ARIZONA’S COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY: PROCESSES (COMPANION DOCUMENT A) Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 June 28, 2005 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939. RECOMMENDED CITATION Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2005. Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Processes (Companion Document A). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. PROJECT FUNDING Funding for the development of this strategic plan was provided by: Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Fund (Lottery Dollars Working for Wildlife); voluntary contributions to Arizona’s Wildlife Checkoff; Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program; and the State Wildlife Grant Program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Department CWCS Infrastructure and Coordination...................................................................... 1 Revisions to the CWCS within a 10-yr Timeframe (Element 6)................................................. 3 Coordination with Land Management Partners (Element 7)....................................................... 4 Soliciting Broad Public Participation in Developing the CWCS (Element 8) ............................ 5 Multi-Scale Approach..................................................................................................................... 6 Developing Arizona’s CWCS Based on a Landscape Format .................................................... 6 Processes in Developing Arizona’s CWCS .................................................................................. 11 Process for Identifying Species of Conservation Priority (Element 1) ..................................... 11 Assessing Stressors/Threats to Arizona’s Wildlife (Element 3) ............................................... 15 Developing Conservation Strategies and Identifying Information Needs (Element 4)............. 20 Identifying Landscapes of Greatest Conservation Need (Element 2) ....................................... 21 Implementing the CWCS (Element 5).......................................................................................... 24 Adaptive Management and Conservation.................................................................................. 25 Adaptive Conservation under CWCS........................................................................................ 27 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A: CWCS Contact List................................................................................................. 37 Appendix B: Ecoregion Workgroup Participants ......................................................................... 40 Appendix C: CWCS Scientific Review Team .............................................................................. 42 Appendix D: Criteria for Identifying Wildlife of Conservation Priority in Arizona.................... 43 Appendix E: CWCS Database Relational Fields and Instructions ............................................... 53 Appendix F: Other Stressors that were Evaluated ........................................................................ 56 Appendix G: Conservation Strategies that Address Specific Stressors/Threats........................... 57 Appendix H. CWCS Conservation Strategies Linked to Key Partners for Implementation ........ 63 Appendix I. CWCS Conservation Strategies Linked to Department Programs and Focal Areas 68 Appendix J: Field Operations Division Activity Reporting Database.......................................... 72 iii ARIZONA’S COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY: PROCESSES (COMPANION DOCUMENT A) Arizona Game and Fish Department INTRODUCTION The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and Department (Department) serve the people of Arizona as steward of the State's wildlife. These resources are a public trust, managed for the benefit of present and future generations. Under Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17, the Commission and Department are vested with the authority to manage the State’s wildlife. As a funding requirement of the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program (TWW 2003a), Congress charged each of the 56 States and Territories (hereafter referred to as ‘States’) with developing a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” (CWCS). These efforts are being coordinated through the Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) Committee and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies at a national level. To remain eligible for SWG funding, State strategies need to be submitted to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005, for evaluation and approval. This companion document covers the processes used to develop Arizona’s CWCS: • Department infrastructure; • Coordination with external partners; • Outreach and soliciting public involvement; • Multi-scale approach for landscape classification; • Evaluating threats to wildlife and natural habitats; • Identifying species of priority conservation; • Identifying landscapes of greatest conservation need; • Development of the CWCS database; • Identifying and prioritizing conservation strategies and information needs; • Monitoring and adaptive management concepts. DEPARTMENT CWCS INFRASTRUCTURE AND COORDINATION This section describes the various workgroups, teams, and stakeholder meetings that were used to help develop Arizona’s CWCS. Oversight Group: The Department’s Wildlife Management Division and Field Operations Division Assistant Directors, Branch Chiefs in the Wildlife Management Division, Information and Education Division, Development Branch, Law Enforcement Branch, and Funds Planning Section Manager and game and fish resource planners participated in this committee. The Oversight Group (or their alternates) met approximately on a monthly basis to provide direction and vision on development of CWCS (March 2004 through May 2005). Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 2 Specific tasks for the Oversight Group: • Identify potential partners and interested parties (Appendix A); • Promote internal and external outreach of CWCS efforts; • As “process owners,” ensure their staff support CWCS development efforts and meet requested deadlines for deliverables; • Define the format and intent of Wildlife Summits, including survey questions; • Test and evaluate draft threat matrices for the “Ecoregion Workgroup;” • Provide guidance in structuring criteria for species of conservation priority, wildlife conservation strategies, plan revision process, and review of written drafts; • Assist the CWCS Planner in specific information needs, evaluation efforts, facilitating development processes, and preparation for Commission updates. Ecoregion Workgroups: The Department’s CWCS development team included 6 regional leads (1 from each of the 6 regional offices; typically a Habitat or Wildlife Program Manager or Nongame Specialist), 5 Nongame Program Managers (representing taxonomic groups for native birds, mammals, reptiles/amphibians, fish, and invertebrates) or their alternates, the Nongame Statistician, Nongame Senior GIS Analyst, the Heritage Database Management System (HDMS) Manager, CWCS Planner, a contracted planner from The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and game and fisheries specialists. The regional leads, statistician, GIS analyst, and planners were the primary authors of the CWCS plan. Other work unit staff, including representatives in the Oversight Group, assisted in writing various portions of the plan. The CWCS development team met monthly (July 2004 through February 2005). At meetings in August 2004, October 2004, and February 2005, the internal development team was augmented with representatives from State, federal, and tribal land management and regulatory agencies to produce major components of the CWCS. Participation in these meetings is documented in Appendix B. Specific tasks for the Ecoregion Workgroups: • Select a landscape classification system to use in Arizona’s CWCS; • Complete a threat assessment for Arizona’s wildlife and wildlife habitat; • Identify information needs and existing (or planned) operational plans, formal agreements, interagency workgroups, and recovery teams; • Propose and define criteria for wildlife of conservation priority; • Define spatially-relevant conservation goals, strategies (metrics), and monitoring efforts; • Promote internal and external outreach of CWCS efforts; • Assist the CWCS Planner in specific information needs, evaluation efforts, facilitating development processes, and preparation for Commission updates Scientific Review Team: A group of external, recognized experts (university academics, agency professionals, independent scientists, and non-governmental organization specialists) assisted the Department in reviewing draft components of the CWCS: threat assessment, priority species criteria, and conservation strategies. This effort served as an informal peer-review process of Arizona’s CWCS. Participation in this team was voluntary. Individuals on the team were involved in the CWCS review process in April and May 2005 (Appendix C). Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 3 REVISIONS TO THE CWCS WITHIN A 10-YR TIMEFRAME (ELEMENT 6) The Oversight Group developed a schedule for review and revising Arizona’s CWCS (Table A). This review process will be synchronized with the Department’s 2-year budget planning cycle that is approved by the State’s Executive and Legislative branches. Arizona’s CWCS will be evaluated internally prior to the start of each 2-yr budget process to allow the Department opportunities to amend the CWCS to address changing priorities, variations in landscape and environmental conditions, and to adaptively manage based on wildlife and habitat responses to conservation actions or treatments. A “CWCS Implementation Team,” likely comprised of Department representatives from the Oversight Group and Ecoregion Workgroup, will conduct the 2-yr cycle internal reviews. Table A. Schedule for CWCS review and revision aligned with the Department’s budget cycle. FY05 July-1-2004 to June-30-2005 FY06 July-1-2005 to June-30-2006 Develop initial CWCS plan Submit CWCS for approval in July 2005 Budget process CWCS 10-yr timeframe FY11 July-1-2010 to June-30-2011 FY07 July-1-2006 to June-30-2007 Internal review - amend CWCS by Apr 2012 FY09 July-1-2008 to June-30-2009 Internal review - amend CWCS by Apr 2008 2-yr budget process Year 1 FY12 July-1-2011 to June-30-2012 FY08 July-1-2007 to June-30-2008 Year 2 FY13 July-1-2012 to June-30-2013 4-yr review partners / public in Feb 2010 2-yr budget process Year 3 FY14 July-1-2013 to June-30-2014 4-yr review partners / public in Feb 2014 FY10 July-1-2009 to June-30-2010 Year 4 FY15 July-1-2014 to June-30-2015 Budget process Year 5 FY16 July-1-2015 to June-30-2016 Internal review amend CWCS by Apr 2016 Budget 2-yr budget 2-yr budget Budget process process process process Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 1 Note: State fiscal year (FY) is not aligned with the Federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30 of the following year). Each 2-yr budget cycle process starts in Spring of the second half of the fiscal year, with the proposed budget to the Commission in June, the State’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budget review in August, and to the State Legislature in January of the next fiscal year. Every 4 years, the Department will conduct a detailed evaluation of CWCS progress on conservation strategies, species status, important stressors, and solicit partner and public input. Critical partners and key stakeholders will be asked to participate in the 4-yr reviews with the Department’s CWCS Implementation Team. Constituent input will be solicited using a series of Wildlife Summit workshops, online surveys, and/or open forum meetings. The 4-yr evaluation and revision are intended to allow 2 “mid-course” corrections within the anticipated 10-year timeframe of the CWCS. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 4 COORDINATION WITH LAND MANAGEMENT PARTNERS (ELEMENT 7) The Department regularly communicates and coordinates with numerous federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as well as private landowners, as partners in wildlife conservation planning and implementation. For the CWCS development, the Department invited all federal, state, and tribal land management and natural resource regulatory offices to participate in the Ecoregion Workgroup meetings and Wildlife Summit workshops. Table B lists external partners in both the Ecoregion Workgroup and with Wildlife Summits that helped assist in developing Arizona’s CWCS. Table B. Department partners and interested parties that assisted in developing the CWCS (with the Ecoregion Workgroup or Wildlife Summits). Agency acronyms are included. Federal Land Management/Regulatory Agencies: USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USFS US Forest Service BLM Bureau of Land Management NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service FHA Federal Highways Administration USDA-WS US Dept of Agriculture-Wildlife Services USBR DOD DHS US Bureau of Reclamation Dept of Defense Dept of Homeland Security-Border Patrol State/Tribal Land Management/Regulatory Entities: ADHS Arizona Dept of Health Services ADA Arizona Dept of Agriculture ASLD Arizona State Land Dept (GIS section) ASP Arizona State Parks ADEQ Arizona Dept of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Dept of Transportation Arizona National Guard-Dept of AZ-DEMA Emergency and Military Affairs ADWR Arizona Dept of Water Resources Hualapai Tribe Hopi Tribe Non-Governmental Organizations, Local Governments, and Various Stakeholder Workgroups: The Nature Conservancy Wildlife Conservation Council Arizona Audubon Council Desert Flycasters Arizona ATV Riders Desert Foothills Land Trust Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Mohave Sportsman Club Coconino Sportsmen Arizona Heritage Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Arizona Native Plant Society Defenders of Wildlife, SW Center Arizona Quail Alliance Wildlands Project Arizona Wildlife Federation Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum Sky Islands Alliance Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory Animal Defense League of Arizona Tucson Herpetological Association Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter Maricopa County Parks and Rec Pima Association of Governments The Phoenix Zoo Habitat Partnership Committees Habitat Connectivity Committee All Birds Conservation Initiative Intermountain West Joint Venture Sonoran Joint Venture Partners In Flight Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation White Mt Crayfish Working Group Native Fish Conservation Team National Fish Habitat Initiative Mohave County Town of Superior Town of Wickenburg The Department has numerous formal partnerships through Memorandums of Understanding, conservation agreements, recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, and various agreements with external agencies, tribes, local governments, and non-government organizations. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 5 SOLICITING BROAD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPING THE CWCS (ELEMENT 8) Wildlife Summits: Representatives of state and federal land management and regulatory agencies, tribal, municipal, and county governments, universities, special interest groups, agriculture and livestock affiliations, private landowner/rancher representatives, power and water utilities, sportsman groups, environmental-conservation groups, outdoor recreational groups, and land trusts were invited to participate in a series of CWCS workshops. These “Wildlife Summit” workshops were designed to address values, perceptions, and priorities for Arizona’s wildlife and natural resources among a wide diversity of the Department’s constituencies. Four summits were held in October 2004. Two summits were in Phoenix (an agency/tribal summit on October 15 and a constituency summit on October 16) and 1 each in Flagstaff (October 23) and Tucson (October 30). For constituents, agency/tribal representatives, and the general public that were unable to attend the workshops, an online summit survey was available November 15–December 6, 2004. Each summit was designed to accommodate up to 100 invited/registered participants (from the CWCS contact list of potential partners) to provide directed feedback on 3 topics: 1) the Department’s 12 general challenges (policies and statutory roles); 2) identify and rank important stressors/threats affecting wildlife and natural habitats statewide; and 3) identify and rank important criteria for determining species of conservation priority. Each summit participant used a CoNexus® wireless keypad to respond to a prepared set of survey questions (dual-pair comparisons were used in each of the 3 topics). The online survey, hosted on an external website (subcontracted vendor: Idea Sciences), also used the CoNexus® software to process user input. Gunn Communications, Inc. (a contracted vendor) facilitated the workshops, provided and operated the electronic response system, and compiled results for the Department. Constituency summits were held on Saturdays (as directed by the Commission), and the agency/tribal summit was held on a workday. The Wildlife Summit surveys documented stakeholder and public perceptions of wildlife and habitat issues specific to components of Arizona’s CWCS. Results from the workshops and the online survey are found in supporting documents to Arizona’s CWCS (Gunn 2005a, 2005b). Responsive Management Surveys: To better establish a foundation for the CWCS, the Department also relied on perspectives from a series of public opinion surveys (reports from telephone interviews and sponsored workshops) on various wildlife and outdoor recreation topics. These surveys were conducted between 2001 and 2004: • • • Report of the Flagstaff and Phoenix Mountain Lion Workshops - August 2004. (AGFD 2004a). Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends. Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Aiken 2004) Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Survey—Arizona: January 2004 (Behavior Research Center 2004) Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) • • • • • • June 28, 2005 Page 6 Arizona Residents’ Opinions on the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its Activities – 2004 (Responsive Management 2004) Economic Impact Analysis of Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation in Arizona May 2003 (Southwick Associates 2003) Arizona Residents’ Opinions on the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its Activities - March 2003 (Responsive Management 2003a) Arizona Residents’ Attitudes Toward Nongame Wildlife - February 2003 (Responsive Management 2003b) The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation for the State of Arizona (Silberman 2002). Jonathan Silberman, School of Management, Arizona State University. The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting for the State of Arizona (Silberman 2001). Jonathan Silberman, School of Management, Arizona State University. A CWCS webpage on the Department’s website (http://www.azgfd.com/w_c/cwcs.shtml) was launched in July 2004, concurrent with a press release that reached approximately 16,000 email subscribers, media, and partner groups. Press releases, postal mailings, phone calls, and email notifications were made to the 400+ groups/agencies/individuals on the CWCS contact list (Appendix A) in 2004 and early 2005. The CWCS webpage had a comment field for soliciting input from the public and partners on issues and concerns with developing the Arizona plan. Fifty-two CWCS-related comments were received from the Department’s CWCS webpage between July 2004 and May 2005. Twelve additional comments on the CWCS effort were received through correspondence with the CWCS Planner or at Department-hosted events. In late April and early May 2005, the Department hosted a series of open forum public meetings statewide at the start of the 30-day public review of the draft CWCS plan. These meetings were held on weeknights after the business day, and were hosted at each of the Department’s regional offices at least once and the headquarters office twice. Background presentations on the CWCS and the draft plan were coupled with a question/answer session and opportunities for individuals to provide comments. Forty-two constituents and members of the general public participated in these meetings, and provided 110 comments. All relevant comments received were considered in developing Arizona’s CWCS. Department managers and the Commission reviewed all CWCS-related comments during the development phase of the CWCS in late 2004 and early 2005. MULTI-SCALE APPROACH DEVELOPING ARIZONA’S CWCS BASED ON A LANDSCAPE FORMAT One traditional focus of conservation efforts has been on protecting populations of rare, threatened, or endangered species (White and others 1997). More recently efforts have moved towards identifying and protecting parcels of land believed to contain highly diverse assemblages of various species. These approaches, albeit for different reasons, fall short of providing a comprehensive framework for the Department to allocate its financial and personnel resources. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 7 The cost and effort involved in rescuing a few species can quickly grow out of proportion to the contribution of those species to overall biodiversity and may not be the most efficient or effective use of limited resources. In addition, this approach does nothing to assure the continuing well-being of other, more common species which are also under Department stewardship. Conservation of areas with high biodiversity better addresses the needs of many species by conserving the underlying resources upon which they depend. The Department is not a major land management agency; Department land holdings (Wildlife Areas, hatcheries, office complexes, and the Ben Avery Shooting Facility) represent only about 0.05% of the total area in the State. Instead, the Department must rely on cooperation with its conservation partners to influence their management decisions to include the needs of wildlife and wildlife habitat. In addition, many of the species under Department stewardship, from large ungulates to migratory birds, range over large areas with little regard for management boundaries. In this regard, management must be done at various spatial scales to address the needs of a very diverse wildlife population across a state that is rapidly becoming more influenced by human activities. As the human population of Arizona continues to grow at an increasing rate (U.S. Census Bureau 2005), the effects of human activity will put more stress on wildlife. Urban and rural growth in conjunction with increased recreation pressures often result in habitat fragmentation, deterioration, or complete habitat loss which The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has found to be the greatest threat to species worldwide (Baillie and others 2004). Therefore, stress due to human activities is expected to further impact wildlife in the future. Effective conservation planning must take into account not only the needs of the species, but also the needs of the human population and the effects of human activities on those species and their habitats. What is needed is a multi-scale conservation approach aimed at recovering species that are already at risk while simultaneously preventing further imperilment through habitat conservation. Such an approach requires knowing which species are vulnerable and which human activities threaten them (Pulliam and Babbitt 1997). To prevent further impacts to wildlife and to more effectively use available conservation resources, the Department has adopted a two-pronged approach to conservation planning (Fig.1), that will allow the Department and its partners to concentrate efforts on a landscape scale, benefiting many species, while continuing ongoing species-specific actions as necessary. This approach is proactive by benefiting both vulnerable and common species by managing for the resources upon which wildlife depend. In order to accomplish those goals, a number of processes were designed so that one can determine the level of vulnerability for a given species, the threat level of any number of stressors, and the landscapes of high conservation priority (Fig. 2). Other factors influence priority decision-making: policies and legal requirements, stakeholder values, multi-use directives, partnership opportunities, available funding and personnel, and feasibility. The left side of Figure 1 is the landscape focus approach that results in development of wide ranging actions meant to benefit a large number of species through habitat conservation. The classic definition of habitat is the environment in which an animal of a certain species can survive and reproduce or, more simply, any place where the species occurs (Odum 1971). Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 8 Figure 1. Two-pronged approach to wildlife conservation planning in Arizona’s CWCS. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 9 Threat Matrix Priorities Species Vulnerabitlity Landscape Analysis Figure 2. The interaction of 3 processes used in identifying CWCS priorities. Additional social, economic, and administrative factors influence the setting of priorities. Often times, a vegetation type or aquatic system is used as a proxy for habitat. Many animal species are closely associated with specific vegetation types or aquatic systems. This oversimplified definition of habitat fails to capture the spatial dimensions inherent in habitat. In reality, habitat must be defined at a scale appropriate to the organism of interest. For example, a remnant patch of desert vegetation in an urban environment might be more than sufficient to support a population of Gambel’s quail, but would be seriously inadequate for a population of pronghorn antelope. Furthermore, simply protecting large natural areas from degradation is not enough to insure healthy ecosystems and habitats. One must also consider the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of ecosystems (Sanderson and others 2002). Landscapes are not consistent in physical structure or vegetation types, but are composed of a number of different elements or patches dispersed throughout a spatial pattern, which are in a state of constant change (Pickett and Cadenasso 1995; Koehler 2000). This heterogeneity (= mixed diversity) is created and maintained by underlying geomorphological features such as: soil and topography; disturbance processes such as fire or human activities (Pickett and White 1985; Barton 1994); climate and microclimate effects (Allen and Breshears 1998); environmental gradients (Allen and Peet 1990; Barton 1994); and sometimes the organisms themselves, like Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 10 beavers (Wright and others 2002) and humans. This variability in habitat results in a non-random dispersion of wildlife and humans across the landscape. Most wildlife and humans tend to concentrate their activities in those areas that are best suited to their needs. At some scale, many organisms rely on landscape heterogeneity for survival. A good example of this is an amphibian that spends a large part of its life in a terrestrial habitat but must return to an aquatic habitat to reproduce. Many other organisms also use multiple habitats, rely on temporary or permanent concentrations of resources, and move around the landscape in non-random ways according to the distribution of resources (Gardner and others 1989; Szacki and Liro 1991; Etzenhouser 1998; McIntyre and Wiens 1999). Questions that might be asked include: does the species depend on large, contiguous areas of habitat or can it tolerate (or even require) some level of non-contiguous or fragmented habitat? If the species uses different habitat types, how must those types be interspersed and connected in a landscape? In other words, not only the spatial extent, but the spatial distribution of habitat patches on the landscape is important. Furthermore, movement between patches must be assured through the presence of appropriate corridors. Given the complexity of defining habitat for a single species, defining habitat for the approximately 21,000 species of wildlife in Arizona would be nearly impossible. For Arizona’s CWCS, types of vegetation community or riparian/aquatic systems are used as a proxy for habitat, understanding that within any one landscape there are many different habitats at multiple scales. By conserving as much of a given habitat as possible and advocating management of those landscapes to assure heterogeneity and connectivity, the Department hopes to benefit all of the species that inhabit that landscape. To facilitate conservation of many species acting at different scales, Arizona’s CWCS uses a multi-scale approach to classifying landscapes within Arizona. Specifically, there are 4 levels of classification: 1. Statewide - Coarse scale to address issues that are ubiquitous throughout Arizona. 2. Ecoregion - Wide, regional collections of species and the resources upon which they depend. The ecoregions are modified from those used by TNC in their ecoregional assessments. TNC’s ecoregions are based on and closely follow the U.S. Forest Service ECOMAP framework (Bailey 1994, 1995, 1998). Table C delineates the close association between TNC’s ecoregions and Bailey’s provinces. At this level, wide, regional collections of species and the resources upon which they depend are addressed. Cooperation with neighboring states and sovereign nations is also addressed at this level. This classification was adopted because the coverage extends past Arizona’s borders into Mexico, tribal lands, and other States—which is anticipated to help facilitate conservation partnerships with those entities. There are 6 identified ecoregions for Arizona’s CWCS: Apache Highlands North Apache Highlands South Sonoran Desert Mohave Desert Colorado Plateau Arizona-New Mexico Mountains Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 11 3. Landscapes - This level is defined by the 14 vegetation communities delineated by Brown and Lowe (1974) and 3 riparian/aquatic systems. This level addresses stressors/threats to wildlife that live in similar habitats or communities. 4. Site Specific - Fine scale for the conservation of wildlife populations with very specific habitat needs. This level also captures specific landscape features, such as: snags, nesting cavities, and caves—which are necessary for the well being of many species. Table C. Landscape classification schemes in Arizona: a crosswalk of TNC’s Ecoregions and Bailey’s Sections. All relationships are approximate since TNC edited the boundaries of Bailey’s Sections in Arizona for their ecoregional assessments. TNC’s Ecoregions Apache Highlands--North (AHN) Apache Highlands--South (AHS) Arizona-New Mexico Mountains (AZNM) Colorado Plateau (CP) Mojave Desert (MD) Sonoran Desert (SD) Bailey’s Sections Tonto Transition Basin and Range White Mountain – San Francisco Peaks Grand Canyon Lands, Navajo Canyon Lands, Painted Desert Mojave Desert Sonoran Colorado PROCESSES IN DEVELOPING ARIZONA’S CWCS PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING SPECIES OF CONSERVATION PRIORITY (ELEMENT 1) The Department’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) maintains a list of all species reported to exist in Arizona. The HDMS list was checked against other species lists compiled by taxon-based programs (game species, sport fish, nongame mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, native fish, crustaceans and mollusks) in the Department’s Wildlife Management Division. The Department uses several Commission-approved species lists for funding eligibility among various sources: Arizona’s Heritage Fund Program (a portion of Arizona Lottery revenues), and federal appropriations under the ESA Section 6 Grants, Sport Fish Restoration Act (DingellJohnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts), Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), and Landowner Incentive Program. In working with other cooperators on regional, national, and international efforts, the Department relies on collaborative plans to address broad, taxon-related conservation needs—for example: Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich and others 2004), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown and others 2001), and Arizona Bat Conservation Strategic Plan (Hinman and Snow 2003). Much of the previous funding for nongame species depended on the legal protective status of wildlife (ESA-listed threatened or endangered, candidates, or of State special concern). The 1988 Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona (TNW; AGFD 1988) list of species is used for Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 12 Department rules governing scientific collection permits and wildlife holding permits. The March 16, 1996 version of Wildlife of Special Concern of Arizona (WSCA; AGFD in prep) identifies wildlife in Arizona that are regarded from a state perspective as either extinct, extirpated, endangered, or threatened. The WSCA list is used by Department cooperators and outside contractors for projects developed and reviewed under environmental compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, ESA, and other federal laws. The CWCS list of wildlife will build upon these previous efforts, and function in a broader scope—identifying management actions that benefit all species under species-specific or landscape-level (= wildlife community) scales. The complete list of wildlife in Arizona’s CWCS is designated as the ‘Master Species List.’ It includes the wildlife identified from the previously mentioned lists and compilations of resident and migratory species in Arizona by external partners and academics. The master list was further refined by Department taxon leads to ensure that wildlife were identified at the level they are managed. For some species, management is at the level of individual populations (for example desert tortoise), while other species are managed at the specific or sub-specific level. The Department only considered those species whose survival depends on the quality of habitat in Arizona. Accidental and casual bird migrants were not included on the list of Arizona wildlife, nor were those species with anecdotal or unconfirmed sightings. Feral mammals and most exotic or pet trade species that reside in Arizona were not included on the species list, but are addressed in the threat assessment under the “Nuisance animals” category. The extensive list of macroinvertebrates (insects and arachnids) is currently not included in the species criteria evaluation due to insufficient data to adequately assess their management needs. In the interim, habitats may be used as a proxy for managing these species in a wildlife community context. Criteria Used to Evaluate Species for Conservation Priority (Element 1): For Element 1 of Arizona’s CWCS, the Department is required to identify wildlife of conservation priority— described nationally as “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” (WGCN). Arizona’s Title 17 language describes “wildlife” as all vertebrate species plus crustaceans and mollusks—those species which the Department has statutory responsibility for managing. The SWG Program (developed in cooperation with the TWW Committee and mandated by the U.S. Congress) identifies “wildlife” as all species of vertebrates and macroinvertebrates, including insects and arachnids. While many state wildlife agencies do not have legal responsibility for insects and arachnids, some of their CWCS partners—federal, tribal, and other State agencies do have jurisdiction for these taxa. For the CWCS to be truly comprehensive in managing Arizona’s wildlife, the Department must address the full array of wildlife in the state—game species, nongame species, sport fish, natives, and exotics. This evaluation process is designed to be flexible in regards to funding opportunities, legal requirements, and priorities of the Department, partners, and constituents. For this reason, a large subset of identified wildlife of conservation priority is expected, and necessary, to allow flexibility in using various funding sources (SWG monies in combination with existing federal grants through ESA Section 6 funds, Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 13 appropriations, Landowner Incentive Program monies, and state-matched funding through the Arizona Heritage Fund, Wildlife Conservation Fund, Wildlife Check-off and other donations). Arizona’s CWCS uses 5 categories (Table D) that reflect separate, independent ways in which a species might warrant priority conservation designation. Within the 5 categories, there are 17 specific criteria that were evaluated for each wildlife species in Arizona (Appendix D). These specific criteria were adapted from a list of WGCN concepts to consider by the TWW Committee (TWW 2003b), stakeholder input through Arizona’s Wildlife Summit workshops (Gunn 2005a) and online summit survey (Gunn 2005b), Department staff, and external land management and natural resource regulatory agencies and tribes (Appendix B). Species of conservation priority in the CWCS should be representative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife populations. Table D. Categories for describing conservation status of wildlife in Arizona. Species were rated using the associated criteria under each category. Category: Community Focal Category: Responsibility Category: Vulnerability Category: Social or Economic Value Category: Data Sufficiency Keystone and strongly interactive species Home range size Habitat quality indicators Responsibility status Administrative protection status on tribal lands in Arizona Administrative protection status in Mexico Federal or state legal status (ESA and WSCA) Extirpated status Imperiled status (Heritage global rank) Declining status Disjunct status Demographic status Concentration status Element occurrence (includes endemics) Fragmentation status Social or economic value All criteria used to score “Vulnerability” category—priority species are those for which there is not sufficient information to rate this species for ‘Vulnerability’ Relationships of Criteria, Category Scores, and Conservation Status: Species were prioritized within categories, but not among categories. That is, “Community Focal” species have no inherent priority over “Vulnerability” species, because the Department needs to address both of these categories in managing Arizona’s wildlife. Priority species are those that scored high (a ‘1’ rating) among 3 status levels (1=high, 2=medium, 3=low) for at least one of the 5 categories (Appendix D). Priority species in the first 4 categories are important targets of conservation; those in the ‘Data Sufficiency’ category are priorities for baseline surveys. Many of the 17 criteria overlap in conservation concepts or previous evaluative efforts (ESA listings or candidate reviews, WSCA, interagency sensitive species lists, and Heritage/IUCN assessments). Department taxon leads also solicited input from agency staff and outside experts to generate ratings of species for the other criteria. Department staff also used published Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 14 literature and external species occurrence resources to document wildlife abundance and distribution in Arizona. In developing the CWCS master species list of wildlife in Arizona, taxon leads and species experts identified which ecoregions and landscapes that crustaceans, mollusks, and vertebrate species used or resided in. This information is compiled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that will be converted into a relational database and GIS layer. Other macroinvertebrates will be assessed in a later iteration of the CWCS, when more information on their occurrence and status is available. Wildlife Summit participants also suggested that “future threats to wildlife and natural habitats” and “potential for recovery and conservation success” are factors that should be considered in identifying wildlife of conservation priority (Gunn 2005a, 2005b). Both of those concepts are imbedded in the CWCS conservation goals and strategies section, operational plans for species and habitat management, and decision-making processes of the Department and its partners for funding wildlife-related projects. The Department manages species at either the species level or subspecies level, depending on various factors such as: legal requirements and protections, interagency coordination, stakeholder concerns, funding eligibility, national or international reporting conventions, and/or taxonomic determinations through scientific documentation. Counts of wildlife for Arizona’s CWCS may not therefore correspond exactly to counts on other Department species lists or narratives. Connecting Species to CWCS Landscapes: Using the ecoregion and biotic communities established for Arizona’s CWCS, Department taxon leads recorded which landscapes were important in the species annual lifecycle. When possible, it was noted if existing species use these landscapes for breeding or non-breeding activities, or which landscapes were previously occupied by extirpated species. Information used to establish species distributions ranged in quality, so evaluators also scored levels of confidence in their understanding the distribution of species (Table E). Wildlife of conservation priority for each ecoregion are listed in the CWCS State of the State (Companion Document B – Appendix A). Table E. Scoring used to report confidence in species distribution and threats to species. Rating 1 2 3 4 Confidence level Completely confident Somewhat confident Info from possibly outdated sources Not confident Evaluating Habitat Requirements and Information Needs for Priority Species: Presently, the Department does not have detailed habitat requirements for all priority species. Most research and baseline information for wildlife in Arizona is lacking information on habitat needs (or thresholds) for survival, but rather most documentation identifies suitable or preferred habitats. Arizona’s Natural Heritage Program (Arizona’s HDMS) abstracts, in use by most of the States, cooperating agencies, and tribes, are the most logical place to document species abundance, distribution, habitat needs, and associated stressor/threat information. Additional information on the status and distribution of Arizona’s wildlife are documented in hundreds of existing technical Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 15 reports developed by the Department’s Research Branch and Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, as well as game management surveys by the Department’s regional offices and Game Branch. HDMS abstracts for Arizona wildlife are available through the Department website (http://azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml). At this time, approximately a third of all Arizona CWCS priority species have written HDMS abstracts. Some of these abstracts and related GIS data are outdated, but new and updated abstracts are being added to the HDMS each month. Also, current standards for information to include in the abstracts are not yet directly related to information needs and objectives of the CWCS. The Department is in the process of hiring a wildlife diversity review biologist to increase the development of new HDMS abstracts and oversee the updates of existing abstracts. The initial years for implementing the CWCS represent an opportunity for the Department to develop consistent reporting guidelines, and use the resulting HDMS abstracts directly in the CWCS planning and reporting procedures. Taxon experts were asked to evaluate their confidence in the Department’s ability to gain an accurate and complete description of habitat requirements for each of the priority species identified (ratings as in Table E). This rating process was also used to evaluate confidence in understanding the most significant stressors/threats to each priority species. ASSESSING STRESSORS/THREATS TO ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE (ELEMENT 3) Arizona’s biodiversity–the number and types of species and genetic resources–is the result of the climate, geography, and biological history of this region. The biological resources of Arizona are not a random assemblage, but a co-evolved one. The ability to conserve these resources now and into the future depends on the ability to integrate human activities into the landscapes in a way that least disturbs Arizona’s ecosystems. Not all human activities are equally disruptive of the natural processes in this State, so the most effective conservation will address stressors/threats that have the largest impact, and those that are emerging in the next decade. Generating a Comprehensive List of Stressors/Threats in Arizona: To develop a list of potential stressors/threats to wildlife and natural habitats in Arizona, Department staff adapted national conventions for describing categories and classes of threats (CMP 2004a). This framework was used by many other States in their CWCS plans as a standard for naming and defining threats, and will aid in addressing and working on multi-state conservation issues. (Table F). State, federal, and tribal partners assisted the Department in conducting a detailed threat assessment for the CWCS that identified important stressors/threats specific to wildlife resources in Arizona. In this assessment, landscapes were used as a surrogate for wildlife in evaluating important stressors/threats. Terrestrial and aquatic landscapes contain habitats and other resources that support wildlife communities and populations of rare or at risk species. Many identified stressors/threats in Arizona’s threat assessment are based on legal and accepted recreational or economic pursuits, national security actions, or for public safety/use. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 16 Table F. National convention of threat categories and classes (modified from CMP 2004a) used in the 2004 CWCS threat assessment. All threat classes were evaluated, but not all were included in conservation strategies for the first iteration of Arizona’s CWCS. Threat Category Threat Class Housing and urban development Agricultural operations Habitat Conversion - Intentional conversion of natural habitat that is detrimental to wildlife use and survival; causes loss or degradation of wildlife habitat and available forage. Transportation and Infrastructure - Development of corridors/passages for transportation use, movement of resources, and relaying communications; increases wildlife mortality and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Abiotic Resource Use - Extraction or use of rock, minerals, metals, fuels, and water; causes direct or indirect impacts to wildlife habitat. Recreation areas Destructive resource harvesting Management of nature to improve human welfare Military activities Roads Railroads Overhead utility lines and towers Shipping Lanes Drilling Mining Water use Hunting, trapping, and fishing Consumptive Use of Biological Resources - Harvest or use of plant and animal populations that impacts wildlife distribution and fitness, or ecosystem processes. Gathering Forest and woodland management Grazing Motor-powered recreation Non-consumptive Resource Use - Activities that have an incidental but negative impact to wildlife or their habitats. Non-motorized recreation Military activities Scientific research Chemicals and toxins Pollution - Introduction and spread of unwanted matter and energy into ecosystems from point and non-point sources; causes increased mortality of wildlife and degradation of their habitats and available forage. Nutrient loads Solid waste Waste or residual materials Noise from low-level flights Light pollution Invasive Species - Introduction and/or spread of unwanted exotic and native organisms into ecosystems; increases wildlife predation, competition, and reduced fitness or loss of wildlife habitat and available forage. Climate Change - Long-term changes linked to global warming and ozone depletion; causes increased mortality of wildlife and degradation of their habitats and available forage. Changes in Ecological Processes - Alteration of ecological processes outside of the natural range of variation, to the detriment of wildlife and their habitats. Invasive plants Invasive animals Pathogens Introduced genetic material Habitat shifting and alteration Climate variability Habitat-wide processes Species-linked processes Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 17 Under the classes, stressors are listed and described so that their relevance is in a statewide context. For instance, the threat category ‘Habitat Conversion’ is universally understood to mean loss or destruction of natural habitat; change in land use may further habitat fragmentation and/or degradation. Under the category of ‘Habitat Conversion,’ all States using this convention will include a class for ‘Recreational sites and facilities,’ but only some States will highlight ‘ski resorts’ as a specific stressor. A detailed threat assessment was used to identify and evaluate a list of stressors/threats to wildlife and natural habitats in Arizona. For stressors/threats acting at the landscape scale, the assessment: 1) described the extent to which each stressor/threat is an issue now or is expected to become an issue in the near future; and 2) described the extent of understanding how these stressors/threats act through ecosystem processes by affecting species diversity, resilience, and primary productivity. Important stressors/threats to wildlife and wildlife habitat were identified by ecoregion in Table F of the CWCS State of the State-Companion Document B. Stressors/threats that were ranked at lower importance to landscapes or ecosystem processes are listed in Appendix F. During the 2004 threat assessment, Ecoregion Workgroup participants identified stressors that were unique or of greater influence to borderland areas in both the Sonoran Desert and Apache Highlands South ecoregions. “Border Issues” include direct or indirect impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat from illegal immigration or smuggling traffic and enforcement efforts. Trade-Offs to Make a Comprehensive Threat Assessment Less Complex: In these assessments, there are some trade-offs related to the Department’s attempts to make the threats open to evaluation by wildlife and habitat experts. One trade-off is that each stressor/threat is identified in the fashion it is most easily understood. For example, the impacts of recreational facilities are many and diffuse, but are traditionally and most effectively addressed at the point source, so resource managers tend to consider these impacts (from habitat conversion, pesticide and fertilizer use, water consumption) under one heading. Other stressors/threats arise from nonpoint sources, and are addressed by managers where they have impacts. Thus, “soil erosion” arises from many sources, but managers are aware of it by its impacts. In order for stressors/threats to be described as they are perceived by resource managers, there should be no expectation that individual stressors/threats are mutually exclusive. Since different stressors/threats may measure the same activity, there is no way to effectively add together the impact of all stressors in a given landscape. For example, roads are constructed in the service of livestock and agriculture operations, public utility maintenance, woodland and forest management, off-highway vehicle recreation, etc. All of these activities are treated separately as potential stressors/threats, as is road building itself. It would therefore not be reasonable to add together the magnitude of all these threats in a landscape. Interactions between potential stressors/threats were not considered, due to the magnitude of such a task. There are essentially an infinite number of ways to consider interactions among a list of approximately 70 individual potential stressors. It is clear that some of the individual stressors that were evaluated are also interrelated in ways that have significant impacts on wildlife and Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 18 natural habitats. For example, “non-native plant invasion,” “road building,” and “altered fire regimes” present risks to wildlife that could be addressed collectively. Evaluating Stressors / Threats in Arizona’s Landscapes: Representatives from State and federal land management agencies, natural resource regulatory authorities, and Native American tribes were invited to participate in a threat assessment for Arizona’s CWCS. Two Ecoregion Workgroup meetings were held in August 2004, one in Phoenix for the southern half of the State and one in Flagstaff for the northern half. Participants worked in break-out groups representing each ecoregion (Table C) where they provided local expertise in evaluating stressors/threats. To ensure a comprehensiveness of this assessment, teams of at least 10 people who had expertise in ecosystems and particular species or taxonomic groups were formed for each ecoregion (Appendix B). Each group was asked to evaluate impacts from each stressor/threat in terms of the individual components: Magnitude, Urgency, and Reversibility, using the ratings low, medium, high, or extreme (Table G). Participants were asked to score these 3 components for each vegetation community or riparian/aquatic system within in each ecoregion. All together, these components describe the extent to which ecosystem processes and associated wildlife are perturbed by these stressors/threats. After the August 2004 meetings, the assessments were completed in smaller groups after having established which cooperators were concerned about stressors in different regions of the State. Table G. Rating criteria for components used to estimate the importance of each stressor/threat in the Arizona CWCS threat assessment (adapted from Salafsky and others [2003]). Component: Magnitude Rating: Extreme (4) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Area Affected: Throughout (>50%) Widespread (15-50%) Scattered (5-15%) Local or none (<5%) Or % Targets Affected: Most or all (>50%) Many (25-50%) Some (5-20%) Few or none (>5%) Or Degree of Impact: Severe damage or loss Significant damage Moderate damage Little or no damage Component: Urgency Rating: Extreme (4) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Time that impacts start: Current (<1 yr) Imminent (1-3 yrs) Near-term (3-10 yrs Long-term (>10 yrs) Likelihood of threat in next 10 yrs: Existing (100%) High probability (50-99%) Moderate probability (10-49%) Low probability or None (0-9%) Component: Reversibility Rating: Extreme (4) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Degree to which effects of threats can be reversed: Irreversible Reversible with difficulty and high expense/effort Reversible with some difficulty and moderate expense/effort Easily reversible at low expense/effort Analysis of Important Threats at Various Landscape Levels: Once individual stressors/threats were scored, the importance of each stressor per landscape was rated as low, medium, high, or extreme based on the Magnitude, Urgency, and Reversibility components. The ratings were Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 19 translated into scores of 1, 2, 3, or 4, respectively. Next, values for the 3 components were multiplied together, and their cube-root taken to get an overall importance value that also ranged from 1 to 4. Stressors evaluated to have a high (3) to extreme (4) level of impact to landscape structures or processes were flagged for developing a list of conservation strategies and actions/opportunities. After identifying the relative importance of each stressor/threat in each landscape, further analysis revealed the number of landscapes in an ecoregion where that stressor was significant. These assessments were not used to describe the level (or summation) of stressors experienced in any one landscape. In a large and complex landscape with a wide range of dissimilar and interacting threats and effects, few measurements are strictly additive or linear. For example, there is little meaning in adding or multiplying pollution rankings to a rank expressing the threat from introduced nuisance plants. However, it is useful to know that a particular landscape has extreme impacts from both pollution contaminant and introduced nuisance plants. Identifying Important Stressors/Threats to Wildlife: Some stressors/threats to wildlife in Arizona are direct, while others act indirectly through changes to the landscapes, ecosystems, and communities that these species occur in. There are over 800 vertebrate, crustacean, and mollusk taxa in Arizona; to evaluate each taxon by associated stressors and their respective life histories was not feasible under the CWCS development timeframe in 2004-05. Instead, the evaluation of stressors on landscapes and ecosystem processes was completed first, rather than considering the magnitude of each stressor to all 800+ individual taxa. Any stressors/threats deemed to be significant at the landscape level then become a greater priority for conservation actions and opportunities, with an anticipated reduction in risk to whole communities of species. The teams that assessed the importance for each stressor/threat per ecoregion also evaluated their understanding of the mechanisms by which these stressors/threats act through the landscape to impact wildlife populations. This connection, which may be captured in a conceptual model of effects, illustrates the links in the effect chain that might be most amenable to conservation activities. These conceptual models can highlight where information is lacking about specific mechanisms or about the magnitude and directness of particular steps in the process. For each stressor/threat that was rated as important, a comprehensive list of immediate effects in the landscape class was developed, but complete conceptual models were not built to tie these effects to community characteristics such as productivity, biodiversity, species assemblages, etc. Building complete conceptual models may be a valuable exercise in the future, but was not necessary at this stage to put together Arizona’s first CWCS. Other stressors/threats may not have severe or widespread effects across Arizona’s landscapes (Appendix F), but they may represent important threats to priority species. The next part of the threat assessment asked whether additional stressors/threats require attention in the near future due to probable impacts to important species. This evaluation followed the designation of priority species and is not complete at this time. A CWCS relational database was created (Appendix E) to compile species-specific information on stressors/threats extracted from species recovery plans, conservation planning documents, and Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 20 HDMS species abstracts. This database also links species to specific ecoregions and landscapes, to better evaluate whether the list of stressors/threats identified at the landscape level also address threats to all priority species in that landscape. Stressors/threats were flagged for consideration if they were identified as significant to landscapes and landscape processes or to priority species within that landscape. New stressors/threats may be added if they are recognized in the process of assessing threats to priority species. This is part of the adaptive improvement of this process, and would result in new stressors/threats being assessed in future iterations. DEVELOPING CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NEEDS (ELEMENT 4) For each stressor/threat that was identified as important in at least one landscape within Arizona, Ecoregion Workgroup participants developed comprehensive lists of actions or opportunities that would reduce the effect of each stressor. At the same time, the groups identified some barriers to effectively addressing these threats; these barriers were compiled as “information needs.” Hundreds of proposed conservation actions and opportunities were used as the basis for developing conservation strategies under this plan. Conservation strategies were developed by rolling up similar conservation actions identified by the list of important stressors/threats (Appendix G). Information needs were identified at each stage in the CWCS planning process. Like the conservation actions, the information needs were also rolled up into similar groups. Conservation strategies are considered where feasible and appropriate, subject to applicable environmental compliance review, and in cooperation with key land managers. CWCS strategies are comprehensive in scope—many are outside of the Department’s authority and direct control, but identify goals to be developed and implemented by other key stakeholders (Appendix H). Each conservation strategy will be considered for operational planning as appropriate. The Department uses a 3-tiered planning approach with implementation plans developed to address specific operational plan elements, each of which must tier to specific strategic plan elements. Strategic planning occurs within each of the 4 programs: Wildlife Management, Watercraft, OffHighway Vehicle, and Business Administration. Each of these programs develops strategies in each of the following 6 focal areas: Conservation, Recreation, Information and Education, Laws and Law Enforcement, Research, and Administration. The same focal areas are used to categorize operational plans at the subprogram level. Appendix I lists Department programs and focal areas under which each CWCS conservation strategy might be considered. Because implementation plans must tier to existing strategic goals and operational approaches, reporting on these plans can be used to report on accomplishments under CWCS. A Field Operations Division database for tracking progress on various Department implementation plans (the “Implementation Matrix”; Appendix J) is currently under development; incorporation of CWCS reporting will be accomplished by linking this database to the CWCS database. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 21 IDENTIFYING LANDSCAPES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED (ELEMENT 2) The extreme variability inherent in the Arizona landscape results in a complex, multi-scale mosaic of habitats. This complexity hinders attempts to define key habitats at a statewide level. In addition, the information available is often limited. For example, distribution and habitat requirements of many species are ill-defined or completely lacking, available GIS layers are often outdated, imprecise, or available at very rough resolutions. Due to these drawbacks and time constraints, the Department chose not to perform a comprehensive habitat analysis at this time, preferring to expend effort on identifying relative stressors/threats, species of conservation priority, and information gaps. However, as a result of the processes described in this chapter, the Department was able to identify specific data gaps that need to be addressed prior to performing a comprehensive statewide landscape analysis. These gaps include but are not limited to species distributions, species habitat needs, location of relevant structures such as right of way fencing, culverts, utility towers, location of wildlife corridors, migration pathways, locations of sensitive habitats, and direction of future growth. Many data gaps can be filled through cooperation with the Department’s partners to consolidate existing or collect new information, and others will require GIS-based modeling to fill. Concentrating on the other aspects of the plan first enabled the Department to better plan the landscape analysis necessary to identify the location and relative conditions of key habitats and communities as required in Element 2, in regards to species of conservation priority. Specifically, this analysis needs to identify and/or locate: 1) Sensitive habitats 2) Key wildlife corridors and migration pathways 3) Core habitat areas 4) Threatened habitat (from development) 5) Key conservation areas 6) Species richness distributions 7) Native-dominated riparian areas 8) Vegetation communities 9) Land uses In the meantime, the Department has identified 2 sources of information to be used in lieu of a comprehensive statewide landscape analysis. The first is the 147 conservation priority areas in Arizona (Fig. 3) identified in ecoregional analyses (Marshall and others 2000, 2003; TNC 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005; Tuhy and others 2002; www.azconservation.org) by TNC in collaboration with the Department, numerous land managers, resource agencies, species experts, and international cooperators. The resulting map shows areas with the greatest strategic value for protecting ecosystems and viable populations of native species of animals and plants. The analyses were built around more than 270 animal species and an equal number of plants. As such, the TNC analyses provide a good starting point to identify key conservation areas but lacks detailed information on corridor use or core habitat areas for the other species in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 22 Figure 3. TNC Conservation Areas identified for ecoregions in Arizona and extending into neighboring States, tribes, and Mexico. Six biological values were used to identify conservation areas in this assessment: 1) plant and animal species occurring at each location; 2) species present that are globally rare (IUCN ranks of G1/G2); 3) species present that are federally listed as endangered or threatened; 4) species present that are endemic (90% of their range is found within 1 of 5 ecoregions analyzed); 5) taxonomic groups represented (birds, fish, mammals, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and plants); and 6) aquatic/riparian species present. The TNC analysis is complemented by a cooperative analysis between the Department and numerous non-profit, private, and public sector organizations to address wildlife habitat fragmentation. This effort, known as the Arizona Wildlife Linkages, is developing a statewide map (Fig. 4) identifying wildlife movement corridors between core habitat areas. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 23 Figure 4. DRAFT Arizona Linkages map. Numbers indicate individual “Linkages/Fracture Zones” identified (these are not in order of priority). Map version 5/16/05 by S. Nordhaugen. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 24 The Linkages map is intended to provide a visual tool to guide future planning, engineering projects, and mitigation actions, and is due for release in June 2005. This effort provides a starting point for consideration of both core habitat areas and landscape connectivity. Both TNC conservation areas and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages effort provide convenient proxies for statewide landscape analyses, but each has design limitations that do not fully meet the needs of the CWCS. TNC conservation areas identify priority locations for protecting the full array of native species and ecosystems, using a regional approach that extends beyond the state’s borders in all directions. These analyses were based on the distribution of 270 animal species within Arizona—a representation of game and nongame species, rare and common, wide-ranging and local endemics, and community focal species. They also were based on the distribution of all vegetation communities and a variety of native plant species, but did not consider non-native fish and game species. TNC conservation areas do not identify many public lands as priorities for conservation—lands that the Department considers important wildlife habitat. The Department is not a major land management agency, and relies on cooperation with other agencies to ensure continuing support for wildlife. This effort provides valuable insight into areas of high conservation priority. Future efforts will expand on the work done by TNC. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup (AWLW) took a very different approach to planning. Their effort identified fracture zones—defined as areas dominated by private land, State Trust land, or public infrastructure (highways, railroads, canals, fencing) that can provide for wildlife movement between habitat blocks. Habitat blocks are large areas of publicly-owned habitat, including tribal and BLM land. This important effort is being lead by the Department, ADOT, multiple federal agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations. The AWLW identified approximately 100 fracture zones in Arizona, with 30 of these potential linkages as high priority. Priority linkages are based on the presence of special status species in the potential linkage, and the likelihood of decline or loss of wildlife species from one or more habitat blocks if connectivity is lost. The AWLW has begun the process of drawing up detailed Linkage Designs for these priority zones. Each Linkage Design will identify which lands within the fracture zones need management for permeability, and recommend strategies to maintain permeability on those lands (including future structures to allow wildlife to cross highways and other infrastructure). CWCS will use the AWLW and TNC efforts to help identify landscapes of greatest conservation need in Arizona. However, the scope of CWCS includes more species and land holdings than either the AWLW or TNC efforts analyze. Identifying sensitive habitats and species distributions, analyzing landscape connectivity and wildlife corridors, and modeling future urban and rural growth will form the basis of the CWCS landscapes of greatest conservation need classification. IMPLEMENTING THE CWCS (ELEMENT 5) The CWCS processes provide the first tier of prioritization—grouping hundreds of potential actions and opportunities under broad, partner-based conservation strategies. Within the Department, strategies will be prioritized within each of the 4 Department programs: Wildlife Management, Watercraft, Off-Highway Vehicle, and Business Administration. Before this Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 25 strategic level of planning is finalized, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission reviews the proposed strategies for implementation. Once adopted, conservation and information strategies will be used for operational planning, the second tier of the Department’s approved 3-tier planning process (AGFD 2004b). Each of the 4 Department programs passes approved strategies to the following 6 focal areas found among these programs: Conservation, Recreation, Information and Education, Laws and Law Enforcement, Research, and Administration. In the third tier of planning, individual work units develop annual Implementation Plans. Concurrently, the priorities of CWCS partners and land managers among the set of strategies and information needs in the CWCS will need to be assessed. This effort will better identify key agencies, non-government organizations, and landowners that would be willing to take the lead on implementing specific conservation actions (note: Appendix H recommends key partners for implementing each strategy, but does not imply commitment of specific entities to those tasks). ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The landscape focus outlined throughout this plan depends on health of landscapes to provide for healthy populations of wildlife. Landscapes are composed of dynamic patches, the result of dynamic underlying processes. Ecosystems and associated processes react to driving factors such as drought, climate change, natural and human-derived disturbances. The ability to conserve wildlife will depend on understanding how processes create, connect, and modify patches in the landscape. The best information on how biological processes operate comes from experimentation; in recent decades, resource managers have used large-scale management projects as experiments. Under this approach, management activities can be changed after considering new information on underlying states and conditions. Management and conservation within dynamic ecosystems require a flexible and adaptive approach. “Adaptive management” is an experimental approach to landscape management that incorporates existing knowledge of the system (wildlife, wildlife habitat, climate, stressors, human values, etc.) into management activities while keeping the flexibility to adopt new management strategies over time (Walters 1997; Brown and Ford 2002). Feedback loops among monitoring, research, and management actions can accommodate uncertainty that is inherent to managing complex systems (Stromberg 2001; Clark 2002; Williams 2003). These feedback loops between management activities and monitoring allow researchers and land managers to adjust for changing circumstances, thereby improving likelihood of achieving conservation goals. “Adaptive conservation” (PRBO Conservation Science 2005) has 2 components: adaptive management applied to local, site-specific projects, plus coordination across adaptive management projects so that there is shared learning and coordinated planning of large-impact projects. Adaptive conservation describes the process that is being implemented through recent initiatives to benefit North American birds and their ecosystems. These initiatives include: Partners in Flight (Rich and others 2004); the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown and others 2001); the North American Waterfowl Management Plan regional Joint Ventures (Kushlan and others 2002); and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI; www.nabci-us.org). Although these initiatives are comprised of local conservation plans, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 26 local plans tie together through coordinated actions, standardized protocols, and established procedures to evaluate regional impacts and improve strategies as the process develops. State CWCS plans are anticipated to be designed as adaptive conservation plans. The 8 elements in the States’ CWCS plans ensure that these strategies are data-driven and subject to review and evaluation. CWCS plans will need to be updated by addressing information needs and incorporating results from ongoing projects. This is the nature of adaptive management. In this spirit, Arizona’s CWCS is not meant to be a fixed set of conservation goals and strategies; the CWCS is a series of processes that can be used to develop comprehensive priorities for wildlife conservation. Effectiveness of adaptive conservation relies on a number of processes. Adaptive management processes are put in place for specific projects (modified from PRBO Conservation Science 2005; insets describe implementation in Arizona’s CWCS.): 1) Set management goals; The Department identified species and stressors that reflect issues for conserving biodiversity in Arizona (CWCS State of the State—Companion Document B). This was done in coordination with land management partners, private landowners, nongovernmental organizations, other state CWCS planners, and the interested public (Appendix A in this document); 2) Identify assumptions and information needs to implement effective conservation actions. Information needs were identified in the process of prioritizing species for conservation in the process of listing important threats to Arizona’s wildlife and wildlife habitat (described in this document and the CWCS Core Plan); 3) Develop a set of conservation actions to achieve goals; The Department and its land management and resource regulatory partners identified conservation strategies and information needs related to specific species and to most effectively address stressors/threats (Table F and the CWCS Core Plan); 4) Implement specific actions (Department’s 3-tiered planning approach); 5) Monitor at all relevant scales to analyze response to implemented conservation actions; 6) Revise management, goals, or monitoring regime as indicated by feedback loops between monitoring and actions with frequent updating of information; and 7) Repeat the process. The following adaptive conservation processes are put in place to benefit conservation efforts directly, and to report on progress and effectiveness of efforts relative to larger conservation goals (modified from PRBO Conservation Science 2005): 1) Synthesize findings from multiple adaptively-managed projects; 2) Develop adaptive conservation plans focused on species, habitat, and/or ecosystem of interest. Incorporate findings from adaptive management as well as peer-reviewed literature, gray literature, and expert opinion; 3) Communicate plan recommendations to policy leaders and cooperators; 4) Reassess and revise components of 3-tiered planning process and associated adaptive conservation plans; and 5) Repeat the process. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 27 The processes above allow the Department and its partners to assess conditions of species, landscapes, and stressors in individual landscapes or throughout the state. Careful monitoring and review of results from conservation actions provide a feedback mechanism by which new stressors, newly vulnerable species, information accrual, and landscape-level changes are documented. The Department can alter priorities and strategies as conditions change or as understanding improves. ADAPTIVE CONSERVATION UNDER CWCS This document has described how species are prioritized for conservation attention, threats are prioritized within ecosystems in Arizona, and conservation strategies are prioritized to addresses these concerns. To make the CWCS adaptive, the plan must identify information needs, relevant monitoring targets to assess the responses of wildlife and wildlife habitat to conservation actions, and procedures for incorporating updated information and results into future strategic planning. Information and Research Needs. Information on wildlife populations and stressors/threats can be used to guide both conservation actions and broader adaptive strategies. These information needs can be addressed by the following categories of activity (refer to the CWCS Core Plan, Table E): • Determine status and distribution • Compile data, programs, and information • Research biology • Research ecosystem states and conditions • Research stressors/threats • Develop conservation, research, and monitoring tools In order for this information to be used for adaptive conservation, it must be collected consistently, in accordance with standards that are understood and applied in other projects in Arizona and throughout North America. This sort of standardization is an active area of work in wildlife conservation, and much of it is still in development. Implementation projects for Arizona’s CWCS will need to document and follow current best practices for: • Monitoring impacts of conservation projects to specific targets of the project (species, habitats, and/or ecosystem processes) and their trends (Gibbs and others 1998; MacKenzie and others 2003; Dinsmore and others 2002; Schoonmaker and Luscombe 2005) and/or productivity; • Monitoring impacts of conservation projects to overall landscape and community structure. This guarantees that the non-targeted impacts are also documented and can be assessed during the summary and review process; • Research to clarify magnitude and pathways by which stressors influence wildlife and wildlife habitat. This research will inform future iterations of the CWCS threat assessment. Monitoring Effectiveness of CWCS. Because the CWCS is a comprehensive, multi-year adaptive conservation plan, monitoring must be instituted to describe the overall effects of all adaptive Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 28 management activities in Arizona, whether pursued by the Department or by cooperators. For example, has the set of activities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion impacted biodiversity in different landscape types? Has the impact from various stressors been reduced or increased over the period under scrutiny? Does the patchiness and dynamics of the landscapes more closely resemble an intact ecosystem? For the Department and its partners, the next step for the CWCS is developing metrics, or performance indicators, for conservation strategies listed Table D of the CWCS Core Plan. A similar set of measurements will be needed for the information needs identified in Table E of the Core Plan. Conceptual ideas and recommended references are available through a number of new and existing documents: CWCS Monitoring and Evaluation (TWW 2005); Habitat Monitoring: an Approach for Reporting Status and Trends for State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (Schoonmaker and Luscombe 2005); Proposed Taxonomy of Conservation Actions (CMP 2004b); the USFS Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring Protocol (USFS 2004); Sonoran Desert Network Inventory and Monitoring Program (Gebow and others 2004); and Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich and others 2004). The following are a subset of measures adapted from Rich and others (2004) to evaluate effectiveness of their adaptive conservation approach, which could be incorporated in Arizona’s CWCS: • Population monitoring; • Number of priority species in the “Vulnerable” category; • Number of “Vulnerable” category priority species on track for meeting 30-year population objectives; • Number of habitat improvement projects initiated; • Number of hectares of habitat considered protected and restored, by ecoregion and landscape type; • Number of priority species remaining in “Data Sufficiency” category; • Number of technical report and peer-reviewed research publications addressing priority conservation issues; • Number of agreements in place to meet wildlife population and habitat objectives; • Number of land management and regulatory agency plans into which Arizona CWCS objectives have been incorporated. In order to fill gaps in existing monitoring projects and to implement best monitoring practices, the Department will want to coordinate monitoring projects with external, existing programs such as: the NABCI (www.nabci-us.org), North American Bat Conservation Plan (www.batcon.org/nabcp/newsite/rwg.html), Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (www.parcplace.org), The Wildlands Project (www.twp.org), Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (www.pima.gov/sdcp), and the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research project (www.caplter.asu.edu). Many of these initiatives have been further developed for application in Arizona (Latta and others 1999; Foreman and others 2000; Pima County 2002; Hinman and Snow 2003; Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 2004 draft). Species selected as targets of monitoring should represent priority species from the perspective of regional responsibility, vulnerability, ecosystem function, and/or social/economic importance. A Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 29 sample of these species across the range of taxa and in each priority category be should be monitored to report on the effectiveness of the CWCS in conserving wildlife populations. The Department is still in the process of identifying priority habitats and landscapes. Several governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations have already developed plans for monitoring landscape condition, which under the CWCS they can participate active partners in shaping and sharing this monitoring. This level of monitoring is anticipated to focus Department efforts on identifying and securing partners for information gathering. The Department will use its existing annual performance reports for Federal Aid projects and SWG funds to document progress on CWCS-related activities. Currently, Program Managers within the Department’s various work units are responsible for documenting project activities in the Field Operations Division’s activity reporting database (Appendix J). This database is being refined and is undergoing testing in 2005 for reporting activities under Federal Aid projects. Eventually, this database will be linked to the CWCS database (Appendix E) where all CWCS related activities can be tracked. Fund administrators and Project Leaders (that is, work unit chiefs and managers) can use database queries to develop annual reports on project results and activities relating to CWCS strategies. Monitoring, Assessing, and Revising the CWCS Process. In order to move the CWCS into the future, the Department will need to set up infrastructure and procedures for updating goals and priorities. The Department has established a relational database to facilitate planning of projects, collection of data, and evaluation of conservation actions implemented under the CWCS. The CWCS database will function as a communication tool among Department work units, and become the centralized place to store data relevant to the CWCS. In its present form, the database consists of a number of related tables (Appendix E) linking existing recovery plans and teams to species, threats, strategies, partners, and landscapes addressed in the plan. A userfriendly form incorporates a number of drop-down menus to query the data by priority species, stressor, partners, conservation strategies, or ecoregions. Currently, the Department monitors activities through a number of unrelated databases. Funds/Planning maintains a database of all active contracts and agreements. Field Operations Division monitors activity on all planned actions by programs and sub-programs for each regional office, and the Habitat Branch maintains a Project Evaluation Program database to coordinate environmental review and analysis for internal and external projects submitted to and through the Department. Although each of these databases performs specific functions, they all address actions taken by the Department and its partners that are directly related to threats, species and strategies identified by the CWCS. Synchronization of these databases with the CWCS database would provide a centralized location for data storage that will be used to monitor conservation actions, facilitate communication and coordination within the Department and between the Department and partners, encourage data and resource sharing of pertinent information while protecting sensitive information, track the magnitude of threats in various regions through time, provide a means of monitoring changing priorities necessary for adaptive management, and facilitate reporting. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 30 The CWCS database is still under development. While most of the agreements and management plans in the Department’s Nongame and Habitat branches have been integrated into the CWCS database, many more CWCS-related documents in other work units and those of external partners need to be added to the database. Links to existing databases in Funds/Planning, Field Operations, and Habitat branches need to be established. In addition, new fields, automated procedures, and reports will be developed to support CWCS implementation. Finally, linking the data to GIS base layers will allow users to answer spatial questions, and provide a valuable resource for future planning efforts. Spatially-linked projects include, but are not limited to, rural development, fire and forest projects, habitat restoration work, Border Patrol projects and activities, and Army Corps of Engineers mitigation projects. The ability to evaluate spatial relationships among these activities will allow the Department to better address cumulative impacts. This ability would assist in monitoring the magnitude of stressors/threats in Arizona, as well as how those factors change over time. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 31 LITERATURE CITED Aiken, R. 2004. Fishing and Hunting 1991-2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends. Report 2001-5 (Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. Allen, CD and DD Breshears. 1998. Drought-induced shift of a forest-woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 95: 14839-14842. Allen, RB and RK Peet. 1990. Gradient analysis of forests of the Sangre de Cristo Range, Colorado. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 193-201. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 1988. Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 26 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). (in prep). Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (March 16, 1996 version). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 32 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2004a. Report of the Flagstaff and Phoenix Mountain Lion Workshops. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2004b. Planning Processes in the Arizona Game and Fish Department: Agency Process Team 2 Final Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Bailey, RG. 1994. Ecoregions of the United States (revised map). USDA Forest Service. Washington DC. Bailey, RG. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. Second Edition. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391. Washington, DC. Bailey, RG. 1998. Ecoregions Map of North America: Explanatory Note. Prepared in Cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the US Geological Survey. USDA Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1548. Washington, DC. Baillie, JEM, C Hilton-Taylor, and SN Stuart (editors). 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. 191 pp. Barton, AM. 1994. Gradient analysis of relationships among fire, environment, and vegetation in a southwestern USA mountain range. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 121 (3) 251265. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 32 Behavior Research Center, Inc. 2004. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Survey— Arizona. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. Brown, DE, and CH Lowe. 1974. A digitized computer-compatible classification for natural and potential vegetation in the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. Journal Arizona Academy Science 9, Supplement 2: 1-11 Brown, LR and T Ford. 2002. Effects of flow on the fish communities of a regulated California river: implications for managing native fishes. River Research and Applications 18: 331– 342. Brown, S, C Hickey, B Harrington, and R Gill (editors). 2001. The US Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd Edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. Clark, MJ. 2002. Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to sustainable river management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 347–363. Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2004a (draft). Proposed Taxonomy of Direct Threats. CMP Working Paper. www.ConservationMeasures.org. Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2004b (draft). Proposed Taxonomy of Conservation Actions. CMP Working Paper. www.ConservationMeasures.org. Dinsmore, SJ, GC White, and FL Knopf. 2002. Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest survival. Ecology 83: 3476-3488. Etzenhouser, MJ. 1998. Foraging behaviour of browsing ruminants in a heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecology 13 (1): 55-64. Foreman, D, K Daly, B Dugelby, R Hanson, R Howard, J Humphrey, L Linck, R List, and K Vacariu. 2000. Sky Islands Wildlands Network Conservation Plan. The Wildlands Project, Tucson, Arizona. 220 pp. Gardner, RH, RV O’Neill, MG Turner, and VH Dale. 1989. Quantifying scale-dependent effects of animal movement with simple percolation models. Landscape Ecology 3 (3/4): 217227. Gebow, B, E Albrecht, D Caldwell, L Carder, B Powell, A Hubbard, and B Halvorson. 2004. Sonoran Desert Network Inventory and Monitoring Program: assessing the state of ecological resources in 11 southwestern national parks. National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona. 10 pp. Gibbs, JP, S Droege, and P Eagle. 1998. Monitoring populations of plants and animals. Bioscience 48: 935-940. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 33 Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. 2004 (draft). Grand Canyon Wildlands Network: a proposal. Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Flagstaff, Arizona. Gunn, T. 2005a. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Wildlife Summits Report Final. Submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, January 2005. Gunn Communications, Inc., Peoria, Arizona. 87 pp. Gunn, T. 2005b. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: CoNexus Online Survey Report Final. Submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, February 2005. Gunn Communications, Inc., Peoria, Arizona. 23 pp. Hinman, KE and TK Snow (editors). 2003. Arizona Bat Conservation Strategic Plan. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 213. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Koehler, HH. 2000. Natural regeneration and succession results from a 13 years study with reference to mesofauna and vegetation, and implications for management. Landscape and Urban Planning 51: 123-130. Kushlan, JA, MJ Steinkamp, KC Parsons, J Capp, M Acosta Cruz, M Coulter, I Davidson, L Dickson, N Edelson, R Elliot, RM Erwin, S Hatch, S Kress, R Milko, S Miller, K Mills, R Paul, R Phillips, JE Saliva, B Sydeman, J Trapp, J Wheeler, K Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. 78 pp. Latta, JJ, CJ Beardmore, and TE Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. MacKenzie, DI, JD Nichols, JE Hines, MG Knutson, and AB Franklin. 2003. Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction probabilities when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84: 2200-2207. Marshall, RM, S Anderson, M Batcher, P Comer, S Cornelius, R Cox, A Gondor, D Gori, J Humke, R Paredes Aguilar, IE Parra, and S Schwartz. 2000. An Ecological Analysis of Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Arizona Chapter, Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora with support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, agency, and institutional partners. 146 pp. Marshall, RM, D Turner, A Gondor, D Gori, C Enquist, G Luna, R Paredes Aguilar, S Anderson, S Schwartz, C Watts, E Lopez, and P Comer. 2004. An Ecological Analysis of Con servation Priorities in the Apache Highlands Ecoregion. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora, agency, and institutional partners. 152 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 34 McIntyre, NE and JA Wiens. 1999. How does habitat patch size affect animal movement? An experiment with darkling beetles. Ecology 80 (7): 2261-2270 Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 1999. Ecoregional conservation analysis of the Arizona-New Mexico Mountains. The Nature Conservancy of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 151 pp. Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 2001. Ecoregion-based conservation in the Mohave Desert. The Nature Conservancy of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. 367 pp. Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 2004. Management of Arizona’s Wildlife Habitat: an analysis of selected habitat types for use in Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, August 2004. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Arizona. 12 pp. Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 2005. Ecoregional Assessment Results for Arizona: information for Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy that can be derived from ecoregional analyses. Submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, January 2005. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Arizona. 10 pp. Odum, EP. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia. Pickett, STA and ML Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science. 269: 331-334. Pickett, STA and PS White. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Pima County. 2002. Priority Biological Resources of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan: providing urban development guidelines as adopted in the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Pima County Administrator’s Office, Tucson, Arizona. PRBO Conservation Science. 2005. Adaptive Conservation Planning. Website of PRBO Conservation Science. http://www.prbo.org/. Pulliam, HR and B Babbitt. 1997. Science and the protection of endangered species. Science 275: 499-500. Responsive Management. 2003a. Arizona residents’ opinions on the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its activities. Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Responsive Management National Office, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 35 Responsive Management. 2003b. Arizona residents’ attitudes toward nongame wildlife. Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Responsive Management National Office, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Responsive Management. 2004. Arizona residents’ opinions on the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its activities. Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Responsive Management National Office, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Rich, TD, CJ Beardmore, H Berlanga, PJ Blancher, MSW Bradstreet, GS Butcher, DW Demarest, EH Dunn, WC Hunter, EE Iñigo-Elias, JA Kennedy, AM Martell, AO Panjabi, DN Pashley, KV Rosenberg, CM Rustay, JS Wendt, and TC Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Salafsky, N, D Salzer, J Ervin, T Boucher, and W Ostlie. 2003 (draft). Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring, Combing, and Mapping Threats in Conservation: an Initial Proposal for a Standard System. December 2003 version. Foundations of Success, Bethesda, Maryland. 33 pp. Sanderson, EW, KH Redford, A Vedder, PB Coppolillo, and SE Ward. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 41-56. Schoonmaker, P and W Luscombe. 2005. Habitat Monitoring: An Approach for Reporting Status and Trends for State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies. Final Draft. http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/infomanage/monitoring/09b.shtml. Silberman, J. 2001. The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting for the State of Arizona. School of Management, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Silberman, J. 2002. The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation for the State of Arizona. School of Management, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Southwick Associates. 2003. Economic Impact Analysis of Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation in Arizona. Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. In conjunction with the Responsive Management project, Arizona residents’ attitudes toward nongame wildlife. Stromberg, JC. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States: importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. Journal of Arid Environments 49: 1734. Szacki, J and A Liro. 1991. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecology 5 (4): 219-224. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 36 Teaming With Wildlife Committee (TWW). 2003a. State Wildlife Grants: The Nation’s Core Program for Preventing Wildlife from Becoming Endangered. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington DC. www.teaming.com Teaming With Wildlife Committee (TWW). 2003b. Identifying Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington DC. www.teaming.com Teaming With Wildlife Committee (TWW). 2005. CWCS: Monitoring and Evaluation. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington DC. www.teaming.com Tuhy, JS, P Comer, D Dorfman, M Lammert, J Humke, B Cholvin, G Bell, B Neely, S Silbert, L Whitham, and B Baker. 2002. A conservation assessment of the Colorado Plateau Ecoregion. The Nature Conservancy, Moab, Utah. 110 p. + appendices. US Census Bureau. 2005. Arizona County and State Statistics. http://www.census.gov/census2005/states/az.html US Forest Service (USFS). 2004 (draft). Recommendations for Monitoring Terrestrial Animal Species and Their Habitats (Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring Protocol). Report of the Wildlife Monitoring Steering Committee, US Forest Service, Flagstaff, Arizona. Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems, Conservation Ecology 1 (2): 1. URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1 Williams, BK. 2003. Policy, research, and adaptive management in avian conservation. Auk 120 (1): 212-217. White, PS and JS Walker. 1997. Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5 (4): 338-349. Wright, JP, CG Jones, and AS Flecker. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape level. Oecologia 132 (1): 96-101. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 37 APPENDIX A: CWCS CONTACT LIST Appendix A: CWCS Contact List—Agencies, Tribes, Local Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, Constituency Groups, Industry Affiliations, Universities, and Special Interests. Arizona Dept of Health Services Arizona State Parks Arizona Dept of Agriculture Arizona Dept of Transportation Arizona National Guard-DEMA Arizona State Land Dept Arizona Dept of Water Resources Arizona Dept of Enviro Quality Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe White Mt Apache Tribe Tohono O’odhom Nation Hualapai Nation Ft McDowell Yavapai Nation Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Indian Community Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Ak-Chin Indian Community Cocopah Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Yavapai Apache Tribe Yavapai-Prescott Tribe Salt R Pima-Maricopa Indian Com USFWS AZ Eco Services Office USFWS Kofa NWR USFWS Cabeza Prieta NWR USFWS San Bernardino NWR USFWS Bill Williams NWR USFWS Buenos Aires NWR USFWS Havasu NWR USFWS Cibola NWR USFWS Imperial NWR Maricopa County Parks & Rec Pima County Parks & Recreation Yuma Metro Planning Organization Pima Association of Governments Maricopa Assoc of Governments Northern AZ Council of Govts League of AZ Cities & Towns Western AZ Council of Govts Central AZ Assoc of Governments Southeastern AZ Govts Organization Salt River Project Arizona Public Service USFS Kaibab Nat’l Forest (NF) USFS Coronado NF USFS Coconino NF USFS Tonto NF USFS Apache-Sitgreaves NF USFS Prescott NF USFS Peaks Ranger District (RD) USFS Mormon Lake RD USFS Red Rock RD USFS Mogollon RD USFS Williams/Chalander RD USFS North Kaibab RD USFS Tusayan RD USFS Prescott NF USFS Chino Valley RD USFS Verde RD USFS Nogales RD USFS Sierra Vista RD USFS Safford RD USFS Santa Catalina RD USFS Alpine RD USFS Clifton RD USFS Chevelon/Heber RD USFS Springerville RD USFS Lakeside RD USFS Cave Creek RD USFS Tonto NF USFS Globe RD USFS Mesa RD USFS Payson RD USFS Pleasant Valley RD USFS Tonto Basin US Border Patrol, Tucson Sector Federal Highways Administration USGS-Colorado Plateau Studies Yuma County Yavapai County Santa Cruz County Pinal County Pima County Navajo County Mohave County Maricopa County La Paz County Greenlee County Gila County Coconino County NPS Southern Arizona Office NPS Petrified Nat’l Park (NP) NPS Grand Canyon NP NPS Saguaro NP East and West NPS Lake Mead Nat’l Rec Area NPS Glen Canyon Nat’l Rec Area NPS Organ Pipe Nat’l Monument NPS Pipe Springs Nat’l Monument NPS Chiricahua Nat’l Monument NPS Tonto Nat’l Monument NPS Tuzigoot Nat’l Monument NPS Flagstaff area Nat’l Monuments NPS Canyon de Chelly Nat’l Mon BLM Phoenix Field Office BLM Arizona State Office BLM Safford Field Office BLM Arizona Strip Field Office BLM San Pedro Field Office BLM Kingman Field Office BLM Lower Colorado Region Office BLM Tucson Field Office BLM Lake Havasu Field Office BLM Yuma Field Office Army Corp of Engineers US Bureau of Reclamation EPA Region 9 San Diego Office USDA Nat Res Cons Service USDA-Wildlife Services DOD Ft Huachuca Military Res DOD Luke AFB Goldwater Range DOD Yuma Proving Grounds DOD Florence Military Res City of Phoenix City of Mesa City of Scottsdale Town of Cave Creek City of Peoria City of Surprise City of Goodyear Town of Buckeye City of Apache Junction City of Prescott Town of Prescott Valley City of Cottonwood City of Sedona Town of Camp Verde City of Williams Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 38 Appendix A: CWCS Contact List—Agencies, Tribes, Local Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, Constituency Groups, Industry Affiliations, Universities, and Special Interests. Tucson Electric Power El Paso Natural Gas Phelps Dodge Corporation Town of Winslow City of Holbrook Town of Snowflake City of St Johns City of Show Low Town of Pinetop-Lakeside Town of Springerville Town of Eager City of Payson Town of Globe City of Safford Town of Superior Town of Willcox City of Bisbee City of Benson City of Sierra Vista City of Nogales City of Tucson Town of Casa Grande Town of Gila Bend Town of Ajo City of Yuma Town of Quartzsite Town of Wickenburg Lake Havasu City Town of Parker Town of Paradise Valley City of Glendale City of Tempe City of Chandler Town of Gilbert Town of Fountain Hills Town of Carefree Town of Queen Creek Town of Marana Town of Sahuarita Town of Florence Town of Chino Valley Town of Page Arizona Mushroom Club Arizona Herb Association Washington Garden Club Old Fashioned Garden Club Sun City West Garden Club Valley of the Sun Gardeners Tempe Garden Club Cochise County Apache County Bullhead City TNC State Office TNC White Mts Program Office TNC Tucson Program Office TNC Northern AZ Program Office TNC Phoenix Program Office TNC Prescott Program Office TNC Ramsey Canyon Preserve Arizona Audubon Council AZ Audubon Huachuca Chapter AZ Audubon Maricopa Chapter AZ Audubon Prescott Chapter AZ Audubon Sonoran Chapter AZ Audubon Tucson Chapter AZ Audubon Northern AZ Chapter AZ Audubon White Mt Chapter AZ Audubon Yuma County Chapter Audubon All Birds Cons Program Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter Arizona Riparian Council Arizona Heritage Alliance Wildlife for Tomorrow Foundation The Wildlife Society State Chapter Malpai Borderlands Group Wildlands Project Sky Islands Alliance Arizona Wilderness Alliance Desert Foothills Land Trust Diablo Trust McDowell Sonoran Land Trust Grand Canyon Trust Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership Sonoran Institute / Rincon Institute Southeastern AZ Land Trust Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Defenders of Wildlife White Mt Conservation League AZ League of Conservation Voters Animal Defense League of AZ Animal Crusaders Southeastern AZ Bird Observatory Center for Biological Diversity Arizona Native Plant Society Central AZ Cactus/Succulent Society Central Arizona Paddlers Club Grand Canyon River Guides AZ State Assoc of 4WD Clubs City of Flagstaff Town of Fredonia City of Kingman Apache County ATV Roughriders Arizona Wildlife Federation AZ Wildlife Conservation Council AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society Arizona Antelope Foundation Arizona Deer Association Arizona Elk Association Rocky Mt Elk Foundation, Arizona AZ Mule Deer Assoc, East Valley AZ Mule Deer Assoc, Tucson AZ Mule Deer Assoc, Flagstaff Mule Deer Federation, AZ Chapters Arizona Predator Callers Phoenix Varmint Callers, Inc. Southern AZ Wildlife Callers Cochise Gun Club Arizona Trappers Association Phoenix Retriever Club Arizona Bow Hunters Association Arizona Quail Alliance Safari Club Int’l, Phoenix Chapter Safari Club Int’l, Arizona Chapter US Power Squadron Yuma Valley Rod & Gun Club Chandler Rod & Gun Club Mohave Sportsman Club Coconino Sportsmen Scottsdale Sportsman’s Club Southeast AZ Sportsmen Club Quail