text:
Evaluation of Distribution and
Trans- Highway Movement of
Desert Bighorn Sheep:
Arizona Highway 68
Final Report 588
Prepared by:
Kirby Bristow and Michelle Crabb
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Research Branch
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086
August 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
In cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or
manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered
essential to the objectives of the report. The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not
endorse products or manufacturers.
This report can also be found on our web site…
http:// www. dot. state. az. us/ ABOUT/ atrc/ Publications/ Publications. htm
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
August, 2008
Evaluation of Distribution and Trans- Highway Movement of Desert
Bighorn Sheep: Arizona Highway 68
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author
Kirby Bristow and Michelle Crabb
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Arizona Game and Fish Department
10. Work Unit No.
Research Branch
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
August 2005 - May 2008
ADOT Project Manager: Estomih M Kombe
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
We monitored desert bighorn sheep via satellite telemetry, remote cameras, and track beds between 2006
and 2007, to evaluate the effectiveness of the 3 design features ( underpasses) incorporated to facilitate
wildlife movement under State Highway 68 ( SR 68) between Kingman and Bullhead City, Arizona. We fitted
25 desert bighorn sheep with GPS radio telemetry collars and tracked movements in proximity to SR 68 for
15 months beginning in November of 2006. To evaluate use of underpasses by all ungulates we installed 5
remote passive infrared triggered cameras at each underpass. We monitored wildlife use at the underpasses
for 9,789 camera/ days and documented 25 crossing events by desert bighorn sheep (≤ 32 individual
crossings). None of the bighorns documented using the underpasses were ewes and no marked ewes
crossed SR 68. The majority ( 88%) of crossings by bighorns occurred at the easternmost underpass
( milepost 12.1), which also had the narrowest span and was located in the most rugged terrain. There were
3 crossings by bighorns at the westernmost underpass ( milepost 7.8), which had the widest span and was
located far from rugged terrain. No bighorns crossed at the remaining underpass ( milepost 10.8), however
other ungulates, such as wild burros ( 86%) and mule deer ( 14%), were seen more often there. At higher
levels, presence of other ungulates and humans may preclude bighorn use of underpasses. While proximity
to steep terrain, sight ability, underpass structure, and presence of other animals may all be important factors
affecting bighorn use of highway underpasses, placement of crossing structures relative to traditional travel
corridors of bighorns is likely the most important factor affecting their use.
17. Key Words
Arizona, desert bighorn sheep, Ovis Canadensis,
distribution, trans- highway movements, State Highway
68, connectivity, permeability, wildlife
18. Distribution Statement
No restriction. Document is available to the U. S.
public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classification
20. Security Classification
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or " metric ton")
( or " t")
mg megagrams
( or " metric ton")
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
º F
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
1. Union Pass............................................................................................. 20
2. The Hole................................................................................................. 20
3. Arabian Mine ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 1. Location of State Route 68 desert bighorn sheep study area in
northwestern Arizona. Study area extends along the highway between
Bullhead City east to Golden Valley, Arizona.................................................... 6
Figure 3. Union Pass wildlife underpass ( MP 10.8) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007....................................................................... 7
Figure 3. The Hole wildlife underpass ( MP 10.8) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007....................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Arabian Mine wildlife underpass ( MP 10.8) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007....................................................................... 9
Figure 5. Movements of marked desert bighorn sheep that crossed State Route 68
in northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007................................................................. 14
Figure 6. Movements of marked desert bighorn sheep that did not cross State
Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007 ................................................. 16
Figure 7. Percent use of wildlife underpasses by humans and ungulates along
State Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007 ........................................ 17
Figure 8. Desert bighorn sheep at the Union Pass underpass ( MP 12.1) exhibited
cautious behavior while traveling under roadways but seemed more
comfortable in the right- of- way near State Route 68 northwestern
Arizona, 2006- 2007 .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. Burro use was common at The Hole underpass ( MP 10.8) on State
Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007 ................................................. 20
Figure 10. Human/ vehicle use was common at the Arabian Mine underpass on
State Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2006- 2007 ........................................ 21
Figure 11. Locations of marked desert bighorn sheep and escape terrain ( slope
60% or greater) in the area of State Route 68 in northwestern Arizona ............ 22
Table 1. Escape terrain ( slope 60% or greater), marked bighorn use within 1km
of underpasses, photo- documented bighorn crossing events, and index
of openness ( height x width)/( length) of wildlife underpasses on State
Route 68 in the Black Mountains, northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.............. 15
Table 2. Location of State Route 68 desert bighorn sheep study area in
northwestern Arizona. Study area extends along the highway between
Bullhead City east to Golden Valley, Arizona.................................................. 23
The Arizona Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the
Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society provided funding for this research. We also thank
AGFD personnel R. Babel, E. Podoll, and T. Richins for field assistance in monitoring
marked bighorns and recovery of bighorn mortalities and collars. Sue Boe ( AGFD)
provided analytical and GIS assistance. We also thank helicopter pilot M. Brinkworth
( Papillon Helicopters), Ole Alcumbrec ( Veterinarian), J. Wills, K. Morgan, and T. Smith
( AGFD) for capture assistance. AGFD pilots E. Cash, B. Coffman, B. David, F. Sunde,
and S. Dubois assisted with aerial telemetry.
Highway construction can affect desert bighorn sheep ( Ovis Canadensis) populations by
increasing habitat fragmentation and isolation which can impede access to critical
habitats, increase the effects of stochastic events and reduce gene flow. There is rapid
expansion of road networks near bighorn habitat and increased use of high animal
fencing along highways to reduce wildlife/ vehicle collisions. Proper design and
placement of wildlife crossing structures is crucial to allow for animal movement and
reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation.
Three wildlife crossing structures ( underpasses) were incorporated into the realignment
and improvement of State Route 68 between Kingman and Bullhead City - Arizona, to
facilitate movement of bighorn sheep. State Route 68 was realigned and widened from a
2- lane to a 4- lane highway over a 14 mile stretch from County Route 68 to Mile Post 14.
This was accomplished between the year 2000 and 2002. To evaluate the effectiveness
of the different underpasses we fitted 25 bighorn sheep with GPS radio telemetry
transmitters and tracked movements in proximity to the highway for 22.5 months
beginning in November 2006. To evaluate use of underpasses by all ungulates we
installed 5 remote passive infrared triggered cameras at each underpass.
We monitored wildlife use at the underpasses for 20 months ( 9,789 camera- days) and
documented 25 times where bighorn sheep crossed under the highway (≤ 32 individual
crossings). All except one ( whose gender couldn't be determined) of bighorns
photographed by remote cameras at underpasses were rams. Crossings often occurred at
the beginning and end of the breeding season. None of the marked bighorn ewes crossed
the highway during the study. 88% of the crossings by bighorns occurred at the
easternmost underpass ( Union Pass), which also had the narrowest span and was located
in the most rugged terrain. There were three crossings by bighorns at the westernmost
underpass ( Arabian Mine), which had the widest span and was located far from rugged
terrain. No bighorns crossed at the remaining underpass. However, other ungulates such
as wild burros and mule deer were often seen there. At higher levels the presence of
other ungulates and humans may preclude underpass use by bighorns.
Bighorns moved quickly when traveling through the underpasses but seemed more at
ease, often stopping to browse, while in the right of way. We documented three times
when bighorns approached the easternmost underpass without crossing the highway.
This behavior is likely related to traffic levels but may be indicative of unfamiliarity with
the area and the general cautious nature of bighorn movement. Cautious behavior
documented during most crossings may be related to underpass structure. Highway
permeability could likely be enhanced with higher, more open structures. Underpasses
should have an index of openness1 greater than 75 to enhance visibility and increase
probability of use by bighorns.
1 : The index of openness is calculated by multiplying the height by the width and dividing the product by
the length : ( height x width)/ ( length)
Bighorn sheep follow traditional movement patterns, where travel corridors are learned
from older individuals. Rams often move long distance to access different ewe groups
during the breeding season. Use of underpass structures was more associated with
documented movement patterns of the bighorn sheep population than proximity to steep
terrain. While proximity to steep terrain, sight ability, underpass structure, and presence
of other animals may all be important factors affecting bighorn sheep use of highway
underpasses, placement of crossing structures relative to traditional travel corridors of
bighorns is likely the most important factor affecting their use.
Future crossing structures should be placed in traditional travel corridors connecting high
quality habitat with steep ( greater than 60% slope) rugged terrain on both sides of the
roadway. Unstable, loose, or unnatural substrates used to stabilize side slopes may
impede bighorn sheep use. Reducing structural diversity on abutments, such that shaded
areas are minimized while incorporating a trail half way up the side slopes will likely
enhance permeability.
Right- of- way fencing ( at least 2 meters high) should be maintained throughout bighorn
sheep habitat to guide bighorns to crossing structures and reduce bighorn sheep/ vehicle
collisions. Jump- outs ( 2.5 meters high or more) would reduce potential for bighorn
sheep/ vehicle collisions when right- of- way fences are breached.
Substantial effort has been expended in the past three decades in the design and building
of mitigation passages across roadways. As human populations continue to grow in the
United States, there is increased demand for improved highways to handle higher traffic
volumes ( Federal Highway Administration 1998), allowing for increased vehicle speeds
on the nation's roadways ( Cook and Daggett 1995). Increased traffic volumes and speeds
on highways potentially affect wildlife through direct mortalities and habitat
fragmentation ( Foster and Humphrey 1995, Hughes et al. 1996).
Collisions with wildlife occur often on Arizona's highways, causing loss of human lives
and economic losses associated with vehicle damage. In 2006, 1,398 vehicle collisions
with animals were reported in Arizona; two persons were killed, and 276 were injured
( Arizona Department of Transportation 2006). Estimated mean property damage was
$ 8,200, estimated costs of injuries averaged $ 11,500, and estimated costs associated with
fatalities averaged $ 1,210,000 ( Arizona Department of Transportation 2006).
