The Leatherback Turtle: Biology and Conservation (Extrait)

Domestic animals such as dogs
and pigs constitute an additional threat to eggs and
hatchlings (Hughes 1996; Leslie et al. 1996; Hitipeuw
et al. 2007; Ordoñez et al. 2007; Tapilatu and Tiwari
2007; Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2010). Finally, human
predation (egg poaching) nearly collapsed the leatherback population of Playa Grande Costa Rica (Santidrián
Tomillo et al. 2008) and did help extirpate the leatherback population of Terengganu, Malaysia (Chan and
Liew 1996), where egg poaching reached about 90%
and 100% respectively over several decades.

the form of annual nest counts, began during the
early 1990s on the north coast of the Bird’s Head Peninsula (Hitipeuw et al. 2007). Within this region, nesting
occurs mainly at Jamursba-Medi, a complex of three
beaches that span 18 km, and Wermon, a smaller 6 km
beach approximately 30 km east of Jamursba-Medi. The
primary nesting season at Jamursba-Medi occurs during
May–September, while nesting occurs year-round at
Wermon with peaks in July and December. Hitipeuw
et al. (2007) provided the first assessment of trends at
Jamursba-Medi between 1984 and 2004, concluding that
the estimated number of nesting females declined from
a peak of 2,303–3,036 in 1984 (based on nest counts
by Bhaskar [1987]) to 667–879 during 2004. They also
reported that nesting at Wermon during two seasons
in 2002–2004 was only slightly lower than nesting at
Jamursba-Medi, with year-round nesting and a second
Pacific Ocean  115
peak during January. However, beach erosion and predation by pigs and dogs caused the loss of 28% of nests
at Wermon (Hitipeuw et al. 2007). Thus, although the
leatherback nesting population at Bird’s Head had not
experienced the collapse observed at Malaysian and
eastern Pacific rookeries, declines and population impacts were evident

Causes of Decline and Conservation Efforts
Kaplan (2005) conducted a Pacific-wide risk assessment
of leatherback turtles that included consideration of
multiple sources of mortality, including egg collection, killing of adults on nesting beaches and foraging
grounds, and bycatch of turtles at sea. There is a long
history, spanning many human generations, of harvesting sea turtles and their eggs for local subsistence use in
the western Pacific region (Spring 1982b; Bhaskar 1987).
Leatherback turtles have been an important part of the
culture of indigenous populations through harvest of
eggs and of adults (Suarez and Starbird 1995; Hitipeuw
et al. 2007). With the introduction of a cash economy
and motorized boats during the 1980s, the harvest of
eggs and adults expanded to provide a source of income beyond the subsistence needs of local villages
(e.g., Spring 1982b; Betz and Welch 1992); this involved
nearby urban markets. This increased harvest pressure
on leatherback populations caused sharp declines
during the 1980s and beyond (Hitipeuw et al. 2007).
Continued at-sea harvests of foraging leatherbacks and
nesting females (e.g., in the Kei Islands, Indonesia; Benson et al. 2011) contributed to this trend.
Concern over the observed declines resulted in local
programs to eliminate egg harvesting at key nesting
beaches (Hitipeuw et al. 2007) and efforts to raise local
awareness of the need to prevent the killing of adults.
However, local customs vary and the success of such
educational programs has been mixed. The taking of
eggs and adults still occurs in many areas of western
Pacific, especially where there are no active conservation programs (e.g., Kinch et al. 2012; Benson et al.
2011). Furthermore, recovery has remained hampered
by other factors, including depredation by feral pigs
and hunting dogs, loss of nests through beach erosion,
and lethal sand temperatures leading to high rates of
hatching failure (Tapilatu and Tiwari 2007).

hreats and Prospects
There are a number of current (fisheries, depredation) and potential threats (development and climate
change) to leatherback populations in the region. In
the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the main threats
to leatherback turtles are from depredation of eggs by
wild pigs, monitor lizards, and feral dogs. The threat
from feral dogs has increased over the years, and may
have led to the decline and extirpation of some populations in the Andaman Islands. The threat from both
fisheries and development activities on the islands have
been increasing.
In order to assess the impact of these threats, important or index beaches need to be monitored regularly. However, many or most beaches have only been
infrequently surveyed, if surveyed at all. Few nesting
beaches have been monitored, and only Little Andaman
Island has been annually monitored in recent years. Additionally, there are important nesting beaches in the
Nicobar Islands that need to be monitored on a regular
basis to assess population trends. Research is also required on various aspects of leatherback biology, such
as the impacts of climate change on sex ratios, turtle
migratory routes and foraging areas, and other factors
determining hatchling and adult survival.

Marine Turtles in the Republic of the Seychelles: Status and Management

Marine Turtles in the Republic of the Seychelles: Status and Management

Predation and Mortality
Although many kinds of animals eat young sea turtles, popular
accounts tend to over-exaggerate how much predation is actually
suffered by the eggs and hatchlings. At a healthy nesting beach,
where no eggs or hatchlings are taken by either humans or predators
introduced by man (such as dogs, pigs, cats or raccoons) and barring
mortality caused by erosion, usually about 80-90% of the eggs laid will hatch out and the hatchlings will reach the sea- The most
serious natural terrestrial predator in Seychelles is the ghost crab.
Predation by birds is relatively insignificant as most hatchlings
emerge from the nest at night when the birds are asleep.
Pigs and dogs can cause tremendous damage on a nesting beach by
digging up the incubating eggs. Hawksbill nests are especially
susceptible to this sort of damage for they bury their eggs in very
shallow nest holes. During the months when eggs are incubating in the
sand, (September through April for hawksbills), pigs should not be
allowed to forage on the nesting beaches. A case in point is that of
Alphonse Island where many hawksbills nest. During the time it was
privately owned, numerous large pigs–at least 15 to 20 of them–
roamed freely on the island and were often seen foraging in the beach
sand. It is hoped that the Islands Development Company, which now
owns the island, will correct this situation.

Turtle eggs and hatchlings are destroyed by feral animals
such as pigs, dogs, cats, and rats.

The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book, Volume 1

The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book, Volume 1

THREATS TO SIJRVIVAL The main threats to the survival of this small tortoise
are degradation of the habitat by overgrazing, and development for agriculture,
industry and settlements. The tortoises have to cover larger distances in an
overgrazed habitat in order to find food, and are thus more exoosed to predation.
In addition, in an overgrazed habitat the density of rodents is low and the
134
tortoises have more difficulty in finding rodent burrows in which to hide, and
shrubs (under which they could dig burrows of their own) are small and widely
scattered.
Little is known about natural enemies. The most common diurnal predator of this
habitat, Varanus griseus, is a threat only to young tortoises, and the activity
periods of both species show little overlap. Large mammalian predators – hyenas
and wolves – are rare in this area and are active at night. Bedouin dogs, active
day and night, probably eat any tortoise they can crack. Foxes Vulpes vu1 es
arabica probably have little influence because of their nocturnal activity. -?&G
tortoises found dead appear to have been killed by a blow with the ‘nabout’, the
club-like stick used by the Bedouin.

Southeastern Lincoln County Habitat Conservation Plan: Environmental Impact … (Google Books)

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER

LAND DEVELOPMENT AND UTIUTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

No direct effects to southwestern willow flycatchers or their habitat would result from future development activities associated with the Meadow Valley Industrial Park due to activities being contained within the area of effect, which does not include the Meadow Valley Wash or its riparian area. The LCLA parcel does not occur in southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Flycatcher habitat does not occur within the Alamo Industrial Park and Community Expansion Area, the proposed BLM disposal lands around the Alamo area or on the 640-acre Section 36 disposal parcel; therefore, direct effects to the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat are unlikely to occur as a result of development activities at these sites (see Figure 4-3 in the SLCHCP).

In general, utility construction and maintenance on non-Federal land is not a major threat to the southwestern willow flycatcher within the Covered Area, because these areas are already developed or significantly disturbed and do not provide habitat. Significant utilities construction and maintenance along the Meadow Valley Wash would require Federal land access and Section 7 consultation.

OTHER ACTIVITIES ON PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN THE COVERED AREA

FLOOD CONTROL ACTIVITIES

Flood control activities proposed by the City of Caliente would result in the removal of most of the riparian vegetation in the bottom of the Meadow Valley Wash between the north and south bridges that allow US. Highway 93 to cross the wash. Removal of vegetation between these two bridges would result in the loss of 8.3 acres of suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, which represents less than one percent of the total amount of suitable habitat in the Meadow Valley Wash (see Figure 4-6 of the SLCHCP). These flood control activities would impact the normal stream function and the dynamic nature of the riparian corridor.

As mature riparian vegetation returns to the reach after flood control activities are implemented, future flood events would be less likely to adversely affect the vegetation, resulting in more stable habitat in the long term. However, it would be years before mature woody vegetation would return to the site. Additionally, until the City of Caliente determines the type and design of their flood control project, it is assumed that this area will no longer be capable of supporting suitable flycatcher habitat. However, the City of Caliente will mitigate for any residual effects associated with the removal of the 8.3 acres of suitable flycatcher habitat by contributing funds ($12,000 per acre) to enhance or reestablish habitat elsewhere along Meadow Valley Wash, through the establishment of a habitat bank on private or public land and/or conservation easements on private land.

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Lincoln County roadway upgrades and maintenance activities (i.e., bridge and culvert maintenance activities) require vegetation removal and trimming over time which could impact suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. However, the implementation of the general mitigation measures described in Section 3.3 herein combined with the specific avoidance and minimization measures for upgrades and maintenance activities described in Section 3.2.2.3.4 of this FEIS would minimize and mitigate effects to the flycatcher from roadway activities.

UPRR ACTIVITIES

Railroad operations, maintenance and urgent response activities could result in disturbance to approximately 54 acres of suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat within the Meadow Valley Wash (see Figure 5-4 in the SLCHCP). Vegetation on the edges of flycatcher habitat could also be removed as a result of UPRR’s activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

lf UPRR’s activities occur during the flycatcher breeding season, there is only a minor chance that these activities would result in disturbing nesting flycatchers, as the flycatcher population in the Meadow Valley Wash is very low. To further minimize the risk of disturbance, UPRR will use qualified biologists to conduct one-time surveys in a few areas of suitable southwestern willow flycatcher of up to 3 to 4 acres in the vicinity of mile post markers 447 to 452 and between mile post markers 395 and 396 as delineated by the USFWS (see Figure 5-4, maps 2 and 8 in the SLCHCP). If individuals and/or their nests are discovered within proposed maintenance or construction areas, then the individuals will be avoided to the extent possible but will not preclude or suspend the Covered Activities. However, UPRR has agreed to contribute $12,000 per acre to offset potential effects from their activities on the removal of 54 acres of suitable flycatcher habitat within their rights-of-way.

OTHER PRIVA TEL Y-OWNED LANDS SUBJECT TO LAND CONVERSION ACTIVITIES

In the Covered Area, agricultural lands have been highly disturbed and do not provide optimal habitat for flycatchers. However, the conversion of existing private lands along the Meadow Valley Wash from previously undisturbed agricultural or grazing land to urban use or from grazing land to irrigated and/or cultivated agricultural fields would result in direct effects to southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. The modification or reduction of riparian habitat could adversely affect approximately

84.3 acres of suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Lincoln County is requesting take coverage on up to 22 acres of suitable flycatcher habitat over the 30-year permit term. To mitigate for the loss of suitable flycatcher habitat, Lincoln County will work with the private landowners who wish to participate in the SLCHCP to ensure that the same avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures proposed for flood control, roadway improvements and maintenance activities, and UPRR activities are implemented to minimize effects to southwestern willow flycatcher and/or its habitat from this activity. The landowners would be required to either pay $12,000 per acre of suitable habitat removed to be used toward restoration and habitat replacement purposes or replace the loss of native habitat disturbed at a 2:1 ratio and the loss of non-native suitable flycatcher habitat with native habitat at a 1:l ratio directly, as part of their obligations upon signing the participation agreement with Lincoln County.

