U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is sometimes called nature’s safety net. When our nation’s other conservation laws and management prac- tices fail to maintain healthy plant and animal popula- tions, the ESA serves as a March 2006 Vol. XXXI No. 1 last barrier to extinction. Once a species comes under ESA protection, it stands an excellent chance of survival. Then, the much more dif- ficult, time consuming, and expensive task of reversing the decline, restoring the spe- cies to a secure status, and removing it from the list of threatened and endangered species begins. The stories in this edition of the Bulletin go beyond the number of delisted species and show the progress being made in the effort to stabilize and recover our imperiled animals and plants. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tupper AnselTupper Blake/USFWS

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

H. Dale Hall, Director Claire Cassel, Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach (703) 358-2390 Renne Lohoefner, Assistant Director for Endangered Species Rick Sayers, 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 Classification (703) 358-2105 Martha Balis-Larsen, Chief, Office of Program Support (703) 358-2079 http://www.fws.gov/endangered

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://www.fws.gov/pacific Mariana Islands, Guam and the Pacific Trust Territories

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

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

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Benjamin Tuggle, Acting Regional Director (505) 248-6282 http://www.fws.gov/southwest

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://www.fws.gov/midwest

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://www.fws.gov/southeast 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://www.fws.gov/northeast 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 Mitch King, Regional Director (303) 236-7920 Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie

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

Alaska Thomas O. Melius, Regional Director (907) 786-3542 http://www.fws.gov/alaska

 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 IN THIS ISSUE

4 Overcoming Challenges to Species Recovery

10 Multispecies Recovery Planning: Benefits and Challenges

12 Reversing a Textbook Tragedy Telephone: (703) 358-2390 Contributors Fax: (703) 358-1735 Michelle Morgan Joe Truett E-mail: [email protected] Krishna Gifford Robert S. Butler Elena Babij Paul Hartfield 14 The Public Role in Conserving Web site: Debby Crouse Cathy Pollack Species www.fws.gov/endangered/bulletin.html Kelly Hornaday Phillip Hughes Editor Mary Klee Britta Muiznieks Michael Bender Martha Balis-Larsen Brian Czech Valary Bloom 16 Whooping Crane Population Layout John Schmerfeld Dennis & Sackett Design, Inc. Don Hankins Reaches Record High Tom Stehn Wendy Brown Ken Foote Michelle Reynolds 19 Endangered Laysan Ducks Larry Lockard Thrive at Midway

On the Cover After three decades of succesful recovery 22 Bull Trout “Flip” Over Cabinet work, the greater Yellowstone population Gorge Dam of grizzly bears is once again secure, and it has been proposed for removal from the list of endangered and threatened species. 24 Ferrets Test Freedom at Vermejo Park Ranch

26 The Return of the Clams

28 First, Acquire Knowledge

30 Habitat is Key for a Diminutive Deer The Endangered Species Bulletin is now an on-line publication. Three electronic editions are posted each year at www.fws.gov/endangered/bulletin.html, and one print edition of highlights will be published each year. To be notified when a new on-line edition has been posted, you can sign up for our list-serv by clicking on “E-Mail List” on the Bulletin web page. 32 Captive Propagation and the The Bulletin welcomes manuscripts on a wide range of topics related to endangered species. Key Largo Woodrat 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. Departments The Bulletin 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. 34 Focus on Refuges

We also welcome your comments and ideas. Please e-mail them to us at [email protected].

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1  Overcoming Challenges by Michelle Morgan, Krishna Gifford, Elena Babij, Debby Crouse, Kelly to Species Recovery Hornaday, Mary Klee, and Martha Balis-Larsen

In 1973, when the Endangered Species Act (ESA) became law, the endangered and threatened species list numbered only 77 species, none of which were invertebrates or plants, and iconic species such as the

© B. Moose Peterson/WRP bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), gray wolf (Canis lupus), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) were very rare and severely reduced in range within the conterminous United States. These creatures symbolize why the ESA was voted into law by an overwhelming majority in Congress, and with such a clear purpose: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endan- gered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species . . . .” Now, after 32 years of the ESA, let’s We also apply an ecosystem-based take another look at the species men- approach to conservation, addressing a tioned above. The bald eagle can be conservation issue at the landscape level seen flying throughout all of the lower rather than just concentrating on spe- 48 states again. Gray wolves have met cific problems at hand. Each ecosystem their recovery targets in Idaho, Montana, contains an interconnected framework and Wyoming, as well as Wisconsin, of biological and physical processes. Michigan, and Minnesota. A healthy Damage to the framework can affect the population of grizzly bears now inhabits ecosystem’s ability to support a diversity Yellowstone National Park, and it has of life. The damage can be caused by been proposed for removal from the list natural events, such as hurricanes or of threatened and endangered species. volcanoes, and it can take the form of Stabilizing and recovering spe- human impacts, such as habitat loss or cies is far from easy. There are many chemical contamination. These impacts biological, financial, and social chal- can be serious problems for species.

George Andrejko/Arizona Game & Fish Dept. lenges to overcome. However, we have Despite these many setbacks along the achieved considerable success in these road to survival and recovery, we con- endeavors, due primarily to the use tinue to move forward. of creative partnerships. Our partners One of the biggest challenges the Fish include foreign governments, other and Wildlife Service faces in recover- For video of the bald eagle federal agencies, state governments, ing listed species is the sheer number and other species, go to private landowners, the business com- of species needing help. In addition to http://www.fws.gov/video/ and click on B-Roll. munity, and various non-governmental the 1,256 U.S. plant and animal species organizations. listed as of November 8, 2005, there are

 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 286 candidate species. Thousands more success rate! And when we stand back are considered “species of concern” or and review the history of species like the “critically imperiled” by states, environ- bald eagle, gray wolf, and grizzly bear, mental groups, and scientists. To plan we know that every small stride adds up and implement recovery actions for all over the years. listed species, the Service’s Endangered The following are a few examples Species Recovery Program received $58 of other species faced with interesting million in FY 2005, an average of $46,400 recovery challenges and what’s being per species. If you subtract the amount done to improve their status: of money earmarked for specific projects, that leaves a total of $44.1 million, or Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle $36,880 per species. The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle How do we make progress in the (Lepidochelys kempii) spends many of its face of overwhelming odds and declin- juvenile years foraging in U.S. waters and ing resources? By taking one species at was once know to nest only at Rancho a time, maximizing our partnerships, Nuevo in Tamaulipas, Mexico. A 1940s and promoting creativity. Since 1973, we film showed a single arribada (mass have removed from the list (delisted) 10 nesting emergence) of an estimated domestic species due to recovery. Some 40,000 female Kemp’s ridleys on one day. would say that this is a poor success rate. Despite Mexico’s protective efforts, the However, success cannot be measured number of nesting turtles fell to about merely in delisting statistics. We have 5,000 females by 1968. The Kemp’s ridley also downlisted 16 species from endan- was listed by the U.S. in 1970 as endan- gered to the less critical classification gered due to threats that included the of threatened, stabilized or improved take of eggs and adults for human use, another 350 species, and, more impor- and incidental capture and drowning in tantly, we have prevented approximately shrimp trawls. 900 species from going over the brink In 1978, the Service joined Mexico in into extinction. That’s actually a good an international conservation program that has attracted additional partners  Candidates are those species for which we through the years. Nesting numbers have enough information to list as threatened or endangered, but are precluded from doing continued to decline, however, to a low so by higher priority workload. of only 702 nests documented for the

Donna Shaver, Chief of the Division of Sea Turtle Science and Recovery at Padre Island National Seashore, releases Kemp’s ridley sea turtle hatchlings there. The public is often invited to observe these hatchling releases. National Park Service

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1  entire season in 1985. By the late 1980s, Tinian Monarch however, nesting numbers had begun The Tinian monarch (Monarcha takat- to increase. During the 2003 nesting sukasae), a small bird from the island season, more than 8,288 nests were of Tinian in the Commonwealth of the documented in Mexico, with a small Northern Mariana Islands, was one of the scattering of nests in Texas as well. Since original species listed under the ESA. It Kemp’s ridley females nest 2 or 3 times was listed as endangered due to criti- each season, the nests represent perhaps cally low population numbers caused by 2,700 to 4,000 females. The Kemp’s the destruction of its habitat from World National Park Service Ridley Recovery Plan identifies one of the War II activities and pre-war agricultural Kemp’s ridley sea turtle hatchlings downlisting criteria as attaining a popula- practices. However, surveys in the late tion of at least 10,000 females nesting 1990s showed that the amount and in a season. After a narrow brush with density of forest habitat had increased extinction, the progress towards recovery and the bird’s population numbers had is heartening. rebounded. It was delisted on September With slowly maturing species, it 21, 2004. can take years to reverse a population However, while the original threats decline. The recovery of some species is to the species had been abated, a new also “conservation dependent.” For them, threat looms on the horizon: the non- certain management activities will be native, highly invasive brown tree snake needed in perpetuity to address difficult (Boiga irregularis). While the snake has threats and ensure the species does not not established itself on Tinian, there simply decline again to endangerment if have been several confirmed sight- it is delisted. For the sea turtle, both pro- ings, and it is responsible for decimat- tection of females on the nesting beach, ing bird populations on other islands as well as protection from incidental capture and drowning in fishing trawls,  The Commonwealth is an island group in the western Pacific that is in political union will be necessary on a continuing basis in with the U.S. and is therefore covered under order to ensure long-term recovery. the ESA.

