some

107,500 acres of land, in addition to the 146,000 currently

protected at the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge will be

required. The lands protected through this project initiative

would become part of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National

Wildlife Refuge System, a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge

System, managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Data on the 10

areas follows:
86

Currently

Wildlife Communities Protected by FWS Objective Deficit*

Sabal Palm forest 367 ac. 3,500 ac. — 3,133 ac.

Lomal/tidal flats 4,600 ac. 10,000 ac. — 5,1400 ac.

Chihuahuan Thorn forest —0— ac. 24,000 ac. —214,000 ac.

Upper Valley Flood forest 111 ac. 10,000 ac. — 9,889 ac.

Barretal 2140 ac. 5,000 ac. — 14,760 ac.

Upland Thorn scrub —0— ac. 2,000 ac. — 2,000 ac.

Mid—valley riparian woodland 5,718 ac. 13,000 ac. — 7,287 ac.

Woodland potholes and basins 14,1483 ac. 20,000 ac. —15,517 ac.

Mid—delta thorn forest 223 ac. 10,000 ac. — 9,777 ac.

Coastal brushland potholes —0— ac. 10,000 ac. —10,000 ac

.

TOTAL 15,7142 ac. 107,500 ac. —91,758 ac.

*includes 10,000 acres in public/private conservation ownerships

on which lease or management agreements would be negotiated to

protect wildlife and approximately 214,000 acres of land with

unknown ownership at Falcon Woodlands which will be permanently

protected when title has been cleared.

Program Objectives

:

The objective is to extend protection to the 96,900 acres of

habitat identified in the 10 target wildlife communities and to

the species dependent on that habitat; and to enhance conditions

on the 10,600 acres already under FWS administration by

application of additional management techniques. These would

include such actions as (1) impounding water to restore water—

based habitats formerly maintained by natural flooding, (2)

controlled burning on some areas if research indicates that this

would improve wildlife conditions, (3) controlled grazing as a

habitat management tool in certain areas, (14) selected

reforestation, (5) timber stand management to create and adjust

habitats, and (6) accelerated inventories of plant and wildlife

using current computerized methods.

Resource Protection Alternatives

:

A. No Action: Under this alternative, the brush habitats

could be destroyed, probably within 5 years, because landowners

can substantially increase their income by conversion to citrus,

truck crop production or other types of agricultural uses. There

is no financial incentive to permanently preserve the habitat,

and there are no laws, regulations, or zoning that could prevent

their conversion to other land uses. FWS would rely on management

of its presently scattered wildlife unit plus those in public or

private ownership. A program of public awareness and education

— on the wildlife values of these communities will continue, but

this would not likely preserve more than a remnant of the remaining habitat.
87

B. Acquisition or Management By Others: There are approximately 10,000 acres of brush lands now owned by State, County, local

governments, or environmental organizations as well as the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). These areas can be

adequately protected by various forms of cooperative agreements or

no cost mutually advantageous leases. This approach will be pursued

to the greatest extent possible; however, census figures show cities

in LRGV have the lowest per capita income in the country and most

property owners do not have sufficient resources necessary to protect

the wildlife populations identified in this plan, without financial

assistance.

C. Less-Than—Fee Acquisition: The less—than—fee acquisition

alternative has merit and will be used to the maximum extent

possible, especially connecting the fee management units along

the river and the La Sal Vieja area, but adverse wildlife impacts

will continue to occur since: (1) some property owners may not

accept easements on their land, especially in perpetuity and for

a variety of reasons prefer to sell in fee (2) Government overhead

and purchase costs associated with acquiring easements on some of

the existing privately owned wildlife units will be higher and

less cost effective than direct fee purchase. The easement fee

purchase. The easement rights essential for protection of the

wililife communities using the corridors between the fee management

un~ts include: (1) development rights, (2) farming, especially

to the river bank and shoreline of lakes and ponds, (3) grazing

that diminishes brush regeneration, (4) fencing and posting, and

(5) hunting rights, if adversely affecting wildlife populations.

D. Fee Acquisition: The fee acquisition alternative offers

the optimum to assure future protection or preservation of brush—

land habitat, but adverse wildlife impacts will likely occur

because: (1) based on past budget levels, it is highly unlikely

FWS will receive sufficient acquisition funding in time to

preserve all of the wildlife habitat identified in this plan; and

(2) some landowners will never willingly sell their brushland

property to anyone and elect to clear the land for agricultural

or other economic purposes.

E. Combination: The use of a combination of all

alternatives to the maximum extent possible offers the best

opportunity to assure future protection of the wildlife

communities identified in this plan. The key will depend on

public acceptance and future funding available for protection of

this land use by wildlife.

Coordination

:

FWS activities have been closely coordinated with the Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and IBWC, plus local public

agencies and chapters of conservation groups. Some 500 landowners

have been contacted over the past 10 years on protection of wildlife in LRGV. The TPWD and other private conservation agencies
88

also have contacted many landowners. The overall attitude has

been strongly supportive. Preferences have been expressed for

reserving mineral rights in private ownership and for freedom of

choice in decisions to sell (or not to sell land). The public is

also aware of the substantial inflow of hunters’ expenditures to

the local economy. Copies of this LPP will be distributed to

landowners, local, and State government agencies and other

interested parties.
89

Summary of Proposed Action by Protection Alternative:

Resource Protection

Alternative Proposed Action

A. No Action

(Land Acquisition)

B. Acquisition/Management

by Others

C. Less-Than-Fee

Acquisition

Update joint k”W~—TPWU Spanish—

English brochure and accelerate use

of short 8—10 minute slide—tape

program to educate the public about

the need to protect wildlife

resources on private land. Increase

wildlife technical and Realty

assistance to landowners throughout

the LRGV by establishing a Realty

Specialist and Forester position at

the Refuge.

Continue close cooperative joint

preservation effort with TPWD.

Increase Realty technical assistance

to State through Federal Aid and

other programs. Develop cooperative

agreement and implement joint plan

with IBWC covering purchase of

restrictive development easements

along wildlife river corridor that

complement IBWC and FWS agencies’

program needs (if possible use a

single U.S. easement document that

may be used by both agencies).

Encourage environmental

organizations to accelerate

protection’ of private lands, through

donations, deed restrictions, or

purchase of additional brushlands.

Accelerate work with local, public

agencies in developing agreements,

licenses, leases, and other

cooperative arrangements to protect

wildlife habitat on their lands.

Initiate major effort to acquire

conservation easements with minimum

managements rights needed to

establish wildlife corridor along

river (at least 100 meters back from

Rio Grande) and connect existing

FWS, State and private preserves.
90

D. Fee Acquisition Accelerate effort to round out or

complete purchase of current public

and private management units from

list of willing sellers along river

and in Tres Corrales—La Sal Vieja

area. Strengthen future budget

submittals to Central Office as

appropriate to clarify need for

stable increased funding source

during next 5—year critical period.
91

E. Summary of Proposed Action by Combination Approach

for each Wildlife Community

Priority

10 Wildlife

Communities Tracts

Permanently

Unprotected Method of

Acres Protection

Riparian woodlands (river

corridor)

Chihuahuan

thorn forest

Sabal Palm

Forest

Upper Valley

flood forest

600

5

95

214,000

3,133

899

3,000

6,000

No land

acquisition

until

ownership

determined

Fee title

Lease or

agreement

easement

fee

Work with county

officials to clear

title problems.

Contact residents

claiming land to

encourage protection of brushlands

until land title c

be cleared through

courts and ownership determined.

Complete fee

acquisition betwee

Federal managemer~

unit and Audubon

Sanctuary. Protec-.

Sabal Palm forest

from further

destruction by

burning of young

palms that is now

being done.

Complete acquisition of 8 FWS

scattered management units. Post

and protect brush

from further

clearing and

connect fee areas

along river by

100 meter easement

Negotiate agreemen

with IBWC to prote

river bank.

