-
Title
-
Eng
Evaluation of Priorities and Costs in Species Recovery Plans: Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonorensis), Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra)
-
Date
-
2013
-
Creator
-
Eng
Ritter, Matthew G
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
Evaluation of Priorities and Costs in Species Recovery Plans:
Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonorensis), Louisiana
Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) and Sierra Nevada Bighorn
Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra)
by
Matthew G. Ritter
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
April 2013
i
©2012 by Matthew G. Ritter. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Matthew G. Ritter
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Ralph Murphy, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
iii
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of Priorities and Costs in Species Recovery Plans:
Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonorensis), Louisiana Black Bear
(Ursus americanus luteolus) and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis
sierra)
Matthew G. Ritter
Recovery Plans are crucial in preventing a species from extinction. Without such
plans several species would go extinct because of resource limitation. The
research examined how Species Recovery Plans were funded and implemented by
government stakeholders, and how the spending compared to the goals laid out in
the Recovery Plans for the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This answered how stakeholder expenditures affect the
implementation of tasks outlined in the Recovery Plan and compare the results
with the species status. The research determined the effectiveness of Species
Recovery Plans and if tasks were being funded appropriately. The methodological
approaches for the thesis consisted of a literature review, and budget analysis.
One species was over budget, one was on budget, and the other was under budget.
Overall, funds were contributed accordingly because Sonoran Pronghorn,
Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations all remained
stable from 2007 to 2010. Expenditures were properly directed to the tasks of
most concern producing stable populations in 2012.
iv
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Case Study ................................................................................................................... 4
3.1
Sonoran Pronghorn............................................................................................... 9
3.1.1
Background ................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2
Analysis....................................................................................................... 15
3.1.3
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 34
3.2
Louisiana Black Bear ......................................................................................... 37
3.2.1
Background ................................................................................................. 37
3.2.2
Analysis....................................................................................................... 40
3.2.3
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 58
3.3
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep ............................................................................ 60
3.3.1
Background ................................................................................................. 60
3.3.2
Analysis....................................................................................................... 64
3.3.3
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 76
4.
Discussion.................................................................................................................. 80
5.
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 82
6.
Works Cited ............................................................................................................... 87
v
Acknowledgments
This thesis is the conclusion of inspiration and knowledge from all of the courses that I
have taken in the M.E.S. program. Thank you Ralph Murphy for your patience, your
insightful recommendations, and above all your mentorship throughout this thesis
process. I also thank the other M.E.S. faculty members who helped set a foundation in the
interdisciplinary studies for this thesis. Thank you.
vi
1.
Introduction
The Endangered Species Act declares “…the United States has pledged itself as a
sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the
various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.” To date the Endangered
Species Act is the most important legal document providing protection for twelve
hundred species threatened with extinction (USFWS, 2010). The goal of the Act is to
recover a species until the risk of extinction no longer persists. For the protection of
Endangered Species, Section Four was amended in 1988 to require developing recovery
plans for each listed species unless a plan would not help in recovering the species
(Crouse, 2002). Species Recovery Plans present an outline protecting a species from
extinction developed through a combination of policy, economics, and science.
Recovery Plans provide a roadmap for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
biologists to recover a species. Each plan incorporates a species’ description and current
population, containing the most up-to-date information on the species. The recovery
objective also needs to be identified, indicating when the goal is met. One example is
setting a target population number (Simon, 1995). An implementation schedule outlining
priority tasks and expenditure estimates must be included in the Recovery Plan and last,
relevant external views of the plan need to be identified in an appendix (Restani, 2002).
Plans go through intense draft processes before finalization and it is up to USFWS
Regional Directors to determine the suitability of a Species Plan after a recovery team
forms and develops the Plan. Recovery Teams include a diverse background of people
from tribal members to home building associations (Crouse, 2002). The team includes
1
representatives from several backgrounds to produce an objective plan while taking into
consideration stakeholders’ needs. The process of developing and writing a plan is
circumstantial to a species and too complex to completely grasp (Baker, 1999). After the
drafting process the plan is independently peer reviewed and published for public input.
Once all reviews are analyzed the plan can be finalized (Baker, 1999).
The two agencies responsible for developing and administering Recovery Plans
are USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Recovery Plans identify
actions that might be taken by a variety of agencies and private entities to promote the
conservation of a listed species (Crouse, 1999). Recovery teams prioritize actions to
guide scarce resource expenditures to the most important priorities. The Plans, also, assist
biologist in determining effects projects have on the endangered species and identify
ways to avoid them (under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). No plan is perfect,
limitations exist, yet 99% of species listed have been saved from extinction (USFWS,
2011).
Additionally, the complexity of ecological systems makes it difficult for biologist
to completely understand therefore, Recovery Plans are based on the most current
available data, yet gaps exists. Researcher Deborah Crouse explains this time lapse may
“…allow further deterioration in the species status’ and, in some cases, an irreversible
loss of populations or habitat” (Crouse, 720). Data can be difficult to obtain therefore the
recovery process is further delayed (Crouse, 2002).
Unfortunately, Plans are required by law to be developed, yet no law exists
enforcing them. State and other federal agencies escape enforcing any plan, leaving the
2
burden to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, plus
affected stakeholders (Crouse, 2002).
Additionally, USFWS prioritizes species threatened with extinction through a
ranking system. The model ranks a species with number one being of the most concern
and 18 being least. The number relates to the degree of threat, recovery potential, and
taxonomy (Simon, 1995). For example the Sonoran Pronghorn and Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep have a ranking of 3C, while the Louisiana Black Bear has a ranking of
9C. The “C” represents a subspecies and explains the Bear is of less concern than the
Pronghorn and Bighorn according to USFWS. The ranking system provides USFWS with
a list of species most threatened with extinction.
In 1995, USFWS spent $348 million on endangered species recovery; today that
number is $1.62 billion (Baker, 2010). USFWS’s expenditures increased over 400
percent in 15 years yet listed species have only increased from 1,179 in 1998, to 1200 in
2010 and much of the funding goes towards few select charismatic species (Brown,
1998). A small number of species have been listed in the last decade, but the cost of
recovery increased at alarming rates explaining the variations in expenditures. Although
USFWS may spend more on particular species fortunately, most endangered species
populations are recovering or stable in the United States (Brown, 1998).
In conclusion, Recovery Plans are crucial in preventing a species from extinction.
Without such plans several species would go extinct because of resource limitation.
Policy, economics, and science provide significant detail in developing a Species
Recovery Plan. The partnership between each assists in maintaining the existence of
3
many species. Since 1969, 99% of endangered species in the United States have
overcome extinction through the efforts of USFWS and other government stakeholders.
2.
Methods
The thesis looked into how Species Recovery Plans were funded and
implemented by government stakeholders, and how the spending compared to the goals
laid out in the Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear, and
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This was to answer how stakeholder expenditures affect
the implementation of tasks outlined in the Recovery Plan and compare the results with
the species status. This is to determine the effectiveness Species Recovery Plans and if
tasks are being funded appropriately. Specific methods like spreadsheets and pie charts
determined and evaluated where funds were implemented for each of the species between
2007 and 2010.
The methodological approaches for the thesis consisted of a literature review, and
budget analysis. The literature review provided information concerning the species
biology, demographics, threats, endangerment, and other valuable population
information. Additionally, peer-reviewed articles produced the foundation for estimating
recovery costs for each species and identified background information for a budget
analyses on these endangered species plans and the goals for delisting them.
The thesis was a budgetary analysis of three Species Recovery Plans analyzed
between 2007 and 2010. Four years was enough time to understand trends and
differences between each Plan to determine the successes of the species recovery and
how it compares to the goals of the Recovery Plan. To better understand the goals of the
4
Recovery Plan and stakeholders involved Excel was used to produce graphs, charts, and
spreadsheet of the raw data.
Among several other chapters in a Species Recovery Plan are the cost and
implementation schedules. USFWS went to great lengths to develop tasks, list costs,
determine responsible agencies, and estimate task completion dates for each species. The
cost and implementation schedules were taken from each Plan and categories were
created illustrating priority recovery efforts in a spreadsheet.
Moreover, tasks were defined as projects regarding the species’ recovery. The
tasks were entered into a spreadsheet and defined under the task description. Tasks were
then assigned to each category with their appropriate cost estimates and responsible
stakeholders. Accountable parties were defined in the Recovery Plan as government and
non-government entities, but the thesis only analyzed government stakeholders.
The implementation schedule was determined through published USFWS
documents. For every endangered species the agency set up an execution report. The
reports were updated regularly and illustrated past, present, and future tasks, the status of
different projects, estimated task costs to date, and agency comments. The
implementation report was filtered for only ongoing and current projects between 2007
and 2010 to obtain a clear understanding of what exactly was going on with the recovery
for a given year.
Out of all the tasks developed in the Species Recovery Plan only ongoing and/or
current tasks between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed for the study. The tasks were then
placed under the appropriate categories and estimated expenditure totals were calculated.
5
Totals amounted to the entire number of expenditures per priority. Cost estimates were
developed from the Plans, government publications, and other peer reviewed articles.
Furthermore, expenditures were determined through plan updates and critical
habitat publications. After careful review of all publications related to costs, estimates
were calculated. Cost estimates were determined from the most recent publications and
peer review articles.
Overall, spreadsheets illustrated species recovery priorities, tasks, task
descriptions, responsible stakeholders, and estimated costs. This information
demonstrated which priority received the most funding and it was assumed the priority
receiving the most funding was the highest priority set forth in the Plan by the Recovery
Team.
To compare this information to actual spending U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
produced expenditure reports each year illustrating costs for listed species, federal
Department spending, State expenses, and individual agency contributions. The
document provided exact annual funding contributions from various agencies on a
specific species and the total costs of that species’ recovery annually. Agencies that
provided funding between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed individually to better understand
their role in the species recovery.
Stakeholders were arranged under each Federal Department in a spreadsheet with
the appropriate year and financial contributions. Pie charts illustrated percentages for
stakeholder financial contributions from the spreadsheets. Agencies contributing less than
1% of funds were not analyzed in the study because their contribution did not have an
impact on the overall implementation of task processes.
6
Once stakeholders were acknowledged they were researched individually to
answer why they were contributing that specific year. Peer reviewed articles and
government publications answered questions regarding agency funding and activities for
that year. The analysis gave background about the agency, land they manage in the
vicinity of the endangered species, any activities they have going on around the species,
and their recovery efforts for the species to examine the reason why they were involved
in the Recovery.
Current recovery projects, expenditures for each priority, and population
estimates were all examined and compared to the goals outlined in the Recovery Plan for
delisting the species. The results showed how effective recovery spending was by
comparing priority costs with Recovery Plan goals and the species’ current population
trends. Additionally, it answered how stakeholder contributions and actions influenced a
species’ recovery goals.
Recovery Plan expenditures were reviewed to understand government stakeholder
spending and their impacts on the endangered species recovery efforts. Public
government documents were examined to determine the agency’s activity in the locality
of the endangered species. After comparing results from recovery goals, stakeholder
spending, and species population estimates the plan was determined either effective or
not and explained the impacts government stakeholders had on funding and
implementing a Species Recovery Plan.
7
3.
Case Study
More than eighty mammal species were listed under the Endangered Species Act
as threatened or endangered, but the analysis focused on only three of these species. Of
the three species analyzed two were listed as endangered, Sonoran Pronghorn and Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep, and the Louisiana Black Bear was listed as threatened. Each of
the mammals was a subspecies.
Several factors influenced the endangered species over the course of the analysis.
The main cause for the Sonoran Pronghorn and Louisiana Black Bear’s demise was
fragmentation of habitat from conversion of land to agriculture, livestock grazing,
development, and encroachment consequently leading to populations of less than 400
individuals. The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep was listed due to disease and parasites
transmitted from domestic sheep which caused the population to also decline to less than
400 individuals.
Overall, a variety of stakeholders implemented and funded each subspecies
recovery. The agencies involved took responsibility in different tasks defined in the
Species Recovery Plan and contributed funds to specific tasks they were responsible for.
During the course of the analysis each of the subspecies populations either stabilized or
increased implying that Recovery Plans were developed and executed appropriately.
8
3.1 Sonoran Pronghorn
3.1.1
Background
The Sonoran Pronghorn belongs to a family of North American mammals that
have all succumbed to extinction, except the Pronghorn. Endemic to the western portion
of North America the subspecies prefers vegetation consisting of creosote and white
bursage (USFWS and DOD, 2005). The highly adaptive Sonoran Pronghorn resides in
various ranges of climatic conditions throughout its distribution.
Fig. 1 Current and historic range of the Sonoran Pronghorn. The area
in green represents the historic range of the species. The
crosshatched section in Arizona depicts the current U.S. population,
while the lighter cross hatched section illustrates the current range of
the species in Mexico (USFWS, 2003).
Historically the species ranged from Nogales, Mexico to Yuma, Arizona, not in
extensive numbers, maybe a few thousand. Explorers observed several populations in the
open valleys of Southern Arizona and Northern Mexico. Unfortunately, at the present
time, Sonoran Pronghorn have been eradicated from almost their entire historic range. In
9
fact, the Pronghorn exists on less than eight percent of its previous distribution, roughly
2,750 square miles (USFWS, 2010).
The subspecies requires a vast area of desert scrub vegetation ecosystem to meet
annual survival and reproductive needs (USFWS, 2003). Biologists believe 200 square
miles of land can support up to 100 female Pronghorn. Luckily, enough space exists for
the Pronghorn, but the ecosystem no longer sustains the animal because of habitat
degradation from development and other negative factors.
Two other populations of Sonoran Pronghorn reside in Northern Mexico. One
population exists in the Pinacate Region of northwestern Sanora, and the other remains
on the Gulf of California west and south of Caborca, Sonora (USFWS, 2003).
Unfortunately, a washed out International Boundary fence, highways, and roads separate
the U.S. subpopulation from the two other populations. The human barriers resulted in
the inability for the subpopulations to interact with each other leading to less genetic
variation in the overall population.
The species range, in Arizona, almost completely encompasses federal lands
(USFWS, 2003). The largest portion of the range lies in Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge (CPNWR), 41.6%. Second the Barry M. Goldwater Range contains 30% of the
species’ range. Roughly 12% of the population’s distribution resides in Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument and the remaining ranges are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, 4.4%, private landowners, 1.5%, and State Trust Lands, 1.2% (USFWS,
2010).