5.4.2.1.2 Indirect Effects

DESERT TORTOISE

Due to indirect effects arising from increased human presence, conversion of the land to human uses in the Covered Area could adversely impact desert tortoise and reduce the quality of critical habitat adjacent to the Covered Area. The extent of critical habitat surrounding the Covered Area that may be affected by indirect effects is not readily quantifiable. It should be noted that the adjacent lands are managed by BLM as ACECs and, therefore, are subject to activity restrictions.

LAND DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITYAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Habitat fragmentation from development likely would impede movement of desert tortoise through the Covered Area. Habitat fragmentation is a major contributor to population declines of the desert tortoise (Berry and Burge 1984, Berry and Nicholson 1984). Individual desert tortoise may require more than 1.5 square miles of habitat and may make forays of more than 7 miles at a time (Berry 1986). In drought years, desert tortoise forage over even larger areas. Roads and urban areas form barriers to movement and tend to create small, local populations which are more susceptible to extinction than large, connected ones (Wilcox and Murphy 1985).

Trash disposal in areas to be developed within the Covered Area could adversely affect nearby desert tortoises. Unauthorized and authorized deposition of refuse occurs close to towns, cities, and settlements in remote, inaccessible areas. Tortoises are known to eat foreign objects, such as rocks, balloons, plastic, and other garbage (John Behler, Chairman of the Freshwater Turtle and Tortoise Group, Species Survival Commission, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and New York Zoological Society, pers. comm; Karen Bjomdabl, pers. comm., as cited in the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, USFWS 1994). Such objects can become lodged in the gastrointestinal tract or entangle heads and legs, causing death. Objects such as metal foil

SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

and glass chips have been found in wild desert tortoise scat and tortoise entanglement with rubber bands and string has been observed Burge (1989).

The number of dogs could increase with an increase in human presence; thus, the incidence of unrestrained domestic and/or feral dogs in tortoise habitat in and adjacent to the Covered Area may subsequently increase. Dog attacks or predation on tortoises has been identified by the USFWS as an emerging problem that wan‘ants attention (59 FR 5820, Boarman 2002a). Preliminary results from a study in the Mojave Desert of California indicate a significantly higher percentage of tortoises with moderate to severe canid-like shell trauma within approximately two miles of settlements than tortoises at more remote sites (Demmon and Berry 2005). Others have also reported a higher incidence of canid-like shell damage at sites with feral dogs and dog packs (Bjurlin and Bissonette 2001, cited in Boarman 2002a).

Anticipated increases in human use and habitation of the Covered Area may attract and concentrate predators such as ravens, coyotes, and kit fox, resulting in increased predation of desert tortoises. Predators are more likely to be attracted to the area if trash or other anthropogenic resources are present. Natural predation in undisturbed, healthy ecosystems is generally not a threat to the continued existence of the desert tortoise. However, predation rates may be altered when natural habitats are disturbed or modified.

The most important predators of desert tortoises at this time are the common raven (Corvus corax) and the coyote (Canis Iatrans). The best-documented predator is the raven. Raven population increases seem to be due to increased food supplies, (e.g. roadkills, landfills, trash, garbage dumps, agricultural developments). Because ravens make frequent use of food, water, and nest-site subsidies provided by humans, their population increases have been tied to an increase in food and water sources, such as landfills and septic ponds (Boarman and Berry 1995, USFWS 1994). Additionally, new sites for perches and nests (e.g. fence posts, power poles and towers, signs, buildings, bridges) may increase potential mortality of tortoises due to increased foraging advantages.

The collection of desert tortoise for pets, food, or use in cultural observances may increase on lands adjacent to and within the Covered Area. Illegal collection is a major factor in the decline of the desert tortoise. People illegally collect desert tortoise for pets, food, and commercial trade. Some collect for medicinal or other cultural purposes (USFWS 1994). Almost one-half of tortoise with radio transmitters have been documented as poached or suspected of being poached from research sites (Berry 1990 as amended, Stewart 1991).

Pet tortoises, both desert and exotic, kept by future residents of the planned communities within the Covered Area may also be intentionally or unintentionally released into surrounding areas. Well-meaning citizens may capture, transport, and release tortoises they find and perceive to be in harm’s way. In addition to loss through capture, increased handling could contribute to the loss of unique, local characteristics through interbreeding and genetic mixing.

Upper respiratory diseases in tortoises living in and near the Covered Area could increase. Capture and release of tortoises could contribute to the spread of diseases such as upper respiratory tract disease (URTD). By the early 1990s, NDOW had documented several cases of URTD in tortoises inhabiting the areas proposed for inclusion in the Coyote Spring and Mormon Mesa ACECs (USFWS 1994); and URTD has been documented in both the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa permanent study plots (BLM 1998). URTD appears to be spreading and may have been introduced to wild tortoise populations through the release or escape of diseased, captive tortoises (Jacobson 1994, cited in USFWS 1994), something that is more likely to occur near an urban area (Boarman 2002). A high or increased prevalence of URTD in tortoise populations adjacent to urbanized areas or within suburban areas has been documented in several regions such as the Cecil Field/Brannon Mitigation Park in Florida (gopher tortoises, Brown et al. 2005) and Tucson, Arizona (Sonoran population, desert tortoise; Jones et al. 2005). While evidence indicates a correlation between high rates of tortoise mortality/population decline and URTD incidence, a direct cause-effect relationship has not been established (Boarman 2002a).

Development activities within the Covered Area that create ground disturbance could cause the dispersion of non-native plant species both inside and outside the Covered Area. Non- native plant species such as red brome (Bromus rubens), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and split grass (Schismus arabicus) have been introduced as a result of grazing, and can spread from disturbance by OHV activities and ground disturbance associated with development. These species have become widely established in the Mojave Desert. Land

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

managers and field scientists identified 116 species of alien plants in the Mojave and Colorado deserts (Brooks and Esque 2002). Desert tortoises have been found to prefer native vegetation over non-native vegetation (Jennings 1993). Non-native annual plants in desert tortoise critical habitat in the western Mojave Desert were found to compose greater than 60 percent of the annual biomass (Brooks 1998). The reduction in quantity and quality of forage may stress tortoises and make them more susceptible to drought- and disease-related mortality (Jacobson et al. 1991, Brown et al. 1994).

In the Mojave Desert, the proliferation of non-native plant species has also contributed to an increase in fire frequency in desert tortoise habitat by providing sufficient fuel to carry fires, especially in the intershrub spaces that are mostly devoid of native vegetation (USFWS 1994, Brooks 1998, Brown and Minnich 1986). Over 500,500 acres of desert tortoise habitat burned within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in 2005 and 2006. Thus, the potential for the dispersion of non-native plant species from ground disturbance activities within the Covered Area could also result in increases in fire frequency in surrounding desert tortoise habitat.

Changes in plant communities caused by recurrent fire may negatively impact tortoises and tortoise populations through direct mortality and injury (e. g. Woodbury and Hardy 1948), as well as loss of forage species and shrubs that provide shelter and fragmentation of habitat (Brooks and Esque 2002, Esque et al. 2003).

Creosote bush is slow to re-sprout and germinate following intense fire (Brown and Minnich 1986). Loss of these shrubs and other vegetation, even temporarily, may change the thermal environment and increase exposure of tortoises to temperature extremes (Esque and Schwalbe 2002). Loss of forage, water, or shelter sites can result in nutritional deficiencies and decreased reproductive rates.

Utilities such as powerlines, water and gas pipelines, and fiber optic cables would likely be constructed across the federal lands to provide services to the developments in Lincoln County. Primary threats from construction of utilities include habitat removal during construction and rights-of-way maintenance, vehicle and equipment encounters with tortoises, and the potential spread of weeds by construction or maintenance vehicles. In addition, power lines, fence posts, or signs may be used for perching by the common raven and predation of juvenile tortoises may increase. BLM would be required to minimize effects to tortoises from these activities under Section 7 of the ESA. Construction and maintenance of utilities on the private lands, such as wastewater, water, and electricity, would be unlikely to create indirect effects on the desert tortoise beyond those already described for residential and commercial development activities above. If nest substrates are not already present in the area, introduction of transmission towers or other tall objects can increase common ravens in the area (Boarman 2002b). Increased traffic from these activities would be undetectable above normal levels.

Transfer stations could also increase ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the desert tortoise (Boarman 2002b), as they are increasingly used in the LCLA parcel. Creation of transfer stations could encourage predators to frequent an area where they are not currently present. Improperly managed transfer stations can offer ravens a concentrated feeding ground and when located in tortoise habitat may give rise to a higher incidence of juvenile predation by the raven. Predation could potentially increase with the development of the LCLA lands as urban areas expand.

OTHER ACTIVITIES ON PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN THE COVERED AREA

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Roads may result in indirect impacts to tortoise populations by increasing opportunities for human access, such as the collection (poaching) of tortoises for pets, food, or sport; release of diseased, captive tortoises into wild populations and the subsequent spread of disease; littering and illegal dumping; increased chance and incidence of human-caused fire in tortoise habitat; and the spread of non-native, invasive weeds (Boarman 2002a). As private lands are developed, an increase in recreational use of the adjacent Federal lands is anticipated, which may increase the likelihood of tortoise mortality and injury from vehicle encounters and result in unauthorized road incursions which could disturb tortoise habitat and surrounding vegetation.

Noise from traffic may also negatively affect tortoise populations due to disruption of communication, change in behavior, and damage to the auditory system. Background noise has been shown to mask vocal signals essential for individual survival and reproductive success in other animals (e.g. Bailey

SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

and Morris 1986, Ehret and Gerhardt 1980). Desert tortoises are known to have hierarchical social interactions (Brattstrom 1974), are capable of hearing (Adrian et al. 1938; Patterson 1971, 1976), and communicate vocally (Campbell and Evans 1967, Patterson 1971, 1976). The masking effect of these sounds may significantly alter an individual’s ability to effectively communicate or respond in appropriate ways. The same holds true for incidental sounds made by approaching predators; masking of these sounds may reduce a desert tortoise’s ability to avoid capture by a predator.

UPRR ACTIVITIES

Indirect effects such as increased noise and/or vibration from passing trains may also affect tortoises living near railroads due to disruption of communication, change in behavior, and damage to the auditory system. Background noise has been shown to mask vocal signals essential for individual survival and reproductive success in other animals (e.g. Bailey and Morris 1986, Ehret and Gerhardt 1980). Desert tortoises are known to have hierarchical social interactions (Brattstrom 1974), are capable of hearing (Adrian et al. 1938; Patterson 1971, 1976), and communicate vocally (Campbell and Evans 1967; Patterson 1971, 1976). The masking effect of these sounds may significantly alter an individual’s ability to effectively communicate or respond in appropriate ways. The same holds true for incidental sounds made by approaching predators; masking of these sounds may reduce a desert tortoise’s ability to avoid capture by a predator. Railroad rights-of-way are also likely to attract and concentrate tortoise predators, such as the common raven (Corvus corax), which is a major cause of juvenile tortoise mortality.

OTHER PRNA TELY-OWNED LANDS SUBJECT TO LAND CONVERSION ACTIVITIES

Due to indirect effects arising from increased human presence, conversion of previously undisturbed agricultural or grazing land to urban use or grazing land to irrigated and/or cultivated agricultural lands along the Meadow Valley Wash in the Covered Area could adversely impact desert tortoise. Land conversion activities on up to approximately 564 acres of agricultural and grazing lands, containing suitable desert tortoise habitat, along the Meadow Valley Wash within the Covered Area could result in an increase of non-native plants both inside and outside the newly developable area.

