Description of Existing Conditions. 4.1 Description of the New England Cottontail The NEC is the only endemic cottontail in New England (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx 1996, p. 289). The NEC is a medium-large cottontail rabbit that may reach 1,000 grams (2.2 pounds) in weight. Like the conspecific eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), the NEC can be distinguished from the snowshoe hare by its lack of seasonal variation in pelage coloration and distinctly smaller hind foot. New England and eastern cottontails can be difficult to distinguish in the field by external characteristics (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1990, p. 106). However, cranial differences, specifically the length of the supraorbital process and the pattern of the nasal frontal suture, are a reliable means of distinguishing the two cottontail species (Xxxxxxxx 1972, pp. 6-11). The NEC, like all cottontails, is short lived and reproduces at an early age with some juveniles probably breeding in their first season. Litter size is typically five young (range 3-8) and females, which provide little parental care, may have 2-3 litters per year. The breeding season lasts from mid-March to mid-September in Connecticut (Xxxxx 1942 in Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 1982, p. 93). Initiation of nesting is closely associated with the spring green-up (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 1982, p. 94). Several attempts have been made to document NEC nesting habitat, however locating nests has proven to be very difficult because nests are concealed in extremely dense vegetation, prohibiting researcher access and discovery (X. Xxxxxx, pers. comm.). Female NECs have a high incidence of postpartum breeding, demonstrate density independent breeding response, and have a rapid rate of maturity (approximately 40 days from conception to parental freedom) (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1990, p. 108). These characteristics allow a species to thrive in spite of a high predation rate, provided ample resources are available (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 1982, p. 105). In the case of cottontail rabbits, these principal resources include ample food and habitat that is free from interspecific competition and provides security from excessive predation (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 1982, p. 106). The historic range of the species likely spanned southeastern New York (east of the Xxxxxx River including Long Island) north through the Champlain Valley, southern Vermont, the southern half of New Hampshire, southern Maine, and statewide in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island (Xxxxxx 1909; ...
Description of Existing Conditions. This section of the CCAA should describe the population levels of the covered species that exist at the time the CCAA is being negotiated, if those levels are available or determinable. It should also include a detailed description of the existing habitat characteristics of the lands and/or waters on the enrolled property that sustain any current, permanent, or seasonal use by the covered species. The description might include the vegetation type, the major plant species and their percent cover, the soil type(s) and their moisture regimes, the hydrology of the area, and any other relevant characteristics. These factors should be described quantitatively, when possible, but a thorough qualitative description can be provided where no quantitative data exist. In addition, if existing characteristics of the enrolled property help support populations of the covered species on other lands or waters (i.e., outside of the enrolled property), these characteristics should also be described. For example, riparian conditions on an enrolled property may affect water quality and the individuals or populations of the covered species that live downstream, so the CCAA should describe this type of relationship if it exists. The existing conditions described in this section are not a “baseline” in the same sense as a Safe Harbor Agreement has a baseline. That is, a property owner may or may not be able to return to the existing conditions while meeting the CCAA Standard or maintaining his or her compliance with the CCAA.
Description of Existing Conditions. Due to the loss of older forests across the landscape, spotted owl populations have declined throughout their historic range. The spotted owl has declined primarily due to forest harvest, alteration, fragmentation, increased intensity and frequency of forest fires, lack of beneficial habitat management, and the effects of demographic isolation. More recently, competition from the barred owl (S. varia) has been recognized as potentially posing a significant and complex threat to the spotted owl. The decline on non-federal lands has resulted primarily from timber harvest, short-rotation silviculture, and fragmentation of older forest stands. Loss of habitat due to timber harvest has been greatly reduced on Federal lands for the past two decades. Extensive research, monitoring, and management are currently directed toward habitat on Federal lands, where the majority of habitat and spotted owls currently exist. In Oregon, about 85 percent of known spotted owl activity centers occur on Federal lands and about 15 percent occur on non-federal lands. However, many occurrences on private lands likely remain unknown, and numerous reported historic occurrences on both Federal and non-federal lands might represent inactive site centers. Some site centers on Federal lands utilize adjacent non-federal lands as part of their overall home range. Geographically and demographically isolated spotted owls in fragmented habitats that are not managed for the species’ benefit have a low probability of persistence. The probability of persistence is affected not only by habitat condition and demographic uncertainty, but also by proximity and connectedness to other populations to facilitate dispersal between populations. It is anticipated that through the involvement of non-federal landowners in this Agreement, a greater contribution to the conservation status of spotted owl populations in Oregon will be achieved. Oregon forest landowners and ODF have expressed an interest in, and support for, a mechanism that will provide long-term management flexibility and conservation benefits for spotted owls, as well as ESA regulatory assurances.
