Delisting Proposed for Three Kangaroo Species

May 1983 Vol VIII No. 5

Department of interior. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Delisting Proposed for Three Kangaroo Species

The red kangaroo (Macropus rufus), sufficient to propose these actions. nomic damage from these animals eastern gray kangaroo (M. giganteus), The kangaroos were not delisted in might resort to the drastic methods used and western gray kangaroo (M. fuligino- 1981 in conjunction with the lifting of the in the past, such as the poisoning of sus), which are now listed as Threatened import ban because the Service had lin- water holes, which would have an species under the Endangered Species gering concerns about: 1) the suscepti- obvious harmful effect on kangaroos Act have been proposed for delisting bility of these animals to overexploita- and other wildlife. It should be empha- (F.R. 4/8/83). A separate proposal pub- tion; 2) the difficulty in predicting the sized that none of the Australian States lished the same day would permit the severity of damage to the populations manage their kangaroos on a sustained- continued importation into the United that could be caused by natural or yield basis for commercial profit. All of States of kangaroo hides and products human-related factors: and 3) the ade- the funds derived from the sale of kanga- even if the delisting is not approved. quacy of law enforcement capability. In roo products overseas are used to pay Kangaroos survive in large numbers, are its petition to delist, the Australian for the services of the professional considered pests in many agricultural Government provided substantial infor- shooters. If the States did not have this regions, and are managed under con- mation that these concerns may no income, they would have to turn control servation plans developed by the Aus- longer be valid. Use of improved popula- of kangaroos over to the private tralian States. tion monitoring techniques, including ranchers and farmers. aerial surveys, indicate that lifting the Background Public Comment Requested U.S. import ban in 1981 did not haveany All three species were originally listed measurable detrimental effects on the Although the 30-day public comment as Threatened in 1974, and importation overall status of the species. period on the proposal to allow con- of hides and products was prohibited at In each State where they occur, the tinued importation into the U.S. of kan- that time. These actions were taken three species of kangaroos may be garoo products expired on May 9, kbecause: 1) there was no clear evidence taken only by professional shooters who comments on the delisting proposal that the overall take was being properly work under permits issued by the from any interested agencies, organiza- monitored and regulated; 2) no reliable appropriate State wildlife agency in tions, and individuals will be accepted kangaroo population estimates were accordance with a conservation plan. until June 7,1983. All submissions, pref- available from most of the Australian Also, the Service has accepted the Aus- erably in triplicate, should be addressed States: and 3) the Australian Govern- tralian Government's assurance that its to the Associate Director—Federal ment had itself banned kangaroo States employ a sufficient number of Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- exports because of its uncertainty about enforcement agents. The rate of annual vice, Washington, D.C. 20240. the situation. The listing and ban on culling rarely exceeds 10 percent of the At the request of the Animal Protec- imports into the U.S. was intended to kangaroo population, and is considered tion Institute of America, theService is remain in effect until the Australian well below the danger point for species holding a public hearing on this pro- States developed adequate conserva- like these kangaroos that are capable of posed rule on Monday, June 6, 1983, tion plans and demonstrated that com- continuous breeding throughout the beginning at 9:00 AM. The public hear- mercial trade in kangaroo products year. Without the culling of excessive ing will be held in Room 8068 Main Inte- would not jeopardize the species as a kangaroos by professional shooters, rior Department Building, 18th and 0 whole. ranchers and farmers suffering eco- Streets, NW, Washington, D.C. On April 29, 1981, the Service published a Federal Register notice acknowledging that the Australian V" -./ef- Government had met both criteria, and that improved censusing techniques had provided an estimate in excess of 32 million adult kangaroos in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Austra- lia, and Queensland. Accordingly, the import ban was lifted for a trial period of at least 2 years, although the three species remained listed as Threatened. On November 10, 1982, the Australian Government petitioned the Service to allow the continued import into the U.S. J of kangaroo products after the close of the 2-year trial period, and to remove all three species from the U.S. List of Threatened and Endangered Species. The accompanying data were judged Three kangaroo species now listed as Threatened are proposed for delisting. The Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepi- dochelys kempii) project, which is being carried out with the Mexico Secretariat of Fisheries, began April 12, and will continue through the nesting and hatch- ing season (until August). The imprint- ing of hatchlings at Padre Island National Seashore by the National Park Service and headstarting of young turtles at the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice lab in Galveston, Texas, will