The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs 20 Years of Conservation Success September 2020

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs 20 Years of Conservation Success September 2020

A report published jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, with support from the National Wildlife Federation, The Wildlife Society, and the American Fisheries Society. 01 This document is published by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program, a division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser- vice), with technical and financial support from the Service’s National Native American Programs and from the Association of Fish and Wild- life Agencies (AFWA).

Recommended Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs: 20 Years of Conservation Success. United States Department of the Interior. Van Ryzin, P.J. (Ed.).

Major Contributors: Mark Humpert, (AFWA); Paul Van Ryzin (Ser- vice); DJ Monette, (Service); Diana Swan-Pinion (Service), Daniel Brauning (Pennyslvania Game Commission), Jon Ambrose (Georgia Department of Natural Resources), Tom Jones (Arizona Game and Fish Department), Scott Johnson (Indiana Department of Natural Resourc- es), Kelly Helper (President, AFWA), Aurelia Skipwith (Director, Ser- vice).

Special Thanks: Support for this publication was provided by AFWA’s Wildlife Diversity Conservation and Funding Committee. State natural resources agency biologists, program managers, and other staff provided data, draft narrative, review, and editing to finalize the project features that make up the majority of this report. Tribal Liaisons with the Service’s National Native American Programs provided data, draft narrative, and editing for project features in cooperation with tribal government biologists and program managers. Additional review and editing of project features was provided by the Service’s regional State Wildlife Grant Program managers. Layout and document production was provided by Mark Newcastle (Service). Brad Gunn, Christy Vig- fusson, and Paul Rauch (Service) provided review and editing, staff support, communications, and coordination with AFWA’s Wildlife Diversity and Funding Committee. The National Wildlife Federation, The Wildlife Society, and the American Fisheries Society provided communications support to share this report with the greater conservation community.

Front Cover Photo: Regal Fritillary Nectaring on Echinacea at Stone State Park, Sioux City, Iowa. Photo: Jessica Fliginger.

Report Organization: This report features project highlights from conservation agencies of all 56 states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States and from conservation agencies of selected federally-recognized tribes. States and tribes are organized in this report based on geographic location of these agencies and their alignment within boundaries of the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and Western Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

02 The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs 20 Years of Conservation Success September 2020

i ii FOREWORDS AFWA/Service Foreword

Twenty years ago, recognizing the need for additional proactive conservation for our Nation’s fish and wildlife, Congress created the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs. These programs re-shaped how state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies manage the tens of thousands of species entrusted in their care. This report highlights some of the successes of the programs over the last two decades. Much like how these programs brought change, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 that swept across our country and globe this year has left an indelible mark. During this time, millions of people have poured into natural areas to reconnect with nature, find solace, and responsibly recreate. The work funded through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs has never been more important or urgent.

The State Wildlife Grant Program was created in 2000 and the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program in 2001. These programs launched new partnerships—between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the states, commonwealths, territories, and tribes—to undertake monu- mental conservation challenges. Since then, these partnerships have focused on implementing conservation actions aimed at preventing new federal listings of threatened and endangered species, recovering those species already listed, and ensuring that tribal communities are able to maintain traditional subsistence-based lifestyles reliant on healthy populations of fish and wildlife.

During the initial years of the programs, fish and wildlife agencies and their private and public partners embarked on an unprecedented effort to develop Wildlife Action Plans for every state, territory, commonwealth, and the District of Columbia. When completed, the plans identified over 12,000 rare, declining, and imperiled fish and wildlife and the conservation actions needed for their recovery. Development of these plans was historic, providing the first nationwide blueprint for conserving fish and wildlife. Service staff were there every step of the way to support this daunting undertaking.

As you will see in this report, these programs have leveraged millions of dollars in state and private resources to implement the Wildlife Ac- tion Plans. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs give fish and wildlife agencies flexibility in the approaches they use. In rural states like South Dakota, personal connections with ranchers and farmers who manage most of the state’s land are key to successful conservation. Tribal communities have the flexibility to focus program resources on any species of traditional value, including federally listed species. Na- tionwide, the programs support survey and monitoring that provides crucial data to the Service to make species listing determinations, or in many cases to provide scientific evidence that federal listing is not warranted. The programs fund the full suite of conservation activi-

iii ties including habitat restoration and management, land protection, research, and species reintroduction. Although the programs have achieved many successes on public lands, they also support voluntary conservation on private lands where most at-risk fish and wildlife are found.

It has become abundantly clear this year, that as much as fish and wildlife need us, we need healthy and sustainable fish and wildlife even more. We hope you enjoy this report and can get outside to witness the diversity of birds, mammals, fish, frogs, turtles, and insects that these programs and wildlife professionals are working hard to conserve.

Kelly Hepler President of AFWA Secretary of South Dakota Department Game, Fish and Parks

Aurelia Skipwith Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

iv Native American Program Foreword

Since its inception nearly 20 years ago, the competitive Tribal Wildlife Grants (TWG) Program has awarded more than $94 million to federally recognized Native American Tribes throughout the United States, providing support for approximately 506 conservation projects in Indian Country. These grants benefit a wide range of fish, wildlife, and habitats, including species of Native American cultural or traditional importance and species that are not hunted or fished.

By reducing threats to these species, the TWG Program directly benefits many Tribes, whose members depend on these species for subsistence, cultural uses, and their livelihoods. Tribes use certain species as traditional food sources, and species of cultural importance are a necessary component of tribal sovereignty.

Using a multi-partner approach that often involves inter-tribal organizations, state and federal agencies, and volunteers, Tribes often use TWG Program funds as “seed” money to launch key programs, facilities, and partnerships that continue to deliver results. TWG Program funds also are used to develop the capacity of tribal natural resources agencies to address species conservation.

The TWG Program has helped Tribes achieve numerous conservation successes in Indian Country. For example, in 2004, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma received TWG Program funds to establish an eagle aviary to nurse sick or injured eagles back to health for eventual release back to the wild and to provide a lifelong sanctuary for eagles whose wounds prevent them from returning to the wild. The eagles benefit as does the Tribe, whose members will be able to use the birds’ molted feathers for ceremonial purposes.

In Minnesota, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians used TWG Program funds to inventory, monitor, and understand movement patterns, habitat use, and factors affecting gray wolves to help responsibly manage the species on Red Lake lands. This project is producing a better understanding of gray wolf territorial boundaries, habitat use and requirements, movement patterns, and mortality factors on Tribal lands.

In Alaska, the Chickaloon Native Village received TWG Program funds to restore and enhance fish passage and in-stream salmon habitat diversity and to restore salmon populations within the Matanuska River watershed due to adverse anthropogenic activities within the watershed.

v I am proud of all that the TWG Program has accomplished and know the Tribes’ use of these funds will paint a bright future for the nation’s wildlife, natural resources, and all Americans.

Scott Aikin National Native American Programs Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

vi Contents

FOREWORDS...... III AFWA/Service Foreword...... iii Native American Program Foreword...... v

INTRODUCTION The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs Turn 20...... 1

NATIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT ...... 7 Freshwater Mussel Conservation...... 7

NORTHEAST REGION HIGHLIGHTS...... 11

STATE HIGHLIGHTS...... 13 Connecticut: Bats...... 13 Delaware: Breeding Birds of Delaware...... 15 District of Columbia: Northern River Otter...... 17 Maine: Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee...... 19 Maryland: Tiger Salamander...... 21 Massachusetts: Brook Floater...... 23 New Hampshire: Technical Assistance and Training...... 25 New Jersey: Habitat Connectivity...... 27 New York: Eastern Massasauga...... 29 Pennsylvania: Golden-winged Warbler...... 31 Pennsylvania: Native Fishes...... 33 Rhode Island: Jonah Crab...... 36 Vermont: Spiny Softshell Turtle...... 37 Virginia: River Restoration...... 39 West Virginia: Pollinator Initiative...... 41

REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT...... 43 Blanding’s Turtle...... 43

TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS...... 46 Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York: Native Plant Restoration...... 46 Seneca Nation of Indians of New York: Aquatic Species Conservation...... 47

SOUTHEAST REGION HIGHLIGHTS...... 49

STATE HIGHLIGHTS...... 51 Alabama: Eastern Indigo Snake...... 51 Arkansas: Red-cockaded Woodpecker...... 53 Florida: Manatee...... 55 Georgia: Gopher Tortoise...... 57 Louisiana: Louisiana Black Bear...... 59 Mississippi: Frecklebelly Madtom...... 61 North Carolina: Carolina Pygmy Sunfish...... 63

vii Oklahoma: Ozark Emerald...... 65 Puerto Rico: Puerto Rican Parrot...... 67 South Carolina: Diamondback Terrapin...... 69 Tennessee: Pale Lilliput...... 71 Texas: Guadalupe Bass...... 73 U.S. Virgin Islands: St. Croix Ground Lizard...... 75

REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT...... 77 Gopher Frog...... 77

TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS...... 79 Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina: Habitat Enhancement...... 79 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina: Protecting Natural Heritage and Livelihoods...... 81 Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma: Pollinator Conservation...... 83

MIDWEST REGION HIGHLIGHTS...... 85

STATE HIGHLIGHTS...... 87 Illinois: Jefferson Salamander...... 87 Indiana: Outreach Campaign for Endangered Mussels...... 89 Iowa: Regal Fritillary...... 91 Kansas: Fish Passage Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring...... 93 Kentucky: Center for Mollusk Conservation...... 95 Michigan: Kirtland’s Warbler...... 97 Minnesota: Leonard’s Skipper...... 99 Missouri: Regal Fritillary...... 101 Nebraska: North American River Otter...... 103 North Dakota: American Marten...... 105 Ohio: Cerulean Warbler...... 107 South Dakota: Greater Sage-Grouse...... 109 Wisconsin: Rusty Patched Bumble Bee...... 111

REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT...... 113 Hellbender...... 113

TRIBAL HIGHLIGHT...... 117 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe: Snowshoe Hare and Fisher Conservation...... 117

WESTERN REGION HIGHLIGHTS...... 119

STATE HIGHLIGHTS...... 121 Alaska: Little Brown Bat...... 121 American Samoa: Habitat Mapping and Classification...... 123 Arizona: Chiricahua Leopard Frog...... 125 California: Sierra Nevada Red Fox...... 127 Colorado: Lesser Prairie-Chicken...... 129 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Micronesian Gecko...... 131 Guam: Green and Hawksbill Sea Turtles...... 133 Hawaii: Kiwikiu (Maui Parrotbill)...... 135 Idaho: Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment ...... 137 Montana: Trumpeter Swan...... 139 viii Nevada: California Spotted Owl...... 141 New Mexico: Peñasco Least Chipmunk...... 143 Oregon: Western Pond Turtle...... 145 Utah: Boreal Toad...... 147 Washington: Fisher...... 149 Wyoming: White-Tailed Prairie Dog...... 151

REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHTS...... 153 Wolverine...... 153 Arkansas Darter...... 157

TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS...... 159 Chickaloon Native Village of Alaska: Salmon Conservation...... 159 Sitka Tribe of Alaska: Shellfish Conservation...... 161 Hopi Tribe of Arizona: Golden Eagle Conservation...... 163 Yurok Tribe of California: California Condor Recovery...... 165 Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, Oregon and Washington: California Condor Conservation...... 167 Pyramid Lake Paiute of Nevada: Bighorn Sheep...... 169 Taos Pueblo of New Mexico: Conservation Corps...... 171 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians of Oregon: Pacific Lamprey...... 173 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde of Oregon: Prairie and Oak Savannah Restoration...... 175 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe of Washington: Pacific Lamprey...... 177

ix x Introduction Snapshot of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant The State and Tribal Wildlife Programs

Formula State Wildlife Grant Grant Programs Turn 20 Program • Created by Congress in The dawn of the new decade in fish and wildlife conservation 2000 marks the 20th anniversary of two strategies to prevent species important milestones for fish and from becoming endangered and • Funds distributed through wildlife conservation. Congress accelerate efforts to restore those formula to all 56 U.S. created the State Wildlife Grant already endangered or threat- states, territories, and Program in 2000 and the Tribal ened. Similarly, the primary D.C. Wildlife Grant Program in 2001 purpose of the Tribal Wildlife • Apportionments based on to provide critical funding to Grant Program is to help tribes population and land area state, territorial, commonwealth, conserve species of traditional Tribal Wildlife Grant Program District of Columbia (D.C.), and and cultural significance, in- tribal fish and wildlife agencies to cluding fish, wildlife, and plants. • Created by Congress in conserve at-risk fish and wildlife. Both Programs support state and 2001 These programs, administered tribal projects designed to assess • Funds distributed through by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife the status of fish and wildlife and competitive awards to Service’s Wildlife and Sport Fish implement actions to spur their federally-recognized tribes Restoration Program, filled a conservation. Both Programs also • Maximum award of significant void in conservation support local decision-making $200,000 funding and opened the door to and encourage the involvement a new era of partnership between of broad constituencies who have Competitive State Wildlife Grant federal, state, and tribal govern- an interest in conserving the re- Program ments. sources they know and treasure. • Created by Congress in State and tribal fish and wildlife 2007 The primary purpose of the agencies employ staff with ex- • Funds distributed through State Wildlife Grant Program is pertise in planning, monitoring, competitive awards to to help states proactively invest research, and species and habitat states, territories and D.C. • Maximum award of $1,000,000

State fish and wildlife agencies in the West are using State Wildlife Grant Program funds to conserve and protect the Short-Eared Owl.

Photo: Bob Tregilus, used with permission. Three-year project volunteer, Northeastern California, 2018.

1 management, and they leverage federal government agencies to Funding Sources resources from many interested implement innovate conservation for Wildlife Action Plan Implementation parties to bolster federal invest- strategies across the country. The 3% ments. State and Tribal Wildlife Grant 6% Programs and the agencies that These Programs support state receive funding have launched a and tribal government agencies, multitude of new partnerships acknowledging their unique re- to conserve fish and wildlife and 55% sponsibilities and authorities for their habitats. Abundant species 36% management of our Nation’s fish populations and high-quali- and wildlife. The work of state ty habitats benefit millions of and tribal fish and wildlife agen- Americans who use and enjoy cies is guided in part by Wildlife them. Federal Private Action Plans—also known as State Other Comprehensive Wildlife Conser- During the last 20 years, the U.S. vation Strategies—which were Fish and Wildlife Service has mandated by Congress. These distributed over $1 billion to the Source: Association of Fish and Wildlife natural resources agencies collab- 56 states, territories, common- Agencies, Wildlife Funding Survey. Survey orate with industry, universities, wealths, and D.C. through the and Analysis Provided by Southwick and Associates. December 7, 2012. non-profit conservation organi- State Wildlife Grant Program us- zations, private landowners, cit- ing a formula based on land area izens, and other local, state, and and population. State agencies

Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources

In 2016, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies organized a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of 26 leaders from business, conservation and outdoor recreation. It was charged with examining the current system of conservation funding and recommend changes that would lead to greater sustainability for all fish and wildlife. The Panel was chaired by John Morris, Founder of Bass Pro Shops, and David Freudenthal, former Governor of Wyoming. More Information: https://www.fishwildlife.org/ application/files/8015/1382/2345/ Wildlife watching is a favorite pastime enjoyed annually by an average of BlueRibbonPanel_ShortReport.pdf 100 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds.

Photo: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department..

2 Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs Funding Levels, Fiscal Year 2002–2020

Formula SWG Tribal Wildlife Grants Competitive SWG

$100,000,000 $90,000,000 $80,000,000 The SWG Program’s Value to $70,000,000 America $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 In 2019, Service managers $30,000,000 produced a research paper titled $20,000,000 The State Wildlife Grant Program: $10,000,000 Measuring the Value of a Proactive $- Conservation Program.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Key findings: • The SWG Program added provide at least 25 percent of proj- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $3 billion in short-term ect costs in non-federal matching to the 584 federally-recognized value to local economies funds. Since 2008, a portion of tribes in the U.S. through com- and supported the the State Wildlife Grant Pro- petitive grants. Demand for creation of 18,000 jobs gram funding has been used for Tribal Wildlife Grant Program competitive grants to encourage funds by tribes is high and only between 2001 until 2015. interstate collaboration, innova- about 25 percent of applicants are • American wildlife watchers tion, and species conservation at awarded funds each year. are willing to pay over larger scales. $100 million annually Tribal Wildlife Grant Program to maintain populations From a high of $90 million in Fis- funds are used to conserve tribal of just one SGCN—the cal Year 2010, the State Wildlife food sources like Salmon, Wall- whooping crane. Grant Program’s average annual eye, Elk, Caribou, and Bighorn • A variety of SGCN appropriation more recently Sheep. The funding also helps conserved in part with has been about a third less, or tribes assist in the recovery of SWG Program funding $67 million per Fiscal Year. This species that are federally listed provide essential services is far less than the estimated under the Endangered Species like pest control and water $1.3 billion recommended by the Act, such as California Condor purification. Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustain- and Black-Footed Ferret. Since • From 2001 to 2015, ing America’s Diverse Fish and its inception, the competitive the SWG Program Wildlife Resources that is need- Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- supported conservation ed to fully implement the State gram has awarded more than of 55 percent of federally Wildlife Action Plans (see side- $94 million to tribes, supporting listed species which were bar). Congress has introduced the over 500 conservation projects later delisted under the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act throughout Indian Country. ESA, and 24 percent to address the shortfall. of candidate species Wildlife Action Plans: A Nation- The Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- later removed from gram was started in 2001 to Wide Conservation Blueprint consideration for federal listing due to recovery support conservation projects The use of State Wildlife Grant that benefit fish, wildlife, and or sufficient species Program funding is guided by information. plants on tribal lands, including State Wildlife Action Plans. In species of Native American cul- 2005, fish and wildlife agencies in More Information: tural or traditional importance. each of the 56 states, territories, Funds are made available by the https://doi.org/10.3996/112017- commonwealths, and D.C. sub- JFWM-092

3 Tiana Sayre and Christy release Condor 208.

Photo: Chris West, Senior Biologist, Yurok Tribe.

EIGHT REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS: 1. Abundance of Declining Species 2. Condition of key habitats 3. Threats or data gaps 4. Needed conservation actions mitted their first Wildlife Action tency while preserving state-level 5. Monitoring needs Plans to the Service for approval. authority in conservation deci- 6. Plan revision schedule This marked the first time in sion-making. Many states have history that coast-to-coast com- designated personnel that lead 7. Partner coordination prehensive planning for fish and implementation of their plan in 8. Public involvement wildlife conservation was imple- coordination with their many More information: mented on a national scale. partners. Each plan is posted online and some include online https://www.fishwildlife.org/afwa- Each agency is required to ad- tools to make them more accessi- informs/state-wildlife-action-plans dress eight planning elements ble to partners and the public. (see sidebar) and must review and revise the plan at least once A Complementary Approach every ten years. A cornerstone of each plan is the identification of The federal Endangered Species Species of Greatest Conservation Act (ESA), passed in 1973, is a Need (SGCN), with input from bedrock environmental law that leading scientists in each state provides a funding and regulato- or region. The planning process ry framework to help prevent the is informed by citizens, experts extinction of America’s animals from universities, non-profit and plants. Currently there are organizations, and state, federal over 720 animals listed as threat- and local government agencies. ened or endangered under the Public meetings are held to ESA in the United States. State gather input from wildlife and Wildlife Action Plans include outdoor recreation enthusiasts, most of these species as SGCN farmers and ranchers, business but also many others that are owners and others. This high rare, declining or on a path to level of engagement helps ensure possible future ESA listing. The the plans are balanced and are State and Tribal Wildlife Grant able to leverage the resources and Programs support proactive con- capacity of the public and private servation that helps keep man- sectors. agement of fish and wildlife in the hands of the states, common- Wildlife Action Plans provide a wealths, territories, and tribes. In Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. framework for national consis- doing so, the Programs help limit

4 costs of federal species listing and tion of species of fish and wildlife recovery. that are treasured throughout the United States today. This report provides a sampling of the Enhancing Outdoor Recreation species, habitats, and people that and Local Economies have benefited from state and Our Nation’s fish and wildlife are tribal conservation initiatives, a source of joy and inspiration to supported in part with funding millions of people. In an average from these Programs. Projects year, 100 million U.S. residents and programs designed and implemented by these agencies: The Crawfish Frog is one of many participate in some form of wild- unique and beautiful Species of life-related recreation. In 2016, • Launch multi-state, range- Greatest Conservation Need (SCGN) wildlife watchers spent $75.9 bil- wide species conservation identified in the State Wildlife Action lion on equipment, travel, and efforts highlighting the Plans. related costs, providing revenues power of sharing infor- Photo: Michael Lannoo. Originally published for communities and companies mation and collaborating in “The Call of The Crawfish Frog” by that maintain jobs and support across borders and disci- Michael J. Lannoo and Rochelle Stiles, Taylor families.1 The State and Tribal plines. & Francis, 2020 and used with permission of the photographer Wildlife Grant Programs help en- . sure the stability and viability of • Support a wide variety of a vast range of watchable wildlife projects and programs to throughout the United States. help tribal communities protect and enhance species of cultural and tradi- Demonstrating Our Success tional value. The State and Tribal Wildlife • Protect and increase popu- Grant Programs support Amer- lations of species through ica’s state and tribal natural research, habitat manage- resources agencies and their ment and improvement, many partners in the conserva- captive rearing and release, and many other actions. 1 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunt- ing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. • Improve water quality, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/ provide insect pest control, Census/library/visualizations/2016/ demo/fhw16-qkfact.pdf and protect pollinators

Learning about raptors during a community event.

Photo: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

5 that support agricultural university experts, indus- production. try stakeholders, and many others to find common • Provide critical informa- ground and leverage Pro- tion leading to down-list- gram investments many ing and de-listing of state times over. threatened and endangered species. • Provide educational opportunities and offer • Contribute significantly amenities that enhance the to U.S. Fish and Wildlife quality of wildlife-based Service recovery plans for experiences for millions of federally listed species, Americans. helping to down-list and de-list threatened and The stories in this report demon- endangered species. strate how a diversity of perspec- • Address species data gaps tives, expertise, and resources that help the U.S. Fish and can make a difference for the Wildlife Service determine conservation of all our Nation’s that numerous species are species. These projects show how not warranted for listing dedicated, inclusive teams are under the Endangered ensuring that American families Species Act. throughout the United States have the opportunity to share in • Engage community scien- all of our natural heritage. tists, farmers and ranchers,

6 NATIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT Freshwater Mussel Conservation

North America has the highest ing to protection and restoration diversity of freshwater mussels in watersheds across the United in the world, with 297 known States. Here are a few highlights species and subspecies. About of the many ways State Wildlife three-quarters of these spe- Grant Program funding is being cies are endangered or at risk, used to help recover federally and dozens are already extinct. listed species, to help keep other Among the most common threats mussels species from declining to to America’s freshwater mussels levels that require new listings, are stream fragmentation caused and to help ensure common mus- by dams, water quality degrada- sels species populations remain tion, aquatic invasive species, and stable in our Nation’s rivers and illegal harvesting. streams.

Mussels are filter feeders that Alabama live on river bottoms, where they remove contaminants from The Alabama Aquatic Biodiver- water including suspended solids, sity Center (AABC) is the largest bacteria, and algae. This is an state non-game species recovery important “ecosystem service” program of its kind in the United that can help protect water qual- States. The mission of AABC is ity for human use, filtering 12 to promote the conservation and to 15 gallons per mussel per day. restoration of rare freshwater Freshwater mussels are also an species in Alabama waters, and important food source for a vari- in turn, restore cleaner water in ety of fish and wildlife, including Alabama’s waterways. The State otters, herons, and many sport Wildlife Grant Program has fish. Midwestern and northeast- supported the development of Brook Floater, a freshwater mussel ern states in particular are home the AABC for many years. Recent native to the eastern United States, to the majority of mussel species work has focused on developing was petitioned for federal listing in identified in the State Wildlife culture methods to grow and 2010. Due in part to efforts of multiple Action Plans. However, many release aquatic invertebrates into states to conserve and restore the species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife western states including Alaska, regional waterways. The AABC Service determined in 2019 that it is California, Hawaii, Texas, Idaho has cultured and released many and Oregon also list one or more not warranted for listing under the thousands of mussels, in some Endangered Species Act. mussel species as Species of cases establishing new popula- Greatest Conservation Need in tions of federally listed or candi- Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. their plans. date species that may positively impact future Service listing The State Wildlife Grant Pro- decisions. gram continues to be a critical resource for state fish and wildlife agencies in addressing this Indiana national wildlife crisis. Many The Indiana Department of states have significantly advanced Natural Resources has used mussel conservation science lead-

7 Indiana Department of Natural Resources biologist samples for mussels in the Tippecanoe River.

Photo: Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

State Wildlife Grant Program around the world. The agency funding and partnered with has developed new techniques to Purdue University to launch an raise mussels and other fresh- outreach campaign to increase water mollusks in vitro, without awareness of freshwater mus- the need for fish hosts. These sels and help foster behaviors effective propagation techniques that can help protect them. mean that large-scale rearing The campaign reached out to and release is now possible in boaters and anglers as well as Kentucky and neighboring states. private landowners who reside The CMC’s overall goal is to on or near the Tippecanoe River. preclude new state and federal Indiana is home to ten federally listings of aquatic species, and listed mussels, and six of those help recover and restore imper- species reside primarily in the iled species. Tippecanoe River. The campaign has demonstrated to visitors and Massachusetts residents how to promote good water quality to help protect their Massachusetts Division of many imperiled mussel species. Fisheries and Wildlife has been a leader in the Northeast in Kentucky launching the Brook Floater Range-Wide Conservation and For nearly 20 years, the Kentucky Restoration Initiative. Using a Department of Fish and Wildlife 2016 Competitive State Wildlife Resources has been developing Grant (C-SWG) Program award, a conservation program for the the agency established the Brook state’s imperiled freshwater Floater Working Group, which mollusks. The agency’s Cen- now represents 13 states where ter for Mollusk Conservation the species is present. This group (CMC) is now a world-renowned has achieved key conservation propagation facility visited by successes including development students and professionals from of standard survey and monitor-

8 ing protocols, and modelling of Student intern Emma Ceplecha holds habitat suitability across the spe- several hundred Black Sandshell cies’ range. Data and analyses on mussels CAMP is growing in Eastside Brook Floater developed by state Lake in Austin, Minnesota, for agencies and partners were used reintroduction into the Cedar River. by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice in species status assessment and in a final decision in 2019 that listing the species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted.

Minnesota

In Minnesota, 28 of the state’s 51 native mussel species are listed as endangered, threatened, or to the Service’s “not warranted” of special concern. Three other finding in 2019. species have been extirpated, and at least three more species are in imminent danger of extirpation. Ohio Minnesota Department of Natu- The Ohio Department of Natural ral Resource’s Center for Aquatic Resources, Division of Wildlife Mollusk Programs (CAMP) is continues to fund research at busy re-building populations Ohio State University and the of threatened and endangered Freshwater Mussel Conservation native mussel species through a Facility located at the Columbus propagation program. Recently Zoo and Aquarium. New in vitro CAMP propagated 14,000 feder- propagation methods will be used ally endangered Baby Snuffbox for reintroduction of state-list- mussels. These mussels will con- ed mussels in Ohio waters. The tinue to grow in the lab over the agency has also translocated summer, then placed in contain- federally endangered Northern ers to overwinter in the river, and will eventually be released in the Mississippi River.

New York

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation received pooled State Wildlife Grant Program funds through the northeast states’ Regional Conservation Needs Program, as well as additional Competitive State Wildlife Grant (C-SWG) Monitoring for Brook Floater in Program funding, for Brook the Neversink River in southeastern Floater conservation. The agency New York. conducted a status assessment in Photo: Andrew Gascho-Landis, State the state, developed new sam- University of New York-Cobleskill. pling protocols, and contributed

9 Riffleshell and Clubshell mussels Tennessee from the upper Allegheny River in Pennsylvania to creeks and riv- In Tennessee, the State Wildlife ers in Ohio. The goal is to release Grant Program partially supports enough animals to allow them to the State Mollusk Recovery Pro- reproduce and establish self-sus- gram and the Cumberland River taining populations. Aquatic Center in their efforts “These animals that to propagate juvenile mussels. we take for granted Hundreds of Pale Liliput mussels Oklahoma are fascinating; we have been raised, tagged, and released in Tennessee rivers since The State Wildlife Grant Pro- can’t give up on them.” 2017. Pale Liliput is a critically en- gram has supported targeted dangered species that has expe- surveys for all of the highest Dr. G. Thomas Watters rienced a major range reduction. ranked freshwater mussel spe- Ohio State University The species is now found only cies identified in Oklahoma’s in northern Alabama and south- Wildlife Action Plan, including eastern Tennessee. Rabbitsfoot, Pyramid Pigtoe, and Southern Hickorynut mussels. A partnership was established West Virginia including Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, In West Virginia, the Division of Missouri State University, the Natural Resources’ Mussel Survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Protocols are designed to docu- and the Peoria Tribe to reestab- ment the potential presence or lish the Rabbitsfoot in remaining absence of federally listed mussel suitable habitat in the Verdigris species as well as provide for the River. This intermediate outcome long-term sustainability of native helps conservationists move clos- mussel communities in the state. er to recovering the Rabbitsfoot State Wildlife Grant Program mussel and potentially down-list- funds support surveys, long-term ing or de-listing the species under monitoring, mussel restoration, the Endangered Species Act. and data capture from external sources. State wildlife agencies across the country have adapted the West Virginia Mussel Survey Protocols for their use.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources staff stocking the federally endangered Northern Riffleshell in the Elk River, West Virginia.

Photo: Janet Clayton.

10 NORTHEAST REGION HIGHLIGHTS

11 12 STATE HIGHLIGHTS Connecticut Bats

Status Partners Program Funding Federally Endangered, Candidate, Wildlife Management Institute, and At-Risk Sanders Environmental, Public $18,000 $39,000 and Private Landowners, Land Trusts, Municipalities, and other $57,000 Project Summary TOTAL State Agencies The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Pro- Methods tection participates with north- SWG (RCN) Program eastern state agencies in an inno- Cave Gating, Coordination CDEEP/Partners vative resource-sharing program designed to advance large-scale Results conservation across jurisdictional boundaries. Since wildlife disease Bat-friendly cave enclosures are such as White-Nose Syndrome good for bats and people. In- does not respect borders, an ef- stallation of gates helps private fective bat conservation strategy landowners by limiting trespass- requires cooperation and sharing ing and disturbance at sensitive of information and resources on sites, often resulting in reduced a regional basis. enforcement costs. Gates pro- A federally-endangered Indiana Bat. vide a reduced risk of liability for Other bat species are undergoing Species Status Assessments by the U.S. In 2017, State Wildlife Grant landowners with caves on their Fish and Wildlife Service, including (SWG) Program funding allocat- property. ed through the northeast states’ Tri-colored Bat, Little Brown Bat, and Northern Long-eared Bat. Regional Conservation Needs (RCN) Program supported the Photo: Ryan Hagerty, USFWS. installation and repair of gates at bat hibernation sites in Connecti- cut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Bat-friendly gates are designed to allow bats to freely pass through the gates while preventing unauthorized human entry and associated disturbance. Experts on bat physiology estimate that for each arousal, a bat can burn as much as 10 days’ worth of stored body fat. Limiting human disturbance at these regionally important hibernation sites provides benefits to bats that are already devastated by disease.

