August 2005 Vol

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Human endeavors in the conservation of imperiled species are a fairly recent development, scarcely more than a century old. In that brief span, we have witnessed the emergence of new ideas to describe the diversity of species on this planet and ways August 2005 Vol. XXX No. 1 to conserve them. In recent years, many of these ways reﬂ ect a cooperative conservation approach characterized by emphasis on innovation, incentives, local involvement, and on-the-ground action. In this Bulletin, we highlight some of the programs designed to give landowners and other concerned citizens greater opportunities for innovation and involvement in wildlife conservation. These approaches are known by a variety of acronyms, but they fall under a venerable term: partnership. How can we deﬁ ne partnership? Think of it as symbiosis— with awareness, creativity, and passion. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

WASHINGTON D.C. OFFICE Washington, D.C. 20240

Matt Hogan, Acting Director Claire Cassel, Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach (703) 358-2390 Renne Lohoefner, Assistant Director for Endangered Species Nicole Alt, Acting Chief, Division of Consultation, HCPs, Recovery, and State Grants Elizabeth H. Stevens, Deputy Assistant Director (703) 358-2106 Chris L. Nolin, Chief, Division of Conservation and Classiﬁ cation (703) 358-2105 Linda Purviance, Acting Chief, Ofﬁ ce of Program Support (703) 358-2079 http://endangered.fws.gov/

PACIFIC REGION—REGION ONE Eastside Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Ave, Portland OR 97232

California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, David B. Allen, Regional Director (503) 231-6118 American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern http://pacific.fws.gov/ Mariana Islands, Guam and the Paciﬁ c Trust Territories

California/Nevada Operations Steve Thompson, Operations Manager (916) 414-6464 http://pacific.fws.gov/

SOUTHWEST REGION—REGION TWO P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas H. Dale Hall, Regional Director (505) 248-6282 http://southwest.fws.gov/

MIDWEST REGION—REGION THREE Federal Bldg., Ft. Snelling, Twin Cities MN 55111

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Robyn Thorson, Regional Director (612) 715-5301 Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin http://midwest.fws.gov/

SOUTHEAST REGION—REGION FOUR 1875 Century Blvd., Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Sam Hamilton, Regional Director (404) 679-7086 Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, http://southeast.fws.gov/ Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

NORTHEAST REGION—REGION FIVE 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director (413) 253-8300 New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, http://northeast.fws.gov/ Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION—REGION SIX P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver CO 80225

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Ralph O. Morgenweck, Regional Director (303) 236-7920 Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/

ALASKA REGION—REGION SEVEN 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503

Alaska Rowan Gould, Regional Director (907) 786-3542 http://alaska.fws.gov/

2 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 IN THIS ISSUE

4 The Crucians are Coming!

7 How the Scanlans Got their Range Back

10 Banking on Gopher Tortoises Telephone: (703) 358-2390 Contributors Fax: (703) 358-1735 Leopoldo Miranda-Castro E-mail: [email protected] Claudia Lombard David A. Ross Editor Mike Groutt Michael Bender Kris Randall 12 Rare Species are Welcome on Associate Editor Silmarie Padron Arizona Ranch Susan D. Jewell Lee Andrews Robert M. Lee, III Layout Rhonda L. Rimer Dennis & Sackett Design, Inc. William Vogel Steve Stinson 14 Cactus Comeback in the Caribbean

On the Cover 16 Meet the Beetles! Headwaters of the Bull Run in Montana, where habitat is being protected for the bull trout and other species. 18 Bull River: A New Wildlife Haven

20 Sneezeweed Conservation Bears Fruit

Nate Hall, Avista Corp. Nate Hall, Avista 22 Keeping Family Forests

The Endangered Species Bulletin welcomes manuscripts on a wide range of topics related to endangered species. We are particularly interested in news about recovery, habitat conservation plans, and cooperative ventures. Please contact the Editor before preparing a manuscript. We cannot guarantee publication. We also welcome your comments and ideas. Please e-mail them to us at [email protected]. The Fish and Wildlife Service distributes the Bulletin primarily to Federal and State agencies, and ofﬁ cial contacts of the Endangered Species Program. It also is reprinted by the University of Michigan as part of its own publication, the Endangered Species UPDATE. To subscribe, write the Endangered Species UPDATE, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115; or call (734) 763-3243.

Printed with vegetable-based ink on recycled and recyclable paper. If you do not keep back issues, please recycle the paper, pass them along to an interested person, or donate them to a local school or library.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 3 The Crucians are Coming! by Leopoldo Miranda-Castro and Claudia Lombard

The Saint Croix ground lizard (Ameiva polops) is a small lizard with adults measuring 1.5–3.5 inches (35–77 millimeters) from snout to vent. It is considered one of the world’s most endangered reptiles, with fewer than 500 individuals living in three tiny islands off the coast of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lizard was believed to be extinct during the early twentieth century, but it was rediscovered in 1937 on Green Cay and Protestant Cay, two of the three islands. Individuals of this endemic Crucian (meaning a resident of St. Croix) were last seen on the main island of Saint Croix in 1968. The main reasons for their extirpa- that the future of the lizard populations tion are habitat loss, habitat fragmenta- will depend on the fate of the lizards on tion, and the introduction of the Indian these cays (islands). (Left to right) Karen Koltes, Mike mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), a All of these offshore islands fall in the Evans, Leopoldo Miranda-Castro, mammalian predator. The lizard is cur- subtropical, dry forest life zone. The lit- Assistant Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlet, Virginia Tippie, and Joel rently restricted to three mongoose-free erature on this species is scant, and there Tutein visit the resort site to observe islands: Green Cay, Protestant Cay, and are no comprehensive works on its biol- improving lizard habitat. Ruth Island. Many of the experts agree ogy. Optimal ground lizard sites in Green Cay are characterized by exposed and canopied areas, leaf or tidal litter, loose substrate, and crab burrows. The most heavily used habitats are beaches and upland forests. Typical vegetation of the forest are the trees Hippomane manci- nella (manchineel), Tabebuia heterophylla (pink trumpet tree), Exostema caribaeum (Caribbean princewood), and the shrubs Eupatorium sinuatum, Lantana involu- crate, and Croton betulinus. Different-sized lizards use different habitats, with smaller individuals found in more exposed habitat and larger A. polops in sites with more cover. Like most Ameivas, this species is diurnal, and it can be seen foraging for invertebrates and occasionally resting and sunning

U.S. Park Service photo itself in the open.