Three wildlife crossing structures ( underpasses) were incorporated into the realignment
and improvement of 14 miles of State Route ( SR) 68 between Kingman and Bullhead
City - Arizona, to facilitate movement of wildlife, particularly desert bighorn sheep,
across the highway. Underpasses such as those incorporated into this redevelopment
have been widely used in the United States to mitigate effects of roadways on ungulate
movements and reduce collisions. However, few studies have addressed post-construction
efficacy of these measures ( Clevenger 1998, Clevenger et al. 2002).
Bighorn populations have declined throughout their historical range coincident with
European settlement of the West, possibly due to the introduction of diseases carried by
domestic animals ( Jessup 1985, deVos 1989), subsistence hunting, and habitat isolation
( Gionfriddo and Krausman 1986, Bleich et al. 1990). The bighorn population in the
Black Mountains near SR 68 is a sub- unit of the largest surviving bighorn population in
Arizona and is important in several respects, serving as the source herd for
reintroductions into several sites in Arizona and other southwestern states. The
population also provides enjoyment through wildlife watching on the study site and along
the Colorado River, as well as providing recreational opportunity to those who hunt
bighorns in the area.
Previous studies on the bighorns of the Black Mountains near Highway 93 indicate the
potential for adverse impacts of highway construction to this metapopulation. Research
on the Highway 93 alignment located approximately 30 miles to the north of this study's
site documented bighorn movements across Highway 93 and suggested high vehicle-related
mortalities along a portion of U. S. Highway 93 could have serious implications
for the local population ( Cunningham and deVos 1992, Cunningham and Hanna 1992,
Cunningham et al. 1993, McKinney and Smith 2007). High right- of- way fencing ( more
than 2 meters/ 6.56 feet) installed as part of the improvement of SR 68 was designed to
reduce the potential for wildlife/ vehicle collisions. This might bisect the bighorn
population of the area if the wildlife crossings are impermeable to bighorn movement.
Bisecting this population would likely increase the risk of extirpation due to loss of
genetic exchange. Genetic diversity and population fitness is enhanced through genetic
exchange ( Diamond 1975, Mader 1984, Schwartz et al. 1986). The ability to move freely
can protect wildlife populations from random events such as introduction of diseases,
localized shortage of resources, predation pressure or other challenges to their survival
( Jessup 1985, Wilcox and Murphy 1985, deVos 1989, McKinney et al. 2003).
Research evaluating wildlife use of highway underpasses has focused primarily on
ungulates ( Clevenger 1998), but information on the use of underpasses by bighorns is
limited ( McKinney and Smith 2007). Information on bighorn movement patterns and
their use of underpasses in the vicinity of SR 68 is needed to enhance future efforts of
highway engineers, design specialists, and resource managers in incorporating wildlife
crossing structures and design features to increase public safety and ensure permeability
of the highway to wildlife. This will in turn reduce adverse impacts to the bighorn sheep
herd and increase the probability of population persistence. This information could also
have high economic returns on investment by assisting with the design of mitigation
features for future highway projects and potentially reducing construction costs due to
ineffective or unnecessary highway crossing structures. This type of information will
also enable resource managers to identify key habitat features regarding movements of
bighorn sheep, potentially minimizing adverse impacts of highway construction.
The objectives of the study were: 1) To determine if and how often large desert mammals
( mule deer, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, etc.) use the underpasses incorporated into the
SR 68 realignment; 2) To determine the movement patterns of bighorns in the vicinity of
SR 68 realignment, assess potential impacts to bighorn sheep distribution, and identify
trans- highway movements; 3) Identify factors potentially affecting use of underpasses by
bighorn sheep.
We assumed that use of underpasses by bighorns was related to the placement and
structure of the underpasses rather than traffic levels. This assumption is based on the
observation that few vehicles were exiting SR 68 within the study area. Therefore traffic
levels at each underpass should be nearly the same.
The study area was located in northwestern Arizona in the Black Mountains within 10
miles north and south of SR68 and was bounded on the west by the Colorado River and
to the east by Golden Valley. The elevation of the study area ranged from about 146m
( 479 ft) on the Colorado River to 1,496m ( 4907 ft.) in Golden Valley. The topography
ranged from mountainous terrain with steep talus slopes and rugged cliffs to dry washes
among rolling hills ( Cunningham and Hanna 1992). Average temperatures ranged from
31oC ( 88 º F) in summer ( May– September) to 12oC ( 54 º F) in winter ( December–
February). Rainfall was about 5.6 cm ( 2.18 in) and 4.7 cm ( 1.83 in) during summer and
winter respectively, and totaled about 15.4 cm ( 6 in) annually. Vegetation in the lower
bajadas, flats and desert wash areas is dominated by Creosote- bursage ( Larrea tridentata-
Ambrosia dumosa) while mixed- cacti and shrub communities predominate the
mountainous regions of the study area ( Brown et al. 1979). Predators on the study area
included bobcats, coyotes, gray foxes, and mountain lions. Domestic livestock were
infrequent in most of the study area, except that feral burros were common. Based on
aerial surveys, numbers of bighorns in the general area declined sharply between 2001
and 2004. Legal hunting of bighorns occurred during the month of December each year.
There were 3 underpasses incorporated into the realignment and improvement of SR 68
between Kingman and Bullhead City, Arizona to facilitate movement of wildlife,
particularly bighorns, across the highway ( Fig. 1). Union Pass at milepost 12.1 was 51m
wide, 25m high and 17m long ( 167ft, 82ft, and 56ft; Fig. 2). With good visibility through
the underpass, Union Pass had the shortest length of the three underpasses as it had no
median separating the east and west bound traffic lanes. The Hole at milepost 10.8 was
56m wide, 19m high and 38m long ( 184ft, 62ft, and 125ft; Fig. 3). It is characterized by
low visibility from both sides. Arabian Mine at milepost 7.8 was 116m wide, 18m high
and 37m long ( 380ft, 59ft, and 121ft; Fig. 4). The widest structure, Arabian Mine, was
not perpendicular to the wash that it crossed. Nonetheless, visibility inside as well as
across the underpass was good.
Figure 1. Location of State Route 68 desert bighorn sheep study area in northwestern
Arizona. Study area extends along the highway between Bullhead City east to
Golden Valley, Arizona.
Figure 2. Union Pass wildlife underpass ( MP 12.1) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.
Figure 3. The Hole wildlife underpass ( MP 10.8) on State Route 68 in northwestern
Arizona, 2005- 2007.
Figure 4. Arabian Mine wildlife underpass ( MP 7.8) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.
Adult bighorns were captured from a helicopter using tranquilizer darting in November
2005 and using net- gunning in November 2006. GPS radio transmitter collars and unique
ear tags ( manufactured by Telonics, Inc. of Mesa, Arizona) were securely attached to all
bighorns. Transmitters were equipped with motion sensors triggering a specific mortality
signal if no animal movement occurred within 4 hours. Transmitters were designed to
provide a GPS location fix every five hours for the store- on- board transmitters and every
six hours for the spread- spectrum transmitters. All collars were programmed to
automatically disconnect and drop off animals after 22.5 months, for transmitter
recovery. Animal location data could be uploaded remotely from spread- spectrum
transmitters during a 3- hour window available every 14 days, and after final recovery.
Animal location data collected on store- on- board transmitters could be downloaded only
after collars dropped off and were recovered.
Aerial telemetry flights were conducted at least monthly and often bi- weekly between
November 2005 and September 2007 using fixed- wing aircraft. This facilitated the
download of data from spread- spectrum transmitters, the location of bighorns fitted with
store- on- board transmitters, and the documentation and location of mortalities. We
incorporated data from spread- spectrum transmitters into ArcGIS ® Version 8.3 software
( ESRI, Redlands, California) following each flight, and incorporated data from store- on-board
transmitters following collar drop- off and recovery at the end of fieldwork or when
transmitters were retrieved from mortality sites. For every case of mortality we identified
the cause of death based on signs found at the carcass site, including signs of disease,
presence of scat, tracks, caching of kill, and canine punctures.
Home ranges of marked bighorns were calculated using minimum convex polygons
( 100% MCP; White and Garrott 1990). The home ranges of individuals were also
described qualitatively in relation to SR 68. Highway crossings made successfully by
marked bighorns were determined by connecting consecutive GPS location fixes in
ArcGIS ® and identifying crossings where lines between fixes crossed SR 68. Whenever
possible, we verified the occurrence of crossings by marked bighorns using ground or
aerial telemetry. To estimate bighorn habitat use near underpasses we calculated the
number of locations of marked bighorns within 1 km buffers around the Union Pass, The
Hole, and Arabian Mine wildlife crossing structures.
Five remote passive infrared triggered cameras were deployed at each of the three
underpasses along SR 68. We programmed 4 cameras ( manufactured by Reconyx, LLP
of Holmen, WI) to take 30 pictures ( one picture every quarter of a second) each time
movement was detected, and record date, time and temperature on each image. We
positioned cameras for full coverage of the underpass to record wildlife use of crossing
structures. We also positioned cameras to cover approach trails near the underpasses to
document wildlife that approached without crossing. One video camera ( manufactured
by Leaf River, Inc. of Taylorsville, MS) was deployed at each underpass and
programmed to take a 90 second video each time motion was detected, to better
document wildlife behavior in proximity to the highway.
We developed track beds at each of the three underpasses along SR 68 to supplement
data collected by the cameras. Each track bed was at least two meters wide and all were
of variable length depending on the underpass. We counted tracks once a week, and
cleared and restored track beds after each examination.
To describe the configuration of underpasses we calculated an index of openness as
( height x width)/ ( length) for the Union Pass, The Hole, and Arabian Mine wildlife
crossing structures. To estimate availability of bighorn escape terrain in proximity to
wildlife crossing structures we calculated the amount ( km2) of area with slope ≥ 60%
( McKinney et al. 2003) within a 1 km buffer around the Union Pass, The Hole, and
Arabian Mine underpasses. To estimate land surface ruggedness throughout the study
area we calculated a Vector Ruggedness Measure ( VRM) for each 900m2 area
( Sappington et al. 2007).
