Livestock Grazing. Effects of livestock grazing on relict leopard frog populations may be positive and negative (Xxxxxxxx 1988, Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1998, Xxxxx and Xxxxxx 1998). While grazing has been attributed to maintaining open areas in spring systems, high levels of grazing can negatively impact amphibian habitat by removing bankside cover, increasing ambient ground and water temperatures, destroying bank structure (e.g. eliminating undercut banks), trampling egg masses, and adding high levels of organic wastes (Xxxxxxxx 1988). Overgrazing may also degrade amphibian habitat by increasing runoff and sedimentation rates (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx 1997, Xxxxxxxx 1988). Relict leopard frog populations in the Northshore area may be affected by wild burros. Burros seasonally use water sources inhabited by frogs. During those periods, they intensively graze the shallow edges of pools. This use can result in the loss of vegetative cover in riparian and emergent zones, decreased water quality, direct impacts to habitat quality at spring outflow streams and along watercourses, and accelerated drying and loss of pool habitats during spring and summer months. Direct mortality of all life stages of frogs due to trampling may also occur and is of particular concern during key periods of life history such as during breeding, oviposition and development, and emergence of metamorphs. While burro activity may sometimes benefit leopard frogs by decreasing the density of vegetation, many species of emergent vegetation colonize deeper water where they are unaffected by burro grazing, and spread toward the shallow edges, filling the pool. At a large, deep pool at Blue Point Spring previously favored by relict leopard frogs, high levels of burro activity did not stop it from becoming densely overgrown (X. Xxxxx pers comm.).
Livestock Grazing. Most, if not all, of the private land that supports adequate numbers of prairie dogs essential to maintaining black-footed ferret populations is agricultural in nature and predominantly used for livestock grazing. It is expected that any management decisions regarding grazing practices on enrolled properties will continue to be determined by the Cooperator and will be described in the property’s Reintroduction Plan. Grazing practices on lands enrolled under this Agreement should provide habitat for the ferret and be economically viable for the Cooperator. It is understood that certain practices such as, but not limited to, grazing livestock, driving vehicles and equipment to and from the livestock operations, driving vehicles to and between pastures to move and/or feed livestock or administer medical attention to animals, building and maintaining fences and watering facilities, treating invasive plants, prescribed fire, reseeding, fertilization, and brush management, may be necessary to facilitate sustainable grazing. Grazing and related activities will be further described in the Reintroduction Plan. Implementation of all grazing activities will be the responsibility of the Cooperator. It is not the intent of this Agreement to limit any land use that does not materially reduce the viability of any reintroduced ferret population.
Livestock Grazing. Livestock grazing occurs throughout the range of Columbia spotted frogs and heavy utilization from livestock has been cited as detrimental to Columbia spotted frog habitat (Xxxxxx et al. 1996, Reaser 1997, Xxxxx 2002, USFWS 2006). Though direct effects of livestock grazing on Columbia spotted frog distribution and populations are not well documented, the effects of heavy grazing on riparian areas are well documented (Xxxxxxxx et al. 1983a, 1983b, Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 1984, Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx 0000, Xxxxxx et al. 1999). Bull and Xxxxx (2000) found no impacts of cattle grazing on the reproductive success of Columbia spotted frogs in ponds in northeastern Oregon; however, there was high variability in their results and grazing intensity and timing was not evaluated. Xxxxx et al. (2009) found no significant short-term effects of cattle exclosures on the number of Columbia spotted frog egg masses, larval survival, size of metamorphs, or water quality measurements. Moreover, nutrient levels often associated with negative impacts to amphibians were very low to non- detectable (Xxxxx et al. 2009). In contrast, Xxxx et al. (2007) found higher levels of Ranavirus (an emerging pathogen implicated in many amphibian declines) in green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) within ponds accessed by cattle. They suspected that poor water quality (a stressor) and minimal vegetation (which increases contact rates among individuals) in cattle- access ponds played a role. Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx (2003) found lower survival of Columbia spotted frog larvae in their high livestock waste treatment; however, the high waste treatment larvae that survived had higher growth rates. Xxxxxxxxx et al. (2008) found significantly larger green frog, bullfrog, and pickerel frog (L. palustris) larvae in ponds with cattle grazing; however, larval abundance for all three species was significantly higher in ponds with no cattle grazing. Additionally, water quality measurements including turbidity, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen, were significantly higher in ponds with grazing (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2008). Recent studies have reported that changes in the timing and duration of livestock grazing, and incorporating rest-rotation grazing strategies, result in improved riparian habitat conditions and water quality in occupied Columbia spotted frog habitat in northern Nevada (Booth et al. 2012, Xxxxxxxx et al. 2013, Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2013). While livestock grazing occurs in nearly all populations, the status...