10
Reasons for Listing
More than any other anthropological activity livestock grazing affects Pronghorn
the most. When listing the species, habitat alteration (caused in part by grazing) was one
of the most significant factors in the species decline (USFWS, 2003). To offset the
difficulty USFWS determined that sensitive habitats needed: protection from excessive
grazing, land for conservation purposes, and grazing practices requiring changes to allow
for natural fire regimes (USFWS, 2011)
Invasion of invasive shrubs, anthropological barriers, and human caused fire
regimes all disrupt the natural processes of the remaining ecosystem. After careful review
of threats to the species the Recovery Team came to a conclusion (USFWS, 2003). To
eliminate the obstacle controlled burns and natural fire regimes were the best defense.
Controlled burning keeps invasive species at bay and reduces fuel loads (USFWS, 2003).
USFWS and partners contribute to the activity to keep the ecosystem as “natural” as
possible.
Furthermore, conversion of lands to agriculture, unsustainable livestock
management practices, and rural and urban development posed threats to the existence of
the Sonoran Pronghorn (USFWS, 2011). To avoid the complete loss of the species
USFWS mitigated habitat loss, protected vulnerable habitat from excessive grazing,
implemented management guidelines to reduce loss, and acquired land for conversion
easements to protect vital development sites. Although, the threat was not of great
concern it has become an increasing problem (USFWS, 2011).
Predation by large mammals and predatory birds presents another obstacle
Sonoran Pronghorn are confronted with. High predator numbers can significantly affect
11
the Pronghorn population. For most species predation is usually considered insignificant
for listing unless the population is small and vulnerable like the Sonoran Pronghorn
(USFWS, 2003).
In addition to habitat destruction and predation the Pronghorn recently dealt with
incredible variations in weather patterns. Seasonal changes varied significantly in the last
few decades. Winters have been mild, while summers continued to bake the desert in
drought. Research shows the recent weather activities may have caused drastic changes in
the population size of the Pronghorn reducing numbers by nearly 80% (USFWS, 2003).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated tactics to protect the species from
increasingly unstable weather patterns. Drought played a large role in the species loss so
biologists thought functioning riparian habitat was the best way to buffer drought and
would sufficiently recover the Pronghorn. This was one of the highest priorities on
USFWS agenda because of the 2001-2002 drought that almost wiped out the species
entirely (USFWS, 2011).
Last, illegal activities impacted the Pronghorn population at alarming rates. Along
the border, poaching, human hurdles, and construction negatively influence the
population. To offset harmful activity USFWS increased enforcement along the border to
implement illegal harvesting of the species and survey the range regularly (USFWS,
2003).
12
Graph 1. Sonoran Pronghorn population trend from 2000 to 2010. Blue line represents the
Sonoran Pronghorn, the x-axis is the years, and y-axis is the population. The decline in
population in 2002 was due to severe drought (USFWS, 2011).
Population Dynamics
The population remained around 100 individuals since the mid 1960s, by the
1990s it was closer to 200 but slowly dwindled. In 2000, the population lingered just
below 140 individuals. The winter of 2000-2001 brought heavier rains than usual making
for an ideal fawning season (USFWS and DOD, 2005). Unfortunately, the period of
revival for the Pronghorn was followed by the worst drought in decades in 2002
(USFWS, 2003).
2002 brought drastic changes to the species population dynamics and the
population declined over 70% to less than 25 individuals. The subspecies neared
extinction in 2002 thus biologists believed the solution for recovering the population was
to develop a captive breeding program and facility (Cohn, 2007).
Successful recovery efforts began to pay off in 2004 the Pronghorn population
more than doubled to around 70 individuals. In 2010, the population stabilized due to the
recovery efforts of various Federal and State agencies and remained around 100
individuals (USFWS, 2010).
13
Species Recovery Plan and Goals
On November 26, 2003 the Species Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn’s
final draft was completed. The subspecies was given a priority rank of 3C by USFWS
meaning the degree of threat to the species was large, but the potential for recovering the
species was also high. The population suffered a large population decline in 2002 and
struggled to sustain their only U.S. population in southwestern Arizona (USFWS, 2003).
Several Federal and State agencies played a crucial role in the recovery of the Pronghorn,
and provided financial assistance to the survival of the critically endangered species.
Numerous factors influence the subspecies adversely, human barriers, variations
in climate, and habitat loss impacted the population most significantly; as a result
USFWS biologists managed the population through unique conservation strategies like
captive breeding. The captive breeding facility provides shelter to individual Sonoran
Pronghorn to develop and maintain a second population (USFWS, 2003).
Conclusion
To delist the species the Plan outlines two goals. In the short term, the population
must be estimated at 300 individuals and a second separate population must be
established. USFWS determined the best recovery action for the Pronghorn was
establishing a second population with a captive breeding and release facility (USFWS,
2003).
14
3.1.2
Analysis
For the analysis of the Sonoran Pronghorn priorities were outlined in the Plan in
order of importance. For example relocation was the priority of most importance and
research was the least according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects
concerning the species’ recovery under one of the five categories set forth by USFWS. A
spreadsheet displayed each project and was defined under the task description.
15
3.1.2.1 Priorities, Tasks, and Spending
Priority
Task
1.11
Relocation
Sonoran Pronghorn
2.21
Total:
2.23
2.25
2.32
2.33
2.34
7
Habitat
1.1
Disturbance
Total:
Monitoring
Total:
Research
Total:
Total:
1.2
1.3
1.52
4
Task Description
Viable population estimates
Evaluate reintroduction sites and
techniques
Public input into reintroduction
Legal aspects of reintroduction
Review captive techniques
Transplant holding requirements
Transplant protocol
Stakeholder
ADGF
ADGF, FWS
Fawn recruitment
USAF, USFWS,
USMC
USAF, USFWS,
USMC
USAF, USFWS,
USMC
ADGF, BLM, FWS
Habitat enhancement
Water investigation
Investigate preferred habitat
Notify refuge of fatalities
USAF, USMC,
NPS, BLM,
ADGF, FWS
Long-term investigation of military
effects on behavior
ADGF, USAF,
USMC
1.103
1.73
ADGF, FWS
ADGF, BLM, FWS
ADGF, FWS
ADGF, FWS
ADGF, FWS
2
Aerial surveys in U.S. and Mexico
3.1
3.4
Continue telemetry tracking and
assessment of radio marking goals,
including Mexico
ADGF, NPS,
USAF, FWS,
USMC
ADGF
2
1.9
1.101
1.102
3
Effects of disease and parasites;
Update veterinarian contact
Materials for medical situations and
specimen salvage
ADGF, USAF,
FWS
FWS, ADGF
FWS, ADGF
Cost Estimates
$10,000.00
$70,000.00
$10,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$490,000.00
$30,000.00
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$280,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$60,000.00
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
included in 1.101
$30,000.00
$960,000.00
18
Total:
Table 1. Chart defines priorities determined by the Sonoran Pronghorn Species Recovery Team. Five
columns depict the priority, task number, task description, stakeholders, and estimated costs. Expenditure
and task totals are illustrated in yellow (USFWS, 2003).
16
Chart 1. 2 Pie chart of priority expenditures in percentages. The chart key
represents the various priority laid out in the Species Recovery Plan and
illustrates priority percentages (USFWS, 2003).
Relocation
Relocation, the most important priority for Pronghorn recovery consisted of 51%
of the annual recovery budget (USFWS, 2003). A second population must be formed to
delist the species therefore; this was the main focus for recovering the Pronghorn. Some
tasks are explained in further detail because the chart does not provide enough
explanation.
Studies performed by agency researchers helped understand captive breeding
techniques associated with the species (USFWS, 2003). They also managed transplant
holding requirements and the funds for the requirements went towards meeting Federal
regulations for transporting an Endangered Species. Other expenditures included
transplant protocol for the project and public input for reintroduction (USFWS, 2003).
Roughly half a million dollars was estimated for the category, $490,000.00.
Expenditures varied from 2007 to 2010 because of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (this
17
will be explained in the stakeholder analysis). Government agencies accountable for this
category involved Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Bureau of Land Management (USFWS, 2003).
Habitat
Priority two for the Sonoran Pronghorn recovery is habitat. The category
accounted for 29% of the recovery budget and the annual estimated costs for habitat was
$280,000.00 from 2007 to 2010 (USFWS, 2007).
Tasks found in this category pertain to conserving the ecosystem. Fawn
recruitment refers to a fawn surviving longer than six months. Habitat enhancement is a
process where generators pump water from underground wells to fill tanks to sustain life.
Another type of habitat enhancement places tanks in areas where runoff from rains can
fill them in an attempt to produce watering holes (Cohn, 2007). These small areas
replenish and sustain several species through severe drought.
Research shows enhancement plots; vital to the desert ecosystem frequented most
by Pronghorn contain more biodiversity. Seeds lying dormant for years begin to
germinate from Pronghorn activity and moisture (Cohn, 2007). The species’ activity
circulates the soil replenishing vital nutrients needed for plants to grow. Forage
enhancement plots develop, manage, preserve, supervise, and, adapt irrigated forage plots
as a way to sustain natural forage growth for Sonoran Pronghorn and other desert species
when drought ensues (Cohn, 2007).
The increase in spending for the category in 2008 and 2010 came from a large
capital contribution from Customs and Border Patrol to fund tasks for several years. The
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Marine Corps, Arizona Department
18
of Game and Fish, and Bureau of Land Management all contributed time and energy to
the tasks and funding under habitat (USFWS, 2003).
Disturbance Reduction
Distribution reduction refers to reducing anthropologic barriers on the Sonoran
Pronghorn. One responsibility, stated in the Plan, was to notify authorities immediately
after discovering an injured or deceased Pronghorn (USFWS, 2003). Each agency
responsible for the subspecies recovery provided this service.
The Goldwater Range, in southeastern Arizona, stretches across extensive regions
of undeveloped wilderness several species residing in the area only come into contact
with military personnel, as their only human interaction. The military investigated long
term effects of their actions on Sonoran Pronghorn through various research studies
including: analyzing the effects of aircraft noise on Sonoran Pronghorn; influences of
night operations on the subspecies; and impacts of military doings on the Pronghorn.
Determining cost prompted difficulty because of 1.103 (notify refuge of
fatalities). The task is nearly impossible to determine because each stakeholder has a
different means of reporting the fatality. Costs are different for each individual case
stated. Each agency spent various amounts on the task under the priority depending on
land where the subspecies’ ranged. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service all took part in specific tasks under disturbance reduction
(USFWS, 2003).
19
Monitoring
Monitoring received roughly 6% of the annual expenditures. Aerial and telemetry
surveys made up the majority of the spending. The U.S. Air Force (AF) surveyed Arizona
and Mexico regularly to evaluate population dynamics. The study gathered information
for fawn recruitment measures and population information (USFWS, 2003).
Monitoring costs were estimated to be around $60,000.00. Agencies
implementing this category included Arizona Game and Fish Department, National Park
Service, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Marine Corps
(USFWS, 2003).
Research
Research accounted for 3% of the recovery budget. Studies on disease and
parasite and their effects on the population were funded at the estimated cost of
$30,000.00. Responsible parties contributing to the category were Arizona Game and
Fish Department, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2003).
Conclusion
USFWS and partners produced and implemented the Sonoran Pronghorn
Recovery Plan based on five distinct categories. The categories that received most of the
funding was relocating individuals, and establishing a second population while research
received the least amount of funding. Overall, the priorities helped shape and determine
what is most important for saving the species.
3.1.2.2 Government Stakeholders
The distribution of the subspecies is immense and lies on lands managed by
several government agencies. Stakeholders overseeing land occupied by the Pronghorn
20
population took part in the implementation and recovery goals of the Recovery Plan.
Money was also provided for recovery by agencies that were negatively impacting the
subspecies. Overall, stakeholders contributed to the Pronghorn recovery because the
subspecies occurs on land managed or developed by them.
Chart 2. Pie chart represents Federal and State Government stakeholders and their contribution from 2007
through 2010 in percentages. Key represents government stakeholders from the largest contributor to the
smallest for that year (USFWS, 2007-2011).
Department
of Homeland
Security
Department of Homeland Security
Year
Customs and Border
Protection
Total:
% of Total:
2007
2008
0.00
0%
1,015,000
1,015,000.00
46%
2009
2010
0.00
0%
5,142,700
5,142,700.00
88%
Table 3. Total spending from U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Department of Homeland
Security from 2007 to 2010 on Sonoran Pronghorn recovery columns represent the Dept. and year while the
rows illustrate total spending for that year and the percent against the total spending (USFWS, 2007-2011).
21
Customs and Border Protection
Although the Department of Homeland Security did not manage lands where
Sonoran Pronghorn resided their activities effected the Pronghorn population. The
activities of the stakeholder negatively impacted the subspecies because of their border
activities specifically building a fence and radio tower.
The flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers rose in recent years
concerning involved Pronghorn recovery stakeholders. Not only did the Pronghorn deal
with illegal activities from undocumented people but the actions of the US Border Patrol
responding to those events (Cohn, 2007). This further disturbed the already nervous,
fragile population and separated them from vital food and water sources.
The agency did not fund recovery in 2007, but they initiated several projects. One
project, a Biological Assessment, looked into field activity effects Border Patrol in Yuma
may have on Sonoran Pronghorn (USFWS, 2009). The Tucson Sector of the Border
Patrol required personnel to make an effort not to harm the subspecies while
apprehending undocumented people.
Additionally, the Border Patrol knew of the negative impacts their actions had on
Pronghorn habitat due to vehicle and helicopter traffic looking for drug activity (USFWS,
2008). The impacts were unknown at the time but the influences may be detrimental to
the Pronghorn population, therefore the agency paid a substantial amount for the
recovery.
Customs and Border Patrol contributed funds in 2008 and 2010. In the beginning
of 2008 the agency completed “Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Installation of 5.2 Miles of Primary Fence near Lukeville, Arizona - U.S. Border Patrol,
22
Tucson Sector, November 2007” (USFWS, 2007). The project stretched across Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument, home of the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn.
Unfortunately, the fence drastically altered the species habitat because it cut through five
miles of pristine Pronghorn habitat in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (USFWS,
2008).
A Biological Opinion addressing all Border Patrol activities from 2000 continued
annual revisions through the analysis. A Biological Opinion refers to a “document stating
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) opinion as to whether a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat” (ExpertGlossary, 2012). The Opinion addressed ways the
Border Patrol could assist with conservation measures to reduce adverse effects that
happened over the decade (USFWS, 2008).