4 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 Leopoldo Miranda-Castro

Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge about a dozen lizards, mostly from St. Croix ground lizard Green Cay is on the north coast of Protestant Cay. Today, the ground lizard Saint Croix. It was purchased by the Fish population at Ruth Island is estimated at and Wildlife Service on December 15, 30 individuals. 1977 and designated as the Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge. It contains most Protestant Cay of the designated critical habitat for the Protestant Cay is about a 3-acre ground lizard. Outcrops of lava and sedi- (1.2 hectare) island a few hundred yards mentary rocks are prominent geological from the Christianstead Harbor. It is features. The refuge’s main objective is managed by the Hotel on the Cay, which to maintain the natural island ecosystem was built in 1968. Approximately two- to protect the endangered lizard. This thirds is covered by this 55-room hotel. refuge is closed to the public to protect The rest of the habitat has been heavily the delicate critical habitat of the ground modiﬁ ed and severely disturbed by the lizard. introduction of exotic vegetation and landscaping activities. This small island Ruth Island holds the second largest population of Ruth Island is a human-made island St. Croix ground lizards, estimated at on the south coast of Saint Croix. It con- 36 individuals. tains the only population occurring on Although the lizard population at the south coast. This island was created Protestant Cay has been relatively in the mid-1960s as a result of the dredg- stable since the 1960s, landscaping and ing of Krause Lagoon to construct an hotel activities dramatically affect the industrial port. After a couple of decades, lizard’s habitat. The extensive develop- Ruth Island became naturally vegetated. ment, including the modiﬁ cation to the This, together with its mongoose-free understory by constant raking, removal status, prompted biologists to introduce of undergrowth, and other landscaping

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 5 This site on the Protestant Cay resort began to be used by St. Croix ground lizards after the resort managers stopped raking away the ground cover needed by this

endangered species. Leopoldo Miranda-Castro

practices, also have contributed to the to reduce the chance of a catastrophic decline of the species. Future threats event eliminating the species, Ruth Island include the danger of accidental invasion should be considered one of the main of the cays by the mongoose and the liz- targets for the management and restora- ard’s vulnerability to natural catastrophes, tion of the species. such as hurricanes, primarily because The Hotel on the Cay habitat restora- of their small size and reduced habitat tion project aims to restore and connect area. An increase in human disturbance habitat patches within the cay and to or habitat alteration at important habitats, modify the hotel’s landscaping mainte- resulting from recreational activities or nance practices to protect and manage hotel expansion, could also be detri- this endangered species. Also, this project mental. As a result, the Hotel on the Cay has an important and strong educational management approached the Service’s component. First, the hotel is informing Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program its guests about the project and species to develop a conservation and habitat conservation initiatives taking place at the restoration project to protect the species island. Second, local schools are getting at Protestant Cay. involved in the scientiﬁ c procedures of The Partners program has had tremen- population monitoring, habitat restora- dous support from private landowners tion, and management activities through in the Caribbean. Most of the projects coordination with the Virgin Islands involve sensitive habitats that provide Department of Planning and Natural beneﬁ ts to endangered species, neo- Resources. tropical migrants, and other native and endemic wildlife. Leopoldo Miranda-Castro is a biologist Although Protestant and Green Cays with the Service’s Partners for Fish and are considered critical habitat for this spe- Wildlife Program in Arlington, Virginia cies, both islands are located relatively ([email protected]). Claudia close to each other in the north coast of Lombard is a biologist at Sandy Point Saint Croix, making them vulnerable to NWR in Saint Croix, USVI (Claudia_ the same natural disturbances such as [email protected]). hurricanes. Looking into the future, and

6 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 How the Scanlans Got their Range Back by David A. Ross

Since the late 1800s, western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) has encroached or increased in density on sagebrush and bunchgrass habitats in the inter- mountain region of the western United States. Such anthropogenic (human-caused) infl uences as livestock grazing and the suppression of fi re are major contrib- uting factors. These juniper woodlands are still in a state of fl ux, undergoing succession from open shrub steppe communities to closed canopy woodlands. Such a change in plant community structure harms certain species of wildlife and the resources on which ranchers and their livestock depend. Wildlife species that rely on native restore the range and provide adequate grasslands and sagebrush habitat have water for stock. Such a task would be experienced considerable change. Forest expensive and involve a number of dwelling birds such as Townsend’s partnerships. solitaire (Myadestes townsendi) and These partnerships addressed both mountain chickadee (Parus gambeli) are livestock and wildlife management needs. replacing grassland obligate species such The Natural Resources Conservation Sagebrush and grasses are as sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasia- Service developed a ranch management recovering where encroaching nus) and western meadowlark (Sturnella plan establishing 12 management units or junipers have been cut. neglecta) in larger stands. While wildlife associated with these native habitats is declining, so is the quality of range forage that cattle and other livestock require. Addressing the needs of both wildlife and livestock with habitat restoration actions in this situation may sound like a big challenge, but ranchers Jerry and Judy Scanlan from Malin, Oregon, have gone a long way toward achieving this goal. The Scanlans acquired about 12,000 acres (4,860 hectares) of ranch land on the border of Oregon and California during the 1990s. They realized that, if the ranch was to be productive enough for them to maintain livestock and be

a working ranch, they would have to USFWS

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 7 fenced paddocks within the ranch. The provide wildlife movement corridors and Scanlans knew that providing adequate habitat. Water was piped from springs to forage for livestock would require troughs outside the fence for livestock. removing the juniper overstory that had Ponds were fenced, and solar powered drastically decreased the densities of pumps provided water to troughs outside native grasses and sagebrush. Juniper in the adjoining paddocks. Each of the stands also can consume large amounts paddocks had water. Two reservoirs have of water, making it unavailable to both been restored to provide better livestock livestock and wildlife. management among paddocks and per- Jerry contracted with a wood chipping manent sources of water for wildlife. ﬁ rm to chip and haul away 4,000-acres These efforts provide the ability to (1,618-ha) worth of juniper to a cogene- rotate stock throughout the ranch. Stock ration plant for fuel for free. The Oregon rotation helps to ensure that no overgraz- Department of Fish and Wildlife provided ing occurs and wildlife habitat remains funds to cut 900 acres (360 ha) of juniper intact. Additionally, one paddock is not on the Scanlan’s land in Oregon, while grazed by livestock and is reserved as ﬁ rewood harvesters removed smaller wildlife habitat. stands. As juniper stands were cleared, the Springs and seeps that appeared fol- disturbed skid trails and landing areas lowing juniper removal were fenced to were seeded with native bunchgrass. provide wildlife habitat. Juniper stands Livestock grazing does not occur until were left on ridgetops and other sites that two years following seeding to ensure Sage grouse would have naturally been in juniper to adequate establishment. Dave Menke, USFWS