Description of Existing Conditions. Prior to European settlement, an estimated 60 to 74 million acres were dominated by longleaf pine, which spanned across the uplands of the coastal plains and Piedmont from Virginia to central Florida and west to eastern Texas (Frost, 1993; Xxxxxxx et al., 2001; Xxxxxxx, 2002). In Alabama and Georgia, longleaf-dominant stands extended well into mountainous regions where open longleaf pine woodlands occurred extensively on south slopes and ridges just over a century ago (see Xxxx, 1901; Xxxxxx, 1943). In the United States today, approximately 3 percent of the natural, albeit second or third growth, longleaf pine forest remains (Frost, 1993), and in Alabama, roughly 5 percent (about 500,000 acres) of its pre-settlement 10 million acres of longleaf remain (Xxxxxxx, 2002). Historically, the RCW was widely distributed in Alabama with reported occurrences from 40 counties (Xxxxxxx, 1971; Xxxxxx et al., 1980). It is believed that less than 15 counties continue to support RCWs. The majority of RCWs remaining in AL today are on publicly owned lands such as military bases, national wildlife refuges, and national forests with the vast majority of occurrences in national forests. As of 2003, the Oakmulgee Ranger District, Talladega National Forest, reported 96 active clusters followed by the Conecuh National Forest with 19, and the Shoal Creek Ranger District, Talladega National Forest, with 8 (Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, personal communication). Geographically and demographically isolated RCW groups in fragmented habitats that are not managed for the species’ benefit have a low probability of persistence. The probability of persistence is affected not only by habitat deterioration and demographic uncertainty, but also by proximity and connectedness to other populations to facilitate dispersal between populations. Very small populations of at least 10 groups may persist over the short term (i.e., 20 years) if their individual foraging habitats are aggregated by shared boundaries (Xxxxxxx et al. 1998). However, a population of five or fewer groups would likely be extirpated without intensive habitat management and immigration in the same number of years. The need for an accurate, concise population census is important to the survival of these isolated groups. Without the knowledge of their existence and the specific habitat management that they require, these populations are likely to decline, and may eventually cease to exist (Xxxxx and Xxxxxx 1995). Small, isolated, and genetica...
Description of Existing Conditions a. Type of use and operations (up to three, as applicable) being enrolled: • Highways/Interstates
b. Provide a short (1-2 paragraph) summary of the system of lands being enrolled in the Agreement. Describe:
1). Elevation ranges from 289 feet in the southeast to 4,973 feet above sea level in the northwest with a mean elevation of 1,300 feet above sea level. These lands areas are dominated by vast plains, elevated karst plateaus, hills, and folded, low mountains.
Description of Existing Conditions. The Chiricahua leopard frog is likely limited to 42 or fewer localities in the southern portion of its range (USFWS files). Approximately 12 known, reproducing leopard frog populations occur within the Agreement’s covered area. These include population sites on USFS lands (Coronado National Forest), on State lands utilized by a Malpai landowner under a State grazing allotment, and the majority occur on private ranch lands within the Malpai covered area (Xxxxx 1999). Of these 12 sites, one occurs in natural spring or stream habitat, one site on the Refuge is an artificially constructed fenced enclosure, and at least nine occur in stock tanks. In addition, a number of stock tanks on Malpai lands are known to support leopard frog populations in years with relatively high rainfall (Xxxxx, pers. comm.), and other currently unoccupied tanks have the potential to support additional leopard frog populations (Xxxxx 1999). These data indicate the actual and potential importance of ranch lands, and particularly stock tanks, to leopard frogs in the Malpai area. A number of aquatic sites within the Malpai covered area are also known to support significant populations of bullfrogs and other non-native species; including Black Draw on the Refuge, the leopard frog enclosure on the Refuge – which has been invaded by bullfrogs despite a “frog-proof” fence (Xxxx Xxxxx, Refuge Manager, pers. comm.), the cienega at Xxxx Ranch headquarters, and possibly other locations. These data indicate the potentially precarious nature of Chiricahua leopard frog populations in the Malpai area with respect to bullfrog competition, and the challenge of managing for one frog species and against another in the same vicinity. Nevertheless, management of Chiricahua leopard frog populations within the Malpai covered area represents a potentially important component in conservation of this species (Xxxxx 1999). Furthermore, a number of Malpai landowners have expressed a willingness to accept the presence of Chiricahua leopard frogs on their lands, provided their economic interests can be reasonably protected. Indeed, in one well-publicized case, the Magoffin Ranch maintained a small leopard frog population in one of its stock tanks, by hauling 1,000 gallons of water per week to the tank for approximately 24 months during a drought from June 1994 until summer of 1996. It was this population from which leopard frog tadpoles were provided to establish the populations now present in the Refuge enclosur...