In 2008, the Border Patrol spent $1,015,000.00, 46% of the annual expenditures
for Pronghorn conservation. That year the Department installed a permanent vehicle
barrier along the western border of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (USFWS,
2006). The Biological Opinion stated the actions and effects the project could have on
Pronghorn.
Customs and Border Patrol explained measures it would take to reduce negative
activity on the range of the endangered species. For example, “…clean construction
equipment prior to entering OPCNM to minimize the spread and establishment of nonnative and invasive species…” to protect the endangered mammal (USFWS, 2009). The
agency took responsibility for their harmful impacts on the Pronghorn.
23
Moreover, the Opinion rendered the agency to fund USFWS for 10 years of water
for the Sonoran Pronghorn at an expense of $25,000.00 annually. The agency hoped by
doing that it may counter potential hazards that occurred. To offset negative Pronghorn
impacts the stakeholder provided roughly $382,000.00 to restore 84 acres of the species
range. The money was given to the Department of Interior to devise a plan on managing
fence activities. It was their responsibility to distribute the funds accordingly.
In 2009, the Border Patrol pledged that they would provide annual financial
assistance to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabrieza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge, Barry M Goldwater Range, and the Bureau of Land Management because of
their irresponsible activities. The money went directly towards investigating the effects
illegal immigrants and smugglers have on Pronghorn and their habitat. Additionally, the
agency hoped to aid these agencies in habitat restoration and develop recovery actions for
the Pronghorn.
Activities continued in 2010 and the Border Patrol paid for 88% of the total
recovery of the Sonoran Pronghorn, over five million dollars. This year the agency
contributed to the majority of recovery due to their negative ongoing actions, vehicle
traffic, development, and various others (USFWS, 2010). Similarly to 2008 Customs and
Border Patrol supplied funds to the same recovery projects and goals.
A Biological Opinion to construct and maintain 5.2 miles of fence in the Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument was developed. The Opinion described side effects of
the fence on the Pronghorn population and illustrated conservation measures to minimize
adverse effects on the population like cleaning their equipment prior to construction
projects around the subspecies (USFWS, 2008).
24
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a plan to implement
the SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project in the Ajo Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) of
USBP-Tucson Sector, Arizona which would affect the Pronghorn negatively. The project
resided in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the disturbance negatively affected
the surrounding ecosystem, as a result, the agency initiated plans for conservation
measures (USFWS, 2011).
The SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project is a tower with a comprehensive system of
sensor and communication technology. The tower enables Department of Homeland
Security to track illegal activities more easily and should minimize traffic in Pronghorn
habitat helping the subspecies long term (USBP, 2009).
Department of Interior requested Border Patrol to fund most of the recovery
because of how detrimental the projects were to remaining Sonoran Pronghorn
population. Estimates for costs to counter the damage came in a variety of forms. One
example was that before initial construction could begin Border Patrol would provide the
Department of the Interior with $200,000.00 (USBP, 2009). The project determined
illegal vehicle routes in Pronghorn habitat, as well as, map Pronghorn occurrences in the
area of development. The idea was to close roads frequented most by the subspecies
permanently (USFWS, 2011).
Additionally, the project provided Department of the Interior with $1,750,000.00
in funding to close and restore unauthorized vehicle routes. The action continued for two
years and DOI focused their efforts on roads that harmed Sonoran Pronghorn the most
(USBP, 2011). Each agency took responsible for choosing where restoration projects
would occur on the land they managed.
25
During the 2010 fawning season Border Patrol conducted weekly aerial surveys
through Arizona Department of Game and Fish, at a cost of $14,000.00 with additional
money funded the project for five more years (USFWS, 2011). In total, the agency gave
$346,000.00 to the Department of the Interior for purchasing radio collars, costs
associated with the collaring, and 100 tracking flights to conduct surveys (USBP, 2010).
Water tanks were also supplied for $60,000.00, $20,000.00 to provide
transportation of Pronghorn, and Border Patrol took responsibility for developing a
forage enhancement plot at $215,000.00. The agency expended $23,000.00 at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument to operate five emergency food and water plots for
Pronghorn over six months (USBP, 2009).
The other project that received large amounts of funding from Border Patrol was
to establish a second population. The agency dedicated $470,000.00 to the task.
Expenditures were associated with transportation of Pronghorn, fencing and pen
materials, and other expenses the recovery team encountered (USFWS, 2011).
The recovery plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn does not mention contributions
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Their activities taking place from 2007 to
2010 impacted Pronghorn habitat, subsequently Customs and Border Patrol contributed
capital to several ongoing recovery activities.
Department of
Defense
Department of Defense
Year
Air Force
Marine Corps
Total:
% of Total:
2007
913,907
2008
486,500
2009
254,576
2010
210,000
50,000
963,907.00
75,000
561,500.00
72,000
326,576.00
70,000
280,000.00
76%
25%
30%
5%
Table 2. Agency expenditure from 2007 to 2010 for U.S. Air Force, and Marine Corps. The table illustrates
the years and contributions for the recovery and the percentage of funds compared to the total spending for
that year (USFWS, 2007-2011).
26
U.S. Air Force
Forty percent of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s distribution occupies the Barry M.
Goldwater Range. The U.S. Air Force managed the eastern half of the range where most
of the Pronghorn’s distribution occurs. The agency paid a large portion for the recovery
of the species and managed various projects outlined in the Plan.
The Department of Defense had concerns with its effects that hinder Pronghorn
recovery from military activities like live ordnance, chaff, and flares that were repeatedly
dropped on Pronghorn habitat by military aircraft. Barry M. Goldwater Range contains
three areas where Pronghorn occur. Military bombing targets on the range include: North
Tactical Range, South Tactical Range, and Range 1. Over the course of this analysis
researchers conducted studies to measure stresses on the Pronghorn induced because of
military missions. Military activities continue to kill Sonoran Pronghorn residing on the
Range one to two individuals a year, close to 1% of the population (Krausman, 2007).
The Air Force investigated the “…military use of the airspace above and the
ground space on BMGR-East and CPNWR…” near Luke Air Force Base (USAF, 6-6).
The project, Luke Air Force Base use of Ground-Surface and Airspace for Military
Training on the BMGR, damaged the surrounding environment. The ongoing process
resulted in the Air Force working off of old Biological Opinions to document their
impacts (USFWS, 2010). Overall, the project’s potential effects were not substantial
enough to harm Sonoran Pronghorn based on the agency’s data.
The Air Force analyzed and included the most up-to-date information into an
Opinion for BMGR Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. In short, the
Military Lands Withdrawal Act requires Secretaries from the Air Force, Navy, and
27
Interior to prepare a management plan for the Barry M. Goldwater Range for the purpose
of “…proper management and protection of the natural and cultural resources…” found
on the range (USFWS, 2010). The plan required an investigation of Sonoran Pronghorn
and its habitat.
Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site Expansion Project
(WAATS) was the last ongoing project by the Air Force. The Project is an educational
facility for military personnel helicopter training (USFWS, 2010). In 2007, WAATS
expanded on critical Pronghorn habitat. The agency wrote a Biological Opinion to
determine any detrimental effects on Pronghorns, costing upwards of six figures.
U.S. Air Force activities continued for the years analyzed. In 2007, the Air Force
spent $913,907.00 nearly 72% of the entire budget. USAF contributed to each of the
projects mentioned in the Priorities, Tasks, and Spending section of the thesis.
Expenditures dropped, in 2008, significantly to $486,500.00, roughly 22% of the total
because Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site concluded. 2009 spending
was $254,576.00, 24% because Opinions were not completed and expenditures in 2010
total 3.6%, $210,000.00, of the Pronghorn recovery budget (USFWS, 2011).
Marine Corps
The Marine Corps operated the western portion of BMGR. Sonoran Pronghorn
occur mostly in the eastern portion of the range; therefore the Marine Corps’
responsibility was minimal for the recovery. The agency assisted with several ongoing
projects defined in the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan for example habitat
enhancement, aerial surveys, and water investigation.
28
The Marine Corps improved a Biological Opinion for Marine Corps Air StationYuma in the Arizona Portion of the Yuma training complex. The Biological Opinion
addressed actions the military took in the Eastern portion of the range (USFWS, 2010).
Over flights, ground-based activities, delivery targets, and other detrimental actions all
had the potential to harm the species therefore; the agency utilized funds for the Opinion.
The Opinion required Marine Corps to fund a scientific investigation where the project
occurred.
In 2007, the agency expended $50,000.00 on the recovery of the Sonoran
Pronghorn. In total this was roughly 3.9% of the annual budget. Activities included all
projects mentioned in the analysis. Spending in 2008 rose to $75,000.00, still 3.9% of the
annual expenditures. Funding for 2009 was 6.7% of the total budget, $72,000.00 and
$70,000.00 was dedicated to Sonoran Pronghorn recovery in 2010 from the Marine Corps
(USFWS, 2009).
State
State
Year
Arizona
Total:
% of Total
2007
225,000
225,000.00
18%
2008
247,300
247,300.00
11%
2009
389,500
389,500.00
36%
2010
282,000
282,000.00
5%
Table 5. The State of Arizona’s total expenditure for the Sonoran Pronghorn recovery from 2007 to 2010
representing the years analyzed, the agency, and the agency’s contribution for the overall recovery
(USFWS, 2007-2011).
Arizona Department of Game and Fish
The State of Arizona funded several aspects of the recovery through the Arizona
Department of Game and Fish. State lands account for 1.2% of the Pronghorn’s range.
Arizona protected the species with specific tasks outlined in the recovery (USFWS,
2003).
29
In 2000, Congress created State Wildlife Grants “…to assist states with their
voluntary and proactive efforts to protect… wildlife species around the U.S. from
becoming endangered…” (AZGF, 2010). These funds conserve wildlife from further
population degradation and State funds for Pronghorn conservation come from the grants
(AZDFG, 2010).
In Arizona, funds from SWG were matched with State Heritage Funds and made
monitoring and managing populations easier because it eased some of the financial
stresses of the recovery. The Sonoran Pronghorn received its funding from both programs
which benefited the species greatly (Voyles, 2010).
In 2007, the State funded 18% of the recovery efforts, $225,000.00. Expenditures
were directed to the appropriate actions (USFWS, 2007). The following year Arizona
funded almost the same amount, $247,000.00. The percentage fell to 11% even though
more was spent (USFWS, 2008). This was because recovery expenditures nearly doubled
in 2008. Arizona spent $389,500.00 for the recovery efforts in 2009, 36% of the entire
budget. The most likely cause was because USFWS, Air Force, and State were the main
contributors that year dividing most of the recovery by three. 2010 expenses were less
than the year before at $282,000.00, 5% (USFWS, 2010). Expenses fell because of the
large funds given by U.S. Border Patrol.
30
Department of the
Interior
Department of Interior
Year
Bureau of Land
Management
National Park Service
USFWS
U.S. Geological Survey
Total:
% of Total
2007
21,000
62,000
2008
2009
50,000
70,000
265,000
50,000
35,000
270,000
83,000.00 385,000.00 355,000.00
7%
17%
33%
2010
42,000
49,193
7,328
98,521.00
2%
Table 4. The Department of Interior expenses produced by Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, USFWS, and U.S. Geological Survey between 2007 and 2010. Each agency represents a total
amount of spending and the percentage the department spent on recovery (USFWS, 2007-2011).
Bureau of Land Management
The Sonoran Pronghorn’s range falls on four percent of BLM land, therefore
BLM attributed small portions of their annual budget to the conservation of the
endangered species. One ongoing project BLM had on Pronghorn habitat was an off-road
vehicle use area. The agency followed up on past Biological Opinion adding new
information as it became available (USFWS, 2007). BLM managed the land and
regularly updated the Resource Management Plan.
Cattle grazing allotments run by BLM lie on Pronghorn territory, as well. The
Five Livestock Grazing Allotments Projects outside of Ajo, Arizona continued in 2007
(USFWS, 2007). One was on the Coyote Flats in the range of the endangered subspecies.
The BLM’s Biological Opinion states, “…no Sonoran Pronghorn have been observed in
or near the Coyote Flat since the 2002 Biological Opinion was issued” (USFWS, 5). The
final decision USFWS gave allowed grazing to continue.
In 2007, Bureau of Land Management spent $21,000.00 on Sonoran Pronghorn
recovery, 1.6%. BLM developed another Opinion addressing “…a proposed one time
deviation from the aforementioned conservation measures in order to allow a special
31
event (Unity Run) to occur on BLM lands” (USFWS, 3). In order to protect the species
BLM sent staff to drive the Unity Run route the day before the event to conduct a slow
speed survey (USFWS, 2007).
Furthermore, the agency promised to heavily monitor the area after the event on
March 15, 16, 2007. The Biological Opinion described other actions BLM took to protect
the Pronghorn while roads were reopened. Again USFWS allowed the event to take place
with limited concern (USFWS, 2007).
Similarly to 2007, 2008 did not change. Expenditures on Sonoran Pronghorn
recovery in 2008 were $50,000.00 (USFWS, 2008). The same projects took place during
that year with no special requests.
In 2008, BLM contributed 2.3% to the annual expenditure for Sonoran Pronghorn
recovery. 2009 BLM operations continued the same as the two previous years. Spending
remained at $50,000.00 but increased to 4.6% of the entire budget. BLM contributed
nothing to Sonoran Pronghorn recovery for 2010 (USFWS, 2010). There are several
reasons for the lack of funds, including other agencies contributions, or other extrinsic
factors.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) operates Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
(OPCNM), 12% of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s habitat. The National Park Service was
responsible for providing a portion of funds to Pronghorn recovery.
In 2007, NPS spent nearly $62,000.00 accounting for almost five percent of the
annual Sonoran Pronghorn recovery budget (USFWS, 2007). Monument staff actively
worked with the Department of Homeland Security and other law agencies to minimize
32
the impact of their actions on Sonoran Pronghorn. The work included reporting the U.S.
Border Patrol of Pronghorn locations (USFWS, 2010).
Additionally, the National Park Service conducted aerial surveys in Arizona and
Mexico. This was part of an ongoing project since before 2004 and NPS monument staff
assisted with the biennial range wide surveys of Sonoran Pronghorn in the U.S. and
Mexico via helicopter (USNPS, 2010).