8 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provided funds for fencing, pond enhancements, solar pumps, pipe instal- lation, and native bunchgrass seed. The Scanlans provided the matching labor and equipment to construct the facilities and sow the native bunchgrass seed. To make the most of their juniper resources, the Scanlans have used juniper for fence posts, a sheep corral, and ﬁ rewood to heat their home. Their daughter built a home from large juniper logs, and their son builds attractive juniper furni- ture from wood harvested on the ranch. Following the juniper removal, the Scanlans observed resprouting of sagebrush and an increase in the density of native bunchgrasses. In 2002, Jerry was surprised to see several sage grouse on the northern part of the ranch. (The nearest sage grouse population was about 6 miles (10 km) to the south on Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.) The

California Department of Fish and Game USFWS fl ew aerial surveys in 2004 and reported a small herd of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) wintering on their ranch. The Jerry proceeded with Jim’s advice. Spring habitats on the Scanlan Scanlans also have a stable population of Larry Flourney (Natural Resources Ranch are improving and have been mountain quail on the ranch, and mule Conservation Service) assisted with fenced for protection. deer survival is good. a Ranch Management Plan, and Tom Jerry and Judy are thankful for the Collum (Oregon Department of Fish and partnerships that have developed. Jerry Wildlife) assisted with their Access in stated that he did not think they could Habitat funding. With relationships like make the ranch successful had it not this, it’s clearly possible to make strides been for the contributions from the in addressing fi sh and wildlife conserva- agency partnerships. He added, “I had tion issues while helping private land- previous experience with the Partners owners stay economically viable. for Fish and Wildlife Program and contacted the local Service Partners for David A. Ross is the Restoration Fish and Wildlife representative at the Supervisor at the Service’s Klamath Basin time, Jim Hainline, and invited him out Ecosystem Restoration Offi ce in Klamath to the ranch. Mr. Hainline came out Falls, Oregon (phone: 541-885-8481; and provided me with the technical [email protected]) assistance to get the Partners project off the ground. The program on our ranch seemed to mushroom, and Jim advised me to contact both the NRCS and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for additional funding.”

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 9 Banking on by Mike Groutt Gopher Tortoises

The tortoise beat the hare in a signifi cantly to its listing as a threatened fabled footrace. But the gopher tortoises species in parts of Alabama and through- (Gopherus polyphemus) of southwestern out Mississippi and Louisiana. This is par- Alabama have been slowly losing their ticularly true in Mobile County, Alabama, race for living space. New homes, roads, which underwent a 94 percent increase in and businesses squeeze them out, and residential development in the 1990s. the exclusion of fi re alters the tortoise’s Biologists with the Fish and Wildlife open longleaf pine habitat. Thankfully, a Service’s Daphne, Mississippi, Field new approach known as “conservation Offi ce recognized that to protect the banking” is providing a better future for species, action was needed to conserve this species. large, contiguous plots of tortoise habitat. The gopher tortoise is a large turtle Much of the native longleaf pine ecosys- that lives in deep burrows, often up to 25 tem has disappeared across the South. feet (7.5 m) in length, in upland habitats Small restored areas of longleaf pines usually dominated by stands of longleaf are not enough to provide for long-term Below: Before being used for pines. These burrows also provide shelter health of the tortoise population. gopher tortoise habitat, much of for more than 360 other species, including Service biologists turned to conserva- the land at the conservation bank needed restoration. Since natural the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon tion banking as a means of accommodat- processes, like periodic fi res, have corais couperi), which is listed under ing both habitat conservation and other been supressed, thick, woody brush Endangered Species Act as threatened. land uses. Conservation banks are per- had choked out native grasses. Tortoises require well-drained, sandy soil manently protected, privately or publicly in which to dig their burrows, herbaceous owned lands managed for endangered or Below right: Once restored, plants for food, a sparse understory, and threatened species. The Service approves the habitat at the bank closely open areas for basking. habitat or species “credits” based on resembles a natural longleaf pine forest ecosystem, allowing gopher Habitat alteration and land develop- the natural resource values on the bank tortoises to burrow in the grassy ment pose the most serious threat to the lands. The bank owner is free to sell—or understory. tortoise’s survival. Habitat loss contributed use for itself—credits allotted to the bank for species or their habitats. The Service found an enthusiastic fi rst partner in the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS). Much of the drinking water for this area comes from Converse Reservoir in western Mobile County. Converse Reservoir sits in an area undergoing rapid development, and MAWSS has been purchasing land within the reservoir’s watershed to create a buffer. Using the buffer as a conservation area for tortoises provided the ideal solution for keeping development at a safe distance and providing an economic benefi t for the conservation of the site. In 2001, MAWSS, working with the

USFWS USFWS Daphne Field Ofﬁ ce and the organiza-

10 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 small, scattered parcels. All are tested for diseases and quarantined before release. Conservation banks are proving to be a useful tool in preserving gopher tortoise habitat and populations in southwest Alabama. The Daphne Field Ofﬁ ce has worked closely with the responsible agencies to develop conservation plans addressing the needs of the gopher tortoise, insuring that the habitat would be restored and maintained, and guaranteeing the long-term survival of the site and the species. These sites will be monitored on a continual basis. The goal is to conserve gopher tortoises by managing a conservation site of relocated tortoises and residents as a single viable population.