To establish the characteristics of habitat availability we generated random points within
the MCP home range estimate for each marked bighorn. We plotted random points equal
to the number of bighorn locations used to calculate each MCP home range estimate
using ArcGIS ® . We overlaid all bighorn locations and random points on available GIS
habitat characteristic covers and recorded values for each of the following habitat
variables: Vegetation Type, Elevation, Slope, Aspect of Slope, and VRM. To predict
habitat use by bighorns we developed logistic regression models ( Hosmer and Lemeshow
1989) using habitat variables that were not correlated ( α< 0.1). We developed probable
models a priori, and calculated Akaike's Selection Criterion ( AIC) to select the most
parsimonious model ( Burnham and Anderson 1992) and assigned 0.5 as the cut point for
classification of use and random sites.
We captured and marked 25 bighorns in two capture efforts, and combined data from
them for our analyses. During the first capture, we deployed 10 spread- spectrum
transmitters ( six to females, four to males) and 10 store- on- board transmitters ( six to
females, four to males). In the second capture, we captured five animals ( two females,
three males) not captured before and deployed four spread- spectrum and one store- on-board
transmitters. In total we placed transmitters on six females and six males north of
SR 68, and eight females and five males south of SR 68.
There were 10 ( 40%) mortalities among the 25 marked bighorns during the study.
Mountain lion predation caused 5 ( 50%) of mortalities; known predation only occurred
north of the highway. Legal harvest ( 1; 10%), capture related mortality ( 1; 10%), and
poaching ( 1; 10%) caused fewer deaths than mountain lions. There were two mortalities
where cause of death could not be determined ( 20%).
We conducted 27 fixed- wing flights to upload data from spread- spectrum transmitters
and check mortality status of individuals. One transmitter stopped recording GPS points
after five months, one store- on- board transmitter failed and was unable to be recovered,
and one collar malfunctioned and dropped off almost a year early. We retrieved and
downloaded data from 13 operative transmitter collars after they all dropped off on
September 15, 2007. Twenty- four marked bighorns provided 38,790 usable GPS
Distribution and movements of marked bighorns generally occurred throughout the study
area but movement across the highway was rare ( Fig. 5). Bighorn ram locations within
1km of underpasses was greatest at Union Pass followed by Arabian Mine and then The
Hole ( Table 1). Bighorn ewe locations within 1km of an underpass were greatest at
Arabian Mine followed by Union Pass and then The Hole ( Table 1).
We documented eight crossings of SR 68 by three marked rams ( 12% of all marked
animals and 27 % of marked rams). Thus 88% of marked bighorns did not cross the
highway ( Fig. 6). We documented six crossings at Union Pass, one crossing at Arabian
Mine, and no crossings at The Hole. Evidence from remote cameras corroborated the
estimates of crossing locations. The remaining crossing by a marked animal that was not
recorded by remote cameras likely occurred between Arabian Mine and The Hole, in an
area where the right- of- way fencing was low ( less than two meters). Crossings by
marked bighorns occurred in both directions ( four heading north, four heading south.)
We calculated home ranges for 10 females and 10 males that were alive for more than six
months following capture and marking. Mean home ranges for females and males were
70.84 km2 (± 61.3 Standard Deviation) and 223.76 km2 (± 134.56 SD), respectively.
Mean home ranges of males that crossed ( mean = 277.09 km2, ± 220.52 SD) and those
that did not cross ( mean = 200.91 km2, ± 94.44 SD) the highway were similar.
Figure 5. Movements of marked desert bighorn sheep that crossed State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.
Table 1. Escape terrain ( slope 60% or greater), marked bighorn use within 1km of
underpasses, photo- documented bighorn crossing events, and index of openness
( height x width)/( length) of wildlife underpasses on State Route 68 in the Black
Mountains, northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.
Wildlife Underpass
Union Pass
The Hole
Arabian Mine
Escape Terrain ( km2) 0.28 0.17 0.02
Marked ram ( n = 10) locations 427 97 239
Marked ewe ( n = 14) locations 56 35 588
Bighorn crossing events 22 0 3
Index of Openness 75 28 56
Figure 6. Movements of marked desert bighorn sheep that did not cross State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2005- 2007.
With remote cameras we documented 25 highway crossings by bighorns accounting for
up to 32 individuals ( Table 1). Only three crossings included two or more animals, the
rest were by single animals. All bighorns captured by cameras at underpasses were rams
except for one unknown. Bighorn movements across the highway were in both
directions, with 17 animals heading north and 15 animals heading south. 84% of bighorn
crossings occurred between May and October, which corresponds to the beginning and
ending of the breeding season. All bighorn crossings occurred between 8 am and 6 pm.
We documented three bighorn approaches that did not result in a crossing: all were on the
south side of the Union Pass underpass. Bighorns made up a relatively small proportion
of the animals using underpasses. Burros and humans accounted for the majority of
observed use followed by bighorns and deer ( Fig. 7). Data from track beds generally
corroborated results from the remote cameras. No mountain lions were documented
using the underpasses.
Ungulate and Human Crossings at Underpasses
Union Pass The Hole Arabian Mine
Figure 7. Percent use of wildlife underpasses by humans and ungulates along State
Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2006- 2007.
All bighorns photographed on approach to underpasses were walking and exhibited
cautious, alert, ( vigilance) behavior. One bighorn was documented looking at a passing
vehicle before proceeding. Of the bighorns that crossed, 15 walked through the
underpass, 11 ran through it, and two both ran and walked. We were unable to accurately
categorize the behavior of four bighorns while they were directly under the roadway due
to lack of images. At the Union Pass underpass six bighorns ( 32%) stopped while under
the roadway and looked around, at some point each looked at a shadowed bench located
on the northeast corner of the abutment ( Fig. 8). Bighorns that crossed in a group did not
stop while under the roadway and the first half of animals that crossed in a group all
walked while the second half ran. Approximately 50% of the individuals that crossed
alone at Union Pass ran through the underpass. No bighorns were seen running after
crossing, and three were seen feeding close to the underpass after crossing ( Fig. 8).
Figure 8. Desert bighorn sheep at the Union Pass underpass ( MP 12.1) exhibited cautious
behavior while traveling under roadways but seemed more comfortable in the
right- of- way near State Route 68 northwestern Arizona, 2006- 2007.
1. Union Pass ( MP12.1)
Burros made the majority of the crossings at Union Pass, accounting for 53% followed by
bighorns at 25%, and finally humans at 22%. There were 22 crossings ( 29 individuals) by
bighorns at Union Pass. Bighorns that crossed the highway showed vigilance while
traversing through the underpass. This vigilance was reduced in the right of way on both
sides of the highway ( Fig. 8). There were a large number of foxes that used the
underpass, along with some coyotes and a few bobcats.
2. The Hole ( MP 10.8)
Burros accounted for 86% of crossings at The Hole ( Fig. 9), followed by deer at 14%.
There were no bighorns detected at this underpass. Bobcats commonly used The Hole to
cross under the highway; coyotes and foxes were rarely seen.
Figure 9. Burro use was common at The Hole underpass ( MP 10.8) on State Route 68 in
northwestern Arizona, 2006- 2007.
3. Arabian Mine ( MP 7.8)
Humans made up 71% of the Arabian Mine underpass users. Most were in vehicles with
a fair number stopping to rest in the shade of the underpass ( Fig. 10). Burros made up
28% of the crossings with bighorns and deer making up the remaining 1%. The bighorns
crossing at Arabian Mine exhibited the same vigilance behaviors as those documented at
Union Pass. Coyotes were occasionally seen at this underpass; foxes and bobcats were
rarely seen.
Figure 10. Human/ vehicle use was common at the Arabian Mine underpass on State
Route 68 in northwestern Arizona, 2006- 2007.
The Union Pass structure had a higher index of openness than either The Hole or Arabian
Mine underpasses ( Table 1). The Union Pass structure also had more bighorn escape
terrain ( areas with slope greater than 60%) within 1km of the underpass than The Hole
underpass, which in turn had more than the Arabian Mine underpass ( Table 1 & Fig. 11).
Figure 11. Locations of marked desert bighorn sheep and escape terrain ( slope 60% or
greater) in the area of State Route 68 in northwestern Arizona.
We developed 5 different a priori habitat selection models based on competing theories
of factors affecting bighorn use ( Table 2). The global model including all available
habitat variables was the most parsimonious model describing bighorn habitat selection
( Table 2).
Table 2. Ranking of logistic regression models1 for marked bighorn ( n = 24) habitat use
in the Black Mountains near State Route 68, northwestern Arizona, 2005-
- 2 log
% bighorns
% random
1 Global 5 93,822.5 64.3 71.4 93,832.5 0
2 Migratory 3 97,569.4 62.8 66.9 97,575.4 3,742.9
3 Slope 1 99,605.8 58.4 69.0 99,607.8 5,775.3
4 Ruggedness 1 99,977.8 48.0 79.1 99,979.8 6,147.3
5 Vegetation 1 104,020.1 59.8 60.5 104,022.1 10,189.6
1 P- values for all models were < 0.001 ( n = 38,790), and degrees of freedom was equal to
the number of variables included in the model. Models are presented in order of
1 Global model; Vegetation type, elevation, percent slope, slope aspect, and VRM
2 Migratory model; Vegetation type, elevation, and percent slope
3 Slope model; percent slope only
4 Ruggedness model; Vector ruggedness only
5 Vegetation model; Vegetation type
The impacts of highways constitute some of the more widespread factors altering natural
wildlife ecosystems. Collisions between vehicles and wildlife result in extensive human
deaths, injuries, and property damage ( Forman 2000). Impacts of highways on wildlife
populations are widespread: they block animal movements, reduce habitat connectivity,
fragment habitats and populations ( Forman 2000), and contribute directly to mortality of
We found that desert bighorn sheep used wildlife underpasses but that use was restricted
to 12% of marked animals and consisted of only rams. Reed et al. ( 1975) found 61% of
deer migrated safely using underpasses, 89% of mountain goat crossings were successful
( Singer and Doherty 1985), and up to 96% of elk used underpasses ( Waters 1988) in
various areas. Some studies indicate use of underpasses may increase over time ( Reed et
al. 1975, Singer and Doherty 1985, Waters 1988), but others reported reluctance for deer
to use underpasses even after 10 years ( Reed 1981).