The National Park Service assisted USFWS and Arizona Department of Game
and Fish (ADGF) with Sonoran Pronghorn operations and continued development on
Sonoran Pronghorn Semi-Captive Breeding Facility (USNPS, 2010). The project resulted
in NPS funding $50,000.00 in 2007, 4.9%. The Captive Breeding program cost
$400,000.00 annually split between responsible agencies (Cohn, 2007).
In 2007 NPS took more measures to protect the Pronghorn and enforced that the
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument maintained a Pronghorn monitoring program,
with monitoring starting no later than March 1. In 2008, the agency funded aerial surveys
in Arizona and Mexico (USNPS, 2010). NPS expenditures rose to $70,000.00, 3.1% of
the total. NPS spending dropped by half in 2009 to $35,000.00, or 3.2% and rose in 2010
to $42,000.00 or 0.72% of the total budget (USFWS, 2011). The fluctuations in costs
could be contributed to several factors like agency funds, other contributions from
stakeholders, less projects, and other issues.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, USFWS) functions under Department of
Interior and managed the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR). The refuge
33
contains over 40% of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s habitat; therefore USFWS contributed
funds to recovery projects for the Pronghorn.
USFWS did not fund Sonoran Pronghorn recovery in 2007 because it was not in
charge of funding projects but managing them. In 2008, USFWS funded 1.2% of the total
Pronghorn recovery, $265,000.00 (USFWS, 2008). The spending was dedicated to all of
the projects listed in the analysis.
$270,000 was spent on the same projects, 25% of the entire budget in 2009
(USFWS, 2009). 2010 changed drastically expenditures dropped to $49,193.00 or less
than 1% of total funding because the large contribution of funds from U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol Projects USFWS participated in continued, but with much less economic
contributions (USFWS, 2010).
U.S. Geological Survey
Unlike most other federal agencies U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) did not take
part in the development of the Recovery Plan. In 2010, USGS spent $7,328.00
conducting research on the subspecies. The project analyzed and determined genetic
variability between captive and wild populations. The expected spending for the study
cost over $30,000.00, but in actuality 24% of the funds came from USGS (Villarreal,
2011).
3.1.3
Conclusion
Government stakeholders involved in Sonoran Pronghorn recovery planning
determined expenditure distribution for species recovery success. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service determined where most funds went, but each stakeholder took part in
34
implementing certain tasks. Priority/Category expenditure allocation was determined by
stakeholders involved in the creation and execution of the subspecies’ recovery plan.
Overall the focus of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan was to establish a
second population. The cost-effectiveness analysis illustrated of current projects, 2007 to
2010, 51% of costs went towards relocation. The Plan was implemented according to the
available resources from different stakeholders. Current conservation projects
implemented between 2007 and 2010 showed success in the recovery efforts.
Spending appeared skewed in 2008 and 2010, because of large payments provided
by Customs and Border Patrol. The agency provided large financial contributions to the
recovery efforts for current and future years. When funds were not influenced by the
agency’s large contributions actual spending resembled the estimated expenditures
closely, roughly one million dollars annually for Sonoran Pronghorn conservation. 2007
and 2009, years not influenced by the Customs and Border Patrol, reflected the Plan’s
estimated spending close to the actual.
Furthermore, the subspecies was ranked high on USFWS’ endangered species
priority list. Since the Pronghorn was vulnerable perhaps funds were allocated correctly
because of its priority ranking. Also, there were at least six major contributing
stakeholders between the years analyzed.
Stakeholders that managed land in the distribution of the population took part in
the implementation and recovery goals of the Recovery Plan. Destructive projects
developed by government stakeholders led to them contributing money to the recovery
efforts. In all, agencies managing land or constructing negative projects in the vicinity of
the endangered subspecies provided funds for the recovery.
35
In order to maintain the current population of Sonoran Pronghorn five categories
were determined: habitat, relocation, monitoring, research, and disturbance reduction.
The largest concern for the species was acquiring a second population. The analysis
found the majority of expenditures went towards this category from 2007 to 2010,
roughly 51% of funding. The data looks askew because of upfront payment in 2008 and
2010 from Customs and Border Protection. With the prioritization of needs the Plan was
successfully implemented and spending closely resembled recovery plan estimates.
36
3.2 Louisiana Black Bear
3.2.1
Background
The Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is a subspecies of the
American Black Bear. Their historic range stretched across East Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Unfortunately the Bear has been eradicated to small pockets primarily in
Louisiana. The Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins contain the majority of the Bear
population roughly 75 individuals (USFWS, 2009).
These opportunistic mammals feed on a variety of seeds, fruits, and berries but
most commonly found in Bear’s diets are invertebrates consisting of worms, caterpillars,
and other insects. Additionally, the species can live up to 25 years in the wild depending
on food supply and physiological status (USFWS, 2009).
Fig. 2 Map of Louisiana illustrating Louisiana Black Bear’s
range in Louisiana and the border of Mississippi. Areas of
purple, blue, and brown represent the current Bear
population, green depicts where officials are trying to
establish another population, and yellow signifies corridors
connecting the habitats (Corns, 2002).
37
The subspecies prefers basic needs food, water, shelter, and various denning sites
in a relatively large, unbroken piece of forest. Territories for the Bears range between 17
and 62 square miles. Their territory is determined by the season, sex, environmental
conditions, and the density of the overall Bear population (USFWS, 1995).
Louisiana Black Bear reside most commonly in the bottomland hardwood forests
of Louisiana but prefer other habitats like salt and freshwater marshes, canals, bayous,
and agricultural fields. The Bear occurs on the coastal plains of Louisiana, but most likely
the highest densities lived in the hardwood forest of Louisiana (Black Bear Conservation
Coalition, 2010).
The most vital part of Bear habitat is remoteness but for over a century humans
have fragmented Bear habitat with roads, clear cuts, and other barriers making
remoteness extremely difficult for the subspecies to obtain (USFWS, 2009). As an added
site specification Louisiana Black Bear need to be able to easily escape their encroached
fragmented ranges.
Reason for Listing
At one time numerous Black Bears ranged throughout the entire state of Louisiana
numbering in the thousands. Today there are between 300 and 400 individuals remaining.
Habitat fragmentation led to the listing of the Louisiana Black Bear in 1992.
Overutilization of the forest drastically reduced the quantity and quality of Bear habitat
because of development (USFWS, 1995). Consequently, the subspecies occurs on less
than 80% of its historical range.
Habitat degradation’s occurs because of agricultural practices like clearing and
grazing. Patchy habitat due to intense farming practices have fragmented the ecosystem
38
and now limit the subspecies’ population from growing. Immigration and emigration
increasingly has slowed because of fences, roads, canals, and other human barriers
(USFWS, 1995). Overall, the destruction of Bear habitat increases the mortality rate as
Bears are forced to go longer distances to forage, cross roads, and range on non-protected
sites throughout their range (USFWS, 2009).
Additionally, the Bear declined because of human caused mortalities like illegal
poaching. As the human population grows and expands into critical Bear habitat conflicts
rise. Vehicle accidents, poaching, and problem bear reduction activities all contributed to
the loss of the subspecies over the past few decades (USFWS, 2009). As development
made the species more accustomed to human food interactions between people and
Louisiana Black Bears increased drastically. The Bears associate large densities of
humans as a source to obtain food, creating nuisance Bears. Problem Bears are relocated
and in some cases the only alternative is captivity or euthanization (USFWS, 2009).
Increased human-bear conflicts led to poaching because Bear tolerance decreases
with every new incident. The negative activities contributed largest to the Bear’s demise.
As Louisiana Black Bear ranges become further fragmented human-bear conflict
increases and Bears rarely win (USFWS, 2009).
Species Recovery Plan and Goals
The Louisiana Black Bear was listed as threatened on January 7, 1992 and a
recovery plan was finalized on September 27, 1995. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
designated the priority for the subspecies a 9C. Meaning the degree of threat was
moderate, but the potential to recover the population was high.
39
The main goals of the recovery intended to increase habitat restoration projects,
obtain data to sustain all subpopulation, and connect each population through corridors
throughout their habitat (USFWS, 2009). Another primary goal of the Plan was
education. The recovery plan acknowledged that increasing public knowledge and
support leads to increased Bear populations because people become familiar with Bear
biology and behavior. Ultimately, the goal was to recover the species from threatened to
no longer needing Endangered Species Act protection (USFWS, 1995).
Conclusion
In order to delist the subspecies three criterions were required. First, two viable
subpopulations must be established in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins.
Additionally, corridors must be developed for immigration and emigration to occur
between subpopulations and last, each population’s habitat and corridors must be
conserved and protected from further fragmentation of the ecosystem (USFWS, 1995).
3.2.2 Analysis
The Louisiana Black Bear priorities were outlined in its Recovery Plan in order of
importance. Research was the priority of most importance and protection was the least
according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects regarding the species’
recovery under one of four categories set forth by USFWS. A spreadsheet displayed each
project and was defined under the task description.
40
3.2.2.1 Priorities, Tasks, and Spending
Louisiana Black Bear
Priority
Task
4.2
4.3
Task Description
Develop population monitoring techniques
or indices.
Conduct population viability analysis.
Define viable subpopulation goals.
4.4
Evaluate population indices and goals.
LDWF, FWS, USGS
LDWF, FWS, USGS,
NDWFP
4.5
Develop corridor guidelines.
LDWF, FWS
part of 4.10, 4.20
Study Bear biology and limiting factors.
LDWF, FWS, USGS,
MDWFP
part of 4.10, 4.20
Research
4.1
4.6
Total:
6
1.1
Habitat
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Education
Total:
Protection
Total:
Total:
5
2.1
Stakeholder
Estimates
LDWF, FWS, USGS,
USACE
$200,000.00
LDWF, FWS, USGS
$87,600.00
part of 4.10
$35,000.00
$322,600.00
Identify key recovery blocks and key
corridors.
Develop landowner protection of Bear
habitat.
Enhance, restore, and manage Bear
habitat.
Develop, implement, and evaluate habitat
restoration plan
Protect habitat to support long-term
survival of Bear populations.
FWS, TPW, NRC
LDWF, FWS
$65,000.00
part of 1.10
NRC, FWS, TPW, LDWF,
USACE, MDWFP
part of 1.10
LDWF, NRC, FWS,
MDWFP, TPW
$28,000.00
LDWF, FWS, USACE,
MDWFP, NRC
$140,000.00
$233,000.00
Disseminate Bear status, recovery, and
management information.
Reduce illegal killing through education.
LDWF, NRC, FWS, USACE,
MDWFP, TPW
$39,000.00
TPW, LDWF, FWS,
MDWFP, LE, WS
$59,000.00
Reduce human-bear conflict through
education.
Identify Bear management incentives for
private landowners and distribute.
LDWF, FWS, WS, MWFP,
LE, TPW
4
3.1
Enforce legal protection of Bears.
LDWF, FWS, WS, MDWFP,
LE
3.2
Coordinate record keeping of Bear deaths.
TPW, LDWF, FWS, WS,
MDWFP, LE
3.3
Develop and implement road management
guidelines.
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
LDWF, NRC, FWS,
MDWFP, TPW
$132,000.00
part of 2.1
$230,000.00
LDWF, FWS, USGS
$50,000.00
used existing
funds
$7,039.00
$57,039.00
$842,639.00
Total
18
Table 6. Ongoing and current Priorities outlining tasks, task descriptions, responsible stakeholders, and
estimated costs for the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Totals of expenditures and tasks are
represented in yellow (USFWS, 1995).
41
Chart. 3 Pie Chart explaining expenditures per Priority in percentages. The
key represents the various priorities from most concern to least concern
(USFWS, 2007).
Research
Research accounted for the majority of the annual Species Recovery Plan with
spending at 38%. Research was conducted on different aspects of the Louisiana Black
Bear population. Population viability research, corridors in Bear habitat, and the biology
of the subspecies all required research to ensure a successful recovery (USFWS, 1995).
The main concern for this category was establishing population monitoring
techniques, determining population goals for the species, and studying its habitat and
biology. Little was known about Bear subpopulations; therefore studies examined Bear
corridors and implemented them into habitat management (USFWS, 1995).
Government stakeholders associated with the recovery goal included Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish,
and Parks.
42
Habitat
Habitat was the second category in the recovery plan for the Louisiana Black
Bear. Five tasks were assigned to this priority costing nearly 28% of the annual budget,
$233,000 (USFWS, 1995). Severely modified Bear habitat reduced suitable habitat by
80% in the 1980s. Fragmentation occurred through much of the environment causing a
reduction in habitat quality and quantity leading to a declining Bear population (USFWS,
1995). One goal of the Species Recovery Plan was to establish a metapopulation of two
or more viable subpopulation.
Corridors connect Bears among their fragmented ecosystems to insure long-term
habitat protection. The corridors allow Bears from different regions to interact with each
other varying the gene pool safely and without the problem of humans and human
barriers. A varied gene pool increases the health of the species because inbreeding
becomes rarer. Consequently, Bears reside on public and private lands and the Recovery
Team believed building strong, positive relationships with private landowners was vital
to the recovery efforts.
Agencies responsible for implementing and funding habitat included the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (USFWS, 1995).
Education
Education, the third category of the Recovery Plan costs 27% of the recovery to
develop and implement information and education programs for private landowners and
the public (USFWS, 1995). Habitat loss and human induced mortality were the leading
43
causes of Black Bear deaths during the analysis. With an understanding of recovery
actions and management practices the public supports and actively participates in Bear
recovery with the help of various stakeholders (USFWS, 1995).
Environmental education for hunters about consequences they may face if they
were to kill a Bear was vital for Bear conservation according to USFWS (USFWS, 1995).
The education program also reduced human-bear conflicts because of a contingency plan
for responding to problem Bears. Funding for education went primarily towards public
outreach and awareness about Louisiana Black Bears (USFWS, 1995).
Stakeholders responsible for executing the category consisted of Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks, Texas
Parks and Wildlife, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS, 1995).
Protection
Protection refers to defending and managing the remaining Louisiana Black Bear
population. The category defined how Bear habitat was managed as well as meeting
population goals. Road kill and poaching keep population goals from being reached
because the lack of enforcement. Three tasks designated under this priority cost 7% of the
annual recovery budget (USFWS, 1995).