proceed. The first litter of second generation Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) born in captivity was whelped on April 21 at the Rio Grande Zoo in Albu- querque. The litter was examined at 5 days of age, and consisted of five males and one female. It is anticipated that two more litters may be born at the other Endangered Species Program in southeast Arizona, and reported for cooperating facilities in May. regional staffers have reported the fol- duty in early April. His background in Meanwhile, the first red wolves (Canis lowing activities for the month of April: fisheries biology made him a natural rufus) born in a public display facility choice for manager of the first NWR were whelped at New Orleans' Audubon established especially for Endangered Park and Zoological Gardens on April Region 2 —Ben Robertson was fishes. The refuge will help conserve six 19. The litter's parents were both raised selected as manager of the new San Ber- native fish species in the Rio Yaqui sys- at the Red Wolf Recovery Program nadino National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) tem within Arizona and Mexico. breeding facility near Tacoma, Washington, and shipped south in fall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service James Johnson, Acting Endangered 1980. The successful breeding in 1983 is Washington, O.C. 20240 Species Specialist. partially attributed to minor pen modifi- cations made last year in an effort to Robert A Jantzen, Director Region 3, Federal BIdg., Fort Snelling, make the wolves more comfortable in a (202-343-4717) Twin Cities, MN 55111 (612-725-3500): Ronald E. Lambertson Harvey Nelson, Regional Director; public viewing situation. Associate Director and John S. Popowski, Assistant Regional Endangered Species Program Manager Director; James M. Engel, Endangered Region 4—The ongoing review of the (202-343-4646) Species Specialist. Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) has John L. Spinks, Chief, Region 4, Richard B. Russell Federal found this species in 13 caves in 6 coun- Office of Endangered Species ties within the States of Arkansas, Mis- (703-235-2771) BIdg., 75 Spring St., S.W., Atlanta, GA souri, and Oklahoma. The largest known Richard Robinson, Acting Chief 30303 (404-221-3583): James W. Pulliam, Federal Wildlife Permit Office Regional Director; John I. Christian, population was surveyed, resulting in an (703-235-1937) Assistant Regional Director; Alex B. estimate of 300 individuals in this cave. Clark R. Bavin, Chief, Montgomery, Endangered Species Spe- That cave population probably repre- Division of Law Enforcement cialist. sented 60 percent of the total A. rosae (202-343-9242) Region 5, Suite 700, One Gateway Center, population. The number of historic cave TECHNICAL BULLETIN STAFF Newton Corner, MA 02158 (617-965- locations for the Ozark cavefish has Clare Senecal Kearney, Editor 5100): Howard Larsen, Regional Direc- been reduced by 40 percent, according Michael Bender, Assistant Editor tor; Stephen W. Parry, Assistant Regional to our current data, with most of the loss (703-235-2407) Director; Paul Nickerson, Endangered in Missouri. The remaining populations Species Specialist. of A. rosae in Missouri are small, with Regional Offices Region 6, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal never more than four cavefish observed Region 1, Suite 1692, Lloyd 500 BIdg., Center, Denver, CO 80225 (303-234- in a cave when they are seen at all. 500 N.E. Multnomah St., Portland, OR 2209): Galen Buterbaugh, Regional 97232 (503-231-6118): Richard J. My- Director; John D. Green, Assistant A very unusual discovery of a dead shak. Regional Director; William F. Regional Director; Don Rodgers, Endan- bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Shake, Assistant Regional Director, gered Species Specialist. in an active nest near Lake Tohopekal- Sanford R. Wilbur, Endangered Species Region 7, 1101 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, iga was made by Florida eagle Specialist. AK 99503 (907-276-3800, ext. 495): Keith researcher and rehabilitator Doris Region 2, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, M. Schreiner, Regional Director; Jon Magor during an aerial survey in early NM 87103 (506-766-2321); Michael J. Nelson, Assistant Regional Director; March. With the help of the AAA Tree Spear, Regional Director; Conrad A. Dennis Money, Endangered Species Service, Magor and FWS Special Agent Fjetland, Assistant Regional Director; Specialist. Vance Eaddy recovered the carcass and submitted it for necropsy. The results revealed that the bird, an adult female U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regions carrying an egg, had suffered peritonitis and a gunshot wound to the head. R»glon 1: California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Pacific Trust Territories. Raglon 2: Arizona, Equally unusual was their observation New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Region 3: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota. Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Region 4: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi. North Carolina, South that the dead bird's mate had apparently Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Region 5: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massa- already acquired a new mate before the ^^ chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Region 6: Colorado, Kansas. Montana, Nebraska. North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Region 7: Alaska. dead bird was removed. An egg found in the nest was left in the hope that the pair The ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN is published monthly by the would incubate it. Although the newly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Continued on page 3