To offset the indirect effects to the desert tortoise from all the Covered Activities described above, a combination of general and activity specific avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to compensate for disturbance of desert tortoise habitat. The general mitigation measures to be implemented for all the Covered Activities are addressed in Section 3.3 herein. The activity specific avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented to offset any indirect effects to the desert tortoise are described in Sections 3.2.2.3.1 (land development and maintenance activities), 3.2.2.3.2 (utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities), 3.2.2.3.4 (roadway improvements and maintenance activities), 3.2.2.3.5 (UPRR activities), and 3.2.2.3.6 (land conversion activities) respectively. The conservation measures identified in Section 3.2.2.3 herein would compensate for effects that could not be offset by the avoidance and minimization measures.

California Desert Conservation Area: volume E, appendix IX, wildlife (Google Books)

ANIMAL INTRODUCTION: Man Induced and Natural Invasions.

Nature of the Impact

Approximately 50 introduced species of wildlife are currently inhabitants of the CDCA. These species include at least 37 fish, 7 birds, 3 mammals, one reptile, and one amphibian. The list would be greatly expanded if insects were included.

Species have been introduced to California for a number of reasons and in different ways. Introductions may be accidental, such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (Stover 1922) or for a particular, purpose. Some species such as Chukars (Alectoris chukar) (Christensen 1970), have been introduced for sport fishing or hunting; others have been introduced to assist in control of “pest” species such as anopholine mosquito larvae which are prey items for mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) (Moyle 1976). A number of other fish species have been introduced as bait fish or for the pet trade 9-Moyle 1976). Some introductions have taken place for other reasons. The Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) was introduced into the United States because of the apparent “lack” of native birds (Chapman 1925).

Introduction of exotic species generally results in negative impacts on native wildlife through either direct or indirect interaction. Direct interactions with native species include 1) competition for resources, 2) predation or parasitism, and/or 3) by hybridization. Indirect effects include alteration or destruction of habitat which supports native species.

There may be some positive effects of introductions on native species. Two benefits are the control of “pest” species and increased recreational opportunities through hunting and fishing.

Introduction of fish species to control “pest” organisms often have negative impacts on the native fish fauna. Mosquitofish, introduced to control mosquito populations (Krumholy 19^8, Moyle 1976), are known to overgraze zooplankton populations, disrupting normal energy flow patterns (Hurlbert et al. 1972) and have been accused of eliminating native fish through competition and predation (Miller 1961, Myers 1965, Minckley and Deacon 1968). Fish species introduced to control growth of aquatic plants, Mossambique mouthbrooder (Tilapia mossambica) and Zill’s cichled (T. zillii), apparently have impacted negativley native fish species (Baerends and Baerends-VanRoon 1950, Moyle 1976). Other exotic introductions have had negative impacts on native species through hybridization, competition and/or predation.

Introductions of exotic bird species probably impact native bird species to some degree. Chukars probably compete with native quail species for limited resources; chukars, mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) and rabbits have been observed to use the same waterholes in

arid and semi-arid areas (Harper et al. 1958). House sparrows (Passer domesticus) have invaded much of the United States since their introduction. This species is very aggressive and dominant to house finches (Carpodacus mexicaniis) at feeding stations, often driving the finches away (Kalinoski 1975). House sparrows are also known to take over nests and destroy eggs and nestlings belonging to cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) (Samuel 1969). Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) compete with native species for nest sites (Miller 1967) and are known to cause economic losses by eating grain in feed lots and eating seedlings of agricultural crops (Dolbeer et al. 1978, Feane 1975). Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) range and population have been increasing in recent years; Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) range has declined over the same interval. The decline in vireo range is believed to be the result of parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Grinnell and Miller 1944, McCaskie 1969).

A number of exotic mammals have been introduced to the CDCA. The impacts of feral burros (Equus assinus) on wildlife are treated elsewhere (Appendix 10-b-vi). The house mouse (Mus musculus) has invaded remote areas within the CDCA. This species has a good ability to avoid predation (Pearson 1964) and is known to compete with Apodemus sylvatious, Peromyscus pclionotus, P. maniculatus, and Microtus californious (Berry and, Tricker 1969, Caldwell 1964, Caldwell and Gentry 1965, Delong 1966, King 1957). Two of these, j\ maniculatus and M^ californicus, are native to the CDCA and are likely to be negativley affected by house mice. Feral dogos (Canis familiaris) are also present in the CDCA and are known to prey upon livestock (Bogges et al. 1978, Denny 1974) and wildlife (Denny 1974, Scott and Causey 1973). Feral dogs may also compete with coyotes. Domestic dogs often kill desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) living within a two to five-mile radius of desert towns (K. Berry personal communication).

Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population), Recovery Plan (Google Books)

M. Predation.

[graphic]
1. Native predators. Many species of predators prey on desert tortoises at different stages of their life cycle, including predation on eggs by Gila monsters (Beck 1990), destruction (and probably consumption of eggs) by kit foxes and coyotes (Turner et al. 1987), predation of juvenile and immature desert tortoise by ravens (Berry 1985, Woodman and Juarez 1988, Farrell 1989), and predation of immature and adult desert tortoises by golden eagles (Berry 1985). Many authors have reported predation by ophidians, felids, canids, and mustelids.

Natural predation in undisturbed, healthy ecosystems is generally
not an issue of concern. Under certain situations, however, the
level and type of predation becomes a management issue, and action
must be taken to control the predator(s). The most obvious example
is when numbers of desert tortoises become precariously low in
local areas or regions, and any loss of individuals is likely to
threaten that population. Predation rates may be altered when
natural habitats are disturbed or modified. For example, densities of
predators may increase, food habits of predators may be altered so
that desert tortoises become more frequent components in the diets,
and predators may be able to prey upon desert tortoises more easily
when cover has been reduced.

The most important predators of desert tortoises at this time are the common raven (Corvus corax) and the coyote (Canis latrans). Based on data from over 1,000 remains, ravens generally kill juvenile desert tortoises with a carapace length of less than 110 mm (Campbell 1983, Berry 1985, Woodman and Juarez 1988). The evidence that ravens are preying upon and not scavenging juvenile desert tortoises is three-fold. First, ravens have been observed killing juvenile desert tortoises (T om Campbell, Jim Farrell, Ted Rado, and others, pers. comm.) . In contrast, scavenging of juveniles has not been observed (although scavenging of larger road-killed desert tortoises has been documented).

Second, large numbers of young desert tortoise remains show signs consistent with raven predation. Many remains show puncture wounds made by ravens’ beaks or have entry wounds on the carapaces or plastrons where ravens peeked through the shells and

m

withdrew the organs (Berry 1985). The patterns of damage to the
shell and removal of heads, legs, and girdles are consistent from one
geographic region to another and from one species of tortoise to
another (see Geffen 1990, for Testudo kleinmanni). The puncture
wounds and openings in the shell must have been made when the
tortoise was alive or within minutes of death, when the shell was
soft and pliable and could be opened without fracturing it. Third,
large numbers of young desert tortoise remains are found in and at
the base of raven nests, as well as near perches. Concentrations of
shells have been discovered along fence posts (Campbell 1983), at
the bases of known raven perches and nests (Woodman and Juarez
1988), and along transmission line towers (Farrell 1989). For
example, between 1987 and 1990, 564 shells of carapace length less
than 110 mm were collected in California from 1987 to 1990 on
study plots, along powerlines, and at raven nests and perch sites.
Of this total, 215 (38%) were found on study plots and 349 (62%)
were found associated with raven perch or nest sites, most of which
were along powerlines.

In spring 1991, a case of probable raven predation occurred at a research site on the National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, California (D. Morafka, pers. comm). In early 1990, two contiguous predator-proof enclosures were established for neonate desert tortoises. One enclosure had a roof of chicken-wire screen to prevent avian predation, and the other did not. In late summer and autumn 1990, approximately 30 juveniles hatched inside the roofed enclosure, 18 in the outside enclosure, and another 12 were free ranging. During a 2-week period in spring 1991 (29 April to 9 May), an avian predator, presumably a raven, preyed upon and killed the 18 desert tortoises in the open enclosure. Of the 12 freeroarning desert tortoises (each with a radio transmitter) outside the enclosures, 8 were found dead. All shells had punctures either through the carapace or plastron or both in patterns consistent with raven predation (Campbell 1983, Berry 1985, and others). The shells were within a few hundred feet of the sites where desert tortoises were last seen alive.

Raven predation on juveniles can be a threat to the long-term persistence of desert tortoise populations. In California, desert tortoise study sites that show high percentages of raven-killed juveniles also show significant changes in size-age class structure of populations from the 1970’s to the 1980’s (Berry et al. 1986a and b). The data show significant declines in percentages of live juveniles desert tortoises as well as declines in recruitment of juvenile and immature desert tortoises into the young adult size-age classes. Ray et a1. (1992) developed a simple model to evaluate spatially structured raven predation on juvenile tortoises. This model predicts that ravens must increase mortality of juveniles 5 years old by 25% before a discrete reduction in population growth from 1.02 to 1.00 can occur.

The extent of raven predation varies regionally and appears to be correlated with densities of raven populations. Berry (1985)

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
demonstrated that the proportion of juvenile shells showing evidence of raven predation was significantly higher in the western Mojave than the eastern Mojave and southern Colorado deserts. This pattern is consistent with raven surveys in which large numbers of raven sightings were recorded in the western Mojave, intermediate numbers in the eastern Mojave, and relatively few in the southern Colorado deserts (Knowles et al. 1989a, 1989b). Considerable predation also occurs in the eastern Mojave Desert. For instance, most of the 248 desert tortoise remains collected in 1988 at or near three active raven nests and one foraging site in the eastern Mojave were estimated to have died that year (Farrell 1989).

Populations of common ravens apparently have been increasing for many decades. Numbers of ravens observed during Fish and Wildlife Service breeding bird surveys in the Mojave Desert increased by 1528% between 1968 (the year the surveys were initiated) and 1988 (Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD; cited in BLM 1989). Increases of 474% were also documented for the Colorado Desert during the same time period. Probable causes for population increases are increased availability of foods (e.g., landfills, sewage ponds, dumpsters, highways, cities) and water (e.g., sewage ponds, agricultural fields, golf courses). Artificial sources of food and water help sustain more individuals during times of low natural resource availability, such as winter and summer. Such artificial food sources also probably facilitate larger clutch sizes or increased frequencies of clutches and greater fledgling success for the common raven. In addition, human-made structures have increased numbers and distribution of perches and nest sites (power and telephone poles, bridges, bill boards, freeway overpasses, etc.). The presence of human refuse in almost a quarter of 226 raven pellets collected from the eastern Mojave Desert in May 1991 demonstrates the close relationship between humans and ravens (Camp et al. 1992). In another example, ravens spent 51% of non-flight time along transmission towers, railroads, telephone poles, and non-native tamarisk shrubs in the eastern Mojave (Sherman and Knight 1992).

A parallel issue involves Egyptian tortoises, which are preyed upon by the hooded crow (Corvus corone sardonius) and the brownnecked raven (C. corax ruficollis) in Israel, Egypt, and elsewhere in North Africa (Geffen and Mendelssohn 1989, Mendelssohn 1990, Stubbs 1989b):

When I came to Palestine in 1933 the brown-necked
raven was not a rare, but neither was it a common,
desert bird. Each pair has a territory of about 100

kilometers2 and there were small nomadic flocks of
immatures and non-breeding adults. After the
foundation of the State of Israel, when large scale
immigration, agricultural, and settlement
development began, the brown-necked raven became
synanthropic and started a population explosion.

[graphic][merged small]
[The hooded crow] was formerly distributed only in
areas close to the Mediterranean, where human
settlements were quite dense and high trees for
nesting were available. Predation on young Testudo
graecafloweri (a semi-desert subspecies) has been
observed several times. Following human
settlements they advanced eastwards penetrating into
the area of T. kleinmanni and recently reaching Beer
Sheva, 50 kilometers from their former distribution
area. This synanthropic species can reach very high
densities, notwithstanding that breeding pairs are
territorial, but feed also outside their territory, as do
the flocks of immatures and non-breeding adults.
Recent research carried out not far from Tel Aviv,
has shown that there can be up to 17 breeding pairs

in 1 kilometer2!