Environmental features associated with underpasses influence their use by ungulates
( Clevenger 1998, Ng et al. 2004). The most commonly used underpass on SR 68, Union
Pass, had the highest availability of steep rugged terrain. Bighorn use of the Arabian
Mine underpass was higher than use of The Hole although availability of steep rugged
terrain was higher at The Hole. McKinney and Smith ( 2007) found bighorn use of
habitat near highways was associated with Continuous Linear Elevated Guideways
( CLEG), ridgelines that offered good visibility and connected habitats on both sides of
the highway. Although escape terrain ( 60% slope or higher) was more available near The
Hole, the main spine of the Black Mountains and associated CLEG was located well to
the east ( Fig. 3).
Bighorns follow established traditions in their movement patterns with young learning
seasonal movements and travel routes from adults ( Geist 1967). Marked bighorn
locations in the vicinity of Arabian Mine were more common than near The Hole. This is
an indication of a higher probability that bighorns would encounter that underpass. Thus
while proximity to steep rugged terrain likely affected underpass use by bighorns it may
have been less important than underpass placement relative to traditional movement
patterns. Due to the conservative nature of bighorn movement patterns ( Geist 1967),
maintaining traditional routes within a complex of habitat is critical to long term
population persistence ( Bleich et al. 1990). Underpasses located without reference to
established travel corridors may be ineffective in enhancing highway permeability to
wildlife ( Hanna 1982).
Bighorn crossings were more common at Union Pass than Arabian Mine despite the fact
that marked animal locations were more numerous near Arabian Mine. However, marked
bighorn locations near Arabian Mine were mostly ewes which we never documented as
crossing SR 68. Marked bighorn crossings of SR 68 were rare; the highway formed the
boundary of many home ranges. Bighorn use of underpasses on SR 68 was restricted to
rams and usually occurred during the six month period coincident with the beginning and
end of the breeding season. Bighorn rams often travel great distances during the breeding
season to access ewe groups. This behavior has evolved to ensure genetic diversity
among metapopulations in a naturally fragmented distribution ( Bleich et al. 1997).
Bighorn ram crossings of SR 68 are likely related to breeding behavior. Consequently the
permeability of SR 68 is critical to maintaining genetic diversity within the Black
Mountain habitat complex. Small, isolated populations, more than larger populations or
metapopulations, are subject to extinction through stochastic events and potential loss of
genetic heterozygosity ( Diamond 1975, Wilcox and Murphy 1985, Gaillard et al. 1998).
Desert bighorn sheep occur throughout northern Mexico and the southwestern USA and
are distributed in naturally fragmented populations, often as small, isolated demes as well
as metapopulations ( Krausman and Leopold 1986, Bleich et al. 1990, Andrew et al.
1999). Bighorn population persistence as it relates to population size is a controversial
topic among biologists, and whether association exists between these variables remains
contentious ( Berger 1990, Krausman et al. 1993, Wehausen 1999). In general, no
specific population size ensures population persistence ( Thomas 1990), but small bighorn
populations occupying marginal or comparatively poor habitat ( Berger 1990), or small
patches of suitable habitat ( Gross et al. 1997, McKinney et al. 2003) may require
management intervention to ensure long- term persistence. Conservation efforts should
emphasize preventing fragmentation and loss of habitat and restoring habitat
( Fahrig 1997).
Structural features of wildlife underpasses can affect ungulate use. On the other hand,
animals are unlikely to use areas where their predator avoidance strategies are
compromised ( Dodd et al. 2007). Bighorn predator avoidance behavior is dependent
upon the need for detecting threats from a distance ( Geist 1971, Krausman et al. 1999).
Narrow passages with reduced visibility can impede this ability. This may explain the
cautious behavior exhibited by bighorns while maneuvering through underpasses and the
avoidance of The Hole. The Hole had the lowest index of openness and was the only
underpass not used by bighorns.
Wildlife use of underpasses may be affected by the presence of other animals and high
human use ( Clevenger and Waltho 2000). Wild burros, and other animals can displace
bighorns at seasonally critical habitats ( Foster et al. 2005, Osterman et al. 2005 ), and
bighorns have been portrayed as poor competitors in social interactions ( Geist 1985).
Burro crossing use at Arabian Mine and The Hole ( Fig. 9) was higher than at Union Pass
which had the highest incidence of bighorn use. Human use was also high at Arabian
Mine ( Fig. 10) and bighorns may abandon areas associated with high human use
( Jorgenson 1988). Bighorns seek predictable environments to live in and may become
habituated to human activities that follow a predictable pattern ( Bristow et al. 1996).
Human activity at Arabian Mine however, was not predictable and vehicle traffic
intersected potential travel corridors for bighorns.
Our best model for habitat selection by bighorns included all five variables. One variable
was not sufficient to explain the habitat selection patterns of bighorn sheep throughout
the study area. Habitat quality encompasses relative environmental capability to provide
conditions associated with individual and population persistence ( Hall et al. 1997).
Bighorn habitat selection patterns are different between sexes and between different
seasons ( Bleich et al. 1997, Krausman et al. 1999). As rams disperse before breeding
seasons to access disparate ewe groups, their habitat selection patterns are likely different
from other seasons ( Bleich et al. 1997). Habitat evaluations designed to include habitat
selection patterns of dispersing rams could provide insights to placement of wildlife
crossing structures. McCarty and Bailey ( 1994) and McKinney et al. ( 2003) suggested
habitat evaluations should consider spatial requirements for viable bighorn populations.
Quantitative evaluations of habitat patches may provide insight into population
persistence and management implications of introducing bighorn sheep into unoccupied
locations, as well as for maintaining existing populations ( Caughley 1994, Fahrig and
Merriam 1994, Gross et al. 1997, Singer et al. 2001, McKinney et al. 2003).
Design and placement of crossing structures will influence highway permeability for
bighorns, and more natural structures connecting suitable bighorn habitat will increase
their effectiveness. Connecting high quality habitat on both sides of the highway
especially in areas with escape terrain will increase the likelihood that a structure will be
encountered. Placement of structures should be along existing travel routes whenever
possible. Underpasses in particular need to have a high index of openness: ( height x
width)/ ( length); the higher and wider the more effective a structure will be. The index of
openness at Union Pass, the underpass used most by bighorns was 75 and may represent a
minimum since we documented three approaches that resulted in aborted crossings,
which could have been due to inadequate visibility. A higher index of openness would
likely have increased permeability at this site. Visibility through the underpass is critical
for animals approaching the structure. Underpasses whose sides have steep slopes and
loose substrates, or fence rip- rap to stabilize the sides may impede use or force bighorns
to cross at the bottom where predator avoidance strategies may be compromised. A shelf
or game trail below and extending the length of underpass abutments may provide easier
access and security to bighorns. Natural substrate with short, low- density vegetation
throughout the crossing structure may enhance permeability. Reducing structural
diversity on abutments such that shaded areas are minimized may reduce apprehensive
behaviors of bighorns and enhance permeability. Following are recommendations for
improvement of each of the existing underpasses.
1) Recontouring the side slopes to remove the shadowed bench that is along the
abutment on the northeast side of the underpass could enhance bighorn use by
reducing vigilance behavior associated with that feature. Many bighorns crossing
at Union Pass stopped and looked with suspicion at the shaded area before
2) Stabilizing substrate along the steep slopes beneath the underpass and adding a
small game trail about half way up may increase bighorn use. Currently due to the
loose steep sides of the underpass the bighorns cross at the bottom, where their
predator detection/ avoidance strategies are compromised. A shelf below and
extending the length of underpass abutments may provide easier access and a
feeling of security for bighorns.
1) Many of the factors affecting bighorn use of underpasses — proximity to
traditional movement corridors, terrain features, index of openness, and presence
of other animals — are problematic at The Hole. The index of openness is likely
the only factor that could be addressed here. However, given the high burro use
and the relatively low probability that bighorns would encounter this site,
restructuring the underpass to increase the index of openness would likely be
1) Reducing the amount of human activity at the underpass and preventing vehicle
access to the wash on either side of the highway at Arabian Mine may enhance
bighorn use.
2) Recontouring the side slopes to remove the shadowed bench that is along the
abutment on the northwest side of the underpass could enhance bighorn use by
reducing vigilance behavior associated with that feature. All the bighorns that
crossed here avoided this feature.
Right- of- way fencing height should exceed two meters throughout potential bighorn
habitats. We estimated that one marked ram crossed the highway in an area where right-of-
way fencing was low ( MP 8- 10), and the single bighorn/ vehicle collision was
documented in this same area. Right- of- way fencing between MP 8 and MP 10 should be
raised to two meters and this fencing height should also be extended east from MP 12.5
to MP 13, at the very least. Frequent monitoring of right- of- way fencing is necessary to
identify breaches that bighorns could use, especially in areas with high erosion potential.
Jump- outs designed to allow bighorns to climb up a ramp of rocks and jump out of right-of-
way fenced areas could reduce potential for bighorn/ vehicle collisions when right- of-way
fences are breached. Jump- outs should exceed 2.5 meters ( 8.2 ft) in height to ensure
that bighorns can not jump over into the right- of- way.
Andrew, N. G., Bleich, V. and August, P. 1999. " Habitat selection by mountain sheep in
the Sonoran Desert: implications for conservation in the United States and
Mexico". California Wildlife Conservation Bulletin 12: 1- 30.
Arizona Department of Transportation, 2006. 2006 motor vehicle crash facts for
Arizona. Motor Vehicle Crash Statistics Unit, Traffic Records Section, Phoenix,
Arizona, USA.
Berger, J. 1990. " Persistence of different- sized populations: an empirical assessment of
rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep". Conservation Biology 4: 91- 98.
Bleich, V. C., Wehausen, J. D. and Holl, S. A. 1990. " Desert- dwelling mountain sheep:
conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution". Conservation
Biology 4: 383- 389.