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 Regional Briefs Region 6—A Bald Eagle Management Field that is in the area inhabited by Plan for the Greater Yellowstone Eco- ferrets. Continued from page 2 system (GYE) has been drafted by the The Black-footed Ferret Advisory GYE Bald Eagle Working Team. The Team (BFAT) held a 1-day meeting in plan is not meant to replace the Pacific March. The Wyoming Game and Fish ^ formed pair remained at the site, the egg States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, but Department (WGFD) announced that it keventually disappeared, and then a rather to identify specific threats to the is developing an operational protocol to 'serious fire burned the tract around the GYE bald eagle population and provide be followed by researchers, photo- tree. Fortunately, the nest tree itself was management recommendations at a graphers, or other parties working in undamaged, and hopes are high for a detailed level. areas inhabited by ferrets. Draft Interim successful nesting next season. Local Management Guidelines were reviewed. media have covered the story closely, Specifically, the plan summarizes That evening, a town meeting was held and a substantial rew^ard fund had devel- data on population characteristics, life to update the public on ferret research oped for information on the shooting, history, and habitat requirements, out- and management activities. Jack Tur- including voluntary donations by a local lines population objectives, problems nell, manager of a ranch near Meteetse, developer and a retiree in Maryland. and strategies, as well as management was presented with a plaque by the FWS and Florida Game and Fresh Water recommendations; establishes priorities WFGD for his cooperation in efforts to Fish Commission agents are still hoping for research and management; and sets conserve the black-footed ferret. Don for new leads in the case. interim guidelines for nest site management. Dexter, Director of WGFC, presented a diorama of a ferret in its native habitatto Region 5—Pete Poulos, on temporary The GYE includes habitat in portions the Meeteetse community. The follow- detail from the Washington Office to of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Over ing day, Husky Oil Company gave BFAT Region 5, has completed a preliminary 8 governmental agencies with 20 admi- members a tour of drilling and treater draft recovery plan forthe small whorled nistrative divisions are currently facilities so they could better under- pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). involved with research or management stand the activities associated with oil of the GYE bald eagle population. The Peregrine falcons (Faico peregrinus) field development and oil production. GYE Bald Eagle Working Team was Husky Oil Company has voluntarily are nesting this year in New York, New formed in December 1981 to aid in coor- Jersey, and Virginia. It is possible that "shut-in" wells, for a period of 1 year, in dinating research and management of areas inhabited by ferrets. peregrines are nesting also in New the population and thus turn a formerly Hampshire. fragmented approach into an effective Region 7—Aleutian Islands NWR The Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail program. The team includes representa- manager and Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan, which was completed by tives from the National Park Service, Recovery Team leader, Fred Zeille- New York State biologists, has been Wyoming Game and Fish Department, maker, reports that six Aleutian Canada signed by the Director. Recovery plans Idaho Fish and Game Department, Mon- geese (Branta canadensis leucopareia), have been completed for the following tana Department of Fish, Wildlife and including one color-banded bird, were species and are ready for Regional Parks, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish observed near Clam Lagoon, Adak 'Director approval: flat-spired, three- and Wildlife Service, Montana State Uni- Island, on March 16. Prior to this record, toothed snail (Triodopsis platy- versity, and the Bureau of Land the earliest known spring arrival was sayoides); Virginia fringed mountain Management. April 25. This sighting makes for inter- snail (Polygyriscus virginianus); and The Interim Management Guidelines esting speculation as weekly counts of Delmarva Fox Squirrel Recovery Plan Committee appointed by the Black- the Aleutian Canada geese in California (first revision). footed Ferret Advisory Team (see Feb- indicate that some of the geese may Eaglets (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ruary 1983 issue of the BULLETIN) met have departed their wintering grounds from the Patuxent Wildlife Research in January to begin drafting guidelines early. It is also possible that some geese Center have been placed successfully in to manage black-footed ferreXs(Mustela may have wintered in the Aleutians or active nests in New York, New Jersey, nigripes) near Meeteetse, Wyoming. elsewhere in Alaska. Yet, with record and Pennsylvania this spring. Eagles Representatives from four oil/energy snowfalls and accumulations at Adak nesting at Bombay Hook (Delaware) companies attended and agreed to and possibly throughout the Aleutians, NWR hatched their own young this year develop a comprehensive long-term it is unknown how the geese could have for the first time in 7 years. development plan for the Rose Creek Oil survived there through the winter.