USFWS With the success of the MAWSS conservation bank, the future looks Adult gopher tortoise being held for testing. All tortoises are tested for upper respiratory tract disease brighter for the gopher tortoises. In syndrome (URTDS) before being relocated to the conservation bank. URTDS destroys the respiratory tract and olfactory senses of gopher tortoises, and can spread throughout a colony. 2004, a second site was dedicated as a conservation bank, this time as a joint project between the Service, the tion Environmental Defense, opened a grasses. Fortunately, the cost of restor- Federal Highway Administration, and the 222-acre (90-hectare) conservation bank. ing habitat for gopher tortoises proved Alabama Department of Transportation. The site marked the fi rst time a federally manageable. For areas where restoration This site, near the city of Chunchula sanctioned conservation bank had been could be accomplished with prescribed in northwestern Mobile County, will used for the gopher tortoise, and the burning, the cost was as little as $15 per provide a relocation site for tortoises fi rst time a conservation bank had been acre (about $37 per ha). However, where displaced by local highway projects. established in Alabama. restoration included removal of invasive Other banks are planned, such as one In addition to helping MAWSS, the plants and planting of longleaf pine with South Alabama Utilities and the City bank has benefi ted individual property seedlings, the cost ran from $50 to $200 of Citronelle. By late 2006, it is expected owners by allowing them to buy credits per acre ($124 to $495 per ha). that at least 1,500 acres (about 600 hect- that allow them develop property where The habitat at the MAWSS site has ares) of Mobile County will be dedicated previously they may have had to make now been improved to more closely to gopher tortoise conservation banks. project modifi cations because of a resi- resemble a natural longleaf pine forest dent gopher tortoise. ecosystem. Prescribed burns in 2000 Mike Groutt is a Public Affairs Gopher tortoises also benefi t. Rather and 2002, as well as hardwood timber Specialist in the Daphne Ecological than individuals living in relative isola- harvesting in 2001, have opened up the Services Field Offi ce (251-441-5181; tion on small parcels of land where forest to allow for gopher tortoise bur- [email protected]) their future would be in doubt, tortoises rows in the grassy understory. In 2003, relocated to the bank fi nd a large area of herbicides were used to control cogon optimal habitat where they can interact grass, an invasive species that, if allowed with other tortoises to create a stable to spread, would render the habitat population. unusable for the gopher tortoise. Another Before the bank could become opera- invasive species, the imported red fi re tional, much of the area needed to be ant, is also a concern since they prey on restored. Since the site had not previously gopher tortoise hatchlings. been managed for gopher tortoises, natu- The site was initially home to 14 ral processes—such as periodic fi res—had gopher tortoises. Since 2001, another 70 been suppressed. Thick, woody brush have been relocated to the bank from had grown up, choking out native

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 11 Rare Species are Welcome by Kris Randall on Arizona Ranch

James W. Crosswhite, a rancher in However, because both of these species eastern Arizona, knew that Nutrioso are federally listed as threatened and Creek wasn’t in the best shape when he endangered, respectively, he did not bought the 400-acre (162-hectare) EC Bar want these habitat improvements to limit Ranch in 1996. The stream was a down- the use of his land as an economically cut channel and rabbit brush, an invasive viable cattle operation. The solution was plant not grazed by livestock, was pre- to develop a Safe Harbor Agreement, dominant in the pasture. He knew that which would assure him that the habitat

S. and D. Maslowski/USFWS the stream, its associated riparian area, improvements would not restrict his and the surrounding pastures needed land use practices should fl ycatchers Southwestern willow fl ycatcher to be improved in order to enhance the colonize and spinedace increase on land for cattle grazing. his property. In 2002, Jim approached Marty Jakle, The EC Bar Ranch includes 2.5 miles biologist in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (4 kilometers) of Nutrioso Creek, which Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife fl ows largely from snowmelt and sea- Program in Arizona. Jim wanted to plant sonal rains. The ranch contains one of willows along the creek to stabilize the the few reaches of Nutrioso Creek where streambanks. Minimizing sediment and the fl ow is perennial and is occupied by reducing fl ood fl ows would improve fi sh spinedace. The creek’s headwaters are in habitat and enhance the riparian area. high elevation conifer forests and drain The idea of helping a small fi sh, the into a grassland valley. These grasslands Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda have been used for livestock grazing and vittata), and possibly attracting migra- farming since the late 1800s, and had tory birds such as the southwestern deteriorated into poor condition. Nutrioso willow fl ycatcher (Empidonax traillii Creek became a deeply down-cut stream extimus) was something Jim wanted. channel with little fl oodplain.

Nutrioso Creek stream channel showing the eroded stream banks and the formation of ﬂ ood plain supporting riparian vegetation. Jim Crosswhite

12 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 Jim started making improvements ranch portion of Nutrioso Creek at the to the ranch in 1996 by changing the time the Safe Harbor Agreement was grazing management practices and, with signed. assistance from the Natural Resource On January 16, 2004, Jim was invited Conservation Service, installing stream to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional grade control structures in Nutrioso Offi ce in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Creek. His hard work began paying off. where Dom Ciccone, Regional Chief Riparian and wetland vegetation started for the National Wildlife Refuge System, to increase along the streambanks and signed the Safe Harbor Agreement. That more sediment was retained within the February, Jim planted over 10,000 wil- channel, building up the fl oodplain. lows along Nutrioso Creek. This part- In 2002, Jim received funding from nership has resulted in good things for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners wildlife while improving range conditions for Fish and Wildlife Program. Willows for cattle. In time, stream conditions would be planted along the fl oodplain should improve for the spinedace, and and fencing installed to exclude livestock riparian habitat will develop that may and elk from Nutrioso Creek. But fi rst, attract migratory birds such as the south- before any on-the-ground work was western willow fl ycatcher. started, a Safe Harbor Agreement would As a rancher, Jim pays close attention be written. to the land. “The mechanism for attaining The baseline condition for both the a sustainable water supply is to restore fl ycatcher and the spinedace on the native vegetation in the growing season, ranch needed to be determined. The to practice dormant season grazing, and baseline for the southwestern willow other best management practices. This fl ycatcher was zero because no habitat approach benefi ts my livestock business

existed on the ranch for this species. while improving wildlife resources,” he USFWS This migratory bird requires riparian says. “Cattle ranching and endangered habitat for nesting and breeding, which species recovery can be compatible and past overgrazing in the watershed had this project is a long-term demonstration destroyed. The closest known breeding of that premise and my commitment.” location for the bird was approximately Many listed species occur partially or 15 miles (24 km) west of the ranch near exclusively on private lands. This makes Greer, Arizona. working with private landowners essen- The baseline for the Little Colorado tial to protecting and recovering endan- spinedace did not rely on population gered species. Landowners’ interests must

surveys because such surveys can vary be balanced with providing incentives to Arizona Department of Game and Fish depending on the monitoring methods manage those lands in ways that benefi t Top: Rancher Jim Crosswhite (in and fl uctuations in natural stream condi- endangered species. The Partners for blue baseball cap) discussing plans tions. Stream discharge was also elimi- Fish and Wildlife Program is committed for riparian restoration with Bill nated as a baseline criterion since water to working with private landowners and Zeedyke, restoration expert. fl ow here is extremely variable, there protecting threatened and endangered are upstream diversions, and the area species. Safe Harbor Agreements are a Bottom: Little Colorado spinedace is experiencing a severe drought. Since vital tool to reach this goal. these conditions are out of the landowner’s control, the available suitable habitat Kris Randall is the State Coordinator components were used as the measure of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife for the spinedace baseline condition. Program in the Service’s Arizona Woody riparian trees are surrogate indi- Ecological Services Field Offi ce (Kris_ cators of the current riparian habitat con- [email protected]). ditions supporting the existing population of the spinedace. The baseline became the number of woody riparian trees at least 3 feet (1 m) high present along the