Bleich, V. C., Bowyer, R. T. and Wehausen, J. D. 1997. " Sexual segregation in
mountain sheep: resources or predation?" Wildlife Monographs 134: 50pp.
Bristow, K. D., Wennerlund, J. A., Schweinsburg, R. E., Olding, R. J., and Lee, R. E.
1996. Habitat use and movements of desert bighorn sheep near the Silver Bell
Mine, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical Report 25.
Phoenix, Arizona.
Brown, D. E., Lowe, C. H. and Pase, C. P. 1979. " A digitized classification system for
the biotic communities of North America, with community ( series) and
association examples for the Southwest." Journal of the Arizona- Nevada
Academy of Science 14: 1- 16.
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 1992. " Data- based selection of an appropriate
biological model: the key to modern data analysis," p. 16- 30. In: McCullough,
D. R., and R. H. Barret, ( eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations. London, UK. Elsevier
Science Publishers
Caughley, G. 1994. " Directions in conservation biology." Journal of Animal Ecology
63: 215- 244.
Clevenger, A. P. 1998. " Permeability of the Trans- Canada Highway to wildlife in Banff
National Park: importance of crossing structures and factors influencing their
effectiveness." Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology
and Transportation 2: 109- 119.
Clevenger, A. P., and Waltho, N. 2000. " Factors influencing the effectiveness of
wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada." Conservation
Biology 14: 47- 56.
Clevenger, A. P., Wierzchowski, J., Chruszcz, B. and Gunson, K. 2002. " GIS- generated,
expert- based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning
mitigation passages." Conservation Biology 16: 503- 514.
Cook, K. E. and Daggett, P. M.. 1995. Highway road kill, safety, and associated issues
of safety and impacts on highway ecotones. An unreviewed report prepared for
the Task Force on Natural Resources ( A1F52), Transportation Research Board.
Cunningham, S. C. and DeVos, J. C. 1992. " Mortality of mountain sheep in the Black
Canyon area of northwest Arizona." Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 36: 27-
Cunningham, S. C. and Hanna, L. 1992. Movements and habitat use of desert sheep in
the Black Canyon area. Final Report to U. S. D. I. Bureau of Reclamation.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Cunningham, S. C., Hanna, L. and Sacco, J. 1993. " Possible effects of the realignment
of U. S. Highway 93 on movements of desert bighorns in the Black Canyon area."
Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on Research in Colorado Plateau
National Parks. Pp 83- 100
DeVos, J. C. 1989. The role of disease in Arizona's desert bighorn sheep. Pages 30- 62
in R. M. Lee, editor. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Arizona Game and
Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Diamond, J. M. 1975. " The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies
for the design of natural reserves." Biological Conservation 7: 129- 146.
Dodd, N. L., Gagnon, J. W. and Boe, S. 2007. Evaluation of measures to minimize
wildlife- vehicle collisions and maintain permeability across highways: Arizona
Route 260. Final Report 540, Final Report, Arizona Department of
Transportation. Phoenix, Arizona.
Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1994. " Conservation of fragmented populations."
Conservation Biology 8: 50- 59.
Fahrig, L. 1997. " Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population
extinction." Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 603- 610.
Federal Highway Administration. 1998. Our nation's highways: selected facts and
figures. Publication FHWA - PL- 98- 105. U. S. Department of Transportation.
Forman, R. T. 2000. " Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in
the United States." Conservation Biology 14: 31- 35.
Foster, M. L. and Humphrey, S. R. 1995. " Use of highway underpasses by Florida
panthers and other wildlife." Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 95- 100.
Foster, J. A., Harveson, L. A. and Pittman, M. T. 2005. " Use of guzzlers by bighorn
sheep in the Chihuahuan Desert." Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 48: 12- 22.
Gaillard, J., Festa- Bianchet, M. and Yoccoz, N. G.. 1998. " Population dynamics of large
herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival." Trends in Ecology
and Evolution 13: 58- 63.
Geist, V. A. 1967. " A consequence of togetherness." Natural History 76: 24- 31.
Geist, V. A. 1971. Mountain Sheep, a study in behavior and evolution. Chicago, Illinois,
USA. 383 pp. University of Chicago Press.
Geist, V. A. 1985. " On Pleistocene bighorn sheep: some problems of adaptation and
relevance in today's American megafauna." Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 351- 359.
Gionfriddo, J. P. and Krausman, P. R. 1986. " Summer habitat use by mountain sheep."
Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 331- 336.
Gross, J. E., Moss, M. E. and Singer, F. J. 1997. " Simulating desert bighorn sheep
populations to support management decisions: effects of patch size, spatial
structure, and disease." Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 41: 26- 36.
Hall, L. S., Krausman, P. R. and Morrison, M. L. 1997. " The habitat concept and a plea
for standard terminology." Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 173- 182.
Hanna, P. 1982. " The impact of Highway 84 on the Sublette- Black Pine migratory deer
population. A 12– year summary, with recommendations for mitigation of
identifiable adverse impacts." Final Report. Boise, Idaho. Idaho Department of
Fish and Game.
Hosmer, D. W., Jr. and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied logistic regression. New York,
New York, USA. John Wiley and Sons.
Hughes, W. E., Reza, A. R. and Paniati, J. F. 1996. " Vehicle- animal crashes: an
increasing problem." Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal 66: 24- 28.
Jessup, D. A. 1985. " Diseases of domestic livestock which threaten bighorn sheep
populations." Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 29: 29- 33.
Jorgenson, J. T. 1988. " Environmental impact of the 1988 Winter Olympics on bighorn
sheep of Mt. Allen." Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat
Council 6: 121- 134.
Krausman, P. R. and Leopold, B. D. 1986. " The importance of small populations of
desert bighorn sheep." Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 51: 52- 61.
Krausman, P. R., Etchberger, R. C. and Lee, R. M. 1993. " Persistence of mountain
sheep." Conservation Biology 7: 219- 220.
Krausman, P. R., Sandoval, A. V. and Etchberger, R. C. 1999. " Natural history of desert
bighorn sheep." Pages 183- 184 in R. Valdez and P. R. Krausman, editors.
Mountain sheep of North America, Tucson, Arizona. The University of Arizona
Mader, H. J. 1984. " Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields."
Biological Conservation 29: 81- 96.
McCarty, C. W. and Bailey, J. A. 1994. Habitat requirements of desert bighorn sheep.
Special Report 69. Denver, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife.
McKinney, T., and Smith, T. W. 2007. Distribution, movements, and trans- highway
crossings of desert bighorn sheep in northwestern Arizona. Final Report, 55 pp
Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation.
McKinney, T., Boe, S. R. and DeVos, J. C., Jr. 2003. " GIS- based evaluation of escape
terrain and desert bighorn sheep populations in Arizona." Wildlife Society
Bulletin 31: 1229- 1236.
Ng, S. J., Dole, J. W., Sauyajot, R. M., Riley, S. P. and Valone, T. J. 2004. " Use of
highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California." Biological
Conservation 115: 499- 507.
Ostermann, S. D., Atwill, E. R., Rubin, E. S. and Boyce, W. M. 2005 " Direct and
indirect interference competition between feral horses and desert bighorn sheep at
water." Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 48: 72.
Reed, D. F. 1981. " Mule deer behavior at a highway underpass." Journal of Wildlife
Management 45: 542- 543.
Reed, D. F., Woodward, T. N. and Pojar, T. M. 1975. " Behavioral response of mule
deer to a highway underpass." Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 361- 367.
Sappington, J. M., Longshore, K. M. and Thompson, D. B. 2007. " Quantifying
landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn
sheep in the Mojave Desert." Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1419- 1426.
Schwartz, O. A., Bleich, V. C. and Holl, S. A. 1986. " Genetics and the conservation of
mountain sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni." Biological Conservation 37: 179- 190.
Singer, F. J. and Doherty, J. L. 1985. " Managing mountain goats at a highway crossing."
Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 469- 477.
Singer, F. J., Zeigenfuss, L. C. and Spencer, L. 2001. " Role of patch size, disease, and
movement in rapid extinction of bighorn sheep." Conservation Biology 15: 1347-
Thomas, C. D. 1990. " What do real population dynamics tell us about minimum viable
population sizes?" Conservation Biology 4: 324- 327.
Waters, D. 1988. Monitoring program mitigative measures, Trans- Canada Highway
twinning— Phase I. Final Report. Alberta, Canada. Parks Canada, Banff National
Wehausen, J. D. 1999. " Rapid extinction of mountain sheep populations revisited."
Conservation Biology 13: 378- 384.
White, G. C. and Garrott, R. A. 1990. Analysis of radio- tracking data. San Diego,
California, USA. Academic Press,
Wilcox, B. A. and Murphy, D. D. 1985. " Conservation strategy: the effects of
fragmentation on extinction." American Naturalist 125: 879- 887.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
The annual festival has grown through the years and still continues to do so, this year offering more carnival rides and a new layout. Arts and crafts will be downtown on Public Square, food vendors will be in the Log Town area south of the square and carnival rides will be near the utility drive-thru north of the square.
"There should be some more carnival rides and they've moved them up to the north side. And they've made some improvements to the Log Town area where most of the food vendors will be, which should make it a nice place to eat," said Jerri Holloway, director of the Adairsville Rail Depot and Age of Steam Museum. "We'll have some crafters and things like that around the historic area around the depot. We'll have a lady doing spinning. We'll have jewelry making. We'll have old-fashioned handmade wooden toys, clothing making demonstrations and there will be other handmade things inside the courthouse."
New this year will be students from the Adairsville High School drama department dressed in period clothing portraying prominent community members who impacted the city of Adairsville.
"There will be a group of students from the high school drama department dressed in characters, such as John Adair," Holloway said. "He will walk up to people and hand them a card, introduce himself as John Adair and tell them how he affected the community."
Concerts and entertainment will be on hand throughout the weekend with festivities taking place downtown from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Admission for guests 6 and older is $3. There will be no admission charged Sunday, however, for gospel concerts from noon to 5 p.m.