CITES NEWS — May 1983 Bobcat Findings Announced The Endangered Species Act of Management Authority for CITES, as- 1973, as amended in 1979, designates suring that wildlife and plants are ex- the Secretary of the Interior as both the ported or imported in compliance with Final findings on the export of bobcats Management Authority and the Scientif- laws for their protection and issuing (Lynx rufus) harvested during the 1982- ic Authority of the United States, for the permits for legal trade of these species. 83 season were approved and purposes of the Convention on Interna- The Service's Office of the Scientific announced by the Service (F.R. tional Trade in Endangered Species of Authority (OSA) functions as staff to the 4/18/83). The findings and the guide- Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). l\Aan- U.S. Scientific Authority for CITES. OSA lines upon which they are based became agement Authority responsibilities are reviews applications to export and effective on April 25, 1983. delegated to the Associate Director— import species protected under CITES, Export was approved from the follow- Federal Assistance; Scientific Authority reviews the status of wild animals and ing States and Indian Nations on the responsibilities are delegated to the /\s- plants impacted by trade, makes cer- grounds that both Scientific Authority sociate Director—Research. tain findings concerning housing and and Management Authority guidelines are met: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, The Service's Wildlife Permit Office care of protected specimens, and ad- (WPO) functions as staff to the U.S. vises on trade controls. Continued on page 7

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 Listing and Recovery Priorities Proposed in Draft Guidelines Draft guidelines have been proposed categories for species to be listed or re- Priority considerations would concern to determine priorities for species to be classified from Threatened to Endan- whether or not protection under the Act listed as Endangered or Threatened gered as follows: is any longer necessary and whetherthe under the Endangered Species Act, and listing causes an unwarranted manage- for development and implementation of Priorities for Listing or Reclassification ment burden or unnecessarily restricts recovery plans forspecies already listed From Threatened to Endangered human activities. (Inaccurate listing under the Act (F.R. 4/19/83). Comments could divert resources from more appro- from the public are requested and must priate activities.) Secondly, the system Threat be received by June 20, 1983. takes into account whether or not the Degree Immediacy Taxonomy Priority Service has been petitioned to remove Background the species from the list or reclassify it. High . Monotypic This consideration is also intended to In 1979, a report to Congress by the genus. 1 General Accounting Office (GAO) recom- Species . . 2 give highest priority to species whose mended that the Service officially adopt Subspecies . 3 delisting is likely to remove the greatest Potential . . .Monotypic a listing priority system based primarily impacts on known activities inasmuch genus. 4 as such species would also be likely to on consideration of degree of threat Species . . . 5 be subjects of petitions. The decision faced by the species. Later, the 1979 Low to Subspecies .... 6 Amendments to the Endangered Spe- nnoderate • • Imminent . . . Monotypic regarding whether a species will be genus. 7 cies Act required that guidelines be retained on the lists or in the Endan- Species . . . , 8 gered category, however, must be based established and published in the Federal Subspecies .... 9 on the considerations contained in Sec- Register. Guidelines w*ere adopted by Potential . . .Monotypic the Service in 1980, but not published in genus. 10 tion 4(a)(1) of the Act and 50 CFR the Federal Register. This system was Species . , . 11 424.11. Subspecies . ... 12 subsequently revised in 1981 so that priority for listing would be assigned Recovery Guidelines within a given category of degree of The first proposed criterion is the The proposed recovery guidelines use threat so as to generally favor vertebrate degree of threat. Species facing the four criteria to establish 18 priority cate- animals ("higher life forms"). greatest threats to their continued exist- gories as follows: The 1982 Amendments to the Endan- ence would receive highest listing prior- Recovery Priority gered Species Act retained the require- ity. The second criterion, immediacy of ment that guidelines be published. The threat, is intended to assurethat species Degree 1982 amendments, however, necessitate of Recovery Taxonomy Priority Conflict facing actual, identifiable threats be Threat potential the revision of the present system, since given priority over those having only they specifically prohibit adoption of potential threats. The third criterion is High . , High . . . Monotypic genus . . 1 1C any system that would give considera- intended to assign resources on a prior- tion to whether species were "higher or ity basis to those species representing High . 2C lower life forms." The April 9, 1983, highly distinctive or isolated gene pools, High . . .Subspecies proposal is intended to satisfy the re- as reflected by the taxonomic level at , 3 3C quirements of the 1982 legislation. which they are recognized. (The more Low . . . Monotypic genus . . 4 4C Although theServicestrongly encour- isolated or distinctive a gene pool, the 4 aged the development of recovery plans, greater contribution its conservation is Low . 5C the preparation of recovery plans was likely to make to the maintenance of Low . 6 6C elective until passage ofthe 1978 Amend- ecosystem diversity.) ments to the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with Section 4(c)(2) of This legislation required the develop- the Act, the Service currently reviews Moderate High . . Mohotypic genus . . 7 7C ment of a recovery plan for every listed listed species every 5 years to identify species, unless such a plan would not . 