Under the tasks, road management, guidelines referred to following certain factors
like the distribution and density of roads, road use, design, and management as a
guideline. The remaining tasks were associated with developing, monitoring, and
reviewing a management plan for each subpopulation. The Louisiana Department of
44
Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish and Parks, and Texas Parks and Wildlife all
took responsibility for funding and implementing the category (USFWS, 1995).
Conclusion
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other government stakeholders developed
and implemented the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan based on four different
priorities. The category that received most attention was research while protection
obtained the least amount of funding. Overall, the organization of priorities determined
the most threatening activities to the population.
3.2.2.2 Government Stakeholders
Eight government agencies coordinated together to execute and fund the
Louisiana Black Bear recovery. The Bear ranges across various lands managed by
different agencies in the area. The parties decided habitat reduction led to the demise of
the Louisiana Black Bear and is the largest threat to their existence. Over one third of the
expenses went towards research. Overall, the stakeholders implemented and provided
capital in cooperation with each other overseen by USFWS.
45
Chart 4. Years 2007-2010 illustrating government stakeholders expenditure participation for Louisiana
Black Bear recovery. Each key represents the various agencies from the largest contributor to the smallest
(USFWS, 2007-2011).
Department of
Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Year
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Total:
% of Total:
2007
2008
2009
2010
14,945
422,000
265,000
43,000
345,000
19,614
135,000
844,200
807,657
898,900
600,750
1,281,145.00
1,072,657.00
1,286,900.00
755,364.00
72.67%
58.75%
61.96%
39.44%
Table 7. Agency expenses for Louisiana Black Bear recovery under the Department of Agriculture. The
table illustrates the years analyzed in columns and the rows signify the agencies: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Services. Totals are depicted in
yellow while blue shows the percentage of the total spending for that year (USFWS, 2007).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) participated in the
development of the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Under the Department of
Agriculture lies APHIS which provides Wildlife Services (APHIS, 2006). Wildlife
46
Service’s protect threatened and endangered species by responding immediately to
problems a species causes. The main objective for the agency focused on enforcing
protection and developing community outreach programs in Louisiana (APHIS, 2006).
The agency responded to Bear complaints and for their efforts the public began to
have a better understanding of the subspecies (APHIS, 2006). Other aspects of protection
came from data collection addressing issues related to the Bear (USFWS, 2010).
The agency provided funds for the years analyzed except 2008 the reason can be
attributed to the large financial investment from Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Spending by the agency was less than 2% for each year, but Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has been recognized for its work in Louisiana Black Bear conservation
(Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).
U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) did not participate in developing the Louisiana
Black Bear Recovery Plan, but contributed funds. The subspecies occurs across four
states in various National Forests managed by USFS. The agency contributed large
amounts of money for this reason.
Kisatchie the only National Forest in Louisiana holds some of the last remaining
Bear populations. Mississippi contains a small population of the subspecies which occur
in DeSoto National Forest. Lastly, Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma and Arkansas
maintain Bear habitat and people recently saw the subspecies in the forests (TPWD,
2005).
Small pockets of USFS land dot Black Bear habitat throughout their range
therefore the agency took responsibility for protecting it. Overall, USFS contributed
47
around 20% of the spending from 2007 to 2009 and then only 7% in 2010 (USFWS,
2010). That year the majority of the recovery was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey
and Natural Resource Conservation Service, therefore the agency contributed far less.
The stakeholder primarily focused their efforts on enhancing Bear habitat in National
Forests.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The U.S. Department of Agriculture manages Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) a major contributor in Bear recovery. The agency helped in the
development and execution of the Plan and focused much of their attention on habitat
restoration and protection for the remaining Louisiana Black Bear.
Natural Resources Conservation Service contributed to the recovery of the
subspecies through their Wetlands Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Program
(USFWS, 2009). In short, the programs are voluntary programs that offer incentives to
private landowners for preserving and restoring wetlands across the U.S. (King, 2006).
From 1993 to 2008 over 180,000 acres were restored to forestland through the program in
Louisiana for Bear habitat by Wetlands Reserve Program as a result the agency
conserved more than 138,000 acres of Bear habitat in Mississippi (Davidson, 2009).
Conservation Reserve Program restored over 200,000 acres in Louisiana and
roughly 328,000 acres in Mississippi from 1993 to 2008 (USFWS, 2009). The program
was intended to transform farmland into lands for conservation. When landowners enroll
it is their responsibility to make an attempt to restore habitat, and take measures to reduce
flooding for compensation (USFWS, 2010). Since the subspecies’ listing in 1992 over
831,000 acres of prime Bear habitat have enrolled in both programs in Louisiana and
48
Mississippi. Most recently, between 2008 and 2011 over 500 more acres were restored
and 1550 acres were improved in East Texas (Industrial Economics, Inc, 2009).
Natural Resources Conservation Services funded over 43% of the recovery efforts
from 2007 to 2009. In 2010, the agency contributed 31% of the expenditures (USFWS,
2010). In 2010, USGS paid almost half of the recovery costs, as a result other agencies
gave less. Overall, the agency dedicated most funds towards habitat restoration the
number one priority in the Recovery Plan. The Bear population increased since listed in
the early 1990s; therefore NRCS successfully utilized funds for recovering the subspecies
(Davidson, 2010).
Department of
Interior
Department of Interior
Year
National Park Service
USFWS
US Geological Survey
2007
2008
2009
2010
3,075
255,000
4,800
3,200
459,700
425,000
186,836
52,997
87,954
855,527
Total:
258,075.00
517,497.00
516,154.00
186,836.00
% of Total
14.64%
28.34%
24.85%
9.75%
Table 9. Agencies under the Department of Interior, National Park Service, USFWS, and U.S. Geological
Survey, expenditures for Louisiana Black Bear recovery. Totals represented in yellow and blue signifies the
percent of the total spending for the year (USFWS, 2007-2010).
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, USFWS) undertook many
responsibilities in the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan, and funded various tasks on a
state level. USFWS worked primarily with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries to implement tasks in the Plan. Several National Wildlife Refuges exist
throughout the Bear’s range, so the agency oversaw conservation activities in those areas
(Industrial Economics, Inc, 2009).
The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge and Atchafalaya National Wildlife
Refuge are two refuges USFWS focused much of their attention on. Both have relatively
49
large (compared to other regions) Black Bear populations with about 75 individuals.
USFWS worked on population viability studies in both areas subpopulations in 2007.
Population estimates were completed in 2010 suggesting the Bear population increased
by roughly 50% (USFWS, 2011)
Habitat degradation contributed most to eliminating the subspecies, therefore
USFWS implemented Partners for Wildlife (West, 2005). Partners for Wildlife is an
incentive program through USFWS providing financial assistance to private landowners.
The program enhanced habitat on private lands and restored more than 10,000 acres of
prime Black Bear habitat since its beginnings (West, 2005).
In addition to funding and implementing reforestation projects USFWS
contributed capital to various research studies for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries and Black Bear Conservation Committee. Different universities received
funds from the stakeholder for research and most recently, USFWS worked with USDA
Wildlife Service’s providing resources for Bear conflict management programs for
community members (Industrial Economics, 2009).
USFWS coordinated with other stakeholders to develop a web-based Bear data
management system. The system tracked Bear sighting and mortalities throughout the
state and responsible agencies entered historical and current data into the system as
completion neared for the data management system (USFWS, 2011).
Overall, the stakeholder took responsibility for financing and applying tasks in
priorities, habitat and research. USFWS funded around 20% of the recovery from 2007 to
2009, but then only 7% in 2010 (USFWS, 2010). Again, U.S. Geological Survey
contributed a large percentage of capital to the recovery so USFWS provided less money.
50
USFWS led in managing the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery and the subspecies’
population increased. Due to the subspecies federal status USFWS made decisions within
the scope of the Recovery Plan.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) took part developing and executing several
tasks outlined in the Plan and provided various resources. For example, the agency
contributed to the web-based management system and population viability studies from
2008 to 2010. The agency provided research for various demographic studies to evaluate
population trends. The surveys and study provided important information on Bear
population dynamics and potential habitat.
In 2009, the agency completed a study entitled “The Effects of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita on Habitat of the Louisiana Black Bear” to model vital coastal habitat. The
research addressed the impacts both hurricanes had on Bear habitat and identified
potential Bear habitat along the Louisiana coast. The data determined potential corridors
coastal Bears could use to interact with other populations in the Atchafalaya River basin
(Davidson, 2010).
The following year USGS collared Bears in Louisiana as a way to collect data
using GPS tracking devices. Scientists from the agency collaborated with USFWS to
address priority research needs (Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010). The agency
focused their efforts on obtaining research and contributed large amounts of time and
financial incentives to researching the subspecies.
USGS took part in creating the Plan and designated funds each year analyzed
except in 2007 (USFWS, 2007). No studies were ongoing during that year and the large
51
funds from the Forest Service countered nonexistent funds from USGS. In 2008 and 2009
recovery funding fell below 5% and spiked to 45% in 2010, $855,527.00 (USFWS,
2010). The stakeholder contributed a substantial amount of capital to research studies on
the endangered subspecies paying for most of that recovery priority. The agency focused
much of its attention on researching potential and current habitat to minimize Bear loss
and maximize habitat in the region.
State
States: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Year
LA, MS, and
TX
% of Total
2007
2008
2009
2010
126,622.00
7.18%
210,650.00
11.54%
107,118.00
5.16%
22,700.00
1.19%
Table 10. Fund contributions from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas for Louisiana Black Bear Recovery.
State totals were combined and cannot be represented independently. Yellow illustrates the totals and blue
represents the percent for the total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010)
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
The remaining Black Bear populations reside mostly in Louisiana; therefore
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) led several recovery tasks. The
agency conducted research, provided protection, and restored Bear habitat and worked on
various conservation projects regarding Louisiana Black Bear while funding operations
according to the Plan.
The agency developed several studies addressing delisting criteria for Louisiana
Black Bear between the years examined. The study analyzed Bear DNA to better
understand Bear population dynamics. The DNA determined gene flow, taxonomy, and
populations sizes of the subspecies and researchers could identify individual Bears with
the research (Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).
Additionally, population viability analyses in 2007 determined Bear populations
in the Tensas River basin and Upper and Lower Atchafalaya basins increased. In 2010,
52
the agency collared Bears with GPS collars in Louisiana for studies. The agency focused
largely on research and habitat restoration (USFWS, 2011).
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries participated in the recovery
through education and public outreach. In 2009 LDWF increased public understanding of
the Bear through outreach workshops and public meetings. To reduce human-bear
conflicts the agency created a phone number and pamphlets for residents to report
nuisance Bears (USFWS, 2010).
The agency also helped private landowner with Bear management techniques and
dispersed information on managing incentives. LDWF implemented nuisance Bear
reduction strategies through community development projects. The agency took
responsibility for relocating problem Bears when detected (TPWD, 2005).
The agency successfully turned a nuisance species into a conservation
achievement because of its projects. The agency contributed with other states less than
7% in 2007 and 2008 (USFWS, 2008). In 2009, contributions lessen to 1%, and jumped
the highest in 2010 to 12%. State spending fluctuated depending on Bear actions in
Louisiana. Larger nuisance Bear populations increase the budget because of relocation
costs them changing percentages annually. LDWF contributed time to various tasks and
took responsibility overseeing tasks outlined in the Species Recovery Plan.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks
The Louisiana Black Bear population expanded and increased in Mississippi
leaving the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) in charge
of managing the population in the state. The stakeholder took part in the creation and
implementation of the Plan and contributed to the education and research categories.
53
The agency focused most of its attention on education. For example, Bear
biologists gave over 40 presentations about the subspecies in the Mississippi region. A
large part of the conservation project consisted of public outreach (USFWS, 2011).
MDWFP hosted workshops, public speakers, and festivals to educate citizens about Bear
conservation to improve community-Bear relationships (USFWS, 2011).
Moreover, media offered information to the public through magazine and
newspaper articles and the agency put together a webpage for Bear conservation (Black
Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010). The site contained ecological and Bear management
articles, recent stories, video posts, and photos for people to familiarize themselves with
the endangered subspecies.
The other category the MDWFP invested in was research. Agency researchers
monitored 19 radio collared Bears throughout the state, and captured and collared new
Bears. Part of the research was conducting den checks. Den checks help biologist
estimate the breeding female populations to better understand the Bear. The agency
conducted the studies through 2009 to document birthrates of radio collared females
(Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks investigated movements and
habitat use of Louisiana Black Bear via GPS collaring in Mississippi. The study
examined human barriers that interfered with Bear movement and habitat degradation
from development (USFWS, 2011). The data provided biologists with new evidence that
the population increased in Mississippi.
Mississippi was one of only two states that provided state-funded compensation
programs. The program was run by the agency and was where contributions from the
54
state came from. MDWFP focused on public outreach and research and the Louisiana
population increased in the state since 2007 (USFWS, 2011).
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) supervised Louisiana Black Bears
in East Texas. The subspecies prefer habitat eastern Texas provides with oaks and other
mass producing trees. The agency produced the Plan and supported it through habitat
management, education, and research.
Texas was the other state that provided financial incentives to private landowners
willing to convert or preserve forest back to their natural state or as close as possible. In
2010, the agency and its partners created Land Conservation Priority Maps for East Texas
and developed a Hardwood Habitat Cooperative. The activity offered landowners funds
to restore or improve areas of hardwood on their lands. These efforts of habitat
restoration contributed to enhancing over 1,550 acres in East Texas (USFWS, 2011).
Louisiana Black Bear population research continued with TPWD support and
since 1977, the department conducted Louisiana Black Bear surveys and sightings in
eastern Texas. For example, the department directed field research to locate suitable Bear
habitat in Texas in an attempt to determine if Texas could sustain a Bear population
(TPWD, 2005).
Similarly to other stakeholders the agency provided workshops and other
community outreach projects to educate residents about the subspecies. Texas Parks and
Wildlife analyzed conflict management protocols and executed them where needed
(TPWD, 2005).
55
Overall, the agency contributed to the success of the subspecies throughout the
years analyzed. The stakeholder attributed most of their attention to habitat and research
categories. Programs provided incentives for habitat preservation and biologists obtained
research for Louisiana Black Bear population trends in Texas (USFWS, 1995). Overall,
the stakeholder managed Louisiana Black Bears in Texas and influenced the subspecies
success from 2007 to 2010.