The museum will be open and admission with no additional admission Friday and Saturday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I do know a couple of us are up here,
Digger is in Oregon, which does the same thing to Non residents as Wa. does,
So my usual area is seriously lacking in deer and Elk this year, they have moved out from the year round stay by Humptulips (for those not of this area yep thats the name of it). I can usually get in this time of year for scouting and some tracking but there's NO SIGN ??, thinking about East this year in Newport, any other suggestions or just be patient due to 8 months before season


text:
|Max. Power
|350 hp at 7400 rpm
|350 hp at 7400 rpm
|Acceleration 0 - 60 mph
|5.0 sec
|4.8 sec
|Top Track Speed
|175 mph
|173 mph
|Fuel Consumption City (estimate)
|18 mpg
|19 mpg
|Highway (estimate)
|26 mpg
|26 mpg
With the new 911 Targa, our solution is a concept which our engineers call 'a fully automatic roof system with innovative kinematics'. Though its description may sound a little cumbersome, the roof system itself is anything but. Based on a complex and extremely robust engineering solution, the new...Learn more
Sports car aesthetes will love this topic. Because it's all about curves. And sport. And the enhanced Porsche Traction Management (PTM) is in control of both. Fitted as standard, PTM is an active allwheel- drive system with an electronically variable map-controlled multi-plate clutch, Automatic...Learn more
PTV in conjunction with the manual gearbox, or PTV Plus with Porsche Doppelkupplung (PDK), are available as options for the 911 Targa 4 models and standard in the 911 Targa 4S models. Both systems actively enhance vehicle dynamics and stability. Operating in conjunction with a mechanical (PTV) or...Learn more
The optional Porsche Ceramic Composite Brake (PCCB) has a proven track record from the world of motorsport. The crossdrilled ceramic brake discs have a diameter of 350 mm front and rear for even more formidable braking performance.
The use of six-piston aluminium monobloc brake calipers on the front...Learn more
When two iconic German manufacturers join forces, the result is special. We're referring to Porsche and Berlin-based Burmester®, one of the most respected manufacturers of high-end audio equipment worldwide. The optional Burmester® High-End Surround Sound System owes its eminence to countless...Learn more
Intelligent lightweight construction is fundamental to the Porsche identity. It is expressed through the use of a high proportion of aluminium, magnesium, plastics, super-high-strength sheet steel and environmentally friendly water-based paints. All materials are meticulously and purposefully...Learn more
© 2014 Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Legal notice. Privacy Policy.


text:
Get chills at world's 10 creepiest spots
Published On: Oct 02 2011 09:47:43 PM PDT Updated On: Oct 09 2012 06:44:13 AM PDT
If you're looking for a creepy destination to spend your Halloween, try one of these 10 spots recommended by the Travel Channel.
The views expressed are not those of this company or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to our Terms of Use.


text:
The Great Debate UK
from For the Record:
After the warm glow, telling the cold, hard truths
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
The president was inaugurated in front of adoring crowds and positive reviews in the media. As the unpopular incumbent sat on the platform with him, the new Democratic chief executive took office as the nation faced a crippling economic crisis. The incoming president was a charismatic figure who had run a brilliant campaign and had handled the press with aplomb. The media were ready to give him a break.
That was 1933, and in Franklin Roosevelt's case, the media gave him a break.
For Barack Obama, the honeymoon was shorter.
Less than 36 hours after Obama took the oath of office, the White House denied news photographers access to the new president's do-over swearing in, instead releasing official White House photos of the event. Reuters, The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse protested and refused to distribute the official photos (which nevertheless showed up on the websites of a number of large U.S. newspapers).
This is an important issue for news organisations, the public and for an administration that has promised a new era of transparency in doing the people's business. How are people to know, for example, that the official photos haven't been staged?


text:
School board approves budget cuts
EAST SPENCER — The Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education approved its budget resolution for 2013-14 on Monday.
Chief Financial Officer Tara Trexler said 88 jobs are being eliminated, including classroom teachers. The school system is increasing its class size formula by one student.
That number counts about 50 teachers who were laid off in May. Trexler has said most of them have been re-employed either in the Salisbury-Rowan school system or another. Many took jobs that became vacant through attrition, she said.
The total of $4.5 million in cuts help make up a $5 million deficit from state and federal budget cuts, as well as money taken from last year's fund balance.
Trexler said the school board's budget includes a $400,000 cut to school instructional supplies, which is one of the areas state lawmakers chose to cut this year instead of asking school systems to make a "discretionary" or flexible reduction. The total loss is $600,000, but $200,000 of that will be made up in local funding.
The budget also includes the choices made by the board at its last meeting on Aug. 6. To help cover the deficit and pay for some additional items, about $1.57 million will be moved from the fund balance.
Five teaching positions will be restored to avoid the combination of classes, and seven behavioral intervention specialists will now be funded locally after a federal grant expired.
Despite a $1.5 million reduction from the state for teacher assistants, the school system avoided cutting most teaching-assistant positions — except 17 positions that were added last year.
"I went to an elementary school for one of their opening breakfasts," said board-member Jean Kennedy, "and I had several TAs come forward asking me to thank the board for saving their positions."
Other board members said they have heard similar comments since their last meeting.
"This budget is one of survival," Trexler said. "It's the least amount of damage we could control. It also has some expansion for that safety focus that the board and school system have really had this year."
The school board has approved an additional front-office clerical position for each of three elementary schools — Millbridge, Rockwell and Shive — whose student populations have grown over a certain threshold. It also voted to install safety lighting in darker areas of school campuses.
The state of North Carolina will soon offer grants to school systems that need school resource officers, Trexler said, but the grant requirements haven't been released yet.
To make sure it has enough money for a local grant match, the school board included funding for middle school resource officers in its budget. If the system isn't eligible for the grant or its application is not approved, that money can be used to pay some or all of the cost to hire the officers.
In other business Monday, the Rowan-Salisbury school board also:
• Approved field trip requests from West, South, Carson and East Rowan high schools. Future Farmers of America groups at these schools will send students to the National FFA Convention in Louisville, Ky., leaving Oct. 28 and returning on Nov. 1 or 2.
• Approved the Rowan County Rescue Squad annual contract, which includes one significant change. In addition to paying rescue personnel $15 an hour for services at football games, the board will now pay $1,000 per year for a fuel surcharge.
Nathan Currie, assistant superintendent of administration, said there will be rescue units at 60 high school football games and 57 middle school games. The school system must pay a two-man crew for at least two hours of standby services at a time, Currie said.
Board member Chuck Hughes asked if the system could pay volunteer medical professionals to attend the games, but others pointed out that the volunteers wouldn't have immediate access to emergency vehicles.
• Approved the annual YMCA usage agreement. The school system uses that facility for events such as swim meets and other meetings, and in turn, the YMCA is allowed to use school facilities to offer after-school care.
• Heard a presentation by Nathan Currie and Sgt. Bob Prince about the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program that will be implemented this school year.
• Met in closed session to discuss student transfers and the monthly personnel report.
Contact reporter Karissa Minn at 704-797-4222.
Twitter: twitter.com/posteducation
Facebook: facebook.com/Karissa.SalisburyPost


text:
Posted by CURE:ROBERT | 30/07/14
Andy Vella has been observing The Cure since 1981. Foruli Codex is delighted to announce the forthcoming publication of 'Obscure', Vella's book of rare and unseen photographs of the band. 33 years in the making, 'Obscure' will be published worldwide in September 2014. This visually stunning and beautifully designed volume has been ... View Story
Posted by CURE:ROBERT | 14/05/14
THE CURE WILL HEADLINE THREE 'RIOT FESTIVALS' IN SEPTEMBER! TORONTO "RIOT FEST & EXPO" /// CHICAGO "RIOT FEST & CARNIVAL /// DENVER "RIOT FEST & SIDESHOW" FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT riotfest.org AND www.thecure.com TORONTO "RIOT FEST & EXPO" THE ... View Story
Posted by CURE:ROBERT | 14/03/14
BOTTLEROCK NAPA VALLEY ANNOUNCES 2014 LINE UP THE CURE, OUTKAST & ERIC CHURCH TO HEADLINE TICKETS ON SALE MONDAY, MARCH 17 AT 10AM PST NAPA, Calif: Today, local festival promoter, Latitude 38 Entertainment (L38) officially announced the 2014 BottleRock Napa Valley music lineup. The festival is scheduled for Friday, May 30 thru Sunday, June 1, 2014 in ... View Story


text: Lowepro Lens Case 11cm x 26cm case for high-power, wide-aperture zoom lenses Zoom Front interior compartment interior compartment, with lens (not included) shown with lens (not included) velcro tab Photos Videos Item #: 766LP36306 Review Summary 2 people say DISCONTINUED This item is no longer available to purchase. Contact us for other options Call Email Original price $22.99 Shop all Camera Bags Shop all Camera Bags x By buying this product you'll earn up to 23 Rewards points. When you sign up for a Crutchfield account, you'll be enrolled in Crutchfield Rewards. You'll earn one point for every dollar you spend on gear from us. You can turn your points into Rewards Cards that you can use toward future purchases. You can sign up for an account now, or after you complete your purchase (you'll get credit for the points either way). Sign up for a Crutchfield account Overview Details Customer Reviews Articles & Videos Our take on the Lowepro Lens Case 11cm x 26cm by Woody Sherman Buying a case for your lenses is one of those investments that's just good common sense. Odds are that your lens represents a solid investment on your part in the quality of your photography. What's more, good lenses generally hold on to a significant portion of their initial value, and some actually increase in value as time goes on. If you're planning on taking your lenses for a spin now and again (and what photographer isn't?), they need the sturdy protection a Lowepro lens case can provide. A thoughtful SlipLock tab helps attach it to belts, bags, and a variety of loops. A mesh pocket inside the lid gives you a safe place to stash your lens cap great for times when you can't find a lint-free pocket. And the dual zippers with overlap construction help keep dust and moisture away from your treasured glass. This case fits wide-aperture, high-power zoom lenses similar to a high-end 70-200mm zoom. Actual case interior dimensions are 11cm x 26cm. See more info on this item Highlights:for lenses up to 11cm in diameter by 26cm in height (4-3/8" x 10-1/4")one-piece foam