7 any that might qualify for removal or re- High . . Species 8 8C promote the conservation of the species. classification. The proposed guidelines . 8 During fiscal year 1977, the Service would employ two criteria to establish High . . Subspecies 9 9C . 9 developed a draft recovery priority sys- six priority categories for deleting or re- Low . . Monotypic genus . . 10 IOC tem to be used as a guide for recovery classifying species from Endangered to 10 planning and resource allocation. The Threatened when evidence is available Low . . Species 11 lie 1979 GAO report recommended that to warrant such actions. 11 this draft system be approved and imple- Low . . Sutspecies 12 12C 12 mented, and this system was adopted by Priorities for Delisting and Reclassification the Service in 1980. It was subseqently From Endangered to Threatened revised to give priority to "higher life Low High . . . Monotypic genus . . 13 13C . 13 forms" as in the 1981 listing priority sys- High . 14 14C Management tem. The recovery priority system now 14 Impact Petition Status Priority proposed deletes this preference for High . 15 15C "higher life forms" and adds a new crite- . 15 High Petitioned action .. Low . . . Monotypic genus .. rion on conflict, required by the 1982 . 16 16C Unpetitioned action . 16 amendments. IVloderate .... Petitioned action .. Low . 17 17C Unpetitioned action 17 Listing Guidelines Low Petitioned action .. Low . 18 18C Unpetitioned action 18 Three criteria are used in the proposed guidelines to establish 12 priority Continued on page 7

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 for the species; the majority of the area RULEMAKING ACTIONS — May 1983 occupied by the tree, however, is in private ownership where no protective provisions exist. An ACE planned Disease Threatens Tree; impoundment near Blountstown, Flor- ida, is not expected to affect this spe- Endangered Status Proposed cies; however, proper planning for the protection of this species will need to be An evergreen tree, Torreya taxifolia reduced or eliminated due to a fungal part of all ACE and any otherfuture Fed- (Florida torreya), which is endemic to disease. The disease causes necrosis of eral projects. the Apalachicola River area in Florida the needles and stems and severe defoli- Torreya taxifolia is already protected and Georgia, was proposed as Endan- ation. Treatment through the applica- by Florida Law, Chapter 65-426, Section gered by the Service (F.R. 4/7/83). The tion of fungicides seems possible; 865.06, and by the Georgia Wild Flower primary threat to this species is a fungal however, extensive research is needed Preservation Act of 1973. The Endan- disease, although past habitat reduc- to determine appropriate treatments gered Species Act would offer addi- tions have occurred. and to investigate the possibility of tional protection through the recovery A conifer reaching 18 meters tall, Tor- breeding trees resistant to the disease. process and interstate and international reya taxifolia was first discovered in All that remains in nature are root trade prohibitions. 1835 and formally described in 1838 sprouts, reaching less than 3 meters in Since all mature viable trees are (Arnott, 1838). This species and other height. Cultivated, unaffected speci- located in botanical gardens and endemics of the Apalachicola River sys- mens that exist in various botanical arboreta, the Service has decided that it tem have received much attention from gardens can provide seeds and material would not be prudent to determine Criti- scientists and local residents. Theentire for future recovery efforts. cal Habitat for Torreya taxifolia at this Apalachicola River bluff system today is Torreya taxifolia occurs in the ravines time. After the disease has been over- an extremely diverse and unique along the eastern side of the Apalachi- come, recovery efforts would address ecosystem. cola River from Lake Seminole in Geor- reintroduction of the species into the Torreya taxifolia has whorled gia to Bristol, Florida. One population wild, and Critical Habitat could be deter- branches and stiff, sharp-pointed, also occurs on the margin of Dog Pond mined then, if found prudent to do so. needle-like leaves. The trees are conical (Florida) that lies to the west of the Apa- If made final, this rule will requireFed- in nature. The leaves of the tree have a lachicola River. The Georgia population eral agencies to insure that activities pungent or resinous odor when occurs entirely on public land adminis- they authorize, fund, or carry out are not crushed, thus one common name, tered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- likely to jeopardize the continued exist- "stinking cedar." A similar coniferous neers (ACE). The ACE resource ence of the species. The regulations per- species of the same plant family (Taxa- manager of this area is sensitive to the taining to Endangered plants are found ceae), Taxus floridanus (Florida yew), need for proper management and pro- at 50 CFR 17.61. Requests for copies of also occurs in the Apalachicola River tection of the species. Management and the regulations on plants and inquiries area. This small tree, which is easily dis- protection efforts must continue and regarding them may be addressed to the tinguished from Torreya taxifolia, was should not conflict with the present Federal Wildlife Permit Office, U.S. Fish also initially recommended for listing as recreational use of the area. and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Endangered, under the Endangered The Florida populations occur on a 20240 (703/235-1903). Species Act; recent studies (1982), how- State park, a city park, and privately Comments or suggestions from the ever, indicate it is presently less vulner- owned lands. Both the State and city public, concerned governmental agen- able than previously thought. parks provide some protected habitat cies, the scientific community, industry, private interests, or any other interested