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 13 Cactus Comeback in the by Leopoldo Miranda-Castro and Silmarie Padron Caribbean

When Columbus arrived in the The beaches of Culebra are consid- Caribbean, the eastern islands were ered some of the most beautiful in the covered by extraordinary tropical coastal world. Culebra, located 17 miles (27 forests. After centuries of European colo- kilometers) east of Puerto Rico, and its nization, few of those ecosystems remain surrounding islands comprise approxi- intact. The colonization of Culebra began mately 7,700 acres (3,116 hectares). In in 1880, commanded by Don Cayetano 1909, the Service established the area as Escudero. The fi rst settlement was a bird refuge, making it one of the oldest located in an area now managed by the refuges in the system. Since then, much Puerto Rico Department of Natural and of the island and the surrounding 23 Environmental Resources and the Fish small islands have been protected by the and Wildlife Service. Service as a national wildlife refuge. The During this period, agriculture, fi shing, topography is very rugged. Less than a and logging were the major source of half mile (0.8 km) from the coast, Monte income for the inhabitants of Culebra, Resaca (Culebra’s highest point) rises to who exported wood, turtle oil and shells, 650 feet (215 meters). salted fi sh, tobacco, livestock, cheese, Culebra’s soils are mostly of volcanic vegetables, coconuts, cotton, mangrove origin. This, together with the climate, bark, charcoal, and domestic turkeys. provides the perfect environment for the These activities had a detrimental effect development of the beautiful Culebra The island of Culebra. on Culebra’s limited natural resources. island cactus (Leptocereus grantianus). This species is a spineless cactus endemic to the island of Culebra. It was discovered in 1932 by Major Chapman Grant and later described by Nathaniel Britton in 1933. The only known natural population of this species has only about 50 individuals. It grows on rocky exposed slopes adjacent to a narrow beach along the southwest coast of Culebra. It is associated with several tropical native dry forest species like the almasigo (Busera simaruba), ucar (Bucida buceras), and sea-grape (Coccoloba uvifera). The cactus was listed as an endangered species in 1993. It is threatened by agricultural, rural, urban, and tour- ist development. In addition, it is an attractive and spineless cactus, which increases its potential as an ornamental plant; therefore, collection may become a problem in the future. In the summer of 2003, the Service’s

Leopoldo Miranda-Castro Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,

14 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 All the cacti are doing well, and most are sprouting. Only three individuals needed to be relocated due to high soil moisture that was affecting their survival. The project would not have been possible without the help of many partners, including the landowner and especially the 2003 Culebra National Wildlife Refuge Youth Conservation Corps, who prepared the area and planted the cacti in just one day! The landowner and Service biologists monitor the survival of all individuals reg- ularly to ensure that each cactus becomes established and survives. This model of cooperation between private landowners and the Service is proving to be critical for the recovery of this Caribbean native and endangered cactus.

Leopoldo Miranda-Castro is a biologist for the Service’s Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program in Arlington, Virginia (703-358-2201; Leopoldo_Miranda @fws.gov). Silmarie Padron is the Private Lands Program Coordinator in the Caribbean Field Ofﬁ ce in Boqueron, Puerto Rico (787- 851-7297; Silmarie_ [email protected]). Leopoldo Miranda-Castro

Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Cristina Adorno with a Culebra Island cactus recently transplanted from a greenhouse.

together with the Caribbean National Island) had a high population of feral Wildlife Refuge and a private landowner, goats, the refuge could not plant them on developed a project to establish a second its land. population of this endangered cactus on Through the Partners for Fish and Culebra. Wildlife Program, a private landowner The project consisted of establish- devoted to the conservation of wildlife ing 40 plants that were produced from was found. He agreed to establish a pop- cuttings from the wild population. These ulation of this endangered cactus on his one- to two-year old individuals were property, which already had a perpetual raised in a nursery at the Cabo Rojo conservation easement. This property is National Wildlife Refuge and then trans- a 5-acre (2-ha) lot mostly covered with ported to Culebra. They were intended invasive grasses. It was decided to plant to be planted within the Culebra National the cacti in two areas, a rocky hill and Wildlife Refuge, a former Navy shooting open clearing. The invasive grasses were range, but since there still was unex- cleared using hand tools, and the cacti, ploded ordnance within refuge boundar- already 2 to 4 feet (0.5 to 1.2 m) high, ies and the only available area (Luis Peña were planted in the cleared areas.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 15 Meet the Beetles! by Lee Andrews

The greater Adams Cave beetle ing and other illegal activities involving (Pseudanophthalmus pholeter) and the trespassing. This resulted in extensive lesser Adams Cave beetle (P. cataryctos) vandalism and degradation of the habitats are endemic to a single site in Madison within and surrounding the cave. County, Kentucky. Adams Cave, located Through the efforts of the Service, in the middle of a rapidly developing Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky subdivision southwest of Richmond, State Nature Preserves Commission, Kentucky, is the only known habitat for and the National Speleological Society’s these extremely rare species. The Fish Blue Grass Grotto, the cave’s interior

USFWS and Wildlife Service has identiﬁ ed both was cleared of debris and a damaged species as candidates for listing under concrete block wall at the entrance was Greater Adams cave beetle the Endangered Species Act. This spring, replaced by a specially designed, bat- however, the Service and a land trust, friendly, steel exclusion gate. The Service the Southern Conservation Corporation also secured a commitment from the (SCC), signed a Candidate Conservation landowner to donate the cave property Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) to to the SCC, a non-proﬁ t land trust that protect both species and perhaps make accepted ownership of the property in listing unnecessary. 2002. Biological inventories of the cave In 2001, when the Service began that year documented the presence of working with the property’s previous both Adams Cave beetle species. owner, the two Adams Cave beetles had Cave beetles within the genus not been observed or collected for years. Pseudanophthalmus, including both People had used Adams Cave for camp- Adams Cave beetle species, are generally