padding provides superior protectionrugged nylon outer material is water-resistant and durableSlipLock attachment tab secures to bag, belt or loopsdual zippers with overlap construction protect lens from dust and moistureconvenient mesh pocket inside lid stores lens capsinternal dimensions: 4-3/8"W x 4-3/8"D x 10-1/4"Hweight: 12.8 ozwarranty: limited lifetimeOur 60-day money-back guarantee Hands-on research from the Crutchfield Labs (what are the Labs?) What's in the box? | In-depth notes Product Research What's in the box? Black padded lens case Our Product Research Team At Crutchfield, you'll get detailed, accurate information that's hard to find elsewhere. That's because we have our own in-house Product Research team — they open the box, verify contents, check the owner's manual, and record dimensions, features and specs. We stay on top of new products and technologies to help people make informed choices. Features Overview: This Lowepro 11 x 26cm Lens Case is designed for a high-power zoom lens similar to an 47-200mm lens, or lenses 11 cm in diameter and 26 cm in height. It has thick, one-piece foam padding for excellent protection for the fragile glass elements. The Overlap Zipper construction keeps dust and moisture out. Dual zippers provide easy access to the case, and the mesh pocket in the lid can hold lens filters or the lens cap when the lens is in use. It has a SlipLock tab with hook-and-loop fasteners for attaching the case to your belt or camera strap. The quick-grab handle and detachable, adjustable shoulder strap makes it easy to carry. Internal Dimensions: The case has the following internal dimensions: Width: 4.3" Height: 10.2" Depth: 4.3" Review this product Submit a review and then enter to win a $500 rewards card Lowepro Lens Case 11cm x 26cm Reviews Average Customer Review: 2 people say: Review this product: Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences about this product. Please be sure to focus your comments on the product itself. Read our Review Guidelines for more information. Review title * Email Your email won't be visible. Please use the email address that is associated with your order. Display name (e.g., JohnD) Your review will be signed using the display name and location * Your location (e.g., Charlottesville, VA) * Your rating Click on a star to rate the overall product on a scale of 1-5 1500 characters left * Your review Attach a YouTube Review Crutchfield Video Review Guidelines Only submit videos that you made or are authorized to use. Do not submit videos that contain music, video or visuals that are copyrighted and belong to someone else. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. Submit the URL of your YouTube™ video review or product demonstration. e.g., "http://www.youtube.com/v/o79TWHh598U" 500 characters left Pros 500 characters left Cons * Agree to Terms By checking this box you agree your review becomes the property of Crutchfield, that you are over 18 years of age, that you own or have owned this product, and that you are located within the United States or its territories. Please see our Review Guidelines for more information. We reserve the right (but are not obligated to) review all submissions and edit or remove any review in any manner which we deem necessary. Your review should be posted within seven days. Filter by rating: 5 Star: (0) 4 Star: (0) 3 Star: (0) 2 Star: (0) 1 Star: (0) 5 out of 5 Great lens case! Written By Ken, Laguna Niguel, CA on Friday, June 07, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Great case. Large enough for the telephoto and a smaller lens or accessories. Pros: Large with belt loop. Was this review helpful? Yes | No 5 out of 5 Great bag Written By Pit, Ridgewood, NY on Monday, May 06, 2013 Crutchfield Customer Review (What's this?) Great bag. Maybe little bigger than it looks on the picture but well made. Feel safe with my nikon 70-200 f/4 Pros: Well made Cons: Bigger than I expected Was this review helpful? Yes | No For a more in-depth review and enhanced detailed information on the Lowepro Lens Case 11cm x 26cm, please visit the Crutchfield website product page (/ISEO-rccbcspd/p_766LP36306/Lowepro-Lens-Case-11cm-x-26cm.html ). x Sorry, the Lowepro Lens Case 11cm x 26cm is no longer available for purchase. Looking for a similar item? Shop Camera Bags Or, you can still... Write a review Go × Front interior compartment interior compartment, with lens (not included) shown with lens (not included) velcro tab


text:
The puppy bowl is less than two weeks away!
This is how I am coping with the game tonight...
"Some programs don't want to win. It's okay."
-Poster on hawkeye lounge after the hiring of Hoiberg
Yes the puppy bowl. Already in a better mood!
I told you, I dont care if youre black or white. I dont care if youre rich or poor. I dont care where you come from, whether its Texas, Florida, California, or right here in the state of Iowa, I dont care about any of that
But what I did care about is moving forward from that day on, that we were one team." -Paul Rhoads
Forum Rules
All content owned by CycloneFanatic.com - All rights reserved 2005-09. By viewing this website you agree to the Terms of Service, Site Rules and Legal Disclaimer. The words, views, images and opinions expressed or provided by users do not reflect the opinions or views of CycloneFanatic.com or Iowa State University. The names, words, symbols, and graphics representing Iowa State University are trademarks and copyrights of the University protected by the trademark and copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries and are used on this web site under license from the University. Original site design, premise & construction by Jeremy Lind.


text:
Toward a meeting of minds with CFPB
Working with the bureau in a time of demanding change
- |
- Written by Steve Cocheo
- |
- Comments: DISQUS_COMMENTS
When Rich Riese, a federal regulator prior to joining ABA, looks at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he sees a young federal agency with a broad and deep agenda that has been finding its way, and finding its way to finding its way, on an everyday basis.
"We've emerged out of the 'terrible twos,'" says Riese during a roundtable discussion with fellow regulatory analysts at the association. "Everything about what comes next isn't clear, but we all have a better sense of who does what at the bureau. Relationships that were brand new have evolved. From the standpoint of government relations professionals, we now have more mature connections there that we've been able to establish over time."
A notable shift is a willingness to hear the industry's views, and actually consider them in formulating rules and revisions to rules, according to Riese, who is senior vice-president in charge of ABA's Center for Regulatory Compliance.
"We've seen the advent of a bureau that has given every indication of willingness to change its positions, sometimes stepping back and refashioning things," says Riese.
One example is the remittance rule, where eventual willingness to rethink things helped produce a more workable rule, to the benefit of the consumer-user, whom CFPB sees as its client in all matters, but also for industry providers. Another is in the mortgage area, where the decision to provide a temporary exception for government-sponsored enterprise mortgages signaled some willingness to work with the markets as they had long functioned, even as the major shifts of the Qualified Mortgage and Ability to Repay rolled on.
That's a necessarily truncated summary of both issues. But the point is that ABA has found ways to work with CFPB.
"There's no doubt that the consumer comes first," says Riese. "That will always be CFPB's approach. The best way for us to go forward is to seek a market of responsible consumers served by responsible providers. CFPB is all about making responsible providers. They do speak of the need for consumers to also be responsible, and it's for us to work to strengthen that side of policy."
None of this is to say that bankers will, or should be, totally happy with what the bureau issues or how it handles examinations, publicized research, or the spin put on issues in its dealings with the media and directly with the public through its website (www.consumerfinance.gov). But it illustrates that common ground can be found.
Mortgage maelstrom
"It's not just been a matter of us getting to know the new regulator," says Rod Alba, vice-president and senior regulatory counsel, ABA Mortgage Finance. "It's also been everybody getting to know this monster called Dodd-Frank. As this thing keeps unfolding, we see and raise new elements, and CFPB staff may do the same." He says that the regulators there have often had to sort out how the law's requirements with how the mortgage industry does business.
Because of this, plus the bureau's urgency to get the rules in place, Alba, who specializes in originations issues, and associate Krista Shonk, vice-president and senior regulatory counsel specializing in mortgage servicing, see the mortgage rules as being subject to a degree of future evolution that bankers have rarely seen before. As development of rules progressed, says Alba, all involved saw how "the different tentacles of Dodd-Frank impact each other and how lenders provide their services."
On the servicing side, Shonk points out, every loan already in the servicing book is affected by new rules, not just new production as on the origination side. "Servicing is different," she explains, "because you can't stop servicing unless you decide to sell your servicing rights." Thus the quest for clarifications to CFPB's actions had an additional urgency.
"We've all found it very refreshing that we've been able to work closely with many on CFPB's staff," says Alba. "Whether they take our advice or not, they'll get on the phone with us, they'll get the experts on the line, and provide us a response." The iterative nature of this process has meant a continuing series of clarifications right into December, with implementation only weeks in the future, Shonk and Alba point out. Both note that bankers appreciate the clarifications, but the drip, drip, drip of changes is frustrating for people striving to comply.
Alba warns bankers that this process will continue past the effective dates. "CFPB has said this is not where we are going to stop the rulemaking," he says. "They will continue to monitor the markets. They have said that they will be willing to dive back in and readjust, retighten, and tweak the rules over the coming year or two."
Such a process can be nerve-wracking, to say the least, to an industry that likes solid, bright lines to comply by. Steve Kenneally, vice-president in the Compliance Center, worked intimately on the remittance rule. He notes that the industry would have preferred to see the right rule from the get-go, even as the bureau makes changes when issues are raised. "We've tried telling them on a variety of issues that getting the right rules late is just as big a problem as having the wrong rules out there," says Kenneally.
Will urge for speed slow?
As a focal point for Dodd-Frank implementation, and a new agency aiming to make its presence felt in a very public way, CFPB has often worked at breakneck speed while courting media attention and striving to change the way consumer financial services are handled at the federal level. As any compliance officer who religiously watches the CFPB website knows, the bureau cranks out documents, viewpoints, consumer outreach, and a massive consumer complaint system at a speed often equated with Google and Amazon. It is fair to say that CFPB has never let an opportunity to get the word out go by.
Sometimes, this results in shifts in direction as the bureau gets feedback. "At CFPB, there has been a willingness to engage in an iterative process," says Nessa Feddis, vice-president and deputy chief counsel in the Center. "But bankers don't want to be part of that process. They want to know, 'What do I have to do?' and 'When do I have to do it by?'" In short, a good learning experience for the bureau can be an exercise in wheel-spinning for compliance officers trying to get a big job done.