Background party concerning any aspect of this proposed rule are requested. They should Actions leading to Federal protection be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish for the Florida torreya began in 1973 and Wildlife Service, 2747 Art Museum with the inclusion of plants in the Act. Drive, Jacksonville, Florida32207. Com- Section 12 of the 1973 Act directed the ments from all interested parties must be Smithsonian Institution to compile a received by June 6, 1983. The deadline report on Endangered, Threatened, and for public hearing requests was May 23, extinct plant species. The resulting 1975 1983. report included Torreya taxifolia; it was treated as a petition by the Service, and published as a notice of review on July 1, 1975. This action was followed on June Comment Period 16, 1976, by a proposal to list a number of plants, including Torreya taxifolia. Reopened On Ash Due to subsequent requirements of the 1978 Amendments to the Endan- gered Species Act, the 1976 proposal Meadows Rule was withdrawn. The plant has now been reproposed based on sufficient new information. A 1981 report submitted by The comment period on a proposal of the Georgia Plant Program, investiga- Endangered status and Critical Habitat tions carried out by Service botanists for the Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish during the winter of 1981, and a contract (Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes) completed during 1982 on Torreya taxi- and the Ash Meadows speckled dace folia and Taxus floridana have provided A root sprout of Torreya taxifolia, the (Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis) was significant new data. Florida torreya. All mature, viable trees reopened by the Service (F.R. 5/6/83). Since 1962, natural populations of are located in botanical gardens and The same rule announced a public hear- Torreya taxifolia have been drastically arboreta. Continued on page 8

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 San Joaquirr Kit Fox Recovery Plan Approved

The San Joaquin kit fox {Vulpes of the San Joaquin Valley, from as far are pest control programs, shooting, macrotis mutica) is a small, nocturnal north as Tracy, San Joaquin County, on trapping, road kills, and offroad carnivore that inhabits semi-arid grass- the west side of the valley, and near La vehicles. lands of the San Joaquin Valley, Califor- Grange, Stanislaus County, on the east The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as nia. Adult fox stand at about 10 to 12 side of the valley, south to Kern County. Endangered under the Endangered inches at the shoulder and weight about Starting in the early 1900's, however, Species Act of 1973, as amended, and is 5 pounds. Conspicuous traits include agricultural, industrial, and urban devel- also protected as a "rare" species under large ears, covered on the inner side by opments brought about rapidly increas- the California Endangered Species Act dense, white hairs, and a long cylindrical ing rates of habitat loss that led to of 1970. The Service approved the San tail that is light-buff to buffy gray in color population declines. Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan on Janu- with a black tip. The greatest known threat to the San ary 31, 1983. Historically the San Joaquin kit fox Joaquin kit fox is loss of habitat. Other The recovery plan proposes a pro- was a common resident in the dry plains factors which contribute to its decline gram that, when implemented, will halt the decline in populations and ulti- mately lead to reclassification from Endangered to Threatened, and possibly to eventual delisting of the subspecies. Since little is known about the population size or habitat necessary for delisting, the plan places high priority on studies to determine these variables. In general, the plan is based on several overall premises regarding current use and ownership of the land as well as known current distribution of the kit fox. Realistic goals are established that incorporate a blend of actions that emphasize management and restoration of existing public lands in addition to specific protection or acquisition of some areas. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the most important world centers for both San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis muticaj have an average body length of 20 agriculture and petroleum development, inches and stand between 10 and 12 inches at the shoulder. making both the surface and subsurface potential of almost any parcel of land 1. Santa Barbara quite valuable economically. To pro- 2. San Luis Obispo pose curtailment of development or the 3. Monterey purchase of large blocks of land for the 4. San Benito conservation of the kit fox would be 5. Santa Cruz unrealistic. 6. San Mateo 7. Santa Clara It is believed that suitable populations 8. Alameda of San Joaquin kit fox can coexist with 9. Contra Costa some activities, such as oil and gas 10. San Joaquin development, provided coordination 11. Stanislaus and cooperation exists between devel- 12. Merced opers and regulatory agencies. The 13. Madera limited information on adaptability of 14. Fresno the species indicates that kit fox are 15. Tulare compatible with moderate, well regu- 16. Kings 17. Kern lated petroleum activities, and con- trolled grazing as long as consideration Continued on page 7

Copies of this plan, and of all approved recovery plans, will be made available for purchase from the Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, Unit j, 3840 York Street, Denver, Colorado 80205-3536 (800/525- 3426). A 4-to-6 month printing time must be allowed following the date a recovery plan is approved by the Director, before copies may be avail- Proposed zonation of San Joaquin kit fox range for use in apportioning Recovery able. A delay should be expected Plan efforts and funds. Zone 1 (crosshatched) to receive greatest efforts. Zone 2 when ordering newly approved plans. (hatched) intermediate efforts, and Zone 3 (open) modest effort.