13 Future Needs Connecticut Wildlife Action Plan

There is a great need to protect The Connecticut Wildlife Ac- many bat species in the United tion Plan was revised in 2015. States, which face serious threats. The plan identifies 567 Species Massachusetts Department of Greatest Conservation Need of Energy and Environmental associated with river basins, for- Protection and the northeastern ests, wetlands, caves, and coastal states would direct additional beaches. Key threats to species funding toward maintenance include habitat loss and frag- of gates, and coordination with mentation, disturbance, invasive landowners and cave organiza- species, and lack of protection. tions for new installations. Priority conservation actions identified in the plan include increased monitoring and data More Information collection, enhanced manage- https://rcngrants.org/content/ ment and protection, and out- “This project is critical bat-cave-gating reach. More than 70 academic, for the protection of agency, and conservation partners, and hundreds of members bats decimated by of the public, participated in the White Nose Syndrome development and review of the and helps ensure the plan. Contact the Connecticut Department of Energy and Envi- secondary threat of ronmental Protection’s Wildlife disturbance is reduced Division to learn more. or eliminated. This project also provides additional protection as bat populations begin to recover.”

Jenny Dickson Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

14 Delaware Breeding Birds of Delaware

Program Funding

$506,250 $168,750

$675,000 TOTAL

SWG Program Status Methods DFW/Partners

State-Listed Endangered Research, Monitoring

Project Summary Results

Delaware Division of Fish and The Atlas helps DFW and part- Wildlife (DFW) developed the ners establish protocols for Breeding Bird Atlas to determine analyzing population dynamics current distribution of all bird and assess species population species breeding within Dela- changes relative to the first ware, including within specially Breeding Bird Atlas. This infor- designated conservation areas. mation is necessary for develop- The project was supported in ing general and species-specific part by funding from the State conservation guidance used to Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program. benefit Delaware’s birds. As a The Breeding Bird Atlas includes result of this effort, six species detailed maps and summaries were removed from Delaware’s of the breeding habits of these State Endangered Species List birds. This ongoing effort pro- including Brown Creeper, Bald vides important trend informa- Eagle, Cooper’s Hawk, Northern tion derived through analysis of Parula, Loggerhead Shrike, and changes in species population Red-Headed Woodpecker. data. The Atlas provides a permanent record of information on Future Needs breeding birds and is accessible to many conservation partners in Without additional resources, Delaware. DFW is limited in its capacity to implement conservation Partner activities identified through this project, including habitat U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent management that could improve Wildlife Research Center breeding bird populations. Future support is necessary to expand

15 the scale of current conservation conversion, ditching, extraction, efforts. and dams. Priority actions include technical assistance and support to conservation partners Delaware Wildlife Action Plan and private landowners, develop- The Delaware Wildlife Action ing and implementing adaptation Plan was revised in 2015. The strategies, improving laws and plan identifies 688 Species of policies, increasing awareness Greatest Conservation Need through conservation education, associated with priority forests, data collection and management, beaches, dunes, early successional direct management of species habitat, marine and freshwater and habitats, and land protec- wetlands and rivers. Key threats tion. More than 60 conservation to species include climate change partners contributed to the and severe weather that cause development of the plan. Contact salinity changes and intrusion, the Delaware Division of Fish & invasive species, habitat loss, land Wildlife to learn more.

16 District of Columbia Northern River Otter

Status Methods Program Funding Species of Greatest Conservation Research, Inventory/Monitoring, Need Species Management, Stream $31,500 $58,500 Restoration $90,000 Project Summary TOTAL Results By the early 1900s, North Amer- ican River Otter populations Due to major stream restoration had declined throughout large efforts in several tributaries to SWG Program portions of their historic range the Anacostia River, more sight- FWD/Partners in North America. In recent ings of River Otter have been decades, improvements in water documented by FWD. These quality and controls on harvest and other efforts have resulted have permitted River Otters to in water quality improvements regain portions of their range in that enhance opportunities for many areas. The Fisheries and recreation and appreciation of Wildlife Division (FWD) of the wildlife in the District of Colum- District of Columbia’s Depart- bia and the surrounding states of ment of Energy and Environment Maryland and Virginia. Cleaner identifies River Otter as a Tier 1 water helps FWD move toward species in its Wildlife Action their goal of sustainable fishing Plan. FWD has implemented a in the Anacostia, which would North American River Otter at Pelican variety of projects since 2012 to also increase revenue from fish- Island National Wildlife Refuge. benefit the species in the Anacos- ing licenses. License revenue is an Florida, 2012. tia River watershed, with support important source of funding for from the State Wildlife Grant further species protection, man- Photo: Keenan Adams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (SWG) Program. These projects have provided benefits to a wide variety of other species, including fish, shore birds, butterflies, and many others. River restoration projects also help improve water quality.

Partners

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Park Service, U.S. National Arboretum, Anacostia River Watershed Society

17 Springhouse Run, a river restoration site completed by the Department of Energy and Environment in the U.S. Arboretum in Washington, D.C. where River Otters are now living.

Photo: District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment.

agement, and recovery efforts in District of Columbia the District of Columbia. Wildlife Action Plan

The District of Columbia Wild- “Seeing River Otters Future Needs life Action Plan was revised in present in the Additional conservation actions 2015. The plan identifies 205 to benefit River Otter in the Species of Greatest Conserva- Anacostia River has District of Columbia are needed tion Need associated with rivers, been an encouraging to build upon new partnerships streams, riparian and upland sign that the health and to continue improving water forests, bogs, wetlands, mudflats, quality in the Anacostia and oth- vernal pools, springs, and seeps. of the river is going in er watersheds. Funding is needed Key threats to species include a positive direction.” to maintain inventory and mon- invasive species, habitat loss, itoring of the species and other pollution and runoff, ecosystem Lindsay Rohrbaugh listed conservation actions iden- modifications, and lack of pro- Biologist tified in the District of Columbia tection. Priority conservation actions include early detection Department of Energy and Environment Wildlife Action Plan. of new invasive species, habitat restoration, deer and goose management, and restoring hydrology. More than 30 conservation partners and many members of the public participated in the development of the plan. Contact the District of Columbia De- partment of Energy and Envi- ronment, Fisheries and Wildlife Division to learn more.

18 Maine Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee

Program Funding

$25,000 $21,170

$46,170 TOTAL

Status Methods

Not Warranted for Federal Research, Species Status SWG Program MDIFW/Partners Listing (2019) Assessment

Project Summary Results

The Maine Bumble Bee Atlas MDIFW found this species to be (MBBA) began in 2015 utilizing relatively widespread and present mostly citizen scientists to collect in higher numbers than in pre- data on bumble bees, a guild vious years. It was found at more of insects with widely reported than 250 locations in more than declines. The Maine Department 170 townships in all 16 counties of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife across Maine. In 2019, the Ser- (MDIFW) seeks to document the vice determined that range-wide current diversity and distribution listing was not warranted, noting of the state’s bumble bees and the recent insights that some confirm the occurrence of previ- populations had improved mark- ously reported species. In 2016, edly as pivotal to the decision. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a positive “90-day Future Needs finding” that the Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee warranted a full re- Establishing baseline distribu- view and potential listing under tions of Yellow-Banded Bum- the Endangered Species Act. The ble Bees and other bumble bee timeliness of the MBBA initiative species enables periodic sampling could not have been better for efforts to monitor for potential informing the Service’s Species population changes. Increased Status Assessment of the Yel- knowledge of the status of bum- low-Banded Bumble Bee. ble bees and pollinators is critical to agriculture-related industries Partners and natural resource agencies alike. University of Maine–Farmington, University of Maine–Orono

19 Maine Wildlife Action Plan diseases, residential and commercial development, and lack of The Maine Wildlife Action Plan information on species. Priority was revised in 2015. The plan conservation actions include identifies 378 Species of Greatest increasing habitat connectivity, Conservation Need associated monitoring, control of invasive with salt marshes, northern peat- species, improving mapping, lands, northern hardwood and technical assistance, and out- conifer forests, subtidal mollusk reach. More than 100 conserva- reefs, intertidal mudflats, and tion partners were involved in the alpine habitats. Threats include development of the plan. Contact habitat shifting or alteration the Maine Department of Inland due to climate change and sea Fisheries & Wildlife to learn level rise, invasive species and more.

20 Maryland Tiger Salamander

Status Methods Program Funding State-Listed as Endangered Monitoring, Habitat Restoration/ Management $150,000 $150,000

Project Summary $300,000 Results TOTAL Tiger salamanders spend most of their lives underground with the Maryland Department of Natural exception of the breeding season Resources biologists are report- when they journey to small fresh- ing a dramatic increase in the re- SWG Program water ponds to mate. Declines producing population of Ameri- MDNR/Partners in tiger salamander populations ca’s largest terrestrial salamander are largely due to the loss of in their spring 2020 surveys. Delmarva bays and surrounding forests. Delmarva bays are fresh- A Tiger Salamander relaxes with water wetlands on Maryland’s Maryland’s biologists, taking a break Eastern Shore that usually have from an unusually successful breeding standing water in the winter and season. spring, and then gradually dry Photo: Andy Adams. out through the summer. These special habitats are home to dozens of rare plants and animals. Future Needs The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has Additional resources are needed been working for years to re- to expand habitat restoration for verse this trend and restore these the Tiger Salamander, ensuring wetlands on state and private numbers will continue to inland by returning their hydrology crease and helping meet criteria and vegetation to their natural for de-listing as endangered in conditions. Through years of in- Maryland. tensive management efforts, bays that were previously dark and Maryland Wildlife Action Plan overgrown are now open, sunny, and full of tiger salamander egg The Maryland Wildlife Action masses. Plan was revised in 2016. The plan identifies 610 Species of Partners Greatest Conservation Need associated with streams, rivers, Maryland Department of the bays, ocean, coastal beaches, wet- Environment, Susquehannock lands, forests, cliffs, and barrens. Wildlife Society, Salisbury Key threats include habitat loss University and fragmentation, modification of natural processes, invasive species, pollution, and climate-related alterations. Priority

21 Tiger Salamander is state-listed as endangered in Maryland.

Photo: Andy Adams.

“It’s great to see [tiger salamanders] having such a great conservation actions include land protection, restoring natural pro- year. They are really cesses, enhanced management, responding well targeted monitoring and data collection, implementing climate to their restored adaptation strategies, and edu- habitat. If they keep cation and outreach. More than this up, one day 50 conservation partners and many members of the public par- we hope to declare ticipated in the development and them recovered review of the plan. Contact the Maryland Department of Natural and take them off Resources Wildlife and Heritage the [Maryland] Service to learn more. endangered species list.”

Beth Schlimm Biologist Maryland Department of Natural Resources

22 Massachusetts Brook Floater

Status Partners Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal List- U.S. Geological Survey— ing (2019) Massachusetts Cooperative $217,000 $500,000 Fisheries & Wildlife Research Unit, Cooperating State Agencies, $717,000 Project Summary TOTAL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service— Competitive State Wildlife Grant Cronin Aquatic Resources Center (C-SWG) Program funds were awarded in 2016 to Massachu- Methods SWG Program setts Division of Fisheries and MassWildlife/Partners Wildlife (MassWildlife) and three Research, Monitoring, other partner states for Brook Coordination, Planning, Floater conservation. MassWild- Modeling/Mapping life has been the lead state in cooperation with the U.S. Geo- Results logical Survey’s Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife MassWildlife and partners Research Unit. The primary expanded the BFWG to more objective of this regional effort than 30 active participants, repre- is to begin developing a strategic senting 13 states, two federal conservation and restoration plan agencies, academic institutions, for the Brook Floater, an imper- and one Canadian province. The iled freshwater mussel species, group has developed and applied across its range. This initiative standard survey and population builds from a Regional Conserva- monitoring protocols in over tion Needs Grant, which focused seven states, collecting popula- A tagged Brook Floater. on gathering all available infor- tion status and habitat data for mation on Brook Floater and Photo: MassWildlife. assessing threats across its range. Regional Conservation Needs projects are selected by a technical committee staffed by state fish and wildlife agencies in the northeast, and funds are derived from pooled State Wildlife Grant Program funds. Among many objectives for this initiative is the formation of the Brook Floater Working Group (BFWG), a core group of researchers and conservation practitioners engaged in collaborative problem solving toward conservation objectives for this species.

23 Brook Floater and several other More Information mussel species listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in https://sterrett.wixsite.com/bfwg partnering states’ Wildlife Action Plans. Other results of this effort https://rcngrants.org/content/ include identification of host conservation-status-brook-float- fishes and propagation methods er-mussel-alasmidonta-varico- for population restoration, and sa-northeastern-united-states habitat needs and suitability across the species’ range. The https://www.fws.gov/news/ “While the threats team has developed conservation ShowNews.cfm?ID=90D449F5- decision and planning tools and B2B9-4DB6-400EEC6C1DE71A12 to brook floater outreach materials, and conduct- are significant and ed citizen science and outreach Massachusetts Wildlife Action Plan ongoing, what makes opportunities in the field. Data, analyses, and contributions from The Massachusetts Wildlife conservation success this project on Brook Floater Action Plan was revised in 2015. stories are the people and others funded through the The plan identifies 570 Species State Wildlife Grant Program of Greatest Conservation Need behind them, like the were used in the Service’s Spe- associated with mainstems of collaborators on these cies Status Assessment (SSA) the Connecticut and Merrimack projects, working and final decision. Collaborative Rivers, grasslands, upland forests, efforts of the BFWG and partner and salt marshes. Key threats tirelessly together states were noted in the SSA as a include habitat loss and frag- to come up with contributing factor to the likely mentation, lack of appropriate large-scale solutions. persistence of the species. habitat management, and lack of sufficient open space protection. Collectively, these Future Needs Priority conservation actions research projects lead include targeted protection and partners closer to Continued land protection and management of species habitats. water quality improvements More than a dozen major conser- restoring brook floater throughout the range of the vation partners and many mem- populations so the Brook Floater are needed. Popu- bers of the public participated in lations are fragmented and small the development and review of species can persist so population restoration includ- the plan. Contact the Massachu- long into the future.” ing reintroduction and augmen- setts Division of Fisheries and tation will be needed in many Wildlife to learn more. Ayla Skorupa parts of the range. PhD Student University of Massachusetts Amherst From Scientists Without Borders – Range – Wide Conservation for a Freshwater Mussel At Risk

24 New Hampshire Technical Assistance and Training

Status New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions Numerous Species of Greatest Conservation Need Methods Project Summary Training, Technical Assistance

Taking Action for Wildlife (TAFW) is a partnership between Results the University of New Hamp- Since 2008, the TAFW Program shire Cooperative Extension, the has provided technical assis- New Hampshire Fish & Game tance to over 90 New Hampshire Department, and New Hamp- communities, some of which shire Association of Conserva- have received multiple contacts tion Commissions. The program to further their implementation provides resources, tools, and of Wildlife Action Plan priorities. training for conserving New Communities are now engaged in Hampshire’s wildlife and habitats local conservation and are using to communities, land trusts and the New Hampshire Wildlife conservation groups, landowners, Action Plan to prioritize efforts. volunteers, and others, using the Communities receiving techni- New Hampshire Wildlife Ac- cal assistance from TAFW have Communities like the Town of tion Plan as a primary resource. prioritized and executed land Campton, New Hampshire are learning Technical assistance includes conservation projects, conduct- how to implement the New Hampshire meetings, workshops, trainings, Wildlife Action Plan through events ed habitat management and an e-newsletter and a website like this bog walk. restoration, inventoried wildlife with information and resourc- populations, and developed con- Photo: Lea Stewart. es. Between 2017 and 2019, the TAFW Team enhanced technical assistance to all audiences with a new streamlined web experience that includes a searchable database of actions, audience resource pages, and stories to inspire. The University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension con- tributes a significant portion of total project costs in non-federal matching funds.

Partners

University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension,

25 servation plans for town prop- Blanding’s turtle landowner erties. The TAFW team has also stewardship brochure: produced landowner stewardship https://extension.unh. “Taking Action brochures for 12 Wildlife Action edu/resource/bland- for Wildlife has Plan Habitats (e.g., grasslands, ing%E2%80%99s-tur- vernal pools) and the following tles-new-hampshire-brochure empowered hundreds Species of Greatest Conservation of communities, Need: Blanding’s Turtle, New Town of Amherst Grassland land managers, and England Cottontail Rabbit, Black Management Planning Project: Racer, Brook Trout, and eight https://takingactionforwild- landowners to take New Hampshire bats. These life.org/article/guide-grass- a meaningful role in brochures are used by the TAFW lands-town-amherst-com- team when providing techni- mits-managing-bird-habitat-0 implementing New cal assistance to landowners and brochures can be accessed Hampshire’s Wildlife New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Action Plan, benefiting through TAFW website. numerous Species of The New Hampshire Wildlife Future Needs Action Plan was revised in 2015. Greatest Conservation The plan identifies 169 Species Need and resulting in Additional resources are needed of Greatest Conservation Need to provide financial assistance associated with forests, wetlands, inspirational stories opportunities to other commu- freshwater aquatic, terrestri- throughout the state.” nities for Wildlife Action Plan al, and coastal habitats. Key implementation. threats include commercial and Mike Marchand residential development, pollu- Supervisor tion, disease, natural systems More Information Nongame and Endangered modifications (e.g., dams and Wildlife Program Taking Action for Wildlife undersized culverts), and climate New Hampshire Fish and Game Website: change. Priority conservation Member https://takingactionforwildlife. actions include on-the-ground Taking Action for Wildlife org/ habitat work, land conservation, research, monitoring, collabo- NH Wildlife Action Plan: ration with partners, and tech- https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/ nical assistance. More than 100 wildlife/wap.html conservation partners and many members of the public participated in the development and review of the plan. Contact the New Hampshire Fish and Game’s Nongame and Endangered Wild- life Program to learn more.

Residents of the Town of Bath, New Hampshire, participate in a Brook Trout survey with New Hampshire Fish and Game staff.

Photo: New Hampshire Fish and Game.

26 New Jersey Habitat Connectivity

Status the CHANJ mapping, guidance document, and communications Program Funding Multiple Species of Greatest plan. Conservation Need $122,500 $227,500

Partners $350,000 Project Summary TOTAL New Jersey Department of New Jersey Division of Fish Transportation, The Nature and Wildlife (NJDFW) created Conservancy of New Jersey its Connecting Habitat Across SWG Program New Jersey (CHANJ) project to NJDFW/Partners make the state’s fragmented Methods landscape friendlier to wildlife Training, Partner Engagement, movement, with support from Land-Use Planning the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program. CHANJ offers an inter- active online mapping tool that Results highlights areas across New Jer- sey that are critical for wildlife Regional Action Teams are in connectivity, and a guidance place to mobilize partners when document that helps many differ- conservation opportunities arise. ent users make strategic choices At least 127 land-based animal about preserving land, restor- species in New Jersey stand to ing habitat, and mitigating the benefit from the CHANJ effort, effects of roads on wildlife. Since including 82 Species of Greatest 2012, over 100 partners from Conservation Need such as Bog more than 40 different organiza- Turtle, Bobcat, Blue-spotted tions and agencies participated Salamander, and Northern Dia- in working groups that informed mond-backed Terrapin.

NJDFW Endangered and Nongame Species Program’s CHANJ Team, exhibiting at the annual NJ Land Conservation Rally.

Photo: Liz Silvernail.

27 Future Needs New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan

Significantly greater funding The New Jersey Wildlife Action is needed to support strategic Plan was revised in 2017. The implementation actions to secure plan identifies 656 Species of and restore habitat connectivity Greatest Conservation Need across New Jersey’s landscape, in- associated with forests, wetlands, cluding land acquisition, habitat rivers, and coastal habitats. Key restoration, and road mitigation threats to species include habitat projects. loss and fragmentation, disturbance, invasive species, and lack of protection. Priority conser- More Information vation actions include research, www.CHANJ.nj.gov monitoring, development of best management practices, and riparian buffer restoration. More than 50 stakeholder groups and many members of the public partici- “CHANJ gives us a pated in the development of the plan. Contact the New Jersey literal roadmap for Division of Fish and Wildlife to focusing our efforts learn more. ahead, filling in the gaps, and securing a legacy of healthy, connected ecosystems for the future.”

Dave Golden Director New Jersey Department of Fish and Wildlife

28 New York Eastern Massasauga

Status actions necessary to restore the species. Program Funding Federally Threatened (2016) $122,500 $227,500 Partners Project Summary $380,000 State University of New York’s TOTAL New York has two remaining College of Environmental Science populations of Eastern Mas- and Forestry sasauga, with only one present on public land. Building upon Methods SWG Program earlier work supported by the NYSDEC/Partners State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Pro- Research, Monitoring, Habitat gram evaluating habitat use by Creation, Enhancement, and the species, the New York State Protection Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) initiated a project in 2012 to improve Results gestation habitat at one of these two sites where habitat has been In the last seven years, over lost due to succession. NYSDEC’s 32 acres of gestation habitat work on Massasauga was initi- for Eastern Massasauga have ated well before the species was been created and maintained. listed in 2016. The draft recovery This habitat management both plan for the species identifies increases productivity of the habitat management, habitat pro- rattlesnakes and allows for easier tection, and population monitor- population monitoring of ges- ing as three of the major recovery tating females, with as many as

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) staff creating new basking habitat for Massasauga.

Photo: NYSDEC.

29 26 gravid females recorded in New York Wildlife Action Plan the new habitats in just a single season. In addition, all of the The New York Wildlife Action habitat improved through this Plan was revised in 2015. The project occurs on permanently plan identifies 366 Species of protected lands. This ensures Greatest Conservation Need that these management actions associated with terrestrial, fresh- will be able to provide benefits water, and marine habitats. Key to the Massasauga for as long as threats include habitat loss and possible. These public areas are fragmentation, invasive species, also regularly patrolled by state pollution, and climate change. law enforcement personnel, so Priority conservation actions “New York has the the areas can be monitored for include habitat management and unauthorized disturbance or restoration, water quality protec- good fortune to have collection. New York is at the tion, population monitoring, and the easternmost edge of the current range for the public outreach. Development species as well, so maintenance of the plan was guided by an population of the of this population helps maintain advisory committee made up of entire Massasauga the rangewide diversity of the 25 partners and comments were species. received from over 2000 mem- range secure on bers of the public. Contact the permanently protected New York State Department of land. Work funded Future Needs Environmental Conservation to learn more. through the State All created habitats need to be maintained. Recurring man- Wildlife Grant agement to keep the 32 acres of Program has allowed gestation habitat in excellent us to take action to condition will be necessary, at an estimated cost of about $20,000 improve habitat at per year. this location to help secure the future of this species both within New York and throughout its range.”

Department of Environmental Conservation New York State

30 Pennsylvania Golden-winged Warbler

Status Program Funding Under Review for Federal Listing $145,000 $204,300 Project Summary $349,300 TOTAL The Golden-winged Warbler (GWWA) is a forest-associated songbird and a Pennsylvania Species of Greatest Conserva- SWG Program tion Need that has experienced PGC/Partners long-term population declines. It is currently being considered for Endangered Species Act protection. In 2011, Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) used State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program funding to establish more than A male Golden-winged Warbler. 5,000 acres of young forest nest- Photo: Halie Parker. ing habitat on State Game Lands, following science-based best comprehensive long-term recov- management practices developed ery efforts for Species of Greatest in 2010 by Indiana University of Conservation Need. Ongoing re- Pennsylvania and American Bird sponse monitoring on public and Conservancy. More important- private lands is revealing signs of ly, this SWG Program success success. helped promote the expansion of forest management efforts range wide. Specifically, PGC and Partners partners proposed to the Natural U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Resources Conservation Services Partners for Fish and Wildlife, (NRCS) that GWWA should be a Natural Resources Conservation focal species for their Working Service, Pennsylvania Lands for Wildlife Program. The Department of Conservation GWWA was ultimately selected and Natural Resources, Indiana as an NRCS national-level focal University of Pennsylvania, species, which brought dedicat- American Bird Conservancy, ed funding for technical and Pheasants Forever, National financial assistance to private Fish and Wildlife Foundation, landowners to create GWWA National Wild Turkey Federation, nesting habitat. This partner- Golden-winged Warbler Working ship-based initiative to recover Group, Appalachian Mountain GWWA demonstrates how SWG Joint Venture Program funds can provide the initial boost needed to launch

31 Methods Future Needs

Research, Monitoring, Planning, To help avert the potential Habitat Enhancement and federal listing of Golden-winged Management, Private Landowner Warbler, the Pennsylvania Game Agreements, Coordination Commission needs increased and reliable funding to monitor the effectiveness of forest habitat Results improvements and expand forest The PGC and partners continue management to benefit the spe- to implement large-scale habitat cies on additional acres of public projects that are critical for the and, in particular, private lands. species’ recovery. The partners supported a full-time public lands Golden-winged Warbler forester who helped design and “The State Wildlife implement habitat enhancements Grant Program for this high-priority species on State Game Lands. Additionally, provided critical private lands foresters and plan- resources to launch ners currently work closely with our partnership’s partners to improve habitats for the species on private lands. Due comprehensive effort to these efforts, NRCS has obli- to help recover gated more than $7 million in fi- Golden-winged nancial assistance to landowners enrolled in the Working Lands Warbler breeding for Wildlife Program. Between populations on public 2012 and 2019, over 11,200 acres were enrolled in the Working and private lands Lands for Wildlife Program for in Pennsylvania GWWA in Pennsylvania. and beyond.”

Dr. Jeff Larkin Professor Indiana University of Pennsylvania

32 Pennsylvania Native Fishes

Status Results Program Funding Chesapeake Logperch (State- Data obtained through ongoing Listed as Threatened in 2012, efforts of PFBC supported by the $657,000 $844,800 Under Review for Federal State Wildlife Grant Program Listing); Gilt Darter (state have contributed to delisting of $1,501,800 delisted in 2015) 22 Pennsylvania endangered, TOTAL threatened or candidate fish species. Another four species are Project Summary currently proposed for delisting, but the process is still ongoing as SWG Program Contemporary, high-quality PFBC/Partners data are crucial for informing of 2020. Delisting species at the conservation actions to secure state level reduces administrative Species of Greatest Conservation and technical burdens of both Need. For the Pennsylvania Fish environmental permit applicants & Boat Commission (PFBC), State and agency environmental per- Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program mit review staff. funds have supported surveying and inventory projects to fill Future Needs data gaps in the distribution and population status of numerous Various environmental stress- multiple-jurisdictional species. ors continue to impact native fish species and their habitats in Pennsylvania. Since 2009, Partners five species have been newly Robert W. Criswell of The state-listed to the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Biological Survey, endangered and threatened lists Dr. Jay Stauffer, Jr. of The after exhaustive assessments Pennsylvania State University in Pennsylvania. Additional resources for monitoring are required to evaluate these and Methods other populations for long-term management. Research, Monitoring

Gilt Darter is among the state de-listed Pennsylvania freshwater fishes targeted for surveying and inventory with SWG Program funds.

Photo: Robert W. Criswell.

33 Pennsylvania fish species delisted between 2009 and 2019 and their designation (i.e., Pennsylvania Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate) prior to delisting. Information gained through State and Tribal Wildlife Grant projects were instrumental in these state de-listings.

RULEMAKING PA BULLETIN

Common Name Scientific Name Endangered Threatened Candidate De-listed DATE ISSUE Erimystax Gravel Chub X X 03/16/2019 49.Pa.B.1323 x-punctatus Central Umbra limi X X 03/16/2019 49.Pa.B.1323 Mudminnow Eastern Umbra pygmaea X X 03/16/2019 49.Pa.B.1323 “We have made Mudminnow Enneacanthus Banded Sunfish X X 03/16/2019 49.Pa.B.1323 27 adjustments to obesus Mountain Brook Ichthyomyzon our endangered, X X 09/03/16 46 Pa.B. 5731 Lamprey greeleyi threatened, and Ichthyomyzon Ohio Lamprey X X 09/03/16 46 Pa.B. 5731 candidate fish lists bdellium Bowfin Amia calva X X 09/03/16 46 Pa.B. 5731 in Pennsylvania with Etheostoma Bluebreast Darter X X 07/18/15 45 Pa.B. 3841 the vast majority camrum Etheostoma Spotted Darter X X 07/18/15 45 Pa.B. 3841 being delistings. maculatum Tippecanoe Etheostoma X X 07/18/15 45 Pa.B. 3841 These regulatory Darter tippecanoe changes have resulted Gilt Darter Percina evides X X 07/18/15 45 Pa.B. 3841 American Brook Lampetra from intense status X X 12/22/12 42 Pa.B. 7684 Lamprey appendix Macrhybopsis assessments and Silver Chub X X 07/03/10 40 Pa.B. 3664 adaptive management storeriana Mooneye Hiodon tergisus X X 07/03/10 40 Pa.B. 3664 made possible by Alosa Skipjack Herring X X 07/03/10 40 Pa.B. 3664 State Wildlife Grant chrysochloris Program funding.” Goldeye Hiodon alosoides X X 07/03/10 40 Pa.B. 3664 Labidesthes Brook Silverside X X 07/03/10 40 Pa.B. 3664 sicculus Doug Fischer Smallmouth Ictiobus bubalus X X 03/07/09 39 Pa.B. 1202 Ichthyologist Buffalo Percina PFBC Longhead Darter X X 03/07/09 39 Pa.B. 1202 macrocephala Channel Darter Percina copelandi X X 03/07/09 39 Pa.B. 1202 Moxostoma River Redhorse X X 03/07/09 39 Pa.B. 1202 carinatum Longnose Gar Lepisteous osseus X X 03/07/09 39 Pa.B. 1202

34 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan

The Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan was revised in September 2015. The plan identifies 664 Spe- cies of Greatest Conservation Need associated with over 66 key habitats, including streams and rivers, forests, wetlands, caves, and Great Lakes shoreline. Key threats to species include habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution, invasive species, and disease. Priority conservation actions identified in the plan include increased monitoring and data collection, habitat management and acquisition, and technical assistance to private landowners. More than 100 conservation partners and many members of the public Chesapeake Logperch. participated in the development Photo: Doug Fischer, Pennsylvania Fish and and review of the plan. Contact Boat Commission. the Pennsylvania Game Commis- sion or Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission to learn more.