[The brown-necked raven]…became also
synanthropic and invaded the areas of T. kleinmanni
from the east, so that now both species are sympatric
there. Lack of trees so far prevents these corvids
from exploiting much of the area, but I have seen
even the hooded crow, not such a good flyer as the
brown-necked raven, flying several kilometers from
the next settlement over the T. kleinmanni habitat,
apparently foraging (Mendelssohn 1990).

Shells of young tortoises of both species, some still
bloody from predation, are often reported. The
disappearance of T. graecafloweri from some areas
is likely due to crow predation, and there is increased
concern about the impact of brown-necked ravens on
Egyptian tortoises (Mendelssohn 1990).

The above documentation is sufficient to demonstrate that corvids in general are extremely efficient and demanding predators on young or small tortoises throughout the world. Their impact, relative to other predators and to tortoise population growth and general survivorship, is likely to vary from site to site.

Coyotes have been implicated in heavy levels of predation on desert tortoises at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, Rand Mountains, and

[graphic]
[graphic]
Fremont Valley since 1988. Coyotes dug up and ate several adult desert tortoises which were fitted with radio transmitters (Charles Peterson, UCLA, pers. comm.). However, desert tortoises may have been ill (with URTD) or dead and then scavenged by coyotes, or coyotes may have been attracted to the area by large numbers of dying and dead desert tortoises. Feral dogs may have also been responsible for some of the predation.

2. Domestic and feral predators. Domestic and feral dogs are documented threats to captive and wild tortoises alike, not only for desert tortoises but for other species as well (Swingland and Klemens 1989). With the growing number and sizes of cities, towns, and settlements in the desert, this type of threat is increasing and will be difficult to control. Dogs singly, and in packs, often roam miles from home, dig up desert tortoises and injure them beyond recovery. For example, in 1971 and 1972, many burrows destroyed or damaged by dogs and two severely injured desert tortoises were found near scattered homes along Highway 58 in Kern County, California (K. Berry pers. comm.). Dog tracks and seats were unambiguously identified (size and shape of print; size and composition of scat).

Dogs have also attacked desert tortoises on BLM’s permanent study plots in California. Judging from gnawed and chewed scutes and bones, a large proportion of desert tortoises observed at the Luceme Valley study plot in 1986 and 1990 appeared to have been attacked by dogs. Numerous dog packs were observed at the same time (BLM files, Riverside, California).

At the Desert Tortoise Natural Area in California, two dogs were observed harassing a desert tortoise (Jennings 1991). Also at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, George Moncsko of the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee (pers. comm. to Kristin Berry) chased a pack of dogs from a desert tortoise. In the adjacent Fremont Valley permanent study plot, dog packs were observed on three occasions in spring of 1991, and dogs had apparently excavated desert tortoise burrows and probably killed desert tortoises there (Craig Knowles and Paul Frank, pers. comm.). On one occasion, the dogs charged a fieldworker. In each case, the nearest human habitation was 2- to 3-miles away.

Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population), Recovery Plan (Google Books)

M. Predation.

[graphic]
1. Native predators. Many species of predators prey on desert tortoises at different stages of their life cycle, including predation on eggs by Gila monsters (Beck 1990), destruction (and probably consumption of eggs) by kit foxes and coyotes (Turner et al. 1987), predation of juvenile and immature desert tortoise by ravens (Berry 1985, Woodman and Juarez 1988, Farrell 1989), and predation of immature and adult desert tortoises by golden eagles (Berry 1985). Many authors have reported predation by ophidians, felids, canids, and mustelids.

Natural predation in undisturbed, healthy ecosystems is generally
not an issue of concern. Under certain situations, however, the
level and type of predation becomes a management issue, and action
must be taken to control the predator(s). The most obvious example
is when numbers of desert tortoises become precariously low in
local areas or regions, and any loss of individuals is likely to
threaten that population. Predation rates may be altered when
natural habitats are disturbed or modified. For example, densities of
predators may increase, food habits of predators may be altered so
that desert tortoises become more frequent components in the diets,
and predators may be able to prey upon desert tortoises more easily
when cover has been reduced.

The most important predators of desert tortoises at this time are the common raven (Corvus corax) and the coyote (Canis latrans). Based on data from over 1,000 remains, ravens generally kill juvenile desert tortoises with a carapace length of less than 110 mm (Campbell 1983, Berry 1985, Woodman and Juarez 1988). The evidence that ravens are preying upon and not scavenging juvenile desert tortoises is three-fold. First, ravens have been observed killing juvenile desert tortoises (T om Campbell, Jim Farrell, Ted Rado, and others, pers. comm.) . In contrast, scavenging of juveniles has not been observed (although scavenging of larger road-killed desert tortoises has been documented).

Second, large numbers of young desert tortoise remains show signs consistent with raven predation. Many remains show puncture wounds made by ravens’ beaks or have entry wounds on the carapaces or plastrons where ravens peeked through the shells and

m

withdrew the organs (Berry 1985). The patterns of damage to the
shell and removal of heads, legs, and girdles are consistent from one
geographic region to another and from one species of tortoise to
another (see Geffen 1990, for Testudo kleinmanni). The puncture
wounds and openings in the shell must have been made when the
tortoise was alive or within minutes of death, when the shell was
soft and pliable and could be opened without fracturing it. Third,
large numbers of young desert tortoise remains are found in and at
the base of raven nests, as well as near perches. Concentrations of
shells have been discovered along fence posts (Campbell 1983), at
the bases of known raven perches and nests (Woodman and Juarez
1988), and along transmission line towers (Farrell 1989). For
example, between 1987 and 1990, 564 shells of carapace length less
than 110 mm were collected in California from 1987 to 1990 on
study plots, along powerlines, and at raven nests and perch sites.
Of this total, 215 (38%) were found on study plots and 349 (62%)
were found associated with raven perch or nest sites, most of which
were along powerlines.

In spring 1991, a case of probable raven predation occurred at a research site on the National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, California (D. Morafka, pers. comm). In early 1990, two contiguous predator-proof enclosures were established for neonate desert tortoises. One enclosure had a roof of chicken-wire screen to prevent avian predation, and the other did not. In late summer and autumn 1990, approximately 30 juveniles hatched inside the roofed enclosure, 18 in the outside enclosure, and another 12 were free ranging. During a 2-week period in spring 1991 (29 April to 9 May), an avian predator, presumably a raven, preyed upon and killed the 18 desert tortoises in the open enclosure. Of the 12 freeroarning desert tortoises (each with a radio transmitter) outside the enclosures, 8 were found dead. All shells had punctures either through the carapace or plastron or both in patterns consistent with raven predation (Campbell 1983, Berry 1985, and others). The shells were within a few hundred feet of the sites where desert tortoises were last seen alive.

Raven predation on juveniles can be a threat to the long-term persistence of desert tortoise populations. In California, desert tortoise study sites that show high percentages of raven-killed juveniles also show significant changes in size-age class structure of populations from the 1970’s to the 1980’s (Berry et al. 1986a and b). The data show significant declines in percentages of live juveniles desert tortoises as well as declines in recruitment of juvenile and immature desert tortoises into the young adult size-age classes. Ray et a1. (1992) developed a simple model to evaluate spatially structured raven predation on juvenile tortoises. This model predicts that ravens must increase mortality of juveniles 5 years old by 25% before a discrete reduction in population growth from 1.02 to 1.00 can occur.

The extent of raven predation varies regionally and appears to be correlated with densities of raven populations. Berry (1985)

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
demonstrated that the proportion of juvenile shells showing evidence of raven predation was significantly higher in the western Mojave than the eastern Mojave and southern Colorado deserts. This pattern is consistent with raven surveys in which large numbers of raven sightings were recorded in the western Mojave, intermediate numbers in the eastern Mojave, and relatively few in the southern Colorado deserts (Knowles et al. 1989a, 1989b). Considerable predation also occurs in the eastern Mojave Desert. For instance, most of the 248 desert tortoise remains collected in 1988 at or near three active raven nests and one foraging site in the eastern Mojave were estimated to have died that year (Farrell 1989).

Populations of common ravens apparently have been increasing for many decades. Numbers of ravens observed during Fish and Wildlife Service breeding bird surveys in the Mojave Desert increased by 1528% between 1968 (the year the surveys were initiated) and 1988 (Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD; cited in BLM 1989). Increases of 474% were also documented for the Colorado Desert during the same time period. Probable causes for population increases are increased availability of foods (e.g., landfills, sewage ponds, dumpsters, highways, cities) and water (e.g., sewage ponds, agricultural fields, golf courses). Artificial sources of food and water help sustain more individuals during times of low natural resource availability, such as winter and summer. Such artificial food sources also probably facilitate larger clutch sizes or increased frequencies of clutches and greater fledgling success for the common raven. In addition, human-made structures have increased numbers and distribution of perches and nest sites (power and telephone poles, bridges, bill boards, freeway overpasses, etc.). The presence of human refuse in almost a quarter of 226 raven pellets collected from the eastern Mojave Desert in May 1991 demonstrates the close relationship between humans and ravens (Camp et al. 1992). In another example, ravens spent 51% of non-flight time along transmission towers, railroads, telephone poles, and non-native tamarisk shrubs in the eastern Mojave (Sherman and Knight 1992).

Surplus Property Sale, Lockland, Ohio: Hearings Before a Subcommittee … (Google Books)

The disease-control program was continued at Wind Cave National Park, S. Dak. All buffalo calves were vaccinated and all adults that could be captured were tested for brucellosis. Positive reactors and definite suspects were eliminated, together with all free-ranging animals that could not be examined. Pathological examinations are being made to determine if the deer, antelope, and elk of the park are free from the disease. In Yellowstone National Park, another season’s work in testing and vaccinating the bison of the Lamar herd was accomplished. Immunity from brucellosis of sufficient numbers of young buffaloes has been achieved to permit the Shipping of animals to zoos and ranches.

Infected feet of blacktail deer in Mount Rainier National Park, Wash., were found to result from an infestation of foot worm (Onchocerca). Most of the animals made complete recovery.

The hardwood forest on Jamestown Island within Colonial National Historical Park, Va., is recovering from highly artificialized clean-up during the 1930’s. This is permitting the return of an extraordinary variety and number of animals.

Protection of soil and the presence of early stages of forest growth have permitted a great increase in small species of mammals and birds at Saratoga National Historical Park, N. Y., and Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, Ga.

The burro problem is serious at Lake Mead recreational area, Arizona-Nevada. No effective control can be practiced because of shortage of personnel. If the number of burros is not kept down, the effect on bighorns and some other native species will be disastrous through competition for the limited supply of forage and water in this arid region. An estimated 500 feral burros exist in Death Valley National Monument, Calif. In 1947, 162 burros were killed and 67 horses were removed from the area. Constant action is necessary to restrict the numbers.

Many birds, notably the none and Hawaiian owl, are objects of concern in Hawaii National Park, T. H. The steady increase in mongooses may be a determining factor in the case of the owl. The introduced myna birds have multiplied and their insect parasites are dangerous to other birds.

Fishing success is going down in Lake Mead, as was to be expected in this water reservoir. Fine trout fishing is being maintained in the Colorado River below Hoover Dam within the same Lake Mead recreational area.

A survey of streams and lakes in Mount Rainier National Park, Wash., indicates that none of the water will produce a high population of fish. Heavy restocking is not warranted.

Heavy demands were made on the fish resources of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks and Yosemite National Park, Calif. Greater restrictions must be placed on angling in the latter park. Changes in stocking practices are indicated in all three areas.