Tinian monarch U.S. Navy

 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 within the Marianas. To counter this about its wintering biology, and efforts potential challenge and to comply with to learn more have been difficult. In the five-year post-delisting monitoring fall and winter, this bird has dull brown requirement of the ESA, an aggressive plumage, making it well camouflaged, monitoring program has been developed and its behavior is inconspicuous. A in cooperation with the Commonwealth, joint research project involving TNC, the the U.S. Geological Survey/Biological Bahamas National Trust, and the Forest Resources Discipline, U.S. Department Service is trying to gain a better under- of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, and standing of the species’ winter habitat the Department of the Navy. The plan requirements and conservation needs. includes monitoring the bird’s population numbers, monitoring the snake, monitor- Flies, rats, and beetles—oh, my! ing land use, and recommendations for Mention the term “endangered spe- increasing efforts to prevent the snakes cies” and most people think of wolves, from spreading. One of the components grizzly bears, sea otters, and bald eagles, of the plan includes building a snake bar- or perhaps even sea turtles or salmon. rier around Tinian’s port to prevent any But the vast majority of listed species snakes that may come in on shipments aren’t large, cute, or showy. In fact, most from leaving the quarantine area. The are downright small and inconspicuous. plan is now being put in place, and the More than half of the listed species in the next five years of monitoring will show U.S. are plants, many with very restricted how successfully we can overcome the ranges and specific habitat requirements. challenge of invasive species and keep Of the 527 listed animals in the U.S. (as our recovered species from returning to of November 17, 2005), more than 170 the list. are invertebrates (including mussels, beetles, crayfish, and spiders, to name Kirtland’s Warbler a few), 57 species are amphibians and Migratory birds have their own recov- reptiles, and 114 are fish (most of which ery challenges. These species may travel are small species occurring in only a few long distances from wintering grounds drainages or basins). The 90 listed birds in other countries to nest in the U.S. The include such large and impressive species Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) as the bald eagle and California condor is one of these. This bird is considered (Gymnogyps californianus), but many are endangered across its entire range. small and less well-known. The 78 listed After breeding in the jack pine plains of mammals include 29 rodents, 3 rabbits, Ron Austing Michigan’s lower peninsula, it winters in 1 shrew, and 9 bats. Kirtland’s warbler the Bahamas. Limited habitat and brood Less charismatic species often face parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds challenges to recovery not experienced are two reasons why the warbler is by their more captivating counterparts. endangered. Managing these problems in Because many species are lesser known, the warbler’s breeding area has been the small, and inconspicuous, they are often focus of combined efforts by the Fish and overlooked by landowners, managers, Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Michigan and potential conservation partners. For Department of Natural Resources, and species with very restricted ranges, the non-governmental organizations such pool of potential partners and interested as The Nature Conservancy (TNC). public is limited, resulting in fewer Conservation actions have been very suc- opportunities and less funding for recov- cessful so far, although continued work ery. The roles of many non-charismatic is required to maintain the population in species in their environment also are not the breeding grounds. obvious or easily recognized except to However, the Kirtland’s warbler scientists, and the public may not care spends about eight months of each year about or see the benefits of recovery in its wintering areas. Little is known efforts.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1  © B. Moose Peterson/WRP

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly

Many non-charismatic listed species San Bernardino counties in California. also have image problems. Bats, spiders, The Colton Dunes were created largely and snakes don’t usually elicit popular as a result of sand blown by the Santa support. Some species also suffer from Ana winds into the canyons of the San unfortunate associations with disliked Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. animals. The six listed species of kanga- The species surviving in this unusual roo rats, two species of woodrats, and habitat have had to adapt to an ever- one rice rat bear little resemblance or changing substrate, as the winds vary relationship to a common pest species each year. For the Delhi Sands flower- © B. Moose Peterson/WRP but tend to suffer because of their loving fly, spending most of its life Kangaroo rat ­common names. underground seems to be the best way Threats affecting many non-charismatic to cope with its dynamic environment. species also may be less manageable. As its name implies, this insect depends Banning DDT was a relatively straightfor- on wildflower nectar during its brief ward and successful recovery action for above-ground phase. Like a humming- peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), bald bird, the colorful fly hovers at flowers, eagles, and brown pelicans (Pelecanus and it feeds through a long proboscis occidentalis), and the end of deliberate (tubular protrusion of mouth). Due to persecution made it possible to restore widespread loss of habitat, primarily gray wolves. But for most species, the the result of agriculture conversion and loss or degradation of habitat is the major urbanization, the Delhi Sands flower-lov- threat, and one that is difficult to reverse. ing fly is now restricted to less than two For example, the Delhi Sands flower- percent of its former range. Despite its loving fly Rhaphiomidas( terminatus interesting life history, the biggest chal- abdominalis) is an insect endemic to lenge to recovery of this species is the the Colton Dunes ecosystem, which fact that it is a fly, an insect that many once covered over 40 square miles people consider a pest. (104 sq. kilometers) in Riverside and

 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Crafting a Solution Until its rediscovery on the Cache So, how do we garner support for River National Wildlife Refuge in listed species, including the ones “only a Arkansas of 2004, most people would mother could love”? Teamwork is prob- have said that the ivory-billed wood- ably the most important tool we have at pecker (Campephilus principalis) was our disposal for overcoming the myriad extinct. Despite previous surveys, there of challenges facing species’ recovery. had not been a confirmed sighting since Working in cooperation with a variety of the 1930s. How could a species go unde- partners that may have differing views, tected for so long? There were two main goals, and timelines is challenging at reasons; it was uncommon to begin with, times. But a diversity of voices, ideas, and it inhabits remote, swampy, bottom- knowledge, and experience also provides land habitats. many benefits, as the partners bring their The rediscovery led to a partnership own strengths to the table. The Service’s that includes the Nature Conservancy unique role continues to be coordinat- of Arkansas, Arkansas Game and Fish ing and facilitating the efforts of many Commission, Arkansas Natural Heritage entities to achieve the common goal of Commission, Cornell University, and the recovering our nation’s imperiled flora Service. A recovery team was quickly and fauna. Conservation stamps sold at formed and has completed a recovery www.ivory-bill-woodpecker.com outline (interim conservation strategy Michelle Morgan is in the Washington support state and private work on this extremely rare bird. that focuses recovery efforts until a full Office Endangered Species Program recovery plan can be drafted). The “Big and is Chief of the Branch of Recovery Thicket” partnership will continue with and Delisting (WO-BRD). Krishna efforts to carry out additional surveys Gifford, Elena Babij, Debby Crouse, Kelly in other suitable habitat, conserve and Hornaday, and Mary Klee are biologists manage existing habitat, and conduct in the WO-BRD. Martha Balis-Larsen necessary research. In the meantime, the also worked in the WO-BRD, but is now rediscovery provides hope that we may the WO Chief of the Office of Program have a second chance to recover this and Support. other very rare creatures. USFWS

Biologists sample a pond for larval California tiger salamanders.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1  Multispecies by Kelly Hornaday and Valary Bloom Recovery Planning: Benefits and Challenges

A California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris ­obsoletus) passes warily under the boardwalk while a salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) clings to a clump of pickleweed just a few feet away. A small crowd of people on the boardwalk whisper excitedly, thrilled at the rare opportunity to see these two endangered species. An unusually high spring tide

© B. Moose Peterson/WRP has pushed the animals into the high marsh, uncomfort- California clapper rail ably close to humans. Humans and endangered species alike wait silently for the tide to go out. Another less visible event also is In the case of the draft Tidal Marsh underway, one that will have a more Ecosystem Recovery Plan, the primary enduring effect on these and more than challenge has been to integrate the wide a dozen other endangered, threatened, variety of planning efforts already under- and special status species: the prepara- way in the San Francisco Bay area into a tion of the draft Tidal Marsh Ecosystem single, cohesive, and practical recovery Recovery Plan. guide. This task is complicated enor- The development of a recovery plan mously by the density of human occupa- is the most important milestone for an tion and associated urban infrastructure endangered species; it provides the in and around the bay. However, through “roadmap” to a species’ or ecosystem’s continual and effective communica- recovery, and it defines how we mea- tion, strong partnerships with interested sure our success towards that goal. Of stakeholders, and the sheer will of those the 1,264 federally-listed species, about who share the vision of a healthier tidal 200 still need recovery plans, and many marsh ecosystem, the challenges are others need to have their recovery plans being overcome. revised and updated. One way to reach The table below describes some of the the recovery planning milestone for more more common benefits and challenges of species in less time is to prepare multi- multi-species recovery planning: species recovery plans. Multi-species When the draft Tidal Marsh plans cover species that face the same Ecosystem Recovery Plan is finalized, threats, occur in the same area, or inhabit it will be one of about 80 multispecies the same ecosystems. There are many recovery plans covering more than 700 benefits to multi-species recovery plan- species. The authors of the draft Tidal ning, but there are also many challenges. Marsh Ecosystem Recovery Plan have

10 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 Benefits Challenges

More species get recovery plans Plans take longer to develop

By addressing threats common among species, the plan provides a Plan may be large and difficult to use, or may leave out detail in order to comprehensive treatment of an entire ecosystem or geographic area keep the plan small

One recovery team for multiple species Recovery team may be large and difficult to coordinate

Cost efficiencies for recovery actions that benefit multiple species or an Cumulative cost estimates for multispecies plans may be large and ecosystem. therefore negatively perceived by the public

Can address conservation of candidate species or species of concern, Lack of information on many candidate species and species of concern potentially precluding the need to list in the future hampers development of conservation strategies

Provides a single source of information for agencies, stakeholders, and For large plans, it may be difficult to avoid describing actions at a landowners implementing actions for multiple species scale too large (such as ecosystem restoration, improved regulatory coordination) for individual agencies, stakeholders, and landowners to recognize and implement.

Provides opportunity to address conflicting species needs Resolving conflicting species needs may be difficult, and information on species interactions may be lacking

Recovery strategies and corresponding actions can address threats and Larger scope of plan may come at the expense of species-specific and needs at the ecosystem and/or regional level site-specific actions.

May utilize multiple authors to take advantage of species and/or Large plans with multiple authors may require considerable editing to ecosystem expertise. ensure consistency

If species have similar life histories, may be able to use the same In some cases, species may require entirely different method for methodology for recovery criteria development. recovery criteria development.

encountered most of the challenges described above. Nevertheless, the draft recovery plan is entering its final stages. Last fall, a series of meetings were held to invite the public, partners, and stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft plan and to encourage participa- tion in its implementation. When viewed in light of the tremendous benefit of a comprehensive recovery plan for tidal marsh species of northern and central California, the challenges have been well worth the effort.