Roy Powers and Kristen Bobo stand proudly in front of the Adams Cave gate they helped build. The gate will protect the cave animals and their habitat from vandalism, trash dumping, and disturbance. J. Brent Harrel/USFWWS

16 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 J. Brent Harrel/USFWS

Members of the EKU Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the National Speleological Society’s Blue Grass Grotto haul in steel for the cave gate.

no longer than the width of a pencil cave beetles under the Endangered “We see this as a simple way that we eraser. They are eyeless, reddish brown, Species Act because SCC is helping us can help conserve these species,” says and are cave-dependent. They are preda- protect Adams Cave. SCC’s efforts will Charles H. Fox, the SCC’s executive direc- tors on spiders, mites, millipedes, and likely mean two less endangered species tor. “The Fish and Wildlife Service helped other insects. in Kentucky and less potential regulatory us develop a CCAA and showed us how The CCAA covers a parcel of about burden for projects in Richmond and the agreement would protect us from one acre (0.4 hectare) that contains the Madison County.” future liability under the Endangered cave entrance. The SCC will keep the If either or both of these cave Species Act. All we have to do is imple- Adams Cave property in its natural state beetles are later listed by the Service as ment several conservation measures on and maintain the metal gate at the cave threatened or endangered, the SCC will the property, which we were going to do entrance. It will also limit human access receive regulatory assurances through an anyway.” to Adams Cave and the rest of the prop- “enhancement of survival” permit. The erty enrolled in the CCAA. These efforts permit will authorize the SCC to engage Lee Andrews is the state fi eld offi ce will conserve habitat, eliminate unauthor- in activities that otherwise would violate supervisor for the Service’s Ecological ized human disturbances inside the cave, the Act’s prohibitions on the “take” of Services Program in Kentucky and and provide important monitoring data listed species, provided they continue formerly the Candidate Conservation that can be used toward improving man- to meet the requirements in the CCAA. Program Coordinator for the Southeast agement strategies for these two beetles Through the CCAA agreement, the Region at the Frankfort, Kentucky, Field and other cave-dependent species. Service provides assurances to the SCC Offi ce ([email protected]). “The Service is always looking for that no additional conservation measures opportunities to engage willing landown- or land, water, or resource use restric- ers in the conservation of rare species,” tions beyond those voluntarily agreed to says Dr. Michael Floyd, a biologist in by the SCC at the time of the agreement the Service’s Frankfort (Kentucky) Field will be required if either or both of these Offi ce. “We may not have to list these species are listed in the future.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 17 Bull River: by Robert M. Lee, III A New Wildlife Haven

Thanks to the hard work and Bull River and Lake Creek drainages. It dedication of people from several encompasses wetlands, bull trout habitat, organizations, more than 3 square miles and an important migration route for big (7.8 sq. kilometers) of outstanding fi sh game and large carnivores. and wildlife habitat are now under con- The project preserves the integrity servation management in northwestern of vitally important stream habitats Montana. Recently, Avista Corporation, for native bull trout (Salvelinus con- The Conservation Fund, Plum Creek fl uentus) and westslope cutthroat trout Timber Company and Montana Fish, (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi); maintains Wildlife and Parks completed a conserva- a wilderness linkage that allows grizzly tion agreement on more than 1,800 acres bears, lynxes, bald eagles, gray wolves, (728 hectares) of land formerly owned fi shers, and other wide-ranging wildlife to by Plum Creek and Genesis Mining travel between the two mountain ranges; Company. The result was the creation provides an important winter range for of the Bull River Wildlife Management elk, moose, and deer; and provides the Area (WMA), which is to be managed by public with opportunities for compatible Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The recreational uses such as hunting, fi shing, Bull River WMA was formally dedicated wildlife viewing, hiking, horseback rid- in May 2005. ing, and other non-motorized day uses. This new management area is located The property is located approximately strategically between the East and West 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Troy, Scenic wetlands of the Bull River WMA. Cabinet Mountains in the headwaters of Montana, along the watershed divide between the headwaters of the Bull River and the Lake Creek drainages. The area, which includes the confl uences of the three forks of the Bull River and Ross Creek, provides a permanent conservation linkage between the East and West Cabinet Mountains. The major habitat components of the new wildlife management area include a large wetland complex that feeds directly into the Bull River, a mile of the Bull River main stem, three-quarters of a mile of Ross Creek with a wetland near the mouth, a half-mile of shoreline on Bull Lake, as well as productive uplands and a boreal coniferous forest wetland. Avista will continue to manage their adjacent lands consistent with WMA objectives under the conservation easement. The new WMA is bordered on three sides by U.S. Forest Service property. An adjacent

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 40-acre (16-ha) parcel was acquired

18 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 with partial funding through a grant to According to Jerry Sorenson, Senior Land Avista from the North American Wetland Asset Manager for Plum Creek’s Rocky Conservation Act program. Mountain region, the company is always “This is an incredible example of happy to participate in any project that a private timber company, a private makes both conservation sense and busi- utility company, a non-proﬁ t conserva- ness sense. “Plum Creek is very pleased tion organization, and State and Federal with this conservation outcome.” agencies working together for the beneﬁ t To meet the HCP land acquisition of wildlife,” says Jim Williams, Regional grant requirement of a minimum 25 per- Wildlife Program Manager for Montana cent non-federal funding match, Avista Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Corporation and The Conservation Fund Tim Swant, Avista Utilities Clark Fork donated an adjoining 117 acres (47 ha),

