Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. Lack of range-wide protection See conservation actions 1–7.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. Currently, the southern Idaho ground squirrel is not protected by federal or local laws. The IDF&G classified the southern Idaho ground squirrel as a “Species of Special Concern” in 1981. Because of this status, the species is protected by State law from taking (shooting, trapping, poisoning) or possession. To date, however, protection from recreational shooting or poisoning has not been enforced by the State, and the southern Idaho ground squirrel remains vulnerable to this type of activity. The state and federal agencies are aware of the apparent population decline of the southern Idaho ground squirrel. However, there is no requirement for an agency to cooperate with the FWS in conserving unlisted or candidate species. Only species that are proposed for listing are covered by the conference procedures of Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA. Ground squirrels are considered pests by many farmers and ranchers (Prescott and Yensen 1999). When available, alfalfa crops are one of the preferred food sources for southern Idaho ground squirrels, resulting in localized crop losses during years of high squirrel populations (Prescott and Yensen 1999). Badgers are often attracted to population sites of ground squirrels, where they dig large holes in the ground that can be dangerous to livestock (Prescott and Yensen 1999). Efforts to control ground squirrel populations are frequently undertaken regardless of species and most often include shooting or poisoning. Control efforts can adversely affect population sites of southern Idaho ground squirrels (Yensen 1998, Prescott and Yensen 1999, Yensen 2000). In addition, Yensen (1998) suggested that use of pesticides associated with crop production and insect infestation may also play a role in the decline of this species. Competition with Columbian ground squirrels may constitute a threat to the continued existence of southern Idaho ground squirrels. Southern Idaho ground squirrels are known to be limited by interspecific competition with Columbian ground squirrels (Xxxxx et al. 1995, Yensen and Xxxxxxx 1997, Xxxx 2000), including competition for xxxxxx sites (Xxxx 2000) and for food resources (Xxxx and Yensen 1996). Where the two species occur sympatrically, Columbian ground squirrels occupy the more productive, mesic habitat with deeper soils (Yensen 1980, Xxxx and Yensen 1996, Xxxx 2000). Habitat destruction and fragmentation have resulted in a distribution of relatively isolated population sites of southern Idaho ground squirrel...
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. Lack of range-wide protection 52. The BLM will assume primary responsibility for implementation of specific conservation actions to protect GCM and GCM occupied habitat and to ensure the species persists on BLM Lands.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. Impacts: Factor: Livestock grazing Impacts:
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. As described under Factor 2, Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes, Nevada currently limits the collection, study, or use of relict leopard frogs to those with a scientific collecting permit, and prohibits the personal collection or possession of relict leopard frog for hobby possession of amphibians, as well as the commercial collection or possession of relict leopard frog for the amphibian and reptile pet trade. Nevada also prohibits the importation, transportation, and possession of certain species of nonnative wildlife. However, regulations have not entirely prevented the introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species that negatively affect relict leopard frog and its habitat. Because the primary goal of this Agreement is to protect, enhance, and expand suitable habitat for the relict leopard frog and to establish additional secure populations on non-Federal lands within its historic range, and Nevada currently has regulations in place to control the collection of relict leopard frogs and spread of nonnative wildlife, this threat factor does not apply to the relict leopard frog on properties enrolled under this Agreement. Control of nonnative wildlife will be implemented as a conservation measure at specific sites on enrolled lands where feasible, to address threats under Factor 3.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. The Wet Canyon talussnail is protected by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 42 for Crustaceans and Mollusks, which establishes a closed season for the species. This rule prohibits collection and harvest, but does not protect against habitat modification like fire or unmanaged grazing. The Wet Canyon talussnail is identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (tier 1a) in the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan prepared by the AGFD. With the finalization of this CA, Pinaleño talussnail, Mimic talussnail, Xxxxx Peak talussnail, and Pinaleño mountainsnail will be elevated to SGCN Tier 1A, as well. This plan helps guide the AGFD and other agencies in determining what biotic resources should receive priority management consideration. However, conservation benefits would mostly come from proactive initiatives because this plan has no legal regulatory authority. The following subsections provide a summary of the existing regulatory mechanisms for all Parties of the CA, which are also incorporated into the Stressor/Conservation Measure Matrix (Appendix A).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. The PYTH is protected by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 42 for Crustaceans and Mollusks, which establishes a closed season for the species. This rule prohibits collection and harvest, but does not protect against habitat modification like fire or unmanaged grazing. The PYTH is identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (tier 1a) in the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan prepared by the AGFD. This plan helps guide the AGFD and other agencies in determining what biotic resources should receive priority management consideration. However, conservation benefits would mostly come from proactive initiatives because this plan has no legal regulatory authority. The species is afforded some regulatory protection by occurring with or near other federally listed species, such as the Huachuca water xxxxx (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva) in Garden Canyon. Federal actions affecting listed species require consultation under section 7 of the ESA and potentially provide benefits to the PYTH. In 2010, the U.S. Army revised the Fort Huachuca (the Fort) INRMP that provides a description of land use, military training operations, and identifies the fort’s ecosystem and adaptive management approach to the conservation of wildlife and their habitat on the fort (Vernadero 2010). The Fort’s INRMP provides for inventory of remote springs, monitoring of known occupied sites as needed, general protection of springs, and development of a conservation agreement, (Vernadero 2010). To date, the Fort has hosted multiple AGFD springsnail workshops, managed potential disturbance around spring habitat, monitored occupied sites, invasive crayfish management in Garden and Blacktail canyons, and supported AGFD inventory and genetic analysis (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2012; Xxxxxxxxxx and Diamond 2015). As discussed above, the primary threat to PYTH on the Fort is fire and potential drying as a result of climate change. The Fort’s INRMP contains several goals and objectives related to fire management. These include the collection of fire history data, fire mapping, fuel hazard reduction, and prescribed fire to reduce the risk of stand-replacing fire (Vernadero 2010). To date, actions implemented near springsnail habitats are: 1) silt fencing along Garden Canyon, between the road shoulder and creek banks; 2) thinning of shrubs and small trees along the road through Garden Canyon up to the junction with Sawmill Canyon (~6,200 ft [1890 m] elevation) to slow the spread, and ...