Kelly Hornaday is a fish and wildlife biologist in the Service’s Arlington, © B. Moose Peterson/WRP Virginia, headquarters office of the Salt marsh harvest mouse Endangered Species Program (kelly_​ [email protected]) and Valary Bloom is a fish and wildlife biologist in the Service’s Sacramento Field Office ([email protected]).

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 11 Reversing a by John Schmerfeld Textbook Tragedy

A recent sunny morning along the Clinch River was the setting for a homecoming years in the mak- ing. Local children, media, Fish and Wildlife Service staff, and conservation officials from Virginia Tech University and the Virginia Department of Game and Island Fisheries (VDGIF) donned hip boots and waders Jess Jones/USFWS

Tan riffleshell as they released artificially propagated freshwater mus- sels into a crystal-clear section of river at Cedar Bluff, Virginia. Amid supportive smiles from observers on the riverbank, the group was on the latest leg of a journey that began one day seven years earlier. On August 27, 1998, the Clinch River endangered mussel species: the tan rif- turned milky white from the release fleshell Epioblasma( florentina walkeri), of over 1,600 gallons (6,060 liters) of a purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea), and chemical used in foam rubber manufac- rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrulla cylindrica ture. A tanker truck had overturned on strigillata). One of the most significant U.S. Route 460 and spilled its load into kills of endangered species since pas- the river, ultimately killing an estimated sage of the Endangered Species Act, this 18,000 freshwater mussels as well as fish, incident was so tragic that it is now often snails, and other aquatic species. Among referred to in textbooks. One of the three the dead were 750 individuals of three mussel species, the tan riffleshell, is so rare that it is now believed to exist only near the mouth of Indian Creek, a tribu- These tanks hold the host fish tary of the Clinch River. The current total needed by the endangered mussels during their parasitic larval stage. population for the species is estimated at about 400 individuals. Under the authority of the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) and the Clean Water Act, the Service may “assess injury to natural resources resulting from a discharge of a hazardous substance . . . and may seek to recover those damages.” Natural resource dam- age assessments (NRDA) are separate from the cleanup actions undertaken at a hazardous waste or spill site, and they provide a process whereby the natural

Dolores Savignano/USFWS resource trustees can determine the

12 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 proper compensation to the public for Landowners York and LaRhonda injury to natural resources. The NRDA Lindsay watched last fall’s release as process seeks to: 1) determine whether officials credited them and many town injury to, or loss of, trust resources has residents with supporting the efforts occurred, 2) ascertain the magnitude of the DGIF, the Service, Virginia of the injury or loss, 3) calculate the Tech, Cedar Bluff town officials, The appropriate compensation for the injury, Nature Conservancy, the Clinch River including the cost of restoration, and 4) Headwaters Association, the Tazewell develop a plan that will restore, rehabili- County Soil and Water Conservation tate, replace, and/or acquire equivalent District, and other groups in pressing for resources for those resources that were the settlement and its use in restoring the injured or lost. Clinch River’s natural resources. The Service’s Gloucester, Virginia, Cedar Bluff’s Town Manager, Jim Field Office Cooperative conducted McGlothlin, said the DGIF and the studies of the resource damage between Service have worked in a low-key man- 1999 and 2002 under an informal fund- ner to reach a point where repopulat- ing and participation agreement with ing the mussels is possible. “I’ve been Certus Trucking, Inc., and with financial impressed with how well they’ve worked support from the Department of Interior. with property owners,” McGlothlin said. Disagreements that arose during the “Cedar Bluff’s citizens have been very damage quantification phase forced the pro-environment. This is a very historic Department of Justice to file a complaint town, and we don’t have a lot of large against the company in federal court in business and industrial development, so

the fall of 2002. Working with Interior our cultural, historic, and environmental Dolores Savignano/USFWS Department lawyers and Service staff, heritage is very important to us.” ”They’ve been great to work the company eventually agreed to a $3.8 The key to this and other mussel with,” LaRhonda Lindsey million settlement. The consent decree restoration projects in Virginia has been said of the habitat restoration reached with Certus stipulates that the the development of mussel-breeding partners at the release settlement funds are to be “. . . managed techniques over the past two decades by event. “We’ve only been by the DOI for the joint benefit and use Dr. Richard Neves of the U.S. Geological here since April, but we’re of the Federal and State Trustees to plan, Survey’s Cooperative Research Unit at trying to learn and help keep the habitat as it should be. perform, monitor and oversee native, Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. His I thought today was very freshwater mussel restoration projects work, and that of several other research- interesting.” within the Clinch River watershed . . . .” ers around the country, has been sup- According to the “The Final Restoration ported through Endangered Species Act Plan and Environmental Assessment section 6 grants and Service funding from for the Certus Chemical Spill Natural Regions 4 and 5. Resource Damage Assessment,” the settlement will be devoted to a 12-year John Schmerfeld is a biologist with the program to help restore native freshwater Service’s Virginia Field Office (804/693- mussels in the Clinch River. 6694 x107). (Mike Still of the Richlands The injury assessment and damage News-Press contributed to this article.) determination focused on sediment toxic- ity testing and analytical chemistry within the spill area. Based on data from these studies, Virginia Field Office staff deter- mined in 2003 that river sediments had sufficiently returned to background levels through natural attenuation and were once again able to support freshwater mussels. These data gave the green light to the mussel release program, which kicked off in the fall of 2005.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 13 The Public Role in by Don Hankins Conserving Species

Conservation biology is a field Peninsula. It has been referred to as one that requires the melding of biological of the most beautiful serpents in North and social sciences. This is particularly America. Ironically, the San Francisco true when considering the conservation garter snake relies partly on a threatened of organisms in areas with high human species, the California red-legged frog populations. Although laws and poli- (Rana aurora draytonii), for part of its cies direct us to seek public input and diet. As with many listed species, the consider the needs of people when snake and frog are threatened primarily

Elena Delacey making regulatory decisions, as scientists, by habitat loss, fragmentation, degrada- California red-legged frog we have sometimes neglected the human tion, and inadequate management. The factor in our conservation designs. But bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), an intro- there is a better chance for success when duced species, is also known to prey on, local citizens are included in conserva- and compete with, both species. tion planning efforts. In one example, the The Service prepared a recovery Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sacramento plan for the San Francisco garter snake Fish and Wildlife Office is working with in 1985; however, few recovery actions the public and private sectors to ensure were implemented prior to 2002. In the conservation of San Francisco’s name- light of the snake’s dire conservation sake snake. status, the Service’s Sacramento Recovery The San Francisco garter snake Program convened an internal working (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), listed group in 2002 to address conservation as endangered by the State of California needs. Among other actions, the work- and the federal government, is a sub- ing group identified Laguna Salada and species endemic to the San Francisco Mori Point (adjacent areas located to the

San Francisco garter snakes south in Pacifica) as priority areas for the conservation of the San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog within this portion of their ranges. Laguna Salada is a former tidal lagoon that was diked in the early 1900s by the City of San Francisco to alleviate tidal flooding of an adjacent golf course (and later a residential development). As a tidal lagoon, it functioned with freshwater flow by seasonally breaching the natural sand spit to allow full tidal action. Together, Laguna Salada and Mori Point represent one of the northernmost population centers remaining for the San Francisco garter snake. Numerous studies from previous decades indicate the snake and the California red-legged frog exten- sively use the wetland complex and sur-

Ferry Van Stralen rounding uplands, making the continued

14 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 management of those areas critical to the survival and recovery of both species. In 2000, the Trust for Public Land, in cooperation with other partners, purchased Mori Point and transferred ownership to the National Park Service’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The Service’s Sacramento Recovery Program began working in partnership with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, and San Francisco Zoo to address the snake’s conservation needs. Several key conservation elements were identified, including the enhancement of wetlands to provide secure foraging and breeding habitat for the garter snake and red-legged frog, respectively; creating a “head-start” program to increase survivor- ship of newborn snakes; and conducting USFWS public outreach and education (such After pond construction, biologists began to notice California red-legged frog egg masses (below). as zoological holdings and interpretive signs). Due to Laguna Salada-Mori Point’s Program. California red-legged frogs urban setting, heavy recreational use, responded two months later by laying and the on-going threat of poaching eggs in the newly created ponds. In from reptile enthusiasts, the partnership February 2005, tadpoles were observed recognized that successful conservation emerging from their egg sacs and in of the San Francisco garter snake would January 2006, more red-legged frog eggs require extensive public participation and were laid in the new ponds. Although it ownership. One day in October 2002, is too early to determine if this effort will the public was invited to Mori Point to substantially benefit the San Francisco USFWS share knowledge of the site and discuss garter snake, it is evident from press the preliminary plans to enhance the coverage that the public is quite enthusi- wetlands. Many of the participants noted astic about the project. People in the area their personal observations of the San are beginning to take ownership in the Francisco garter snake and California recovery of the species, and that bodes red-legged frog. Following this initial well for the future status of both the San public contact, final plans for the wetland Francisco garter snake and the California enhancement project were developed. red-legged frog. Workshops were held to inform the public, solicit its support, and educate Don Hankins, formerly a fish and volunteers on the biology, ecology, and wildlife biologist with the Service’s identification of the snake. Sacramento Field Office, is now a profes- The enhancement project took place sor at California State University, Chico. in fall 2004, with key participation by vol- unteers from the Golden Gate National Parks Association’s Site Stewardship

 In 2003, the two remaining captively held individuals in the United States died. In June 2005, ten captive-bred snakes were success- fully repatriated from European collections and are now on display for educational purposes at the San Francisco Zoo.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 15 Whooping Crane by Tom Stehn and Wendy Brown Population Reaches Record High

A record 218 endangered whoop- of Wildlife and Parks flew the whooper ing cranes (Grus americana) arrived at to the U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research their Texas wintering grounds (Aransas Center in Maryland, but the bird died National Wildlife Refuge) in 2004-05. This after arrival. Charges filed against a party is likely the highest number of whoopers of sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) wintering in Texas in the last 100 years, hunters involved in the shooting resulted and it exceeds the previous winter’s in a guilty plea with fines of $3,000 per