License Manager, echoes that and adds, and the Avista Corporation donated a Roger Peters “Throughout the process the individuals conservation easement on an additional Bull trout focused on the desired outcome of pro- 559-acre (226-ha) parcel. tecting this important habitat, while being “The preservation of more than 1,800 sensitive to each organization’s needs.” acres along Montana’s Bull River repre- The total market value of the project is In 2003 and again in 2004, the Fish sents a landmark achievement for all of $4.61 million. The new Bull River WMA and Wildlife Service awarded Habitat the partners working to protect this spec- will have minimal impact on property tax Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grants tacular landscape,” said The Conservation revenue to the local counties. For lands to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to Fund’s president, Larry Selzer. “Thanks owned in fee, Montana Fish, Wildlife partially fund the project. These grants to the dedication of the U.S. Fish and and Parks makes annual payments to the were available based on the species Wildlife Service and Montana Fish, counties that equal the property taxes protection provided by Plum Creek Wildlife, and Parks, and the commit- on equivalent private property. For lands Timber Company’s Native Fish Habitat ment of Avista and Plum Creek, we are subject to a conservation easement held Conservation Plan. Plum Creek sold 1,164 safeguarding some of the nation’s most by Montana, the landowner continues acres (471 ha) of upland forest and wet- important wildlife habitat and enhancing to pay the same property taxes as prior lands to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. recreation areas for future generations.” to the conservation easement. Already a superb management area in its own right,

At the Bull River WMA dedication ceremony, Ruth Watkins (Arista Corp) was presented with a certiﬁ cate of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks sees appreciation for her work in securing conservation lands. At the left is Chris Smith of Montana Fish, Wildlife future expansion opportunities for the and Parks, and in the center is Nate Hall of Arista. Bull River WMA. Mark Elsbree of The Conservation Fund summed up the project nicely: “When you reach for the stars, you’ll never come up with a handful of mud. This time, we got the stars.”

Robert Lee is a Fishery Biologist with the Service’s Ecological Services ofﬁ ce in Kalispell, Montana. He can be contacted at 406-758-6879 and Robert_Lee@ fws.gov. Don Morgan/USFWS

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 19 Sneezeweed Conservation by Rhonda L. Rimer Bears Fruit

One of the greatest challenges ating water levels varying both seasonally in the twenty-ﬁ rst century is to protect and annually. The species requires full biodiversity in the face of widespread sun to ﬂ ourish. Although the morphology habitat loss. In the central United States, (structure) and habitat were similar for the Ozark Highlands are exceptionally the Missouri and Virginia H. virginicum rich in rare natural communities and populations, botanists originally regarded at-risk species. One vulnerable species, the single Missouri population with uncer-

Amy D.F. Smith Amy D.F. a plant called the Virginia sneezeweed tainty. In 2000, however, DNA evidence (Helenium virginicum), was known only demonstrated that there is no signiﬁ cant Student volunteer assists from Virginia until a population was genetic difference between the Missouri Rhonda Rimer in out planting greenhouse-reared Virginia discovered in Missouri in 1960. Located and Virginia populations. sneezeweed. on private land near Pomona, it was the Habitat destruction led to the decline only one thought to exist in Missouri for of the species in Virginia, and by the more than 40 years. 1990s fewer than 25 populations existed. Virginia sneezeweed, which is feder- In 1998, the Virginia sneezeweed was ally listed as threatened, grows on the listed as threatened. Since that time, both moist borders of seasonally wet sinkhole Virginia and Missouri have been work- ponds and meadows in the Shenandoah ing on recovery of the species in their Valley of Virginia and in the Ozark states, and a federal recovery plan is in Highlands of Missouri. It is found in natu- preparation. ral wetlands associated with dolomite and For Missouri, protection of the one limestone geology that is subject to ﬂ uctu- known population in the state was a

Despite its unusual name, the Virginia sneezeweed is an attractive wildfl ower. Virginia sneezeweed is a small herb with a branching stem above the infl orescence, a simple stem below, and winged by ruffl es of tissue that run up and down the stem. Basal leaves form a rosette and are dotted with glands. The basal leaves can be either toothed or untoothed and are widest in the upper half and tapering at both ends. Rhonda L. Rimer

20 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 populations of Virginia sneezeweed were known to exist in ﬁ ve counties in the Missouri Ozarks! The role of private landowners in this success story cannot be overstated. Without the support of the owner of the Pomona site, biologists could never have gained the valuable material for DNA analysis to compare with Virginia plants nor could have collected seed for the reintroduction project. In addition, hundreds of private landowners allowed biologists access to their land to look for a federally threatened species. Many even took biologists to sites on their property that might never have been found without their assistance. This led to the discovery of several new populations. Conservationists in Missouri are feeling good about the status of Virginia sneezeweed in the state. Neighboring states have taken notice and begun planning surveys of their own for the species. With two successfully introduced populations on public land and the goodwill of many landowner cooperators, the future for Virginia sneezeweed is looking bright.

Rhonda L. Rimer is the Natural History Regional Biologist for the Missouri

C.D. Scott Department of Conservation’s Ozark Region and the State Recovery Leader Bill Summers (surveyor) and Rhonda Rimer, recovery biologist, at Virginia sneezeweed site in Missouri. for Virginia Sneezeweed (Rhonda. [email protected]). priority. The Missouri Department of sites exceeded 90 percent. Reproduction Conservation initiated a partnership with was evidenced by new seedlings grow- the landowner, the Fish and Wildlife ing along the margins of the sinkholes at Service, the Missouri Botanical Garden, both sites. and the Center for Plant Conservation. The information obtained from the In October 2001, biologists from these reintroduction project gave Missouri groups collected seed from the Missouri Conservation Department biologists a population with the goal of reintroducing new image of the species’ preferred the plant to two appropriate sites nearby habitat. From that, biologists designed a on public land. During the process of survey in 2003 using the original site as raising and planting the sneezeweeds in a focal point and county roads as survey their new homes, they gathered valu- grids working outward from that point. able information on the role of maternal Within the fi rst three weeks of the sur- genetic composition, water regime, and vey, fi ve new Virginia sneezeweed sites competing vegetation on survivorship, were discovered in Missouri. Sneezeweed growth, and fl owering of the Virginia surveyors traveled thousands of miles sneezeweed. The two introduced popula- of county roads and contacted hun- tions were monitored yearly and, by dreds of landowners. The work paid August 2004, overall survivorship at both off. By November 2004, more than 44

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 21 Keeping Family Forests by William Vogel and Steve Stinson