Group I

Remarks
92

E. Continued

Priority

10 Wildlife

Communities Tracts

Permanently

Unprotected

Ac res

Method cf

Protect ion

Mid—valley

riparian

woodland

90 b 4 (

2,000

5,000

778W7

Lease or

agreement

easement

fee

Uomplete acquisition of 5 EWS

scattered management units. Post

and protect brush

from further

clearing and

connect fee areas

along river by

100 meter easements. Negotiate

agreement with

IBWC to protect

river bank.

Group II Interior

thorn woodlands

Barretal

(forest)

50 3,000

1,760

14,760

Fee

easement

Complete acquisition of 5 FWS

scattered management units. Post

and protect brush

from further

clearing and

connect fee areas

with river

corridor or other

State park or

brush areas by

easement.

Upland thorn

scrub

Mid—delta

thorn forest

20 1,000

1,000

2, 000

70 3,000

6,871

~7~7T

Fee

easement

Fee

easement

Remarks
93

E. Continued

Priority

10 Wildlife

Communities Tracts

Permanently

Unprotected Method of

Acres Protection

Uroup 111 Interior

wetlands

(Salt lakes

and brush)

Woodland

potholes

and basins

140 10,000

10,000

20,000

Fee

easement

Complete acquisition of 2 FWS

management units.

Post and protect

brush from furthe

clearing and

connect fee areas

between brush anc

salt lakes by use

of easements.

Group IV Coastal

Wetlands

Lomal /Tidal

flats

5 5,000

1400

5, W~

Lease or

agreement

fee

Complete acquis

tion of Loma FW$

management unit.

Post and protect

brushlands and

coastal wetlands.

Negotiate agreem~

with Brownsville

navigation distr~

and State to

protect remaining

wetlands.

Coastal

brushland/

potholes

25 2,000

5,000

3,000

Lease or

agreement

easement

fee

Establish 2 fee

management units.

Post and protect

brush and potholConnect fee areas

with easements.

Negotiate agreement with State

to protect

remaining wetlands.

Remarks
914

E. Continued

TOTALS 10 Wildlife 1,000

Areas tracts

3L~, 533

29, 631

8,736

24,000

96, 900

Fee

easement

lease or agreement

determine ownership
RIO GRANDE VALLEY

EXISTING PARKS, REFUGES, SANCTUARIES, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS

T

j

I,—

‘U

---S WILLACY

~~1

I—— — —

U

0

Laguna

Atascosa

NWR ~

U CAMERON

0 PRIVATE

I

I

DI

4!

/

DI

/

I

I

/

/

STARR /

/

I

/

/

I

/

HIDALGO /

I

U TPWD

‘7’

0

USFWS

Santa Ana

NW)?

S I

16 32 48

kilometers

0

) ) )
)

RIO GRANDE VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

LAND PROTECTION PLAN

COASTAL BRUSHLAND

POTHOLES

— —, —

* —

I — S

I —

-‘ — — WOODLAND POTHOLES — — —

CHIHUAHUAN ‘ AND BASINS

WORN FOREST >~ / - ~ -“‘I

UPLAND THORN SCRUB -

SANTA ANA MID VALLEY

NWR RIPARIAN WOODLAND “ ‘~

LEGEND

— — L.R.G.V. WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNI3S

WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

0 10 20 30

SABAL PALM FOREST

‘I

Si

‘I

9’

I S

S S

‘I ‘

S.

MID-DELTA THORN FOREST

/

‘I

UPPER VALLEY

a’

LOMA/TIDAL FLATS

SCALE IN MILES
97

Appendix III - Status of other Neotropical Felids in the United

States

STATUS OF OTHER NEOTROPICAL FELIDS

In addition to the ocelot, three other neotropical felids have been

reported in the United States: the jaguar, Felis (Panthera) onca; the

margay Felis (Leopardus) weidii; and the jaguarundi, Felis (Herpailurus

)

yaQouaroundi

.

The margay resembles a small, long—tailed ocelot. Its distribution is

similar to the ocelot’s in Central and South America (Hall 1981). However,

the northern extent of its range is not nearly as extensive. The only U.S.

specimen is from Eagle Pass, Texas, and was collected by Colonel S. Cooper,

U.S. Army in 1852 (Goldman 1943). No other margays have been collected

north of central Tamaulipas on the east side of Mexico, and west central

Chihuahua on the west side (Hall 1981). The margay may no longer occur in

or near the United States. No recovery recommendations will be made.

The jaguar is the largest of the American spotted cats. Its status in

the southwestern United States has been reviewed by Brown (1983). Jaguars

have been recorded from Texas (Taylor 1947, Nelson and Goldman 1933),

California (Leopold 1959, Hock 1955), New Mexico (Halloran 1946, Hill 1942,

Baily•1931), and, most commonly, Arizona (Brown 1983, Hoffmeister 1971,

Lange 1960, Hock 1955, Nelson and Goldman 1933, Goldman 1932,

Shuffeldt 1921). There have been unconfirmed reports from the southeastern
98

United States in the late 1800’s (Nowak 1973). The last documented record

in the U.S. is from Nogales, Arizona, in 1971 (Brown 1983) . However, a

male jaguar was reported shot in the Dragoon Mountains of Cochise County,

Arizona in December, 1986. Bailey (1931) considered jaguars “native” to

Arizona arid New Mexico. Brown (1983) cites at least 58 reliable records of

jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico since 1900. These records include a

fc~ma1e with young (Lange 1960) and records of more than one animal at a

time (Shut feldt 1921) . Brown (1983) concludes that jaguars were a recent

resident of Arizona, and that their gradual decline was concurrent with the

predator control measures implemented during settlement of Arizona and the

development of the cattle industry. Most of the Arizona jaguars were taken

in Madrean evergreen woodland, shrub—invaded semi—desert grassland, and

river bottoms. Since the 1960s, the jaguars in Arizona have probably been

“wanderers” from Mexico. Brown (1983) cites personal communications that

jaguars were being taken by ranchers in northern Sonora in the 1960s, and

that they are still considered extant today in the Sierra Bacatete near

Guaymas, Sonora. Before recovery recommendations can be made for the

jaguar, its status in northern Mexico has to be determined. There is

evidence to warrant further investigation of the jaguar as a target species

for recovery in the Southwest.

The jaguarundi is a long slender cat, a little larger than a house cat

but much longer. It has a solid grey or reddish—brown coat. Its

distribution is similar to the ocelot’s (Hall 1981); and, similar to the

ocelot, it inhabits dense thickets (Tewes and Everett 1982, Davis 1974,

Leopold 1959). It has been recorded from both Arizona (Little 1938) and
99

Texas (Davis 1974). Because of its secretive nature, its status and

natural history are not well known (Goodwin 1970). Bailey (1905) lists six

jaguarundis added to the Biological Survey collection in 1891 and 1892.

Five were from the Brownsville area of Texas, and one from Lloyd. Tewes

(pers. comm. 1987) has seen a photograph of two live jaguarundis that had

been trapped in Willacy County, Texas, in 1969. A road—killed specimen was

recovered in Cameron County, Texas, on April 21, 1986. There have been

many unconfirmed recent sightings of jaguarundis in Texas (Tewes and

Everett 1986) and a few from Arizona. The jaguarundi is suffering from the

loss of the same habitat as the ocelot in Texas (Davis 1966, Tewes and

Everett 1986) and would benefit from the same habitat preservation and

enhancement as for the ocelot recovery. Recovery recommendations are to

continue trapping and photo-documentation efforts in Texas to determine its

status and distribution. If trapped, telemetry studies should be

implemented to determine activity patterns and habitat use. In Arizona, a

hunter/trapper survey could provide insight into possible jaguarundi

distribution in Arizona.