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 KIT FOX developments and grazing rather than as cropland. Regulations on Continued from page 6 Zone 2 includes the remaining con- centrations of the kit fox. Most of the Subsistence Take is given to minimizing habitat destruc- desireable areas in this zone are in the tion and loss of prey and denning sites. foothills or other undisturbed wildlands Sufficient Federal legislation exists on the periphery of agricultural develop- of Green Turtles 'already to support the involvement of ments. Because most of this area is pri- several agencies in efforts to aid recov- vately owned, implementation of the Under Review ery of the subspecies; no new legislation plan here will be less than in Zone 1. will be needed. What wrill be required to Zone 3 contains low density popula- implement the recovery plan is the tions of the kit fox. Also, there is little active involvement of several Federal public land in this zone. In response to requests from the and State agencies in a cooperative Federal agencies assigned various Governments of Guam and the State of effort. areas of responsibility for implementa- Hawai'i, the National Marine Fisheries The plan recommends that the known tion of the plan are the Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS) has announced its range of the kit fox be divided into three Service, Bureau of Land Management, intent to review the special regulations zones and that efforts to implement the Geological Survey, Department of governing the subsistence take of green plan be greatest in Zone 1, intermediate Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, Envi- turtles (Chelonia mydas) in portions of in Zone 2, and modest in Zone 3 (See ronmental Protection Agency, U.S. Navy, the species' range where it is listed as accompanying map). The zones have U.S. Army, and Soil Conservation Ser- Threatened (F.R. 4/20/83). Taking of been assigned the various degrees of vice. Involved State agencies are the these sea turtles for subsistence pur- recovery efforts for the following Department of Fish and Game, Depart- poses currently is allowed by residents reasons: ment of Parks and Recreation, Depart- of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Zone 1 contains the focus of the ment of Water Resources, Division of Oil Islands, and NMFS will be determining remaining kit fox population located in and Gas, and California Energy whether the existing provisions should western Kern and eastern San Luis Commission. be modified and whether subsistence Obispo counties. It also contains the Copies of the San Joaquin Kit Fox taking should be allowed in other areas largest contiguous parcel of relatively Recovery Plan are available from the of the Central and Western Pacific undisturbed but manageable Federal Fish and Wildlife Reference Service. For Ocean. land. The land is above the existing irri- more information on the plan, contact Responsibility for listed sea turtles is gation canals so that heaviest demands the Portland Regional Director (see shared between the Departments of on the remaining land are for petroleum page 2 for address). Commerce (NMFS) and the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service). NMFS man- ing and recovery actions in order to ages sea turtles in their marine environ- Guidelines make the most appropriate use of limited ment. When the green turtle was listed ^Continued from page 4 resources. Since the proposed priority on July 28, 1978, an exception to the systems are based on factors that are general prohibitions on taking was subjective to some degree, they must be granted by NMFS under50 CFR Part 227 The first proposed criterion is the viewed as guides and should not be Subpart D for Trust Territory residents, degree of threat. Thus the species with looked upon as inflexible frameworks providing that the take was for personal the highest degree of threat have the for determining resource allocations. use and that the turtles were taken at highest priority for preparation and All comments on these proposed sea. This exception was allowed after implementation of a recovery plan. The guidelines should be sent to the Asso- the Government of the Trust Territory of second criterion concerns the degree of ciate Director—Federal Assistance, U.S. the Pacific Islands documented the tra- recovery potential; those species with Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, ditional use of green turtles by native high recovery possibilities within each D.C. 20240, Attention: Priority Guide- residents. The exception was not "degree of threat" category would be lines. Comments must be received by extended to other areas of the Central given high recovery priority. The third June 20, 1983. and Western Pacific because NMFS criterion is intended to devote resources believed a complete prohibition was on a priority basis to those species needed in those areas to effectively con- representing highly distinctive or iso- trol commercial trade in the species. lated gene pools; taxa that are most BOBCAT Also, evidence was presented that the genetically distinct would receive prior- Continued from page 3 green turtle population in Hawai'i had ity within any given category of threat. declined. As with the third criterion, the fourth is California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Residents and the Governments of directly responsive to the requirements Idaho, Kansas, Klamath Tribe, Louisi- Guam and the State of Hawai'i have of the 1982 amendments to the Act. The