Description of Existing Conditions a. Type of use and operations (up to three, as applicable) being enrolled: • County/Local Roads • Choose an item. • Choose an item.
b. Provide a short (1-2 paragraph) summary of the system of lands being enrolled in the Agreement. Describe: • Location and estimated acreage of enrolled lands • Describe your land management ability: owned, easement, and (if applicable) facilities located on easement or ROW held by other entities
c. Summarize the covered activities included within your enrollment. If enrolling the entire list of activities included in Section 5 of the Agreement, note as such. If only enrolling for a subset of activities, then list or summarize which categories of, or specific, covered activities are included.
d. Provide a short (1-2 paragraph) description summarizing monarch habitat availability and the conservation measures you envision your organization contributing to the Agreement. Section V of this application includes a table with check boxes to indicate the general measures that will be implemented. More specific details will be requested in the Implementation Plan to be submitted after the Application is approved.
e. Attach a map or GIS files showing the location and extent of the enrolled lands. To the greatest extent practical, provide maps that display parcel and/or corridor route locations for areas included within your enrolled lands. For applicants with assets in multiple states, please provide state-scaled maps and/or a table of enrolled acres by state. Describe the boundaries or limits used to delineate enrolled lands versus lands excluded from the Agreement.
f. Describe in a short (1-2 paragraph) summary any constraints that affect your ability to implement conservation measures or to address key threats. Management constraints are limitations on your management controls that may result from laws and regulations, land or easement ownership requirements, organizational policies, or management capabilities. Note: There is a separate field in Section IV.b. for proposing a schedule for phasing in conservation measure adoption over time.
g. Provide a summary of any existing agreements, permits, or other authorizations your organization may have regarding incidental take coverage for other Federal-listed endangered species. For example, list any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or incidental take permits (ITAs) authorized to your organization, or other candidate conservation agreements (CCA/CCAA) or safe harbor agreements (SHA) yo...
Description of Existing Conditions. The description of existing conditions related to the Covered Species prepared for the CEHMM CCA/A is adopted herein, as follows:
Description of Existing Conditions. Chiricahua leopard frogs are threatened by a number of factors, including: (1) habitat alteration, destruction, and fragmentation resulting from water diversions, altered fire regimes that have resulted in recent catastrophic fires, groundwater pumping, and other factors; (2) disease, including Postmetamorphic Death Syndrome (PDS) and chytridiomycosis (the former possibly being related to the latter); and (3) predation by non-native aquatic organisms, including bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), crayfish (Oronectes virilis), tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium and A.t. nebulosum), and fish in the families Centrarchidae, Ictaluridae, and Salmonidae. Population losses due to these factors have disrupted metapopulation dynamics, making remaining populations more susceptible to extirpation. Furthermore, populations are often in small, isolated habitats that are subject to drying during drought. Pollution of Chiricahua leopard frog habitats by water- and air-borne contaminants may be additional factors threatening the species (Xxxx et al. 1995), although the effects of such contaminants are poorly understood. The colonization of Chiricahua leopard frog habitats by non-native aquatic predators—whether by natural dispersal or by deliberate or inadvertent introduction—is an ever-present threat to Chiricahua leopard frog populations (USFWS 2002). For example, Xxxxx et al. (1995, 1996) found that 16 of 19 historical localities where Chiricahua leopard frogs still occurred lacked non- native aquatic predators, while all surveyed historical localities that lacked Chiricahua leopard frogs supported non-native predators. Non-native predators adversely affect Chiricahua leopard frog populations by preying on tadpoles, metamorphs, young frogs, and possibly egg masses, and often result in the extirpation of Chiricahua leopard frogs from otherwise suitable habitat. This is a central issue addressed by the Agreement’s conservation program. Livestock grazing occurs throughout the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog, and stock tanks constructed as water sources for livestock are critically important Chiricahua leopard frog habitats. In some areas (e.g., the San Xxxxxx Valley, San Bernardino Valley, Fossil Creek drainage, and Patagonia Mountains of Arizona), stock tanks have largely replaced the species’ natural habitats and may provide the only suitable habitat. Effects of livestock grazing on Chiricahua leopard frogs can be positive or negative (Sredl and Xxxxxxxx 200...
Description of Existing Conditions. [Insert description of the extent and current condition of the enrolled lands and their acreage (e.g., major plant communities or habitat types, land use, location of existing ponds and aquatic habitats, water delivery and control systems, etc.) in terms appropriate for relict leopard frogs. Attach a map showing the boundaries of the property and areas of potential relict leopard frog habitat. A population estimate or distribution (number and location, if determinable) will be included if relict leopard frogs currently occupy the property.