At least one and possibly more jaguarundis have been released by

individuals to the wild in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. These

releases could account for at least a portion of the sightings reported in

some areas. It is also possible that captive, pet ocelots and/or margays

could have been released in the past in south Texas.
100

Appendix IV - Agency Draft (1987) — List of Reviewers, Comments,

and Service’s Responses

An agency draft of the Listed Cats of Texas and Arizona Recovery Plan was

sent out for review on March 12, 13, and 19, 1987, and comments were

received from the following:

Ecological Services, Corpus Christi, Texas (USFWS)

Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona (USFWS)

Refuge Supervisor, Arizona/New Mexico (USFWS)

Refuge Manager, Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge

National Wildlife Health Center

National Ecology Center (USFUS)

Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (USFWS)

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Mike Tewes, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute

Peter Siminski, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

Howard QCiigley, Wildlife Research Institute, Moscow, Idaho

Letters of comment have been reproduced in this section and are followed by

the Service’s responses.
101 —~ ~ ‘~ U

MAW ~

IS ) .•~A

UNITED STAT~3 GOVZ~N~IT

Memorartd~tm

U.S. FISH a WILDUFE SEWICE

TO : Regional Director, B~S, Albuquerque, NM (AWE)

Atm: Alisa M. Shull

April 17, l9~

Acting Field Supervisor, Corpus Christi, TX (Es)

Recovery Plan for Listed Cats

We are providing the following comments on the subject document as request

ed by the Endangered Species Office in their March 12, 1987 memorandum.

Page 42, Outline Item #143. Identify potential habitat sites in south

Texas. — The last sentence in this section seems to be missing. AdditionA—i ally, ocelot sightings have also occurred in Live Oak County as well as it

McMullen and La Salle counties.

Page 43, Outline Item #144. Identify potential habitat sites in other

A—2 areas or ~.exaswithin the historic range of ocelots. — Typographical errors

~ this sentence should be corrected.

A—3 Page 45, Outline Item #3. Assess the status of the jaguarundi in Texas. —

Typographical error in this title should be corrected.

Page 58, Outline Item #5. Develop an education and information program —

A4 This item specifies that the information and education program should not

focus on the listed cats but on the need to preserve and manage habitat for

the benefit of all wildlife and man. We believe a concerted effort should

be made to educate the public on the plight of these two cats as well as

their habitat. The ocelot and jaguarundi could be considered “glamorous

species” in that the public would readily identify with these animals and

support their conservation. Slide/tape presentatLons, video or film pres—

entam ions, brochures and other media should be used to inform the public.

These species could generate the public support for the conse~avation of

subtropica. brush habitat which would benefit other wildlife species as

well as man.

C. 2

!~.~‘Ofl

Ii

Li

SA c

FL

The recovery plan should also address the need to determLne the effects of

A—5 pesticides on the ocelot and jaguarundi. In Texas, these species inhabit

areas immediately adjacent to agricultural lands that receive intens ive

application of various pesticides and herbicides.

Do the cost estimates provided in Part III — Implementation Schedule i.n—

dude only USFWS staff time and overhead or are ~nies for contract studies

A—6 and land ac~uisition also included? If the cost estimates are all inclusive, the figures provided for radio telemetry, trapping and habitat protection are insufficient. Because so little is still known about the

ocelot and jaguarundi intensive research on these species is vitally needed

so that we ma:, be able to manage and conserve them. The tISEWS should at—

tempt to obtain the maximum amount of funding for continued work on thes~~ --; 2

spec Les.

APR ; i’87
102

Additionally, greater emphasis is needed specifically on the jaguarundi.

A—7 Intensive research is needed to determine how to caotur2 and study this

animal.

tJe cannot manage and conserve this species without knowing what its

basic life requirements are.

We appreciate the ooportunity to comment on the draft recovery plan.

If you have any questions, please call us at 529—3346.
103

UNiTED STATES

DEPARTMENT CF THE INTEJ~1OR

FISH AND W11..~UFK ~RVIC~

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

3616 W. Thomas, Suite 6

Phoenix, Arizona 85019

March 27, 1987

Memorandum

To:

From:

Regional. Director, FWS, Albuquerque, NM (FWE)

Field Supervisor

Subject: Review of Agency Draft Recovery Plan for Listed Cats of Arizona

and Texas

We have reviewed the subject draft and find that the actions called for

3—1 therein will adequately address the current status and needs of the ocelot

and jaguarundi in Arizona.

Thank you for the opportunity

may be of further assistance,

(Telephone: 602/261/4720).

to comment on the draft recovery plan. If we

plese contact Ms. Lesley Fitzpatrick or me

—..

..r 2

~ 07 ‘~

ma. S~. a.z

IJOhNSC’4 I

i~’Iies

—o

4r~’an

rC~w.~ii

~:yiI /f~1

e~”t~S

Lovate

Le~aa

SAtIC.-~

FILE

FWS iga 2

~RVV

.~PR3 t37

SE
1O~4 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

POST OFFICE BOX 1J06

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. 87103

MAR 27

In Reply Refer To:

Region 2: RF

To:

From:

Subject:

Ch~., Endangered Species Office, Region 2

Refuge Supervisor, AZ/Nlf

LANCONI~~I

I)~ies

Cade~.

~Iafr~TIJfl

~~:Zon3,d

::uI •~(//1

Ed ~3rds

LueIas I

Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Listed Cats of Arizona and

Texas

We ‘nave reviewed the subject plan with respect to national wildlife refuges

C—l in Arizona and find it an adequate assessment of the status and recovery

potential of the listed felids in that state. -

Other than the soecific typographical errors discussed with Ms. Shuhl of

your staff, we recommend no changes be made to the plan.

~ A~. :

SE
105

OATE: ~rjl 13, 1987

REPLY TO Paf~ge v!anacer, taguna Atasccsa NWR ATTN O~

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

mernorctndum

SUBJECT: C~nnents on Pecovery Plan for Listed. Cats

TO: P~gior.aJ. Director, FWS, Regicn T~..v

The attac c~nents are provided on the agency draft of the

Recovery Plan for Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas ~n reference

to Assistant Chief, ~angered Species, Langowski’s mete or

3—2.2—87.

Pay Raucn

Attac~rant

RR/rr

c_____________

FI~ uc 2

~cRv32

AP~ aC~’37

SE

OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10

(REV. 1.801

GSA FP%4R(41 CFR) 101-11.0

501 0..1 14

*u.s. a,a~ 1,S5~4I¶.Z48I20SS2
1 06

RECOVERY PLAN FOR LISTED CATS COMMENTS

p. 14 Eight ocelot.s (6—Laguna Atascosa NWR, 1—Santa Ana NWR,

and 1—Willacy County) have been recovered and six of

D1 the deaths appear attributable to motor vehicle

injuries.

D—2 p. 17 Laguna NWR probably supDorts 25 to 30 ocelots not 10 to 15.

D—3 20,000 should hectares support about in a single block or contiguous blocks 150 ocelocs.

p. 20 The majority of the farm fields (1,100 acres) on Laguna

NWR are on soils that do not produce high quality brush

as exDlained on p. 18. Some farm fields that are

located on the best soils to produce quality brush have

been removed from farming, and the orderly phase out of

farming on these soil types is planned and coordinated

with the cooperative farmer.

p. 21 Why is there a push to acquire ocelot habitat only

along the Rio Grande in the Rio Grande Valley? Laguna

Atascosa NWR has the largest known population of

ocelots in the U.S. It would seem that there should be

an equal effort to obtain areas contiguous with the

D—5 Laguna Atascosa NWR or the known corridors ocelots are

now using, including those along which the ocelots are

getting killed crossing roads as they look for suitable

habitat.

p. 32 I. 49,400 acres in a single block or contiguous blocks

D—6 connected by travel corridors should suonort about

150 ocelots.

p. 33 12. assess possible contaminant problems in ocelots. A

D—7 road—killed ocelot’s liver showed .71 ppm Selenium

recently.

p. 39 1233. Assess possible con:aminant oroblems in ocelots.

A road—killed ocelot’s liver showed .71 ppm Selenium

recently.

p. 40 131. Why is there a push to acquire ocelot habitat

only along the Rio Grande in the Rio Grande Valley?