Department
of Defense
Department of Defense
Year
Army Corps
of Engineers
% of Total:
2007
2008
2009
2010
94,140.00
12,900.00
147,400.00
85,475.00
5.34%
0.71%
7.10%
4.46%
Table 8. Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers expenditures for 2007-2010 yellow shows the
total funds contributed and blue illustrates the percent of total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010).
Army Corps of Engineers
The Department of Defense oversees the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) which
funded and assisted in developing the Recovery Plan for the subspecies. The stakeholder
managed lands where Louisiana Black Bear roam. In Louisiana, ACE manages the
Atchafalaya Basin a large expanse of contiguous forest.
In the Atchafalaya Reserve ACE manages the Atchafalaya Spillway Water
Diversion Project. The spillway is a major flood control area developed to divert the
Mississippi river north of New Orleans. The spillway created the Atchafalaya Basin
containing the endangered Bear. The project created a diverse and productive ecosystem
for many species to thrive since it began (USFWS, 2006).
Moreover, the agency managed the Yazoo Backwater Reformulation Project on
the lower end of the Mississippi. In summary, water has been trapped by a levee creating
56
back water thus the Army Corps of Engineers created a pumping plant to reduce
backwater in the Yazoo Backwater Area (USFWS, 2006).
Fortunately, most Bears occur on large areas of publicly owned land around the
Yazoo project, but private lands could potentially lose critical Bear habitat due to
mismanagement of the watershed. Residential lands could become submerged without
the pump destroying prime habitat for the subspecies (USFWS, 2006).
Habitat loss was the largest threat to the species and Army Corps of Engineer may
have contributed to the destruction from the pump activities. USFWS concluded the
relatively small project would probably not adversely affect the Bears but could
potentially. ACE countered the threat by providing financial assistance and energy to the
recovery and since 2001 the agency reforested over 2,000 acres on Corps lands
(TXPWD, 2005).
To avoid any committed harm to the subspecies the Army Corps of Engineers
planned to help reforest past and potential future wetland loses. The agency provided
conservation easements to eager landowner and reforested qualified lands (USFWS,
2006). Additionally, the stakeholder contributed funds for radio collar tracking devices
for the Black Bear. MDWFP received the funds and attached the collars to Bears in the
Delta National Forest and Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS, 2006).
Overall, the agency participated in a few projects in the recovery mostly dealing
with habitat conservation and public awareness. Army Corps of Engineers did not fund
much of the recovery budget because they managed a small portion of land and interfered
little with the subspecies’ reduction.
57
3.2.3 Conclusion
Government stakeholders that contributed to the Louisiana Black Bear recovery
plan determined fund allocation in the Plan, but USFWS had the overall say. Each
stakeholder played an important role in creating and executing the Recovery Plan for the
subspecies. Stakeholders determined the best way to increase the Bear population was
through research, education, habitat, and protection.
Stakeholders determined habitat reduction impacted the Louisiana Black Bear
most therefore focused on placing the majority of the funds towards research. More than
a third of the budget went towards that category. Stakeholders funded research projects
studying Bear populations, and other ways to counter the effects of human encroachment.
The budget analysis determined a successful utilization of funds. The main goal
of the recovery plan was to increase Black Bear populations, develop corridors, and
protect vital habitat. The population improved to roughly 350 individuals because of
projects defined in the Plan and each task placed the subspecies closer to the goals
outlined in the Plan for delisting.
Actual costs almost doubled what was estimated in the Plan from 2007 to 2010.
Costs were difficult to determine and estimates could have been less than anticipated.
One of the reasons costs were double comes from Natural Resource Conservation
Service. Their program converting and protecting wetland had overwhelming success
from landowner enrollment.
Land owners enrolled throughout the years studied thousands of acres.
Expenditures for every year except 2010 were over 40% for the stakeholder because of
the public’s overwhelming enrollment. Expenditures for the Wetlands Reserve Program
58
were not included in the Recovery Plan and could explain some of the discrepancy
between actual and estimated spending.
More than eight stakeholders were involved in implementing and funding the
Recovery Plan. That many stakeholders could explain why funding may have increased
during the analysis. Furthermore, the subspecies is one of the more charismatic
endangered species in the U.S. which may have something to do with expenditure
inconsistencies.
Overall, the subspecies plan led to an improving Louisiana Black Bear
population. A budgetary analysis revealed successful fund allocation according to the
plan. The supervising stakeholder was USFWS. Although, USFWS gave the Bear a
priority rating of a 9C, threatened but improving, it still received more funding than the
plan specified. Expenditure discrepancies could come in various forms like unaccounted
projects in the Species Recovery Plan increasing costs.
59
3.3 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
3.3.1
Background
Bighorn sheep in the western United States arrived over 600,000 years ago
from Siberia. The ungulates route crossed over the Bering land bridge and over thousands
of years subpopulations evolved. Bighorn sheep occupy a range from southern Canada to
Mexico (USFWS, 2007). One subspecies, the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, came under
recent threat due to disease from domestic livestock.
The subspecies lives exclusively in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range of
California. Portions of their range extend from Yosemite National Park in the north to
Sequoia National Park in the south. Fortunately, the species ranges almost entirely on
federally managed lands (USFWS, 2007).
Figure 3. Map illustrating Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep range
in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range stretching through
California and Nevada. The key depicts the current annual
ranges of five herd units (USFWS, 2012).
60
The species survives due to its agility among the cliffs and efficient eyesight since
elevations within the range vary from 4,700 feet to over 13,000 feet (USFWS, 2007). The
Sheep prefer habitat encompassed with rocky slopes, and open woodlands. Within the
Sheep’s range occur wide distributions of vegetation. The lowest elevations hide the
sagebrush-bitterbrush-bunchgrass scrub, as the elevation increases the vegetation
becomes pinyon-juniper woodland and mountain mahogany scrub. At mid-elevation
subalpine forests, woodlands, and meadows begin to appear and last, in the highest places
of their range lie vast alpine meadows and other alpine habitats (USFWS, 2007).
Historically herds existed throughout the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from the
Sonora Pass to Olancha Peak. Researchers never determined how large the population
ever exceeded, but believed it contained more than 1,000 individuals (USFWS, 2007).
Today’s population looks drastically different. The species occurs in only two areas of its
former range in small, fragmented populations. Habitat occupied by the Sheep was
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land
Management between 2007 and 2010 (USFWS, 2007).
Population Dynamics
The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep population never appeared in extensive
numbers, but could be found in few herds a few thousand individuals. In the late 1970s
the population lingered around 250 individuals and by 1985 the population grew to 300.
The Bighorn seemed stable due to recovery efforts, and a reintroduction program, but in
1995 the population declined to around 100 individuals because of an unseasonably cold
winter (USFWS, 2007).
61
The winter of 1995 brought difficultly because it was unusually cold, and the
subspecies headed to higher ground. Higher grounds meant colder weather and many
could not survive the temperatures. Numbers have increased since the decline in 1995,
and the population rose to over 122 in 1999 (USFWS, 2007). Designated recovery
actions helped the population slowly recovery to around 400 individuals by 2011 (CDFG,
2011).
Reasons for Listing
Disease played the largest role in the decline of the subspecies. Domestic Sheep
carry virulent diseases which transfer to Bighorn Sheep populations in the Sierra Nevada.
The most significant threat to the species was pneumonia, caused by Pasteurella, or in
combination of other pathogens. Disease within the domestic and wild Sheep population
were nearly impossible for researchers to collect and examine because infected animals
show little signs of sickness until they die (USFWS, 2007).
Beginning in the 1870s diseases carried by domestic Sheep played a large role in
the demise of the subspecies. Management techniques were implemented by the
Recovery Team and now domestic grazing only occurs adjacent to the Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep. The major risk of transfer occurs when a domestic Sheep strays into
Bighorn habitat or vice versa (USFWS, 2007).
Since the late 1970s mountain lion have accounted for some of the Sheep’s
decline bringing concern to wildlife biologists. Winter ranges of the subspecies leaves
them most vulnerable from attacks by puma therefore; mountain lion with a taste for
Bighorn are removed and relocated to protect the Sheep (USFWS, 2007). Since the
62
population was so low each individual loss is immense to the overall population even
though few have been taken by puma.
Species Recovery Plan and Priorities
On April 20, 1999 the species was listed as Endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. The Species Recovery Plan followed and was finished on September 24,
2007. USFWS ranked the subspecies a 3C on their recovery priority rank system
(USFWS, 2007). This means there is a high degree of threat, but the potential to recover
is also high. Various agencies took part in implementing and funding the recovery plan
and stakeholders played a crucial role in the survival of the species because of their
financial aid and efforts (USFWS, 2007).
The main goals of the subspecies’ recovery were to manage the species to a selfsustaining population size and increase their geographic range. The plan called for
maintaining long-term viability through different programs and techniques that will
ensure the delisting of the species. The main priority focus for the recovery plan was
increasing the population to a healthy size (USFWS, 2007).
Conclusion
In conclusion, to delist the species requires a minimum of 350 adult females and
herds need to be monitored with at least three censuses. Twelve herds must be formed
and land management and techniques must provide long term protection to the species.
The first priority for the recovery was to translocate “Bighorn Sheep into unoccupied
herd units that are needed for recovery, or to aid in the recovery of occupied herds
(USFWS, 47).” USFWS believed this will vary the gene pool and increase the breeding
population.
63
3.3.2 Analysis
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep priorities were illustrated in its Recovery Plan in
order of importance. Increasing the population was the priority of most importance and
research was the least according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects
regarding the species’ recovery under one of five categories set forth by USFWS. A
spreadsheet displayed each project and was defined under the task description.
3.3.2.1
Priorities, Tasks, and Spending
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Priority
Task
Population Increase
2.1
2.2.1
2.3.1
2.2.3
2.3.2
2.4
3.1
Total:
3.2.1
8
Monitoring
5.2
5.1
5.4
5.3
Habitat
Total:
Task Description
Prepare and implement a management plan to
temporarily protect Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
herds from predation losses, where needed, until
viable herd sizes are reached.
Reduce potential predator influences on winter
habitat selection where appropriate
Prevent contact between Bighorn Sheep and
domestic Sheep or goats
Enhance Bighorn Sheep winter range habitat to
increase visibility where appropriate
Develop an action plan in the event that a
pneumonia outbreak occurs
Manage human use locally where it is found to
cause Bighorn Sheep to avoid important habitat
and, thereby, compromises survivorship or
reproductive success
Develop and implement a strategy for
translocations
Manage wild herds as sources of stock
Stakeholder
CDFG
Monitor key predators in the vicinity of winter
ranges
Develop and implement a monitoring plan for
population abundance and distribution of Bighorn
Sheep herds in the Sierra Nevada
Monitor exposure to disease organisms of concern
Monitor vegetation structure and composition
changes likely to affect Bighorn Sheep population
parameters.
CDFG
Maintain and/or enhance integrity of Bighorn
Sheep habitat
NPS, FS, FWS,
CDFG
$350,000.00
CDFG
$40,000.00
FS, FWS, BLM,
CDFG
FS, NPS, CDFG
$7,500.00
$30,000.00
CDFG
$10,000.00
FS, NPS, FWS,
CDFG
$1,000.00
FS, NPS, FWS,
CDFG
CDFG
$30,000.00
part of other
$468,500.00
$10,000.00
CDFG
CDFG
FS, NPS, CDFG
$200,000.00
$3,750.00
$10,000.00
$223,750.00
5
1.2
Cost Estimate
$149,000.00
64
Recovery
Team
Total:
Total:
1
8
6.3
Research
Establish an implementation advisory team for
coordination and communication
CDFG, FWS,
FS, BLM, NPS
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
1
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
Total:
$149,000.00
5
Develop a population viability analysis (PVA) for
the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Further investigate habitat use patterns of Bighorn
Sheep herds
Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative
to habitat use patterns of Bighorn Sheep
CDFG
Investigate future reintroduction sites relative to
potential predator and domestic Sheep problems
and other potential conflicts
Attempt to develop long term data that will help
elucidate predator-prey dynamics of this ecosystem
as they affect Bighorn Sheep
FS, NPS, CDFG
$50,000.00
CDFG
$10,000.00
FS, NPS, CDFG
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
FS, NPS, CDFG
$80,000.00
$155,000.00
Total:
19
$997,250.00
Table 11. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Priority categories including tasks, task descriptions, responsible
stakeholders, and estimated costs (USFWS, 2007-2011).
Chart 5. Pie chart illustrating expenditures per priority by percentage. The key depicts the
five priorities outlined in the Species Recovery Plan in order of importance (USFWS,
2007).
65
Population Increase
Population increase, category one, regards measures taken to enhance the
survivorship of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Eight tasks reside under the category
and the total estimated costs were approximately $468,500.00 (USFWS, 2007). Until
herd sizes stabilize a management plan was created to protect the sheep from predation
and disease.
The sheep population can catch diseases from domestic sheep which can
dramatically alter the population. Pneumonia outbreaks are potentially most harmful;
therefore an action plan was developed with an emphasis on increasing the population
through various conservation tasks. Disease was the number one cause for the species
demise (USFWS, 2007).
Human barriers, like fences, keep Sheep from roaming vital habitat within their
range. Therefore, important areas for the bighorn that received large amounts of human
activity were located and closed. Additionally, the population became fragmented and as
a result USFWS developed strategies for relocating the subspecies to produce additional
herds. Translocating refers to taking a bighorn sheep from one area and moving it to
another place in an attempt to establish another herd (USFWS, 2007).
Moreover, project costs for tasks can never be certain, and expenditures differ
drastically. The species implementation was frequently updated and provided ongoing
and current projects for each year of the study. 47% of the costs on current projects
attributed to increasing the population (USFWS, 2007).
Funding and responsibilities for costs under this category came from Federal and
State Government Agencies. Accountable stakeholders included: California Department
66
of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, and Forest Service. Each party either contributed funds under the
category, provided other means of support, or both (USFWS, 2007).
In conclusion, expenditures for increasing the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
population used nearly half of the annual recovery budget yet, the percentage of funding
stayed the same each year. Researchers believed increasing the population was the most
efficient way to bring the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep back from the brink of
extinction. The recovery team dedicated time and costs to monitoring predator
populations, researching disease, and relocating individuals.
Monitoring
The second category, monitoring, made up 22% of the annual recovery budget.
There were five tasks dedicated to sheep monitoring costing over $223,750.00 (USFWS,
2007). Population status and trends, sheep habitat, and threats to the subspecies made up
projects outlined under the monitoring priority.