35 Rhode Island Jonah Crab

Program Funding Status in peer-reviewed journals and will be incorporated into future Species of Greatest Conservation assessments of the species. Data $109,000 $61,400 Need products from this project have expanded current knowledge of $170,400 TOTAL Project Summary the Jonah Crab, allowing for informed, sustainable management The Jonah Crab has long been of its fishery moving forward. harvested as bycatch in the United States American lobster fishery. SWG Program Future Needs RIDEM/Partners In recent years, however, targeted fishing of Jonah Crab has increased Data gaps remain which must be in concurrence with the decline of addressed to support informed, the southern New England lobster sustainable management of the fishery. Scientific research efforts fishery in the future. These data have lagged behind the growth of gaps are related to Jonah Crab the Jonah Crab fishery—the status geographic distribution and of the resource remains unknown movement patterns, fishery dy- and the biology of the crab is poor- namics, and reproductive cycles. ly understood. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) executed Rhode Island Wildlife Action Plan this project using State Wildlife The Rhode Island Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program funding and Action Plan was revised in 2015. state resources to directly address The plan identifies 454 Species knowledge gaps in the Jonah Crab of Greatest Conservation Need fishery in order to develop man- associated with forest com- agement guidelines to prevent munities, freshwater wetlands, overfishing. streams, estuaries, marine systems, and other habitats. Key Partners threats include habitat loss and fragmentation, human distur- University of Rhode Island, bance and take, invasive species, Rhode Island Department of and pollution. Priority conser- Environmental Management, vation actions include land and Division of Marine Resources water protection, land and water management, stronger laws and Methods policies, and increased education and awareness. Nearly 175 con- Research, Modeling, Stakeholder servation professionals, stake- Engagement holders and members of the public participated in development of the plan. Contact the Rhode Jonah Crab. Results Island Department of Environ- Photo: National Oceanic and Atmospheric The information collected in mental Management’s Division of Administration (NOAA). these studies was published Fish and Wildlife to learn more.

36 Vermont Spiny Softshell Turtle

Status Partners contribute through Program Funding raising late hatchlings in captiv- State-Listed as Threatened ity until they are larger in size and more likely to survive after $17,500 $32,500 release. Project Summary $50,000 TOTAL The Spiny Softshell Turtle Partners survives winters under the ice of Lake Champlain, the only ECHO Leahy Center for Lake New England location where it Champlain, U.S. Department of SWG Program is a native species. Widespread Agriculture Wildlife Services, VFWD/Partners shoreline development has great- Wildlife and Fisheries Society at ly restricted the Spiny Softshell’s the University of Vermont nesting habitat, and mammal predators are a continuous threat on remaining nesting beaches. Methods For over 20 years, the Vermont Habitat Management, Captive Fish and Wildlife Department Rearing and Release, Training, (VFWD) has been working with Landowner Partnerships partners on both sides of the international border to protect and manage the turtle’s remain- Results ing nesting sites, with support from the State Wildlife Grant The number of successful nests (SWG) Program. The partners are increased from nine in 2004, to enhancing habitat and reducing 97 in 2018. VFWD and partners depredation to increase nesting are observing more nests with success and hatchling emergence. small clutches, which may indi-

Lake Champlain’s Spiny Softshell turtle population, and this hatchling, are growing thanks to an international partnership of agencies, organizations and individuals and the State Wildlife Grant Program.

Photo: Tom Rogers.

37 cate the recruitment of young Vermont Wildlife Action Plan nesters. Although the species is not federally listed, these pro- The Vermont Wildlife Action active conservation efforts can Plan was revised in 2015. The help preclude the need for listing plan identifies 977 Species of if species numbers continue to Greatest Conservation Need. decline. Key threats include loss and degradation of habitat, impacts from roads and transportation Future Needs systems, pollution and sedimentation, invasive species, infor- The small number of communal mation needs and data gaps, nesting sites require ongoing care and climate change. Priority and management. Vegetation conservation actions include must be cleared annually from education and technical assis- the shale beach so turtles can tance to landowners and land dig nests to deposit their eggs. managers, financial and eco- Monitoring is required while eggs nomic incentives, and promoting are incubating to keep skunks, wildlife-compatible resource use. raccoons, foxes and other preda- More than 50 conservation part- tors at bay. ners assisted with development of the plan. Contact the Vermont More Information Fish & Wildlife Department to learn more. “We’re proud to https://vtfishandwildlife.com/ learn-more/vermont-critters/rep- help conserve the tiles/eastern-spiny-softshell-tur- softshell turtle.” tle

Partnering Private Landowner

38 Virginia River Restoration

Status the stream migrated, more refuse Program Funding was washed downstream. Numerous Aquatic Species of Greatest Conservation Need In this part of Virginia, the 2015 $560,000 $100,000 Wildlife Action Plan prioritizes $660,000 Project Summary efforts to enhance, maintain, TOTAL and restore aquatic and riparian The South Fork of the Shenan- habitats specifically by reducing doah River flows through the sediment, nutrients, pesticides, Town of Elkton in Rockingham and other pollutants that enter SWG Program County, Virginia. During the last waterways. Using $100,000 of VDGIF/Town/Partners several decades, the river’s course State Wildlife Grant Program has shifted, causing the loss of funds as seed money, the Vir- the eastern floodplain and the ginia Department of Game and creation of a vertical cut bank. At Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) formed its worst, the cut bank extended a partnership with the Town of more than 500 feet and was up Elkton, the Central Shenandoah to 15 feet high. Annually, this Planning District Commission, site contributed several hundred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- cubic yards of sediment into the vice, and other agencies to raise river and the Chesapeake Bay an additional $560,000 to restore watershed. The problem was the site to a safe and stable con- compounded as the area being dition—benefitting both wildlife eroded contained a buried, early and people. 20th century garbage dump. As

After completion of this partnership effort, the cut bank has been protected, creating a stable condition that benefits both wildlife and people.

Photo: VDGIF.

39 Partners Future Needs

Town of Elkton, Virginia, Central VDGIF would utilize additional Shenandoah Planning District funding to continue pursuing Commission, U.S. Fish and their Wildlife Action Plan goal to Wildlife Service enhance, maintain, and restore aquatic and riparian habitats in other watersheds in Virginia. Methods

Monitoring, Coordination, Virginia Wildlife Action Plan Construction The Virginia Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The plan Results identifies 883 Species of Greatest The cut bank has been stabilized, Conservation Need associated the erosion has ceased, and ad- with beaches, dunes, mudflats, ditional plantings are underway wetlands, riparian zones, open to further secure this conser- habitats, forests, and subter- vation investment. Numerous ranean habitats. Key threats species of greatest conservation include land use changes, inva- need benefited from this res- sive species, climate change, and toration including the mussels pollution. Priority conservation Green Floater, Brook Floater, and actions include monitoring and Triangle Floater. Other aquatic research, land acquisition, inva- species benefiting from the re- sive species control, water qual- duction in sedimentation include ity improvements, and habitat American Eel, Pearl Dace, Long- and grazing management. Over Ear Sunfish, and scores of other 50 conservation partners and downstream species occurring many members of the public as- between the restoration site and sisted with development and re- the Chesapeake Bay. Boaters and view of the plan. Contact the Vir- anglers also benefit since ero- ginia Department of Game and sion from the site had previously Inland Fisheries to learn more. degraded a boat ramp located just downstream from the cut bank.

40 West Virginia Pollinator Initiative

Status wildlife biologists and technical Program Funding specialists demonstrated the im- Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee— portance of pollinators, habitat Federally Endangered (2016), creation, safe and effective herbi- $15,000 $60,000 Monarch Butterfly—Under cide use, site preparation, appro- Review for Federal Listing $75,000 priate seed mixes, and different TOTAL planting techniques. Project Summary Partners The West Virginia Wildlife SWG Program Action Plan identifies habitat Natural Resources Conservation WVDNR/Partners loss, widespread insecticide use, Service, West Virginia University disease, and invasive species Extension, West Virginia as major threats to pollinators Department of Agriculture, in West Virginia. To assess the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service— threats to pollinators, the West Partners Program Virginia Division of Natural Re- sources (WVDNR) participated in a five-state effort that included a Methods wetland butterfly assessment and Research, Coordination, assembly of the Atlas of West Vir- Planning, Outreach and ginia Butterflies and Moths, Education supported in part by the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program. Private landowners and other land Results managers learn how to create and In April 2018, WVDNR’s Wild- enhance pollinator habitat in a life Diversity Unit convened a A key output of this project is workshop co-hosted by WVDNR’s Monarch Summit to develop a the West Virginia Monarch and Wildlife Diversity Unit and West strategy for advancing Monarch Pollinator Strategic Plan. Several Virginia University Extension. hundred people have attend- conservation in the Mountain Photo: WVDNR. State. Stakeholders included naturalists, farmers, city managers, oil and gas industry representatives, forestry professionals, highway planners, and wildlife professionals. Participants shared their concerns and challenges, and what they are doing to create or provide habitat for Monarch Butterfly and other pollinators.

The Wildlife Diversity Unit also partnered with West Virginia University Extension to host pollinator workshops where

41 ed workshops to learn about more private landowners who are enhancing habitat to benefit willing to restore and enhance pollinators in the Mountain pollinator habitat on their lands State. WVDNR also supports a can be served. Ongoing funding pollinator habitat specialist that would help WVDNR conduct designs pollinator management additional monitoring used to plans on private lands. Landown- develop and refine monitoring ers, agencies and industry now protocols and species distribution embrace pollinator conservation models for pollinator species. and look to the Wildlife Diversity Unit for guidance and leader- More Information ship. This transfer of knowledge and technology is resulting in https://www.wvmonarch.org/ management changes to benefit Monarch Butterfly and other pollinators on thousands of acres West Virginia Wildlife Action Plan of habitats in West Virginia. The West Virginia Wildlife With efforts of other states, these Action Plan was revised in 2015. proactive strategies may help The plan identifies 1,233 Species avert the need to list the Mon- of Greatest Conservation Need arch, and contribute to recovery associated with rivers, forests, and potential future de-listing of barrens, wetlands, and caves. Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee. Key threats include habitat loss, habitat degradation, disease, Agricultural producers benefit competition, and predation. from large-scale implementation Priority conservation actions of pollinator friendly practices, include collaboration with the including increased pollination forest management community leading to better yields over time. and Division of Highways, and A more diverse insect community identification of conservation also results in less pesticide use focus areas to direct conserva- on farms. tion actions. Eight conservation partners, agency staff, and mem- Future Needs bers of the public participated in development and review of the Additional resources are need- plan. Contact the West Virginia ed to maintain the pollinator Division of Natural Resources to habitat specialist position so that learn more.

Monarch Butterfly helps pollinate wildflowers. This celebrated butterfly is currently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Photo: Brett Billings, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

42 REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT Blanding’s Turtle

Partners in the Northeast In 2004, New Hampshire Fish Collaborate for Lasting and Game convened a meeting Turtle Conservation of biologists involved in Bland- ing’s Turtle conservation from Despite the clichés about their the New England states where kind, Blanding’s Turtles, a species it occurs—Massachusetts, New native to 15 states and maritime Hampshire, and Maine. They Canada, are known for getting discussed needs, challenges, and around. charted a path forward together. With support from the State “They can move miles in the Wildlife Grant Program and the course of a season,” said Michael Regional Conservation Needs Marchand, Wildlife Diversity Program, that path has turned Program Administrator at the into a roadmap for collaborative New Hampshire Department of turtle conservation across the Fish and Game. “A female might Northeast region. travel half a mile just looking for a place to make a nest.” Today there are also Regional Working Groups led by state For an animal that’s less than 10 agencies for Wood Turtle, Spot- inches long, that’s a long way to go. ted Turtle, Bog Turtle, and Eastern Box Turtle, that are For a wildlife biologist like producing species status assess- The Blanding’s Turtle Working Group, Marchand, it’s also a conserva- ments, conservation plans, maps with representatives from northeastern tion challenge. of high priority sites, and habitat state fish and wildlife agencies and improvements. other partners.

Blanding’s Turtles’ high mobility Photo: Mike Marchand, 2018. puts them in conflict with ours. “Crossing roads is a big threat for this species,” Marchand said. “Their habitat overlaps some of the highest population density areas in New England—southern Maine, southeastern New Hampshire, and eastern Massa- chusetts.”

But this species’ penchant for moving around the landscape also provided incentive for collaboration. “We recognized that the challenges facing this species crossed boundaries, and that we could do more to address its needs by working together,” Marchand said.

43 The Regional Conservation Needs Grant “Blanding’s Turtle felt like a turn- where it will be over the course of Program ing point,” said Mike Jones, the the next 100 years,” Willey said. state herpetologist for the Massa- Innovating for Range-Wide chusetts Division of Fisheries and That’s important because Bland- Species Conservation Wildlife, who has been involved ing’s Turtle habitat is also highly in conservation planning, sup- dynamic. These turtles often rely State Wildlife Action Plans deal ported by the State Wildlife on beaver wetlands, an imper- with rare species, hard-to-count Grant Program, for several spe- manent landscape feature that species, habitats that cross state cies. “It demonstrated that states succeeds into forest when beaver boundaries, and resources that recognized the value in finding abandon a site. “We wanted to are conserved most effectively on common ground in their work on capture long-term succession on a regional scale. A mechanism this species.” Although Blanding’s the landscape, to make sure tur- to share expertise and funding Turtle was considered a species tles could move around as they to address these landscape- of concern in New England, New needed,” she said. scale issues greatly enhances York, and Pennsylvania, at the collaboration and likelihood of outset of the collaboration each That landscape perspective re- success, resulting in more effective state was at a different stage in vealed that New Hampshire had conservation of these species. management. “Some had been a larger role in Blanding’s Turtle working on Blanding’s Turtle for conservation than expected. “Pri- Working across state lines years and were already funding or to the survey, we knew we had with a mix of state and federal work on the ground,” said Liz some Blanding’s Turtle habitat dollars is extremely difficult. It Willey, a professor of Environ- here and there,” Marchand said. requires adequate structural and mental Studies and Sustainabil- “Afterwards, we found that New personnel resources to coordinate, ity at Antioch University New Hampshire represents 40 percent implement, monitor, and report on England, who co-authored the of the overall distribution of spe- complex projects. conservation plans for Blanding’s cies in the Northeast.” State fish and wildlife agency and Wood Turtle with Jones. directors in the northeast portion The initial State Wildlife Grant of the U.S. support a coordinated “But they wanted to know: what Program-supported project also regional approach and in 2006, did it all add up to for the species included a genetic component developed a cooperative program as a whole?” she said. “With a that revealed something new to address issues and opportunities combined approach, they could about some of the known popu- of regional concern. The Regional share information to address lations of Blanding’s Turtles. “It Conservation Needs (RCN) challenges across state lines.” helped us identify high priority Grant Program was approved populations from a genetic stand- in April 2007, supported by a Once the Blanding’s Turtle work- point—those with genetic diver- voluntary contribution from each ing group had gained momen- sity or distinction,” Willey said, northeastern state in the amount tum, one of the first steps toward adding, “Populations that may of 4% of each agency’s annual collaborative conservation was not have been prioritized orig- State Wildlife Grant Program a standard sampling protocol. inally, but could have a unique apportionment. The purpose of With input from biologists in evolutionary capacity that we the RCN Program is to develop, each state, the working group want to preserve.” coordinate, and implement combined key elements from conservation actions that are different survey methodologies With a second project, supported regional or sub-regional in scope within a statistical framework. this time with Competitive State and that incorporate and build The goal was to figure out: what Wildlife Grant (C-SWG) Program upon the many existing regional data did they all need to collect in funding, the partners focused initiatives. order to understand the species’ on targeted implementation to big-picture needs? protect and enhance the priority populations. “We wanted to focus on not just where the population is now, but

44 While strategic land protection Conservation Crisis and technical assistance to landowners and land managers are Turtle Trafficking top priorities at many sites, the best conservation opportunities Native turtles are disappearing varied from state to state, and from lands and waters across across priority sites. The prime the country at the hands of habitat for Blanding’s Turtle in domestic and international wildlife Massachusetts occurs in areas traffickers. In the past three years most vulnerable to development. alone, wildlife inspectors with the Equipped with the regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conservation plan, Jones said, intercepted outbound shipments “The states and their partners containing more than 10,000 have been able to direct millions individual turtles representing 13 of dollars toward conservation different native turtle species. activities within Blanding’s Tur- Alarmed about the ecological tle core areas, leveraging effort consequences of this growing across several state and federal threat for both rare and common agencies.” turtle species, staff from state and federal agencies along For Marchand, that’s the added with nonprofit partners are value of collaboration. “Our goal taking action: establishing multi- is to make the most effective and agency and multi-disciplinary efficient decisions to advance the collaboratives, identifying conservation of the species,” he information gaps and scientific said, noting that historically, con- needs, and forming a united servation on behalf of Blanding’s front against criminals who are Turtle in New Hampshire was trafficking in our natural heritage. more opportunistic. “Now we can target collective funding and The turtle-trafficking crisis touches effort to the best sites, to make every part of our country — no sure they stay that way.” turtle species is safe from this threat, and we all have a role to play in protecting them. By supporting scientific tools, turtle housing capacity, repatriation protocols, and partner networks, we can optimize our response, and help offset the population damage with evidence-based approaches.

45 TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York Native Plant Restoration

Program Funding Project Summary Saratoga Tree Nursery, Mid-At- lantic Regional Seed Bank, The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Confederated Tribes of the Grand $17,604 $199,998 Native Plants Restoration and Ronde Community of Oregon, Capacity Building Project uses the Natural Resources Conservation $217,602 Tribal Wildlife Grant Program to TOTAL Service, Franklin Soil and Water help develop tribal capacities to Conservation District, Akwe- operate and manage a native plant sasne Cultural Center, Akwe- nursery operation. Native plant sasne Task Force on the Envi- species will be grown for use in ronment, Akwesasne Freedom TWG Program habitat enhancement efforts that School Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe benefit fish and wildlife species of tribal cultural and traditional importance. Native plant restoration Methods sites will benefit habitats by reduc- Plant Propagation, Habitat ing sediment loading and improv- Restoration, Coordination, ing water quality for fish and other Training, Facility Development aquatic organisms affected by turbidity and nutrients caused by power dam impacts. Many species Results of culturally important fish and wildlife have suffered the negative This project will result in new in- effects of degraded habitats within frastructure and capacity build- the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal ing for the Saint Regis Mohawk Territory. Some of the species that Tribe’s ongoing conservation will benefit include Muskrat, Snap- efforts. Funding will be used ping Turtle, Yellow Perch, Walleye, within the next year to build a Lake Sturgeon, Ruffed Grouse, greenhouse, which enables long- Deer, and Wilson’s Snipe. Tribal term benefits to conservation clans value these species as sources and habitat restoration on tribal of food and organic materials for lands. Additionally, the Saint leather preservation, skin moistur- Regis Mohawk Tribe is gaining izer, and other purposes. hands-on training from key partners in the facility. Project Cost Future Needs Tribal Wildlife Grant Program—$199,998; other Future funding will help the The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is using resources are provided by the Tribe expand habitat restoration Tribal Wildlife Grant Program funding Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe as efforts to include additional to construct a native plant facility to voluntary cost share species of cultural and tradition- help restore plant communities and al importance, including River provide habitat for many species, Otter, Beaver, Northern Pike, including bumble bees. Partners Muskellunge, Tiger Muskellunge, Bobcat, and Hermit Thrush. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s

46 Seneca Nation of Indians of New York Aquatic Species Conservation

Project Summary provided by the Seneca Nation of Program Funding Indians A primary goal of the Seneca Nation is to protect and pre- $80,000 $199,480 serve Seneca lands and natural Partners resources to benefit all Seneca $279,480 The Buffalo Zoo, New York State TOTAL members and future genera- Department of Conservation, tions. The Seneca Nation utilized U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, support from the Tribal Wildlife Pennsylvania Conservancy, Grant Program to conduct long- New York State Department term fish and wildlife habitat TWG Program of Transportation, Natural Seneca Nation of Indians improvement on tribal lands, in- Resources Conservation Service, cluding conservation focused on National Fish and Wildlife Blanding’s Turtle, Eastern Brook Foundation Trout, and Eastern Hellbend- er. Funding was used to build a tribal fish hatchery, as well as a Methods Blanding’s Turtle rearing facility. These facilities, and the Nation’s Facility Development, Plant educational outreach activities, Propagation, Habitat Protection help provide long-term bene- and Restoration fits to tribal lands and families through species conservation and Results restoration. The Seneca Nation implemented over five miles of in-stream Project Cost restoration including placement Tribal Wildlife Grant of natural habitat structures, Program—$199,480; more than bank stabilization, and in-stream $80,000 in other resources pooling structures. Five acres of wetland were preserved and

Eastern Brook Trout.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

47 protected for threatened species Future Needs living within the Seneca Nation Territories. Two miles of riparian Future funding would help the buffer plantings were installed Seneca Nation continue to pro- using native indigenous species. tect and restore habitats for spe- These restoration efforts creat- cies that are important to tribal ed a natural buffer and filter for members, while also contributing streams within tribal lands. The to regional conservation efforts restoration also provided bank implemented by state fish and stabilization, resulting in wildlife wildlife agencies that benefit habitat enhancement and protec- at-risk species, such as Blanding’s tion. Turtle and Eastern Hellbender.

48 SOUTHEAST REGION HIGHLIGHTS

49 50 STATE HIGHLIGHTS Alabama Eastern Indigo Snake

Status more scheduled for release in the Program Funding spring of 2020. Breeding has been Federally Threatened (1978) documented by observing gravid $572,700 $743,000 females and through game camera monitoring. In January 2020, Project Summary $1,315,700 the first wild Eastern Indigo TOTAL In 2010, the Alabama Division Snake was observed in almost 60 of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisher- years in Alabama. This hatchling ies (ALWFF) started an Eastern was verification that released Indigo Snake repatriation project snakes were breeding and behav- SWG Program at Conecuh National Forest in ing as wild snakes, and reproduc- ALWFF/Partners Covington County, Alabama. The tion is taking place. last known documented report of this species in the wild was in Future Needs 1954. This large-scale initiative was the impetus for establishing Additional resources are needed the species’ own breeding facility, to continue reintroduction of this The Orianne Center for Indigo species. With additional fund- Conservation, in Eustis, Florida. ing, partners can monitor for the A monitoring program is in place emerging snake disease, crypto- to track project success through sporidium, as well as maintain snake health, movements, behav- genetic diversity and support iors, and survival. These efforts breeding facility operations. have been supported in part by the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program. More Information https://www.outdooralabama. Partners com/node/3479

Auburn Museum of Natural History, U.S. Forest Service, Orianne Center for Indigo Conservation, Birmingham Zoo, Zoo Atlanta, Zoo Tampa, Welaka National Fish Hatchery

Methods

Monitoring, Captive Rearing, and Release The first evidence of reproduction of Results the Eastern Indigo Snake in the wild in Alabama was recently discovered in To date, 191 Eastern Indigo Conecuh National Forest. Snakes have been released, with Photo: Francesca Erickson.

51 Alabama Wildlife Action Plan Priority conservation actions include increased monitoring The Alabama Wildlife Action and data collection, enhanced Plan was revised in 2015. The management and protection, and plan identifies 366 Species of outreach. More than 40 conser- Greatest Conservation Need vation partners and many mem- associated with river basins, for- bers of the public participated in ests, wetlands, caves, and coastal the development and review of beaches. Key threats to species the plan. Contact the Alabama include habitat loss and frag- Department of Conservation and mentation, disturbance, invasive Natural Resources to learn more. species, and lack of protection.

“It’s a huge testimony to the State Wildlife Grant Program and working toward the recovery of a federally listed species.”

Traci Wood Habitat & Species Conservation Coordinator Alabama Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries

52 Arkansas Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Status This project is a good example Program Funding of restoring habitat to benefit Federally Endangered (1970) Species of Greatest Conservation under the Endangered Species need and the potential of these $56,000 $56,000 Preservation Act projects to benefit threatened and $112,000 endangered species. TOTAL Project Summary Partners The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) uses State Arkansas Natural Heritage SWG Program Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program Commission, The Nature AGFC/Partners funds along with state resources Conservancy, Potlatch Forest to improve habitat for a wide Holdings, Inc. variety of Species of Greatest Conservation Need identified in the Arkansas State Wildlife Methods Action Plan. AGFC has made Research, Monitoring, Habitat investments over several year for Management species, such as the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, that require open grassland and open wood- Results land habitats. Recent conservation work for this and other Habitat restoration included the species has been conducted at use of prescribed fire and me- the Warren Prairie Natural Area chanical thinning treatments located in southeast Arkansas. on 1,375 acres to create a more

A Red-Cockaded Woodpecker at Warren Prairie, Arkansas.

Photo: Bill Holimon, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission.

53 Henslow’s Sparrow is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 30 states. Many of these states list the species as threatened or endangered.

Photo: Chris Young. Data: U.S. Geological Survey, https://www1.usgs.gov/csas/swap/ species_view.html.

open structure favored by several More Information bird species, including Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Monitoring https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecov- showed that Henslow’s Sparrows, ery/rcw.html Brown-headed Nuthatches, and Red-headed Woodpeckers, all https://www.fws.gov/rcwrecov- species of concern in Arkansas, ery/files/rcwoodpecker.pdf increased in abundance in response to these treatments. After Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan “These endangered the completion of this project, birds are benefiting habitat quality at Warren Prairie The Arkansas Wildlife Action was determined to be suitable for Plan was revised in 2015. The greatly from the the endangered Red-cockaded plan identifies 380 Species of State Wildlife Grant Woodpecker. Five pairs of sub- Greatest Conservation Need adult birds were reintroduced to associated with prairies, caves, Program and we are the site in October 2010. The fol- wetlands, rivers, and streams. very appreciative lowing year, three of these pairs Key threats include habitat loss of our state and were breeding. In 2019, nesting and fragmentation, incompatible and fledging success were at an habitat practices, aquatic passage federal partners who all-time high for the area. barriers, and urban development. oversee the grant Priority conservation actions program for their Future Needs identified in the plan include habitat restoration, habitat part in this project’s AGFC needs additional support protection, threat abatement, ongoing success.” for continued maintenance of and fire management. A diverse open woodland habitat structure group of conservation partners Bill Holimon and monitoring of Red-cockaded and many members of the public Director Woodpecker clusters. participated in the development Arkansas Natural and review of the plan. Contact Heritage Commission the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to learn more.

54 Florida Manatee

Status Partners Program Funding Federally Reclassified from Southwest Florida Water Endangered to Threatened (2017) Management District, St. Martins $583,000 $636,000 Marsh Aquatic Preserve, Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic $1,219,000 Project Summary TOTAL Preserve, Suwannee River Water The Florida Manatee is an iconic Management District, The Nature native species found in many Conservancy, NOAA Center for of Florida’s rivers, bays, canals, Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Lippincott Consulting SWG Program estuaries and coastal areas. FWC/Partners The population has grown to a LLC minimum of 7,520 animals today and as a result, in early 2017 was Methods reclassified from an endangered to a threatened species under Research, Monitoring, Habitat the Endangered Species Act. The Protection, Enhancement, and State Wildlife Grant Program Management has contributed to the successful and continued recovery with a Results multitude of conservation actions to benefit this species. Projects As a result of FWC’s and their to help sustain a healthy Flori- many partners’ efforts, the After Hurricane Hermine in September da Manatee population include Florida Manatee population has 2016, seven Manatees were stranded in spring conservation, seagrass res- grown to a minimum of 7,520 the golf course pond at the Plantation toration, mapping, research, and animals today. In early 2017, the on Crystal River. At the start of the monitoring, and estuarine hab- Florida Manatee was reclassified February FWC Commission Meeting, itat enhancement. The Florida from an endangered to a threat- Chairman Brian Yablonski recognized Fish and Wildlife Conservation ened species under the Endan- Inn staff members who assisted in the Commission (FWC), along with gered Species Act. This change rescue. other partners and stakeholders, in the species status is based on Photo: Karen Parker, FWC. Attribution manages and protects Florida’s an increasing population and the license: https://creativecommons.org/ seagrass and warm water habitat establishment of effective pro- licenses/by-nd/2.0/legalcode. resources favored by Manatees. tection measures to ensure the Today, Manatees are considered continued conservation of the one of Florida’s keystone species species. whose behavior can alert researchers to the environmental and habitat changes that may Future Needs otherwise go unnoticed in Flori- Ongoing monitoring and other da’s waterways. conservation to benefit Florida Manatees could help the species fully recover if population trends continue and additional habitat is permanently protected.

55 More Information

https://myfwc.com/wildlifehab- itats/wildlife/manatee/how-to- help/

Florida Wildlife Action Plan

The Florida Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2019. The plan identifies 690 Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated within terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats, and urban and working lands. Key threats “Florida Fish & to species include residential and Wildlife Conservation commercial development, human disturbance, invasive species, and Commission climate change. Priority conser- continues to protect vation actions identified in the and conserve plan include increased monitoring and data collection, habitat Manatees and their restoration, and outreach. Over habitat through 100 conservation partners and members of the public participat- programs operated ed in the development and review in the Division of of the plan. Contact the Florida Habitat and Species Fish and Wildlife Conservation Conservation, the Commission to learn more. Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, and the Division of Law Enforcement.”

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

56 Georgia Gopher Tortoise

Status Program Funding Federal Candidate $2,687,000 $2,960,000

Project Summary $5,657,000 TOTAL Since 2009, the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program has been a primary resource for tortoise conservation led by the Georgia SWG Program Department of Natural Resources GDNR/Partners (GDNR). The goal of the Georgia Gopher Tortoise Conservation Initiative (GTCI) is to protect and Juvenile Gopher Tortoise. manage 65 viable gopher tortoise populations in Georgia to help Photo: Georgia Department of Natural preclude listing of this keystone Resources. species under the Endangered Species Act. Multiple projects uti- Results lize a proactive approach, investing in habitat that protects both When the GTCI started, 36 the economic viability of the of Georgia’s 123 known viable state and many species of conser- tortoise populations were per- vation concern. Many sectors of manently protected. At present the Georgia economy, including GDNR has protected 53 popula- forestry, agriculture, transporta- tions, and projects in progress tion, commercial development, will lead to permanent protection and activities on military bases of seven additional populations. could be negatively affected by a In addition to these conservation federal listing. outcomes, the GTCI also im- proves and makes available large public land areas for hunting, Partners fishing, hiking, camping, and U.S. Department of Defense, wildlife watching. U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy of Georgia, Private Future Needs Foundations Additional and ongoing funds are needed for protecting at least six Methods more viable populations, out- Monitoring, Prescribed Fire and reach to private landowners, and Other Habitat Management, establishing stewardship endow- Forest Restoration ments and developing long-term management plans, especially for recently protected properties.

57 An adult Gopher Tortoise.

Photo: Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

“We all have the same More Information objective: can we save https://www.georgiaconservancy. this critter without org/gophertortoise more regulation? Georgia Wildlife Action Plan We’re all smart enough to see that The Georgia Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The more regulations could plan identifies 640 Species of be the future if we Greatest Conservation Need associated with calcareous flat- don’t work this out.” woods, mountain bogs, granite outcrops, longleaf pine savannas, Doug Miell caves, maritime forests, and other Energy and Natural Resources Consultant habitats. Key threats to species include habitat loss and fragmen- Georgia Chamber of Commerce tation, altered hydrology, invasive species, and altered fire regimes. Priority conservation actions identified in the plan include increased monitoring and surveys, habitat restoration, rare species recovery, environmental education, and outreach to private landowners. Over 100 conservation partners and many members of the public participated in the development and review of the plan. Contact the Georgia DNR Wildlife Resources Division to learn more.