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership record by 22. There is definitely cause hunter, additional restitution paying the A pilot dressed as a crane leads the to celebrate—the wild population has veterinary bills incurred caring for the reintroduced whoopers by ultralight doubled over the past 18 years. injured cranes, community service, and as they learn their new migration The increase was due to good nest- loss of hunting privileges for two years. route between Wisconsin and ing production in 2004. The Canadian Whooping cranes are the tallest birds Florida. Wildlife Service reported that 54 nest- in North America, standing nearly five ing pairs fledged a record 40 chicks on feet (1.5 meters) tall with a wingspan their nesting grounds in Wood Buffalo wider than most cars. The only remaining National Park, Canada. The 33 surviving natural population nests in Wood Buffalo chicks that arrived in Texas set another National Park on the border of Alberta recovery record. and the Northwest Territories in Canada Flock updates for the 2005-06 winter and migrates 2,400 miles (3,860 kilome- were not as optimistic. Although a final ters) through the prairie states and prov- size estimate has not been made, it looks inces to the Texas coast. During the 2004 like the peak population will be 220, fall migration, however, two whoop- only a slight increase. Production was ing cranes were confirmed at Grulla once again very good in Canada with National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. 30 juveniles making it to Aransas in fall (Grulla, appropriately, is the Spanish 2005; however, higher than average mor- word for crane.) This sighting adjacent tality of about 25 birds (11.6 percent of to the border of west Texas was the first the population) between the spring and confirmed sighting of the Aransas-Wood fall of 2005 allowed the flock to grow by Buffalo population whooping cranes in only a few individuals. New Mexico. The total flock number would have Whoopers winter on the Texas coast been higher had two whoopers not been on and near the Aransas and Matagorda shot while migrating through Kansas in Island national wildlife refuges about early November, 2004. One died within 45 miles (72 km) north of Corpus a week and the second later died from Christi, Texas. Both their summer and respiratory problems that developed winter ranges are restricted to a 25-mile from its injuries. Veterinarians at Kansas (40-km) radius. Whooping cranes use For video of the whooping State University had surgically repaired a variety of habitats, including coastal crane, go to http://www. the wing of this crane, with hopes that it and inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet fws.gov/video/ and click on B-Roll. could survive to contribute to the captive meadows, rivers, and agricultural fields. breeding flock. The Kansas Department Wintering whooping cranes forage

16 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 primarily for blue crabs in salt marsh with power lines, degradation of coastal habitat, while in summer they hunt habitat, and chemical spills. freshwater ponds for minnows, a favor- Although the whooping crane popula- ite food. In the 2004-2005 winter, habitat tion remains endangered, the popula- at Aransas was excellent due to high tion has been growing at four percent rainfall and large freshwater inflows into annually, and first reached 100 birds in the bays throughout the previous spring 1986. Whoopers currently exist in the and summer. The inflows boosted the wild at three locations and in captivity blue crab population and lowered at nine sites. The December 2005 total marsh salinities, allowing cranes to wild population is estimated at 341. This drink directly from the marsh. Unlike includes 218 individuals in the only self- most bird species, whooping cranes are sustaining population (the Aransas-Wood territorial in both summer and winter Buffalo flock), 59 captive-raised individu- and will defend and chase all other als released to establish a non-migratory whooping cranes out of their estimated population in central Florida, and 64 350-acre (560-km) territories. introduced individuals in the eastern Historic population declines resulted U.S. that migrate between Wisconsin from habitat destruction, shooting, and and Florida. The current breeding displacement by human activities. In captive population at the Calgary Zoo, 1941, the species reached a low of only International Crane Foundation, Patuxent 21 birds. It has been listed as endangered Wildlife Research Center, the Species in the United States and Canada since Survival Center in New Orleans, and the 1970s. Current threats include limited the San Antonio Zoo is 135 birds. The genetic diversity, loss and degradation total population, wild and captive, in of migration stopover habitat, collisions December 2005 was 476. Pedro Ramirez/USFWS

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 17 Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership

The Whooping Crane Recovery Teams Because of the whoopers’ low of Canada and the U.S. were combined numbers and growth potential, recovery into the first International Recovery Team criteria for the current plan have been in 1995, with five Canadian and five U.S. established only for reclassification members. The team decided in 2000 to (downlisting) of the species. Downlisting write a combined international recovery can be achieved when 1) there are plan. This is the third revision of the U. a minimum of 40 productive pairs in S. whooping crane recovery plan, which the AWBP and 25 productive pairs in was first completed in 1980. In January each of two additional self-sustaining 2005, the draft revised recovery plan for populations, or there are 250 productive

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership the whooping crane was published in pairs in the AWBP, and 2) there are at The pilot’s costume prevents the the Federal Register for public review and least 21 productive pairs in the captive young cranes from imprinting comment. population. on people. The wild whooping crane popula- The increase in whooping crane num- tion is characterized by low numbers, bers is a true success story. The beauty of slow reproductive potential, and lim- these long-lived birds and their extreme ited genetic diversity. The possibility peril of extinction have captured the exists that a single catastrophic event hearts of many people and ignited the could eliminate the wild, self-sustain- sustained efforts of many individuals and ing Aransas-Wood Buffalo population. organizations, from international govern- Therefore, the principal strategy of the ments to schoolchildren. These efforts draft revised recovery plan is to aug- have made it possible for the species to ment and increase the wild population not only persist against tremendous odds, by reducing threats and establishing but begin to recover. two additional and discrete populations. Offspring from the captive breeding Tom Stehn, the national whooping population will be released into the wild crane recovery coordinator (tom_stehn@ in an attempt to establish self-sustaining fws.gov) is stationed with the wintering wild populations. The continued growth cranes at Aransas NWR in Texas. of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population, Wendy Brown, fish and wildlife biologist along with the two additional popula- ([email protected]), works for the tions, will also stem the loss of genetic Service’s Albuquerque, New Mexico, diversity. Regional Office.

18 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 Endangered Laysan by Ken Foote and Ducks Thrive at Midway Michelle Reynolds

Island waterfowl are globally Background threatened. Hawaii has lost at least six Laysan Island is one of the of its nine unique waterfowl species Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and since humans colonized the islands, and part of the most geographically isolated the remaining three are endangered. archipelago in the world. Laysan lies Fortunately, an “insurance policy” set up almost 800 miles (1,200 km) to the by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological northwest of Honolulu, and it is unique Resources Discipline and the Fish and among the islands because of its large,

Wildlife Service attempts to reverse this hypersaline lake. In the 1800s and early John Klavitter trend for one of the world’s most vulner- 1900s, bird poachers and guano min- A Laysan duck hen with a brood of able bird species. ers had a tremendous impact on the ducklings on Midway. The Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis), island’s wildlife and its habitat. People also known as the Laysan teal, is the also introduced rabbits, which devastated rarest native duck in the United States the vegetation, turning the island into a and has one of the most isolated and virtual desert and leading to the extinc- restricted ranges of any waterfowl spe- tion of three endemic land birds, the cies. Until recently, the species consisted Laysan rail (Porzana palmeri), Laysan of a single population of approximately honeycreeper (Himatione sanguinea 500 birds. Then, in October 2004, 20 sanguinea), and Laysan millerbird juvenile and prebreeding island ducks (Acrocephalus familiaris familiaris), as were taken on a 400-mile (645-kilometer) well as 10 species of plants. The Laysan Pacific voyage. They were translocated duck was eaten by shipwrecked mariners from Laysan Island in the Hawaiian on nearby Lisianski Island in the 1800s, Islands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) but it was the devegetation caused by to Midway Atoll NWR, where their sur- the rabbits that drove this species to vival and breeding success has surpassed the brink of global extinction. In 1911, all expectations (Figure 1). after the Laysan ducks on Lisianski were Random catastrophes are among the extirpated, the total species population greatest threats to species that occur as was 11 birds. After the rabbits were small, isolated, or single populations. eliminated, the duck population gradu- Hurricanes, tsunamis, accidental predator ally increased to several hundred birds. introductions, and disease outbreaks are It was one of the first species listed as just a few examples of the threats to such endangered. populations. To offset these risks, we are The Laysan duck was once believed to attempting to restore a second, wild pop- be endemic to Laysan Island, but sub-fos- ulation of Laysan ducks, essentially an sil (partially fossilized) evidence revealed insurance population, since it is unlikely that it was also found on Lisianski Island, that disaster would strike populations of Hawai‘i (the “Big Island”), Moloka‘i, two islands simultaneously. Maui, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i. Midway Atoll

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 19 NWR lacks fossil evidence due to exten- Dr. Michelle Reynolds, a wildlife biologist sive human alterations to the atoll, but with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Pacific it lies within the presumed prehistoric Island Ecosystems Research Center, range of the species. Midway was chosen captured fledged juvenile birds on Laysan as the first translocation site because Island for the arduous 2-day boat ride rats were eradicated there in 1996, and to Midway Atoll NWR. The ducks were because the presence of NWR staff makes captured at night when they are more habitat restoration and post-release moni- concentrated around the lake and most Top photo: Mark Vekasy and John Klavitter attach a radio transmitter in toring of translocated ducks feasible. active. Selections of founder ducks were the aviary prior to the duck’s release. A draft revised recovery plan, devel- made after field biologist monitored the Bottom photo: Kelly Kozar and oped by the Service and USGS biologists breeding success and identified broods Michelle Reynolds release in 2004, is now being completed. To (families). Founders were chosen on translocated Laysan ducks at meet the intermediate goal of downlisting the basis of weight, sex, health, age, Midway. the species from endangered to threat- family history (a single duckling from ened, the plan calls for establishing four each brood to maximize genetic diver- or more populations of Laysan ducks on sity), and luck (which duck could be other Hawaiian islands. The 2004 trans- captured). Before their departure from location of ducks from Laysan to Midway Laysan, the ducks were given a clean bill Atoll marks the first significant step in of health by Dr. Thierry Work, a USGS the recovery process. Forty-two founding veterinarian. birds were translocated during 2004-2005. Prior to the arrival of the translocated In October 2004 and 2005, a team of ducks at Midway, Service personnel,

Michelle Reynolds biologists and refuge managers led by refuge staff and more than 40 volunteers, John Klavitter

20 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 led by refuge biologist John Klavitter, invested 18 months of hard work (10,000 volunteer hours) in site preparation on Sand Island, which is part of Midway Atoll. The first step was the removal of non-native ironwood (otherwise known as Australian pine) trees (Casuarina equisetifolia) and golden crown-beard (Verbesina enceliodes) plants, followed by the excavation of nine shallow freshwater seeps. They also constructed 16 aviaries and planted more than 5,000 native bunchgrass (Eragrostis variabilis) plants to provide cover and nesting habitat for the ducks.