Stakeholders watched predators, like puma, ranging in the locality of the
subspecies because of the potential threat they have on the sheep. The predator
contributing the most to the decline of the species is the mountain lion. Predation is not
usually a contributing factor when listing a species, but since the bighorn population was
small each loss dramatically effects the remaining population (USFWS, 2007).
In recent years vegetation succession penetrated bighorn habitat, because natural
fire regimes no longer exist. Fires burn off any invasive species in the ecosystem that
outcompete endemic species, unfortunately this no longer occurs regularly because of the
weather variations and human interferences. Agencies conducted studies monitoring the
67
makeup and structure of the vegetation where likely effects of succession appeared to
increase vegetation to better understand Sheep habitat (USFWS, 2007).
Monitoring consisted of 22% of the expected spending outlined in the SRP,
$223,750.00. Agencies contributing to the category included: California Department of
Fish and Game, Forest Service, and National Park Service. CDFG maintained the most
responsibility in regards to monitoring (USFWS, 2007).
Research
The final portion of the recovery plan covered current and relevant research. Little
was known about Bighorn Sheep habitat; therefore the ecosystem required further
investigation. Biologist worked in the field surveying suitable habitat for the subspecies
and other studies focused on future relocation sites with regards to predators and
domestic livestock (USFWS, 2007).
Overall, research comprised 16% of the recovery costing $155,000.00. There
were five tasks under the priority. Little was known about this subspecies; therefore most
research projects focused on the species range and population. Government stakeholders
backing the priority consisted of California Department of Fish and Game, Forest
Service, and National Park Service. The agency’s individual tasks were outlined in the
SRP (USFWS, 2007).
Habitat
Habitat the forth category focused on for the recovery of the bighorn. Fifteen
percent of the annual budget went towards this priority. The operation cost roughly
$149,000.00 and the only task designated under the category was preserving or enriching
Bighorn Sheep habitat.
68
USFWS felt that in order to increase the population the subspecies habitat needed
protection. Responsible parties for implementing and contributing capital involved the
National Park Service, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California
Department of Fish and Game. Each stakeholder took responsibility for providing
USFWSs outlined in the SRP (USFWS, 2007).
Recovery Team
The Recovery Team assumes less than 1% of the annual recovery budget and
received $1,000.00 for one task at hand, coordinating a cooperative advisory team to
oversee the Bighorn projects. Stakeholders range from Federal and State agencies to
private organizations and require effective team work to implement a successful plan.
This category was far less than 1% of the annual budget; therefore the report did not
analyze it (USFWS, 2007).
Conclusion
USFWS and other agencies assisted in the creation and execution of the Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan based on five distinct priorities. Diseased,
predation, and changing weather patterns have all lead to the demise of the subspecies.
The category that received most attention was to increase the population while the least
amount of funds went towards the Recovery Team. Overall, the organization of priorities
resulted in explaining the highest degree of threat to the subspecies.
3.3.2.2
Government Stakeholders
The highest degree of threat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep came primarily
from disease. The subspecies ranges across land primarily managed by USFWS and other
government agencies. Consequently, three to four main government agencies paid
69
expenses during the years analyzed leading to decreased spending planned in the
Recovery Plan.
Chart 6. Four pie charts signifying stakeholder contributions for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery
spending percentages, 2007-2010. Each chart is a year analyzed and the key illustrates the contributing
stakeholders in order of most concern (USFWS, 2007-2010).
Department of the
Interior
Department of Interior
Year
BLM
National Park Service
USFWS
2007
4,500
2,500
550,976
U.S. Geological Survey
Total:
% of Total
557,976.00
96%
2008
25,000
3,700
247,798
42,350
2009
5,800
188,979
194,779.0
318,848.00
0
87%
87%
2010
34,500
165,600
82,379
90,000
372,479.00
85%
Table 14. Department of Interior’s agencies, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, and the U.S. Geological
Survey, spending on Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery from 2007-2010. Yellow illustrates the totals
and blue shows the percentage of total spending for the year represented by column (USFWS, 2007-2011).
70
Bureau of Land Management
Domestic sheep grazing allotments BLM manages were found in a few places on
the subspecies’ range. BLM managed lands on the bighorn sheep’s range and supervised
one project in the Plan, 2.3.1 (Prevent contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep
or goats), for each year of the study.
The main focus of the agency was to prevent domestic sheep from coming into
contact with Bighorn Sheep. Each allotment the agency managed increased the chances
of disease spreading to the subspecies (BLM, 2011). The potentially negative impacts
made the stakeholder a contributor to the species recovery each year except 2009 because
funds were directed from other stakeholders.
Bureau of Land Management contributed to funding every year of the study
except 2009 because USFWS funded almost the entire recovery leaving other agencies to
pay far less. The agency funded less than 8% of the species recovery, but this was
because it managed little land where the subspecies occurred (USFWS, 2010).
National Park Service
The National Park Service (the Park Service, NPS) managed habitat for the Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep because the subspecies ranged in various areas of National Park
lands. Kings Canyon National Park, Sequoia National Park, and Yosemite National Park
all harbor herds of the endangered subspecies therefore, USFWS sent biologists from all
three national parks to take part in the preparation of the recovery plan.
The Park Service led projects 2.2.3 (Enhance bighorn sheep winter range habitat
to increase visibility where appropriate), and 2.4 (Manage human use locally where it is
found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby, compromises
71
survivorship or reproductive success) for category 1, population increase. NPS also was
responsible for 5.3 (Monitor vegetation structure and composition changes likely to affect
bighorn sheep population parameters) under priority two and 1.2 (Maintain and/or
enhance integrity of bighorn sheep habitat) for habitat (USFWS, 2007). The stakeholder’s
main focus was to provide land for the sheep to roam and reestablish a population in the
Great Western Divide part of Sequoia National Park.
Sheep occur on various areas of the Park Service managed land thus, the agency
contributed to the annual recovery. In October 2010 NPS prepared a study on Sierra
Nevada Bighorn Sheep in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park. The project
undertaken by the stakeholder included: capturing and radio collaring sheep, as well as
attaching GPS devices on the subspecies found in Sequoia National Park. The actions
promoted the well-being of the population and the Park Service used the data to create a
model for managing the subspecies and understand migration patterns.
In conclusion, the Park Service contributed less than 3% of the funds from 2007
to 2009 and nearly 38% in 2010 (SKCNP, 2011). The reason for the increase was
because of studies produced in 2010. The subspecies ranged on various patches of
National Park Service lands, so the agency contributed time and expenditures to the
species recovery. The stakeholder focused primarily on the first three priorities, and the
population of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep increased.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took part in funding and implementing several
projects, but did not lead any projects for the SRP. The agency undertook the most tasks,
72
updated current research, and devised new ways of managing the subspecies’ population
(USFWS, 2007).
The percentage of funds USFWS placed into the recovery varied throughout the
years examined. USFWS contributed 95% of the funds for 2007 (USFWS, 2007). The
following year the percentage dropped to 68%, increased to 85% in 2009, and ended at
19% in 2010. USFWS funded the majority of the projects until 2010 (USFWS, 2010).
This year the National Park Service contributed what FWS could not.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) did not participate in the creation of the
Bighorn Recovery Plan. The agency produced studies regarding the population which
was attributed to spending in 2008 and 2010. USGS contributed 11% of total recovery in
2008, and 20% in 2010 because of research studies conducted with the subspecies
(USFWS, 2010). Each study required different amounts of funding.
Department of
Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Year
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
2007
2008
Forest Service
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Total:
% of Total:
2009
2010
200
28,000
64,000
28,200.00
12%
64,000.00
14%
140
140.00
0.0241%
0.00
0.0000%
Table 12. The Department of Agriculture’s expenditures for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery
between 2007 and 2010. Agencies contributing funds are Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service represented by rows. Columns illustrate each
year and the total spending in yellow and blue represents the percentage of total spending (USFWS, 20072010).
73
U.S. Forest Service
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep occur on various areas managed by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). Today’s population mainly inhabits Inyo National Forest, yet some
individuals occur in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. From the time the
subspecies was listed in 1999 USFS worked with USFWS on various actions outlined in
the Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2007).
The Forest Service led population increase projects 2.3.1 (Prevent contact
between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats), 2.2.3 (Enhance bighorn sheep
winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate), and 2.4 (Manage human use
locally where it is found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby,
compromises survivorship and/or reproductive success). The agency also led task 5.3
under Monitoring, and 1.2 (Maintain and/or enhance integrity of Bighorn Sheep habitat)
for the Sheep’s habitat. The main goals of the agency was to restore the subspecies
population to their historic range, increase the population to allow for down listing or
delisting to occur, and provide community support through education and awareness
regarding sheep (USFWS, 2007).
The stakeholder participated in the species recovery because of grazing permits
they managed for domestic sheep in close proximity to the wild population. USFS used
helicopters, which disrupt the subspecies, to conduct forest surveys for land mapping
(USFWS, 2011).
Additionally, prescribed and fire suppression activities and permits for public use
of the forest all negatively impacted the remaining Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep during
the years analyzed. The Forest Service acknowledged their impacts on the subspecies and
74
contributed funds. The agency monitored domestic grazing allotments throughout the
range of the subspecies because the threat of disease increased near these allotments and
could wipe out an entire herd of Bighorn from disease (USFWS, 2011).
Although, USFS did not contribute funds in years 2007-2008 the agency led
certain projects and participated in others they were responsible for outlined in the
Recovery Plan. In 2009, the agency funded recovery efforts because of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) regarding Motorized Travel Management (USDA, 2009).
The agency created an EIS to reexamine an old rule and improve vehicle use in
Inyo National Forest for multiple management and recreational reasons (Upchurch,
2009). USFWS determined little concern with disturbing the Sierra Nevada Bighorn
Sheep, but because of the risk USFS contributed to the recovery in 2009 and the project
continued through 2010.
Overall, most of the Forest Service’s spending went towards enhancing Bighorn
Sheep habitat. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep occur in three National Forest managed by
USFS, therefore the stakeholder took responsible for executing several tasks under the
various categories (USFWS, 2007). The agency activity in 2009 and 2010 negatively
impacted the subspecies because of grazing allotments, but the agency took precautions
not to cause harm and provided funds.
75
Department of
Transportation
Department of Transportation
Year
2007
Federal Aviation
Administration
Total:
% of Total:
2008
24,000
48,000
24,000.00
4%
48,000.00
13%
2009
2010
0%
0%
0.00
0%
Table 13. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration expenditures for Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep recovery from 2007 to 2010. Yellow depicts total expenditures for the year and blue shows
the percentage of total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010).
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not take part in creating or
implementing the SRP, yet the agency contributed to the expenditures in 2007 and 2008.
The FAA managed the western portion of the R2508 Complex which overlaps the Sierra
Nevada Range. The portion of the Complex affecting the sheep is Edwards Air Force
Base (Brown, 2009).
The base contains ecosystems vital to the Bighorn’s recovery meadows, marshes,
and water sources, crucial habitat designated for the survival of the subspecies.
Threatened and endangered species resided in the Complex, but the Sierra Nevada
Bighorn Sheep was not a species of much concern because it is rarely seen near the
Complex (Brown, 2009).
Occasionally, sheep can be spotted in the valleys of the Complex and for that
reason the agency expended funds to the recovery. The stakeholder impacted the species
negatively because of various military activities. Actions included ground operations,
flight activity, and weapons missions all potentially harming the endangered subspecies
(Brown, 2009).
The stakeholder took responsibility for contributing four percent in 2007 and
thirteen percent of funds in 2008. The reason the agency paid for the recovery was
76
because of their activities in the vicinity of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Federal
Aviation Administration did not pay in 2009 or 2010 because USFWS felt the subspecies
was affected little by the agency’s activities.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
The State did not contribute funds to recovery efforts for the years studied, yet the
agency led several parts of the recovery. The stakeholder took responsibility for
implementing task 2.1 (Prepare and implement a management plan to temporarily protect
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep herds from predation losses, where needed, until viable
herd sizes are reached.), 2.2.1 (Reduce potential predator influences on), 3.2.1 (Manage
wild herds as sources of stock), and 2.3.2 (Develop an action plan in the event that a
pneumonia outbreak occurs) under category one (USFWS, 2007). Tasks, under
monitoring, led by the agency were 5.2 (Monitor key predators in the vicinity of winter
ranges), 5.1 (Develop and implement a monitoring plan for population abundance and
distribution of Bighorn Sheep herds in the Sierra Nevada), and 5.4 (Monitor exposure to
disease organisms of concern) (USFWS, 2007).
The state agency headed the Recovery Team project and lastly, under the
research priority the stakeholder managed tasks 6.2 (Develop a population viability
analysis (PVA) for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep), 6.3 (Further investigate habitat use
patterns of bighorn sheep herds), 6.4 (Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative
to habitat use patterns of Bighorn Sheep), 6.6 (Investigate future reintroduction sites
relative to potential predator and domestic sheep problems and other potential conflicts),
77
and 6.8 (Attempt to develop long term data that will help elucidate predator-prey
dynamics of this ecosystem as they affect Bighorn Sheep) (USFWS, 2007).
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) managed the recovery as a
whole. With its role the agency worked with other federal, state, and private stakeholders
to continue sustainable conservation practices and aid in the recovery of species
threatened with extinction on their lands. CDFG focused primarily on supporting the
region for the long-term viability of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep population (CDFG,
2011).
3.3.3 Conclusion
Government stakeholders involved in Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery
Plan determined fund allocation for species recovery success. Priority expenditure
distribution was determined by stakeholders in the subspecies recovery plan and USFWS
determined where funds were distributed. Agencies involved with recovery projects saw
their funds implemented to the correct tasks in the Recovery Plan. Representatives from
almost every agency participated in developing the SRP and determined the priority that
would be focused on most was increasing the population.
The recovery team defined priorities as: population increase, monitoring, habitat,
recovery team, and research. Tasks and cost estimates were examined for each priority to
determine the significance each had against others. Increasing the population was the
main focus of the recovery goals and USFWS and partners focused much of their
attention on this priority.
As of 2011, the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep had a high degree of threat
primarily from disease. Fortunately, USFWS set a high potential for recovering the
78
subspecies. Although, the sheep has one of the highest priorities set forth by USFWS it
was underfunded by comparing actual to estimated spending. Only three to four main
stakeholders contributed to the expenditures during the years analyzed and three of the
four years were primarily funded by USFWS.