58 Louisiana Louisiana Black Bear

Status Partners Program Funding Federally De-Listed Due to University of Tennessee, Black Recovery (2016) Bear Conservation Committee, $431,000 $782,000 St. Mary Parish $1,213,000 Project Summary TOTAL Methods The Louisiana Black Bear is the state mammal of Louisiana, and Research/Genetic Analysis, occurs in Louisiana, east Texas, Habitat Restoration, Training, SWG Program and western Mississippi. By 1980, Outreach/Education, Technical LDWF/Partners biologists estimated that more Assistance than 80 percent of the bear’s habitat had been modified or de- Results stroyed. In 1992, Louisiana Black Bear was listed as threatened by The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vice establishes de-listing criteria under the Endangered Species to determine how and when a Act. For nearly 10 years, the Loui- species may be removed from siana Department of Wildlife and federal listing. Reforestation was Fisheries (LDWF) has utilized one of the criteria for the Loui- State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Pro- siana Black Bear. LDWF restored gram funding and other resourc- nearly 800 acres of bottomland es to implement a broad suite of hardwood forest, a major con- conservation actions to benefit tribution to the recovery of the this unique species. species. Outreach and Technical Assistance have resulted in fewer

Louisiana Black Bear has staged a major comeback due in large part to efforts of LDWF and its partners, using funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

59 human/bear conflicts. The Ser- Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan vice de-listed the Louisiana Black Bear in 2016. The Louisiana Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015, with a minor revision completed in Future Needs 2019. The plan identifies 345 Species of Greatest Conservation Louisiana Black Bear will require Need associated with grasslands, periodic monitoring and ongo- savannahs and woodlands, bar- ing management to ensure its rier islands, forests, and ephem- long-term recovery. In addition, eral ponds. Key threats include LDWF’s Wildlife Action Plan habitat loss and fragmentation, includes many other priority disturbance, invasive species, and conservation actions that are climate change. Priority conser- necessary to help recover other vation actions include increased federally listed species and avert monitoring and data collection, future listings through proactive development of best management measures. practices, protection, creation, “I know the actions and maintenance of high-quality More Information habitat, and stewardship. More we have taken than 100 conservation partners as a Department https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/ and many members of the public subhome/louisiana-black-bear participated in the development with our partners and review of the plan. Contact in conservation the Louisiana Department of have been key to Wildlife and Fisheries to learn the relatively rapid more. recovery of our Louisiana Black Bear.”

Maria Davidson Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

60 Mississippi Frecklebelly Madtom

Status the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program Funding Program. In partnership with Petitioned for Federal Listing the Service’s Private John Allen (2010)—Listing Averted National Fish Hatchery, MDWFP $6,510 $12,090 collected broodstock for propa- $18,600 Project Summary gation. The agency is planning a TOTAL reintroduction in a 40-kilometer The Frecklebelly Madtom was stream within the Tombigbee petitioned for federal listing in River along with three years of 2010 due to declines across the monitoring. SWG Program range of the species in the Pearl MDFWP/Partners and Mobile Rivers. The low Partners presence at historic sites coupled with low relative abundance U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, demonstrated a need to reas- Louisiana Department of sess the status of the species. In Wildlife and Fisheries coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mis- sissippi Department of Wildlife, Methods Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) Research, Monitoring, Captive and Louisiana Department of Breeding and Release Wildlife and Fisheries sampled nearly 180 sites in the Pearl and Mobile Rivers for presence of this small freshwater catfish. Support for this effort was provided by

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks staff collecting Frecklebelly Madtom on the Pearl River with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and private landowners.

Photo: MDWFP.

61 Results

Species monitoring determined a presence of 81 to 89 percent in the Pearl and Mobile Rivers at sampled localities. This project established that the species status is stable throughout its range in the Pearl River in Mississippi and Louisiana and the tributaries to the Mobile River in Mississippi.

Future Needs Project partners sampled nearly 180 The species is still absent from sites in the Pearl and Mobile Rivers for 68 percent of its overall historic presence of Frecklebelly Madtom, a range in the Mobile River in small freshwater catfish. Mississippi inundated by the Photo: Matthew D. Wagner, State Tennessee–Tombigbee Water- Ichthyologist/Curator of Fishes, Mississippi way. Additional resources are Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks: “The quality work needed to continue raising and Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. we receive from the releasing the fish in its historic State Wildlife Grant range to ensure Freckebelly Madtom does not require feder- Program is invaluable al listing in the future. for us to meet our agency’s mission.” Mississippi Wildlife Action Plan

Amy Carson The Mississippi Wildlife Ac- Biologist tion Plan was revised in 2015. Mississippi Ecological The plan identifies 310 Species Services Field Office of Greatest Conservation Need U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service associated with river basins, forests, wetlands, caves, and coastal beaches. Key threats to species include habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance, invasive species, and lack of protection. Priority conservation actions include increased monitoring and data collection, enhanced management and protection, and outreach. More than 189 conservation partners and many members of the public participated in the development and review of the plan. Contact the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks to learn more.

62 North Carolina Carolina Pygmy Sunfish

Status Methods Program Funding Petitioned for Federal Listing Research, Monitoring, Habitat (2010)—Listing Averted Protection and Enhancement $16,500 $50,000

$66,500 Project Summary Results TOTAL

The Carolina Pygmy Sunfish is The Carolina Pygmy Sunfish was a small fish, less than 1.5 inch- petitioned for federal listing in es long, found only in streams, April 2010. Prior to this petition, SWG Program ditches, and wetlands in five the Carolina Pygmy Sunfish was NCWRC/Partners counties in North Carolina. The a Category 2 Candidate for list- isolation of the Carolina Pyg- ing. Following this survey work, my Sunfish makes it vulnerable the petition was withdrawn by to development, pollution, and the petitioner. habitat alterations. Urbanization has been associated with local Future Needs disappearances. The North Car- olina Wildlife Resources Com- The North Carolina Wildlife Pygmy Sunfish was petitioned for mission (NCWRC) has used State Resources Commission will federal listing, but the North Carolina Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program continue to monitor the species Wildlife Resources Commission funds in combination with agen- to determine if additional con- determined the abundance of the fish cy resources to conduct surveys servation actions are warranted. which resulted in withdrawal of the to determine the abundance of This species is being included in petition. the fish in an effort to address a state-wide Safe Harbor/Can- Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a petition for federal listing in 2010. This species was previously considered imperiled but much of this perception was due to a lack of dedicated survey work on this species. Pygmy Sunfish is hard to collect and needs targeted efforts to detect. This species under- scores the need to have dedicated funding to be able to undertake concentrated survey and conservation work for species that have few other funding sources.

Partners

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, Three Oaks Engineering

63 didate Conservation Agreement freshwater and marine wetlands, with Assurances so the species forests, grasslands, beaches, and can be stocked in unoccupied caves. Key threats include habitat suitable habitat if necessary at fragmentation, land conversion, some point in the future. Addi- habitat loss, invasive species, dis- tional resources may be necessary ease and pathogens, and climate to implement stream restoration change. Priority conservation and other habitat enhancement actions include land protection, or management activities to help population monitoring and data avert the need for federal listing. collection, habitat management, education and outreach, and species propagation. The plan North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan was developed in coordination The North Carolina Wildlife with more than 40 organizations “[The Carolina Pygmy Action Plan was revised in 2015. and many members of the public. Sunfish] is one of those The plan identifies 457 Species of Contact the North Carolina species that shows the Greatest Conservation Need as- Wildlife Resources Commission sociated with rivers and streams, for more information. importance of getting accurate and complete information. When it was petitioned, I was sure it would need listing. But after doing more thorough survey and monitoring work, it looked a lot more secure than I originally thought. It also shows the value of working as a region.”

Todd Ewing North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

64 Oklahoma Ozark Emerald

Program Funding

$51,000 $95,000

$146,000 TOTAL

SWG Program ODWC/Partners

Status Ozark Emerald near the Kiamichi River Petitioned for Federal Listing in Le Flore County Oklahoma. (2010)—Listing Averted Photo: Oklahoma Biological Survey.

Project Summary acquisition project using SWG Program funds. The ODWC State Wildlife Grant (SWG) purchased the 180-acre Girdner Program funds were used by Tract for addition to the Cookson the Oklahoma Department of Hills Wildlife Management Area. Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) The Girdner Tract encompasses a to support a multi-species status small spring-fed watershed where survey over a three-year period Ozark Emeralds have been found for a group of endemic dragon- and are presumed to breed. flies in eastern Oklahoma that are identified in the Oklahoma Wildlife Action Plan. The least Partners common of the three species is the Ozark Emerald, which has Oklahoma Natural Heritage been documented in Oklahoma Inventory fewer than ten times since it was described in the 1930s. Immedi- Methods ately prior to the initiation of this project, the Ozark Emerald was Research, Monitoring, Real petitioned for listing under the Property Acquisition ESA due to its rarity and limited geographic range. Ozark Emer- ald also benefitted from a land

65 Results Oklahoma Wildlife Action Plan

The project increased the num- The Oklahoma Wildlife Action ber of sites known to support Plan was revised in 2015. The Ozark Emeralds to 32 within plan identifies 310 Species of Oklahoma. As a result of the Greatest Conservation Need that surveys, the petition to federally are associated with bottomland list the Ozark Emerald was with- hardwood forest, tallgrass prairie, drawn before a 12-month finding shinnery oak shrubland, gypsum was developed by the Service. and limestone caves, and streams. Precluding the need to list Ozark Key threats identified in the plan Emerald helped ODWC and part- include habitat loss and fragmen- ners avoid potential regulatory tation, the disruption of historic constraints. fire and grazing cycles, the al- “The State Wildlife teration of stream channels, and Grant Program invasive species. Priority conser- Future Needs was instrumental in vation actions include restoration helping to preclude Periodic monitoring of selected and conservation of key natural watersheds is needed and addi- communities, increased monitor- the need to list the tional information about this ing and data collection for rare Ozark Emerald under species’ life cycle is critical for wildlife species, restoration of informing ongoing management stream channel and floodplain the Endangered and conservation of Ozark Em- habitats, and re-establishment of Species Act. It gave erald. periodic fire and seasonal grazing. More than 135 conservation Oklahoma the partners representing 40 organi- resources to support More Information zations and agencies contributed to the development and review of a comprehensive https://www.wildlifedepartment. the plan. Contact the Oklahoma com/sites/default/files/Final%20 status survey and to Department of Wildlife Conser- Report%20T-73-1%20Ozark%20 vation to learn more. conserve the habitat Emerald%20F13AF01188.pdf supporting one of the newly discovered populations.”

Mark Howery Wildlife Diversity Biologist Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

66 Puerto Rico Puerto Rican Parrot

Status Results Program Funding Federally Endangered (1967, 1973) To date, populations of Puer- to Rican Parrot have survived $1,361,000 $2,612,600 despite the hurricanes and other Project Summary $3,973,600 natural disasters that have affect- TOTAL Recovery actions to benefit the ed the territory. PRDNER and Puerto Rican Parrot include a State Wildlife Grant Program five-year effort to enhance and funding have played complemen- create parrot habitat corridors tary roles in preventing extinc- SWG Program in the areas between two state tion of this rare and beautiful PRDNER forests in Puerto Rico—the bird. Rio Abajo and Maricao forests. The Puerto Rico Department Future Needs of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER) also uti- The population still relies on lizes State Wildlife Grant (SWG) captive breeding and release, Program and other partner funds so ongoing funding to support to support the captive breeding this critical conservation work is and release of the Puerto Rican needed. Parrot. Captive-bred individuals are reintroduced to the wild, Puerto Rico Wildlife Action Plan helping them maintain a viable population size despite the The Puerto Rico State Wildlife regular threats of hurricanes, Action Plan was revised in 2015. habitat loss and fragmentation, The plan identifies 283 Species and invasive predators. PRDNER of Greatest Conservation Need monitors the wild population and within an array of habitats. Key manages their nests to increase threats and stressors include de- parrot survival. velopment, forest fragmentation,

Partners

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service

Methods

Research, Monitoring, Habitat Protection, Enhancement and Management, Captive Rearing and Release Puerto Rican Parrot.

Photo: Tom MacKenzie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007.

67 wildfires, hurricanes, climate change, invasive species, pests, and diseases. Priority conservation actions include development of a strong private lands program, strengthening of the existing natural heritage program, identification of waterfowl focus and critical wildlife areas, conserving working forest landscapes, and protecting forests and wildlife. Over 40 agency staff and partners from academia and private organizations assisted with development of the plan. Con- tact the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources to learn more.

68 South Carolina Diamondback Terrapin

Status breeding. SCDNR documented Program Funding declines in Diamondback Terra- Petitioned for Federal Listing pin populations related to habitat $353,250 $640,250 (2011)—Listing Averted loss and destruction, vehicular mortality, and predation of eggs $993,500 Project Summary and young. In response, the agen- TOTAL cy has implemented a variety of Over the last 12 years, the South research, monitoring, and protec- Carolina Department of Natu- tion measures to understand the ral Resources (SCDNR) and its species’ occurrence and move- SWG Program partners have used State Wildlife ments and help reduce mortality SCDNR/Partners Grant (SWG) Program funds related to bycatch in crab traps. along with agency and partner SCDNR staff have also investigat- resources to study the aquatic ed the feasibility of head-starting Diamondback Terrapin’s life Terrapins. Husbandry studies history traits and habitat use. provide SCDNR the opportunity These Terrapins live in brackish to be proactive by establishing water in coastal salt marshes the steps needed to assist Terra- and eat snails, fiddler crabs, and pin populations in the event of other invertebrates. They are further declines. This method important to the marsh ecosys- may be used to culture Terrapins tem because they keep certain in captivity to supplement deplet- problematic snail populations ed wild populations. More recent under control. Terrapins are a studies have focused on assessing long-lived species—over 30 years Terrapin habitat to understand in captivity—but this means it factors in nest success and to takes a long time for individu- identify locations for future rein- als to become adults and start troduction efforts.

Jeff Schwenter, Wildlife Biologist with South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), Marine Resources Division holds a Diamondback Terrapin.

Photo: SCDNR.

69 Partners that device design is appropriate throughout South Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SCDNR requires ongoing support College of Charleston, to continue the study of hatch- Charleston Water System ling and juvenile habitat needs and survival, identification of Methods prime nesting locations along the coast, and development of densi- Research, Monitoring, Bycatch ty and abundance estimates. Reduction Device Development, Habitat Analysis More Information

Results http://www.dnr.sc.gov/swap/conserve/diamondterrapin.html Projects using citizen science “A decade of reliable sightings have been successful South Carolina Wildlife Action Plan SWG Program with over 400 reports documented over the past four years. The South Carolina Wildlife support enabled us Valuable information has been Action Plan was revised in 2015. to systematically obtained, including informa- The plan identifies 828 Species tion on verified mating behavior of Greatest Conservation Need address multiple and nesting females. These nest associated with upland and critical aspects locations are being used to aug- bottomland forest, freshwater of Diamondback ment access to eggs for hatching wetlands, rock outcrops, coastal success, survival, and growth beaches, and estuarine and ma- Terrapin life history, of hatchlings in relation to nest rine systems. Key threats include which in turn led to temperatures. habitat loss and fragmentation, improved approaches disturbance, invasive species, and Future Needs climate change. Priority conser- for managing vation actions include increased known threats.” Widespread adoption of bycatch monitoring and data collection, reduction devices is required enhanced management, land Mike Arendt before significant conservation acquisition, and outreach. More Assistant Marine Scientist benefits for the Diamondback than 70 conservation partners Marine Resources Division Terrapin can be realized. SCDNR participated in the development South Carolina Department will continue outreach and ed- and review of the Plan. Contact of Natural Resources ucation efforts in pursuit of this the South Carolina Department goal. Future work will also need of Natural Resources to learn to evaluate variability in Ter- more. rapin and Blue Crabs to ensure

70 Tennessee Pale Lilliput

Status and Elk Rivers where they will be Program Funding monitored and maintained. Federally Endangered (1976) $5,500 $10,000 Future Needs Project Summary $15,500 Continued funding for the Cum- TOTAL Pale Lilliput is a critically en- berland River Aquatic Center is dangered freshwater mussel that needed to increase production of is facing an extremely high risk Pale Lilliput mussels in captivity of extinction in Tennessee and for release in Tennessee Rivers. SWG Program throughout its range, which in- Support is also necessary for TWRA/Partners cludes portions of Alabama. The ongoing monitoring and other Tennessee Wildlife Resources activities needed for active par- Agency is utilizing State Wildlife ticipation in species recovery at Grant (SWG) Program fund- the state level. ing along with state funds, the Service’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and Tennessee Wildlife Action Plan other resources to ensure the The Tennessee Wildlife Ac- species does not disappear from tion Plan was revised in 2015 in Tennessee or become extinct. collaboration with The Nature Conservancy. The plan identifies Partners 1,499 Species of Greatest Conser- vation Need within 59 priority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, terrestrial ecological systems and Pale Lilliput. Tennessee Technical University, 12 priority aquatic subregions. Photo: Dick Biggins. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Methods

Research, Monitoring, Habitat Management, Captive Rearing and Release

Results

With ever-improving husbandry techniques, the survival rate of Pale Lilliput juveniles reached 99 percent—an exceptional growth rate for propagated mussels. Approximately 400 tagged mussels were released in the Duck

71 Key threats include urbanization, development, effective environ- agricultural land management, mental review and regulatory forestry practices, water manage- programs, expanded habitat ment, energy development, trans- acquisition and management, portation and utility corridors, private landowner incentives and and climate change. Priority con- engagement, education, research, servation actions include improv- and monitoring. Over 40 experts ing habitat quality and quantity, and more than 30 agency and restoring species populations, nonprofit partners assisted with invasive species management, development of the plan. Contact control of pathogens, climate the Tennessee Wildlife Resources change abatement, partnership Agency for more information.

“Success in conservation by propagation is a long journey of saving the species from going extinct and is impossible to achieve without the support from State Wildlife Grant Program.”

Dan Hua Malacologist Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

72 Texas Guadalupe Bass

Status Partnership, Texas Council of Fly Program Funding Fishers International Species of Greatest Conservation Need $505,000 $937,700 Methods $1,442,700 Project Summary Conservation Stocking, Habitat TOTAL Restoration, Invasive Species Guadalupe Bass, the State Fish of Management, Monitoring Texas, are endemic to the clear, spring-fed rivers of the Texas Hill Results SWG Program Country. Populations are threat- TPWD/Partners ened with local extirpation from The TPWD strategic plan goal of habitat degradation, flow alter- establishing and maintaining 10 ation, and hybridization with genetically pure, self-sustaining non-native Smallmouth Bass. populations throughout the spe- Recent restoration of Guadalupe cies’ native range was achieved in Bass led by the Texas Parks and 2018. Wildlife Department (TPWD) in the Blanco, Llano, and San Anto- nio Rivers demonstrates what can Future Needs be achieved when partners rally around a shared conservation Additional funding is needed to vision. Ongoing projects center assess the status of populations on the preservation of intact of Guadalupe Bass in several populations of Guadalupe Bass in other Texas creeks and rivers. Brushy and Gorman creeks and Additionally, continued invest- the Pedernales and lower Colo- ments are needed for restoration rado Rivers. State Wildlife Grant and preservation of aquifer levels, (SWG) Program funding has supported Guadalupe Bass conservation in Texas since 2009. A 2015 study conducted by TPWD and Texas Tech University showed that stream fishing in Texas Hill Country rivers generated an economic value of over $71 million during a 16-month period.

Partners

Hill Country Alliance, Llano River Watershed Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, Guadalupe Bass Release. San Antonio River Authority, Southeast Aquatic Resources Photo: Chase A. Fountain, Texas Parks and Wildlife.

73 springs, instream, and riparian fragmentation, invasive species, habitats throughout the Texas disease and pathogens, power Hill Country. development and transmission, resource extraction, forest management, infrastructure, water More Information and land management, lack of https://tpwd.texas.gov/publica- information, and disturbance. tions/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_ Priority conservation actions t3200_2079_19.pdf include direct management, habitat restoration and creation, land protection, conservation Texas Wildlife Action Plan area designation, environmental review, planning, technical The Texas Conservation Action assistance, data management, “To catch a Plan was revised in 2012. The education, and incentives. Nearly Guadalupe Bass from plan identifies 1,309 Species of 200 agencies and organizations Greatest Conservation Need as- one of the rocky, and many members of the public sociated with forests, woodlands, participated in the development spring-fed rivers of shrublands, grasslands, marine of the plan. Contact the Texas and freshwater wetlands, rivers, the Texas Hill Country Parks and Wildlife Department deserts, and coastal beaches. Key should be on the to learn more. threats include habitat loss and bucket list of every Texan. Concerted efforts are being made by TPWD and an extraordinary network of public and private partners to ensure that current and future generations are able to experience this storied fish.”

Tim Birdsong Chief of Habitat Conservation Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

74 U.S. Virgin Islands St. Croix Ground Lizard

Status holder meetings and building and Program Funding testing habitat structures. Federally Endangered (1977) $66,500 Future Needs Project Summary $66,500 After completion of this experi- TOTAL Maintaining self-sustaining mental project, DFW will develop populations of threatened and a plan with guidelines and proto- endangered species through cols for raising and releasing St. management action may require Croix Ground Lizard into historic SWG Program experimental approaches. The habitats. DFW/Partners U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Divi- sion of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) More Information is working to repatriate the St. U.S. Virgin Islands is exempt from Croix Ground Lizard to habitats https://www.fws.gov/uploaded- State Wildlife Grant Program matching within its historic range where requirements. Files/St.%20Croix%20Lizard%20 the species was once common, ENG%20fact%20sheet.pdf prior to introduction of the Mongoose to the USVI. Locations for lizard reintroductions were U.S. Virgin Islands determined based on partner Wildlife Action Plan input, and special predator-proof cages will be used in raising and The Virgin Islands Wildlife observing the species prior to Action Plan was revised in 2018. release. The plan identifies 139 Species of Greatest Conservation Need as- Endangered St. Croix Ground Lizard. sociated with forests, mangroves, Partners Photo: Nicole F. Angeli

Private Landowners, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of the Virgin Islands, USVI Port Authority

Methods

Planning, Stakeholder Engagement, Habitat Management/Protection, Translocation

Results

The program is ongoing, but the partners have already achieved significant results through stake-

75 coral reefs, freshwater ponds, and salt flats. Key threats to species include habitat loss, invasive species, wildlife disease, and climate change. Priority conservation actions include increased habitat and species protection, habitat and species management protection, research, and outreach. Development and review of the plan included many conservation partners and public participation. Contact the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources to learn more.

76 REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT Gopher Frog

States mortality, as well as diseases such as Chytrid fungus and Ranavirus. North Carolina and South Carolina To contribute substantially to the Service’s Species Status Assess- Status ment of Gopher Frog, North and South Carolina agencies must Petitioned for federal listing continue to seek new populations (2012). The U.S. Fish and Wild- and monitor known populations, life Service determined that the particularly for evidence of suc- Gopher Frog may warrant pro- cessful reproduction and recruit- tection, pending a Species Status ment. Additional resources are Assessment. needed to estimate population sizes and densities, continue res- The Gopher Frog resembles a toration of uplands and wetlands, toad in many ways—from its and continue population aug- Gopher Frog, a species currently under warty skin to its large head and mentation through head-start- review for listing as threatened or chunky body. It has prominent, ing. Additional support for eval- endangered under the Endangered cobblestone-like warts and uating head-starting programs Species Act. distinct folds along the sides of and ongoing genetic analysis of its body. Color ranges from pale restored populations is needed Photo: Jeff Hall. gray to tan to nearly black with to assist the agencies in making numerous dark spots. Its belly is translocation decisions. The two mottled with dark pigment and states are working to provide it has yellow or orange on the technical guidance and outreach concealed surfaces of the thighs to constituents and the public, so North Carolina Wildlife Resources and groin. These rare frogs occur that conservation efforts can be Commission’s Gopher Frog head- in scattered localities in the expanded to other lands within starting tanks. Sandhills and Atlantic Coastal the Gopher Frog’s range. Plain in the Carolinas. Biologists Photo: Jeff Hall. know little about their natural history outside the breeding season. Adults spend much of their time underground. Gopher Frogs commonly use the burrows of the Gopher Tortoise as hiding places in the deep south, including in South Carolina. In North Caro- lina, Gopher Frogs hide in stump holes, root tunnels and mammal and crayfish burrows since Gopher Tortoises are not found in the state. Ongoing threats to Gopher Frog include fragmentation and loss of habitat and road

77 North Carolina ern North Carolina. Some of the frogs released to the wild have The North Carolina Wildlife Re- been outfitted with transmitters, sources Commission (NCWRC) and they are being monitored has been working with many with radio-telemetry to learn partners for 12 years to conserve more about their movements, the Gopher Frog in North Caro- habitat needs, and survival. lina, with support from the State Wildlife Grant Program and partner contributions. Surveys South Carolina for the Gopher Frog have de- The South Carolina Department tected a decline in this species of Natural Resources is working from 23 to 7 populations within in the state’s coastal plain to con- the state. Partners in Gopher “The partnership serve this state-endangered spe- Frog conservation in North Car- cies identified in the South Car- between the North olina include the U.S. Forest olina Wildlife Action Plan as a Service, Department of Defense, Carolina Zoo and “species of highest concern.” The North Carolina Zoo, North Car- North Carolina agency has identified extirpations olina Aquariums, North Carolina and strongholds of Gopher Frogs Wildlife Resources Plant Conservation Program, in South Carolina. This moni- several universities, and other Commission has toring work has led to additional state agencies. Conservation conservation activities for Go- led to early success actions have included surveys for pher Frog such as wetland resto- in helping with the new populations and monitoring ration, which benefits numerous of existing populations, genetic recovery efforts of species identified in the Wildlife analyses, restoration and creation Action Plan. Through seed fund- the Gopher Frog. of ponds, restoration of uplands, ing from the State Wildlife Grant and head-starting to augment We’ve conducted Program, additional funding populations. Biologists collect opportunities to address conser- numerous surveys, Gopher Frog eggs from the wild vation concerns such as habitat tracked dozens of and raise tadpoles in captivi- restoration have been leveraged. ty, which protects them from froglets, and released The agency has also initiated ar- predators, habitat degradation, tificial population augmentation more than 1,000 of and other environmental factors. through head-starting. these endangered When the tadpoles metamorpho- pineland inhabitants.” se into juvenile frogs, they are returned to the ponds where the More Information eggs originated. Genetic analyses Mr. Dustin Smith http://www.dnr.sc.gov/swap/sup- North Carolina Zoo may help direct future translocation of frogs among popula- plemental/reptilesandamphibi- tions. Since the releases began ans/pondbreedingamphibians- in 2011, more than 3,200 frogs guild2015.pdf have been released in southeast- https://www.ncwildlife.org/ Learning/Species/Amphibians/ Carolina-Gopher-Frog The Carolina Gopher Frog resembles a toad in many ways—from its warty skin to its large head and chunky body. https://www.fws.gov/charleston/ It has prominent, cobblestone-like pdf/ARS%20fact%20sheets%20 warts and distinct folds along the sides for%20web/carolina%20go- of its body. pher%20frog%20fact%20sheet_ SC_2016.pdf Photo: Andrew Grosse, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

78 TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina Habitat Enhancement

Project Summary Project Cost Program Funding The Catawba Indian Nation of Tribal Wildlife Grant South Carolina utilized Tribal Program—$174,500 $174,500 Wildlife Grant Program funding to develop tribal capacity for food $174,500 Partners TOTAL production and wildlife habitat management. The overarching Gary Peters, Biologist, National goal of the Catawba Wildlife Wild Turkey Federation, and a Preserve Enhancement Project USDA certified Technical Service TWG Program is to ensure that effective land Provider and wildlife habitat conservation activities and culturally-relevant This chart does not depict additional tribal traditions are practiced and Methods tribal and other resources contributing preserved. The use and conser- Monitoring, Coordination, to the success of this project. vation of tribal land will help Habitat Creation, Enhancement, to ensure member well-being and Management and natural resource protection through land and wildlife habitat stewardship. The project Results supports healthy, self-sustaining wildlife populations that will Prescribed burning was planned be shared with Catawba Indian and conducted in-house with Nation tribal members for gener- tribal staff in early 2016. Ap- ations to come. proximately 17 acres of pine stands were burned and cleared of undergrowth to increase the health of the pine forest and

The Catawba Wildlife Reserve Enhancement Project restored a wide array of flowering plants that will benefit pollinators like Monarch Butterfly.

Photo: Ryan Hagerty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

79 create new foliage for wildlife. the Catawba Preserve for educa- Approximately five acres of land tion on historic and traditional were plowed, disked, limed, fer- environmental practices such as tilized, and planted for wildlife the traditional use of indigenous food plots. Over 160 trees were plants and animals for subsis- planted adjacent to many of the tence and physical well-being. existing fields and food plots on the Catawba Preserve including Future Needs Gobbler Sawtooth Oaks, Ameri- can and Common Persimmons, The Tribe has plans for ongoing Apples, Crabapples, and Chicka- wildlife monitoring and habitat saw Plums. These trees provide assessment. Naturalized plots a source of food both for tribal are being established to benefit members and for wildlife such as Monarch Butterfly, with the hope butterflies, birds, and mammals that additional funding can be that the Tribe seeks to attract secured to further this work. and sustain. Students also utilize

“The Catawba Indian Nation is honored that we were chosen for this opportunity and we’re beyond proud of the work we were able to accomplish for the preservation of our tribal wildlife.”

Catawba Nation Tribal Leader

80 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina Protecting Natural Heritage and Livelihoods

Project Summary Program Cost Program Funding The Cherokee people possess a Tribal Wildlife Grant long history of natural resource Program—$1.3 million over a $650,000 $1,300,000 stewardship dating back thou- 12-year period; other resources $1,950,000 sands of years. Sustaining fish provided by the Eastern Band of TOTAL and wildlife populations in a Cherokee Indians—$650,000 changing world is an integral part of maintaining Cherokee Partners livelihood. Cherokee lands and TWG Program waters support diverse commu- North Carolina Wildlife Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians nities of fish, mammals, birds, Resource Commission, Great amphibians, reptiles, and inver- Smoky Mountains National Park, tebrates. This biological diversity Western Carolina University is intricately tied to Cherokee culture with thousands of species playing critical roles in subsis- Methods tence, arts, medicine, ceremonies, Research, Monitoring, and stories. The Eastern Band of Coordination, Training Cherokee Indians has relied on the Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- gram over the past 12 years to Results help build the capacity of its Fish- eries and Wildlife Management A critical component of the Cher- Office for monitoring, regulating, okee tourist economy is tied to and maintaining the Band’s fish the work of the Band’s Fisheries and wildlife resources for current and Wildlife Management Office. and future generations. This includes management

A White-Tailed Deer restoration project made possible through collaboration between the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina State Parks, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Photo: EBCI.