The Ducks Arrive Prior to release back into the wild, the birds were placed within the aviaries on Sand and Eastern Islands and given high calorie mash, dehydrated flies, and locally occurring live food. Ducks were released with their aviary mates in What’s Next? groups of four and monitored closely via Service personnel and volunteers have radio transmitters and spotting scopes been busy all year improving habitat on for 48 hours before the next group was Eastern Island, including the creation released. They adapted well to life on of three freshwater wetlands. Biologists Midway, many increasing their body will intensively monitor the survival and weights. breeding of the translocated population Surprising everyone, five of the six on Midway and Laysan through 2006 to females nested seven months after their learn more about the species’ recovery release. One of the inexperienced, young potential. If the population’s persistence Rob Shallenberger/USFWS females produced infertile nests, and on Midway is likely, a translocation of Midway Atoll another had difficulty with asynchronous additional birds to improve genetics is hatches and taking care of young, but planned for 2009. Lisianski Island is the three others were successful at their first next proposed site for restoration and attempts at motherhood. The ducks have Laysan duck reintroduction. done so well on Midway that the aver- The success achieved so far increases age clutch size is 7 eggs, compared to the hope that we can save this endan- the average clutch of 3.8 eggs on Laysan. gered species. Given the early stages of Eleven Laysan ducklings have fledged, native habitat restoration, the ducks and becoming the first generation born at their offspring at Midway are thriving and Midway in perhaps hundreds of years. may someday rival the duck population As of January 1, 2005, 40 of the of Laysan. 42 translocated birds were alive and doing well. A single fatality occurred Ken Foote is an information and edu- in December 2004 when a male duck cation specialist with the Service’s Pacific suffered head trauma caused by an Islands Office in Honolulu, Hawaii aggressive Laysan albatross (Phoebastria (808/792-9535; [email protected]). Dr. immutabilis). One female with a failed Reynolds is a research wildlife biologist radio transmitter has not been seen in the USGS Pacific Island Ecosystems since her radio transmitter expired in Research Center at Hawaii National Park July 2005. ([email protected]).

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 21 Bull Trout “Flip” Over by Larry Lockard Cabinet Gorge Dam

Since 1952, Cabinet Gorge Dam on the Clark Fork River has blocked fish from migrating from Lake Pend Oreille, the largest lake in Idaho, into most of western Montana. Among those fish were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). In 1998, the Service listed the bull where they were born. Their life cycle is trout in the Columbia River drainage similar to that of salmon, except that Lake (including the Clark Fork River) as threat- Pend Oreille functions as an inland ocean ened due to habitat degradation, passage and bull trout don’t die after spawning. restrictions at dams, and competition The world record bull trout, a 32-pound from non-native fish. The loss of con- (14.5-kilogram) fish, was caught at Lake nectivity between headwater spawning Pend Oreille. and rearing streams and the productive The Clark Fork River is the largest downstream waters of Lake Pend Oreille river flowing from Montana, and it drains was identified as one of the most signifi- most of the western landscape of that cant factors limiting the recovery of bull vast state. For 50 years, fish migrations trout in the Clark Fork River drainage. in the Clark Fork River were blocked Bull trout are large migratory char of by a series of dams. In 1999, however, the Pacific Northwest. They often grow the Avista Corporation and the Fish and Avista biologist tracking signals from a radio tagged bull trout in to maturity in lakes and swim upstream, Wildlife Service formed a partnership to a spawning tributary to Cabinet sometimes over 100 miles (160 kilo- develop fish passage methods at Cabinet Gorge Reservoir. meters), to spawn in the small streams Gorge Dam. The Service provides the lead biologist, while Avista provides funding and other biologists to carry out a variety of recovery actions. In 2005, after a four-year experiment involv- ing the passage of 140 large adult bull trout upstream over the dam, biologists concluded that the method was success- ful. The long-term conservation efforts committed to by Avista and the Service in 1999 reflect a mutual desire to recover bull trout while facilitating the production of electricity at dams on the Clark Fork River. As part of the experiment, radio trans- mitters were surgically placed inside the bodies of bull trout to allow biologists to follow their movements. From 2001 to 2004, about 35 fish each year were

Larry Lockard captured below Cabinet Gorge Dam and

22 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 trucked to release sites upstream. The fish then swam upstream to a tributary, the East Fork Bull River, where they spawned, mixing with other bull trout that had resided in the Cabinet Gorge Reservoir throughout their lives. About half of the transported bull trout survived the rigors of spawning. Following the spawning season, biologists used weir traps to recapture some of the survivors. They were given a free ride back down- stream and released into the Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam. Other bull trout swam back down the Bull River on their own, making their way through the reservoir and the dam turbines back to Lake Pend Oreille. Radio tracking determined, to our surprise, that more than half of the fish that passed through the dam turbines survived. These fish transfers have increased the number of spawning bull trout in several streams that had extremely depressed populations. Since each adult female can carry as many as 10,000 eggs, the poten- tial boost to the population from just a few large spawners can be significant. In 2004, the Service used new technol- ogy to take the program to a new level. Collaborating with Avista, it developed a rapid response genetic assignment method to determine the stream of origin for bull trout captured below Cabinet Gorge Dam. This method involves rapid processing of a genetic sample from a small piece of fin. Within 48 hours, the Larry Lockard results are used to “assign” individual bull trout, based on their genetic profile, to the stream in which they hatched. innovative fish trapping, transport, and Service and Avista biologists In the future, this method will allow genetic assignment techniques developed surgically implant a radio tag in an biologists to transport fish captured in this project will have broad application 11-pound (5-kilogram) male bull trout before transporting the fish over below Cabinet Gorge Dam to appropri- for conservation of bull trout and other Cabinet Gorge Dam. ate release sites above any of the three rare fish species throughout the country. dams on the lower Clark Fork River. Drs. Don Campton and Bill Ardren from the Larry Lockard is a fish and wildlife Service’s Abernathy Fish Technology biologist at the Service’s Creston Fish and Center developed and manage the Wildlife Center in Kalispell, Montana genetic program. 59901 (telephone 406/758-6883). The partnership of the Service and Avista on the lower Clark Fork River offers exciting promise in support of the eventual recovery of bull trout. The

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 23 Ferrets Test Freedom at by Joe Truett Vermejo Park Ranch

Clouds darkened the evening sky as three trucks skidded down the rain-slick ranch road toward a ­prairie dog town in northern New Mexico. Among the ­passengers were Mike McCollum, Southwest Regional Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Partners for Fish and Wildlife” program; Vermejo

Released ferrets quickly learn the Park Ranch Manager Marv Jensen; and Dustin Long importance of prairie dog burrows and Larry Temple, field biologists with the Turner for escaping predators and finding their food. Endangered Species Fund. The trucks passed through an electric the throat of a prairie dog burrow. Under net fence and stopped after a short dis- the darkening sky, the group applauded tance. All passengers exited and moved as cages were lifted from two other sites across the wet shortgrass prairie on foot nearby. or by all-terrain vehicles. The focus of This ritual on the Vermejo Park Ranch, their attention: a welded wire cage sitting some 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest on the ground. of Raton, New Mexico, would have One of the men lifted the cage from perplexed the casual observer. Though its attachment to a corrugated plastic seemingly mundane and a bit odd, it tube that projected a few inches above marked a historic event. Removal of the ground. The tube led underground into cages freed the first black-footed ferrets

Mike McCollum, USFWS, (left) inspects a ferret release cage at Vermejo Park Ranch with ranch manager Marv Jensen and his wife Mary Lynn.

For video of the black-footed ferret, go to http://www. fws.gov/video/ and click on B-Roll. Turner EndangeredTurner Species Fund photos

24 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 (Mustela nigripes) to roam New Mexico foxes (Vulpes velox) remained inside. prairies in more than half a century. Ominously, the foxes began to focus The ferrets, however, preferred not their hunting near two of the three newly to participate in the ceremony, hiding released ferret families. underground until the people and the Ferrets in these families began to dis- last daylight had retreated. appear. In desperation, the New Mexico Black-footed ferrets largely disap- Department of Game and Fish was called peared from New Mexico with the wid- for permission to livetrap and remove the escale poisoning of their prey species, foxes. Everyone hoped it wasn’t too late. prairie dogs, in the first half of the 20th The plan was to begin trapping near century. Thirteen ferret skins in muse- the fox den site. But before traps could ums, the last collected in 1934, verify the be set, the “lost” ferrets began reappear- species’ historically widespread pres- ing. Dean Biggins, the BRD ferret biolo- ence in the state. Elliot Barker, one-time gist, suggested they may simply have director of the New Mexico Department cached enough food for several nights of Game and Fish, trapped a ferret and and remained underground. saw another in a prairie dog colony As if to show how tough they were, near Castle Rock on the Vermejo Park some of the ferrets eventually moved into Ranch in 1930. Very few reliable reports the fox den. The foxes moved elsewhere. of wild ferrets in New Mexico date later Three weeks after the release, most or than 1950. perhaps all of the ferrets remained alive The ferret release on Vermejo Park and apparently healthy. Biologists hope Ranch resulted from close collaboration to recapture the oldest kits before their among the Turner Endangered Species juvenile hormones stimulate them to dis- This electric fence deters coyotes Fund, the New Mexico Department of perse. In the meantime, this experiment and other predators from the ferret Game and Fish, and the Fish and Wildlife has proved instructive for the biologists release area. Service. Other agencies, including the and apparently also for the ferrets. In the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological ferret world, success is survival. Resources Discipline (BRD) and the U.S. What are the implications? Perhaps Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife ferrets routinely can be preconditioned in Services, provided important support and the wild instead of in expensive outdoor advice. pens, as has been the protocol to date. Unlike other ferret releases that have Prairie dog colonies too small to sustain taken place during the past 15 years, this ferret populations over the long term release was never intended to be per- may be useful as short-term ferret train- manent. It is an extension of pen-based ing grounds. The demonstrated ability of preconditioning of captive-bred ferrets these ferrets, most of them naïve zoo ani- for release in approved areas elsewhere. mals, to prosper on Vermejo Park Ranch, The ferrets will be recaptured later for and the ability of biologists to success- translocation to permanent release sites fully monitor them, suggests that future in Arizona, Wyoming, or perhaps Mexico. permanent releases of ferrets at Vermejo The release experiment at Vermejo Park may aid in the species’ recovery. has two important purposes: training ferrets to live in the wild and training Joe Truett is the senior biologist for biologists to monitor wild ferrets. the Turner Endangered Species Fund, a Within 10 days after the release, private, non-profit charity dedicated to nightly spotlight surveys of the three conserving biodiversity by ensuring the ferret families began to show cause for persistence of imperiled species and their worry. Despite pre-release erection of habitats. electric netting to exclude coyotes (Canis latrans) and other potential ferret preda- tors from the 800-acre (1,280-ha) release area, it turned out that at least three swift