The toll of having to pay for almost all of the recovery expenses showed in the
Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep analysis. Stakeholders participated little in the recovery
spending leaving USFWS to make up the majority of the costs. Since the costs were
primarily funded by one stakeholder it is no surprise the subspecies plan was
underfunded by almost a third.
Estimated costs doubled actual costs for the years analyzed. Planned spending
was roughly one million dollars, but actual spending was around $350,000 during the
years analyzed. Costs were difficult to determine for the Recovery Team, therefore some
estimates may have been far less than expected. Unfortunately, the plan may be
underfunded due to more charismatic species receiving funds, like the Louisiana Black
Bear.
Overall, the Recovery Plan’s main focus was to increase the population, and that
is where the majority of the funding went, 47%. The budget analysis determined the
Species Recovery Plan was utilized correctly from 2007 to 2010. The population
increased to around 300 individuals in 2011 from less than 100 in 2000 and remained
stable (USFWS, 2011).
79
4.
Discussion
Though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ranking system is beneficial in
determining a species status it did not have any effect on spending in the analysis. The
Louisiana Black Bear was much less based on the ranking system, than the Bighorn
Sheep, but received far more funding. Sheep expenditures were less than half anticipated
costs, while the Black Bear’s expenditures nearly doubled its estimates in the years
examined.
Furthermore, the analysis illustrated that the number of stakeholders could have
an impact on expenditures outlined in the Species Recovery Plans. The Sonoran
Pronghorn and Louisiana Black Bear had at least six stakeholders contributing funds
leading both subspecies to be on or over budget. Unfortunately, one stakeholder
contributed the majority of the funds for the Bighorn Sheep, which could explain
expenditure estimates being far less than anticipated.
The Pronghorn and Bear had more stakeholders implementing their plans because
several agencies managed the land in which both subspecies occur. The Sheep occurs
primarily on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land, therefore not as many stakeholders took
part in implementing and funding the Plan. The few agencies managing lands in the
subspecies’ distribution provided financial and management incentives to the recovery of
the species but mainly coming from USFWS.
Stakeholders contributed according to their influence on the species. For example,
agencies supervising land in the endangered species habitat that had projects going on
contributed to the species recovery. Some of these projects could negatively impact the
80
subspecies; therefore responsible agencies took accountability for executing and funding
recovery efforts for all three subspecies.
Not all government stakeholders involved in the Species Recovery Plans managed
land in the endangered species’ range, but still contributed to the recovery. Some
stakeholders conducted research, built infrastructure, and converted habitat into
development and assisted with recovery. The stakeholders were held accountable for their
detrimental activities and took part in executing and/or funding the recovery plan.
Overall, the analysis provided vital information to determine how stakeholders
coordinated in executing and funding Species Recovery Plans. Additionally, the thesis
determined where funds were placed and how that compared to the recovery tasks
outlined in the Species Recovery Plan. The three subspecies analyzed had very different
outcomes.
81
5.
Conclusion
Overall, funds were contributed accordingly because Sonoran Pronghorn,
Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations all remained stable
from 2007 to 2010. Expenditures were properly directed to the tasks of most concern
producing stable populations. Stakeholders contributed properly and executed projects
productively.
The main goal of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s Recovery Plan was to relocate
individuals from one population to establish a second population in another part of
Arizona. Fifty one percent of the funding went directly towards these efforts and the
species had over six stakeholders contributing resources which led to an increasing
population in 2012.
The Louisiana Black Bear population fluctuated for many years, but increased in
2012. Stakeholders’ contributed the most time, energy and capital into researching and
protecting bear habitat. Like the Sonoran Pronghorn more than six stakeholders
contributed to Bear Recovery and expenditures were double what estimates presented.
One example is Natural Resource Conservation Service converted much more land into
suitable habitat than anticipated, increasing recovery costs.
Last, disease threatened the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep almost wiping out the
entire population in 1995 because of abnormally cold weather. The Recovery Team’s
largest concern was increasing the population through various conservation activities.
Unfortunately, the species’ funding fell shorter than anticipated primarily because the
species only had a couple of stakeholders contributing to its recovery throughout the
82
study. Also, it occurs on land managed almost entirely by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The methods for the study determined how Species Recovery Plans were
implemented and financed through government stakeholders and compared them to the
goals illustrated in the Recovery Plans of the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear,
and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This methodology worked well to narrow the focus of
each government participant in the Recovery Plans by utilizing graphs and charts.
Overall, the methods were successful for completing this work.
The budgetary analysis illustrated trends in each of the subspecies’ Recovery Plan
spending and determined if the money was effectively spent on increasing all of the
subspecies populations. Results from the recovery goals, stakeholder spending, and
species population estimates determined the effectiveness of each plan and gave an
understanding of the impacts government agencies have on these subspecies.
To begin the process spreadsheets were organized with ongoing tasks containing
costs for project costs and individual stakeholders. The spreadsheets organized the
priorities set forth in the Recovery Plan from the most significant to the least significant
with cost estimates attached. This helped obtain a view of individual project costs, overall
recovery spending and the government stakeholders associated with those challenges.
Additionally, spreadsheets were created for each individual department. This was to
illustrate the costs given to the recovery projects and show how much individual agencies
contributed to financially. Spreadsheets were a great way to illustrate the various projects
in each recovery plan and the different stakeholders impacts attributed to the goals of the
Plan.
83
The spreadsheets provided evidence of the various tasks while pie charts
illustrated which projects received the most funds, as well as, which government
stakeholder contributed the most money. One pie chart was created for each case to show
the goals of the Recovery Plan and how they were funded with percentages. Other pie
charts were organized by agency attributions to each Plan through each year analyzed.
Separate pie charts were created representing the various years for each individual case
study, 2007-2010.
One strength from the methodology used was the organization of the research.
Each Recovery Plan had raw data showing the costs and projects currently being funded.
Taking that data and organizing the information into spreadsheets showed the overall
recovery status for that specific year. The pie charts determined the percentages with
illustrations to see which agency was implementing the most funds, as well as, which
priority was given the most attention for the years analyzed.
Methodological weaknesses for the project were few, but difficult to overcome.
Species Recovery Plans do not have all the details, especially regarding costs. Cost
estimates had to be pulled from other peer reviewed documents or public documents from
the various states. This may have skewed the data somewhat. Some projects were
impossible to determine costs associated with them, therefore they were left blank.
Moreover, project end dates could not always be determined through USFWS
spreadsheets therefore, calls had to be made. USFWS officials did not even know if some
projects had been completed or not so that became an estimate.
The most difficult information to gather was individual spending from each
agency to specific projects. Raw data only gave total spending from the stakeholder for a
84
given year but nothing specific. The amount of funding for each project from each
agency was determined by various factors. Project costs were estimated with raw data
provided by USFWS. The spending was then calculated by comparing responsible
agencies to their projects, how much activity they had on the land, and how much land
they owned. This demonstrated government stakeholders that funded and implemented
the various projects.
Additionally, the budget analysis determined costs for recovering a species per
each individual project associated with the plan. The analysis illustrated how the budget
was determined and the objectives set forth to achieve the goals planned for the recovery.
The budget analysis was able to illustrate how costs were saving these three species.
Recovery Plans had estimated costs and the different goals for a species recovery. Once a
species’ goals were compared to the various projects being funded a conclusion could be
drawn. Funding coincided with the goals of the Plan leading to a successful Recovery
Plan for each subspecies.
There were several layers to the research for this thesis. Not only were the species
researched, but individual stakeholders, Recovery Plan goals, projects, and costs. Each
added another piece to the puzzle to determine if the Plans were successful.
Overall, projects that were funded for each subspecies increased their populations
making the Plans successful. The Sonoran Pronghorn population lingers around 120,
while the Louisiana Black Bear and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations hover
around 400 in 2012. These numbers are larger than they were ten years ago illustrating
that Recovery Teams managed and utilized funds accordingly for the survival of each
subspecies analyzed.
85
One species was over budget, one was on budget, and the other was under budget.
The reasons for the discrepancies between their estimated and actual spending can be
attributed to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Each plan implemented funds
accordingly and each population either stabilized or improved between 2007 and 2010.
The analysis illustrated stakeholders allocated resources appropriately and recovery
efforts were successful because of stable populations in 2012.
86
6. Works Cited
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2010. State Report FY 2010 Louisiana. U.S.
DOA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1-2.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2006. Wildlife Services-Louisiana. U.S.
DOA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1-2.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2010. Arizona Game and Fish Heritage Fund 2010
Report to the Arizona Legislature. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-13.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2011. Arizona Statewide Pronghorn Management
Plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-101.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006. Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy: 2005-2015. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-20.
Baker, Beth.1999. Spending on the Endangered Species Act- Too much or not enough?
BioScience, 279.
Barry M. Goldwater Range. 2005. Barry M. Goldwater Range: Military Training and
Protection of Endangered Species. U.S. DOD Air Force, 1-49.
Belenky, Lisa. 2009. RE: 60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue over Violations of Sections 2, 7
and 9 of the Endangered Species Act; Actions Relating to the Endangered and
Management of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and Other Public Lands
in Mono C. Center for Biological Diversity, 1-11.
Black Bear Conservation Coalition. 2010. Black Bear Conservation Coalition Newsletter.
Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 1-16.
Brown, Charles. 2009. Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment
for the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. U.S. Air
Force, 1-399.
Brown, Gardner.1998. Economics and the Endangered Species Act. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 3-20.
Bureau of Land Mangment. 2011. Environmental Assessment Livestock Grazing
Authorization. BLM Bishop Field Office, 1-65.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2010-2011 Annual Report of Recovery
Program: A Decade in Review. California Department of Fish and Game, 1-57.
Cohn, Jeffrey. 2007. Return of the Pronghorn. BioScience, 317-320.
Cohn, Jeffrey .2001. Sonoran Desert Conservation. BioScience, 606-610.
Corns, Barbara. Last-Chance-Restoring the Louisiana Black Bear in Louisiana.
LSUAgCenter.com. Retrieved July 6, 2012 from
87
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/publications/agmag/archive/200
2/spring/last+chance++restoring+the+louisiana+black+Bear+in+louisiana.htm
Crouse, Deborah.2002. Endangered Species Recovery and the SCB Study: A U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Perspective. Ecological Applications, 719-723.
Davidson, Maria. 2010. Louisiana Black Bear: Closer to Success. Louisiana Forest
Stewardship Newsletter, 1-8.
ExpertGlossary.com. Biological Opinion. ExpertGlossary.com. Retrieved May 20, 2012,
from http://www.expertglossary.com/water/definition/biological-opinion-bo.
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2008. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for
the Sonoran Pronghorn . Industrial Economics, Inc, 1-101.
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2009. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for
the Louisiana Black Bear. Industrial Economics, Inc, 1-106.
King, Sammy. 2006. The Role of the Wetland Reserve Program in Conservation Efforts
in the Mississippi River Alluvial Vally. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 914-920.
Krausman, Paul. 2007. Bombing and Sonoran Pronghorn: A Clear and Present Danger?
The Journal of Wildlife Mangement, 2820-2823.
Restani, M.A. 2001. Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act:
Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities. Conservation Biology, 1292-1299.
Shogren, Jason.1999. Why Economics Matters for Endangered Species Recovery.
Conservation Biology, 1257-1261.
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 2011. Environmental Assessment: Research
and Recovery Actions. U.S. DOI National Park Service, 1-104.
Simon, Benjamin. 1995. Allocating Scarce Resources for Endangered Species Recovery.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 415-432.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and
Management Plan 2005-2015. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1-60.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2001. Louisiana Black Bear. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, 1-3.
U.S. Air Force. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposal Range
Enhancements at Barry M. Goldwater Range East. U.S. DOD Airforce, 1-49.
U.S. Border Patrol. 2009. Final Assessment for the Proposed SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project
Ajo Station's Area of Responsibility U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona.
U.S. DOHS Customs and Border Patrol, 3-262.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel
Management. USDA Forest Service, 1-82.
88
U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Protecting
Endangered Species on Military Lands: The Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOD and
U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlfe Service, 1-2.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. DOI
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-59.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1-2.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final
Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis).
U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Intra-Service Biological Opinion for the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Arizona. U.S.
DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-65.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. RE: Biological Opinion for the Permanent Vehicle
Barrier Project on the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-58.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Re: Yazoo Backwater Reformulation Project,
Louisiana Black Bear (43910-2006-I-0397). U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service,
1-8.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn
Sheep. Sacramento, CA, xiv+199.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument General Management Plan and the Bureau of
Land Management’s Five Livestock Grazing Allotments Project in the Vicinity of
Ajo, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-11.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. RE: Biological Opinion for the Proposed
Installation of 5.2 Miles of Primary Fence near Lukeville, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1-56.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Action Plan. U.S.
DOI Fish and Wildlife, 1-6.
89
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. RE: Biological Opinion on SBInet Ajo-1 Tower
Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona.
U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-137.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. RE: West Coast Basing of the MV-22 and
Reinitiation of Formal Section 7 Consultation on Ongoing Acitivities a the Barry
M. Goldwater Range by the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma, Yuma and Maricopa
Counties, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-56.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Final Environmental Assessment for
Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 2, 1-161.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Section7 Consultation
on Military Training on the Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Maricopa, Pima,
and Yuma Counties, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-111.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Recovery Program. U.S. DOI
Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Consulation on the
SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol,
Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-11.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the
SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol,
Tucson Sector, Arizona; Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of
a Forward Operating Base, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. U.S. DOI
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-61.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge Sonoran Pronghorn Supplemental Water and Forage
Project. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-57.
U.S. Marine Corps. 2007. United States Marine Corps Installations Natural Resources
Program. U.S. DOD Marine Corps, 1-28.
U.S. National Park Service. 2010. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Superintendent's 2010 Report on Natural Resource Vital Signs. U.S. DOI
National Park Service, 1-27.
Villarreal, Miguel. 2011. An Inventory and Monitoring Plan for a Sonoran Desert
Ecosystem: Barry M. Goldwater Range-West. U.S. DOI Geological Survey, 1113.
Watson, Mandy. NPS.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from
http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturalscience/Sheep.htm.
90
West, Ben. 2005. Ecology and Management of the Louisiana Black Bear. Mississippi
State University Extension Service, 1-12.
91
Ritter_M2013.pdf