81 The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has used Tribal Wildlife Grant Program funding to support monitoring of Black Bear (YoNa) and other science-based management actions.

Photo: EBCI.

efforts to sustain wildlife popu- Future Needs lations and provide tourists with viewing opportunities for species Ongoing support is needed for such as Elk. Projects focused on translating new knowledge into fisheries monitoring and aquatic science-based management of a ecosystem restoration also help wide variety of species. To ade- to support a lucrative recreation- quately manage its abundant fish al fishing program for the East- and wildlife resources, the Band ern Band of Cherokee Indians. must conduct more research and partner with state, federal and academic institutions. Addition- al funding would help the Band obtain more training for in-house research, species monitoring, and analysis.

82 Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Pollinator Conservation

Project Summary Partners Program Funding For the Tonkawa Tribe of Okla- U.S. Department of Agriculture, homa, bees are the symbol of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $149,000 honesty, pure thinking, will- The Learning Center of the ingness, and drive. Many tribes Euchee Butterfly Farm $149,000 TOTAL consider butterflies to be symbols of good luck, and some have Methods taboos against killing them. The Tonkawa Tribe is creating a Planning, Habitat Creation, TWG Program medicine wheel garden at Chiloc- Enhancement and Management, co Boarding School north of Education/Outreach Newkirk, Oklahoma. The garden will include pollinator-friendly This chart does not depict additional plants like Indian Paintbrush, Results tribal and other resources contributing Coneflower, and Prairie Sun- to the success of this project. Greater community awareness flower, as well as a water source. of pollinator conservation efforts The Medicine Wheel, known as and how to support them is a key the Sacred Hoop, has been used anticipated benefit of the project. by generations of various Native Black Swallowtail is one pollinator Both the school garden and other American tribes for health and species that will benefit from this pollinator habitat created and healing. This medicine wheel project. enhanced by tribal members will garden will provide bee- and but- benefit Black Swallowtail and Photo: John Flannery, Creative Commons terfly-friendly flowers, herbs and Monarch Butterfly, the latter of / Flickr. License: https://creativecommons. shrubs. Community education on org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode. which is under review for listing the importance of maintaining habitat for pollinators will include publication of eight articles about bees and butterflies in the tribal newspaper. Brochures will be created and distributed in the community to promote the importance of pollinator conservation.

Project Cost

Tribal Wildlife Grant Program— $149,000; other resources provided by Johnson O’Malley, Tonkawa Tribal Committee

83 Monarch butterfly on a flower on Oklahoma.

Photo: Carolyn. Creative Commons / Flickr. License: https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nd/2.0/legalcode.

under the Endangered Species More Information Act. https://www.fws.gov/savet- hemonarch/ “The Tribal Wildlife Future Needs

Grant Program helps Additional support would be im- many species, even portant in assisting tribal mem- pollinators. Grants bers and partners with research, monitoring, and habitat creation that support tribal and enhancement for pollinators. sovereignty, culture and language are additional benefits from the program.”

Mary Elder Assistant Regional Director– External Affairs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

84 MIDWEST REGION HIGHLIGHTS

85 86 STATE HIGHLIGHTS Illinois Jefferson Salamander

Status built across a range of Illinois Program Funding habitats and provide a fairly State-Listed as Threatened cost-efficient and easily replicated conservation tool for common $110,000 $200,000 and rare species alike. Project Summary $310,000 TOTAL Jefferson Salamander is native Partners to the northeastern United States and Canada. In Illinois, it Illinois Natural History Survey, is listed as threatened and also National Great Rivers Research SWG Program identified as a Species of Greatest and Education Center IDNR/Partners Conservation Need in the state’s Wildlife Action Plan. In Ontario, Canada, it has been classified Methods as an endangered species since Habitat Restoration/ 2011. The Illinois Department of Management, Monitoring/ Natural Resources (IDNR) used Assessment, Applied Research State Wildlife Grant Program funding along with state resources to construct ephemeral ponds Results in State Parks to create breeding habitat for a variety of rare and The Illinois Department of declining amphibians. IDNR has Natural Resources found that the also continually monitored use of ponds created for new habitat the ponds by a variety of species. were colonized by a number of Ephemeral ponds can be easily Species of Greatest Conserva-

Jefferson Salamander is listed as threatened in Illinois, and is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Illinois Wildlife Action Plan.

Photo: John Crawford, National Great River Research and Education Center.

87 tion Need, including Jefferson Illinois Wildlife Action Plan Salamander, which is found in only two counties in Illinois. As The Illinois Wildlife Action Plan a result of these efforts, IDNR was revised in 2015. The plan now considers the species more identifies 421 Species of Great- stable in Illinois. Other species est Conservation Need and 309 that benefit from construction of Watch List species associated ephemeral ponds include Wood with grasslands, forests, wood- Frogs, Spring Peepers, and Spot- lands, streams, and wetlands. Key ted Salamanders. threats include habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, hydrologic change, and Future Needs pollution. Priority conservation actions include habitat manage- Ongoing habitat maintenance ment using natural disturbance and expansion of availability regimes, developing resiliency of ephemeral pond habitats is “The Illinois and connectedness within habi- needed to ensure populations of tats, and fostering a connection Department of Natural Jefferson Salamander and other to SGCN and their habitats Species of Greatest Conservation Resources continues among the public. More than 220 Need can be stabilized and any to conduct critical individuals from 81 partnering requirement for future listing organizations and many mem- work restoring and under the Endangered Species bers of the public participated in Act can be avoided. enhancing at-risk the development and review of wildlife populations the plan. Contact the Illinois De- and their habitats partment of Natural Resources to learn more. that is only possible due to the presence of the State Wildlife Grant Program.”

Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator Illinois Department of Natural Resources

88 Indiana Outreach Campaign for Endangered Mussels

Status University to develop an outreach Program Funding campaign to increase awareness Six Federally-Listed Mussel of mussels and foster positive Species behaviors to benefit them. The $119,000 $171,000 State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Pro- $290,000 Project Summary gram provided key funding, along TOTAL with resources from the Service’s More than half of the mussels Cooperative Endangered Species in the midwestern United States Conservation Fund, Purdue Uni- are endangered, threatened, or versity, and IDNR. SWG Program a state species of concern. In In- IDNR/Partners diana, the Clubshell is one of six The “Heart of the Tippy” cam- federally-listed mussels that now paign identified two stakeholder reside primarily in the Tippeca- groups: recreational users (canoe River, which is the only place noeists, anglers) and landowners in Indiana where a reproducing along the Tippecanoe. Outreach population of Clubshell is still strategies used community-based found. Mussels are filter feeders social marketing to develop mes- that can live for many years on sages to help improve water qual- the bottom of a river, traits that ity. Floating keychains, bobbers, make them excellent indicators and other items with key messag- of water quality and overall river es were distributed at community health. Because of the bene- events, bait shops, and local prop- fits mussels provide and their erties. The website (https://www. imperiled status, the Indiana purdue.edu/extension/mussels/) Department of Natural Resourc- has activities for river residents, es (IDNR) partnered with Purdue children, recreationists, and

These Purdue University students are spreading the message to protect mussels and their habitats by “Taking the Pledge” at a community event.

Photo: Belyna Bentlage, Purdue University.

89 anglers as well as downloadable More Information brochures and lesson plans. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/ Partners Purdue University, U.S. Indiana Wildlife Action Plan Fish and Wildlife Service— Cooperative Endangered Species The Indiana Wildlife Action Plan Conservation Fund was revised in 2015. The plan identifies more than 150 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Methods and associated with natural “Effective species lakes, hardwood forests, shrub Online, Mail, and In-Person wetlands, caves, and grasslands. management Surveys Key threats include habitat loss and conservation and degradation, modification of incorporates the Results natural systems, disturbance, and beliefs and values invasive species. Priority conser- The campaign increased public vation actions include land and of citizens and awareness and appreciation of water protection, restoration of stakeholders.” mussels and instilled positive natural habitats, invasive species behaviors among stakeholders. control, and increased education More than 400 people pledged to Brad Feaster and public awareness. More than improve water quality and pro- Division of Fish and Wildlife 150 conservation partners and tect mussel habitat in and along Indiana Department of many members of the public par- Natural Resources the Tippecanoe River. ticipated in the development and review of the plan. To learn more Future Needs contact the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Within the Tippecanoe River drainage, future support would help IDNR implement conservation actions to improve water quality and investigate the un- derlying factors contributing to the continuing decline of several SGCN freshwater mussel species in Indiana. Additional funding would be directed toward further augmentations and reintroductions of freshwater mussels identified in the Indiana Wildlife Action Plan.

90 Iowa Regal Fritillary

Status Program Funding Proposed Federally Threatened (2015), Scheduled for Federal $282,100 $591,900 Listing Review (2022) $874,000 TOTAL Project Summary

The Regal Fritillary is a prairie-specialist species which has SWG Program two known larval hostplants that IADNR/Partners are native to Iowa: Prairie Violet and Bird’s Foot Violet. Hostplant availability is a potentially limiting factor for the Regal Fritillary, so the Iowa Department of Natu- ral Resources (IADNR) is working to ramp up production of these Monitoring technician holds a Regal violets for inclusion in planting Fritillary caught at Stone State Park mixes for prairie restorations. Photo: Thomas Hennessey. The agency also provides funding to landowners for habitat improvements benefitting Regal Results Fritillary on private lands. Partial support for these timely con- Regal Fritillary is on the U.S. Fish servation efforts is provided by and Wildlife Service’s National the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Listing Workplan. IADNR is Program. planning and implementing proactive conservation of the species in advance of a listing decision in Partners 2022 in an effort to avert the need Private landowners, Iowa for listing under the Endangered State University, Pheasants Species Act. Forever, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Minnesota Iowa Wildlife Action Plan Department of Natural Resources The Iowa Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The Methods plan identifies 405 Species of Prairie Restoration and Greatest Conservation Need Management, Development of associated with grasslands, for- Guidance for Land Managers, ests, wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Modeling/Mapping; Private Key threats to species include Landowner Conservation habitat loss and fragmentation, Agreements degradation of habitat from

91 “The funding provided to Stone State Park played a critical role in managing for rare and sensitive species such as the Regal Fritillary.”

Jason Dykstra Stone State Park Sioux Fall, Iowa

invasive species and modification Bird’s-Foot Violet is one of two larval of natural systems, and lack of hostplants of the Regal Fritillary. protection. Priority conservation Photo: M. Larson, MassWildlife. actions include monitoring, use of adaptive management, and increased habitat management and protection. Representatives from over 50 conservation partners and members of the public participated in the development and review of the plan. Contact the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to learn more.

92 Kansas Fish Passage Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring

of the renovation of the Lincoln Street Dam on the Arkansas River in the City of Wichita, with consultation from Kansas Wild- life, Parks, and Tourism. The fishway was the first of its kind, built for passage of smaller-bod- ied fishes including multiple Species of Greatest Conservation Need recognized in the Kansas Wildlife Action Plan. Engineers were able to incorporate aesthetic improvements and canoe and kayak passage as well. A project of this scope requires considerable funding, as well as permits and zoning across multiple juris- dictions. Post construction monitoring was funded through the The Silver Chub is a large very silvery State Wildlife Grant Program. minnow with a small mouth and overhanging snout. They have no distinct spots or other markings on the Partners body and have a very small barbel at the rear edge of the upper jaw in each City of Wichita, U.S. Fish corner of the mouth. and Wildlife Service, MKEC Engineering, Federal Highway Photo: Sam Stukel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Administration, Kansas Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, University Status of Illinois—Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory, Native Fish Species of Greatest Kansas State University Conservation Need Methods Project Summary Fish Passage Design and Riverine habitat in Kansas has Construction, Coordination been highly fragmented in part because of barriers such as low- Results head dams. This fragmentation has led to the decline of sever- Species benefitting from the con- al native fish species and very struction of the dam include the dissimilar fish assemblages above Plains Minnow, Silver Chub, Pep- and below impoundments. A pered Chub, Arkansas River Shin- fishway was constructed as part er, and Arkansas Darter. Emerald

93 Plains Minnow is one of several native fishes benefiting from the fishway constructed by Kansas Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism on the Arkansas River.

Photo: Matt Wagner ©SDGFP & SDBOR.

Shiners were found upstream of Kansas Wildlife Action Plan the dam for the first time in 20 years. Post-construction moni- The Kansas Wildlife Action Plan toring of the fish community in was revised in 2016. The plan the Arkansas River adjacent to identifies 285 Species of Greatest the fish passage has documented Conservation Need associated 27 species of the fish using the with prairies, shrublands, forests, passageway. The upstream fish woodland floodplains, wetlands, assemblage more resembled the streams, and caves. Key threats downstream assemblage not long include habitat loss and fragmen- after competition of the passage- tation, natural systems modifi- way. cations, invasive and non-native species, and climate change. Priority conservation actions Future Needs include increased monitoring and data collection, enhanced Additional funds would allow management and protection, and Kansas Wildlife, Parks, and expanded outreach. More than 67 Tourism to build upon their fish conservation partners and many passage construction expertise members of the public participat- and remove other barriers to fish ed in the development and review passage within the state. of the plan. Contact the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism to learn more.

94 Kentucky Center for Mollusk Conservation

Status fer knowledge to other states and Program Funding countries where it is urgently Various Federally- and State- needed. The CMC has utilized $2,152,600 $3,053,500 Listed Mussel Species State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program funding for facility $5,206,100 Project Summary construction, management and TOTAL mussel propagation. The CMC’s The Kentucky Department of goal is to preclude listings and Fish and Wildlife Resources help recover and restore imper- (KDFWR) began investing in iled aquatic species. SWG Program freshwater mollusk conservation KDFWR/Partners nearly twenty years ago. When Partners State Malacologist Dr. Monte McGregor was hired, he was U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service given the task of creating a con- Wolf Creek National Fish servation program for Kentucky’s Hatchery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife imperiled freshwater mollusks. Service Kentucky Field Office, With only some empty garage U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bays and no water source, Dr. Mc- Ohio Field Office, Minor Clark Gregor and his team managed to Hatchery (KDFWR), Kentucky Mussel culture and propagation at set up a work space and begin the Waterways Alliance, Mussel the Center for Mollusk Conservation arduous task of understanding Mitigation Trust, Mammoth includes advanced techniques for mollusk reproductive biology, di- Cave National Park, ACORPS handling juveniles and their food. etary needs and animal husband- Photo: Kentucky Department of Fish and ry techniques critical to meeting Wildlife Resources. this conservation challenge. In addition to traditional propagation measures using fish hosts, Dr. McGregor and his team have developed cutting-edge techniques to raise animals in vitro. This highly successful technique has led to critical conservation successes with federally endangered species such as the Purple Catspaw, Golden Riffleshell and Pink Mucket.

Today, KDFWR’s Center for Mollusk Conservation (CMC) is a premier freshwater mussel propagation facility. Students, conservation professionals, and others have visited from around the world to learn and help trans-

95 Future Needs

Because the CMC is operational year-round, scientists stand ready to receive and propagate animals when opportunity arises. For example, only three individuals of the Golden Riffleshell were located in a neighboring state and the CMC was able to produce 1,600 individuals for release. Mussel declines across the United States are resulting in federal listing at an increasing rate. Additional and ongoing funding for the CMC is needed to help de- Thousands of Pink Muckets have been Methods list, down-list, and avert future reared and released from efforts at the listings of mussels in Kentucky Research, Monitoring, Center for Mollusk Conservation. and many other states. Captive Rearing and Release, Photo: Kentucky Department of Fish and Coordination Wildlife Resources. Kentucky Wildlife Action Plan

Results The Kentucky Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2013. The To date, there have been tens of plan identifies 301 Species of thousands of animals of more Greatest Conservation Need than thirty species released back associated with upland forests, into the waters of Kentucky and grasslands, wetlands, rivers, partnering states, contributing streams, and karst topography. significantly to the recovery and Key threats to species include management of freshwater mus- habitat loss and degradation, sels. With KDFWR’s structured pollution and siltation, species “Conservation long-term monitoring program, and habitat fragmentation, and restoration of scientists are seeing solid signs and competition from invasive imperiled freshwater of natural reproduction and species. Priority conservation recruitment into populations. actions include habitat protec- mussels is the primary This conservation success shows tion and restoration, increased mission of the that an early investment can help survey, monitoring and research, prevent listing of animals under Center for Mollusk and partnerships designed to pro- the Endangered Species Act. This mote habitat connectivity. Many Conservation.” legacy would not be possible conservation partners, wildlife without critical funding from the professionals, and members of Kentucky Department of Fish State Wildlife Grant Program. the public participated in devel- and Wildlife Resources opment of the plan. Contact the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to learn more.

96 Michigan Kirtland’s Warbler

Status Partners Program Funding Recovered and Federally De- American Forest Foundation, Listed (2019) Arbor Day Foundation, U.S. Fish $730,550 $1,390,800 and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Kirtland’s Warbler $2,121,350 Project Summary TOTAL Alliance Kirtland’s Warbler is a small yellow songbird that overwinters Methods in the Bahamas but returns each SWG Program year to Michigan, Wisconsin and Timber harvest and reforestation, MDNR/Partners Ontario for summer breeding Brown-headed Cowbird control in jack pine forest habitats. Due to fire suppression, competition Results from cowbirds, and other threats, Kirtland’s Warbler numbers fell Due to the efforts of MDNR and to under 170 breeding pairs in its many partners, Kirtland’s the 1970s and 80s. Since 2008, Warbler was removed from the the Michigan Department of list of federal threatened and Natural Resources (MDNR) has endangered species in 2019. utilized State Wildlife Grant Currently, there are an estimated (SWG) Program funding along 2,300 breeding pairs. The pop- with revenues from timber sales, ulation has exceeded the goals which help offset the cost of jack identified in the U.S. Fish and pine habitat restoration. Wildlife Service Recovery Plan

Kirtland’s Warbler.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

97 for the past 17 years and contin- Michigan Wildlife Action Plan ues to expand. The Michigan Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The Future Needs plan identifies 301 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Despite recovery and removal associated with rivers, streams, of the Kirtland’s Warbler from inland lakes, wetlands, forests, protection under the Endangered grasslands, and the Great Lakes. Species Act, actions are still Key threats to species include needed to ensure their continued habitat fragmentation and dis- success. Partners will continue to turbance, toxicants, invasive spe- manage for their habitat, and the cies, and lack of awareness about Michigan DNR will continue to species. Priority conservation manage Cowbirds as needed. actions include surveys and monitoring, habitat protection and restoration, and outreach. More “The [Kirtland’s than 38 conservation partners Warbler’s] recovery and many members of the public participated in the development provides dramatic and review of the plan. Contact testimony to what the Michigan Department of conservation Natural Resources to learn more. organizations, governments and businesses can accomplish when they come together for the good of the resource.”

Dan Eichinger Director Michigan Department of Natural Resources

98 Minnesota Leonard’s Skipper

Status Resources, The Nature Program Funding Conservancy Species of Greatest Conservation Need / Species of Concern $495,000 $1,300,000 Methods $1,795,000 Project Summary Habitat Restoration and TOTAL Enhancement, Landowner As one of North America’s most Agreements, Technical important natural resources, the Assistance, Coordination ancient Driftless Area supports SWG Program a diversity of plants and animals MNDNR/Partners unique to the Upper Midwest. Results Private land makes up the ma- MNDNR’s work has helped jority of this unglaciated region, increase the habitat available for and these properties are essential the state’s Species of Greatest for successful regional species Conservation Need and increased conservation. Since 2011, Minne- connectivity between public and sota Department of Natural Re- private lands. Their work has sources (MNDNR) has partnered resulted in significant habitat Leonard’s Skipper, a Minnesota with both Iowa and Wisconsin to enhancement and protection species of special concern, can benefit manage multiple awards through from bluff prairie restoration. More across the Driftless Area. In the Competitive State Wildlife than 7,000 acres have been improved Minnesota alone, MNDNR has Grant (C-SWG) Program. With through projects supported by the State worked to improve or restore over additional support from Minne- Wildlife Grant Program. 7,000 acres of public and private sota’s Nongame Wildlife Fund, Photo: E. Hoaglund, MN DNR. Outdoor Heritage Fund, and the Environmental and Natural Re- sources Trust Fund, MNDNR is working to restore and enhance both public and private lands using prescribed burning, conservation grazing, invasive plant control, and prairie plantings. These activities benefit numerous Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan species including Leonard’s Skipper, Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, Blanding’s Turtle and Whip- Poor-Will.

Partners

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural

99 Goats get the best view from a bluff prairie near Rushford, Minnesota. MNDNR uses goats for invasive species control in key habitats where they graze on plants like European and Glossy Buckthorn.

Photo: J. Micheel, Chimney Rock Forestry, LLC.

lands, conducted over 250 site More Information visits with private landowners to help guide species management, https://blogs.mprnews.org/state- and provided public workshops wide/2013/08/goats-have-an-ap- to others on at-risk species petite-for-buckthorn-in-se-min- needs and habitat management. nesota/ The agency has demonstrated through surveys and monitoring https://www.brainerddispatch. that targeted species presence com/news/science-and-na- has increased on many sites ture/4038255-DNR-needed-help- benefiting from habitat manage- managing-prairies-on-steep-hill- ment. For example, Leonard’s sides.-They-called-on-goats. Skipper, a state-listed species of special concern, was found at Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan four actively managed prairies in the southeast. Likewise, Dusted The Minnesota Wildlife Action Skipper, a species that has disap- Plan was revised in 2015. The peared from the western prairie plan identifies 345 Species of range, was also found at multiple Greatest Conservation Need sites. associated with forests, prairies, and wetlands. Key threats include Future Needs habitat loss and degradation, fragmentation, invasive species, MNDNR needs ongoing fund- and climate change. Priority ing for conservation of bluffland conservation actions include prairies through prescribed habitat management, restoration, burning, conservation grazing protection, monitoring, and data and habitat restoration efforts. management. Approximately Long-term species response 45 conservation partners assisted monitoring needs to be conduct- with development of the plan. ed in order to determine species Contact the Minnesota Depart- population trends associated ment of Natural Resources to with habitat management. learn more.

100 Missouri Regal Fritillary

Status Partners Program Funding Proposed Federally Threatened Farm Service Agency, Missouri (2015), Scheduled for Federal Prairie Foundation, Natural $1,165,000 $1,055,000 Listing Review (2022) Resources Conservation Service, $2,220,000 Pheasants Forever and Quail TOTAL Forever, St. Louis Zoo WildCare Project Summary Institute, University of Missouri, The Upper Osage Grasslands is The Nature Conservancy, and Private Landowners one of the largest and best land- SWG Program scapes for focused native prairie MDC/Partners and grasslands conservation in Methods Missouri. During a three-year period beginning in 2014, the Mis- Habitat Creation, Enhancement, souri Department of Conserva- and Protection, Research, tion (MDC) retired cropland and Monitoring, Coordination old pasture, then removed hard woody cover and invasive species. Results These areas were restored with diverse native prairie plantings. The Upper Osage Grasslands In addition, each year the De- currently includes more than partment conducts field surveys 7,000 acres of native tallgrass and inventories to determine the prairie. An additional 2,100 acres presence, condition, conservation of public land was restored to need, and recovery manage- upland prairie or wet prairie sys- ment actions for many different tems. In addition to many plant species of concern. These essen- Species of Greatest Conserva- tial coordination efforts and the tion Need that were restored via surveys and inventories critical to informing them would not be possible without the support of the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program. The MDC also uses SWG Program funds to support coordination efforts with staff, landowners, and other partners that are essential to focusing limited resources on the highest priority needs. Funding from the SWG Program also supports habitat and species surveys and inventories necessary for effective A researcher explains the effects of species management. management at a workshop for managers and landowners.

Photo: Missouri Department of Conservation.

101 and help avert the need for future A Regal Fritillary is one of multiple species of greatest conservation listings. need to be documented within the prairie restorations. More Information Photo: Missouri Department of Conservation. https://mdc.mo.gov/property/priority-geographies/upper-osage-grasslands

https://www.stlzoo.org/conservation/wildcare-institute/ameri- planting on these sites, monitor- canburyingbeetleconse ing detected the recolonization of the Blue Sage Bee—a prairie-ob- https://mdc.mo.gov/property/pri- ligate found for the first time on ority-geographies a reconstructed prairie. Federally endangered American Burying Missouri Wildlife Action Plan Beetles released at Wah’Kon-Tah Prairie were found to be using The Missouri Wildlife Action prairie restorations in this project Plan was revised in 2015 and is at two other Conservation Areas currently being updated. The “The coordination 10 miles away. plan identifies 166 conservation needed to implement opportunity areas (COAs) that these projects, and the Prairies in this geography are represent the most important included in an ongoing state- places to sustain Missouri’s survey and inventory wide population survey of Regal primary natural communities data essential to Fritillary to inform the proposed on which 678 Species of Greatest listing decision. Previous efforts Conservation Need depend. Nine focusing limited by Kansas and Missouri have of these COAs have been des- resources effectively, provided sufficient information ignated as priority geographies was supported largely to help determine that federal with increased conservation listing of Regal Fritillary was not focus and investment, including by the State Wildlife warranted in the early 2000s. special teams and partners that Grant Program.” develop and implement opera- Future Needs tional plans. Key threats include Bob Merz habitat loss and fragmentation, Assistant Director, WildCare Institute Native grasslands and prairies disturbance and altered function, Director, Center for American are one of the most imperiled and invasive species. Priority Burying Beetle Conservation ecosystems in Missouri. Sustain- conservation actions include Saint Louis Zoo ing these ecosystems also helps increased landowner assistance, to improve recovery chances for monitoring and data collection, equally imperiled species such enhanced and prioritized public as the Blue Sage Bee, Henslow’s land management, and outreach Sparrow, Monarch Butterfly, and citizen engagement. More Blacknose Shiner, Mead’s Milk- than 40 conservation partners weed, and many more. Additional and many members of the public support is needed for habitat participated in the development management, species restoration, and review of the plan. Con- and monitoring, and techni- tact the Missouri Department of cal assistance. With sufficient Conservation to learn more. resources, Missouri can help recover a greater number of species,

102 Nebraska North American River Otter

Status partnerships among organiza- Program Funding tions and landowners. State-Listed as Threatened (2000) $105,000 $300,000 Partners Project Summary $405,000 Nebraska Cooperative Fish TOTAL Once a common mammal in and Wildlife Research Unit, Nebraska, River Otters had been University of Nebraska–Lincoln, extirpated from the state by the The Nature Conservancy, The early 1900s. River Otters were Crane Trust, Lincoln Children’s SWG Program state-listed as endangered in Zoo, Missouri Department of NGPC/Partners 1986, and a reintroduction pro- Conservation, Fur Trappers, gram started the same year. In Private Landowners 2000, the species was down-listed by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) to threat- Methods ened because of substantial prog- Translocation and ress towards recovery. Since then, Reintroduction from Alaska NGPC has utilized funding from and Louisiana to Nebraska the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Restoration Sites, Research, Program to help maintain and Monitoring, Habitat increase River Otter numbers Management, Genetic Testing, in the state. Biologists continue Modelling to monitor the expansion of the species. The recovery of the River Otter in Nebraska demonstrates the strength in conservation

Once extirpated from Nebraska, North American River Otters were returned to their native waters in 1986 and have been successful on their journey to recovery.

Photo: Nebraskaland.

103 Results Nebraska Wildlife Action Plan

River Otters in Nebraska are now The Nebraska Wildlife Action healthy and nearly self-sustain- Plan was revised in 2011, with a ing because of these conservation minor revision in 2018. The plan efforts. The data collected clearly identifies 735 Species of Greatest demonstrate a healthy, reproduc- Conservation Need associated tively viable, and expanding pop- with over 35 Biologically Unique ulation of River Otters in Nebras- Landscapes that include river ka. In recognition of the current basins, prairies, forests, bluffs, status of this species, NGPC is in and wetlands. Key threats to the process of delisting the North species include invasive species, American River Otter under the alteration of natural disturbances Nebraska Nongame and Endan- like burning and grazing, altered gered Species Conservation Act. hydrology of rivers and streams, wetland drainage, habitat conversion and fragmentation, and Future Needs lack of awareness and knowl- Basic periodic monitoring may edge about biodiversity. Priority still be needed but the population conservation actions include is now secure in Nebraska. Mon- increased collaboration, environ- itoring of the River Otter pop- mental education, conservation ulation would include locations incentives, and management and of observations from the public expansion of public and private and NGPC, federal agencies, and conservation lands. Approxi- non-governmental agencies. In mately 50 conservation partners addition, carcasses of incidentally and organizations were involved trapped River Otters will still be in the last revision of the plan. collected. Sign surveys at bridges, Contact the Nebraska Game and trail camera based surveys, or Parks Commission to learn more. searches by kayak/canoes will be used as needed to assess changes in distribution.

104 North Dakota American Marten

Status Methods Program Funding Species of Greatest Conservation Research, Monitoring Need $30,000 $80,000

Results $110,000 Project Summary TOTAL This project led to inclusion of Using State Wildlife Grant (SWG) American Marten as a Species of Program funds along with state Greatest Conservation Need in and other resources, North Da- NDGFD’s Wildlife Action Plan. SWG Program kota Game and Fish Department It resulted in increased interest NDGFD/Partners (NDGFD) conducted a survey of among wildlife watchers and as meso-carnivores to document a a potential future game species. rising population of River Otters This visibility is attracting new and Fishers in North Dakota. conservation partners with addi- The project was a special success tional conservation resources. because NDGFD was also able to document a previously unknown Future Needs breeding population of American Martens in the Turtle Mountains Further study of American Mar- region of north-central North ten in North Dakota is needed to Dakota. better understand the population dynamics of the species. With Partners this new information, NDGFD will be able to protect and man- Frostburg State University

Trail camera photo of Marten from survey. The project partners were able to document a previously unknown breeding population of Marten, and increased interest in the species among wildlife watchers.

Photo: North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

105 age the species for the benefit of North Dakotans.

More Information

https://gf.nd.gov/wildlife/id/carnivores/marten

North Dakota Wildlife Action Plan

The North Dakota Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The plan identifies 115 Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated with grasslands, rivers “Without State Wildlife and streams, riparian areas, wet- Grant Program lands, and badlands. Key threats to species include habitat loss and funding we would fragmentation, disturbance, in- not have been able vasive species, and development. to know as much Priority conservation actions include, wildlife friendly land about these unique management, land protection, mammals as we do outreach to private landowners, research, and monitoring. More now. It continues to than 50 conservation participated be our best tool to in the development and review help those species of the plan. Contact the North Dakota Game and Fish Depart- that are most in need ment to learn more. of conservation in North Dakota.”

Patrick Isakson Conservation Biologist North Dakota Game and Fish Department

106 Ohio Cerulean Warbler

Program Funding

$30,000 $80,000

$110,000 TOTAL

SWG Program ODOW/Partners

Cerulean Warblers prefer interior forest with canopy gaps.

Photo: Nina Harfmann.