Unlimited, Cottonwood-Verde Western Gamebird Alliance Northern Arizona Flycasters Arizona Flyfishing Arizona Flycasters Club Desert Flycasters Southwest Walleye Anglers Trout Unlimited, Arizona Council Trout Unlimited, Lees Ferry Chapter Trout Unlimited, Old Pueblo Chapter Trout Unlimited, Zane Grey Chapter White Mountain Fly-fishing Club Arizona Bass Club Tucson Bass Club Old Pueblo Bass Anglers Arizona BASS Federation Ducks Unlimited, local chapters Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 39 Appendix A: CWCS Contact List—Agencies, Tribes, Local Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, Constituency Groups, Industry Affiliations, Universities, and Special Interests. Las Piedras Garden Club Litchfield Park Garden Club Good Earth Garden Club Gardens for Humanity Desert Designers Arizona Motorola Hiking Club Volunteers for Outdoor Arizona Outdoors Arizona Sonoran Joint Venture Intermountain West Joint Venture National Turtle/Tortoise Society, AZ Phoenix Zoo, AZ Zoological Assoc Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum Desert Botanical Garden Forage Resources Study Group Coconino Nat Res Cons District AZ Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition Arizona ATV Riders Inc Arizona Trail Riders Association Arizona Trail Riders White Mt Open Trails Association Arizona Farm Bureau Arizona Cattle Growers’ Assoc Alpine Habitat Partnership Comm Winslow HPC Show Low HPC Springerville HPC Flagstaff HPC Williams HPC Fredonia HPC Kingman HPC Prescott HPC Valley Longbeards, NWTF Phoenix Arizona Desert Gobblers, NWTF Nat’l Wild Turkey Fed, Tucson Nat’l Wild Turkey Fed, Glendale Nat’l Wild Turkey Fed, State Chap TWS Chapter, AZ State University TWS Chapter, N Arizona University TWS Chapter, University of Arizona AZ State University Life Sciences Univ of AZ Desert SW Cooperative Northern AZ Univ Biological Sciences Prescott College Grand Canyon University Payson Natural Resources Comm Southwest AZ HPC Southeastern AZ HPC Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 40 APPENDIX B: ECOREGION WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS Appendix B. Ecoregion Workgroup Participants 2004-05. ‘*’ Denotes Border Issues Group. Name Linda Allison* Joyce Francis* Jeff Sorensen* Joan Scott* Dennis Darr Tom Hildebrandt Sharen Adams Dave Dorum Jeff Pebworth Lin Piest* Sabra Schwartz Tony Robinson Scott Blackman Rob Magill Troy Corman Rob Bettaso Amanda Hervatin Trina Hedrick Jeremy Voeltz Deb O’Neill Bill Van Pelt Angie McIntire Roy Averill-Murray Kim Field Darren Bolen Dan Cox Gene Sturla Ric Bradford Rebecca Davidson Kelly Huckins Evelyn Erlandsen Sal Palazzolo Josh Avey MariAnn Koloszar Tom Cadden Tice Supplee Mike Ingraldi Todd Pringle Kirk Young Mike Rabe Kevin Bergersen Dale Turner* Carolyn Enquist Siobham Nordhaugen Melissa Maiefski Larry Laing Agency AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD AGFD TNC TNC ADOT ADOT NPS AHN X Threat Assessment Teams AHS AZNM CP MD X X X X X X X X X X X SD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Conservation Actions X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Species Criteria X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 41 Appendix B. Ecoregion Workgroup Participants 2004-05. ‘*’ Denotes Border Issues Group. Name Josh Tiaz Sheridan Stone Tom Skinner Patti Spindler Carol Beardmore* Frank Toupel* Heidi Kuska* Mike Ross* Steve Smarick* John Morgart* JT Hess* Heidi Plank* Mark Howell* Ron Kearns* Bill Noble Steve Mitchelson Addison Mohler Annette Morgan Bruce Higgins Pat Thompson Brian Dykstra Deb Bumpus Jim Copeland Bob Csargo Cathy Taylor Henry Provew Doug Powers Chris Bates Tim Hughes Ted Cordery Bill Grossi Rick Toomey Joanne Roberts Sari Neumeyer Bill Werner David Bergman Mike Martinez Agency USFS DOD USFS ADEQ USFWS NRCS BLM USFS NRCS USFWS DOD BLM BLM USFWS USFS NPS Hualapai Hualapai USFS NPS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM ASP ASP AZ-DEMA ADWR USDA-WS USFWS AHN Threat Assessment Teams AHS AZNM CP MD X X X X X X X X SD Species Criteria Conservation Actions X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 42 APPENDIX C: CWCS SCIENTIFIC REVIEW TEAM The following individuals participated as volunteer reviewers of draft components for Arizona’s CWCS in April and May 2005 (listed alphabetically): • • • • • • • • • Dr Paul Beier, Professor. Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Dr Phil Fernandez, Professor. Grand Canyon University, Biological Sciences Rich Glinski, Park Supervisor. Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Program Trevor Hare, Conservation Biologist. Sky Islands Alliance Sherry Ruther, Environmental Planning Manager, Pima County (Sonora Desert Conservation Plan—Scientific Technical Team Member) Tice Supplee, Director of Bird Conservation. Audubon Arizona Dr Mitchel White, Forest Rangeland Ecologist, USFS Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Scott Wilbur, Important Bird Area Coordinator. Audubon Arizona Marilyn Ethelbah, Environmental Engineer, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Cultural and Environmental Services Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 43 APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WILDLIFE OF CONSERVATION PRIORITY IN ARIZONA For Element 1 of Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), the Department must identify wildlife of conservation priority—described nationally as “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” (WGCN). However, for the CWCS to be truly comprehensive for managing Arizona’s wildlife, the Department must address the full array of wildlife in the state—game species, nongame species, sport fish, natives, and exotics. For this purpose, all of Arizona’s species of wildlife* (ranging from big game species to macroinvertebrates) will be evaluated with the process described below. Over 600 species (a subset of the 21,000 plus known wildlife species in Arizona) were identified as wildlife of conservation priority. * Note: Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17 defines “wildlife” as all vertebrate species including crustaceans and mollusks—species which the Department has statutory responsibility for managing. The State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program (developed in cooperation with the Teaming With Wildlife Committee and mandated by the U.S. Congress) identifies “wildlife” as all species of vertebrates and macroinvertebrates, including insects and spiders. While many state wildlife agencies do not have legal responsibility for insects and spiders, some of their CWCS partners—federal, tribal, and other state agencies do have jurisdiction for these macroinvertebrates. For Arizona’s CWCS, the Department used 17 criteria (described on page 3 of this appendix) to identify species of conservation priority. These criteria were identified by Wildlife Summit participants, Department staff and interagency partners with the Ecoregion Workgroup, and from the Teaming With Wildlife memo on WGCN concepts (TWW 2003d). Species of conservation priority in the CWCS should be representative of the health of the State’s wildlife populations. This evaluation process is designed to be flexible in regards to funding opportunities, legal requirements, and priorities of the Department, partners, and constituents. For this reason, a large subset of identified wildlife of conservation priority is expected, and necessary, to allow flexibility in using various funding sources (SWG monies in combination with existing federal grants through ESA Section 6 funds, Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration appropriations, Landowner Incentive Program monies, and state-matched funding through the Arizona Heritage Fund). Many of the 17 criteria overlap in conservation concepts or previous evaluative efforts (that is: ESA listings or candidate reviews, Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, sensitive species lists, and Heritage/IUCN assessments). Wildlife Summit participants also suggested that “future threats to wildlife and natural habitats” and “potential for recovery and conservation success” are factors that should be considered in identifying wildlife of conservation priority. Both of those concepts are imbedded in the CWCS conservation goals and strategies section, operational plans for species and habitat management, and decision-making processes of the Department and its partners for funding wildlife-related projects. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 44 To simplify this evaluation process, these 17 criteria are collapsed into 5 priority categories (described below). These 5 priority categories will not be further compared or ‘rolled up’; instead, each one represents a priority area for developing conservation strategies. Thus, species are prioritized within categories, but not among categories. That is, ‘Vulnerable’ species have no inherent priority over ‘Responsibility’ species, or any of the other categories. All 5 categories are weighted equally. SUMMARY OF THE FIVE PRIORITY CATEGORIES 1) Community Focal The rank in this category would be the lowest score for species in any of the following criteria since all these criteria indicate ties between the species and the larger landscape and/or ecosystem—defined as “community focal species.” • Keystone and strongly interactive species • Home range size • Habitat quality indicators 2) Responsibility These criteria rank species for their value because their global status is largely a function of their status in Arizona, because they contribute to the unique character of wildlife in Arizona compared to other parts of the United States, or because of their unique value to sovereign nations that interact with Arizona to conserve wildlife. The ‘Responsibility’ category was designed to give importance to species that are uniquely represented in the United States by their Arizona populations. This may be desirable if the criteria identify species where Arizona makes agreements with Mexico or tribes concerning these species, but the species are not otherwise eligible for funding. • Responsibility status • Administrative protection status on tribal lands in Arizona • Administrative protection status in Mexico 3) Vulnerability Species may arrive at a point of vulnerability in different ways, according to the stressors involved and the biology of each species in Arizona. Accordingly, the Department developed a set of criteria to capture these different types of vulnerability. Any one criterion can flag a species as vulnerable, so it does not matter whether a species ranks as ‘vulnerable’ on 1, 3, or all 9 criteria. Ranks are not additive. The rank is based on the following criteria: • Endangered, threatened, candidate status or Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona • Extirpated status • Imperiled status (Heritage global rank) • Declining status • Disjunct status • Demographic status • Concentration status • Element occurrences (includes endemics) • Fragmentation status Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 45 4) Social or Economic Value (criterion same as category) 5) Data Sufficiency (criterion same as category; based on the criteria scores for ‘Vulnerability’) Species would rank high in this category if they do not have a ‘1’ for ‘Vulnerability,’ but any of the ‘Vulnerability’ criteria were scored ‘0,’ indicating that there was insufficient information to consider whether this species is vulnerable. COMPONENT CRITERIA USED TO IDENTIFY CONSERVATION PRIORITY WILDLIFE For each of the 17 criteria, a ranking of ‘H’ (= High Priority), ‘M’ (= Medium Priority), or ‘L” (= Low Priority) was assigned. Species lists (by taxonomic group: birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates) and evaluation scores were compiled in MS-Excel files and archived on the Department’s network drive U:/Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy/Species Lists folder. Criteria scores were rated by Wildlife Management Division staff, (primarily Nongame, Game, Fisheries specialists) and reviewed by Regional staff, Development Branch staff, and external partners. The Nongame statistician compiled and sorted these evaluations by Ecoregion and statewide distribution, and by priority ranking. Under the ‘Community Focal’ species category, the following 3 criteria are used: Keystone and Strongly Interactive Species Description: Species whose impact on a community or ecological system is disproportionately large for their presence or abundance. They contribute to ecosystem function in a unique and significant manner through their activities. Their removal initiates changes in ecosystem structure and often a loss of diversity. Beavers are an example keystone and strongly interactive species. Focal Rank H M L Criterion Description – Keystone / Strongly Interactive Score 1 Keystone/Strongly Interactive: loss from an ecosystem would have a significant impact on the number or type of species present (biodiversity). This often reflects loss of an ecosystem function. 2 Important player: loss from an ecosystem would have a significant impact on the abundance of a handful of species. This often reflects loss of a key predator or prey species. 3 Community member: loss of this species from an ecosystem would not be reflected in loss of ecosystem function or significant changes in abundance of other species. Home Range Size Description: High scoring species have spatial, compositional, and functional requirements that may encompass those of other species in the region and may help address the functionality of ecological systems. These species depend on vast areas. These species include top-level Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 46 predators (for example: wolves, bear, mountain lion) as well as migratory mammals, anadromous fish (having marine and freshwater life stages or migrations), birds, bats, and insects. Focal Rank H Criterion Score 1 M 2 L 3 Description – Home Range Size Extensive ranges: most individual animals in this species range over more than one ecoregion and landscape type during one year. Wide-ranging: most individual animals in this species range over more than one landscape type during one year. Local ranges: individual animals stay within a single landscape type throughout their lifecycle. Habitat Quality Indicators Description: High-ranking species are characteristic of or their presence indicates a healthy natural community. An example species would be pygmy nuthatch in ponderosa pine forests. Habitat quality indicator species are identified in U.S. Forest Service Management Indicator Species lists and Partners in Flight species lists. Focal Rank H M L Criterion Description – Habitat Quality Indicators Score 1 Indicator species: when present, indicative of a particular [good] quality of habitat measured by specific factors that are requirements. Absence indicates degraded habitat. 2 Sensitive species: population tolerates a moderate range of conditions in a key factor. Able to exist at lower densities when these conditions are not optimal. 3 Resilient species: able to thrive under a variety of habitat qualities and conditions. Under the ‘Responsibility’ category, the following 3 criteria are used: Responsibility Status Description: Species that have the core of their range within Arizona even if locally abundant. Abert’s towhee is an example of a responsibility species with 90% of its global population within Arizona. Scoring: Note that criterion score ‘3’ may be used on species that are otherwise widespread, but the national populations are primarily in Arizona. The other scores compare Arizona population to the global extent of the species, but this one captures species where the Department may be coordinating with Mexico, and species that are unique in the United States. Use the lowest score that applies. Responsibility Criterion Description – Responsibility Status Rank Score H 1 Endemic: over 90% of the global species breeds within Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 47 Responsibility Criterion Description – Responsibility Status Rank Score H 2 Responsibility: 70–90% of the global species breeds within Arizona. M 3 Southwestern: 70-100% of the United States segment of the species breeds within Arizona. L 4 Widespread: less than half of the species breeds within Arizona. Administrative Protection Status in Mexico Description: Species with administrative protection status in Mexico. Scoring: Mexican Federal Endangered Species List (Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-059-ECOL-2000; October 16, 2000) available through the Department’s Heritage Database Management System (HDMS). Responsibility Criterion Description – Administrative Protection Status in Mexico Rank Score H P En Peligro de Extinción (Determined Endangered in Mexico): in danger of extinction. M A Amenazada (Determined Threatened in Mexico): could become endangered if factors causing habitat deterioration or population decline continue. L Pr Sujeta a Proteccion Especial (Determined Subject to Special Protection in Mexico): utilization limited due to reduced populations, restricted distribution, or to favor recovery and conservation of the taxon or associated taxa. H E Probablemente extinta en el medio silvestre (Probably extinct in the wild of Mexico): A native species whose individuals in the wild have disappeared, based on pertinent documentation and studies that prove it. The only existing individuals of the species are in captivity or outside the Mexican territory. Administrative Protection Status on Tribal Lands in Arizona Description: Species with administrative protection status on tribal lands in Arizona. Scoring: Currently only the Navajo Endangered Species List (2000) was available through the Department’s HDMS (and http://www.heritage.tnc.org/nhp/us/navajo/esl.html). Responsibility Criterion Description – Administrative Protection Status on Tribal Lands in Rank Score Arizona H 1 Any species or subspecies that no longer occur on the Navajo Nation. H 2 Any species or subspecies that is in danger of being eliminated from all or a significant portion of its range on the Navajo Nation. M 3 A species or subspecies which is likely to become an endangered species, within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) Responsibility Criterion Rank Score L 4 L June 28, 2005 Page 48 Description – Administrative Protection Status on Tribal Lands in Arizona significant portion of its range on the Navajo Nation. Any species or subspecies for which the Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department does not currently have sufficient information to support their being listed in Group 2 or Group 3 but has reason to consider them. The Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department will actively seek information on these species to determine if they warrant inclusion in a different group or removal from the list. No status Under the ‘Vulnerability’ category, the following 9 criteria are used: Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Status or Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (federal or state legal status) Description: Uses each species’ legal status to evaluate management importance. High-ranking species include those that are currently listed as well as recently de-listed species that have not completed the post-delisting monitoring evaluation. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management ‘Sensitive Species’ are identified using ESA status, State listed or special concern designations, and tribal listed species. Vulnerability Rank H Criterion Score WSC H H LE LE/XT H M M LT PR PD L No status Federal (ESA) Description State (WSCA) Description Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (3-16-1996 version) Listed endangered Endangered, experimental nonessential population Listed threatened Proposed or petitioned Post-delisting evaluation not completed Imperiled Status Description: Refers to Heritage/IUCN ranking. High-ranking species are G1 (imperiled) and G2 (rare) species. Sub-national scores are already captured in the Department’s ‘Element occurrences’ criterion, which can be much more up-to-date than the sub-national scoring. Scoring: Heritage/IUCN global scores will be used directly from HDMS. Vulnerability Rank H Criterion score 0 G1 Description – Imperiled Status (Heritage global rank) G? (rank unknown) Imperiled Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) Vulnerability Rank H M L L Criterion score G2 G3 G4 G5 June 28, 2005 Page 49 Description – Imperiled Status (Heritage global rank) Rare Uncommon or restricted Apparently secure Demonstrably secure Declining Status Description: Reflects extent to which population numbers or habitats were recently, are currently, or anticipated to be in decline. Scoring: This follows the Heritage/IUCN ranking system for “observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected degree of change” over about 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years) in the area of interest.” The period of time overlaps with the present, so that declines in the immediate past (whether considered ongoing or not), continuing trends, and trends projected to begin immediately are all included. Vulnerability Rank H H H M L L Criterion score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description – Declining Status Insufficient data Severely declining = Decline of >70% Very Rapidly Declining = 50-70% Substantial decline = 30-50% Decline = 10-30% Stable = Unchanged or within +/- 10% fluctuation Increase of > 10% Disjunct Status Description: High-ranking species are represented by subpopulations that are geographically separated from the main population and vulnerable due to distance from other major population centers. Vulnerability Criterion Description – Disjunct Status Rank Score 0 Insufficient data H 1 Disjunct population: 1 to few populations in Arizona separated by large relative distance from larger core distribution of the species. M 2 Peripheral populations: Arizona populations at the margins of the species distribution. L 3 Continuous: the distribution with Arizona populations is within the core of the species’ range. Demographic Status Description: This criterion classifies the resilience of each species in light of current impacts to birth and death rates. These rates can be affected by low genetic fitness/diversity, generation Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 50 time, reproductive vulnerability, demographic adaptability to environmental change, illegal harvest, disturbance, and disease. California condors are an example species with high demographic concerns. Vulnerability Criterion Description – Demographic Status Rank Score 0 Insufficient data H 1 Demographically poor situation: Low birth rates or high death rates combined with small or declining population size. Also, this species’ demographic rates are affected by disturbance, illegal harvest, genetic limitations or failure, or disease in parts of Arizona. M 2 Demographically challenging situation: Low birth rates or high death rates combined with small population size. No anticipated worsening of these rates in next 10 years. L 3 Demographically stable situation: Birth and death rates anticipated to contribute to normal population size variation in next 10 years. L 4 Demographic growth situation: Birth and death rates anticipated to contribute to overall population growth over next 10 years. Element Occurrences Description: Scoring is based on the number of ‘element occurrences’ which include populations and migratory groups (using Heritage sensitive elements). High scoring species may be common, but occur in a restricted range or have a limited ability to disperse. This criterion includes endemic species (found only in specific areas or a single locality). Non-native species that are managed to have a limited number of populations are not considered ‘vulnerable.’ Scoring: Populations are included in Heritage ‘element occurrences,’ which also include migratory groups. The categories below also match IUCN categories and use “estimated, inferred, or suspected number of occurrences believed extant for the species in the area of interest.” Vulnerability Rank H H M L L Criterion Score -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Description – Element Occurrences Extirpated (used in a separate criterion) Insufficient data Highly vulnerable: 1 - 5 occurrences Vulnerable: 6 - 20 occurrences Vulnerable: 21 - 80 occurrences Apparently secure: 81 - 300 occurrences Secure: more than 300 occurrences Extirpation Status Description: Species that once occurred in Arizona. Scoring: Extirpated species are captured by reporting ‘-1’ for element occurrences (see above criterion). Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 51 Vulnerability Criterion Score Description – Extirpation Status Rank H -1 Extirpated (zero element occurrences and/or SX Heritage ranking) L Not extirpated (at least 1 element occurrence) Fragmentation Status Description: Scoring reflects the extent to which sub-populations are separated by barriers to dispersal. In other circumstances, these species would be capable of effective dispersal. Does not address species with inherent lack of ability to disperse. Chiricahua leopard frogs are an example species with populations that are highly fragmented. Vulnerability Rank H Criterion Score 0 1 M 2 L 3 Description – Fragmentation Status Insufficient data Small and fragmented: within Arizona, populations small and isolated from one another. Large and isolated: within Arizona, populations large but isolated from one another. Continuous: within Arizona, populations regularly connected by dispersal. Concentration Status Description: Species that have a portion of their life history in which they are aggregated and thus more vulnerable to local threats and catastrophic events (for example, migratory stopover sites, bat roosts / maternity sites). Vulnerability Rank H Criterion Score 1 M 2 L 3 Description – Concentration Status Colonial species: found in a limited number of groups at high concentration for all of their life cycle. Aggregating species: found in a limited number of groups at high concentration for part of their life cycle. Diffuse species: found at low density for all of their life history. Under the ‘Social and Economic Value’ category, the following criterion is used: Social or Economic Value Description: Harvested populations and ‘watchable wildlife.’ Also, some species of special economic value, such as striped bass, respond tightly to population densities of their prey species, threadfin shad. The latter species is therefore rated for its indirect economic value. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 52 Scoring: Use the lowest applicable score. For instance, mountain lions are of special hunting value as a big game species (‘1’), and are also predators on other species of special value (‘2’). Score mountain lions as ‘1’ (= ‘H’). Social / Criterion Economic Description – Social or Economic Value Score Rank H 1 Species is of special value for the hunting, fishing, or watching public. M 2 Species is of direct but not special value for hunting, fishing, or watching OR species is an important predator or prey to species of high special value for hunting, fishing, or watching. L 3 Species is not currently harvested, not considered ‘watchable wildlife,’ or an important predator or prey for species of special economic value Under the ‘Data Sufficiency’ category, the following criterion is used: Data Sufficiency Description: Whether enough information currently exists to assess the status of the species as a whole. Information may consist of population size or dynamics, or available habitat size, condition, or fragmentation. Scoring: This criterion will be built from ‘Insufficient data’ scores for all other criteria that describe vulnerability. No need to score this criterion separately. Data Sufficiency Rank H L Criterion Score 0 1 Description – Data Sufficiency Insufficient data for any of the above criteria Sufficient data to evaluate vulnerability Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 53 APPENDIX E: CWCS DATABASE RELATIONAL FIELDS AND INSTRUCTIONS Developed by Joyce Francis and Tom Hildebrandt (Arizona Game and Fish Department) 2004. MS-Access database filename: CWCS Documents Database.20050212.mdb. Currently contains 204 agreements, management plans, and related documents for Arizona’s CWCS. The CWCS threat assessment, master and priority species lists, ecoregions and landscape classifications, and potential partners fields are available as drop-down menus for user selection and queries. The conservation actions, measures, tools, and management priority fields will be updated later in 2005. Threats Plan_id Threat_id Threat_group Threat Actions Threat_id Action_id Action_group Action Measure Partners Plan_id Partner_id Partner Action_id Measure_id Measure PLAN Plan_id Authors Year Title Publisher PublicationPlace Edition Pages Workunit Wbsite Permit Comments Scale Site Tools Measure_id Tool_id Tool Mgmt_Priority Priority_id Plan_id Mgmt_priority Species Plan_id Threat_id Species_id Taxonomic_group Genus Species Subspecies CommonName SpeciesPlan_id Master_species Species_id ELCODE Genus Species Subspecies Common Taxonomic group Endangered/threatened Declining Disjunct Demographic Master_region Region_id Species_id Region Master_landscapes Region_id Landscape_id Landscape_group Landscape Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 54 CWCS Database Description and Instructions (December 21, 2004) The CWCS Database is located in: U:\Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy\Documents Database\Documents.mdb Upon opening the database, the following form will appear-- To enter a new plan, click on the arrow with an * at the very bottom of the screen. This will create a new record for the document and all associated tables. Simply type in the requested information. See below for an explanation of each field. The tabs in the center are attached to tables for data entry of items in multiples (for example: Partners) that are associated with a single plan. Please be careful not to type over the 1st record (Plan_id 20). Where practical, the fields are filled by dropdown tables to ease data entry and assure clean input. Browse through entered data by clicking on the arrows at the bottom of the form. Fields: Description: A number that is generated automatically as soon as any other data is entered for this record Work Unit in which hard copies of the document are housed Associated with document This describes the geographic extent of actions covered by the plan or agreement. The CWCS Plan uses ecoregions and landscapes mapped in “U:\Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy\Documents Database\Ecoregions_color.jpg” to describe geographic extents. Possible entries for this field are: Statewide, Ecoregion, Landscape, Multiple Ecoregions, Multiple Landscapes, or Site Specific Site Name: Used only if the entry for ‘Scale’ was “Site Specific” Citation Information in the following fields: (Authors, Year, Title, Publisher, Publication Place, Edition, Pages) Plan_id: Work Unit: Website: Scale: Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 55 CWCS Database Description and Instructions continued Center Tabs: Partners Management Priority Threats Actions Species Ecoregions Description: Include all partners associated with the plan, including the Department if appropriate (To be determined later) Use arrow under Threat to access look up list of available threats. This list also gives any definitions and examples that have been developed (To be determined later) Use the arrow at left to access lookup table for species. Available species are sorted by taxonomic group. The rest of the fields in this table will autofill The CWCS Plan uses ecoregions mapped in “U:\Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy\Documents Database\Ecoregions_color.jpg” (larger maps can be obtained from Joyce Francis). Please fill in any appropriate to the plan Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 56 APPENDIX F: OTHER STRESSORS THAT WERE EVALUATED Stressors that were evaluated (among 70 total) in the 2004 CWCS threat assessment that scored lower in importance in terrestrial landscapes, aquatic/riparian systems, or both, within all Arizona ecoregions. Stressor/Threat Insect Infestation Light pollution Power lines/wind-harnessing turbines Right-of-way fencing along roadways Telephone lines/cellphone towers Timber harvesting Timber harvesting Bait-bucket dumping/illegal stocking Dams/reservoirs/impoundments Heavy metals/mine tailings Canals/pipelines Pesticides/herbicides Nutrients/algal blooms Dispersed camping Hybridization Lead shot/monofilament line Domestication of wildlife/game farming Dredging Landfills/dumps Air traffic corridors/overflights Scientific research and collection Aquaculture Drilling for fuels Harvesting/collecting plants Off-range recreational shooting Railroads Terrestrial Landscapes x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Aquatic/Riparian Systems x x x x x x x x x x x x Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 57 APPENDIX G: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES THAT ADDRESS SPECIFIC STRESSORS/THREATS Promote the restoration and protection of aquifers, springs, streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian systems. Support regulations ensuring minimum instream flow and water rights for wildlife resources. • Urban/Rural growth • Unnatural fire regimes • Agricultural conversion • Altered river flow regimes • Livestock management • Soil erosion • Sediment/ash flows • Streambank alteration • Habitat fragmentation/barriers • Loss of key species Perform landscape classification analyses to identify sensitive habitats, core wildlife areas, and important wildlife corridors. • Urban/Rural growth • Light pollution (nocturnal species) • Canals/pipelines • Nuisance animals • Noise pollution • Enforcement activities on border Acquire ecologically important lands, access agreements, conservation easements, and/or water rights. • Urban/Rural growth • Livestock management • Agricultural conversion • Habitat fragmentation/barriers Support State planning efforts to address drought issues as they relate to wildlife resources. • Climate change • Drought Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing or modifying barriers, protecting corridors and riparian areas, and using wildlife-friendly roadway crossing structures. • Agricultural conversion • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Habitat fragmentation/barriers • Dams/reservoirs/impoundments Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing unneeded fences, by using wildlife-friendly barriers in future projects and when replacing old fences. • Urban/Rural growth • Right-of-way fencing • Livestock management Develop standards for new road, utility and power lines construction, and modification of existing structures and corridors to reduce impacts to wildlife. • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Utility lines & towers • Right-of-way fencing • Soil erosion Promote implementation of recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, and other cooperative agreements for sustaining wildlife resources. • Urban/Rural growth • Dispersed camping • Utility lines & towers • Nuisance animals Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) • • • • • Feral animals Disease/pathogens/parasites Hybridization Loss of key species Game farming June 28, 2005 Page 58 • • • • • Dams/reservoirs/impoundments Canals/pipelines Nuisance animals Loss of key species Manage for game and sport fish Develop contingency plans for rapid salvage of wildlife populations threatened with extirpation in situations of imminent habitat loss. • Canals/pipelines • Unnatural fire regimes • Sediment/ash flows Maintain and construct new wildlife water developments. Encourage conversion of livestock waters so they are also continuously usable by wildlife. • Livestock management • Drought Collaborate with partners to evaluate sampling techniques, reduce duplication of effort, and develop pathogen decontamination protocols to limit impacts to wildlife. • Scientific research and collection Collaborate with partners on disease/pathogen/parasite issues to wildlife including: development of action plans to manage existing sources, identify and respond to new threats, and to educate the public. • Pesticides/herbicides • Disease/pathogens/parasites Evaluate, update, and enforce existing Department regulations to address evolving concerns about hybridization, nuisance animals, illegal stocking, and spread of animals used for bait. • Nuisance animals • Hybridization • Illegal stocking/bait-bucket Reduce/eliminate the effects of feral animal populations in sensitive habitats or near wildlife populations of concern. • Feral animals Educate the public about the impacts of free-ranging or feral animals, release of exotic species, and illegal stocking of fish and live bait on wildlife resources. Increase enforcement of existing laws and promote more stringent laws prohibiting the release of domestic or exotic animals into the wild. • Urban/Rural growth • Feral animals • Recreational sites/facilities • Illegal stocking/bait-bucket Utilize education and enforcement to promote human behavior that does not encourage wildlife to become a nuisance (for example: feeding wildlife, securing waste containers, and storage of food). Increase awareness of effects of feeding and litter on wildlife. • Recreational sites/facilities • Roads (for motorized vehicles) Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) • • Watercraft Operation Illegal dumping/littering June 28, 2005 Page 59 • Nuisance animals Increase public awareness of how water conservation and ensuring instream flow can benefit wildlife. • Urban/Rural growth • Drought • Groundwater depletion/springhead • Streambank alteration/water use diversion Encourage the use of low water-use native plants in landscaping. • Urban/Rural growth • Nuisance plants • Groundwater depletion/springhead • Drought use • Unnatural fire regimes • Nutrients/algal blooms Educate the public regarding identification of contaminants, release prevention, and impacts to wildlife and habitats. Promote alternatives that reduce release of contaminants. • Heavy metals/mine tailings • Contaminants from waste water/runoff • Pesticides/herbicides • Nutrients/algal blooms Encourage cooperative clean up efforts of wildlife habitats. • Watercraft Operation • Illegal dumping/littering • Lead shot/monofilament line Increase public awareness of the potential effects of various types of recreation on wildlife resources. Encourage responsible outdoor recreation through education (for example: “Stay on the Trails,” “Leave No Trace,” “Be Bear Aware,” “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers”), enforce existing laws, and encourage development of new legislation. • Urban/Rural growth • Non-motorized recreation off-trail • Dispersed camping • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Lead shot/monofilament line • Motorized recreation off-trail • Habitat fragmentation/barriers • Watercraft Operation Inform the public and land management agencies on the effects of illegal harvest of wildlife. Cooperate with land management agencies to increase enforcement of existing laws. • Harvesting/collecting animals Support prevention and suppression of accidental or arson-caused wildfire through information and education and enforcement of appropriate regulations. • Recreational sites/facilities • Unnatural fire regimes • Roads (for motorized vehicles) Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 60 Educate the public on the importance of community focal species (including predators, prey, wide-ranging species, keystone species, etc.) for ecosystem health. • Livestock management • Loss of key species Provide recommendations to state and federal partners on the development of new land management plans or revising existing plans as they relate to wildlife resources. • Unauthorized Roads & Trails • Unnatural fire regimes • Grazing by herbivores • Altered river flow regimes • Motorized recreation off-trail • Soil erosion • Sediment/ash flows Cooperate with state, federal, tribal, and local government partners to develop and implement watershed management plans that incorporate wildlife and habitat values. • Groundwater depletion/springhead • Drought use • Soil erosion • Contaminants from waste • Streambank alteration/water water/runoff diversion • Sediment/ash flows • Hybridization Prevent loss and degradation of sensitive habitats through involvement of planning efforts with local governments, private landowners, and agency/tribal land managers. • Urban/Rural growth • Dams/reservoirs/impoundments • Agricultural conversion Promote restoration of natural fire regimes for improving grassland and forest health. • Sediment/ash flows • Soil erosion • Habitat degradation/shrub invasion • Insect Infestation • Unnatural fire regimes • Altered fire regime on border Promote adoption of sustainable forage management standards and guidelines for livestock and wildlife. • Livestock management • Unnatural fire regimes • Grazing by herbivores • Loss of key species • Habitat degradation/shrub invasion Promote conservation of sensitive areas and habitats for wildlife. • Livestock management • Non-motorized recreation off-trail • Recreational sites/facilities • Altered river flow regimes • Unauthorized Roads & Trails • Streambank alteration/water diversion • Utility lines & towers • Dispersed camping on border • Grazing by herbivores • Illegal dumping on border • Motorized recreation off-trail • Unauthorized roads on border • Watercraft Operation Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 61 Encourage development and implementation of standards and guidelines for mining and landfill operations that consider the needs of wildlife resources. • Mining Encourage land management agencies to manage road and trail networks to ensure sustainable wildlife resources in balance with recreational opportunities, economic pursuits, and rural development. • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Non-motorized recreation off-trail • Harvesting of forest products • Drought • Motorized recreation off-trail • Habitat fragmentation/barriers • Watercraft Operation • Unauthorized roads on border Coordinate with land managers, counties, municipalities and private sector partners to promote ecologically sensitive design of recreational facilities such as campgrounds, parks, golf courses, ski resorts, etc. • Recreational sites/facilities • Non-motorized recreation off-trail • Watercraft Operation Coordinate to reduce impacts to wildlife along the US-Mexico border. • Light pollution along the border • Enforcement activities on border • Dispersed camping on border • Enforcement fences on border • Illegal dumping on border • Water use by illegal immigrants • Unauthorized roads on border • Disease along the border • Altered fire regime on border Encourage the operation of dams, canals, and diversions for improving or maintaining wildlife resources. Promote wildlife values in building new, renovating existing, or removing old water retaining structures. • Altered river flow regimes • Dams/reservoirs/impoundments • Canals/pipelines • Streambank alteration/water diversion • Habitat fragmentation/barriers Promote programs for eliminating or limiting the spread of invasive plants and animals, and the recovery or reintroduction of native populations. • Livestock management • Illegal stocking/bait-bucket • Recreational sites/facilities • Disease/pathogens/parasites • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Hybridization • Harvesting of forest products • Habitat degradation/shrub invasion • Watercraft Operation • Unnatural fire regimes • Nuisance plants • Game farming • Nuisance animals Limit the spread of invasive plants and promote the restoration of native vegetation in disturbed areas. Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) • • • • Livestock management Roads (for motorized vehicles) Canals/pipelines Mining June 28, 2005 Page 62 • • • • Sediment/ash flows Nuisance plants Feral animals Soil erosion Support land management and regulatory agencies in enforcing Best Management Practices to prevent the introduction of toxins into ecosystems. • Roads (for motorized vehicles) • Contaminants from waste water/runoff Promote the use of engineered wetlands, discharge basins, and augmented riparian vegetation to pre-treat water prior to release into riparian systems. Promote the use of treated effluent to create wildlife habitat. • Contaminants from waste • Dams/reservoirs/impoundments water/runoff • Canals/pipelines • Altered river flow regimes • Heavy metals/mine tailings • Nutrients/algal blooms Cooperate with land management agencies and municipalities on revising waste management plans to minimize impacts to wildlife resources. • Watercraft Operation • Illegal dumping/littering • Contaminants from waste water/runoff Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 63 APPENDIX H. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO KEY PARTNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION X X X X X X X Recreational User Groups Private Landowners & Permittees X Recreational Industry Agricultural Agencies and Groups X Mine Operators X Local business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations X Academic and Research Entities Power and Utility Companies State, County and Local Govt X Stakeholder Committees Neighboring Governments X Law Enforcement Entities Regulatory Agencies Transportation Authorities Land & Resource Mgmt Agencies Conservation Strategy Promote the restoration and protection of aquifers, springs, streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian systems. Support regulations ensuring minimum instream flow and water rights for wildlife resources. Perform landscape classification analyses to identify sensitive habitats, core Conserving wildlife areas, and important wildlife corridors. wildlife habitat Acquire ecologically important lands, access agreements, conservation easements, and/or water rights. Support State planning efforts to address drought issues as they relate to wildlife resources. Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing or modifying barriers, protecting corridors and riparian areas, and using Maintaining and wildlife-friendly roadway crossing structures. re-establishing Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing habitat and unneeded fences, by using wildlife-friendly barriers in future projects and landscape when replacing old fences. connectivity Develop standards for new road, utility and power lines construction, and modification of existing structures and corridors to reduce impacts to wildlife. Wildlife Promote implementation of recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, and Management other cooperative agreements for sustaining wildlife resources. Manage so as to sustain or enhance sport fish and native fish populations. Develop contingency plans for rapid salvage of wildlife populations threatened with extirpation in situations of imminent habitat loss. X Emphasis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 64 APPENDIX H. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO KEY PARTNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION X X Recreational User Groups Private Landowners & Permittees X Recreational Industry Agricultural Agencies and Groups Mine Operators Local business and Industry Academic and Research Entities Non-Governmental Organizations Power and Utility Companies Stakeholder Committees Law Enforcement Entities State, County and Local Govt Neighboring Governments Regulatory Agencies Transportation Authorities Land & Resource Mgmt Agencies Conservation Strategy Maintain and construct new wildlife water developments. Encourage conversion of livestock waters so they are also continuously usable by wildlife. Collaborate with partners to evaluate sampling techniques, reduce duplication of effort, and develop pathogen decontamination protocols to limit impacts to wildlife. Wildlife Collaborate with partners on disease/pathogen/parasite issues to wildlife Management including: development of action plans to manage existing sources, identify and respond to new threats, and to educate the public. Evaluate, update, and enforce existing Department regulations to address evolving concerns about hybridization, nuisance animals, illegal stocking, and spread of animals used for bait. Reduce/eliminate the effects of feral animal populations in sensitive habitats or near wildlife populations of concern. Public education Educate the public about the impacts of free-ranging or feral animals, and law release of exotic species, and illegal stocking of fish and live bait on enforcement to wildlife resources. Increase enforcement of existing laws and promote more benefit wildlife and stringent laws prohibiting the release of domestic or exotic animals into the wildlife habitat wild. Utilize education and enforcement to promote human behavior that does not encourage wildlife to become a nuisance (for example: feeding wildlife, securing waste containers, and storage of food). Increase awareness of effects of feeding and litter on wildlife. Increase public awareness of how water conservation and ensuring instream flow can benefit wildlife. X Emphasis Encourage the use of low water-use native plants in landscaping. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 65 APPENDIX H. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO KEY PARTNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION X X X Recreational User Groups X Recreational Industry X Private Landowners & Permittees X Agricultural Agencies and Groups Mine Operators Non-Governmental Organizations X Local business and Industry Power and Utility Companies X Academic and Research Entities Stakeholder Committees Law Enforcement Entities State, County and Local Govt Neighboring Governments Regulatory Agencies Transportation Authorities Land & Resource Mgmt Agencies Conservation Strategy Educate the public regarding identification of contaminants, release prevention, and impacts to wildlife and habitats. Promote alternatives that reduce release of contaminants. Encourage cooperative clean up efforts of wildlife habitats. Increase public awareness of the potential effects of various types of Public recreation on wildlife resources. Encourage responsible outdoor recreation education through education (for example: “Stay on the Trails,” “Leave No Trace,” and law “Be Bear Aware,” “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers”), enforce existing laws, and enforcement encourage development of new legislation. to benefit Inform the public and land management agencies on the effects of illegal wildlife and harvest of wildlife. Cooperate with land management agencies to increase wildlife enforcement of existing laws. habitat Support prevention and suppression of accidental or arson-caused wildfire through information and education and enforcement of appropriate regulations. Educate the public on the importance of community focal species (including predators, prey, wide-ranging species, keystone species, etc.) for ecosystem health. Representing Provide recommendations to state and federal partners on the development wildlife values in of new land management plans or revising existing plans as they relate to multiple-use wildlife resources. planning Cooperate with state, federal, tribal, and local government partners to develop and implement watershed management plans that incorporate wildlife and habitat values. X X X X X X X X X X Emphasis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 66 APPENDIX H. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO KEY PARTNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Recreational User Groups Private Landowners & Permittees X Recreational Industry Agricultural Agencies and Groups X Mine Operators Academic and Research Entities X Local business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations X Power and Utility Companies X Stakeholder Committees State, County and Local Govt X Law Enforcement Entities Neighboring Governments X Regulatory Agencies Conservation Strategy Prevent loss and degradation of sensitive habitats through involvement of planning efforts with local governments, private landowners, and agency/tribal land managers. Promote restoration of natural fire regimes for improving grassland and Representing forest health. wildlife Promote adoption of sustainable forage management standards and values in guidelines for livestock and wildlife. multiple-use Promote conservation of sensitive areas and habitats for wildlife. planning Encourage development and implementation of standards and guidelines for mining and landfill operations that consider the needs of wildlife resources. Encourage land management agencies to manage road and trail networks to ensure sustainable wildlife resources in balance with recreational opportunities, economic pursuits, and rural development. Coordinate with land managers, counties, municipalities and private sector partners to promote ecologically sensitive design of recreational facilities such as campgrounds, parks, golf courses, ski resorts, etc. Representing Coordinate to reduce impacts to wildlife along the US-Mexico border. wildlife values in Encourage the operation of dams, canals, and diversions for improving or other processes maintaining wildlife resources. Promote wildlife values in building new, renovating existing, or removing old water retaining structures. Promote programs for eliminating or limiting the spread of invasive plants and animals, and the recovery or reintroduction of native populations. Limit the spread of invasive plants and promote the restoration of native vegetation in disturbed areas. Transportation Authorities X Land & Resource Mgmt Agencies X Emphasis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 67 APPENDIX H. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO KEY PARTNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Recreational User Groups X X X Recreational Industry X X Private Landowners & Permittees X X Agricultural Agencies and Groups Non-Governmental Organizations X X Mine Operators Power and Utility Companies X X Local business and Industry Stakeholder Committees X X Academic and Research Entities Law Enforcement Entities X State, County and Local Govt X Neighboring Governments X X Transportation Authorities Representing wildlife values in other processes Conservation Strategy Support land management and regulatory agencies in enforcing Best Management Practices to prevent the introduction of toxins into ecosystems. Promote the use of engineered wetlands, discharge basins, and augmented riparian vegetation to pre-treat water prior to release into riparian systems. Promote the use of treated effluent to create wildlife habitat. Cooperate with land management agencies and municipalities on revising waste management plans to minimize impacts to wildlife resources. Regulatory Agencies Land & Resource Mgmt Agencies Emphasis Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 68 APPENDIX I. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND FOCAL AREAS Programs X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X X X Administration Laws & Law Enforcement X Emphasis Research Information & Education X Recreation Off-Highway Vehicle X Conservation Watercraft X Business Administration Wildlife Management Conservation Strategy Promote the restoration and protection of aquifers, springs, streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian systems. Support regulations ensuring minimum instream flow and water rights for wildlife resources. Conserving wildlife Perform landscape classification analyses to identify sensitive habitats, core wildlife areas, and important wildlife corridors. habitat Acquire ecologically important lands, access agreements, conservation easements, and/or water rights. Support State planning efforts to address drought issues as they relate to wildlife resources. Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing or modifying barriers, protecting corridors and riparian areas, and using wildlife-friendly roadway crossing structures. Maintaining and rePromote maintenance and restoration of habitat connectivity by removing unneeded fences, by establishing habitat and using wildlife-friendly barriers in future projects and when replacing old fences. landscape connectivity Develop standards for new road, utility and power lines construction, and modification of existing structures and corridors to reduce impacts to wildlife. Promote implementation of recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, and other cooperative Wildlife Management agreements for sustaining wildlife resources. Manage so as to sustain or enhance sport fish and native fish populations. Develop contingency plans for rapid salvage of wildlife populations threatened with extirpation in situations of imminent habitat loss. Maintain and construct new wildlife water developments. Encourage conversion of livestock waters so they are also continuously usable by wildlife. Collaborate with partners to evaluate sampling techniques, reduce duplication of effort, and develop pathogen decontamination protocols to limit impacts to wildlife. Collaborate with partners on disease/pathogen/parasite issues to wildlife including: development of action plans to manage existing sources, identify and respond to new threats, and to educate the public. Focal Areas X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 69 APPENDIX I. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND FOCAL AREAS Programs X X X X X X X X X Administration X Research Emphasis Laws & Law Enforcement Information & Education Recreation Conservation Business Administration Off-Highway Vehicle Watercraft Wildlife Management Conservation Strategy Evaluate, update, and enforce existing Department regulations to address evolving concerns about Wildlife hybridization, nuisance animals, illegal stocking, and spread of animals used for bait. management Reduce/eliminate the effects of feral animal populations in sensitive habitats or near wildlife populations of concern. Educate the public about the impacts of free-ranging or feral animals, release of exotic species, and illegal stocking of fish and live bait on wildlife resources. Increase enforcement of existing laws and promote more stringent laws prohibiting the release of domestic or exotic animals into the wild. Utilize education and enforcement to promote human behavior that does not encourage wildlife to become a nuisance (for example: feeding wildlife, securing waste containers, and storage of food). Increase awareness of effects of feeding and litter on wildlife. Increase public awareness of how water conservation and ensuring instream flow can benefit wildlife. Encourage the use of low water-use native plants in landscaping. Public education and law Educate the public regarding identification of contaminants, release prevention, and impacts to enforcement to benefit wildlife and habitats. Promote alternatives that reduce release of contaminants. wildlife and wildlife Encourage cooperative clean up efforts of wildlife habitats. habitat Increase public awareness of the potential effects of various types of recreation on wildlife resources. Encourage responsible outdoor recreation through education (for example: “Stay on the Trails,” “Leave No Trace,” “Be Bear Aware,” “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers”), enforce existing laws, and encourage development of new legislation. Inform the public and land management agencies on the effects of illegal harvest of wildlife. Cooperate with land management agencies to increase enforcement of existing laws. Support prevention and suppression of accidental or arson-caused wildfire through information and education and enforcement of appropriate regulations. Educate the public on the importance of community focal species (including predators, prey, wideranging species, keystone species, etc.) for ecosystem health. Focal Areas X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 70 APPENDIX I. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND FOCAL AREAS Programs X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? X X X X Administration X Research Recreation X Emphasis Laws & Law Enforcement Conservation X Information & Education Business Administration Off-Highway Vehicle Watercraft Wildlife Management Conservation Strategy Provide recommendations to state and federal partners on the development of new land management plans or revising existing plans as they relate to wildlife resources. Cooperate with state, federal, tribal, and local government partners to develop and implement watershed management plans that incorporate wildlife and habitat values. Prevent loss and degradation of sensitive habitats through involvement of planning efforts with local governments, private landowners, and agency/tribal land managers. Promote restoration of natural fire regimes for improving grassland and forest health. Promote adoption of sustainable forage management standards and guidelines for livestock and Representing wildlife wildlife. values in multiple-use Promote conservation of sensitive areas and habitats for wildlife. planning Encourage development and implementation of standards and guidelines for mining and landfill operations that consider the needs of wildlife resources. Encourage land management agencies to manage road and trail networks to ensure sustainable wildlife resources in balance with recreational opportunities, economic pursuits, and rural development. Coordinate with land managers, counties, municipalities and private sector partners to promote ecologically sensitive design of recreational facilities such as campgrounds, parks, golf courses, ski resorts, etc. Representing wildlife Coordinate to reduce impacts to wildlife along the US-Mexico border. values in other processes Encourage the operation of dams, canals, and diversions for improving or maintaining wildlife resources. Promote wildlife values in building new, renovating existing, or removing old water retaining structures. Promote programs for eliminating or limiting the spread of invasive plants and animals, and the recovery or reintroduction of native populations. Limit the spread of invasive plants and promote the restoration of native vegetation in disturbed areas. Focal Areas X Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 71 APPENDIX I. CWCS CONSERVATION STRATEGIES LINKED TO DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND FOCAL AREAS Programs X X Administration X Research X Laws & Law Enforcement X Information & Education X Recreation Conservation Business Administration Off-Highway Vehicle Representing wildlife values in other processes Conservation Strategy Support land management and regulatory agencies in enforcing Best Management Practices to prevent the introduction of toxins into ecosystems. Promote the use of engineered wetlands, discharge basins, and augmented riparian vegetation to pre-treat water prior to release into riparian systems. Promote the use of treated effluent to create wildlife habitat. Cooperate with land management agencies and municipalities on revising waste management plans to minimize impacts to wildlife resources. Watercraft Wildlife Management Emphasis Focal Areas Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona’s CWCS: Processes (Companion Document A) June 28, 2005 Page 72 APPENDIX J: FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION ACTIVITY REPORTING DATABASE Developed by Eric Gardner and James Manalac (Arizona Game and Fish Department) 2004. MS-Access database filename: Implementation Matrix.mdb. This database was developed to bridge the gap between how the Department plans activities with a statewide implementation planning process, and how to document those activities for reporting purposes. Each of the Department regional offices and several headquarters work units will be using the same version of this database for data entry and report queries. The database administrator has the capability of synchronizing each of the regional databases with the central file at headquarters. This capacity allows multiple users to review the same data statewide, ensures central archiving, and sets standardizations for use and updates. This database tracks activities at various levels: fiscal year, specific work unit, fund, project cost account codes, Department programs, focal areas (sub-programs), and sub-projects (including cross projects). Dropdown menus offer users the ability to describe reporting mechanisms, detailed activity descriptions, and activity updates.