Laguna Atascosa NWR has the larges: known population of

ocelots in the U.S. It would seem that there should be

.D—9 an equal effort to obtain areas contiguous with the

Laguna Atascosa NWR or the known corridors ocelots are

now using, including those along which the ocelots are

getting killed crossing roads as they look for suitable

habitat.
107

p. 41 132. Agree to a point. Laguna Atascosa NWR was

purchased with Duck Stamp funds and established as a

wintering waterfowl refuge. Both endangered species

and waterfowl have to be managed for at this refuge.

Certain farm fields can, and have been, removed to be

put into brush. This depends upon soil types to grow

quality brush for ocelot habitat. On the other hand,

this refuge and the FWS has an obligation to manage

this refuge for its original intended purpose,

waterfowl. This dual management effort can be successful, if it is approached correctly and phased in over a

period of years.

0—11 p. 43

D—12 ~• ~

p. 44 0-13

0—14 p. 74

0-2.5

143. Some words or sentences seem to be missing

between p. 42 and 43.

15. Very Good.

23. This should be a high priority research item and

undertaken as soon as possible.

2. Ocelots captured at Laguna Atascosa NWR as of

3/01/87 total 23 cats.

p. 89 Laguna Atascosa NWR is not included or even mentioned

in the LPP for LRGV NWR in Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and

Willac-t Counties. All the endangered species listed in

the LPP occur more frequently and in larger numbers at

Laguna Refuge than either Santa Ana or LRGV NWRs. This

would seem to at least warrant inclusion or mentionof

Laguna Atascosa Refuge in this plan, especially if it

is to become part of the Ocelot Recovery Plan.

0-10
TY?~ 3:4—9—.37

Message 192—105

Subj: Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas

108

Director, National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), Madison, WI

Review of Agency Draft Recovery Plan —— Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas

Assistant Reg±onal Director (AFF), Region 2

I appreciated the opportunity to review the subject document. This is

one of the few documents of this type that I have seen in which disease

is given con.sideration. Obviously, I am pleased with this recognition.

E1 However, I have some concern regarding the rather restrictive focus of

disease evaluations described and ability to interpret the significance

of survey work without supportive research.

We would be happy to pursue this aspect of the Draft Recovery Plan further

with Dr. Rarwell or others. Dr. Nancy Thomas is our Center contact regardin~

e~idangered species. She can be contacted directly rather than going through

me.

Is! Milton Friend

MF/cd

cc: SE Disease Specialist, NWHC

Research 3ranch Chief, NWHC

Staff Specialist, SE, WOR

RSNWHC for R2AFF 11:04 MDT 2S—Apr—87 Message 192—105 [II

Done I

A>

..NSON I

~ur:~n

U’s I

~r•:r~

F’*: iU

~

APR2~ ‘ET

SE
United States t.’epartment 109 of the interlor _________ UU

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE —

—

Nadonal Museum of NawxaI Histozy

Washington, D.C. 20560

(202) 357-1930

22 April 1987

Memorandum

To: Assistant Regional Director (AFF), Region 2

From: Alfred L. Gardner, Wildlife Biologist

Biological Survey, NEC

Subject: Review of Agency Draft Recovery Plan——Listed Cats of Arizona

and Texas

I have reviewed the draft recovery plan and agree with its basic

tenants and approach. However, I strongly recommend that the draft be

subjected to rigorous editing before it is submitted in its final

form.

F—l Except for Apoendix II, I found the wording and sentence structure

unnecessarily stuffy, cumbersome, redundant, and potentially

misleading. In my opinion, recovery plans should be written in crisp,

straight—forward, and easy to understand prose free from jargon. This

characteristic is essential considering the potentially sensitive

nature of such recovery plans. I have provided some comments,

questions, and suggested revisions on the draft copy of the recovery

plan. However, my “editorial” comments are by no means complete for

the entire manuscript.
L,TCfl

110 ABA

A~ ARIZONA COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDL7~~ UNlT~2-

UNIVERSITY OF APIZON~A -.z:’r,’n

ARIZCNA GAME AND FISH CE?A~MENT AWE

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SE/lC2.xc&~.~d ALE

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INST[T~

1j AP~

AHR

210 aIOLOOlcAL 5O~EN~SS EAST Coje_________ (6021621-195

UNIVE~5ITY OF ARIZONA ________ 211

TUcSON, ARIZONA 85721 ~ TS.

762..6208~y

f. Ac:on —

MEMORANDUM cw...~—

TO: Assistant Regional. Director, Region 2

FROM: Assistant Unit Leader Arizona CFt~RU

SUBJECT: Draft Recovezy Plan for Listed Cats in

Obviously little is known about the cats discussed. The available information is so

limited that extrapolation to areas beyond where the data were collected is scientifically

unjustified. The information derived from the Tewes study is difficult for me to evaluate

because the references are not readily available (especially in the less than two weeks I

was given) and the descriptions of his sampling procedures are sketchy. However, because

the Tewes data is the only data it is also the best data.

From the information given in the draft, classification of “ontimal habitat classes” -

leaves much room for improvement. Even though the validity of the “habitat classes” may

be questioned from a practical view, it may be adequate and not jeo~ardize the ocelot

plan in Texas.

The majority of the actions outlined in the step—down procedures are laudable and are

probably not detrimental. Possible exceptions include:

1. translocation of captive stock

2. augmentation of existing stock

3. extensive trapping and radio tracking of small populations

We should know what factors eliminated previous populations and what factors are limiting

extant populations before we add individuals to those areas. We may not only lose the translocated individuals but also may interfere ~th those few present.

Caouring and radio—tagging animals from precarious populations oresenos a dilea. We

0—2 need the information we can get only from.radio—tagged animals b~t we risk mortality and

~nter:erence with the behavior of the few wild successful individuals we have. The loss of

only •one litter may be a severe set—back for these small populations.

If it is possible, and if oooulations in Mexico are less precarious, some basic information could be gathered there. I realize that this suggestion may not be practical for

political reasons.

The emphasis on gathering information is well placed and while getting this information,

04 prese~iing habitat adjacent to oczuoied habitat should have high priority.

It is unfortunate that I did not have more time to spend on this document but I received

it about 10 days prior to the deadline for con~ent. The copy I got was thoroughly

~ scrambled after page ~O. It was conied on both sides of the paper and improperly J

collated, i.e., page numoers went 40, 43, 41, 45, 44, 47, 49, 46, 51, etc. It was

~ impossible for me to concentrate on a paper like that. ~EC’D

F’~SThG2 FV.~$-on 2

AFR 20’87 APR IQ E87

SE

—I
111

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

ARIZONA STATE OFFICE

6840 (932)

1398G

MEMORANDUM

To:

From:

Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Albuquerque, New Mexico

State Director, Arizona

Subject: Comments on Recovery Plan for Listed Cats

Date: April 23, 1987 ~

AWE —~

ALE

;APA ~

.‘A HR

‘Cole________

We hdve reviewed the agency Draft Recovery Plan for Listed Cats of ArizonaAc~~~~

and Texas and have the following comments.

With reference to Step M3 of the Implementation Schedule, pages 64 and 65,

we consider the protection of existing and potential habitat as including

retention in Federal ownership. Since neither type of habitat has been

11—2. identified in Arizona, we would be unable to retain specific sites at this

time.

Within the range of the ocelot in Arizona, we are identifying areas for

disposal, retention and acquisition. These actions will be undertaken in

the Resource Management Plans (RMP) now being developed. The ocelot has not

been a factor in these plans as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and

the Arizona Game and Fish Department have not identified a need for its

consideration within the planning areas. The proposed action in the Phoenix

Resource Area RMP includes retention of existing Federal lands and

acquisition of other lands in the vicinity of the Baboquivari Mountains near

Sasabe. An ocelot was reported from the Sas~be area, according to the Draft

Recovery Plan (page 8). Most scattered tracts of Federal land in the

Phoenix planning area of southern Arizona would not be retained in Federal

ownership. If known habi.tat was identified, we would work toward managemen ~

of those lands for endangered species. Should ocelot habitat be identified ~

in the future, we would consider the new information in the next planning ~

cycle, or when our plans needed revision or amendment.