Status projects for forest habitat which benefit a variety of birds, includ- State Species of Concern ing the Cerulean Warbler. Proj- ect funding has included grants Project Summary through the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program, along with state Cerulean Warblers have de- and other partner resources. clined by about 70 percent over the last several decades. Large Partners southeastern Ohio woodlands support some of the best remain- Ohio State University, ing breeding populations in the Appalachian Mountains Joint state. Wherever mature decid- Venture, Ohio Bird Conservation uous woodlands—particularly Initiative oak-hickory forests—occur in Ohio, Cerulean Warblers should be members of the nesting fauna. Methods These warblers prefer interior Research, Monitoring, Habitat forest with canopy gaps and Management, Outreach/ normally avoid isolated woodlots Education, Technical Assistance, in open landscapes. For 10 years, Landowner Agreements the Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODOW) has engaged in numerous ongoing management

107 Results Ohio Wildlife Action Plan

ODOW was instrumental in The Ohio Wildlife Action supporting research and manage- Plan was revised in 2015. The ment activities in southeastern plan identifies 405 Species of Ohio to benefit Cerulean War- Greatest Conservation Need blers and other small-scale dis- associated with 15 key habitats, turbance specialists. In addition, including forests, grasslands, the agency supports the Ohio wetlands, Lake Erie, and the Bird Conservation Initiative, the Ohio River and its tributaries. Appalachian Mountains Joint Key threats to species include Venture, and the Upper Missis- habitat loss and fragmentation, sippi River/Great Lakes Region pollution, and invasive species. Joint Venture to promote migra- Priority conservation actions tory bird conservation planning identified in the plan include and management actions across monitoring, management, edu- the state and region. cation, and outreach. More than 130 conservation partners and members of the public participat- Future Needs “The long-term ed in the development and review success of [Cerulean Additional funding is needed of the plan. Contact the Ohio Di- Warbler] will depend for continued sustainable forest vision of Wildlife to learn more. management, outreach/educa- on continued large- tion, coordination, and technical scale coordination and assistance to benefit the Cerule- efforts to work with an Warbler. landowners to manage habitats on privately owned property.”

Matthew Shumar Program Coordinator Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative

108 South Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse

Status Partners Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal Bureau of Reclamation, South Listing (2015) Dakota State University, U.S. $23,000 $70,000 Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources $93,000 Project Summary TOTAL Conservation Service South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) and its partners Methods have been active participants SWG Program in the effort to inventory and Research, Monitoring, Habitat SDGFP/Partners monitor the state’s sagebrush Analysis, Modeling, Mapping, habitats and the wildlife associ- Landowner Agreements ated with these areas, including Greater Sage-Grouse and other Results Species of Greatest Conserva- tion Need. Using State Wildlife SDGFP learned that mammals Grant (SWG) Program funds, the are the leading suspected cause agency has spent over a decade of mortality on Sage-Grouse leading the first comprehensive hens. The agency’s studies also mapping of remaining big sage- found that broods favor areas brush in western South Dakota. with higher abundance of beetles The agency also has worked with and areas with high sagebrush partners during this period to canopy cover and tall grass, assess habitat conditions in core while avoiding areas with high sagebrush habitat, including at amounts of grass and litter cover. Greater Sage-Grouse leks. Most Sage-Grouse with broods select- recently, SWG Program funds ed areas near water and away have supported a PhD research from roads and forests. SDGFP’s project to better understand factors that influence survival, nest success and nest site selection in a species that is declining and on the periphery of its range in South Dakota. In addition to this critical research and mapping effort, SDGFP supports a Farm Bill Biologist dedicated to implementing the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative and to assisting SDGFP biologist capturing and landowners in managing and tagging Greater Sage-Grouse for a restoring rangeland habitats to study on reproductive ecology and habitat selection in Harding County, benefit Greater Sage-Grouse. South Dakota.

Photo: Lindsey Parsons.

109 identified Sage-Grouse core areas More Information were adopted by the Bureau of Land Management as Priority South Dakota Wildlife Action Habitat Areas, receiving addi- Plan Explorer: https://apps. tional resources for conservation. sd.gov/gf43wap/ Resource Selection Models and associated maps have been devel- South Dakota Wildlife Action Plan oped and will be used to refine the designated Sage-Grouse core The South Dakota Wildlife Ac- area in the state. The Service’s tion Plan was approved in 2015. 2015 decision not to list the spe- The plan identifies 104 Species cies helped SDGFP and partners of Greatest Conservation Need avoid additional environmental with strong association to grass- review clearances which would land habitats, prairie pothole have added to the complexity of wetlands, and riparian streams. working directly with Greater Threats include habitat conver- Sage-Grouse. sion, invasive species, suppression of natural disturbances, Future Needs aquatic impacts from adjacent land practices, and flood control “Although South SDGFP needs to continue mon- and channelization. Conserva- Dakota is on the itoring South Dakota’s small, tion actions include collection of isolated Greater Sage-Grouse biological information on species fringe of the range population and assessing impacts abundance and distribution, of the Greater Sage- of continued mining and wind and development of voluntary energy development within the partnerships with governmen- Grouse, we have range of this species in South Da- tal agencies, tribes, farmers and spent significant kota. Additional resources would ranchers. Fifty-six species experts time and resources help the agency manage and and 55 governmental entities preserve sagebrush habitats on assisted with development of on sagebrush public lands and encourage sage- the plan. Contact South Dakota habitats and sagebrush maintenance on private Game, Fish and Parks for more associated wildlife lands in the face of conversion information. for agricultural uses, invasion of to better understand weeds and annual grasses, and and manage these overgrazing. components of South Dakota’s natural heritage.”

Eileen Dowd Stukel Senior Wildlife Diversity Biologist South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

110 Wisconsin Rusty Patched Bumble Bee

Status Bumble Bee at sites in 12 new Program Funding counties, as well as an additional Federally Endangered (2017) 266 locations of the other seven bumble bee Species of Greatest $18,000 $69,000 Conservation Need found in Project Summary $87,000 the state. This information will TOTAL In 2018, the Wisconsin De- improve conservation planning partment of Natural Resources and management actions for (WDNR) started the Wisconsin these important pollinators and Bumble Bee Brigade (B3) citizen their habitat. Data gathered by B3 SWG Program science project to answer ques- volunteers and WDNR staff have WDNR/Partners tions on species distributions, been entered into the Natural habitat requirements, phenolo- Heritage Inventory (NHI) data- gy, and population status. State base. NHI data are used for the Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program WDNR’s Endangered Resources funds were used to offer 10 train- Review program to implement ings to 198 people. WDNR will best management practices to also develop additional online benefit Rusty Patched Bumble resources to engage and retain Bee. volunteers and to continue to document and monitor popula- Volunteers taking photos of bumble Future Needs bees during a Wisconsin Bumble Bee tions of Rusty Patched Bumble Brigade training at Schlitz Audubon Bee. Locating new sites occupied by Nature Center. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee in Photo: Eva Lewandowski. Partners Central and North Central Wis-

University of Wisconsin (UW)—Madison Arboretum, UW–Madison Entomology, UW– Green Bay, Bumble Bee Brigade Volunteers, Xerces Society

Methods

Research, Monitoring, Training

Results

In two seasons, B3 volunteers have spent over 1,000 hours afield and greatly expanded WDNR’s knowledge of the distribution of this species in Wisconsin. B3 volunteers and WDNR staff surveys have found Rusty Patched

111 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee on Joe Pye Weed at Wapello Land and Water Reserve.

Photo: Angella Moorehouse, Natural Areas Preservation Specialist, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission.

consin will be important to fill in of environmental processes such “Thank you for putting knowledge gaps due to a lack of as water extraction. Changing existing survey data. precipitation, temperature, and this important project extreme weather events exacer- bate these threats. Priority con- together! I really Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan enjoyed learning servation actions include inte- The Wisconsin Wildlife Action grated and comprehensive policy, more about this Plan was revised in 2015. The management and best practices, fascinating subject!” Plan identifies 417 Species of and public awareness and partic- Greatest Conservation Need ipation. The plan was developed Wisconsin Bumble Bee associated with 104 natural com- with input from 30 organizations Brigade Volunteer munity types. Key threats include and 235 conservation and species invasive species and disease, hab- experts. Contact the Wisconsin itat loss, fragmentation and deg- Department of Natural Resourc- radation from development and es—Bureau of Natural Heritage resource use, and modification Conservation to learn more.

112 REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHT Hellbender

Range of the two Hellbender subspecies.

Map: U.S. Geological Survey.

Range Ozark Hellbender was federally listed as endangered in 2011. Southern New York to Northern Georgia and westward to Eastern Hellbenders are a large, Missouri long-lived aquatic salamander species that inhabit highly oxy- Status genated cold-water streams and rivers from southern New York Eastern Hellbender was pe- State to northern Georgia (see titioned for listing under the map). This fully aquatic salaman- Endangered Species Act in 2010. der is a prehistoric survivor that The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- lived at the same time as Mast- vice found the Hellbender may odons. Due to their sensitivity to warrant protection pending a environmental factors and slow Species Status Assessment, which rate of maturation, Hellbend- was conducted in 2017–2018. In ers are especially vulnerable to 2019, the Service announced it decline and potential extirpation had determined not to list the or extinction. Hellbenders are subspecies as a whole, but did listed as a Species of Greatest propose to list the populations Conservation Need in the Wild- in Missouri as endangered. The life Action Plans of every state in which they occur.

113 The following summaries high- Indiana light work undertaken by state fish and wildlife agencies and More than a decade ago, the their partners in a sampling of Indiana Department of Natural states where Eastern Hellbender Resources (DNR) partnered with occur. In addition to monitoring Purdue University to develop a and research, these and other comprehensive model for Hell- state agencies have been work- bender conservation. Without ing for years together to actively prompt action, this ancient support this unique species. amphibian was destined to State agencies and their partners disappear from Indiana. The work to improve river and stream agency and its many partners water quality to ensure suitable have invested State Wildlife habitat, expand Hellbender pop- Grant Program funds and other ulations through head-starting to resources in researching vari- ensure redundancy, and main- ous methods of captive-rearing Biologists with the New York State to help increase survival after Department of Environmental tain and expand captive-rearing release. Partners are continuing Conservation (NYSEC) monitor capacity to increase opportuni- Eastern Hellbender in New York. ties for population establishment to evaluate habitat throughout and reproduction. southern Indiana to determine Photo: Anne Rothrock, NYSDEC. suitable release sites outside of These significant investments— the Blue River. To date, Purdue along with those of other state University and the Indiana DNR, and federal agencies, private in partnership with various Indi- landowners, universities, zoos, ana zoos, the Ohio Department and other organizations—likely of Natural Resources, and the played a role in the Service’s 2019 Kentucky Division of Fish and decision not to list the entire Wildlife Resources, have col- Eastern Hellbender subspecies lected over 1,000 eggs, released under the Endangered Spe- 200 Hellbenders into the Blue cies Act. River, and plan to release nearly 500 additional juveniles by 2023. Now, after years of population

Project partners releasing a juvenile Hellbender in the Blue River of Indiana.

Photo: Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

114 and habitat assessments, public New York outreach, and expanding partner involvement, Hellbenders have a Since 2008, the New York State fighting chance in Indiana. Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has used State Wildlife Grant Pro- Missouri gram funding along with expert knowledge and other techni- Eastern and Ozark Hellbenders cal and financial support from are state-listed as endangered in zoos, universities, and conser- Missouri. The Missouri Depart- vation organizations to evaluate ment of Conservation (MDC) head-starting as a means of began working in 2002 with part- “Our community increasing recruitment of East- ners including the Saint Louis knows that the health ern Hellbenders. Egg masses were Zoo, other state fish and wildlife collected from wild breeding and well-being of our agencies, and various federal Hellbenders and reared in cap- agencies including the U.S. Fish Hellbenders are a tivity for periods ranging from and Wildlife Service to establish 3–8 years prior to release back valued reflection of a long-term monitoring, captive into the watersheds the eggs were the health and vigor propagation, and augmentation collected from. Monitoring of program for both Eastern and of our river ecosystem released Hellbenders has helped Ozark Hellbenders. Using State identify the role of chytrid fun- and our community.” Wildlife Grant Program funding gus in limiting survivorship of and other resources, Hellbender head-started animals. NYSDEC Ranger Bob captive-breeding and collection has evaluated the benefit of hab- O’Bannon of eggs in the wild has continued itat enhancement efforts such as Woods State Park to be successful, with more than the placement of large flat rocks Indiana 8,000 animals released in sev- and manufactured “Hellbender en rivers since 2010. MDC also Huts” to improve nesting hab- implements surveys to moni- itat for the species. The agency tor populations of Eastern and has demonstrated that habitat Ozark Hellbenders throughout enhancements are being used by their range in Missouri, and breeding Hellbenders. establish population trends. Ar- tificial nest boxes were designed and installed in streams with North Carolina mature Hellbender populations to increase suitable shelters for The North Carolina Wildlife Re- nesting. This innovative design sources Commission (NCWRC) has been successful, producing has used State Wildlife Grant 62 clutches of eggs since 2010. Program funding over the past Hellbender eggs inside an artificial Although Missouri’s Hellbender 13 years to monitor Eastern nest box. populations continue to be at Hellbender populations, conduct risk, the innovative efforts of applied research, and address Photo: Jeff Briggler. MDC and partners have succeed- threats to the species at each life ed in changing the trajectory of stage. The agency has employed these species from “imminent new methods such as environ- danger of extinction” to “likely to mental DNA and artificial nest- recover.” ing habitats, and recently is focused on determining prevalence of various amphibian diseases among Hellbenders. NCWRC has produced technical guidance,

115 Eastern Hellbenders can be difficult to spot amid the cobble of river bottoms.

Photo: Lori Williams.

augmented habitat features, and in Columbiana, Jefferson, and improved water quality through Belmont Counties, and others stream restoration projects. The to form the Ohio Hellbender “This ‘head-starting’ agency and its partners have ini- Partnership. Using State Wildlife program will enable tiated the North Carolina Giant Grant Program funds and other us to release young Salamander Network to bring state and partner resources, the together experts, researchers, Partnership released 1,120 cap- Hellbenders back advocates, and land managers to tive-reared Eastern Hellbenders to the wild at a life- enhance communication, data into ten watersheds over an eight- sharing, and further Eastern year period. Along with efforts stage that may enable Hellbender conservation efforts. to restore stream habitats and them to survive and provide community outreach, the Hellbender head-start program thrive in New York.” Ohio is working to reverse the precip- Patricia Riexinger The Ohio Department of Natural itous decline of this rare am- Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Division of Wildlife phibian by establishing multiple New York State Department of has partnered with The Ohio self-sustaining populations in Environmental Conservation State University, Ohio Universi- Ohio. The Partnership is con- ty, Columbus and Toledo Zoos, tinuing to monitor populations PENTA Career Center, Soil and and identify factors responsible Water Conservation Districts for the low levels of recruitment.

116 TRIBAL HIGHLIGHT Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Snowshoe Hare and Fisher Conservation

Project Summary Hares are also a prey species for Program Funding many predators. Keeping their In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife populations healthy benefits the Service provided the Leech Lake entire food web. $130,000 $196,400 Band of Ojibwe with a Tribal Wildlife Grant Program award to $326,400 research the influence of forest Project Cost TOTAL structure and composition on the Tribal Wildlife Grant space use, survival, and interac- Program—$196,400; other tions of Snowshoe Hare and Fish- resources provided by the Band er. As part of this research, tribal TWG Program and partners—$130,000. Leech Lake Band and others biologists trapped and used radio telemetry collars to study Snow- shoe Hares and Fishers to un- Partners derstand how the two species in- teract in reservation forests. The University of Minnesota, North project was intended to inform Carolina State University, forest management practices, Minnesota Department of helping the Leech Lake Band Natural Resources, U.S. Forest of Ojibwe manage sustainable Service—Chippewa National populations of the two interre- Forest lated species. The project helped the Band find solutions to the Methods declining Hare and Fisher populations and allow tribal members Research, Monitoring, to continue their subsistence Coordination living by hunting Snowshoe Hare for traditional meals. Snowshoe

This Snowshoe Hare was trapped and collared by the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of Resource Management.

Photo: Alejandro Morales, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

117 The Fisher (Martes pennanti), also referred to as fisher cat, is a medium- sized mammal native to North America.

Photo: Ron Dunnington, 2010. Flickr Creative Commons License: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- nd/4.0/.

Results Future Needs

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Ongoing funding for the Leech is using science and their tradi- Lake Band of Ojibwe is import- tional ecological knowledge to ant for future actions that use assess Snowshoe Hare and Fisher new information obtained in this populations on their reservation project to improve survival of located in north-central Min- Snowshoe Hare on tribal lands. nesota. The Snowshoe Hare is a Additional resources are needed traditional and cultural resource for further investigations that for its meat and fur, playing can help the Band identify spe- an integral part of subsistence cific strategies that will ensure living. abundant populations of the species for the benefit of future generations.

More Information

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ insider3/June16Story16.htm

118 WESTERN REGION HIGHLIGHTS

119 120 STATE HIGHLIGHTS Alaska Little Brown Bat

Status Partners Program Funding Scheduled for Federal Listing U.S. Forest Service, National Park Review (2023) Service $300,000 $600,000

$900,000 Project Summary Methods TOTAL

Eastern and Midwestern pop- Monitoring Via Radiotelemetry, ulations of the Little Brown Scent Dogs, Trail Cameras, and Bat (LBB) have been devastated Bat Detectors SWG Program in recent years by white-nose ADFG/Partners syndrome, a fungal disease that Results attacks hibernating bats. Due to a lack of information about ADF&G’s efforts have confirmed the overwintering behavior of non-cavernous hibernacula and LBB in the western portion of its swarming behavior at these sites. range, Alaska Department of Fish Their new methods will enable and Game (ADF&G) is unable to ADF&G to model bat winter assess and manage the poten- habitat in southeast Alaska and tial impacts of the disease. The conserve critical bat habitat. agency has used State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program funds for nine field seasons to identify Future Needs and characterize the structures Additional resources are needed and microclimates the bat uses to help ADF&G identify specific for hibernation and to develop overwintering habitats, expand new methods for identifying acoustic monitoring, and iden- hibernacula and overwintering tify and increase protections for habitat.

Little Brown Bat (Myotis) with band.

Photo: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

121 foraging and summer roosting Wildlife biologist Laura Beard removes a bat from a mist net. habitats.

Photo: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Wildlife Action Plan

The Alaska Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2015. The plan identifies 326 vertebrates as Species of Greatest Conser- vation Need associated with sea ice, tundra, glacially influenced rivers, streams and fjords, perma- frost associated wetlands, beaches and sea cliffs, temperate rain forest, and marine nearshore and shelf. Key threats include climate change, oil spills, and invasive species. Priority conservation actions include increased monitoring and data collection, research to understand species declines, surveys of high use areas to inform management and land use planning, and invasive species control. Overall, Alaska has very healthy habitats and abundant wildlife populations due to its location, large size, small human population, and minimally modified lands. The plan was developed with input from agencies, private conservation organizations, academic institutions, and the public. Contact the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to learn more.

122 American Samoa Habitat Mapping and Classification

Status ping is essential for targeting Program Funding high-value conservation areas for Multiple SGCN and Federally future protection. For example, Listed Species this project determined that the $294,600 $129,900 Island of Aunu’u is comprised of $424,500 Project Summary 30 percent wetland habitat and TOTAL 61 percent marsh wetland hab- The American Samoa Wildlife itats, while wetlands cover less Action Plan identified a need for than one percent of the major updated and detailed habitat islands of American Samoa. SWG Program maps for the territory’s islands. Wetlands provide important Wildlife Restoration Program The plan noted that previous habitat for several at-risk species mapping was outdated or too identified in the American Samoa American Samoa is exempt from generalized to meet the needs of Wildlife Action Plan. the State Wildlife Grant Program wildlife biologists. The goal of matching requirement. Additional the American Samoa Department Future Needs funds for this project were provided of Marine and Wildlife Resources through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (DMWR) Habitat Mapping Proj- Additional funding is needed to Service’s Wildlife Restoration Program. ect was to produce detailed and continue monitoring of at-risk accurate habitat maps through- species and protection of import- out American Samoa using a ant habitats such as those iden- classification scheme specific to tified in this project. Ongoing the vegetation of Samoa. The support will help DMWR collab- resulting map products provide Coastline of the Island of Tutuila, orate with other federal agencies American Samoa. an important dataset to facilitate and partners. the monitoring and management Photo: National Park Service. of wildlife and wildlife habitat in American Samoa.

Partners

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program and Wildlife Restoration Program

Methods

Mapping Using Remote Sensing and LIDAR, Field Sampling

Results

Information obtained through habitat classification and map-

123 The Fruit Bat is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the American Samoa Wildlife Action Plan.

Photo: National Park Service.

American Samoa Wildlife Action Plan Priority conservation actions include partnerships with other The American Samoa Wild- conservation agencies and orga- life Action Plan was revised nizations to establish connected in 2015. The plan identifies 60 habitats, engagement in large- Species of Greatest Conservation scale watershed planning, and Need associated with terrestrial expansion of data collection and and marine ecosystems through- monitoring for Species of Great- out the Territory. Key threats to est Conservation Need. Many species include habitat loss and conservation partners and mem- fragmentation, invasive species, bers of the public participated in disease, and climate change. the development of the plan.

124 Arizona Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Status species. Like other threatened or Program Funding endangered species listed under Federally Threatened (2002) the Endangered Species Act, the $3,400,000 $1,100,000 frog has required intensive efforts for many years and has only been Project Summary $4,500,000 successful due to the combined TOTAL For 15 years, the Arizona Game efforts of state, federal, and and Fish Department (AGFD) has private partners. Multiple State taken a lead role in managing the Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program recovery of several federally listed awards have been combined over SWG Program species in Arizona, including the these 15 years along with state AGFD/Partners Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Among matching resources to support eight land units identified in the this recovery program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery plan for the Chiricahua Partners Leopard Frog, seven lie all or partially in Arizona. The Chiricahua U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leopard Frog has declined in this U.S. Forest Service, The Phoenix range mainly due to amphibian Zoo, University of Arizona, disease, habitat loss, and invasive

Arizona Game and Fish biologist releases a Chiricahua Leopard Frog.

Photo: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

125 Private Landowners including Grant Program funds to support Livestock Ranchers. a genomics study that is expected to improve translocation success. Continued surveying of more Methods remote sites along with ongoing Captive Propagation and Release, bullfrog removal are necessary to Habitat Restoration, Invasive continue making progress toward Bullfrog Eradication, Private recovery. Landowner Agreements “Management for Arizona Wildlife Action Plan Results a single species, The Arizona Wildlife Action Plan whether that be cattle AGFD’s efforts include removal of was revised in 2012 and is cur- invasive bullfrogs from hundreds rently being updated. The plan or an endangered of square miles of Chiricahua identifies 528 Species of Greatest species, is flawed. It Leopard Frog habitat. Tens of Conservation Need associated is the management of thousands of frogs, tadpoles, and with desert scrub, grasslands, egg masses have been released woodlands and forests, and an entire ecosystem in over 400 translocations to aquatic and riparian areas. Key that creates the best 149 sites. Monitoring of these threats to species include human population growth, altered hy- functioning system, sites has shown a 400 percent increase in occupancy. AGFD and drological and fire regimes, inva- and yields the best partners have met the recovery sive species, disease, and climate results for all species.” plan goals for one of the land change. Priority conservation units located in or partially in actions include partnerships with Arizona Rancher and Chiricahua Arizona. land managers to establish resil- Leopard Frog Safe Harbor Participant ient connected habitats, engagement in large scale watershed Future Needs planning, expansion of citizen science and volunteer programs Although AGFD and their part- for data collection and moni- ners have made great strides toring, and partnerships with toward recovery of this species industry to minimize impacts to in Arizona, more must be done wildlife. More than 60 conserva- before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife tion partners and many members Service may consider de-listing of the public participated in the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. The development of the plan. Con- agency is using State Wildlife tact the Arizona Game and Fish Department to learn more.

Conservation of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog has required intensive efforts for many years and has only been successful due to the combined efforts of state, federal, and private partners.

Photo: Allison Leigh Smith.

126 California Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Status Methods Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal Research, Monitoring Including Listing (2015) Satellite Telemetry, Planning, $121,000 $224,600 Coordination $345,600 Project Summary TOTAL Results The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is This project is yielding signif- investigating the health, repro- icant new information on the SWG Program ductive biology, habitat use, basic biology and ecology of the CDFW/Partners and causes of mortality of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. This Sierra Nevada Red Fox in the information will be included in a Lassen Peak area. This rare fox Conservation Strategy currently is state-listed as threatened and under development and will help is also described as a Species of guide future research needs and Greatest Conservation Need that management actions. is highly vulnerable to climate change in California’s 2015 State Future Needs Wildlife Action Plan. Sierra Nevada Red Fox distribution has Although the species as a whole declined significantly over the was determined Not Warranted past century, and little is known for listing under the Endangered about its ecology or population Species Act in 2015, the Sierra size. CDFW used State Wildlife Nevada Distinct Population Grant (SWG) Program funds over Segment of the fox was proposed the past three years to address for listing by the Service in 2020. these data gaps, and to better CDFW needs continued fund- understand potential factors ing for basic research, including limiting the fox’s expansion into investigations of population size unoccupied but seemingly suitable habitat in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges.

Partners

Lassen Volcanic National Park, University of California–Davis, U.S. Forest Service—Lassen National Forest A male Red Fox is released by CDFW employees after being examined and fitted with a satellite tracking collar. February 13, 2018. Lassen National Forest.

Photo: Corrie McFarland.

127 and trend, survival/mortality, California Wildlife Action Plan habitat use, interactions and competition with other carni- The California Wildlife Action vores, and related work. This Plan was revised in 2015. The ongoing research provides essen- plan identifies 1,153 Species of tial scientific information that Greatest Conservation Need will inform future U.S. Fish and associated with 55 key habitats/ Wildlife Service listing decisions. ecosystems. Key threats include habitat loss, conversion and fragmentation due to various More Information human activities that are coupled with other drivers such as inva- https://www.fws.gov/news/ sive species and issues related to ShowNews.cfm?ref=service-pro- climate change including wild- poses-federal-protections-for-cal- fire, drought and ocean acidi- ifornia-population-of-one-of-&_ fication. Priority conservation ID=36508 actions encompass various topics including science and technology, outreach, partnership-building, law and policy, and integrated “This project has planning and management. Over 380 individuals assisted with yielded significant development of the plan and its insights into the nine companion plans which ecology of these foxes summarize actions needed for implementing the plan. Contact which will help the the California Department of Department and other Fish and Wildlife to learn more. managers conserve the population.”

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

128 Colorado Lesser Prairie-Chicken

Status (SWG) Program funds were com- Program Funding bined with Wildlife Restoration Under Review for Federal Listing Program funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $159,000 $345,400 various sources of non-federal Project Summary $504,400 matching resources from the TOTAL The Lesser Prairie-Chicken is two states and their university the iconic prairie grouse of the partners to make this project southern Great Plains. However, possible. numbers have declined drasti- SWG Program cally in a portion of the Sand Partners CPW/KDWPT Sagebrush Ecoregion near the Cimarron National Grasslands in Kansas Department of Wildlife, southwestern Kansas and the Co- Parks, and Tourism, Kansas State manche National Grasslands in University, U.S. Forest Service southeastern Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and Kansas Department of Wildlife, Methods Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) Research, Monitoring, partnered with Kansas State Translocation, Coordination, University and the U.S. Forest Landowner Agreements Service to implement a three-year translocation project. The goal of this partnership is to secure the Results long-term persistence, resiliency, and distribution of Lesser Prai- Between 2016 and 2019, the rie-Chicken populations within partnership conducted four the Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion by month-long trapping and trans- restoring core populations. Three location operations requiring graduate students from Kansas many hours at remote field State University assisted with stations in western Kansas. The this project. State Wildlife Grant partnership trapped and trans-

Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists release Lesser Prairie-Chicken on the Comanche National Grasslands in southeastern Colorado.

Photo: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

129 located 411 Lesser Prairie-Chick- en. Farm Bill programs, non-gov- “This multi-state ens from the Short-grass Prairie ernmental organization support, Ecoregion in Kansas to the Sand investment from renewable and partnership, focused Sagebrush Ecoregion. In early nonrenewable energy industry at a landscape May of 2020, one full year after partners, and dedicated state and the last bird was released, Colo- federal habitat funding are all scale, demonstrates rado and Kansas biologists and necessary to maintain the south- what collaborative technicians found 115 male birds ern Great Plains and its cherished management efforts and 20 active leks on or near the species. Comanche and Cimarron Na- can do to restore a tional Grasslands. These leks, More Information species to an area. established by the translocated birds and their offspring, indicate https://youtu.be/xG_7hajky-Q However, agency that theLesser Prairie-Chicken partnership is just has once again returned to the one component of the region’s prairie. Colorado Wildlife Action Plan The Colorado Wildlife Action project. Landowner This partnership effort to restore Plan was revised in 2015. The resiliency to the Lesser Prai- support and access plan identifies 159 Species of rie-Chicken population in the to private lands was Greatest Conservation Need as- Sand Sagebrush Ecoregion seeks sociated with river basins, forests, critical for capture of to increase long-term redundan- wetlands, grasslands, and shrub- cy and representation across the birds and continues lands. Key threats to species species’ range. Combined with include habitat loss and frag- to be essential for similar efforts in the West, these mentation, disturbance, invasive long-term monitoring. proactive strategies can positively species, and lack of protection. impact the Service listing deci- Recovery of this Key conservation actions include sion for Lesser Prairie-Chicken. amazing species increased monitoring and data collection, enhanced manage- requires all of us Future Needs ment and protection, and out- working together.” reach. More than 20 conservation Broad-scale funding will be partners and many members of Liza Rossi necessary to further incentivize the public participated in the de- Bird Conservation Coordinator conservation and restoration velopment and review of the plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife of prairie grasslands for species Contact the Colorado Division of such as the Lesser Prairie-Chick- Parks and Wildlife to learn more.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists and a Kansas State University Graduate Student apply a transmitter to a Lesser Prairie-Chicken.