Present condition of fishing in Yellowstone National Park is good, but increasing angling may make additional restocking necessary in some waters.

A new fishery-management plan was initiated in Glacier National Park, Mont., in 1945, but angling has not improved to any marked degree.

The wildlife resources over which the National Park Service acts as the people’s custodian are suffering in two ways. Insufficient staffs are available for protecting the areas from poaching and other misuse, and for carrying out management measures which are essential for the conservation of the animals and for the range on which they are dependent. Secondly, technically trained biologists are needed to make investigations of conditions to establish facts, and to guide the administrative officers in carrying out management programs. The following is a condensed list of needs in presonnel and facilities which have been reported recently by superintendents and custodians of the national parks, monuments,and other reservations.

1. Additional personnel for protection of wildlife is necessary in Acadia, Big Bend, Bryce Canyon, Crater Lake, Everglades, Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Hawaii, Isle Royale, Olympic, Wind Cave, Yellowstone and Zion National Parks; also in Bandolier, Chiricahua, Death Valley, Devils Tower, Great Sand Dunes, Joshua Tree, Organ Pipe Cactus, and Petrified Forest National Monuments, and Lake Mead recreational area.

2. Personnel for wildlife management, and to make fact-finding surveys to guide management, should be added to the staffs of the following national parks: Acadia, Big Bend, Crater Lake, Everglades, Glacier (fisheries and large mammal studies), Grand Canyon (studies of the fishery and mammal-bird life), Isle Royale (fisheries studies), Mesa Verde, Olympic, Rocky Mountain (fishery studies), Sequoia-Kings Canyon, Yellowstone (fishery studies), and Zion. Management personnel is required also for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Colonial National Historical Park, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Lake Mead recreational area (fisheries and mammal investigations and management).

3. More rigid State laws and enforcement in eliminating stray dogs are needed in Shenandoah National Park.

4. Protection for wildlife in Jackson Hole National Monument is urgently needed and can be obtained only by eliminating hunting.

5. Increased funds are necessary at Wind Cave National Park for work in establishing a disease-free herd of buffaloes.

6. About nine rangers and five boats, plus other equipment should be provided for use in supervising fishing in Yellowstone National Park and to enforce fishing regulations. Fenced plots are critically needed for range study work in connection with management of the elk and other game mammals in order to protect the ■winter range.

7. Control of feral goats, pigs, cats, and mongopses is badly needed in Hawaii National Park, particularly in the Haleakala section.

8. Comprehensive fishery studies are needed especially in Glacier and Olympic National Parks and Lake Mead recreational area.

Following are the detailed reports concerning wildlife conservation in the areas administered by the National Park Service. These areas are classified by the four regions into which the National Park System for administrative purposes is divided.

Region One
Acadia National Park, Maine

There was an irruption of white-tailed deer during the late 1930’s, which probably reached its peak around 193!). It was noted that natural foods were heavily overbrowsed in a number of the winter feeding areas; and deer were to be seen in large numbers along the highways and in the woods. During the war years, when meat was rationed and law enforcement more difficult, poaching was prevalent and many deer were killed in this way. There is little evidence that many deer starved for lack of browse.

After preliminary surveys by several biologists, an approved study project was set up. There are two main phases of the study. One is concerned with a periodic study of browse conditions and browse utilization by the deer; the other phase is that of live trapping and marking the deer to get a check on their movements in relation to their food supply, but especially to determine, if possible, how. much migration there may be from the island to the mainland and back again.

The browse studies, which were started in 1944, seemed to indicate a slight increase in the number of deer as shown by the spring browse survey of 1947.

Trapping has been on a small scale and so far is relatively unsuccessful. Little has been learned concerning deer movements. During the past few months 10 deer have been trapped and transported from the overbrowsed Sargent Mountain section to Green Lake, on the mainland.

The fire of October 1947 destoyed much deer food over most of the eastern half of the island. The deer have remained in the burned area, concentrating in the cedar swamps and subsisting on blown-down cedar whose roots were undermined by fire. The snowfall of 1947-48, the heaviest in many years, caused the deer to “yard” much more than usual. The adult animals seem to be in fair condition and will probably winter successfully, but a number of fawns may be expected to perish.

The beaver can probably hold thoir own within the protected area of the park, and will be able to find an adequate supply of food for some time. Four or five have been live trapped and removed from the area wrhen their dams flooded State highways. When natural increase causes them to spread out onto adjacent private lands the landowners have an open season declared by claiming damage. Under these circumstances, beavers are kept under control.

Ruffed grouse is on the upsurge after reaching the lowest point in their cycle of abundance. They are increasing on lands adjacent to the park, where hunting is permitted in season, as well as within the park. We shall not know the full effect on the fire upon the grouse population until we know to what extent the hardwoods have been killed. Obviously their natural cover and nesting sites have been destroyed. The varying hare is also on the upswing. Some are to be found in the burned area, usually near the edge of the burn or in the cedar swamps. They will probably push in from the edges as fast as cover and food conditions permit.

Because of concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Maine, the State has undertaken most of the fish management in the park. The National Park Service, on occasion, has planted surplus stock from a nearby Federal hatchery.

Since the park lies in the midst of a thickly populated section, and has very irregular boundaries, an additional ranger is needed to enforce protective regulations. A biologist is needed to carry on the deer browse study and de.er trapping program.

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLA.

With a receding water level following the 1947 hurricanes, deer have been moving back into the park area in satisfactory numbers. There is every reason to believe that, when given reasonable protection, the deer will increase to the maximum that can be supported on their range. With the expected increase of deer, there should be a corresponding increase in the number of cougars. The cougar has reached an alarming low level but with protection should increase to a point where the species is safe from extermination. The Florida black bear in the park area is perhaps even more rare than the cougar. The main hope for reestablishing the bear is that a nucleus population will move into the park from areas northwest of the present boundaries.

The manatee appears to be safely maintaining its numbers. Probably about 25 manatees are inhabiting Whitewater Bay where they can be given good protection. If water conditions remain such that large quantities of aquatic plants are available, the herd should increase.

Alligators are well distributed and reasonably common. The crocodile’s status is not well known but there is no reason to believe that it is decreasing in number. The various egrets, with possibly the exception of the reddish egret which remains a comparatively rare bird, herons, white ibis, and wood ibis all appear to be on the increase. The Florida crane is uncommon but will probably slowly increase with protection. Short-tailed hawks are seen at regular intervals and the swallow-tailed kite, a summer resident, is back in normal numbers.

Commercial fishing in Florida Bay has greatly reduced the supply of fish in that area. The fish most noticeably affected is a commercial variety known as the mullet. The condition has been brought about by the use of dragnets. Fish in the inland waters remain plentiful and their number depends probably more on food supply and water conditions than on the fish taken. There is no reason to believe that sport fishing will suffer from a reduced supply of fish in the years to come if restrictions are placed on the catch as fishing pressure rises.

An increase in personnel and transportation equipment is necessary to properly protect the park. Better jurisdiction for law enforcement is needed. Construction of outlying ranger patrol stations is also desirable to cover better the more remote regions. Studies should be undertaken to determine those factors which directly or indirectly affect wildlife populations. These should include investigations of the effect of salinity on aquatic vegetation and food animals, effect of parasites and disease in the major rookeries, and other questions on the ecology of the various habitats. A study of the fishery is very badly needed as a basis for sound management.

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENN. AND N. C.

Due to a practically complete failure of the acorn crop in the fall of 1946, black bears and gray squirrels suffered a severe reduction in numbers. These species wandered away from the park in quest of food, and it is estimated that perhaps one-third of the bear population was killed by hunters and others. It is believed that fully 100 were eliminated. Relatively few bears were observed along the park highways during 1947. Gray squin-eis were even more drastically reduced in numbers at the same time and for similar reasons; their population in the park was at an all-time low during 1947. Other local mammals, being less dependent upon acorns, were not affected to any such degree. The 1947 acorn crop was quite good and the berry crop which preceded it was excellent.

Virginia deer remain at a rather low population level, but there appears to lie some slight increase in these animals in the western portion of the park. Gray foxes are common to abundant throughout much of the lower altitudes (below 2,500 feet). There appears to be no great change in the numbers of wild turkeys, ruffed grouse, ravens, and duck hawks. Bobwhite quail may be losing ground due to natural reforestation of cleared areas; the months of February and March 1947, were exceptionally cold with heavy snows, working further hardship upon these birds. Cottontail rabbits were notably scarce throughout the park during 1947.

Altogether 14,436 trout (8,132 rainbow, 6,304 brook) were released into park waters during 1947; all were of legal size or larger. These were furnished by the Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery at Kephart Prong (in the park). There was no planting of fingerling fish.

The outstanding need in this area is for an increase in the number of protection personnel. Of the 19 warden districts of the park, 4 are at present without the protection of resident wardens, and poaching and illegal fishing are rampant. To coordinate the work of the wardens in forest and game protection, there should be at least eight rangers in the field and at present we have only two. The resulting unsatisfactory conditions cannot be remedied until the additional protection personnel is provided.

MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK, KY.

During the period since January 1, 1947, there has been progress in the restocking program of the park. In cooperation with the Kentucky Division of Game and Fish, 18 whitetail deer, 14 does, and 4 bucks, have been released. These were taken from the Kentucky Woodlands National Wildlife Refuge and were in good condition at the time of release. An increase in population is to be expected. Observations and winter counts indicate that the introduced deer scattered over most of the park.

Four eastern wild turkeys, two toms and two hens, were also released in cooperation with the Kentucky Division of Game and Fish under the Federal Aid Program. Poults and adults have been seen frequently during the year and it is believed that this bird is increasing in numbers. Gray foxes are present and may prevent a rapid increase.

Beaver have been seen on Green River and in the beaver pond. There has been much evidence of their cuttings and activity on most of Green River and along the islands. The beaver seems to be holding its own, and perhaps increasing under protection.

During the fall and winter many ducks have been seen in flight and on the rivers and ponds. Waterfowl visit the ponds particularly during migration periods. The wood duck is prominently seen along the rivers. The pileated woodpecker is seen over most of the park. Covey counts of quail have been made through most of the park during the year and there seems to be an increase in comparison with previous estimates. During the heavy snows, bird feed was distributetd among known coveys where vegetation was covered too depply to reach. Foxes may be considered their greatest enemy. Reports indicate a decrease in gray foxe3.

Organized wildlife patrols were made through the park during the snows to obtain a count of animals and tracks. Observations concerning all larger animals and significant birds were recorded during the year to supplement wildlife counts.

No fish were received during the year from hatcheries. Three hundred eightyone bass, 70 crappie, and 406 bluegills were recovered from small overflowing ponds and planted in more desirable ponds. Fishing in ponds, First Creek Lake, and the rivers was reported as fairly good.

SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK, VA.

A little more than a dozen years of protection to the park lands, forests, and wildlife has brought about significant changes in the wildlife population. On an area where few if any of the larger native animals were to be seen 14 years ago, the deer and bobcat have become reestablished in many sections of the park and the bear has regained an apparently firm foothold. Of the larger birds, the turkey, which was nearly extinct in the area, has made a good come-back in many sections. The ruffed grouse, although not reduced to the extent of the turkey, is now one of -the most commonly seen birds.

The smaller animals and birds, too, have fared well under protection, although some species such as the mink, duck hawk, and woodcock are still rarely seen.

Within the past 15 months no significant changes have occurred in the wildlife population. All animals appear to be in good condition, with little loss in numbers as a result of a prolonged deep snow and unusually severe weather during most of January and early February, 1948.

No studies, investigations, or management measures have been undertaken during the past 15-month period. Routine check is made of the wildlife and semiannual and annual censuses are made. Some 50 unlicensed dogs were turned over to game wardens or otherwise disposed of during this period.