Bviei

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan. If you have

questions, contact Gene Dahlem at ES 251—5509. Lew.s

L~’~ato

H- 2

Ar~ 2<S7
7’ SAUCE SAearg-r. G.,wn.oe

C.smm,ssjo,~ery.

W. UNN MCNTGC5~4~Y. ~laqsra’W.Cha,nr’an

F~D 5. SAKER 5o.i

‘.AR~Y 0 AOAA43. auIh.ad C.tv

‘RANCESW WE~NE~ Th~cn

)40MA5 G. WOOCS. .a. P!’.oefllx

Otrecter

8U0 8~I5TOW

Ass

ROG~

itSdill

.J.

OirecwA’.

GRUENEWALO

~tD9flCIi ARIZONA

Asswan, Or,eewr. Overano,r~s

0UAN~ L. SH~cuFE

Jack B. Woody

Acting Assistant Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Post Office Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Dear Jack:

112

FISH DEPARTMENT

~urlcn

ca:

MzO~

01 W~I I

.:

‘tovas~

IL~e~’as

SANcH~z

Thank you for the opportunity to review the “agency draft”

of the Recovery Plan for the Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas.

We were quite pleased to see how substantially the plan had been

revised by incorporation of our comments of 30 October 1985 on

the technical draft.

dSa2d 9~3a~

April 8, 1987

During our review of this draft, editorial remarks were made

on the document itself. The original is included with this

letter for your use. A copy was also sent to the junior author

of the plan. Overall, the plan was remarkably free of

typographic errors.

The plan as presently structured is clear and well

structured. We strongly concur with the objectives and

implementation strategies. We have only two concerns.

1. The implementation budget for Arizona—Sonora seems

unrealistically low, especially if the tJSFWS dollar

figures include all wor.C that would likely be

contracted out. The basic monitoring and survey

efforts alone required for substantive progress will

likely cost three to four times the amount budgeted.

As the Service has found in Texas, investigations of

this nature are very labor, time and equipment

intensive. Logistical considerations are even greater

for Arizona—Sonora than for Texas.

1—2

F’WS -

~2v.v,

MAY 1 ‘87

SE

2. The plan does not address soort or commercial trapping

specifically. Clearly there are potential and

perceived conflicts between trapcing and ocelot—

jaguarundi conservation. The plan should be revised to

state what such conflicts are, how or if they can or

should be mitigated, and the possibility of use of

experimental population designations for

reLntroductions of ocelot—jaguarundi in Arizona (and

elsewhere)

1—1
113

Jack B. Woody —2— April 8, 1987

Further, it is our belief that leg—hold trapping as

presently practiced in Arizona need not be perceived as at

conflict with conservation of either ocelot or jaguarundi, but as

a :potentially valuable tool. Since trap—lines must be run at

least once each 24 hours, perhaps trappers could be requested to

contact AGFD wildlife managers when either species is

inadvertently trapped. If there were no legal liability for the

trapper in such instances, we might make substantial progress in

1—3 understanding the two species status in Arizona and at much

reduced financial outlays.

In any event, the plan should be modified to consider

trapping and to state clearly how its relationship to the

oojec~ives of the plan is perceived by the Service. We note that

this request was also made in our previous comments on the plan,

but no response was made in the plan or separately by the

Service.

If the Department can be of any assistance in revising the

plan to accommodate our concerns, please contact me or Terry B.

Johnson, our Endangered Species Coordinator.

TAR:TBJ: rp

cc: Terry Johnson

Tom Soalding

Dave Brown

Temple A. Reynolds

Director
114

CAESAR KLEBERG

WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Texas A&I University . Campus Box 218 . Kingsville, Texas 78363 . 512/595-3922

ADVISORY BOARD

PRESNALL C. CAGE

ENRICUE E. GUERRA

A.C. (DICK) JONES IV

RADcLiFFE KILLAM

JAMES A. MCALLEN

T. MICI-IAEL OCONNOR

M. HARVEY WElL

WILLIAM 0. WELDER. JR.

J.P. ZAC~4RY

J- 1

AS

AFF

AWE-~

ALE______

AF A _____

A ~

C..le —

Action

ADril 21, 1987

Mr. Michael J. Snear

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albucuercue, NM 87103

Dear Mike:

Greet:ngs! As you may have heard, u~n completion of my Ph.D.

in Idaho last Aucust, I returned to Texas to continue work on the

ocelot and jaguarundi. The conse~ation of these cats represents

both a professional and personal goal. Hopefully, I will be able

to contr:zu:e in a meaningful way toward this goal.

In fact, the Caesar Kleber~ Wildlife Research Institute of

Texas AU University and the National Wildlife Federation have

recently established the Feline Research Program here in South

Texas. Our overall goal is to focus on the research and

conse~iat:on needs of the wild cats, with emohasis on the ocelot

and jaguarundi. Maybe somet~xne in the near future I will be able

to discuss our more soecific goals and objectives with you.

Enc.csed are my comments on the acencv draft of the Recovery

Plan for the Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas. I aPorec:ate the

oooortun~tv to examine this document. If you or your star: have

any cuest:or’.s regarding the interpretatlon of my comments, then

~ c..-

~eto contact me.

Best re’zards,

/

Dr. M~ohael E. ‘ewes

Assistant Research Scientist

~T,’bl

Enclosure

because of ... the imooflance ot the conservation of wildlife and its benefic~al effects ucon the heaith. I,aDits and cnaracter of the American oeoole.’ C.K.
115

THE ARIZONA-SONORA DESERT MUSEUM

A Living Museum —

ROUTE9. sox 900 TUcSON, ARIZONA 85743 TEL. (602) 883-1380

DAN DAVIS. Director

Anril 9,1987

Mr. Michael J. Scear

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuauercue, New Mexico 87103

I have reviewed the agency draft of the Recovery Plan for the Listed cats

of Arizona and Texas. To keen this plan current with existing knowledge of

these cats, two additions should be made.

One addition is to cite Michael Tewes’ doctoral dissertation on the “Eco—

-~ logical and Behavioral Oorrelates of Ocelot Spatial Patterns “ in the section

titled “Sta:is of the Texas Ocelot”. This dissertation was presented to the

~‘;er~:-; of Idaho in August of 1986. Although most of the information in

the di sser:a:ion is cited in the recovery text from other reports by Tewes,

:z~s seems to be the most comolete reference for information on the status of

the Texas ocelot. Readers of the recovery plan would find it very useful.

-, The second addition is to include in the Introduction and in Acoendix 11

of the olan mention of the jaguar shot in the Dragoon Mountains of Arizona

an December of 1986. According to Tom Spalding and Dave Brown of the Arizona

Gaze and Fish De~arnen:, the slain jaguar was a young, 125 pound male. This

is the firs: record of a jaguar in the U.S. since 1971.

AU. other information is current, and the plan seems acoroor:ate.

R D.....~

ABAA.J

A’ •

A~W

AWE 1

/

ALE

APA

AHR _____

Action ~

CL~Z~

Q

Sincerely,

0. Peter Siziinski

curator of Birds and :4azmals

4”

DPS :wj’o

F’W5-~cg:cn 2’

API? 13 87

RD

~c

~c~vz:

~~PR~4’37

Dear Mr. Spear,

SE
116

Mr. Conrad A. Fjetland

Asst. Regional Director, Region 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

23 April 1987

FE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P 0. Box 3246

Univers~y S~aucn RD—

Moscow Icano 338.13 DRD

P2one 2ca-~a5-aa71

A~W

AWE —

AF

‘I

‘t~r ‘n

n

..~ rn

I am writing to supply comment on the Dra Recovery Plan of

Listed Cats of Arizona and Texas by Harwell, Siminski, and

Carley. I note that the comment period for the draft was to

close 24 April. Howev~r, I only yesterday received a copy through

the Coop Unit here. In my quick review of the draft, I believe I

have found a few points which should be considered before the

final recovery plan is formulated.

Dear Mr. Fjetland,

First, let me say that the plan is very well put together

and researched. The authors did a commendable job and the species

addressed will benefit from the implementation of such a plan.