Photo: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

130 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Micronesian Gecko

used the information to develop Program Funding a model of Micronesian Gecko distribution on Saipan. USGS provided technical expertise and $46,000 $14,000 other resources that were essen- $60,000 tial to the success of this project. TOTAL

Partner

U.S. Geological Survey SWG Program DOI/USGS Methods The Commonwealth of the Northern Research, Monitoring Mariana Islands is exempt from State Wildlife Grant Program matching Results requirements. Micronesian Gecko. This project showed that Micro- Photo: Eric Hileman, U.S. Geological Survey. nesian Geckos are more common than previously thought and that Status they are currently found only at higher elevation locations away State Threatened and from Saipan’s coastal areas where Endangered development pressure is highest. Data will be used for future Project Summary habitat and species management to benefit the Gecko and other In 2018, the Commonwealth of at-risk species. From this experi- the Northern Mariana Islands ence, DFW and USGS know and (CNMI) Division of Fish and value what each other brings to a Wildlife (DFW) and the U.S. partnership. This project directly Geological Survey (USGS) part- led to a partnership on a larger nered to implement the first project to control feral ungulates landscape-scale survey of her- on the island of Alamagan for the petofauna on Saipan, the larg- benefit of the federally endan- est and most populated of the gered Mariana Skink. Northern Mariana Islands. The Micronesian Gecko, a CNMI-list- Future Needs ed species, was a particular focus. Project funding was provided by Priority needs for future conser- the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) vation activities include: validat- Program. This effort was the first ing the Gecko distribution model, large-scale collaboration between conducting similar studies on DFW and USGS on an applied two other islands, implementing research project. The partners long-term monitoring of ter-

131 restrial reptiles, and acquiring ment, climate change, military easements or real property where expansion, pollution, unsustain- Micronesian Gecko hotspots are able harvest or hunting, tourism vulnerable to development. and recreation, natural disasters, and wildfires. Priority conservation actions identified in the Commonwealth of the Northern plan include invasive species Mariana Islands (CNMI) prevention, improving effective- Wildlife Action Plan ness of conservation regulations, increased monitoring and data The CNMI Wildlife Action collection, continued adaptive Plan was revised in 2015. The management, and public out- plan identifies 60 Species of reach. More than 20 conservation Greatest Conservation Need as- partners and numerous members sociated with forests, grasslands, of the public participated in the wetlands, caves, shorelines, coral development and review of the “Our agency has reefs, seagrass beds, and open plan. Contact the CNMI Divi- ocean. Key threats to species extremely limited sion of Fish and Wildlife to learn include invasive species, develop- funding available for more. reptile conservation. This was our first major project addressing the conservation needs of any terrestrial reptile, so I am very pleased with the successful outcome.”

Manny M. Pangelinan Director CNMI Department of Fish and Wildlife

132 Guam Green and Hawksbill Sea Turtles

Program Funding

$126,000

$126,000 TOTAL

SWG Program

Guam is exempt from the State Wildlife Grant Program matching requirements.

Hawksbill Sea Turtle.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Status Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department Federally Endangered of Defense

Project Summary Methods

The Guam Division of Aquatic Monitoring; landowner outreach and Wildlife Resources is imple- and education menting an island-wide sea turtle nesting habitat assessment. The agency is working to identify Results active sea turtle nesting habitat, Using information acquired identify threats to sea turtles, through this project, the Guam and determine nesting success Division of Aquatic and Wildlife through on-going monitoring. Resources will develop man- Project funding is provided by agement strategies to increase the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) recruitment of sea turtles from Program. Guam beaches.

Partners Guam Wildlife Action Plan Hagaan Watch (a volunteer The Guam Wildlife Action Plan monitoring group), National was revised in 2015. The plan

133 Tatiana Perez Borja, left in bright green, and Josefa “Sefa” Muñoz, right in blue, both formerly of the University of Guam Sea Grant Program, assist Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources with a green sea turtle nest inventory.

Photo: Cristian “CJ” Cayanan, Biologist, Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.

identifies 77 invertebrate and eradication of introduced species, vertebrate Species of Greatest captive breeding and transloca- Conservation Need associated tion of federally endangered or with habitats from limestone for- locally extirpated species, des- ests, savannas, beach strand for- ignation of protected terrestrial ests, wetlands, to sea grass beds, and marine conservation areas, lagoons, and coral reefs. Key increasing scientific information threats to species are introduced of species, and community edu- invasive plants and animals, land cation and outreach are identified development and use patterns as key priority conservation ac- contributing to habitat loss, and tions. The plan was developed in climate change. The introduced consultation with many subject predatory Brown Tree Snake is, matter experts from federal and perhaps, the single major con- state agencies, academic insti- tributor to extinctions of many of tutions, and non-governmental Guam’s native birds. Control or organizations, along with public input. Contact the Guam De- partment of Agriculture and its Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources to learn more.

134 Hawaii Kiwikiu (Maui Parrotbill)

Status sands of hours of seed collection Program Funding from within the reserve and Federally Threatened (2017) other protected lands, propagation of seedlings at nurseries, $520,790 $1,122,160 and finally transportation and Project Summary $1,642,950 planting in the reserve. In total, TOTAL Hawaii Division of Forestry and project managers planted over Wildlife’s (HDFW) Maui Forest 69,000 native seedlings of 22 spe- Bird Recovery Project has con- cies in the reserve. These join ducted forest recovery actions over 200,000 planted by the State SWG Program in Nakula Natural Area Reserve of Hawaii in the greater reserve HDFW/Partners (reserve) since 2012 in preparation areas. Community volunteers for a planned reintroduction of contributed to the restoration the endangered Kiwikiu to this of the reserve, providing at least portion of the species’ former 45 percent of the overall field range. Hawaii Division of For- hours planting and conducting estry and Wildlife has conducted other restoration activities. These research and restoration actions community volunteers leave their on 100 acres of the Wailaulau experience with a personal stake Unit of the reserve. These include in the project and in the overall experimental research on the conservation of the forest and its best restoration practices, exten- inhabitants. The contributions sive planting of native seedlings, of volunteers and other resources erosion control, enhancement of from project partners were used natural regeneration, and remov- as match to secure State Wildlife al of non-native grasses. Planting Grant (SWG) Program funding native seedlings involves thou- from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Partners

University of Hawaii Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, American Bird Conservancy, Na Koa Manu Conservation

Young Ohia trees to be planted in Nakula Natural Area Reserve, Maui, Hawaii.

Photo: Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

135 Methods More Information

Research, Monitoring, Habitat www.mauiforestbirds.org Creation, Enhancement and Management https://wildlife.org/conservationists-race-to-save-hawaiian-kiwikiu-honeycreeper/ Results

The conservation actions that https://www.audubon.org/mag- have taken place in the reserve azine/september-october-2015/ have transformed the habitat how-scientists-are-racing-save- from highly degraded and frag- rare mented remnant forest to an increasingly dense, diverse, and Roberts, C. 2019. Restoring A Na- connected forest. Experimen- tive Hawaiian Ecosystem. Maui tal trials indicated that natural No Ka Oi Magazine November Kiwikiu was listed by the U.S. Fish and regeneration was limited to a few 2019 Wildlife Service as threatened in 2017. common species in the first few Photo: Zach Pezzillo, Maui Forest Bird years after fences were erected Hawaii Wildlife Action Plan Recovery Project. and non-native ungulates were excluded. While these species The Hawaii State Wildlife Action continued to make up the majori- Plan was revised in 2015. The ty of new trees recruited through plan includes 6,252 Species of 2019, natural germination is now Greatest Conservation Need, in- being observed in numerous cluding many endemics that are additional species. Many of the associated alpine, subterranean, planted and naturally germinated streams, estuaries, and marine seedlings are beginning to reach habitats. Key threats to species “Before humans came maturity, exponentially increas- are habitat loss and fragmenta- ing the overall reproductive out- tion, disturbance, invasive spe- to Hawaii, there put of native plant species within cies, lack of protection, climate were no rats that ate the preserve. Forest restoration change, lack of information, lack the birds’ eggs, and is essential for supporting an in- of compliance with laws and crease in Kiwikiu abundance and regulations, overharvesting, and no mosquitoes that distribution on Maui. excessive extraction and use. spread diseases to Priority conservation actions include managing and protecting Future Needs which the birds have native species, controlling inva- no immunity. Since While natural regeneration con- sive species, management and we are at the root of tinues to take hold in the reserve recovery of species, monitoring and data collection, supporting these problems, it is and surrounding areas, the diversity that will be needed to make partnerships, outreach and edu- our duty to save these the area fully functional habitat cation to improve understanding birds from extinction.” will require continuing planting of native wildlife, policy changes of native species. There is a need and enhancing funding. Nearly Hanna Mounce for landscape-scale mosquito 70 conservation partners and citizens participated in development Coordinator control and disease management. of the plan. Contact the Hawaii Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project Although the reserve habitat is more degraded than currently Division of Forestry and Wildlife occupied Kiwikiu habitat, the re- to learn more. leased birds responded very well to the available restored habitat.

136 Idaho Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment

Status species. The agency used DNA Program Funding hair snaring as well as satellite Not Warranted for Federal radio collars to collect occurrence Listing (2011 and 2017) and movement data. These data $150,000 $100,000 were used to produce models of $250,000 Project Summary Fisher distribution and habitat TOTAL preference. Over time, numerous State Wildlife Grant (SWG) partners joined the effort and Program funds helped catalyze brought considerable funds and a multi-year, multi-organiza- resources to expand and support SWG Program tion effort to better understand the project. IDFG/Partners the habitat needs of Fishers in north-central Idaho. Prior to Partners this work the Fisher had received little conservation attention and University of Idaho, its low densities and presumed PotlatchDeltic Corporation, association with mature and old- U.S. Forest Service–Nez Perce– growth forest types meant there Clearwater National Forest, “The Idaho Fisher was high probability of future Yellowstone to Yukon project has provided petitions for listing under the Conservation Initiative, Idaho the needed science Endangered Species Act (ESA). To Conservation League, National proactively address this knowl- Council for Air and Stream to maintain state edge gap, Idaho Fish and Game Improvement management of the (IDFG) initiated a project to better understand the distribution species and provide and habitat requirements of the the information for future planning efforts to support a balanced approach between the economic vitality of the State and its wildlife.”

Joshua Uriarte Terrestrial Species Program Manager and Policy Advisor Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation

Dr. Joel Sauder of IDFG conducts vital sign monitoring of Fisher while attaching a satellite-based radio collar.

Photo: Chris Claire.

137 Methods More Information

Research, Monitoring, Modeling, Significant translocation work Coordination has occurred to restore Fisher to its historic range in the State of Washington. See the Washington Results State Fisher project description This project generated Fisher for more information on this habitat preference information related effort. that contributed to the Service’s Not Warranted finding for the Idaho Wildlife Action Plan Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment. The Idaho State Wildlife Ac- As a result, the state of Idaho tion Plan was revised in 2016. retained management authority The plan identifies 205 Species for the species, thereby helping of Greatest Conservation Need to preserve timber-based jobs associated with alpine and high and benefiting local economies of montane, aspen forest and wood- north-central Idaho. This under- land, dry and mesic forest, river- standing of habitat requirements ine–riparian, sagebrush steppe, and suitable habitat constitutes caves, and wetlands. Key threats the best available science on include native habitat conver- Fishers in Idaho and continues to sion due to noxious weeds and shape conservation actions and invasive annual grasses as well as local forest management into development and related infra- Survey stations employed a remote the future. State Wildlife Grant structure, altered fire regimes, camera, a hair-snaring device, a bone Program funding has distinct- and wildlife disease. Priority and an automated scent pump to ly influenced the forthcoming conservation actions include the attract and document the presence of Fishers. Nez Perce–Clearwater National use of American Beaver to im- Forest Plan, and provides essen- prove stream health for working Photo: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. tial information for IDFG’s Fisher landscapes and wildlife, mitigat- conservation and management ing impacts of invasive plant and “The Idaho Fisher plan, which is currently under animal species, restoring natural development. fire intervals that promote histor- project has been ical forest and rangeland condi- a great example tions, and addressing impacts of Future Needs of large private disease and pesticides on fish and landowner Since the distribution and pre- wildlife. More than 90 conserva- ferred habitat of Fishers overlaps tion partners and many members collaboration with forests managed for multi- of the public participated in the and has ensured ple uses including timber pro- development and review of the duction, there will be a long-term plan. Contact the Idaho Depart- all affected need to monitor populations to ment of Fish and Game to learn stakeholders will be ensure Fishers remain secure and more. involved in the long- ESA protections are not required in the future. term conservation of this species.”

Mike Houser Manager Certification & Environment PotlatchDeltic

138 Montana Trumpeter Swan

Status the population until seven pairs Program Funding of swans successfully fledge Species of Greatest Conservation cygnets (young swans) for two $175,000 $200,000 Need consecutive years. State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program and FWP $1,075,000 Project Summary funds used in this project have TOTAL been supplemented with partner Trumpeter Swans were classi- funds, volunteer support, and fied as Tier 1 Species of Greatest other resources that amount to Conservation need in Montana’s many thousands of dollars over $700,000 original State Wildlife Action the past sixteen years. New re- SWG Program Plan, which was published in leases are occurring in the Madi- MFWP 2006 and has been updated regu- son Valley of Southwest Montana Other—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service larly since then by Montana Fish, with similar resources. Wildlife, and Parks (FWP). The habitat needed by nesting Trum- Partners peter Swans includes wetlands and riparian areas. Since 2004, Blackfoot Challenge, U.S. Fish FWP, the Blackfoot Challenge, and Wildlife Service, Blackfoot the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Valley landowners and a host of partners including private landowners have been working cooperatively to restore Methods Trumpeter Swans to wetlands Monitoring, Reintroduction, in the Blackfoot watershed. The Wetland Restoration, goal of the program is to restore Coordination

Trumpeter Swans.

Photo: Tom Koerner, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region.

139 Results More Information

In 2011, Trumpeter Swans suc- https://issuu.com/montanaout- cessfully nested and fledged doors/docs/cskt_swans1 cygnets in the Blackfoot watershed for the first time in poten- Montana Wildlife Action Plan tially two centuries. Since then, the population has continued The Montana Wildlife Ac- to rebound. Blackfoot wetlands tion Plan was revised in 2015. The hosted a record number of 13 plan identifies 128 Species of Trumpeter Swan pairs, five of Greatest Conservation Need which produced 20 cygnets, in associated with streams, rivers, 2018. In addition to Swan recov- lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, for- ery, FWP has found that wet- ests, grasslands, and sagebrush. lands restoration and protection Key threats include habitat loss has contributed to significant or change, disease, pollution, community pride in healthy habi- climate change, and invasive tats and wildlife populations. species. Priority conservation “Trumpeter Swans tug actions include collaboration at the heartstrings of Future Needs and outreach, habitat protection people in this valley. and management, planning and Trumpeter Swans are being review, and technical assistance. When I have coffee reintroduced in other wetlands to Many agency staff, conservation at a local café or build similar support for wildlife partners and the public partic- and to achieve successful species ipated in the development of meet with a local recovery. Additional support the plan. Contact Montana Fish landowner, I hear their would allow FWP to expand Wildlife and Parks to learn more. stories about swans these efforts to other watersheds with suitable habitat. flying over their land and how incredible that experience was.”

Greg Neudecker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

140 Nevada California Spotted Owl

Status Results Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal This project determined that Listing (2019) the Carson Range can support $56,150 $29,000 breeding pairs which is critical new information. Knowing $85,150 Project Summary TOTAL the locations of Spotted Owl After receiving a petition to list nests is essential to protect- the California Spotted Owl, the ing them. NDOW used survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service results to work with forestry and land-management partners to SWG Program issued a positive 90-day finding NDOW/Partners in 2015. In Nevada, California minimize nest disturbance and Spotted Owls occur in a single ensure that suitable habitat is mountain range, the Carson conserved. Data obtained in this Range, and were first confirmed project contributed to the 2019 to nest there in 2009. Nevada U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Wildlife (NDOW) finding that the species is not has been conducting surveys for warranted for federal listing. the species since then, with more than 330 surveys throughout its Future Needs range. In addition to support from the State Wildlife Grant A large portion of the Carson Female and juvenile California Spotted (SWG) Program, field work was Range remains unsurveyed for Owls photographed near their nest in supported in part by the Lake California Spotted Owl. Addi- Nevada’s Carson Range in July 2015. Tahoe Environmental Improve- tional survey work is needed in Photo: Mark Enders, NDOW. ment Program which contributed $46,000 toward the cost of survey crews and NDOW staff salaries.

Partners

Great Basin Institute, U.S. Forest Service, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Methods

Research, Monitoring, Coordination, Habitat Management, Technical Assistance

141 roadless and wilderness areas to gain a better understanding of the species’ distribution in the Carson Range and to protect additional active territories from disturbance.

Nevada Wildlife Action Plan

The Nevada Wildlife Action Plan was revised in 2012. The plan identifies 256 Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated with sagebrush, Mojave warm desert shrub, aspen woodland, marshes, and sand dunes. Key threats include habitat loss and fragmentation, wildfires, inva- “California Spotted Owls sive species, disease, and climate are tied to some of the change. Priority conservation include increased monitoring and most pristine habitats in data collection, enhanced man- Nevada’s Carson Range, agement and protection, and outreach. Eight formal partners and and the management many informal partners and the decisions we make public assisted with development today will benefit a of the plan. Contact the Nevada Department of Wildlife to learn suite of important more. species in Nevada for generations to come.”

Mark Enders NDOW Biologist

142 New Mexico Peñasco Least Chipmunk

Status and radio telemetry. Basic infor- Program Funding mation on the distribution and Candidate for Federal Listing habitat associations of the chipmunk is a data gap that must be $36,000 $66,500 addressed for conservation and Project Summary $102,500 management of the chipmunk to TOTAL The Peñasco Least Chipmunk is proceed. Both distribution and listed as endangered by the State habitat association data collected of New Mexico and is a candidate with the support of State Wildlife for federal listing under the En- Grant (SWG) Program funds are SWG Program dangered Species Act (ESA). It is very important in informing the NMDGF/Partners only known to persist in the Sier- final listing decision that will be ra Blanca subrange of the Sacra- made for this candidate for feder- mento Mountains, New Mexico. al listing under the ESA. Surveys conducted by researchers at New Mexico State University Partners under a contract with the New Mexico Department of Game and New Mexico State University, Fish (NMDGF) in 2016 were the Frey Biological Research, first to document the presence of U.S. Forest Service this species in the Sierra Blanca subrange. The goal of further research conducted between 2018 Methods and 2019 was to evaluate the Research, Monitoring chipmunk’s distribution, habitat selection, and ecological interactions based on camera traps

Penasco Least Chipmunk with an ear tag for monitoring.

Photo: Jim Stuart.

143 Results More Information

This project documented the spe- Report on Peñasco Least Chip- cies in new locations and high- munk monitoring by Dr. Jen- lighted a previously unrecognized nifer Frey: http://www.wildlife. part of the Sacramento Moun- state.nm.us/download/contains as an important area for servation/share-with-wildlife/ future conservation. In addition, reports/2016/Survey-for-the-Pe- the researchers demonstrated nasco-least-chip- that Peñasco Least Chipmunk munk-Tamias-minimus-atristria- could be distinguished from the tus-_-Jennifer-Frey.pdf similar Gray-Footed Chipmunk using photographs. They placed New Mexico Wildlife Action Plan camera traps at 239 locations throughout the Sierra Blanca The New Mexico Wildlife Ac- “The information subrange, based on land cover tion Plan was revised in 2017. being gathered type and elevation. The research- The plan identifies 235 Species by researchers at ers radio-tracked 16 chipmunks of Greatest Conservation Need at the Lookout Mountain–Ice associated with 41 key terrestrial New Mexico State Springs study area. Data obtained and aquatic habitats. Key threats University regarding by NMDGF contractors suggest include development, agriculture, that Peñasco Least Chipmunks the Peñasco Least energy production, and natural are habitat specialists and that system modifications. Priority Chipmunk is crucial conservation of the Lookout conservation actions include re- to furthering the Mountain–Ice Springs subpop- search and monitoring, improved ulation should focus on main- threat assessment, project review, conservation of this taining old growth Engelmann’s collaboration, and outreach. Over candidate species spruce forest and a shrub under- 42 federal, state, and education and making a well- story. institutions, agency staff, and many members of the public par- informed decision Future Needs ticipated in development of the regarding its listing plan. Contact the New Mexico Additional resources are needed Department of Game and Fish to at the federal level.” to retain old growth stands of learn more. spruce, which are threatened by Ginny Seamster disease and wildfire in synergy Program Coordinator with climate change. NMDGF Share with Wildlife Program will also need to implement conservation actions to protect chipmunk cover provided by shrubs and other understory species, which may be impacted by grazing or browsing.

144 Oregon Western Pond Turtle

Status Partners Program Funding Scheduled for Federal Listing The Oregon Wildlife Foundation, Review (2021) Cities of Albany, Eugene, and $80,000 $120,000 Salem, Salem Audubon Society, Port of Portland, Oregon Zoo, $200,000 Project Summary TOTAL Washington Department of The Western Pond Turtle is Fish and Wildlife, California currently under review for federal Department of Fish and Wildlife, listing. If implemented in a time- Center for Natural Lands Management, U.S. Fish and SWG Program ly manner, conservation actions ODFW/Partners identified in the Western Pond Wildlife Service Turtle Range-Wide Management Strategy could preclude the need Methods to list Western Pond Turtles under the Endangered Species Act Nesting Area Enhancement and (ESA). The Oregon Department Protection, Overwintering and of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) is Foraging Habitat Improvement, working with the states of Wash- Invasive Non-native Turtle ington and California to con- Removal, Standardized tribute key data toward the U.S. Occupancy Surveys to determine Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing status and distribution in Oregon decision and identify priority conservation areas for future pro- Results tection. Funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program, along Timely monitoring and informa- with state and partner resources, tion sharing using standardized has supported this timely, proac- survey methods may help the tive conservation work. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine the species is not warranted for listing under the ESA in 2021. Additionally, project funds are supporting local jobs and providing an opportunity for citizen scientist involvement.

Future Needs

To help ensure long-term viability of Western Pond Turtles in

A Western Pond Turtle hatchling just emerged from its nest in the Willamette Valley.

Photo: Courtesy of Samara Group.

145 the wild, additional funding is needed to research genetic variability and threats, implement best management practices, and conduct outreach and education.

Oregon Wildlife Action Plan

The Oregon Wildlife Conser- vation Strategy was revised in 2016. The strategy identifies 294 Species of Greatest Conserva- tion Need associated with late successional forests, sagebrush habitats, grasslands, estuaries, and wetlands. Key threats include “State Wildlife Grant climate change, land use changes, Program funding, invasive species, and barriers to animal movement. Priority con- along with a strong servation actions include manag- partnership with ing impacts from climate change, Oregon Department monitoring, research, improving connectivity, outreach, educa- of Fish and Wildlife, tion, urban area conservation, has allowed the City planning and regulations, and to take Western Pond voluntary conservation. More than 200 conservation partners Turtle conservation assisted in the development and work to a level that review of the strategy. Contact the Oregon Department of Fish we couldn’t easily and Wildlife to learn more. achieve on our own.”

Lauri Holts Ecologist City of Eugene Parks and Open Space

146 Utah Boreal Toad

Status Methods Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal Surveys / Monitoring, Habitat Listing (2017) Protection, Enhancement and $70,800 $112,500 Management, Captive Rearing and Release $183,300 Project Summary TOTAL

In Utah, Boreal Toad conserva- Results tion began more than 20 years ago with inventory and monitor- UDWR is presently analyzing SWG Program ing of the species. At that time, 23 years of Boreal Toad monitor- UDWR/Partners little was known about the ing data. Using the data in pop- natural history and distribution ulation modeling and viability of Boreal Toad in the state. Utah analyses, the agency has deter- Division of Wildlife Resources mined that many of the state’s (UDWR) first developed a base- Boreal Toad populations are sta- line understanding of the species, ble and even slightly increasing. then began implementing hab- This information will be essen- itat protection and restoration. tial to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Eventually, some hatchery and Service and other conservation augmentation activities produced partners in future status reviews results for the weakest popula- and for direct management of tion. Similar work is occurring Boreal Toad and its habitat. in other states including neighboring Colorado, using State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program funds along with state and many other partner resources. In Utah, state funding has largely been contributed from the Endangered Species Mitigation Fund and the Watershed Restoration Initiative.

Partners iNaturalist, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Hogle Zoo, Denver Zoo, Wild Utah Project, Private Landowners

Boreal Toad.

Photo: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

147 Species USFWS Decision Year Decided Southwestern willow flycatcher Listed—Endangered 1995 Columbia spotted frog Not warranted for ESA listing 2002 Yellowstone cutthroat trout Not warranted for ESA listing 2006 Colorado River cutthroat troat Not warranted for ESA listing 2007 Bonneville cutthroat trout Not warranted for ESA listing 2008 Pygmy rabbit Not warranted for ESA listing 2010 American pika Not warranted for ESA listing 2010 “Our State Wildlife Northern leopard frog Not warranted for ESA listing 2011 Northern leatherside chub Not warranted for ESA listing 2011 Grant Program Gila monster Not warranted for ESA listing 2011 allocation, along American bison Not warranted for ESA listing 2011 with Utah’s matching Gunnison’s prairie dog Not warranted for ESA listing 2013 funds, supports the Yellow-billed cuckoo (western DPS) Listed—Threatened 2014 Gunnison sage-grouse Listed—Threatened 2014 essential core of our Least chub Not warranted for ESA listing 2014 Endangered Species Greater sage-grouse Not warranted for ESA listing 2015 Act listing-prevention Boreal toad Not warranted for ESA listing 2017 Bifid duct pyrg Not warranted for ESA listing 2017 program: our staff. I White-tailed prairie dog Not warranted for ESA listing 2017 doubt we would have Virgin River spinedace Under review Under review been able to complete Wolverine Under review Under review

the long-term Boreal During the last 25 years, 21 species with Utah populations have been petitioned for Toad conservation federal listing, but the vast majority were found Not Warranted, largely due to State work, or much other Wildlife Grant Program funding. From: “The Power of Proactive Conservation,” a report published by the Utah Department of ESA listing-prevention Natural Resources. November 2018. Available at https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/WAP/follow-up- work, without the report.pdf. SWG Program Future Needs with forests, grasslands, sagebrush, allocation and the shrub, rivers, and wetlands. Key permanent staff that Even though the Service’s 2017 threats include water use and de- Not Warranted decision en- velopment (exacerbated by increas- this funding enables us sured that Boreal Toad was not ingly variable temperatures and to recruit and retain.” federally listed as threatened or precipitation), invasive species, de- endangered, biologists are still parture from natural fire regimes, Drew Dittmer monitoring Utah populations data gaps, inadequate understand- Herpetologist and Native and tracking toad sightings. ing of species, and insufficient Species Coordinator inventory and assessment. Prior- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources More Information ity conservation actions include habitat and species management https://www.youtube.com/ and protection, water conservation watch?v=xjC_54E169M&t=6s and management, grazing management, corridor conservation, recreation management, and mon- Utah Wildlife Action Plan itoring. Approximately 20 conser- The Utah Wildlife Action vation partners and stakeholders Plan was revised in 2015. The plan assisted with development of the identifies 141 Species of Greatest plan. Contact the Utah Division of Conservation Need associated Wildlife Resources to learn more.

148 Washington Fisher

Status Columbia and Alberta to pro- Program Funding vide healthy Fishers for release State-Listed Endangered in Washington. Released Fishers have been monitored via teleme- $35,000 $100,000 try to determine the early success Project Summary $135,000 in each reintroduction area, and TOTAL To recover Fishers in Washing- success over a longer period has ton, a group of conservation also been assessed in the Olympic partners including Washington Recovery Area. Complementing Department of Fish and Wildlife reintroduction actions, WDFW SWG Program (WDFW) have reintroduced 260 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife WDFW/Partners Fishers from 2008 to 2020 in Service worked with non-federal three recovery areas in Washing- forest landowners to develop and Project funding represents only the ton State, including the Olym- implement a Candidate Conser- portion of this overall reintroduction vation Agreement with Assuranc- pic, South Cascade, and North effort that was supported with funding Cascade Mountains. In 2020, the es (CCAA) for the Fisher. from the State Wildlife Grant Program partners reached Fisher release and WDFW. goals in all three recovery ar- By investing early in proactive eas. WDFW used State Wildlife conservation actions including Grant (SWG) Program funds to the CCAA, WDFW and partners support this effort, which com- have jump-started Fisher recov- plemented funding from the ery before the species was consid- National Park Service and other ered for listing under the Endan- partners. Reintroduction efforts gered Species Act. The CCAA also depended on assistance from has facilitated the participation Canadian partners in British of owners of private and com-

Fisher being released by National Park Service partners in the North Cascades Ecosystem of Washington, October 2019.

Photo: K. Rine, National Park Service.

149 mercial working timber lands to Future Needs continue working and managing their lands in concert with Fisher Further monitoring is needed to recovery. Ultimately, a recovered ensure that the translocations Fisher population could lead to have resulted in established a well-managed and responsible populations in the Olympic and trapping program in Washington. Cascade Recovery Areas, and to inform any need to augment reintroduced populations. Ad- Partners ditional funding could enable WDFW to expand Fisher resto- National Park Service, ration efforts within its historic Conservation Northwest, U.S. range. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Point Defiance “People have been Zoo and Aquarium/Northwest Washington Wildlife Action Plan working tirelessly to Trek Wildlife Park, Calgary Zoo, National Fish and Wildlife The Washington Wildlife Ac- restore this mysterious Foundation tion Plan was revised in 2015. and rare carnivore to The plan identifies 268 Species of Greatest Conservation Need the Cascades, and Methods associated with bogs, dune, ri- now that we’ve met parian woodland, conifer swamp, Monitoring, Species marshes and mudflats, prairie our release goals, we Reintroduction, Landowner and savannahs, shrub-steppe, Agreements anticipate that Fishers and oak and pine woodlands. will continue to settle Key threats include habitat loss into the recovery Results and fragmentation, disturbance, invasive species, lack of protec- areas, find mates, While it is too early to know if tion, and climate change. Priority and provide the the Fisher reintroductions have conservation actions include been successful in reestablish- population assessments and foundation for a large, ing self-sustaining populations, inventory, habitat protection and healthy population there have been positive indica- restoration, and species-specific in Washington.” tions based on results from the threat abatement. Approximately long-term monitoring efforts in 250 individuals and organizations the Olympic Recovery Area, as Jeff Lewis provided input during develop- well as monitoring in the South Mesocarnivore Conservation Biologist ment of the plan. Contact the Cascades. Fishers are widely Washington Department of Fish Washington Department distributed and there is evidence of Fish and Wildlife and Wildlife to learn more. of reproduction. Initial telemetry monitoring of released Fishers is still ongoing in the North Cas- cades reintroduction area, and a long-term monitoring project is being planned for the entire Cascades Recovery Area. To date, over 60 landowners have enrolled their lands protecting over 3.3 million acres of forests habitats.