Lands which were pastured up to 12 to 14 years ago are restrocking naturally to briers, vines, shrubs, and successiorial forest, tree species. This reversion increases the browse and woodland area, benfiting such birds and mammals a* the woodpecker, squirrel, and raccoon, while decreasing the grassy area to the detriment of such species as the bobwhite, quail, rabbit, and field mouse.

From January 1, 1947, to March 15, 1948, 27,650 1- and 2-year-old brook trout and 2,000 rainbow trout were distributed to 12 park waters, or about onethird of the number of trout streams in the park. Angling unquestionably will continue to be one of the major forms of recreation within the park. Since the war there has been a notable increase in the number of both in- and out-of-state fishermen. Toward the improvement of recreational fishing it is desirable that more of the streams be restocked and as far in advance of the season as possible. The most pressing need for the protection of wildlife is the reduction in the number of stray dogs. More rigid State dog laws and law enforcement are needed in conjunction with efforts of the park staff.

BLUB RIDOE PARKWAY, VA. AND N. C.

The larger animal species, such as elk, deer, and bear, appear in good physical condition, indicating favorable range conditions. There seems to be ample browse, fruit, nuts, and berries to sustain these species adequately. The elk herd in the Peaks of Otter area increased from 18 in 1946 to 26 the following year, and indications are that another increase will be registered this year.

Reports have been received that 36 black bears were killed within 2 miles of the parkway during the fall of 1947. The effect on this species and others of the use of the parkway motor road in connection with hunts on adjacent, lands is a matter for continuing observation and study.

Fish within the parkway appear in excellent condition and are present in numbers considered consistent with the carrying capacity of streams. Only two plantings were made along the parkway in 1947: 500 legal-size brook and rainbow trout were planted in the lower reaches of Rock Castle Creek by Virginia authorities and 700 fish were planted in four North Carolina streams by the North Carolina Game and Fish Commission. There may not be as many fish taken from streams within the various recreational areas during the coming season, but it is believed that those taken will be good fish, stream bred and wild.

The protection of the area will be increased as protective personnel are added. When the staff reaches the ultimate planned strength, we believe that protection will be sufficient to the parkway needs. ‘ Stream and area surveys, having the objective of determining carrying capacities of various species of fish and other wildlife within the several recreational areas along the parkway, appear highlydesirable. No further planting of fish is contemplated until the results of a reliable survey are abailable to guide the program.

CAMDEN HILLS RECREATIONAL DEMONSTRATION AREA, MAINE

Moose increased in number during the time this land was administered by the National Park Service, largely because of adequate protection and suitable browse. Camden Hills was recently released to the State in conformity with the act of June 6, 1942.

Increasing evidence of bear was found in 1947. Until 1944 the species

Federal Register, Volume 40, Issues 73-84 (Google Books)

Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.
Books
eBook – FREE
Get this book in print

AbeBooks
Find in a library
All sellers »
Front Cover
0 Reviews
Write review
Federal Register, Volume 40, Issues 73-84

About this book

Terms of Service
17588 – 17592

Page images
PDF
EPUB
tax imposed for the taxable year under section 1333 (relating to war loss recoveries) or under section 1351 (relating to recoverles of foreign expropriation losses), or against the personal holding company tax imposed by section 541.

– – – *

[Sec. 901 as amended by sec. 3 (a) and (b), Act of Sept. 14, 1960 (Public Law 86–780, 74 Stat. 1013); secs. 9 (d) (3) and 12(b) (1), Rev. Act 1962 (76 Stat. 1001, 1031); sec. 207 (b) (7), Rev. Act 1964 (78 Stat. 42); sec. 1 (c) (2), Act of April 8, 1966 (Public Law 89-384, 80 Stat. 102); sec. 106(a) (4) and (5) and (b) (1) and (2), Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1569); secs, 301 (b) (9) and 506(a): (1) and (2), Tax Reform Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 585, 634); secs. 2001 (g)(2)(C), 2002(g) (3), and 2005(c) (5), Employee* Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 957,968, and 991) )

PAR. 15. Section 1.901–1 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 1.901–1 Allowance of credit for taxes.

– – – –

(f) Taa’es against which credit not allowed.—The credit for taxes shall be allowed only against the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code, but it shah not be allowed against the following taxes imposed under that chapter: (1) The minimum tax for tax preferences imposed by section 56; (2) The 10 percent tax on premature distributions to owner-employees imposed by section 72(m) (5) (B) ; (3) The tax on lump sum distributions imposed by section 402(e); (4) The additional tax on income from Certain retirement accounts imposed by section 408 (f); (5) The tax on accumulated earnings imposed by section 531; (6) The personal holding company tax imposed by section 541; (7) The additional tax relating to War loss recoveries imposed by section 1333; and (8) The additional tax relating to recoveries of foreign expropriation losses imposed by section 1351.

– – – –

Pań. 14. Section 1.1379 is amended by revising section 1379(b) (1) and the historical note. These amended provisions read as follows:

§ 1.1379 Statutory provisions; certain qualified pension, etc., plans.

SEc. 1379 certain qualified penston, etc. plans. * * *

(b) Tarability of shareholder-employee beneficiaries—(1) Inclusion of etcess contributions in gross income. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 402 (relating to taxability of beneficiary of employees’ trusts), section 403 (relating to taxation of employee annuities), or section 405(d) (relating to taxability of beneficiaries under qualified bond purchase plans), an individual who is a shareholder-employee of an electing small business corporation shall include in gross income, for his taxable year in which or with which the taxable year of the corporation ends, the excess of the amount of contributions paid on his behalf which is deductible under section 404(a) (1), (2), or (3) by the corporation for its taxable year over the lesser of

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
Notice is hereby given that the regula-
tions set forth in tentative form in the
attached appendix are proposed to be
prescribed by the Commissioner of Inter-
nal Revenue, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury or his dele-
gate. Prior to the final adoption of such
regulations, consideration will be given
to any comments pertaining thereto
which are submitted in writing (prefer-
ably six copies) to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, Attention: CC:LR;T,
Washington, D.C. 20224, by May 22, 1975.
Pursuant to 26 CFR 601.601 (b), designa-
tions of material as confidential or not to
be disclosed, contained him such com-
ments, will not be accepted. Thus, a per-
son submitting written comments should
not include therein material that he con-
siders to be confidential or inappropriate
for disclosure to the public. It will be
presumed by the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice that every written comment submit-
ted to it in response to this notice of
proposed rule making is intended by the
person submitting it to be subject in its
entirety to public inspection and copying
in accordance with the procedures of 26
CFR 601.702(d) (9). Any person submit-
ting written comments who desires an
opportunity to comment orally at a pub-
lic hearing on these proposed regula-
tions should submit his request, in writ-
ing, to the Commissioner by May 22,
1975. In such case, a public hearing will
be held, and notice of the time, place,
and date will be published in a subse-
quent issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER, un-
less the person or persons who have re-
quested a hearing withdraw their re-
quests for a hearing before notice of the
hearing has been filed with the Office of
the Federal Register. The proposed regu-
lations are to be issued under the author-
ity contained in section 7805 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
subchapter S election. Of course, o: special rules apply only with respo o taxable years for which an election has been made.

Proposed amendments to the “. tions—In order to conform the In” Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) un” section 1372(e) (5) of the Internal * enue code of 1954 to the Act of * ary 12, 1971 (Pub. Law 91—683, 84 Stat. 2067), such regulations are amended ” follows:

Paragrari, 1. section 11372 same” by revising subsection (e) (5)(C) ** tion 1372 and the historical note. These

* * relates to the termination of revised provisions read as follows:

to $. an election by a small business corvora lo tion under section 1372. Paragraph (5) . ris of section 1372(e) provides generally for o termination of the election if, for any o-s, taxable year for which the election is in or: effect, the corporation has gross receipts or more than 20 percent of which is passive * -o investment income (as defined in para- *. graph (5) (C) of section 1372(e)). The o Act amended paragraph (5)(C) of set- o tion 1372(e) to exclude from the defini- ||… tion of passive investment income logo amounts which are treated undersection : * * 331 of the Code (relating to corporate *** * liquidations) as payments in exchange Jo, for stock where the electing small bus: o ness corporation owned more than 50 o percent of each class of the stock of the o liquidating corporation. — rol The amendment to paragraph (5) (c) ste § is effective for taxable years of electing ots: small business corporations ending after January 12, 1971 (the date of enactment | *, of the Act). The amendment is also lon. effective ior taxable years ending before loss. october 7, 1970, but only (1) if the mak- or 5: ing of a refund or the allowance of * * credit is not barred on that date by * * * * law or rule of law, and (2) is within one ““” year after January 12, 1971, the to o: ration elects to have the amendmen op ‘so ply and all persons who were share of holders at any time during the period of beginning with the first taxable.” to . . which the amendment applies and ending o: on or before January 12, 1971, consent oria to this election and to the applica” to of the amendment. The amendment o not effective for taxable years of Corp. o., tions ending between October 7, 19” “. and January 12, 1971, inclusive. !’ . The Act provided special rules for tW0 o situations to prevent the denial of sub- * chapters status to a corporation where os. its election under section 1372(a) would have terminated because of the po o investment income limitation (befoo. o: ** amendment made by this Act). : o: subopter s status is not to be do so because the passive investment income s 3. inition caused a corporation too o income tax return on a Form 1120 stor. porate tax return) instead of a Foo so 1120s (subchapters corporation to… so turn) for any year beginning boo. January 12, 1971. Second: subchapters so joisonot to be denied because o ‘o passive investment income limit” & caused a new shareholder of the corpo. S tion not to me a timely consent to.”

[ocr errors]
§ 1.1372 Statutory provisions; election The term “gross receipts” means the
by small business corporation. total amount received or accrued under
Sec. 1872. Election by small business cor- the method of accounting used by the
poration. * * * Corporation in computing its taxable in-
(e) Termination. * * * come. Thus, the total amount of receipts
(5) Passive investment income. * * * is not reduced by returns and allowances,
o †.F.T.§:…” o:*::::::: cost, or deductions. For example, gross
gross receipts derived from royalties, rents, :::::: Will .o the total amount
dividends, interest, annulties, and sales or ly or accrue uring the corpora-
exchanges of stock or securities (gross re- ton’s taxable year from the sale or ex-
ceipts from such sales or exchanges being change (including a sale or exchange to
taken into account for purposes of this para- which section 337 applies) of any kind
graph only to the extent of gains there- of property, from investments, and for
: 3. . . *…* sales or services rendered by the corporation.
exchanges of s or securities for purposes –
of this paragraph shall not include H. However, gross receipts does not include
of oi…”… .”… o. amounts received in nontaxable
poration which are treated under section Sales or exchanges (other than those to
#31 (relating to corporate iiquidations) as which section 337 applies), except to the
payments in exchange for stock where the extent that gain is recognized by the
electing small business corporation owned Corporation, (2) amounts received as a
more than 50 percent of each class of the loan, as a repayment of a loan, as a con-
stock of the liquidating corporation. tribution to capital, or on the issuance
– – – – – by the corporation of its own stock, or
[Sec. 1372 as added by sec. 64(a), Technical (3) certain amounts which are treated
Amendments Act 1958 . (72 Stat. 1650); under section 331 (relating to corporate
*oyo.3, Ao of May 4, 1961 (Pub. liquidations) as payments in exchange
**.*.*.*, *, *,2(b) (2) and for stock (see subdivision .i) of to
8(a), Act of Apr. 14, 1966 (Pub. Law 89-389, b
so stat. iii); so its). Act of jo”1% of subparagraph).
(Pub. Law 91-683, 84 Stat. 2067) | – – – – –
PAR. 2. Paragraph (b) of $ 1.1372–4 is , (x) Gross receipts from the sale of
Amended by revising so much of sub- stock or securities. For purposes of sec-
paragraph (1) as precedes subdivision tion 1372(e) (5), gross receipts from the
(i) thereof, by revising subdivisions Sales or exchanges of stock or securities
(iv) (a) and (x) of subparagraph (5), * taken into account only to the ex-
and by adding a new subdivision (xi) tent of gains therefrom. Thus, the gross

immediately after subdivision (x) of sub- receipts from the sale of a particular

paragraph (5). These revised and added share of stock will be the excess of the
provisions read as follows: amount realized over the adjusted basis