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 25 The Return of the Clams by Robert S. Butler and Paul Hartfield

A small group of biologists makes its way down the steep, rain-slicked river bank, taking care not to expose their bare legs to the prolific patches of briars and stinging nettle growing there. Finding a path to a remote river shoal, they carry snorkeling gear and small coolers. The coolers contain vials filled with thousands Dolores Savignano/USFWS of lab-cultured, weeks-old aquatic snails and mussels These mussels carry tags that will waiting to be released. allow biologists to monitor the success of the reintroduction effort. The young mollusks will soon find aquatic species, primarily mussels and a new home in and on the river bot- snails. Impoundment and channelization tom, where it is hoped they will grow, eliminated river species from many areas, reproduce, and become self-sustaining and modified and fragmented creek and members of the aquatic community. This river habitats, leaving their fauna more is only one event in ambitious recov- vulnerable to sedimentation and chemical ery programs to restore populations of pollution. Many of the surviving mollusk critically imperiled species through adult species are highly imperiled and largely and cultured juvenile translocations restricted to suitable habitat in relatively into stream reaches scattered about the few isolated streams. Today, however, Cumberlandian Region and the Mobile federal, state, and other conservation River Basin of the southeastern United biologists are working diligently to pre- States. vent other mussels and snails from being The Cumberlandian Region is an added to that infamous list of bygone

Dolores Savignano/USFWS area encompassing the Cumberland species. Monitoring mussels can be a and Tennessee River systems within the Recovery plans for nearly all south- community activity. Here, Maria Mississippi River basin. The Mobile Basin eastern mollusks include tasks for Clark peers through a device that drains portions of the central southern propagating juveniles and restoring wild enables her to see mussels more states into the Gulf of Mexico. Together, populations through population augmen- closely. they encompass portions of seven states tation and reintroduction activities. Until and support the highest level of freshwa- fairly recently, very little was known ter molluscan biodiversity in the world. about these animals, including their Known widely during the nineteenth natural history, habitat requirements, and century for their large river shoals interactions with other aquatics. Since and unique fauna, these basins served the 1980s, however, biologists have been as primary centers of speciation and working to fill these gaps, and informa- endemism for mollusks, fishes, crayfishes, tion from these efforts has been used in and other aquatic organisms. These developing the technology needed to basins also have the dubious distinction culture imperiled mollusks under artificial of having lost the highest number of conditions. The complex and usually species to extinction in North America. poorly known life history of freshwater Virtually all of these extinctions were mollusks—particularly mussels, which

26 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 have specialized larvae (glochidia) that tion or reintroduction, 3) rank stream University), and non-governmental orga- are parasites of host fish—was only one segments according to their relative nizations (Tennessee Aquarium Research stumbling block on the path to achieving importance for each species’ recovery, Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and this critical recovery goal. Diets to meet 4) develop individual site augmentation World Wildlife Fund). the nutritional needs of juvenile mollusks and reintroduction plans for specific These agencies and organizations are also poorly known and difficult to restoration activities, and 5) outline the share the tasks of 1) surveying streams develop. Vast experimental networks of propagation, restoration, and monitor- to locate and assess targeted mollusk tubing, wiring, pumps, and tanks at mus- ing activities needed for each species’ populations, 2) collecting broodstock for sel culture facilities have been refined recovery. culture activities, 3) identifying stream over time to improve propagation suc- The task of developing these strate- segments for potential population restora- cess. Currently, several facilities are con- gies and making augmentation and tion activities, 4) conducting life history ducting propagation related research on reintroduction programs a reality research, 5) developing propagation snails and mussels of the Cumberlandian has required coordination and coop- technologies, and 6) funding the various Region and Mobile Basin. eration among numerous partners: aspects of the propagation and larger The complexity of restoring often Fish and Wildlife Service field offices recovery program. highly endemic species of mollusks in the northeast and southeast, other This hard work is beginning to pay required the development of augmenta- federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, off. For example, researchers have deter- tion and reintroduction strategies for each U.S. Geological Survey, and National mined the fish hosts for dozens of imper- basin. The Mobile Basin strategy includes Park Service), state agencies (Alabama iled mussels. Life history studies have 24 federally listed mussels and snails, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater led to the development of propagation along with 10 other endemic species Fisheries, Georgia Department of Natural technologies for a number of species, of concern. The Cumberlandian Region Resources, Kentucky Department of and hundreds of thousands of juvenile strategy focuses only on the most imper- Fish and Wildlife Resources, Mississippi mussels and snails are being produced iled mussels, which includes 29 federally Museum of Natural Science, North and released for population augmenta- listed species, 5 listing candidates, and 21 Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, tions or reintroductions in several states. species of concern. Both basin strate- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Restoration activities are beginning to gies call for coordination with partners and Virginia Department of Game spread to other watersheds and species to 1) prioritize species based on level of and Inland Fisheries), universities as well. New facilities are being planned imperilment, 2) identify stream segments (Tennessee Technological University and or are soon coming on line to share with habitat suitable to mussel augmenta- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State the increasing workload. Reversing the decline of our unique molluscan fauna

Biologists with the Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has begun. release mussels in the upper Clinch River. Robert S. Butler and Paul Hartfield are listing and recovery biologists work- ing with aquatic organisms in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Asheville, North Carolina (828/258-3939, ext. 235), and Jackson, Mississippi (601/321-1125), field offices. Jess Jones/USFWS

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 27 First, Acquire Knowledge by Cathy Pollack

Before a recovery plan for an were not known about the orchid, such endangered or threatened species can be as its population genetics and which spe- written and carried out, knowledge of the cies serve as its natural pollinators. species’ life history is needed. If critical What has been learned about the information is missing, recovery efforts orchid is that it requires pollination by can be thwarted. One small, unknown hawkmoths for sexual reproduction aspect of a species’ life history might be (Bowles, 1983; 1985). The flowers of this the reason it is listed in the first place. A plant have the longest nectar spur (up to

Ron Panzer rare Midwestern orchid species provides 5 centimeters, or about 2 inches) of any an example. north temperate orchid species, and pol- The Fish and Wildlife Service listed lination seems to be restricted to hawk- the eastern prairie fringed orchid moths with a proboscis long enough to (Platanthera leucophaea) as a threat- reach the nectar, which is held at the ened species in 1989. This wildflower swollen base of the spur (Bowles, 1983; has declined to roughly 70 percent of Sheviak & Bowles, 1986). These insects its original range, mainly due to habitat also extract nectar from flowers of many loss (Bowles, 1993). It currently grows other plants and travel great distances to in remnant mesic (moist) prairie sites find food (Fleming 1970). The moths are in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and likely to visit only those orchid popula- Ohio. A recovery plan adopted in 1999 tions that are large enough to provide a identified specific recovery tasks, which nectar resource competitive with that of included site protection, habitat manage- other plants (Bowles 1983). ment, seed introduction and augmenta- The prairie fringed orchid’s flowers tion, and research to support recovery. are fragrant only at night, and pollinia The research was needed for things that are picked up by the proboscises of Paul Pratt