Livestock Grazing. Improper management of livestock grazing in riparian areas may result in (1) loss of vegetation diversity and removal of vegetation that provides bank stabilization, cover from predators, protection from UV radiation, and shade from high temperatures, (2) trampling of frogs or larvae,
Livestock Grazing. Although efforts to control and minimize damage are ongoing, livestock grazing occurs on a portion of habitat at most wild least chub sites. A few instances of localized extensive livestock grazing-related damage have occurred in the last couple of years, and livestock grazing on private lands where least chub occur remains partially unregulated. Grazing damage is not always severe where it occurs, and livestock are effectively excluded from portions of occupied habitat through previous conservation actions under the LCCAS. UDWR is pursuing several proactive measures to reduce grazing impacts (e.g., UDWR 2012a, pp. II-18) and the success of these and similar measures will reduce the remaining impacts of grazing. Such actions include the purchase of grazing rights on UDWR owned land at Xxxxx Valley, encouragement of grazing operator landowners to minimize grazing-related impacts to least chub through enrollment in the Programmatic CCAA, and active restoration of habitats impacted by grazing. Under CCAA enrollment, modified grazing regimes would minimize impacts to least chub at Xxxxx Valley, a wild population site where more than 80 per cent of the land is privately owned. Additionally, the fencing and nonnative vegetation removal at severely impacted sites, such as Twin Springs (at Xxxxxx), will minimize the direct impacts of grazing activities near these least chub occupied water sources. For those sites with springheads that have been heavily impacted, restoration of the springheads has proven to be successful, with least chub returning to unoccupied springheads in as little as two months post-restoration. Furthermore, the Population Viability Analysis decision model, currently in preparation, will provide guidance and recommendations on grazing regimes for specific rest times for each habitat type (e.g. shallow and deep springs), that will thus inform grazing operators and aid in further minimizing livestock impacts. Groundwater withdrawal and inadequacy of existing mechanisms to regulate groundwater withdrawal Water levels of springs have been identified as important in the life history of least chub (Xxxxxxx 1981; Xxxxx and Xxxxxx 1990). These springs are dependent on underground water sources that flow from the mountains into the low-lying valleys. Local and regional groundwater-development projects in eastern Nevada and western Utah have the potential to lower groundwater levels and reduce groundwater-fed spring flow at sites populated by least chub...
Livestock Grazing. Annually, cattle from the Property Owner’s Little Shasta Valley ranch are herded overland to the Property starting in the mid-summer. Historically, cattle used the Property for summer grazing during a 10 to 12 week season commencing in early to mid-July for a total of 400-430 animal- unit month (AUM). Under the Easement, the timing of summer grazing will begin no sooner than July 1 and the range utilization will be reduced to no more than 180 AUM annually as defined in the Annual Livestock Grazing Management and Monitoring Plan. The Property Owners will continue to monitor cattle presence and range utilization and implement conservation measures to minimize wolf/livestock interaction through their Annual Wolf Preparedness and Monitoring Plan, protect confirmed wolf xxxxxxx areas, and enhance prey habitat as described in section 4.2.2.1 below.
Livestock Grazing. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Edited by Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp. 389-423. Xxxxxx, X.X. 1996. Conservation status of spotted frogs in Nevada: 1996 state-wide surveys. Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. Attachment A. August 9, 1996. 15 pp. Xxxxxx, X.X. 1997. Amphibian declines: conservation science and adaptive management. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Xxxxxx, X.X. 2000. Demographic analyses of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case study in spatio-temporal subpopulation variation. Canadian Journal Zoology 78:1158-1167 Reh, W. 1989. Investigations into the influence of roads on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria. Pages 101-103 In: Amphibians and Roads. X. X. Xxxxxxx, Editor. ACO Polymer Products Ltd. Bedfordshire, England. Xxxxx, X. X. 1996 Influence of electrofishing on the survival of arctic grayling, chinook salmon, least cisco, and humpback whitefish eggs. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript No. 96-1. Xxxxx, M. E. 1983. What do we really know about extinction? pages 111-124 in Genetics and Conservation: A Reference for Managing Wild Animal and Plant Populations, X. X. Xxxxxxxxxx-Xxx, X. X. Xxxxxxxx, X. XxxXxxxx, and X. X. Xxxxxx (eds.), Xxxxxxxx/Xxxxxxxx Publishing Co., Inc., Menlo Park, California.
Livestock Grazing. See restrictions on the raising of domestic cervidae in Exhibit D, Prohibited Uses of the Property
Livestock Grazing. The grazing of livestock on an application site is prohibited for 30 days after the application.
Livestock Grazing. Grazing of livestock within populations of Eucephalus vialis may damage the species indirectly through habitat degradation (including soil disturbance, introduction of invasive weeds) and directly (through herbivory and trampling of individual Eucephalus vialis plants). Site evaluations have suggested that livestock grazing may be detrimental to some populations (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx 1995). Livestock could potentially be used as a tool to keep habitats more open and to reduce competition, if the timing, duration and intensity of the grazing are regulated. Residential development. Federal management will be crucial for the long-term survival of this species due to the rural and urban housing developments and residential use of timbered areas in the forests surrounding urban areas in habitat of Eucephalus vialis. In some cases, Eucephalus vialis populations were probably damaged or destroyed when developments were established, but there are few records of the occurrence of the species on these lands, primarily because of private ownership. Residential development results in the destruction of habitat from the construction of homes and out buildings and impacts habitat on adjacent public land from increased recreation. In addition, the presence of private homes in the vicinity of public lands limits the suitability of certain management tools and landscape-level processes, such as prescribed burning, for improving the habitat of Eucephalus vialis. The species has no legal protection on private lands. Roadside maintenance, road use, and recreation. Potential and historical impacts from various roadside maintenance activities are of concern, including mowing, spraying, brushing, ditching, grading and snow plowing. Frequent dusting of roadside populations from traffic traveling unsurfaced roads adjacent to plant populations during critical pollination times may impact reproductive capability. Recreational activities in Eucephalus vialis habitat that have been observed include: trail bikes traveling in and adjacent to populations; equestrian use in and adjacent to populations; and trail use through Eucephalus vialis populations to fishing areas. These activities can threaten populations by direct impact and by bringing in weeds. Sometimes road corridors provide the openings in which Eucephalus vialis can flower or at least persist when the surrounding habitat becomes too shady through forest succession.