– – of such share. If the adjusted basis § 1.1372–4 Termination of election. should equal or exceed the amount real- – – – – ized on the sale or exchange of a certain (b) Methods of termination—(1) Fail- share of stock, bond, etc., there would tre of new shareholder to consent. An be no gross receipts resulting from the election under section 1372(a) shall ter- sale of such security. Losses on sales or minate if any person who was not a exchanges of stock or securities do not shareholder on the first day of the first offset gains on the sales or exchanges taxable year for which the election is of other stock or securities for purposes effective, or on the day on which the elec- of computing gross receipts from such tion is made (if such day is later than sales or exchanges. Gross receipts from the first day of the taxable year), be- the sale or exchange of stock and secuComes a shareholder and does not con- rities include gains received from such Bent to the election under section 1372(a) sales or exchanges by a corporation even Within the time prescribed by paragraph though , such corporation is a regular (b) of $ 1.1372–3. However, see paragraph dealer in stocks and securities. How(c) of $1.1372–3 for extension of time ever, gross receipts do not include cerfor filing consents in general, and sub- tain amounts which are treated under paragraph (5) (iii) (e) and (xi) (c) of section 331 (relating to corporate liqui

this paragraph for exceptions under cer- dations) as payments in exchange for
tain circumstances. In addition, an elec- stock (see subdivision (xi) of this sub-
hon which would not have terminated paragraph). For the meaning of the
except for the failure of any new share- term “stock or securities”, see paragraph
holder to file a timely consent or except (b) (5) (i) of $ 1.543–1.
for the fact that the consent of any such (xi) Amounts which are treated under
new shareholder was defective in any section 331 as payments in exchange for
“anner is not terminated if– stock—(a) In general. (1) For pur-
– – – – * poses of section 1372(e) (5), gross re-
(5) Passive i – – – ceipts derived from sales or exchanges
(iy) d&sive intestment income. of stock or securities shall not include
..” Gross receipts. (a) The term amounts received by an electing small
. receipts” as used in section 1372(e) business corporation which are treated
;: Synonymous with “gross income”, under section 331 (relating to corporate
§: * under section 1372(e) (4) and juidations) as payments in exchange
shall be made on the basis of total for stock where the electing small busi-
o: Toepts, except that, for purposes ness corporation was, on the date of the
Section 1372(e) (5), gross receipts first distribution or transfer of such

o *om the sales or exchanges of stock or amounts to the small business corpora*urities shall be taken into account tion with respect to such liquidation, the only to the extent of gains therefrom. owner of more than 50 percent of each

class of the stock of the liquidating corporation. For purposes of this subdivision, the 50-percent requirement shall apply with respect to a class of stock whether or not the class of stock has voting rights. Shares of stock of the liquidating corporation held by a shareholder of the electing small business corporation shall not be attributed to the electing corporation.

(2) The provisions of (a)(1) of this subdivision shall apply to—

(i) taxable years of the corporation ending after January 12, 1971, and

(ii) any taxable year of the corporation ending before October 7, 1970, with respect to which an election is made under (b) (2) of this subdivision to apply the rules of (a) (1) of this subdivision, provided that the requirements of (b) (and (c) if applicable) of this subdivision are satisfied,

The provisions of (a) (1) of this subdivision shall not apply to taxable years of corporations ending between October 7, 1970, and January 12, 1971, inclusive. (b) Tarable years ending before October 7, 1970. The provisions of (a)(1) of this subdivision shall apply with respect to any taxable year of an electing small business corporation ending before October 7, 1970, if– (1) On October 7, 1970, the making of a refund or the allowance of a credit to the corporation is not prevented by any law or rule of law, and (2) On or before January 12, 1972, the corporation elects to have the provisions of (a) (1) of this subdivision apply, and all persons (or their personal representatives) who were shareholders of such corporation at any time during any taxable year beginning with the first taxable year to which this (b) of this subdivision applies and ending on or before January 12, 1971, consent to such election and to the application of the provisions of (a)(1) of this subdivision,

If the assessment of any deficiency in income tax resulting from an election under (b) (2) of this subdivision for a taxable year ending before the date of the election is prevented before the expiration of one year after the date of the election by any law or rule of law, the deficiency may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of such one-year period notwithstanding any law or rule of law which would otherwise prevent the assessment. The deficiency assessment is not to be barred by any statute of limitations, even if the period of limitations has expired at the time the election is made, or by a prior court decision as to the taxpayers’ income tax liability for that year, or by a prior binding agreement entered into for that year between the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service. If, but for the application of this (b) of this subdivision, such deficiency year would have been closed, then the deficiency may not exceed the amount attributable to an election under this subdivision. (c) Special rules. An election by a corporation under section 1372(a) shall not be treated as terminated for any taxable 17590poses to make changes in the following Construction contract forms:

year of the corporation beginning before
January 12, 1971, merely because such
corporation filed its income tax return
on a Form 1120 instead of Form 1120S,
or because a new shareholder failed to
file a timely consent under section 1372
(e) (1), if the corporation’s election
under section 1372(a) would have been
treated as terminated for such taxable
year because of the application of sec-
tion 1372(e) (5), as in effect prior to
January 12, 1971, but for an election
made by the corporation under (b)(2)
of this subdivision to have the provisions
of (a) (1) of this subdivision apply.
(d) Election and consents are binding,
The election and consents under this
subdivision are binding and may not be
Teyoked.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
The Fish and Wildlife Service has evidence that the following species of fauna are endangered species and threatened species as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884) : Scioto madtom (Nortwrits trautmani) ; United States population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus); Mexican wolf (Camis lupus baileyi); Cedros Island mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus cerrosensis) ; peninsular pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana peninsularis) : Hawaii creeper (Lorops maculata 17tana); po’o uli (Melam prosops phaeosoma); Newell’s Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus newelli) ; Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum); and gray bat (Myotis grisescens). Section 4 (a) of the Endangered Specles Act of 1973 states that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce may determine a species to be an endangered species, or a threatened Species, because of any of five factors. These factors, and their application to the Scioto madtom, American crocodile, Mexican wolf. Cedros Island mule deer, peninsular pronghorn antelope, Hawaii Creeper, po’o uli, Newell’s Manx shearwater, Bayou darter, and gray bat are as follows: 1. THE PRESENT or THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MoorfrcATION, or CURTAILMENT OF ITS HABITAT or RANGE Scioto madtom. This fish is known only from one locality in the lower portion of Big Darby Creek, tributary to the Scioto River. Pickaway County, Ohio. In Big Darby Creek the species has been taken in a rifle area with moderate to fast current, where the bottom consists of gravel, sand, silt, and boulders. The Scioto madtom is endangered because of the pollution and siltation of its habitat, and by

PROPOSED RULES

two proposed impoundments on Big
Darby Creek.
American crocodile. This reptile once
was a common species in southern Flor-
ida, and is known to have bred as far
north as Lake Worth. There also are
scattered records suggesting its occa-
sional presence considerably farther to
the north, both on the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts. By the early Twentieth Century
the crocodile still was common through-
out, Biscayne Bay, as well as along the
shores of Florida Bay and in the Florida
Keys. –
Subsequently, intensive human de-
velopment of southern Florida elimi-
nated much habitat and also led to ex-
cessive killing by man. In the 1950’s there
still was significant nesting on Key Largo
and on islands to the south of Florida
Bay, but human pressure has eliminated
most of this activity. The last suitable
areas on Key Largo are rapidly being
destroyed by commercial development.
At present there are thought to be only
about 10 to 20 breeding females in Flor-

ida, with most of these concentrated

along the northeast shore of Florida Bay.
Meacican wolf. This species formerly
was common in Arizona, New Mexico,
southwestern Texas, and much of Mex-
ico. In the Twentieth Century this wolf
declined substantially in numbers and
distribution, because of habitat loss and
killing by man. A recent survey per-
formed under contract with the Fish and
Wildlife Service indicated that there
now are not more than 200 wolves in
Mexico. These animals exist in widely
scattered packs which remain subject to
intensive human pressure. In the United
States, the Mexican wolf now occurs
only as a rare wanderer, and there have
been few reports of its presence since
1960. –
Cedros Island mule deer. This deer is
known only from Cedros Island off the
western coast of Baja California. Cur-
rently only a few, perhaps less than a
dozen, are thought to survive in restricted
sections of the island.
Peninsular pronghorn antelope. This
animal once inhabited most of Baja
California, but has been greatly reduced
in range, and currently only two or three
small remnant groups survive.
Hawaii creeper. This bird was endemic
to the island of Hawaii, and reportedly
was common through the 1890’s. Subse-
quent habitat alteration, and other fac-
tors, restricted it primarily to a small
area of forest between 5,000 and 6,000
feet elevation, where it is rare and vul-
nerable to further environmental dis-
ruption.
Po’o tuli. This species of bird was dis-
covered only in 1973 and is restricted to
a small area of forest on the northeast-
ern slope of Haleakala volcano on the
island of Maui. Its past history is un-
known, but presumably its decline was
caused in part by habitat alteration.
Newell’s Mant shearwater. This bird
probably once bred on all of the main
Hawaiian islands, but now is known to
breed only on a very restricted part of
Kauai. Nonetheless, it is thought to num-

ber in the low thousands, and does not

w

appear in immediate danger of extint- §:::”
tion. #x (
Bayou darter. This fish is known only | 2: .
from Bayou Plerre drainage, a small of 0
river tributary to the Mississippi River of it
in west Mississippi. In Bayou Pierre the *::it: ;
Bayou darter inhabits most clean, silt- &
free gravel rifle areas in the lower por- |**
tion of Turkey, White Oak and Fosters loco
creeks and the main channel from Dent- o
ville downstream nearly to Port Gibson, I of it
Mississippi. In recent years gravel-pit loo
operations and poor agricultural prac- |***
tices have adversely altered the habitat l”
resulting in a reduction in the population ; :
of Bayou darters. The Soil Conservation ** **
Service has proposed a watershed project *:::::
which would result in further degrada- loo.
tion of the habitat of the Bayou darter, 1.
The proposed project would adversely loo
alter the water chemistry and contribute o
an additional sit load to the stream lo
This project would pose a serious threat oto:
to continued existence of the Bayou loo
darter. o
Gray bat. This species of bat occupies o:
certain kinds of caves in southeastern o
and south-central United States, which .
are required for roosting, breeding, and o
hibernating activities. Perhaps no other lo.
bat is more dependent upon caves for to o * *
existenee, and it is the only bat in the o –
eastern United States that normally to . &
quires eaves in summer as well as in o
winter. Moreover, this species appare.
can utilize only those caves having o
specific temperature levels. Wintering . t
caves are in short supply: approxim. …
65 percent of the entire known popul: o, .
tion of the species hibernates in a sing” *
cave, and about 90–95 percent of the o
population is restricted to only 5 caves, §§§
over the past 20 years about five other oss
major wintering caves have been do so.
stroyed. The recent reduction in mum- o
bers of summer colonies also is alarmo so
with several major groups of bats.” o:
when their caves were commercial. …,
vandalized, or flooded. A number of to so
remaining winter and summer aggreg o So,
tions are in immediate jeopardy duo ” …
the habitat loss. *
2. OvoRUTILIZATION FOR Cowys.
Sport.ING, SCIENTIFIC, on EDUCATIONAL o
PURPOSEs &
Scioto madtom. Not applica” … .
American crocodile. Poachingto: * o
and eggs still sometimes occo. o,
crocodiles olo. * shot o
“sport” from passing boats. ht o
‘. erican upois. Sport hunting is though. –

– l’s to “…to the decline of * species. IlCedros Island mule deer. E. ing has been an important :g com” decline of this deer; illegal Po”

[blocks in formation][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][blocks in formation]
may be commercialized in the near fu

ture.
3. DISEASE or PREDATION
Scioto madtom. Not applicable.