Second, the reason I feel compelled to comment is I have a

certain amount of knowledge about the feuds of concern here

s:nce I (along with Peter Crawshaw) conducted 3 years of research

on jaguars and ocelots in Brazil. As such, I have a feel for the

ecology of these species and know the available and

soon—to—be—released literature on them.

It concerns me that there is no mention in the Ocelot

recovery plan of potential conflicts between humans and ocelots,

exceot in terms of habitat loss. Habitat preservation is without

a doubt the most critical factor. However, in almost even

L— 1 country in which it occurs, the ocelot is cited as a predator of

domestic fowl. This ma7 not be a problem in south Texas at this

time, but it is a ootential problem at least. I susoect that on

the Mexican side it is more common. It is my experience that

ocelot depreda:ions took place where poor husbandry practices

were in place. In all cases where depredations took place, the

ocalot was killed. However, with some minor adjustments ocelot

problems were eliminated and, in fact, they can live in close

proximity to domestic fowl without any conflicts.

I think that a more aggressive move in the recovery of

ocelots needs to be at least given some consideration since it

may be applicable in some situations. The Draft lists the bobcat

as both a predator of, and a competitor with, the ocelot (p.16).

In the proposed research, why not experiment with a brief removal

L—2of bobcats from small areas and monitor the response (if any) in

the ocelot poDulation. It’s highly unlikely that this would have

a negative eifect on ocelots in the removal area.

t2AY .5~ i~37

ALE—

APA —

‘4;—

FWS ~ 2

L~CJv~

MAI,.! 7 ‘87
117

2

In addition, those bobcats which are removed could be used

:n relocation experiments. The results of such relocations could

provide valuable information which later could help in the

proposed ocelot relocations to suitable habitat.

:A few short notes:

* Though the draft refers to the jaguar as Panthera onca

~n the Introduction (v.1), Fells onca is used in the Appendix

L—4 (p.102). I think you’ll find that Panthera is the most accepted

scientific name and the one that is used by the Federal

Register.

* The statement that the margay is rare throughout its

range (p.102) is simply not true. Fair populations of the cat

L—5 occur ix both Brazil and Peru, though Leopold may not have found

• that to be the case in Mexico.

I hope my comments have been of some help. Again,

congratulations to your people on a job well done.

Sincerely,~

2 .1

Howard Quigley

cc: B.Sparrowe, USFWS
118

Responses to Comments

A—l Corrections made.

A-2 CorrectIon made.

A—3 CorrectIon made.

A—’4 Comment incorporated.

A—5 Comment incorporated as steps 125. and 325. of the step—down

outline.

A—6 The cost estimates in Part III — Implementation Schedule

include estimates for contracted work, but not land aquisition.

Cost estimates have been increased for some tasks.

A-7 Comment partially incorporated by addition of step 311. in

step—down outline.

3—1 Comment noted.

C-l Comment noted.

D-l Comment incorporated.

D-2 Change made.

D—3 Because the home ranges of ocelots on Laguna Atascosa NWR

contain more than thorn forest and because the thorn forest

on Laguna is not continuous, it is not feasible to extrapolate

from the current data to an estimate of ocelots that 20,000 ha

of contInuous thorn forest could support. Therefore, this

reference to such an estimate has been deleted.

D—14 Comment incorporated.

D—5 Comment is addressed under steps 132. and l’41.

D—6 See response to D—3.

D—7 Comment incorporated as step 125.

D—8 Comment incorporated as step 125.

D—9 See response to D—5.

D—lO Comment noted.

D—ll CorrectIon made.

D—12 Comment noted.
119

D-13 Comment noted.

D—14 This specific information has been deleted from the plan and

replaced with more general information because the specific

information is quickly outdated.

D—15 This office (Endangered Species) did not write and is not

responsible for the Land Protection Plan for the Lower Rio

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Howeer, protection

of habitat in and around Laguna Atascosa NWR has been

included in the Listed Cats Recovery Plan.

E—l Comments incorporated after phone conversation with Dr.

Nancy Thomas.

F—l Co~nments noted and incorporated where appropriate.

G—l Translocation is intended for individuals that have been

identified as likely dispersers. The largest known cause of

mortality of ocelots is cats being hit while crossing the road

dispersing from Laguna Atascosa NWR. These dispersers, which

will likely be lost anyway, would be translocated to areas

that appear suitable for ocelots, but do not currently contain

ocelots. This information has been added to the narrative to

clarify these points.

G—2 The Office of Endangered Species has funded research for 7

years that includes radio—tagging of ocelots. Not one

ocelot has died from this procedure and much valuable data

on this species has been obtained. The Office of Endangered

Species believes the risks of radio—tagging are worth the

information gained in this case.

G—3 The ocelot’s status in Mexico is unknown; the assessment of

its status there is included in the recovery plan.

G—~l Comment noted.

G—5 We are sorry that a mix—up occurred in the pages of your

document and that it was delayed getting to you. Because

you were not on our mailing list, we assume you got your

copy from the Fish and Wildlife Service DivIsion of Research

in Washington, D.C., which would explain the delay (as we

mailed the documents out over a month before the comments

were due) and the mix—up in pages (as it would be easy to

do if they photocopied their document, which was front and

back copied, onto front and back copies for you).

H—l Comment noted.

H-2 Comment noted.

1—1 Comment incorporated.
1 20

1—2 The recovery plan does not currently call for reintroductions

of listed cats into Arizona. The status of the cats in

Arizona should be determined first. Trapping has been

addressed under 133., 333., and L~32.

1—3 The law does not allow any special provision for “accidental”

taking of endangered species.

J—l Comments noted and incorporated where appropriate.

K—l Comment incorporated.

K—2 Incorporated.

L—l Although a little domestic fowl predation does occur in south

Texas, the refuge manager of Laguna Atascosa NWR is handling

this locally through landowner contacts and therefore domestic

fowl predation is not addressed here;

L—2 The narrative under step 122. calls for the investigation of

interaction with other species and could incorporate the

bobcat removal suggestion when such an investigation is designed.

L—3 Because Hoffmeister (1986), Hall (1981), and Jones, J.K.,

Jr. et al. (1986). CRevised checklist of North American

mammals north of Mexico, 1986. Occasional papers of the

Museum of Texas Technical University. 22 pp.] use Felis

onca for the Jaguar, we have used it in this plan.

L—~4 The statement was deleted.
121

Appendix V - Final Draft (1989) — List of Reviewers, Comments,

and Service’s Responses.

comments and new data were incorporated into the final draft that was made

available for public review in 1989. The final draft was sent out for

review upon request to the following:

Alan Shoemaker, Riverbanks Zoological Park

Robert Schumacher, Refuge Manager, Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR

Ned Meister, Texas Farm Bureau, Waco, Texas

Cindy Fain, Committee for Humane Legislation, Washington, D.C.

Mike Messner, Sierra Club, Harlingen, Texas

Harold Burgess, Frontera Audubon Society

Rose Farmer, Sabal Palm Grove Sanctuary

Doug Ekland, International Boundary and Water commission

Mary Lou Campbell, Sierra Club, South Padre Island

Dr. Mike Tewes, caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute

Linda Laack, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute

Ray Rauch, Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.

Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona (USFWS)

Ecological Services, Corpus Christi, Texas (USFWS)

Joe Ann Fanelli, The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.
122

An announcement for a 30-day public comment period was placed in the

Federal Reqister (Volume 54, Number 109), The Arizona Republic, Corpus

Christi Caller—Times, and the Valley Morning Star.

Letters of comment on the final draft have been reproduced in this section

and are followed by the Service’s responses.
I 23

SIERRA CLUB LOWER RIO GRANDE REGIONAL GROUP~-

June 8, 1989

Refuge Manager

LAWLR

P0 BOX 450

Rio Honda, Tx 78583

Dear Manager,

On behalf of our group, I would like to offer thanks,

congratulations, and comments on your 1988 LISTED CATS OF

ARIZONA & TEXAS RECOVERY PLAN by US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE.

The recommendations are a beginning but there are further areas

that need to be investigated.