150 Wyoming White-Tailed Prairie Dog

Status Program Funding Not Warranted for Federal Listing (2017) $35,600 $99,300

$134,900 Project Summary TOTAL

Due to a 90 percent decline in the historic range of the White- Tailed Prairie Dog, the species SWG Program was petitioned for federal list- WGFD/Partners ing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a 12-month finding of Not Warranted in 2010. After a 2014 court order to reevaluate the species’ status, a Species Status Assessment was initiated. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), in White-Tailed Prairie Dog. coordination with the state fish and wildlife agencies of Colorado Photo: Tom Koerner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Utah, performed range-wide Service. species mapping to determine occupancy, with support from Wildlife, Utah Division of the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Wildlife Resources Program. New information was compared to data from previous efforts to determine popula- Methods tion status of the Prairie Dog in Research, Monitoring, Range- Wyoming. Additional support Wide Mapping and funding was provided by the Service’s Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office. In 2017, Results the Service again determined the White-Tailed Prairie Dog is Work conducted as part of this not warranted for federal listing. project helped the U.S. Fish and SWG Program funding was an Wildlife Service determine that important resource impacting the species was not warranted this decision. for federal listing in 2017. Federal listing would likely impact development in western Wyoming, Partners and the Wyoming economy. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Colorado Parks and

151 Future Needs Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan

Additional resources are need- The Wyoming Wildlife Action ed for monitoring and mapping Plan was revised in 2017. The efforts to contribute to future plan identifies 229 Species of federal listing decisions affecting Greatest Conservation Need the species. associated with 11 terrestrial habitat types and 6 aquatic basins. Key threats include rural More Information subdivision and development, en- https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/me- ergy development, invasive dia/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/ species, climate change, and dis- JCR_NONGAMEACR_2016.pdf ruption of historic disturbance regimes. Priority conservation actions identified in the plan include increased monitoring and data collection, enhanced management and protection, “Many species of and outreach. Many conserva- Conservation Need tion partners and members of the public participated in devel- are linked to habitat opment and review of the plan. provided by Prairie Contact the Wyoming Game and Dogs in Wyoming. Fish Department to learn more. Understanding populations through time allows the Department to better manage for this species and ensure their persistence.”

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

152 REGIONAL CONSERVATION HIGHLIGHTS Wolverine

States in 2015, the four state wildlife Program Funding agencies collaborated to lever- Idaho, Montana, Washington, $35,000 age Competitive State Wildlife $60,000 and Wyoming Grant (C-SWG) Program funding $150,000 with state and other resources $440,000 Status to address information needs. A camera survey established a $1,269,500 $199,500 TOTAL Proposed Threatened (2013) baseline of Wolverine occurrence across the four states for future monitoring planned at five-year Project Summary intervals. Connectivity mod- $385,000 Idaho, Montana, Washington, eling that included analysis of States GNLCC and Wyoming partnered with climate change scenarios helped NFWF NPS federal, tribal, university, and the partners evaluate opportu- C-SWG USFS non-government entities to nities for conserving priority address contemporary issues areas that connect populations. concerning Wolverine across The concept of a pre-listing “10j” the western United States. (experimental non-essential) The Western States Wolverine population was advanced to fa- Conservation Project focuses cilitate reintroductions to restore on connecting the landscapes populations. These actions of the where Wolverines currently partnering state fish and wildlife exist, restoring the species to agencies are a proactive approach areas of historical distribution, that may prevent the need to and monitoring this uncommon federally list the Wolverine. inhabitant of remote wilderness with camera surveys. Beginning

The Western States Wolverine Conservation Project has developed a proactive plan for Wolverine conservation, pooling resources and skillsets to identify and fund beneficial actions on a continental scale.

Photo: Mark Packila, Montana.

153 ines across their known range, an area of nearly 55,000 square miles. Wolverines were confirmed with remote cameras and hair snares at roughly one-third of the cells sampled but modeling suggests they likely were present in roughly half of the entire survey area. The monitoring effort will be repeated in 2021 “I’ve never seen such across an expanded study area extensive collaboration including eight western states to assess whether the distribution among agencies of Wolverines, and potentially and NGOs in my other forest carnivore species, is shrinking, expanding or holding entire career” Detections from the camera survey steady. Some large areas of the were used to model the probability Bob Lanka of Wolverine occupancy across the historical Wolverine distribution remain unoccupied in Colorado Wyoming Game and Fish (retired) northwestern US, illustrating regional differences in likelihood of Wolverine and California, and progress was occurrence and establishing the made in developing a program baseline to which future surveys will be to provide regulatory assurances compared. for states under section 10j of the Endangered Species Act, if Map: Western States Wolverine Conservation Project. they were to reintroduce Wol- verines prior to a future listing. Partners The project used previously-collected telemetry data to identify Idaho, Montana, Washington, likely dispersal routes between and Wyoming State Fish and mountain ranges, with the aim “Knowing that the Wildlife Agencies, National of providing maps to land trusts species is here and Genomics Center for Wildlife working on securing easements recovering gives us and Fish Conservation, U.S. with willing private landowners Forest Service, U.S. Fish and to connect the public lands of the additional incentive Wildlife Service, National Park Rocky Mountain West. Together, to learn more about Service, University of Montana these conservation elements are and Montana State University, key to conserving Wolverines what factors affect Northern Arapaho, Eastern across the western United States. where Wolverines can Shoshone, and Confederated Conservation actions for Wol- and can’t occur” Salish and Kootenai Tribes, verines can also result in large- Woodland Park Zoo scale conservation of many other Robert Long sensitive species. Woodland Park Zoo Methods Future Needs Research, Monitoring, Modeling The Western States Wolverine Conservation Project would Results benefit from additional funding During the winters of 2015–2016 to conduct analyses to inform the in Wyoming and 2016–2017 in effects of human and environ- all four states, the camera survey mental activities on changes in documented presence of Wolver- Wolverine occupancy.

154 Wolverine distribution in Idaho, as defined by the camera survey, was as expected, but information at the individual level was added value. Four individuals known from previous studies were confirmed as still present on the landscape.

Photo: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Female F39 and male M40 at a camera station on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Washington. The camera survey indicated a broader distribution of wolverines than expected in the Cascade Range, notably south of Interstate 90.

Photo: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A female wolverine detected in the Wind River Mountains in Wyoming at the southern edge of current wolverine distribution. Her identify was confirmed by DNA collected at the site. She was 12 years old and still residing in the same area where she was last documented in 2007.

Photo: Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

155 More Information

https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/ bibliography/1911590

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/ HTML/articles/2018/wolverine- project.html

156 Arkansas Darter

The Arkansas River from its source in Colorado to its confluence with the Mississippi River.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arkansas_river_basin_map.png.

States Arkansas darter broodstocks. CPW has stocked the Darter in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, 12 locations, establishing three Missouri, and Oklahoma new populations and augment- ing several others in decline. Status The existence and success of this captive rearing program played Federal Candidate Species a role in the U.S. Fish and Wild- (1989–2016), Determined Not life Service’s 2016 finding that Warranted in 2016 the species is not warranted for federal listing. Video feature: https://www.youtube.com/ Colorado watch?v=GrXsrRVv22I. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) relies on State Wild- life Grant Program funding to support captive rearing of Arkansas darter at the Native Aquatic Species Restoration Facility near Alamosa, Colo- rado. The hatchery has been Male Arkansas Darter. in operation since 2002, and currently maintains three Photo: Ryan Waters, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism.

157 Biologists from The Nature Kansas into Arkansas, upper portions Conservancy and Arkansas Game and of the river’s watershed begin in Arkansas Darter occurrences Fish Commission (AGFC) surveying for Missouri. These tributaries to the Arkansas Darter in a restored stream at have been tracked by the Kansas Arkansas River provide habitat Wilson Springs Conservation Area. Department of Wildlife, Parks, for Arkansas Darter as well, and and Tourism Stream Survey the Missouri Department of Con- Photo: Arkansas Game and Fish Program for 25 years. The re- Commission. servation (MDC) has surveyed for moval of invasive red cedar trees the species in the southwestern in riparian and upland areas part of the state. MDC used other where Arkansas Darters habitat funding sources for this moni- occurs has resulted in increased toring and did not spend State stream flow, with some perennial Wildlife Grant Program funds for streams flowing for the first time this purpose. However, informa- in years. Once flow was restored tion on the species’ range and to these prairie streams, the abundance was shared with the Arkansas Darter was typically other state fish and wildlife agen- one of the first species to reap- cies working together to support pear. Additionally, funding was Arkansas Darter populations. provided for fish passage for dam replacement on the Arkansas Riv- er, allowing for connection of up- Arkansas and downstream populations of The Arkansas Game and Fish Arkansas Darters. See the Kansas Commission is restoring native State Highlight in this report for prairie and riparian habitats for more information. the Arkansas Darter, one of the rarest fish in Arkansas. Optimal Oklahoma habitat for this species is spring- “The State Wildlife fed streams that run through Between 2014 and 2016, the undisturbed prairie. Land-use Grant Program has Oklahoma Department of Wild- changes have led to an over- been absolutely critical life Conservation conducted sur- growth of woody and invasive for the continued veys to revisit most of the historic plant species completely shading sites for Arkansas Darters across previously sunlit streams. At Wil- operation and northern Oklahoma. Darter pop- son Springs Conservation Area, success of the Native ulations persisted at more than restoration activities focused on Aquatic Species 80 percent of these locations and the removal of non-native Amur this survey data will serve as the Honeysuckle and other vege- Restoration Facility, basis for a long-term monitoring tation from the Wilson Spring which has contributed program. Additionally, funding riparian zone and surrounding from the State Wildlife Grant 19-acre savannah. This treatment significantly to Program were used to purchase successfully opened the canopy, “not warranted” the McKinny Ranch in 2010, helping provide conditions most findings for two which protects a series of spring- suitable to the Arkansas Darter. fed pools along West Anderson During an October 2014 survey, candidate species Creek that support a robust and 52 Darters were netted and quick- and the recovery stable population of Arkansas ly released in the newly restored Darters. habitat. Surveys in an unrestored of numerous other tributary at the same property state-listed fishes.” Missouri yielded only seven Darters.

Harry Crockett Although the Arkansas River Fisheries Biologist flows directly through Oklahoma Colorado Parks and Wildlife

158 TRIBAL HIGHLIGHTS Chickaloon Native Village of Alaska Salmon Conservation

Project Summary Affairs—Alaska Subsistence Program Funding Division The Chickaloon Native Village of Alaska (CNV) implemented a $179,500 juvenile salmon research project Methods in the Matanuska Watershed to $179,500 Research, Monitoring, Coordina- TOTAL obtain important data on salmon tion, Training that is necessary for effective resource management. This project described temporal and spatial Results distribution of juvenile Chinook TWG Program and Coho Salmon in Moose This project provided Chickaloon Creek using passive integrated Native Village and the regional transducer (PIT) tag technology, conservation community with This chart does not depict additional tribal and other resources contributing and described growth rates of ju- new data about juvenile salm- to the success of this project. venile Chinook and Coho Salmon on. This data is being used to using fork length measurements. protect salmon habitats during Tribal Fisheries Technicians col- important salmon life stages and lected baseline water quality data demonstrate the importance of on Moose Creek and other trib- salmon habitat diversity. The utaries of the Matanuska River. information will help educate CNV Fisheries staff also worked youth in the tribe and the great- to build and strengthen cooper- er community about the spe- Chickaloon Native Village Fisheries ative partnerships with federal cies, and help ensure that this culturally-significant resource Technicians PIT tagging juvenile and state agencies, and watershed salmon. and fish habitat coalitions. This is preserved for generations to project benefits several anadro- come. This project provided Photo: Chickaloon Native Village. mous species, including culturally significant Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon.

Project Cost

Tribal Wildlife Grant Program—$179,500; other resources provided by CNV and the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Partners

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service— Anchorage Field Office, Alaska Department of Fish and Game— Palmer Office, Bureau of Indian

159 Chickaloon Native Village Fisheries Technician collecting juvenile salmon in a minnow trap.

Photo: Chickaloon Native Village.

economic benefits of training and employment for several community members. Additionally, the project demonstrated that Chick- aloon Native Village conducts credible salmon research and utilizes partnerships with federal “We are grateful to and state agencies. An important the U.S. Fish and result is improved understanding and protection of a subsistence Wildlife Service and and cultural resource upon which the Tribal Wildlife many Alaskan residents depend. Grant Program for providing funding for Future Needs projects that protect Ongoing funding is needed to important cultural support CNV staff engagement in community, regional, and state species. Additionally, conservation organizations and we appreciate the efforts. ease of reporting and communicating with the Service for this project.”

Chickaloon Native Village Member

160 Sitka Tribe of Alaska Shellfish Conservation

Project Summary Partners Program Funding Shellfish are an important sub- The Tribes of SEATOR are: Cen- sistence food for Native peoples tral Council Tlinglit and Haida $200,000 of Southeast Alaska and an Indian Tribes of Alaska, Chikoot integral part of Native culture, Indian Association, Craig Tribal $200,000 identity and tribal sovereignty. Council, Hoonah Indian Asso- TOTAL In 2018, the Sitka Tribe of Alas- ciation, Hydaburg Cooperative ka worked with the Southeast Association, Ketchikan Indian Alaska Tribal Research Group Association, Klawock Coopera- (SEATOR) partners to conduct an tive Association, Organized Vil- TWG Program assessment of subsistence shell- lage of Kake, Organized Village fish, to help ensure sustainable of Kasaan, Petersburg Indian management of this important Association, Skagway Traditional This chart does not depict additional traditional resource. This part- Council, Wrangell Cooperative tribal and other resources contributing nership of 14 Southeast Alaska Association, and Yakutat Tlingit to the success of this project. tribes collected data on biomass, Tribe abundance, growth, and distribution of important subsistence Methods populations of butter clams, lit- tleneck clams, and cockles. This Research, Monitoring, project provides information and Coordination, Training resources for participating tribes to make decisions that impact their traditional foods, food Results security, and tribal sovereignty. Since 2018, the Sitka Tribe of The project promotes education, Alaska has provided train- monitoring, and ownership of ing, supplies, and support for shellfish resources by southeast Alaska tribal communities.

Project Cost

Tribal Wildlife Grant Program—$200,000; other resources were provided by SEATOR members and the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and others Finding Butter Clams at Point Louisa, Juneau, Alaska.

Photo: Lindsey Pierce of Central Council Tlinglit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

161 “There is a Tlingit saying that goes, ‘when the tide is out the table is set.’ Our oceans SEATOR partners at the 2018 shellfish survey demonstration workshop in Sitka, are our gardens Alaska. and produce many Photo: Sitka Tribe of Alaska. nutrient-dense foods SEATOR partners and their More Information that have nourished tribal communities to conduct our communities, 35 population assessments of key Hoonah Indian Association Bio- physically and subsistence shellfish on beaches mass Survey Story is available at throughout Southeast Alaska. spiritually, since time This effort complements existing https://www.hia-env. immemorial. The SEATOR harmful algal bloom org/2018/07/25/trayls-crew-blaz- monitoring and biotoxin testing es-way-to-community-subsis- surveys provide us in shellfish, enabling tribes to tence-resource-assessment/ with an additional lens sustainably manage their own re- to better understand sources and confirm when shell- our relationship with fish may be unsafe to harvest. our traditional foods. Future Needs This data will help our Future funding for the Sitka people stay resilient Tribe of Alaska and SEATOR and healthy in an partners is needed to continue ever-changing world.” shellfish monitoring, partner collaboration, and to help build Jennifer Hanlon capacity for additional sci- Yakutat Tlingit Tribe ence-based species monitoring and analysis.

162 Hopi Tribe of Arizona Golden Eagle Conservation

Project Summary Partners Program Funding The Hopi Tribe, in coordination Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache with the Navajo Nation, Amer- Tribe, American Eagle Research $127,800 $200,000 ican Eagle Research Institute, Institute, U.S Fish and Wildlife Jicarilla Apache Tribe and the U.S Service $327,800 Fish and Wildlife Service, initiat- TOTAL ed a joint study of the ecology of Methods Golden Eagles nesting in the Four Corners Region of the Colorado Research, Monitoring, Plateau. This 12-year research TWG Program Coordination Non-Federal Resources study is not yet fully funded. The Tribal Wildlife Grant Program assisted the Hopi in gathering Results data for use in future planned The Hopi achieved their research research. goals through implementation of occupancy and reproduc- Project Cost tive assessment surveys, a prey population assessment, and by Tribal Wildlife Grant tagging breeding young males Program—$200,000; other for presence and absence surveys non-federal resources and telemetry. funding—$127,800

Golden Eagle on top of his prey.

Photo: yrjö jyske, Creative Commons. License: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

163 Adult Golden Eagle feeding their offspring.

Photo: Mick Thompson. Creative Commons. License: https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Future Needs “The Service is glad This larger research study has the Tribal Wildlife been designed for a 12-year term. Grant Program can A Tribal Wildlife Grant Program award in 2019 helped to ensure help the Hopi Tribe initial data collection, but ongo- study the Golden ing support is essential to com- Eagle’s ecology for pletion of the research. the continuing benefit for their culture.”

Mary Elder Assistant Regional Director of External Affairs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

164 Yurok Tribe of California California Condor Recovery

Project Summary Project Cost Program Funding Prey-go-neesh (California Con- Tribal Wildlife Grant dor) once lived among the giant Program—$200,000; other $39,800 $200,000 trees and pristine rivers in the resources provided by Greater Yurok Ancestral Region partners—$39,800 $239,800 of northern California. By the TOTAL mid-20th century, Condor pop- Partners ulations had dropped dramati- cally, and by 1967 the California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, TWG Program Condor was listed as federally National Park Service endangered. Today, the Yurok Yurok Tribe/Other Partners Tribe is combining funding from the Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- Methods gram with the Tribe’s resources Outreach/Education, and support from other partners Monitoring, Facility to implement three key actions Construction and Management, contributing to Condor recovery. Translocation Tribal specialists and partners conducted outreach to hunters to provide education on reducing Results lead ammunition when hunting in northern California. The Tribe The Yurok Tribe conducted vital also used Tribal Wildlife Grant communications, education, and Program funds and resources outreach with hunters, helping Tiana Williams-Claussen, Director of from their many partners to de- them understand how lead am- the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Department, sign and build a Condor manage- munition can be harmful to the restrains a California Condor so ment facility to protect and treat Condor and other species. Tribal that an Oregon Zoo veterinarian them for chronic lead exposure. Wildlife Grant Program funding can perform a health assessment in Finally, the Tribe developed a was integral in the planning and preparation of release to the wild. development of the Yurok Tribe’s plan for reintroducing California Photo: Chris West, Senior Biologist. Condors into the Greater Yurok Ancestral Region and Redwood National Park in late 2020. Reintroductions require close coordination with federal, state, and non-governmental partners to jointly address permitting, infrastructure and logistics, management strategies, and data collection and continuity.

165 Yurok Council member and Yurok spiritual leader, Richard Myers, reaches out to Condor 139, being held by lead LA Zoo Condor keeper, Mike Clark.

Photo: Chris West, Senior Biologist.

Condor management facility, a Future Needs necessary investment before the Tribe could meet its ultimate Additional funding is needed for goal of reintroducing California the new facility for continued Condor on ancestral lands. The Condor protection and moni- Tribe and partners are anticipat- toring. Various partners have ing Condor release in late 2020, a committed to future support major achievement highlighting based on a Memorandum of Un- the power and value of partner- derstanding that the Yurok Tribe ships in effective conservation. signed along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and other private and non-profit organizations.

166 Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, Oregon and Washington California Condor Conservation

Program Funding

$200,000

$200,000 TOTAL

TWG Program

This chart does not depict additional tribal and other resources contributing to the success of this project.

California Condor became extinct in the wild in 1987 but has been reintroduced.

Photo: Ian Shive, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Project Summary public lands characterized by extensive canyons, grazing lands, The California Condor is the and mixed forest lands. This tar- largest North American land get for Condor restoration by the bird. It has been federally pro- Tribe is defined by areas of high tected as an endangered species topographical relief that promote since 1967. Threats to this unique soaring conditions with constant species include exposure to lead, wind and thermal activity. Eleva- wind energy development, trans- tion changes provide for seasonal mission lines, and socio-political habitat use by the Condor, as well factors. The Nez Perce Tribe used as an abundance of caves which Tribal Wildlife Grant Program provide suitable release sites with funding to assess habitats and year-round crew access. Both plan for the reintroduction of Phase 1 and 2 of this project focus condors in Hells Canyon. The on determining the best reintro- greater Hells Canyon area of duction sites in Hells Canyon, the Blue Mountains Ecoregion and drafting a coordinated man- contains high quality nesting, agement plan for Condors. This roosting and foraging habitat for project also supports the work of Condors in close proximity. This the Yurok Tribe in California on area represents one of the best Condor reintroduction. available habitats for an inland Pacific Northwest Condor population. The Hells Canyon area is largely comprised of remote

167 Project Cost Results

Tribal Wildlife Grant Returning qú’nes (Condor) to the Program—$200,000; other Nimiipuu homeland represents a resources provided by the Nez spiritual and cultural renewal for Perce Tribe and Oregon Zoo the Tribe and provides another safeguard for continued existence of qú’nes in the face of a future Partners increasingly impacted by extreme The Oregon Zoo, Greater Hells weather events. Canyon Council, Oregon Wild Future Needs Methods Future funding is needed to Research, Monitoring, continue work on reintroduction Coordination, Planning of the Condor on tribal lands in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

168 Pyramid Lake Paiute of Nevada Bighorn Sheep

Project Summary Project Cost Program Funding The Pyramid Lake Paiute Res- Tribal Wildlife Grant ervation’s historic population Program—$200,000; matching $47,000 $200,000 of Bighorn Sheep was extirpat- funds provided by the Pyramid ed 150 years ago due to deadly Lake Paiute Tribe—$47,000 $247,000 livestock-borne diseases. Building TOTAL upon partnerships and new ca- Partners pacity, the Tribe applied for and received Tribal Wildlife Grant Nevada Department of Wildlife, Program funding to restore this TWG Program University of Nevada—Reno Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe culturally important species Natural Resources and on tribal lands. This project Environmental Sciences included translocation of Big- Department horn Sheep to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation. Tribal staff also monitored and documented Methods ungulate distribution, density Research, Monitoring, and health in accordance with Coordination, Translocation standardized procedures. The Tribe established regulations and ordinances for ungulate manage- Results ment and protection in order to ensure Bighorn Sheep thrive and Through this project, the Pyra- grow on tribal lands. mid Lake Paiute Tribe translocated 22 Bighorn Sheep to the reservation. Tribal staff collaborated

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and partners release Bighorn Sheep on the Reservation.

Photo: Nevada Department of Wildlife.

169 “No individual sovereign can manage wildlife; all sovereigns have to work together to ensure conservation for future generations. with the Nevada Department of The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Accomplishing and Wildlife on Bighorn Sheep con- relocated 22 Bighorn Sheep to tribal expanding mutual servation actions and developed a lands. This culturally important Bighorn Sheep Management Plan species had been extirpated from goals boils down to to guide future management on reservation lands 150 years ago due communicating with tribal lands. to wildlife disease. Tribes in a meaningful Photo: Ryan Hagerty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. way. Seeing the Future Needs Tribe’s ability to Additional funding is needed for not only operate monitoring and supporting best management practices to help independently, but prevent deadly outbreaks of local in concert with state livestock-borne diseases. Ground and federal agencies surveying will be conducted throughout 2020 to ensure the is enriching to see sustainability of the species into as a tribal member the future. myself. This type of coordination was a missing component in the past, so I’m hoping to see more collaborative efforts like this in the future.”

Tribal Member and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist

170 Taos Pueblo of New Mexico Conservation Corps

Project Summary Results Program Funding The Taos Pueblo used Tribal The project helped the Taos Wildlife Grant Program funds Pueblo tribal community protect $136,500 to develop and sustain the Taos the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout, Pueblo Conservation Corps. This a species that is valuable to the $136,500 Conservation Corps has been im- Pueblo for cultural, environmen- TOTAL plemented with Rocky Mountain tal, and recreational purposes. Youth Corps and Trout Unlimit- All Conservation Corps members ed. Conservation Corps members were enrolled tribal members of have worked on environmental Taos Pueblo and the project took TWG Program monitoring of native Cutthroat place entirely within Taos Pueblo Trout and other species, and trust lands. non-native fish species removal. This chart does not depict additional tribal and other resources contributing These objectives were accom- Future Needs to the success of this project. plished by recruiting, hiring and training a Taos youth conserva- Ongoing support for the Taos tion crew that performed project Pueblo Conservation Corps conservation actions, including would allow this program to con- monitoring and research, along tinue to benefit tribal youth, as the Rio Jemez River. The Cut- well as provide key information throat Trout is a popular sport to inform management of Cut- fish species within the Taos throat Trout in the Rio Grande. Pueblo tribal community. More Information Project Cost https://www.taospueblo.org/cms/ Tribal Wildlife Grant natural-resources Program—$136,500; other resources provided by Rocky Mountain Youth Corps and Trout Unlimited

Partners

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, Trout Unlimited, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Methods

Monitoring, Coordination, Training, Species Management Taos Tribal Member fishing in the Rio Grande River.

Photo: New Mexico Wildlife Federation.

171 Southwest Tribal Youth paddling on the Rio Grande River.

Photo: New Mexico Wildlife Federation.

172 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians of Oregon Pacific Lamprey

Project Summary Results Program Funding Pacific Lamprey return to rivers Tribal conservationists con- along the West Coast to spawn, ducted an in-stream survey and $220,000 where they are used by the Con- documented Lamprey spawning federated Tribes of Coos, Lower habitat conditions and passage $220,000 Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians as impediments. Once identified, TOTAL a vital traditional food source. staff focused on mitigating Substantial declines of Pacific Lamprey passage impediments, Lamprey are linked to restricted in part through constructing river and stream passage, reduced a Lamprey passage structure TWG Program flows, and water quality degra- at the Eel Creek Dam to allow dation. The Confederated Tribes for Lamprey access to Eel Lake. used funding from the Tribal Tribal staff also developed and This chart does not depict additional tribal and other resources contributing Wildlife Grant Program to de- tested monitoring and reporting to the success of this project. velop a 30-Year Lamprey Conser- protocols to provide baseline data vation Plan that aims to restore on which future initiatives can be Pacific Lamprey in the waterways evaluated. and lakes of the Tenmile Lakes Basin. Pacific Lamprey are listed Future Needs as a state sensitive species in Or- egon and are considered a “first- The need for Pacific Lamprey food” to the Confederated Tribes A Pacific Lamprey rests in swift conservation on tribal lands in current by suctioning onto bedrock. with important links to tribal Oregon is ongoing. Activities in culture. Phase 2 of this project will be Photo: Jeremy Monroe, Fresh Waters Illustrated. Creative Commons / Flickr. focused on monitoring and eval- License: https://creativecommons.org/ Project Cost uating the effectiveness of the licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.

Tribal Wildlife Grant Program—$220,000 awarded in two grants; other resources provided by the Confederated Tribes

Partners

Tenmile Lamprey Group, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tenmile Lakes Basin Partnership

Methods

Research, Monitoring, Planning, Coordination

173 lamprey passage structure and its effect on Pacific Lamprey distribution within the Eel Lake Basin. Additional removal of barriers to Pacific Lamprey movements are needed.

More Information

https://www.fws.gov/pacifi- clamprey/Documents/Fact%20 Sheets/LampreyCI%20Fact%20 Sheet_01_01_2017.pdf

174 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde of Oregon Prairie and Oak Savannah Restoration

Project Summary Project Cost Program Funding Historic upland prairie and Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- oak savanna habitats and other gram—$200,000; additional $200,000 habitats have rapidly decreased resources provided by the Grand in the Willamette Basin due to Ronde Tribes and others $200,000 residential and agricultural devel- TOTAL opment. This imperiled habitat, Partners of ancestral significance to the Grand Ronde Tribes, supports U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service— TWG Program unique and significant biological Willamette Valley National diversity. However, over 95 per- Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and cent of potential and existing Wildlife Service—Partners for habitat is unprotected and in pri- This chart does not depict additional Fish and Wildlife Program, tribal and other resources contributing vate ownership. Of the remaining Institute of Applied Ecology, to the success of this project. acreage, only a small percentage Lomakatsi Restoration Project, is managed for conservation. The Benton County Soil and Water native plants and animals of the Conservation District, Long Tom Willamette Valley are essential Watershed Council resources to the Confederated Tribes as they form the foundation of historic traditions and Methods values. The partnerships devel- Research, Monitoring, oped from this restoration proj- Coordination, Habitat ect support tribal cultural values Restoration, Conservation and provide conservation benefits Easements to the Willamette Valley Region.

Columbian White-Tailed Deer is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

175 Results Future Needs

The Confederated Tribes of Continuous restoration of the Grand Ronde used Tribal Wildlife Confederated Tribes’ historic Grant funding to conduct habitat lands and habitats is vital to assessments on 172 acres of Rat- reestablishment of functioning tlesnake Butte 3, and developed ecosystems supporting the needs conservation treatment prescrip- of tribal members. The Grand tions for restoration of approx- Ronde Confederated Tribes were imately 97 acres of oak habitat. awarded Tribal Wildlife Grant These lands are home to a wide Program funding for a second variety of rare and declining spe- phase of this work and will cies, including Columbian White- continue its partnership with the Tailed Deer, which is listed as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s threatened under the Endangered Partners for Fish and Wildlife Species Act. The Grand Ronde Program and others working on Tribe is also protecting Rattle- recovering and enhancing this snake Butte 3 in perpetuity with important habitat. a conservation easement agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration’s Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program.

One of the last remaining oak savanna habitats on Bald Top at William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon.

Photo: George Gentry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

176 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe of Washington Pacific Lamprey

Project Summary vide advancement opportunities Program Funding for tribal youth. The primary objective of this project was to document the $250,000 $187,300 recolonization of the Elwha River Project Cost drainage by Pacific Lamprey $437,300 Tribal Wildlife Grant TOTAL following the removal of two Program—$187,300; other dams in what remains the world’s resources including other federal largest dam removal effort. and non-federal matching funds Pacific Lamprey have long been and resources—$250,000 a celebrated species among the TWG Program Other Federal/Non-Federal Funds Tribe as a cultural and traditional resource. Tribal staff document- Partners ed successful adult migration to spawning sites, nest building, and National Marine Fisheries larval rearing using radioteleme- Service, Olympic National Park, U.S. Geological Survey, Peninsula Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal elder and try and passive integrated tran- Fisheries Technician Ernest “Sonny” sponder (PIT) tags. Nest surveys College, Western Washington University, Huxley College Sampson releasing a newly radio confirmed successful spawning. tagged Pacific Lamprey into the Elwha River. Electrofishing surveys and anal- Methods ysis of larvae also demonstrated Photo: Tiffany Royal, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. successful larval rearing and Research, Monitoring, evaluated the colonization rates Coordination, Training in the Elwha River drainage. Results The Tribe collaborated with other scientists, agencies, and Armed with the results of this students, giving tribal staff the research, the Tribe will be able knowledge and tools necessary to make adaptive management to continue monitoring Lam- decisions that will increase the prey beyond the funding period. overall success of their ecosystem Technical support from the Na- restoration efforts benefiting tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Pacific Lamprey and other spe- Administration, the Olympic cies. An additional benefit from National Park, and U.S. Geolog- this research is that training and ical Survey scientists broadened equipment obtained in the course the knowledge base of tribal of this project will position the biologists. Working with other Tribe in its goal to reclaim man- agencies fostered relationships agement and stewardship of its resulting in long-term partner- cultural and natural resources. ships and future opportunities to collaborate. Mentoring local students helped the Tribe recruit future employees and will pro-

177 Future Needs

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would benefit from ongoing support for research on the long- term recolonization of the Pacific Lamprey into reaches of rivers that are now accessible to this important tribal food source.

178