28 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 hawkmoths as they ingest nectar. Flowers are adapted to outcrossing (pollination with flowers of other individuals), but plants appear to be self-compatible, and self-pollination probably occurs at high levels in small populations (Bowles & Bell 1999). However, fruit set appears to be reduced if the plants are self-pol- linated (Bowles 1983). Plants with a large inflorescence (cluster of flowers) that are exposed above the prairie canopy, and away from shrub cover, have the highest potential for pollinator visitation and seed production (Bowles 1985). To confirm a moth species as a pollinator, it has to be caught with orchid pollinia attached to its proboscis. Ron Panzer Previous pollinator identification studies A museum specimen of a hawkmoth, showing flower pollinia. in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin identi- fied the pandorus sphinx Eumorpha( pandorus), achemon sphinx (Eumorpha The studies confirmed that the hermit Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, achemon), and hermit sphinx (Sphinx sphinx is a pollinator in Illinois and Twin Cities, Minnesota, 25pp. eremitus) hawkmoths as pollinators Iowa. Six specimens were caught with Bowles, M.L. and T. Bell. 1999. Establishing recov- ery targets for the eastern prairie fringed orchid (Cuthrell 1994, Cuthrell et al. 1999, orchid pollinia attached to the probos- (Platanthera leucophaea). Unpublished report Crosson et al. 1999). Because there cis. A Carolina sphinx (Manduca sexta) to the Illinois Endangered Species Protection had not been any research of this kind also was caught on one orchid, but it is Board. The Morton Arboretum. conducted in Illinois or Iowa, a pollinator only considered a “nectar thief” since it Crosson, A., J.C. Dunford, D.K. Young. 1999. identification study was initiated in 2004 did not carry orchid pollinia. Pandorus Pollination and other insect interactions of the and continued in 2005. The first objective sphinx and achemon sphinx, confirmed Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera of this research was to determine if natu- as orchid pollinators in other states were leucophaea (Nuttall) Lindley) in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin, Madison. A report for ral pollinators are still available and to also captured, but none carried orchid the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. identify them. The next objective was to pollinia. Analyses of the plant species at Cuthrell, D. L. 1994. Insects associated with the determine if the host plants upon which each site are still being conducted. Larva prairie fringed orchids, Platanthera prae- the moth caterpillars depend also occur food of the hermit sphinx includes bee- clara Sheviak & Bowles and P. leucophaea at the orchid sites. balm, bugleweeds, mints, and sage. (Nuttall) Lindley. MS Thesis, North Dakota State Seven sites were surveyed for a total We anticipate that these studies will University, Fargo, ND, 81 pp. of 29 survey-nights. Surveying included give land managers additional knowledge Cuthrell, D. L., Phyllis J. Higman, Michael R. Penskar, Jennifer L. Windus. 1999. The Pollinators of taking nectar measurements from 10 they need to guide the recovery of this Ohio and Michigan populations of Eastern prai- orchids per site each evening and dawn. spectacular but threatened wildflower. rie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea). Two light sheets were used for moth Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, capture. One or two funnel traps were References Reynoldsburg, Ohio. 20pp. also used per site. Later in the season, a Bowles, M.L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Fleming, R.C. 1970. Food plants of some adult plant species analysis was performed at Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. and sphinx moths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Cypripedium candidum Muhl. Ex Willd.: some each site. Michigan Entomologist (Now Great Lakes aspects of their status, biology, and ecology, Entomologist) 3:17-23. On a typical night, surveyors arrived and implications toward management. Natural Sheviak, C.J. and M.L. Bowles. 1986. The prairie around 5:00 p.m. They began by taking Areas Journal 3(4) 14-37. fringe orchids: a pollinator-isolated species pair. nectar measurements and setting up the Bowles, M.L. 1985. Distribution and reproductive Rhodora 88:267-278. equipment, followed by observing the success of the prairie fringed orchid in south- orchids all night, watching for hawk- eastern Wisconsin sand prairie. M.S. Thesis. Cathy Pallock is a fish and wildlife University of Illinois, Urbana. moths feeding on the orchids. Visual biologist in the Service’s Barrington, Bowles, M.L. 1993. Recovery plan for the Eastern observation was conducted from about prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea Illinois, Field Office cathy_pallock@fws.( 8:00 p.m. to 4:30 a.m., followed by addi- [Nuttall] Lindley). Unpublished 2nd draft for gov; 847/381-2253, ext. 239). tional nectar measurements.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 29 Habitat is Key for a by Phillip Hughes Diminutive Deer

The diminutive Key deer diet of individual Key deer. However, (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), like the combination of diverse flora, dense most other mammals of the Florida Keys, cover, and freshwater sources found is endemic to these island habitats, at among rockland pine and hardwood least at the subspecies level. The Keys, hammock communities make them the and these mammals, were isolated from premier habitats. These unique plant the mainland thousands of years ago communities, which blend the dominant by rising sea levels at the end of the West Indian flora with North American Pleistocene Epoch. The Key deer differs elements, are globally imperiled. The from its mainland relatives by its small rockland pine flora includes several

© 2004 Paula Cannon size, relatively short legs, the lack of a endemic species, listing candidates, and lower rear molar, a black mask across the species that respond favorably to fire. In muzzle and forehead, and looser social the absence of fire, plants of the ham- bonding. mock communities proliferate, resulting Key deer numbers bottomed out in hardwood encroachment. in about the late 1940s at fewer than Key deer feed on about 200 species of 50 individuals, due primarily to exces- plants, which provide good nutrition and, sive hunting and, later on, habitat loss. especially among hammocks, ideal cover However, human caused declines began for fawning. The limestone for which to turn around after the 1946 arrival of the local pine habitat is named contains Jack Watson. Watson was financed by the depressions that collect and retain surface Boone and Crocket Club and National water from precipitation. Of the good Wildlife Federation to be a game war- habitats that were available for acquisi- den for the Florida Keys and Everglades tion over the last decade, easements and National Park. He was eventually hired titles have been acquired for a significant by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and portion by Monroe County, the State of Wildlife (forerunner of the Fish and Florida, the Key Deer Refuge, and non- Wildlife Service) after the advent of profit organizations. the National Key Deer Refuge in 1957. Much of the Key deer’s habitat is During his tenure, the deer population in partly urban settings with mixed, grew to around 200. often checkerboard ownership patterns. Since it was listed in 1967 as endan- Nonetheless, the refuge has managed its gered, the Key deer population has seen habitat to attain about 90 percent control ups and downs. There are currently of invasive exotic plants, and it carries about 600 deer occurring on 20 to 25 out an active controlled burning program. keys. However, the majority of these, The Nature Conservancy assists and about 500, are concentrated on two adja- carries out similar programs on selected cent Keys, Big Pine and No Name. private parcels. The checkerboard owner- Key deer can tolerate brackish water ship and landscape pattern often compli- for limited periods, but availability of cate fire management. Urban-imbedded freshwater limits their numbers and parcels are difficult and expensive to distribution among the keys. Unlike with burn. While pinelands require fire to mainland deer, mangrove foliage may preclude hardwood encroachment, ham- comprise a substantial portion of the mocks can be damaged by fire when

30 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 vulnerable to burning, such as during dry HCP applicants are Monroe County, the were moved to Sugarloaf Key and 15 to periods. Land managers seek to strike a Florida Department of Transportation, Cudjoe Key. The deer were acclimatized balance in order to conserve deer habitat, and the Florida Department of in soft-release pens on the recipient keys fire-adapted endemic plants, and a Community Affairs. The objective of the prior to release. Two have succumbed diverse landscape, while simultaneously HCP is to allow for limited additional to road mortality, and two returned to committing significant resources to fuel development in the project area over Big Pine Key. Of those, two had escaped reduction at the urban interface. a 20-year period while maintaining from the pen early. The rest are doing In the early 1900s, during the initial long-term viability of the deer and their well and still being monitored. A Texas period of major development in the habitat. The basic mechanics of the A&M graduate student is studying the Lower Keys, mangrove habitats were HCP are linked to a population viability translocated deer. This effort will fulfill hit relatively hard as subdivisions were analysis developed by Dr. Lopez. The one of the last major recovery tasks to oriented toward coastal areas, including analysis incorporates a matrix model of be accomplished and will aid in the mangrove estuaries. Often, parallel canals population dynamics and a spatial habitat attainment of an outstanding criterion for were cut, and the resulting spoil was model of carrying capacity and secondary reclassification: that is, the establishment used to expand the buildable area. This impacts. of two additional, stable populations on development provided some new areas An important recovery action cur- the periphery of the range. of upland. Once large scale mortality rently underway is the translocation from poaching and other causes was of deer from the densely populated Phillip Hughes (phillip_hughes@fws. brought under control several decades Big Pine Key, to augment numbers on gov) is an endangered species recovery later, the habitat potential of these areas nearby Sugarloaf and Cudjoe Keys. biologist in the Service’s Big Pine Key was realized, and they ultimately carried The translocations began in 2003, and Sub-office of the South Florida Ecological a significant component of the popula- to date, 39 deer—23 females and 16 Services Office. tion as increasingly tame deer foraged males—have been moved. Twenty-four among them. However, in the meantime, the advent of wetland regulations shifted development pressure to remaining private upland areas. Dr. Roel Lopez of Texas A&M University completed his doctoral work on deer population dynamics and ecol- ogy in 2001, focusing on Big Pine and No Name Keys. He proposed that the deer population response to urban develop- ment may be characterized like a bell- shaped curve. Deer responded positively to a level of increased development, then reached a limit beyond which a decline would follow. The current situation includes a mixture of private lands inter- spersed with carefully managed refuge habitats, citizens that adhere to reduced speed limits, and land use initiatives by Monroe County that encourage building on already scarified lots. The county also has deer-friendly fencing ordinances. Dr. Lopez’s estimate of about 500 deer in the core area reflects a 240 percent increase from 1971, the time of the last major mark-recapture study. Clearly, the deer have taken to the current situation. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys is in

the final stages of development. The © 2004 Paula Cannon

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 31 Captive Propagation and by Britta Muiznieks the Key Largo Woodrat

The Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli), the southernmost subspecies of the eastern woodrat, is only known to occur in the hardwood hammock vegetation of northern Key Largo, Florida. Although habitat has been set aside, fewer than 500 individuals are thought to remain in the wild. The subspecies was Clay DeGaynes

Like kangaroo rats, woodrats have listed as endangered in 1984. By 2003, a population an image problem with some people viability analysis suggested that the woodrat has a high because of their name. Woodrats are not the pest animals you may risk of extinction within the next 10 years. see skulking around back alley Biologists are trying to determine the Service established Crocodile Lake trash cans; instead, they are wild the causes for the continuing decline. National Wildlife Refuge, and the state creatures that need natural habitat in which to survive. Possible threats include the effects of of Florida established the Key Largo feral and free-roaming domestic cats, Hammocks State Botanical Site. Although black rats, fire ants, habitat loss, rac- these lands were set aside for endan- coons, and disease. The Fish and Wildlife gered species, they have inadvertently Service, in conjunction with the Florida become dumping grounds for unwanted Department of Environmental Protection, animals (such as cats and raccoons), initiated a program in 2003 to remove and active management of these areas is feral and free-roaming cats from public now needed to maintain them as suitable lands containing occupied woodrat woodrat habitat. Residential development habitat. Black rats, although currently not within and adjacent to protected lands, captured in large numbers, are thought as well as the location of a waste transfer to compete with the woodrat and may station within the refuge, provides a reduce its productivity. All black rats constant source of black rats for recolo- captured during trapping efforts are nization and contributes to an increase removed from woodrat habitat. Although in the abundance of nuisance native and still considered a threat, fire ants appear non-native species. A long-term cat and to have declined as hardwood ham- black rat removal program is needed, as mocks have recovered to their predis- well as a study to determine if the appar- turbance state. Fire ants are associated ently high raccoon density in the area is with disturbed habitats, and much of the affecting the Key Largo woodrat. land in north Key Largo had at one point In response to the dramatic decline been slated for development. The main in woodrat abundance and the unde- disturbed area, the County Road 905 termined causes for the decline in the right-of-way, is treated twice a year with wild population, the Service brought two Extinguish, a slow-acting bait, and areas woodrats, one male and one female, into with visible mounds are spot-treated to captivity on April 16, 2002, marking the control fire ants. start of Service efforts to work towards To protect the hammocks and wildlife recovery through captive propaga- of north Key Largo from development, tion. The Service simultaneously began