>1-1 1) Language is not strong enough f or landa~quisition

adjacent to LANWLR.

>1-2 2) What about the land north of the refuge? Is this Willacy

County land valuable as habitat? Is it in danger?

>1-3 3) There is no mention of the Arroyo Colorado as a wildlife

corridor. It seems that this is prime corridor land-water, brush,

and a tie in to the Rio Grande. The Arroyo is being farmed to

tha bank, is being developed for residential use. How far do

the cats use the Arroyo? Should cities along the waterway leave

brush plots?

4) Mexican land- Is it viable to have debt relief in exchange

for park/refuge land along the coast or Rio Grande?

>1-3 5) The IBWC destroys prime habitat along the Arroyo, the

Rio Grande, and along the Floodways. They need to be stopped.

It all defies common sense for one government agency to spend

millions to destroy brush and another to spend millions to buy

land and refarrest land.

>1-6 6) Can dry culverts/crossunders be placed along highways

adjacent to the refuge to decrease roadkills.

>1-7 7) More reforrestation of refuge land.

>1-8 8) Involving private groups such as Nature Conservacy in

land acqui~it4on.

Sincerely,

~t4ikeMezmaG”

2045 Ravenwood RECEIVED

Harlingen, Tx 78550

Jtj~i 8 1989

Lacuna Atascosa

National Wiki~fe Refuge

“‘When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” John Muir
124 &pr

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

UNITED STATES AND MEXICO

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 1889-19S9 —

UNiTED STATES SECTION • • ~• - CENTEN[~JAL

Mr. Ray Rauch

Refuge Manager

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 450

Rio Hondo, Texas 78583

Dear Mr. Rauch:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft publication, “Listed Cats of

Arizona and Texas Recovery Plan.” The plan is prepared to help guide the

recovery effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for endangered

cats in south Texas and parts of southern Arizona. The area of emphasis for

the recovery actions outlined in the plan is south Texas, especially the Lower

Rio Grande Valley.

One of the major activities of the U.S. Section of the International Boundary

and Water Commission in the Valley is operation and maintenance of the joint

international Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project. The Lower Rio Grande

Flood Control Project is a flood control system that consists of levees along

the Rio Orande in both the United States and Mexico designed to handle flows

of 250,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a 20,000 cfs design flow through

the metropolitan area of Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros, Tamaulipas. The

project also consists of interior floodways in each country, with flood flows

diverted equally into these floodways.

The main channel of the Rio Grande will handle a significant amount of the

flow, but when flood stages approach the design flow then any overbank flows

must remain within the levees. The U.S. Section is concerned with the ability

to pass the design flows through the flood control system without raising

stages due to restrictions of the floodway. To meet our international

N—l obligation of providing adequate channel capacity, we annually clear as part

of our maintenance program less than 300 acres of brush in a 34-mile long

reach of the Rio Grande in the vicinity of Brownsville and Matamoros.

Clearing and mowing is also done as part of our maintenance on the interior

floodways.

The U.S. Section and the Service, Region 2, have met with regard to clearing

issues in the Valley. Over the last several months the U.S. Section has been

in the process of collecting new data at historical river channel cross

sections and has been surveying new cross sections of the river. A schedule

has been established by the two agencies for the completion of an updated

backwater study by the U.S. Section. The updated information will be shared

with the Service, and plans are to proceed with interagency consultations on

the clearing issues based upon the new study. Both the Serv~ic?. and the U.S.

Section are proceeding to develop a management plan in the Valley which is

mutually acceptable. ~ECE~VED

The Commons, Building C, Suite 310 • 4171 North Mesa’S r~etL 1 13B9 El Paso, Texas 79902

(915) 534-6700 • (FTS) 570-6700 Ln~-un~ Atz:cc~a
125

I

-2-

Among the objectives listed in the recovery plan is the determination of

parameters such as territory, home range, and corridor habitat size and

distribution for these species. Also, habitat type used and needed to support

breeding cats needs to be determined and described in detail. The U. S.

N—2 Section is very interested in this objective since it will aid in our

determination of areas where we might impact the species with our

activities.

The U.S. Section will support, to the extent possible, recommended measures

that will lead to the eventual delisting of the Endangered Cats of Arizona and

Texas. Accordingly, we feel it is critical that the U.S. Section be included

N—3- in any interagency committees or in any agreements developed regarding these

listed cat.... We are anxious to meet with the Recovery Team to exchange

information and establish management objectives for the development of a

viable recovery plan.

Thank you for consideration of our comments. We would like to receive four

copies of the final recovery plan when it is available.

Sincerely,

Conrad C. Keye

Principal Engineer

cc: Michael J. Spear, Regional Director,

USFWS, Region 2, Albuquerque

Roy Perez, Field Supervisor, USFWS,

Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office

Sam F. Spiller, Field Supervisor, USFWS,

Phoenix Ecological Services Field Office

Nita M. Fuller, Associate Manager,

AZ/N14, USFWS, Region 2, Albuquerque
126

The I ililUdne SoCicly of the Lniied Stales

210*) 1. Street. NW

Washington. t)( 20037

(202) 452-1100

July 7, 1989

OF F ICE US

K W.~liam Wiseman

Chairman of the Boara

Coleman Burke. Eso.

Chairman Emeritus

O.J. Ramsey. Esq.

Vice Chairman

Dr. Amy Freeman Lee

Sec-e!Sry

Jchn ~ Hot

t”es cent

3

Exe:t.’e Vice 0’esicent/

Treasurer

Patrca Pcrkan

Senor Vice President

Murca~gn Stuart Madden. Esq.

Vice P’esaenuGenera, Counsel

Pat’ cc B Parses

Vice 0es;oenr,’F;eO Servzces

D’ .cnn W Grandy

i/ce ~es,oe.nr/V/,orrte&

o’v.’ronmen!

S 1W cr1

Vice ‘-esaenvCcmoanion Animats

Dr ‘,lc”aei VI Fox

Vice Prescenti.0arm Animas S

8oethics

I) I RE(it()RS

C’ Carol Brown ng

Coeman Burke. Esq.

Irene Evans

Regina Bauer Frankenberg

Ha’~id -~ Garoiner

Aiice R Garey

Dr ane Ocodal

Ps~.. Heers

Giseis H..r.n

John (ely

William Kerber

Dr. Amy Freeman Lee

Jece W. Lydman

Virginia Lynch

Susan Pepperane

0.1. Ramsey, Esg.

Marilyn G. Seyler

Robert Sorock

Brook Speidel

Carroll Thrift

Viola Weber

Robert F. Welborn. Esq.

Marilyn Wilhelm

K. William Wiseman

Refuge Manager

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 450

Rio Hondo, TX 78583

Re: Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for listed

cats of Arizona and Texas

Dear Recovery Plan Coordinator:

We urge that the Recovery Plan for listed cats of

Arizona and Texas include a full range of specific

recovery actions for margay, jaguarundi, and jaguar,

as well as ocelot. We question the statement that

“plans for the recovery of these species cannot be

developed until their presence is confirmed” (p.

23). In recent years, jaguarundi and jaguar have been

killed in the American Southwest. The geographic

ranges of these species include this region. Animals

can and do occur, at least as dispersed individuals

0—1 from Mexico.

Recovery planning should include:

±. Protection of adequate habitat to ensure future

0-2 viable populations. We strongly urge that the

Recovery Plan adopt a goal of “no—net-habitat loss”

for those landscape—level ecosystems upon which these

endangered felids depend. At the same time, estimates

of the spacial requirements for viable populations,

however preliminary, should be made. Aggressive

recovery efforts are needed to conserve and restore

adequate habitat.

2. Measures, such as an aggressive public education

effort, management for high density prey populations,

0-3 etc., that improve the likelihood for recolonization

of habitat by these endangered species.

HONORARY DIRECTORS

Aica Flemming

‘~- Virginia Milliken

Anorew Wyeth

R~C!!VED

~JULjo 1~89

Laqun,

1 At3~CO~

Nationai WitdIde Refuge
127

Page Two

7///89

0-4 3. Plans for population augmentation and reintroduction, as

needed to establish viable populations.