American crocodile. Raccoons prey heavily on the eggs and young of crocodiles, and probably destroy the great majority of the annual increment. RacCoon numbers are thought to have increased considerably after man largely eliminated natural predators, including

the crocodiles themselves. Merican wolf. Not applicable. Cedros Island mule deer. Predation by feral dogs is thought to have been a major factor in the decline of this deer. Peninsular pronghorn antelope. These factors are not known to be applicable. Hawaii creeper. This bird is thought to have declined through transmission of avian diseases by the introduced mosquito Culer pipiens quinquefasciatus, and predation by rats. Po’o uli. The history of this species is unknown, but it probably declined beCause of the same factors that affected the Hawaii creeper. Newell’s Mana shearwater. Predation by introduced species such as mongooses, dogs, pigs, and rats may have exterminated this species from most of its rainge. Bayou darter. Not applicable, Gray bat. These factors (other than predation by man) are not known to have been major causes in the decline of the gray bat. Natural predation and disease could become more significant as mortally factors, however, as its numbers are reduced and its range becomes, more o due to other human-induced Ctors,

4. THE INADEQUAcy of Existing
REGULATORY MECHANISM’s

Scioto madtom. Not applicable.

American crocodile. Although crocodiles are protected by State law, and by Federal law in Evergiades National Park where most of the population occurs, enforcement is difficult. Most nest sites and adult crocodiles are found in exposed *reas that cannot be constantly guarded in the face of increasing human presonce. Furthermore, present regulations do not restrict the destruction of habitat Outside the Park.

Merican wolf. This species is protected by national law in Mexico but enforcement is difficult and many wolves are thought to be killed illegally. The wolf oprotected by regulation in Arizona, but receives no legal protection in New Mexcoor Texas.

Cedros Island mule deer. Although it is Illegal to hunt this deer, poaching

– Continues.

Scioto madtom. Not applicable,

American crocodile. The possibility of a hurricane or other major natural disaster is a real threat to such a small, isolated population. The restriction of the flow of fresh water to the Everglades, because of increasing human developments in southern Florida, may affect the crocodiles as well as the entire ecosystems of the area. It is known that the young crocodiles swim up streams and depend for a period on water with low salt content.

Merican wolf. Not applicable.

Cedros Island mule deer. Not applicable.

Peninsular pronghorn antelope, Competition with domestic livestock for forage has been a factor in the decline.

Hawaii creeper, Competition with introduced birds probably contributed to the decline of this native species. Po’o uli. This species also may have been affected by competition with nonnative birds. Newell’s Manr shearwater. Attraction to lights causes considerable mortality from collisions with gars and lighted towers. Bayou darter. Not applicable. Gray bat. Available evidence suggests that entire breeding populations of the gray bat may disappear suddenly when numbers fall below a certain critical level. Therefore, even though several large colonies still may be in existence, the species is vulnerable and in danger of extinction if losses in numbers Continue. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the authority contained in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-43; 87 Stat. 884), that the Secretary of the Interior proposes to list the following Species as endangered and threatened, by making the following amendments: 1. Amend $ 17.12 Endangered native wildlife to add the following table:

Common name Scientific name Range Portion of ranga where endangered Scioto madtom—— Noturus trautmani—————– — Big Darby Creek, Ohlo————- #. range. ri

American crocodile– Crocodylus actuus—————— —
Mexican wolf ——– Cants lupus baileyt- …’———-

Fo Indies, Central Amer-
ica, South America.

– Mexico, Southwest United States—- Rao range. o,

, Cedros Island mule Odocoiletia hemionus cerrosensis—— Cedros Island, Mexico.—————
deer
Peninsular prong- Antilocapra americana penninsularis. Baja California—————-…–> Do.
horn antelope.
Hawaii creeper——- Lorops maculata mana Island of Hawait — —> Do.
Po’o ull————– Melash prosops phaeogona———— Island of Maul———————- Do.
Bayou darter——– Etheostoma rubrum —————- – o Pierre Drainage in Missis- Do.
ppl.
Southeastern and Southcentral Do;
United States.
2. Amend $ 17.32 by adding the following:
Portion of
Common Game Scientific name Range range where
threatened
(a) Mammals: – – – – – – * * *
(b) Birds:
(1) Newell’s Puffinus puffinus newell?———— Hawaiian Islands. —————-:- Entire range,
Manx
Shear-
water.

(1) All prohibitions Hsted in section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.8.C. 1531–1543) shall apply

to the Newell’s Manx shearwater.
Supporting data for the above state-
ments and proposals are on file with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. The Governors of the States of Ari-
zona, Florida, New Mexico, Hawaii, Mis-
sissippi, Ohio, and Texas have been noti-
fied with respect to this proposed
rulemaking and requested to submit Com-
ments and recommendations. The Fish
and Wildlife Service is also consulting
with the Government of Mexico. All in-
terested persons are invited to submit
written comments, suggestions, objec-
tions, and factual information concern-
ing this proposal to the “Director (FWS/
LE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C. 20240.” All comments received on or
before July 21, 1975 will be considered.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]
[graphic]
REA Form 200, Construction Contract—Generating.

REA Form 201, Right-of-way Clearing Contract.

RFA Form 203, Transmission System Right-
of-Way Clearing Contract.

REA Form 764, Substation and Switching
Station Erection Contract.

REA Form 830, Electric System Construction
Contract.

[blocks in formation]
posed rules and suggested revisions. These
areas were reviewed and where possible
the suggestions were incorporated. Two o
commenters indicated that tank size –

construction AND EQUIPMENT OF
TANK WESSELS

Proposed Amendments to Tank Wessel

*::::::” Regulations should be the deciding factor for requir- o REA Form 831, Electric Transmission Con- ing inerting systems rather than the * …, struction Contract. so United . o ‘. . “. deadweight ton minimums as proposed by o sidering amending Subchapter D, es IMCO Resolution A.271 (VIII). These *** #. … o above o Coo” and Regulations for Tank Vessels. The comments were seriously considered; o . o it. f proposed to o the on require the upgrading however, the ok on isomoi lo interest rate of seven percent (7%) per of structural fire protection require- data concerning this proposal prohibited o annum shown in Article III of the Con- – – – – one. * ments for certain ships, installing inert- its adoption. tractor’s Proposal charged on all unpaid ing systems for ships above specified -oils amounts due the Contractor which the

Owner has not paid within the due date.
The new interest rate is proposed to be
one percent (1%) per annum below the
published prime rate at Chase Manhat-
tan Bank in New York, but in no event
greater than that allowed by any Federal
or state laws. The interest rate will be de-
termined as of the first date interest
becomes due.
In REA Form 200 only, it is also pro-
posed to change Article IV, Section 1.6,
“Protection to Persons and Property”,

limits, and increasing the capability of
the foam systems of tank ships.
In the September 5, 1974, issue of the
FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 32.147), an ad-
vance notice of proposed rulemaking
was published concerning an outline of
the changes proposed by this notice. The
advance notice was published to provide
timely notice of the impending changes
to the regulations for tank vessels. Eight
comments were received by November 1,
1974. The following is a summary of the

Discussion: The proposed amendments to the regulations can be divided into o: the following general categories:

1. Construction requirements. •li 2. Location and separation of spaces. 3. Cargo tank protection. The general principles of the regulation In categories 1 and 2 were formulated over a period of years. The construction requirements are fundamentally based on the following: a separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal

o – comments: and structural boundaries, of the Contractor’s Proposal, o o: Application of Proposed Regulations: b. protection of means of – o from the risks of loss of the Bi à * One commenter suggested that the e, containment and extinction of any fire risk of loss or of damage to materia * * regulations should not be made appli- in the space of origin, and o equipment furnished for or used in con cable to tank barges inasmuch as IMco d: restricted use of combustible materials. o fo.o. o.o.o. o.o.o.o. to so. joining, wind damage, explosion changes were based, was intended for regulations for construction require- so re, IIgnton o oon aircraft and self-propelled tank vessels. This com- ments currently applicable in Subchap- so. riot Or § “…”.”.m. onto, and ter D. The amended regulations detail or other yeh o ; o, tire owner will the regulations as proposed will not ap- changes that have been necessitated by sol o . $o Risk Insurance) ply to tank barges. lack of detail in the present regulations, as, maintain d ch loes are to become Additional questions were raised by experience in actual fires, and changes o *o: i.” … commentoocoo apolity “…o.o.o.o.o. so taining the proposed changes of the resolution to LFG (liquefied flam- The section of the proposed amend- to . o . in each construction contract mable gas) carriers. The proposed regu- ment that speaks to location and separa. s. f o o to jed by File with REA lations will apply to LFG carriers. The tign of spaces is the result of a review so. #o Hoog, Persons interested in these arrangements and terminology in the of international casualty data which in- o than ges may submit written data, views It FG trade are different than that used dicated the need to maintain segregation or comments to the Director, Power in traditional tank ship trade and con

Supply, Management and Engineering standards Division, Room 3313 South Building. Rural Electrification Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, washington, D.C. 20250 on or before May 21, 1975. All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Director, Power Supply, Management and Engineering Standards Division, during regular business hours.

A copy of the proposed changes in REA Forms 200, 201, 203, 764, 830, and 831 may be secured in person or by written request from the Director, Power Supply, Management and Engineering Standards Division.

[merged small][ocr errors]
– between cargo tanks, machinery spaces, struction. Due to these differences an in- and accommodation and service spaces.

terpretative ruling will be published in The major provision in this section ton- so-
the near future. Specific regulations for cerns the positioning of accommodation –
LFG carriers will be promulgated at a spaces, main cargo control stations, and
later date. – service spaces. These spaces are required
Implementation Date: Two commenters to be located aft of cargo tanks, slop
objected to the timing indicated in the tanks, cargo pump rooms, and coffer
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dams which isolate cargo or slop tanks
and suggested that contract date rather from machinery spaces of Category A.
than keel laying date should be utilized. This provision would prohibit the con-
Inasmuch as contract dates can precede struction of a tank ship with a house lo-
keel laying (or similar stage of construc- cated amidship, except as a navigatino
tion) by several years, utilization of con- position.
tract dates would allow vessels to be built Cargo tank protection is the third
without adequate safety measures, even jor area of consideration. Existing U.S.
though such safety measures have been regulations require the installation of a
promulgated. The problems being aq. fixed deck foam fire fighting system to
dressed, however, are immediate and in the protection of the ship in the event
the interest of safety, additional dia. of a fire in the cargo tank area. The *.
cannot be justified. The intent is to app vance Notice indicated several import*
the regulations to all tank ships where it changes to these regulations. The o
is feasible to do so. These regulations will

[ocr errors][graphic][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »

Cruel Cheetahs

When it comes to cheetahs, there’s a tendency to underestimate how savage they can get even when it’s proven time and time again. There were some recorded incidents of cheetahs attacking people, first is the time when a cheetah attacked a boy (and actually got the latter scarred), second is the time a cheetah killed a toddler, the third is when a cheetah attacked a teenager and another reputedly has a cheetah kill another toddler.

I guess even if most of those reports actually involved cheetahs attacking people, there will always be the misconception of cheetahs being so tame they can’t attack people even though they do. I guess even if it’s true, that does mess with people’s perceptions of such an animal that even when it’s capable of doing harm (sort of like how people underestimate dog predation, even if the capacity’s there when they do kill and eat deer).

This isn’t to say they’re bad animals, but rather they can do both good and bad (something like dogs guarding houses and rescuing humans but also killing animals and humans) but that would be the mature way of looking at things really.