ana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, requested NMFS to consider expanding fourth criterion assigns priority to re- Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Mon- the rule allowing subsistence taking. covery planning depending upon whether tana, Navajo Nation, Nebraska, Nevada, NMFS has agreed to review the special o,'" not the species is in conflict with con- New Hampshire, New Mexico, New regulations, and is asking for comments struction or other development projects York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and information from all interested or other forms of economic activity. Any Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, agencies, organizations, and individu- listed species or subspecies, lacking a Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgi- als. Responses to the notice should be recovery plan, and identified as being or nia, Washington, West Virginia, Wiscon- addressed to Mr. Alan W. Ford, South- having a reasonable potential for being sin, and Wyoming. west Regional Office, National Marine in conflict with construction or a devel- Comments on the proposed findings Fisheries Service, 300 South Ferry opment project, would qualify for the and the criteria for Scientific Authority Street, Terminal Island, California90731 conflict column of the recovery priority advice are summarized and discussed in by June 20,1983. Public meetings on the matrix. the April 18, 1983, rulemaking. Please review were scheduled for May and early The Service recognizes that it is neces- refer to Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 75, June in Hawai'i, Guam, the Northern sary to assign priorities to listing, delist- pp. 16494-16498. Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL VIII NO 5 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 381-580 ASH MEADOWS Continued from page 5 BOX SCORE OF LISTINGS/RECOVERY PLANS ENDANGERED THREATENED SPECIES* SPECIES ing that was held in Amargosa, Nevada, Category U.S. U.S. & Foreign U.S. U.S. & Foreign TOTAL HAVING May 26, 1983. Only Foreign Only Only Foreign Only PLANS The reopened comment period will lyiammals 15 18 223 3 0 22 281 18 close on June 2, 1983. Comments Birds 52 14 144 3 0 0 213 32 should be addressed to the Regional Reptiles 8 6 55 8 4 0 81 6 Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Amphibians 5 0 8 3 0 0 16 2 Fishes 29 4 11 12 0 0 58 20 Lloyd 500 Building, Suite 1692, 500 N.E. Snails 3 0 1 1 5 0 0 9 3 Multnomah Street, Portland, Oregon Clams 23 0 2 0 0 0 25 0 97232. Crustaceans 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 Both fishes are endemic to the desert Insects 7 0 0 4 2 0 13 3 wetland ecosystem of Ash Meadows, Plants 55 2 0 9 1 2 69 7 TOTAL 199 44 444 48 Nevada, and are threatened by large 7 24 766 92" scale residential/agricultural develop- •Separate populations of a species, listed both as Endangered and Threatened, are ment. Both have been temporarily listed tallied twice. Species which are thus accounted for are the gray wolf, bald eagle, as Endangered in two emergency rules American alligator, green sea turtle, and Olive ridley sea turtle. (F.R. 5/10/82 and F.R. 1/5/83). Simul- "More than one species may be covered by some plans. taneous with the publication of the Number of species currently proposed: 36 animals second emergency rule, the Service pro- 7 plants posed listing the two fishes on a per- Number of Critical Habitats listed: 55 manent basis and making a final Number of Recovery Teams appointed: 69 determination of their Critical Habitat. Number of Recovery Plans approved: 86 An earlier hearing on this proposal was Number of Cooperative Agreements signed with States: held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 11, 1983. 38 fish & wildlife 11 plants April 30, 1983

In the USA, Canada, Latin America, New Publication and the Caribbean orders should be placed with: UNIPUB, Box 433, Murray The lUCN Invertebrate Red Data Hill, New York, NY 10016, U.S.A. Orders The March 1983 BULLETIN story Book, the latest in the revised red data from outside the Americas should be on the black-footed ferret contained book series, is now available for $20.00. placed with lUCN Conservation Moni- a summary of research projects being It was compiled jointly by S.M. Wells, toring Centre, 219(c) Huntingdon Road, conducted by various State wildlife R.M. Pyle, and N.M. Collins and illus- Cambridge CB3 ODL, England or lUCN agencies under Section 6 endan- trated by S.A. Hughes. This innovative Publications, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, gered species grants from the Ser- work includes detailed reviews of over 196 Gland, Switzerland. From Cam- vice. Inadvertently left out was a 200 taxa and 50 illustrations. A particular bridge the price is L12 (US $20) plus L2 $20,000 research project on the ferret effort has been made in this volume to (US$3) postageand packing per volume to be conducted this fiscal year by the emphasize the importance of inverte- surface mail (air-mail by request only); New Mexico Game and Fish Depart- brates in ecological processes and as a from Switzerland, LI2 (US $20) per ment with Section 6 carryover funds. living resource of benefits to volume plus 10% of total purchase price humankind. for surface mail, 30% for airmail.

May 1983 Vol VIII No. 5

U.S.MAI L Dl lIlA^in ^^ep^rtment of interior. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service 1 CdlrllVal DUIIdlrl Endangered Species program, Washington. D.C. 20240 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Int 423