0—5 4. A joint U.S.- Mexican program to protect critical habitats

that extend into Mexico.

Finally, we strongly support continued land acquisition

for the Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Corridor in

conjunction with the Santa Ana NWR. The Corridor is now

nearly half completed and will provide a vital uninterrupted

habitat for all these species.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Tony Povilitis, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Wildlife and Environment

PWEJVED

~ L ~Q 1989

L~oun~ At~cos~

NaPcnz~ ~ ~efu~e
128

Mm

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION —

225 TOUHY AVENUE• PARK RIDGE’ ILLINOIS 60068 . (3w) 399-5700 ____

600 MARYLAND AVENUE SW SUITE 800’ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 484-2222 ——

July 10, 1989

Refuge Manager

Laguna Atascosa

• National Wildlife Refuge

Post Office Box 450

Rio Honda, Texas 78583

Re: Comments on Draft Recovery Plan for Listed Cats of

Arizona and Texas

Dear Sir:

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Arizona Farm Bureau

Federation are pleased to offer comments on the draft recovery plan for

listed cats in Arizona and Texas. As identified in the draft, the species

covered by the draft recovery plan are the: ocelot, margay, jaguarundi and

jaguar.

All four species are found primarily south of the U.S.-Mexico border.

With the exception of the ocelot, relatively few reports of sightings in

the United States have been made. Given this geographic distribution,

there may be any number of reasons that these animals are no longer found

in the northernmost portion of what may be described as their historic

range.

P—l The recovery efforts outlined in the draft plan should first be

evaluated with respect to the total known populations of these species,

ir~cludiru~ areas outside of the United States. Since the U.S. population

of any of these species is only a small fraction of the overall population

and its range, as recognized in the draft recovery plan, any recovery

efforts that might now be undertaken should have only a very slight impact

on these species. We believe that your decision to defer any specific

recovery recommendations until populations dynamics and demographics are

studied further, is a wise one.

P—2 As mentioned in the draft recovery plan, little is know:i about the

biology of any of these species. You recognize that much more information

must be obtained about these species before any concrete recovery efforts

could begin in the United States. Any action that might be taken before

you know the biology, habitat or living requirements of these animals

night be detrimental to the species itself. Also, since certain recovery

actions might have a detrimental effect on human activities, including

production agriculture, we would urge that the necessary iriform~ition be

obtained before any recovery action woulo occur. This would include

deferral of preservation or acquisition of possible habitat on non—fec~~4~~IVED

lands.

JUL SC’)
129

Page 2

p—3 The draft plan calls for preservation and/or acquisition of suitable

habitat for the species, for the purpose of possible reintroduction.

Again, we would urge caution until more is known about these animals and

before additional critical habitat is designated.

p—4 Any new habitat requirements should, as much as possible, be located

on federal lands. In this regard, the agency should be aware and comply

with Executive Order No. 12630 concerning taking of private property

especially as the proposed action might impact on agricultural practices.

p—5 Should non-federal lands need to be acquired, we strongly urge the

service to observe the following procedures: First, any private property

shoulu only be acquired from willing sellers. Secondly, only so much of

the property as is absolutely necessary for critical habitat use should

be acquired. This would mean that private landowners should be permitted

to retain subsurface mineral rights, water rights and any other aspect of

property ownership that is not absolutely necessary for habitat use.

Third, only so much property should be used as is necessary for the

critical habitat of the species as defined, with emphasis on using federal

and/or state lands whenever possible.

P—6 Given the relatively large geographical range of these species in

Central and South America, we think that reintroduction of any of these

species in Arizona and Texas shouldbe made only as a last resort. This

is especially true where, as here, there have been very few reported

sightings in these areas. In any event, reintroduction should not occur

unless area residents expressly consent to the reintroduction. Survival

of any translocated species will ultimately depend on the support of area

residents, so any chances for recovery would be greater where the

larldowners have knowingly and fully consented to changing agricultural

practices and other lifestyle modifications to accommodate these species.

Reintroduction should not even be considered until the biology, habitat

rcquireme~1t.~ md feeding habits of the affected animal are fully known and

there is a demonstrated riced for reintroduction of a species as necessary

for the species’ survival.

We hope that you will give careful consideration to these comments

n the formulation of your final recovery plan.

Sincerely,

.n C. Datt

~ecutive Director

Washington Office

cc: Cecil H. Miller, Jr., President

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation

S. M. True, Jr.. President

Tex~is Farm Bureau
130

Resnonses to Comments Received During 30-Day Public Comment Period on Final

Draft

N—i Protecting suitable habitat adjacent to Laguna Atascosa NUR is

extremely important. This has been addressed further in

Appendix I.

14—2 Willacy County does have tracts that are valuable as habitat and

some are in danger. Updated maps have been created regarding

priority land acquisition. Portions of Willacy County have

already been purchased.

14—3 Brush tracts along the Arroyo Colorado have shown considerable

ocelot use. This potential link to the Lower Rio Grande Corridor

needs to be protected. It would benefit ocelots to leave brush

plots along the Arroyo Colorado.

1’I—4 Although the Service has no active program and no authority to do

so at this time, a program initiated by private organizations may

be one to consider.

The Service is very concerned and is currently working with the

IBWC on this issue.

14—6 This has been done in one instance and the Service hopes it will

be continued.

14-7 Reforestation is presently ongoing and will continue to be a very

high priority for years to come. The Laguna Atascosa NWR’s Master

Plan outlines the conversion of 60% of the farm fields back to

brush.

Funding is always a restraint and involvement by private groups in

land acquisition is used where applicable.

N-i Brush tracts along waterways, especially along the Rio Grande, are

some of the most valuable and sensitive areas used by ocelots and

jaguarundi. These tracts provide critical links to corridors used

by dispersing cats.

N—2 Considerable base-lime data has been gathered in the past eight

years in these areas. Further data need to be obtained, as well

as additional funding sources.

N—3 The Service has full intentions to include the IBWC on interagency committees and share any information that may assist in its

operations. We appreciate the cooperation being extended toward

the interagency MOU to improve our working relationship.
131

0—1 A step—down outline is provided for jaguarundi, page 27. The

jaguar’s status in norhtern Mexico and especially in the United

States is unconfirmed. Recovery recommendations and funding

connot be pursued until status is confirmed.

0-2 Comment is addressed under steps 131—144. We agree that

protection of adequate habitat is the best way to attempt to

ensure viable endangered cat populations. Estimates for the

spacial requirements for viable populations of endangered cats are

too preliminary at this time.

0-3 Comment is addressed under steps 142 and #5 on page 53. A great

deal of management effort is dedicated to public education and

prey populations at Laguna Atascosa, Santa Ana, and Lower Rio

Grande NWR’s.

0—4 Comment is addressed on Page 38 and 39, #2.

0-5 Comxrent is addressed under steps 113 and 414. A joint U.S.—Mexico

program is of high priority and research proposals have been

written and await funding toward gathering biological baseline

data on status and ecology of various cats in Mexico.

P-i The Service is mandated by law to operate under the Endangered

Species Act regarding the recovery of cats and their subspecies

included in the United States. Cat populations are threatened

throughout most of their range with habitat loss having the

greatest effect both outside and within the U.S.

P-2 The Service has dedicated eight years of continuous research

through Fiscal Year 89 on the biology and living requirements of

ocelot. Recovery efforts will carefully take into consideration

detrimental effects on human activities, including agriculture

production, land owners and the species themselves.

P-3 Comment Noted.

P-4 Comment Noted.

P—5 Comments addressed under steps 141—143. The Services s intentions

are to protect habitat through volunteer easements, revegetation

or acquisition when and where available.

P—6 Translocation or reintroduction are not undertaken by the Service

until careful consideration is given to the impacts to area

residents, agricultural practices and the cats themselves. We

believe there is strong support for ocelot conservation and that

further public education is needed for a better understanding of

and coexistence with ocelots in Texas.