Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2007

Annual Report of Lands Under Control Of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service As of September 30, 2007 Message from the Director Key to Real Property Numbers Map of National Fish and Wildlife Management Areas Map of Waterfowl Productions Areas Significant Land Acquisition Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2007 Tables 1 Summary by Categories 2 Summary by States, Associated Governments and Possessions 2A FY 2007 Summary by States, Associated Governments and Possessions 3 National Wildlife Refuges 4 Waterfowl Production Areas 5 Coordination Areas 6 Administrative Sites 7 National Fish Hatcheries 8 Wilderness Areas in National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries 9 Migratory Waterfowl Refuges on Federal Water Resource Projects Note

Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide Mitigation Framework

The purpose of this document (Framework) is to communicate some of the factors the Service is likely to consider in evaluating the efficacy of mitigation practices and programs in reducing threats to sage-grouse. The recommendations provided here are consistent with the information and conservation objectives provided in the 2013 Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report for sage-grouse

Biological opinion on effects of issuance of license for McKenzie (Bigelow) Hydropower Project on Upper Willamette River chinook salmon, its proposed critical habitat, and bull trout

On March 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published its final decision to list the Upper Willamette River evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The effective date for the final listing was May 24, 1999, and the ESU is defined as 'all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon residing below impassable natural barriers' (64 FR 14308). Critical habitat for this ESU was proposed on March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482), and this proposed designation is still pending at the time of this Biological Opinion. Upper Willamette River chinook salmon occur within the action area of this consultation. The Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999) simultaneously with Upper Willamette River chinook salmon, but its range does not include the action area for this consultation 1 , and it is not addressed in this Biological Opinion. The objective of this Biological Opinion is to address the effects of providing a license to operate the McKenzie project, as proposed by FERC, on listed UW chinook salmon and bull trout, and to determine if this federal action by FERC will jeopardize the continued existence of either species. It will also serve as a conference opinion on the effects of the proposed action on proposed UW chinook salmon critical habitat. Until FERC issues a license for the McKenzie project incorporating the reasonable and prudent measures of this Biological Opinion, the existing project has no authorization for take of listed specie

Assessing personality in San Joaquin kit fox in situ: efficacy of field-based experimental methods and implications for conservation management

Utilisation of animal personality has potential benefit for conservation management. Due to logistics of robust behavioural evaluation in situ, the majority of studies on wild animals involve taking animals into captivity for testing, potentially compromising results. Three in situ tests for evaluation of boldness in San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) were developed (ENOT: extended novel object test; RNOT: rapid novel object test; TH: trap/handling test). Each test successfully identified variation in boldness within its target age class(es). The TH test was suitable for use across all age classes. Tests were assessed for in situ suitability and for quantity/quality of data yielded. ENOT was rated as requiring high levels of time, cost and labour with greater likelihood of failure. However, it was rated highly for data quantity/quality. The TH test was rated as requiring little time, labour and cost, but yielding lower quality data. RNOT was rated in the middle. Each test had merit and could be adapted to suit project or species constraints. We recommend field-based evaluation of personality, reducing removal of animals from the wild and facilitating routine incorporation of personality assessment into conservation projects