On the other hand, in some areas CFPB has been far more deliberate. Virginia O'Neill, senior counsel II at the center, points to the bureau's long-running investigation and work on the overdraft issue as an indication that CFPB doesn't always plunge ahead. In that and some other areas, there seems to be a conscious effort to slow down a bit. Overdraft research conducted by ABA may have helped (for details, visit http://tinyurl.com/abaoverdraftresearch).
Looking to the future
One thing CFPB can't be faulted on is solicitation of viewpoints in numerous forums. Rich Riese says a positive sign that CFPB wants industry input—not only from professional association analysts, but also bankers themselves—is the bureau's advisory groups. The Consumer Advisory Board includes a wide range of players, including representatives of some larger financial companies. There also is the CFPB's Community Bank Advisory Council, which includes several bankers who serve, or have served, on ABA banker councils.
"Have they learned about us?" asks Riese. "Yes, and it's still a work in progress. They are on a learning curve—somewhat north of where they were, but somewhat south of where they need to be."
As the bureau moves forward, more involvement in leading edge financial services should be expected, in ways that are still forming.
Feddis points at mobile banking as an example. CFPB has indicated concerns about mobile disclosure. "On a little screen, a multi-page disclosure isn't going to work," she says.
Kenneally, who specializes in technology issues, points out that such disclosures are still in early days. Even when presented with massive printed disclosures, he says, consumers often don't read what's provided. When people get any company's disclosures online, they may click to indicate they've read the information, but they likely haven't done so.
A good watchword, going forward, suggests Riese, is to continue to approach the consumer market honestly. "I think that as long as we can be forthcoming about what the value proposition is, we can meet the expectations of all of our regulators in the UDAAP area," he says, referring to the guidance on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. "They want to be sure customers are getting information at the front end that allows them to be clear about downside consequences."
And, as Riese concludes: "If we're pretty clear up front, I think we are in a good starting place. As an industry that wants to be the trusted provider, that shouldn't be too much of a reach."
Tagged under Compliance, CFPB, Feature, Consumer Compliance, Mortgage Compliance,


text:
Main Content
You can already tell your little one is gonna be a sassy gal when she grows up! She's got the spirited attitude and the perfect strut to show off her adorable Braves pride. Dress her up right with this darling Sequin Heart tunic. Featuring a printed Braves logo in the center surrounded by a sequin heart and ruffles at the bottom, you know no one other than your little girl could do it justice. She'll proudly debut it at the next Atlanta game and sashay her way into every fan's heart.
- 100% Cotton fabric
- Imported
- Lightweight ribbed tunic
- Officially licensed Braves tunic
- Ruffled hem
- Screen print graphics
- Sequin details
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Employee Benefit Adviser offers exceptional and affordable ways for you to reach and influence brokers, advisers and consultants. Whether it's a branding campaign, product promotion, event or other marketing program, we'll help you custom tailor and target your reach to ensure great results! Browse our media site or contact firstname.lastname@example.com to get started.
Get our daily e-newsletter, unlimited access to 2,500+ in-depth articles plus other exclusive benefits specifically for benefit brokers and advisers - Register Today


text:
With NC Soft's share price dropping like a pact airship on the wrong end Zhaitan; currently at its lowest ever, 30% lower than its previous lowest.
With the company being heavily criticised in the press.
Profits being down & cancelling a profitable game.
Will Guild Wars, both of them, be able to survive if NC Soft is driven under...
PC Gaming News
Results 1 to 8 of 8
06-12-2012, 18:51 #1
Guild Wars (Anet) without NC Soft
06-12-2012, 18:54 #2
GWOnline Site Pal Achievements:
- Server
- Kaineng
- Guild
- The Order of Dii [Dii]
- Posts
- 22,615
I assume a profitable franchise like this would be picked up easily by potential buyers, or ANet might even buy themselves out. Probably the latter.
Whatever NCSoft is doing... I don't know.== Alaris & clone ==
Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about
06-12-2012, 23:16 #3
- Server
- Tarnished Coast
- Guild
- The Order of Dii [Dii], Do Not Revive Asura [Ever], When Zergs Collide [CERN]
- Posts
- 6,638
06-12-2012, 23:53 #4
I haven't had any problems myself, but I have heard some horror stories, an acquaintance from an old guild had his account stolen, when he tried to get it back he was accused of bot'ing & banned.
As long as ANet can keep going & they don't take my games away!
07-12-2012, 22:21 #5
- Server
- Kaineng
- Guild
- GuildWars Online [GWO] ||| The Order of Dii [Dii] |||
- Posts
- 3,980
07-12-2012, 22:36 #6While we are indeed a wholly-owned subsidiary of Korea-based NCsoft Corporation (read NCsoft HQ), we are also our own entity. ArenaNet has not been affected by the NCwest realignment. And indeed, we are hiring: http://www.arena.net/jobs/
Source: https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/foru...rst#post931008
07-12-2012, 22:50 #7
Glad to see the mobile job posting. They did promise mobile apps, hopefully this'll be more than just the authenticator...
I wonder if there's a space for head grump & make it like GW1'er
08-12-2012, 18:48 #8


text:
What do you think of when you think of a panther? Might, fearlessness, power come to mind. Well, That's the kind of strength and emotion we put into our Carolina Panthers wall graphics, Big Heads®, and Street Grips™ and what sets us apart from Carolina Panthers posters, wall stickers, cut outs and typical outdoor graphics.
We create only top quality, officially licensed graphics, printed on tough materials that are designed to last. Most importantly, we're devoted to capturing the moments that move Carolina Panthers fans to stand up and roar.
So are you ready to roar? Then get yourself an authentic, top quality Carolina Panthers decor from Fathead and show your pride. FOR REAL.


text: Just two days after losing the American League Championship series to the Boston Red Sox, Jim Leyland has stepped down as manager of the Detroit Tigers. In eight seasons with Detroit the Tigers went 700-597 under Leyland and had six winning seasons. Detroit won the Central Division three times, made the post season four times, and won the Pennant twice, but lost both times they made a World Series appearance. Leyland is third all time in team history in wins, behind only Sparky Anderson and Hughie Jennings. Leyland will remain with the orginization in a as yet unnamed position and no succesor at manager has been named yet.


text:
Hanukkah Gifts, Chocolate & Baskets
Oh! Nuts ◊ All Hanukkah Gifts, Chocolate & Baskets
Download our Chanukah Gift Catalog >
Hanukkah 2013 (5774) begins in the evening of Wednesday, November 27, and ends in the evening of Thursday, December 5.
UPS does not guarantee transit times for ground shipping during the month of December. Oh! Nuts recommends you choose expedited shipping to ensure your gifts are delivered on time.
No packages will be picked up or delivered on Thursday, Nov. 28 and on the following Friday. Packages in transit will be delayed by 2 business days.
What is Hanukkah ?
Any Gift may be found at Oh! Nuts from Homemade Gifts or for Man to funny Hanukkah gifts. we make an effort to to bring you the prefect selection of whatever is appropriate to be given as a Chanukah gift.
The Jewish Food section is full of ideas from jelly doughnuts to latkes but there is nothing like a unique upscale designed basket idea from Oh! Nuts to bring as a hostess gift or to serve at the Hanukkah Party.


text:
Onyinye, Kharkov
Blog: www.modavracha.com
Instagram/Twitter: @modavracha
Fall Colors! [Via Pinterest]
Dear White People
Name: Dominique Berry ( IG: @Dominique.Berry )
Location: San Fran
Submitted by: Noirdieu.com
Photographed by: Torrence Taylor IG: @Kancudi
China Anne Mcclain's real hair tho
Shirt: Thenorthway.tumblr.com
Markus.Anthony Adams,20, Toronto,ca
IG: Anthony.northh
photographed by:Photographerdin.tumblr.com
Crater Lake Sun Rays ©
I feel like very few, or at least not many of the people of tumblr are aware of what is going on in my home country Hong Kong right now.
You guys gave alot of coverage and support when Scotland was voting for its independance, so I'm hoping you'll all support the people of Hong Kong as well.
Right now, many of us are in a mass demonstration of pro-democracy against China. But wait a sec, isn't Hong Kong China? This is a big misconception amongst foreigners, but please, we are far from being similar to China at all.
A little history class: Hong Kong used to be colonized by the British, and before you white-knights begin going all "them damn white racist ppl taking over another asian country" please don't. We are thankful Britain took us under its wing and instilled in us values that I feel made us what we are today; that is, a democratic people with respect for free speech, amongst many things.
On the other hand, China is communist, with government controlled media and news. Google, instagram, facebook and many tv shows are blocked in China. It really is just a few steps from North Korea imo.
So what's the problem here? Britain unfortunately had to hand back Hong Kong to China, but one of the requirements is that Hong Kong be allowed to operate as 'one country two systems', meaning Hong Kong should be able to have its own democratic government. But China has broken its promise. A while back, China tried to put a mandatory 'national education' curriculum in all our primary schools. We all know what that is; a communist brainwashing regime. And now, they have announced that in 2017 Hong Kong will be able to vote for its president; BUT only from 3 candidates hand picked by its PRO-BEIJING legislation.
As you can see, China is trying to takeover completely and turn us into another communist state.
Of course, we have taken to the streets. In a mirror if the Tiananmen protests, students have also stepped up to fight for our rights and our future, albeit in a peaceful protest of course. But the police force who have always been a friend of the people, are now responding with force, something that had never been done before in Hong Kong.
First it was pepperspray, then teargas. Then, armed forces came in qith rubber bullets. They warn they will come out with live ammunition soon if we do not get off the streets but the people continue to sit tight, disrupting businesses China so strive to takeover and make use of. It's been 2 days now, but the people plan to continue at least till 1st October or even beyond. The significance is that October 1st is China's National day, not ours, Hong Kong has not been granted it's own National day.
Please spread the news. This is a country we're talking about. These are my people.
You can join this event to wear yellow in support of my people on October 1st.
You can also read a more detailed explanation of what's going down here and watch a live feed here.