“ Family forest” landowners manage production of forest products. While about 60 percent of forests nationwide. the term “tree farm” implies young trees Yet this statistic does not refl ect the growing in rows like crops, family forests tremendous infl uence these landown- are typically diverse and often contain ers have over certain key landscapes. old forest conditions with large standing For instance, the ownership pattern dead trees and large downed logs used within the lower-elevation forest lands by many species of wildlife. in western Washington’s Puget Trough Unfortunately, many tree farmers is dominated by family forests. The fear that potential regulatory restric- Puget Trough—once predominantly tions could keep them from managing low-lying forests, prairies, wetlands, and their lands economically. These lands farmlands—is rapidly urbanizing, form- represent long-term investments, often ing a barrier between wildlife in coastal for college and retirement funds, and Washington and the Cascade Mountain occasionally for yearly family income. As range. with industrial lands, listing of species Family forest landowners (often under the Endangered Species Act may known as tree farmers) take pride in have unintended consequences when a managing their lands. Many of them listing encourages landowners to harvest desire to manage for wildlife and to timber on shorter rotations and to retain mimic natural-disturbance regimes, as less structure within their forests so that Old forest in Pacifi c Northwest. well as manage for recreation and the the listed species are not attracted to their properties. In this context, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other conservation tools such as Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs), can accomplish the conservation of threatened and endangered species merely by removing the uncertainties that may be created by a changing regulatory environment. The largest threat to wildlife habitat in many areas is the conversion of forest lands to residential, commercial, or industrial developments. Developing HCPs can help to retain these lands as habitat for listed species. However, other uncertainties will continue, and the Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes it will have to incorporate additional fl exibility to accommodate the management on family forest lands. For example, unex- pected medical bills may make it necessary for a landowner to harvest and sell timber that would otherwise have been

John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS allowed to grow longer.

22 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 The Problem Doug and Steve Stinson. The Stinson family owns the A number of family forest landown- Cowlitz Ridge Tree Farm. ers have contacted the Service wishing to pursue HCPs or similar conservation plans. They were already managing their lands in ways the Service would applaud. However, these landowners generally did not have the ability (as do some industrial companies) to prepare an HCP or SHA and the necessary environmental compliance documents, therefore making it necessary for Service staff to prepare these documents. Because of the workload associated with large HCPs and SHAs, some covering over a million acres each, smaller projects often have ranked lower in Service priority. Another

factor infl uencing priorities was that Fae Marie Beck many of these family forest landowners were not having immediate impacts on listed species. But smaller landowners process and may agree to hold a master in a manner that was not possible on needed the same opportunities as the permit, if issued, allowing individual a case-by-case basis. The agencies and larger landowners. There had to be a landowners to be included through other groups realize that each will have better way. “Certifi cates of Inclusion.” to contribute to the effort. Only a team effort will succeed. A Solution Additional Benefi ts The Steering Committee of the Family Family forest landowners in Lewis The programmatic HCP is expected Forest Habitat Conservation Plan has County, Washington, have been aware to streamline other processes. Upon formed the Family Forest Foundation, of the encroaching growth problems approval by U.S. Environmental a non-profi t 501(c)(3) corporation, and are represented by a group of Protection Agency and Washington to facilitate the funding of this proj- progressive and involved leaders. The Department of Ecology, there should ect. Cooperation among several key Service, working with these commu- be certainty with respect to the federal stakeholders (the Fish and Wildlife nity leaders, contacted a broad range Clean Water Act. Also, once approved Service, National Marine Fisheries of people and groups interested in by the Washington Department of Fish Service, Washington Department of maintaining family forests within Lewis and Wildlife and Department of Natural Natural Resources, and Lewis County) is County, including family forest land- Resources, State Forest Practices Rules increasing. Legal counsel and biological owners, landowner organizations, state could allow for a long-term State Forest assistance have been established, and and federal agencies, Native American Practices permit as well. Participants progress is encouraging. tribes, environmental organizations, in the project may also be able to reap county extension staff, and universities. other benefi ts, such as potential tax William Vogel is a wildlife biologist These stakeholder groups found com- incentives or increased ranking for cost- with Service’s Western Washington Offi ce mon interests and desires. share activities. These additional applica- ([email protected]). Steve Stinson is A steering committee began pursu- tions of the plan are still being explored. the Executive Director of the Family ing a programmatic HCP. The original The plan developers believe that this Forest Foundation and a partner in the idea was that the programmatic plan, approach provides landowners with Cowlitz Ridge Tree Farm. He is also the which was expected to contain several the opportunity to pursue long-term primary contact for the Family Forest options for land management, would regulatory certainty and “one-stop shop- Conservation Project (stevestinson@ form the basis for issuance of numerous ping,” as well as a number of options familyforestfoundation.org). individual permits under the Endangered that will fi t their desire for site-specifi c Species Act. Each landowner who chose management. At the same time, this to participate would receive his own programmatic approach will help the permit and be responsible for compli- agencies achieve their goals for fi sh and ance. Lewis County has joined the wildlife conservation and clean water

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN AUGUST 2005 VOLUME XXX NO. 1 23 BOX SCORE Listings and Recovery Plans as of August 5, 2005

ENDANGERED THREATENED TOTAL U.S. SPECIES GROUP U.S. FOREIGN U.S. FOREIGN LISTINGS W/ PLANS

MAMMALS 68 251 10 20 349 55

BIRDS 77 175 13 6 271 78

REPTILES 14 64 22 16 116 33

AMPHIBIANS 11 8 10 1 30 15

FISHES 71 11 43 1 126 95

SNAILS 21 1 11 0 33 22

CLAMS 62 2 8 0 72 69

CRUSTACEANS 18 0 3 0 21 13

INSECTS 35 4 9 0 48 31

ARACHNIDS 12 0 0 0 12 5

ANIMAL SUBTOTAL 389 516 129 44 1,078 416

FLOWERING PLANTS 571 1 144 0 716 584

CONIFERS 2 0 1 2 5 3

FERNS AND OTHERS 26 0 2 0 28 28

PLANT SUBTOTAL 599 1 147 2 749 615 GRAND TOTAL 988 517 276 46 1,827* 1,031

TOTAL U.S. ENDANGERED: 988 (389 animals, 599 plants) * Separate populations of a species listed both as Endangered and Threatened TOTAL U.S. THREATENED: are tallied once, for the endangered population only. Those species are 276 (129 animals, 147 plants) the argali, chimpanzee, leopard, Stellar sea-lion, gray wolf, piping plover, TOTAL U.S. LISTED: 1,264 (518 animals**, 746 plants) roseate tern, green sea turtle, saltwater crocodile, and olive ridley sea turtle. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, the term “species” can mean a species, subspecies, or distinct vertebrate population. Several entries also represent entire genera or even families. ** Nine animal species have dual status in the U.S.

FIRST CLASS POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PERMIT NO. G-77

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, D.C. 20240