32 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 developing a Key Largo woodrat captive propagation and reintroduction plan. The plan, completed in 2003, established a goal of founding a captive population with six male and six female wild-caught woodrats. All were initially housed at the Lowry Park Zoo in Tampa, Florida. Today, there are 26 captive Key Largo woodrats in captivity, including the 12 founders and their 14 offspring. Some of the woodrats are at Lowry Park Zoo and some are at another captive facility in Orlando, Florida. Successful captive propagation has been challenging. While the 14 offspring produced attest to the fact that woodrats can be bred in captivity, there have been many breeding attempts that did not pro- duce young, and the litter sizes in captiv- ity have been consistently smaller than those reported for other woodrat subspe- cies in the wild. In addition, the breed- Clay DeGaynes ing attempts can be dangerous for the woodrats, particularly the males. There have been several instances of aggressive far, the greatest hurdle will be develop- Britta Muiznieks and Ralph encounters when woodrats have been ing successful methods of reintroducing DeGaynor examine a captured introduced, and some have resulted in woodrats back into natural habitats on Key Largo woodrat. injuries. In one instance, a male woodrat Key Largo. For now, the Service plans to died as a result of his injuries. continue to maintain woodrats in captiv- Maintaining genetic diversity within ity, grow the captive population, and the captive population was another take every opportunity to learn from the important consideration during captive captive animals. propagation planning, and a successful “Overall, I feel pretty good about the partnership was established with U.S. captive propagation program” says Cindy Geological Survey scientists to conduct a Schulz, endangered species program detailed genetic analysis of every wood- coordinator in the Service’s Vero Beach, rat in captivity, as well as all wild-caught Florida, office, although she cites con- individuals. Information from the genetic cerns about the logistical issues and analyses has allowed us to identify pair- challenges that will always be part of ings of captive individuals that would these efforts. “I’m excited about the new best preserve the original genetic diver- opportunities, too,” she adds. Many suc- sity of the captive population. cessful partnerships have resulted from Many hurdles remain before we can the woodrat breeding program, and the consider captive propagation efforts to opportunities to learn and improve our be effective, and there are also many methods are increasing as more partners opportunities to learn from the captive become involved. woodrats, both to aid in understand- ing the wild population and to improve Britta Muiznieks is a fish and wildlife captive breeding efforts. Studies of biologist at the Service’s South Florida behavior, social interactions, the role of Ecological Services Office, Key Largo Sub- hormones in determining receptivity and office (co-located at the Crocodile Lake reproductive success, nutrition, and many National Wildlife Refuge), Florida. other aspects have been proposed. By

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 33 F o c us o n R efu g es by Brian Czech Aleutian Canada Goose: Recovered and Still Going Strong

The Aleutian Canada goose By 2000, the Aleutian Canada goose nests entirely on islands of the Alaska population had risen to approximately Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. When 30,000. The next year, this intensively non-native predators including the managed species was declared a recov- arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and red fox ery success story and was therefore (Vulpes vulpes) were introduced to these removed from Endangered Species Act islands as early as the 18th century, protection. Accordingly, the goose is the goose population plummeted and now managed like most other waterfowl

Slade Sapora eventually reached a low of fewer than species in the U.S. 800 (Amaral 1985). Following passage The existing population of approxi- of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, mately 60,000 (Trost et al. 2005) uses the elimination of foxes, coupled with about 20,000 acres (8,095 hectares) of harvest restrictions and an active trans- nesting habitat on the Alaska Maritime location program to fox-free islands, Refuge, which also contains approxi- resulted in rapid population recovery mately 350,000 acres (142,000 ha) of his- (Subcommittee on Aleutian Canada toric and potential nesting habitat that is Geese 1999). not currently being used. This remaining potential nesting habitat varies in qual- ity, but a reasonable estimate of nesting Aleutian Canada geese congregating on their California wintering grounds. capacity is 100,000 adults, according to Vernon Byrd, Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team Leader and Alaska Maritime Refuge biologist. Thousands of geese typically stage at the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex in California and at several of Oregon’s coastal refuges, but the most important spring staging grounds are found around Crescent City, California, on state park lands and adjacent agricul- tural lands. The National Wildlife Refuge System has worked with the State of California to address the impact of these geese on private agriculture. Growing conflicts between geese and agriculture in this area need to be resolved prior to further increases in the size of the goose

Gary Zahm/USFWS population, according to Bob Trost,

34 ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 F o c us o n R efu g es

the conservation of an ecosystem, much of which is private agricultural property. History suggests that carrying capac- ity will decline as private cropland is managed more intensively or converted to uses that provide higher economic returns. As some croplands are con- verted, concentration of geese on other croplands will increase, causing greater pressure on the remaining agricultural community. To address the reduction in carry- ing capacity and reduce the impacts of geese on existing agricultural land, the Refuge System could be supplemented with lands that could then be devoted USFWS to food production for the goose. The Nesting habitat for Aleutian Canada geese in the Alaska Maritime NWR. species would then have virtually all of its needs met by the Refuge System and Pacific Flyway Representative with the While refuges provide critical roosting presumably would gain a more secure Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, habitat and varying amounts of winter future. The amount of additional land Oregon. At present, most of the habitat forage, much of the feeding occurs off- needed to support the current popula- improvement work designed to provide refuge, typically in farmers’ fields. With tion is approximately 2,300 acres (915 forage for geese in this area is being the amount of food and roosting habitat ha). Whether or not this will happen conducted by California with money available in the Northwest ecosystem, depends on Congressional authorization, from state duck stamps, with the Service winter carrying capacity is probably the availability of funding, and willing providing administrative support. in the hundreds of thousands (Trost, sellers. For now, the Aleutian Canada The Refuge System provides much personal communication). goose is recovered and still going of the Aleutian Canada goose winter- The objections of farmers who suffer strong. ing habitat. The most important unit is crop damage caused by geese suggest the San Joaquin River National Wildlife that the Aleutian Canada goose politi- Literature Cited Refuge, California, which hosted over 90 cal carrying capacity will be reached Amaral, M. J. 1985. The Aleutian Canada goose. percent of the population during most before its biological carrying capacity Pages 437-442 in R. L. Di Silvestro, editor. Audubon Wildlife Report 1985. National of the recovery phase. In recent years is reached. The preliminary popula- Audubon Society, New York, New York. the wintering population has become tion objective of 40,000 identified in Subcommittee on Aleutian Canada geese. 1999. more distributed throughout the San the Pacific Flyway Management Plan Pacific Flyway management plan for the Joaquin Valley, with the San Joaquin (Subcommittee on Aleutian Canada Aleutian Canada goose. Pacific Flyway Study Refuge typically hosting about 75 per- Geese 1999) is a reflection of this poten- Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, cent of the wintering birds, according to tial conflict. This population objective Portland, Oregon. 22pp. Dennis Woolington, Supervisory Wildlife was set higher than the level required Trost, R. E., and M. S. Drut. 2005. 2005 Pacific Flyway data book: waterfowl harvests and Biologist for the San Luis National to delist the goose, largely for the sake status, hunter participation and success, and Wildlife Refuge Complex. Wintering of providing hunting opportunity, but certain hunting regulations in the Pacific flocks with tens to hundreds of birds nevertheless is considered modest and Flyway and United States. U.S. Fish and are also commonly found at 14 other has already been exceeded by approxi- Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird refuges in Washington, Oregon, and mately 20,000 geese. Management, Portland, Oregon. California. The degree to which the win- It is reasonable to conclude that tering population could be supported 40,000-60,000 birds with widespread Brian Czech is a conservation biolo- on other lands is unknown. However, nesting and wintering habitat comprise gist with the National Wildlife Refuge substantial goose wintering habitat exists an evolutionarily viable population. System headquarters office in Arlington, throughout the Pacific coast region. However, this conclusion is based on Virginia ([email protected]).

ENDANGERED SPECIES BULLETIN March 2006 VOLUME XXXI NO. 1 35 B o x S c o re Listings and Recovery Plans as of March 1, 2006

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

MAMMALS 68 254 11 20 353 55

BIRDS 77 175 13 6 271 78

REPTILES 14 64 22 16 116 33

AMPHIBIANS 12 8 9 1 30 16

FISHES 74 11 42 1 128 98

SNAILS 24 1 12 0 37 29

CLAMS 62 2 8 0 72 69

CRUSTACEANS 19 0 3 0 22 13

INSECTS 36 4 9 0 49 32

ARACHNIDS 12 0 0 0 12 5

ANIMAL SUBTOTAL 398 519 129 44 1,090 428

FLOWERING PLANTS 571 1 143 0 715 584

CONIFERS 2 0 1 2 5 3

FERNS AND OTHERS 24 0 2 0 26 26

PLANT SUBTOTAL 599 1 146 2 748 615 GRAND TOTAL 987 520 275 46 1,838* 1,043

TOTAL U.S. ENDANGERED: 997 (398 animals, 599 plants) * Separate populations of a species listed both as Endangered and Threatened are tallied once, for the endangered population only. Those species are TOTAL U.S. THREATENED: 275 (129 animals, 146 plants) the argali, chimpanzee, leopard, Stellar sea-lion, gray wolf, piping plover, TOTAL U.S. LISTED: 1,272 (527 animals**, 745 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. ** Eleven animal species have dual status in the U.S.

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