Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES • ' • ^^O wilP^"^^ Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior FWS/OBS-80/01 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES Prepared by ^r W H 0 I National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I QQCUMENT 10th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. V _-^| . cpTjQN Washington, D.C. 20560 ^ Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1010 Cause Boulevard Slidell, Louisiana 70458 This study was conducted in cooperation with the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PerfoiTned for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on key environmental issues that impact fish and wildlife resources and their supporting ecosystems. The mission of the program is as follovis: • To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary source of information on national fish and wild- life resources, particularly in respect to environmental impact assessment. • To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decisionmakers in the identification and resolution of problems associated with major changes in land and water use. • To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues a determination of the decisionmakers involved and their information needs, and an evaluation of the state of the art to identify information gaps and to determine priorities. This is a strategy that will ensure that the products produced and disseminated are timely and useful. Projects have been initiated in the following areas; coal extraction and conversion; power plants; geothermal , mineral and oil shale develop- ment; water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western water allocation; coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf develop- ment; and systems inventory, including National Wetland Inventory, habitat classification and analysis, and information transfer. The Biological Services Program consists of the Office of Biological Services in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for overall planning and management; National Teams, which provide the Program's central scientific and technical expertise and arrange for contracting biological services studies with states, universities, consulting firms, and others; Regional Staff, who provide a link to problems at the operating level; and staff at certain Fish and Wildlife Service research facilities, who conduct inhouse research studies. PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to pro\ide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened \ertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data .ue not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the I'.ndangered Species Act of 1973, as anicnded). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS shouki be directed to: Office of F.ndangered Species L'.S. Fish and Wildlife Sei"\ice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen,ice iS'ASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 This report should be cited as follows: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the sea- coast of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program; FWS/OBS-80/01; March 1980. Citation of an individual chapter should be made according to this example: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the sea- coast of the United States: Columbian white-tailed deer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program; FWS/OBS-80/01.27; March 1980. 6 p. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACCOUNTS FWS/OBS-80/Ol.xx FWS/OBS-80/Ol.xx 01 Red Wolf 02 Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard 03 Whooping Crane 04 Light- Footed Clapper Rail 05 San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike 06 Pine Barrens Treefrog 07 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 08 Ivory-Billed Woodpecker 09 Ocelot 10 Attwater's Greater Prairie Chicken 11 Cape Sable Sparrow 12 Leatherback Sea Turtle 13 Green Sea Turtle 14 Texas Blind Salamander 15 Yuma Clapper Rail 16 Santa Barbara Song Sparrow 17 Eskimo Curlew 18 Southern Sea Otter 19 Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat 20 California Least Tern 21 Kirtland's Warbler 22 HawksbUl Turtle 23 Indiana Bat 24 Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake 25 Dusky Seaside Sparrow 26 Hawaiian Goose (Nene) 27 Columbian White-Tailed Deer 28 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse 29 Puerto Rican Parrot 30 Kemp's (Atlantic) Ridley Sea Turtle 31 Bachman's Warbler 32 Florida Everglade Kite 33 Puerto Rican Whip-Poor-Will 34 Aleutian Canada Goose 35 West Indian Manatee 36 Island Night Lizard 3 7 Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel 38 Houston Toad 39 American Alligator 40 Brown Pelican 41 Jaguar 42 Gray Bat 43 Okaloosa Darter 44 Eastern Cougar 45 Jaguarundi 46 Florida Panther 47 American Crocodile 48 Key Deer 49 Laysan Duck 50 Red Hills Salamander 5 1 Arctic Peregrine Falcon 52 Mississippi Sandhill Crane 53 Gray Wolf 54 Thick-Billed Parrot 55 San Clemente Sage Sparrow 56 California Clapper Rail 57 American Peregrine Falcon 58 Santa Cruz Long -Toed Salamander Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.1 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE RED WOLF Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the pubHc with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the scacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data ;uc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the I'-ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensiti\c Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps oi Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Sei-viccs of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to lacilitatc additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of F.ndangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sei"vicc Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directcil to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal PLcosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service iXASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Eouisi;ma 70458 FWS/OBS-80/01.1 March 1980 SELECTKD VERTEBRAl K ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAS I OF I HE UNFFED STATES- THE RED WOLF A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the (Office of Endangered Species and the National (Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: U .S. F ISH 8c W 1 L.DUI FE SE R V IC E RED WOLF Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Camivora FAMILY Canidae OTHER COMMON NAMES black wolf DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates. 20 December 1977, 14 September 1978, 25 May 1979. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (35 FR 16047, 3 October 1970). States: Endangered: Delaware, Missouri, Mis- sissippi, T-exas. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Local predator control programs as well as Federal, State, and local bounty hunters have de- cimated the red wolf population. By the 1920's, wolves were virtually extirpated east of the Missis- sippi River, and in Kansas, Oklahoma, and most of Texas (Nowak 1972). Extermination was ac- complished by den hunting, steel trapping, poison baiting, and shooting. Predator control has had a much greater impact on wolf populations than on the coyote (Canis latrans) populations because bounties were higher for wolves and people feared and hated wolves much more than coyotes. The result was that a few widely separated wolves remained among many coyotes. The few remaining wolves began to mate with coyotes and a hybrid swarm resulted which is today being replaced by pure coyotes (C. Carley personal communication). At present, there are probably no remaining popula- tions of red wolves in the wild, although some genetically pure individuals may still exist (R. Nowak personal communication). Any remaining red wolves are now restricted to coastal marshes and prairies which are being lost to industrial and urban expansion and to agri- cultural development (Riley and McBride 1972). Other pressures include exploration and deve- lopment of oil fields in Texas and Louisiana which have made remote areas more accessible to hunters and trappers (Pimlott and Joshn 1968). Some red wolf habitat occurs in hunting preserves and each year a few are killed by hunters (Riley and McBride 1972). The few remaining red wolves are known to be physically weakened by diseases and parasites (Red Wolf Recovery Team 1973). Riley and McBride (1972) found heartworms {Dirofilaria immitis) to be present in all specimens examined. Infestation increases with age due to constant ex- posure to mosquito vectors. Animals over 3 years of age are usually heavily parasitized, reducing their tolerance to stress (Riley and McBride 1972). Other internal parasites include hook- worms (Ancylostoma) which often cause death in pups (Paradiso and Nowak 1972), and in adults leads to anemia and conditions which foster low- level infections (Lowery 1974). Tapeworms (Tae- nia) and spiny-headed worms of the phylum Acanthocephala are also found in red wolves, as is the sarcoptic mange mite [Sarcoptes scabiei) (Riley and McBride 1972). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The red wolf is dog-like, averaging about 165 cm in total length for males and 145 cm for fe- males. Weights of 14 specimens from Chambers County, Texas, ranged from 19 to 28 kg (Riley and McBride 1972). Pelage color is variable from tawny to grayish; muzzle is light with an area of white around the lips extending up the sides, leaving the bridge with a tawny to cinnamon coloration. Light areas also occur around the eyes on many red wolves. The Red Wolf Recovery Team has established minimum sizes for the discrimination of red wolves from coyotes and coyote X wolf hybrids: male red wolves weigh between 22 and 36 kg, are more than 134 cm long, have a hind foot length of more than 22.8 cm, an ear length of at least 12 cm, and stand at least 68 cm high at the shoulder. Female red wolves weigh between 19 and 31 kg, are more than 129 cm long, have a hind foot length of more than 22 cm, an ear length of at least 11.4 cm, and stand at least 66 cm high at the shoulder (McCarley and Carley 1979). Pure coyotes are considerably smaller and more "fox-like" than red wolves. Photographs appear in Carley (1975), Horan (1977), Stevens (1977), Soileau (1977), and Ne- ville (1978). RANGE Red wolves are presently restricted to Cham- bers, Jefferson, and Galveston Counties of south- eastern Texas and adjoining Cameron and Calca- sieu Parishes of Louisiana (Carley 1975). They formerly occurred from central Texas eastward to the coasts of Florida and Georgia, and along the Mississippi River Valley north to central Illinois and Indiana (Hall and Kelson 1959). RANGE MAP Shaded areas on the following page indicate former and present distribution (C. Carley per- sonal communication). STATE/COUNTIES Louisiana: Calcasieu, Cameron. Texas: Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson. HABITAT Red wolves formerly inhabited dense moun- tain and bottomland forests, as well as coastal prairies and marshes (lUCN 1966, Pimlott and Joslin 1968, Lowman 1975). They are now restricted to coastal prairies and marshes with scattered pine islands (Riley and McBride 1972), although Nowak (1972) indicates that red wolves move to inland forests during the spring and sum- mer months. The primary habitat requirement appears to be heavy vegetative cover. Cover provided along bayous and in overgrown fallow fields supplies the primary resting and denning areas. Wolves forage out into open fields and marshes using access roads, dikes, canal levees, and cattle walk- ways (Carley 1975). Photographs of the habitat may be found in Riley and McBride (1972). J3 i u u Cm O 3 C V FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Prey includes a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates. Young and Goldman (1944) and Riley and McBride (1972) indicate that the marsh rabbit {Sylvilagus aquaticus), nutria {Myocaster coypus), and carrion are the major food items. Other foods consist of white-tailed deer {Odo- coileus virginianus), rodents, domestic stock, waterfowl, fish, grasshoppers, beetles, and vege- tation (Nowak 1972, Riley and McBride 1972). Wolves feed primarily at night, foraging op- portunistically for small prey alone or in small groups (Riley and McBride 1972). They typi- cally travel in family groups. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS See nesting or bedding. NESTING OR BEDDING Historically, red wolves denned in hollow tree trunks, along stream banks, and old holes of other animals (Nowak 1972, Riley and McBride 1972, Lowman 1975). The dens were usually ob- scured by brush and vegetation, but afforded the occupants a view of the surrounding terrain. Water tables are probably too high for ground- nesting in the coastal marshes where wolves still occur, and nesting in tall vegetation has been re- ported in these areas (C. Carley personal com- munication). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS The role of howling in the social behavior is not fully understood. The voice of the red wolf is described by Riley and McBride (1972) and McCarley (1978). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Nowak (1972) reported that the territory is generally circular with a diameter attaining 64 km. Carley (1975), using radio tracking, found that males range over an area of approximately 116 km^ and females over a somewhat smaller area. Lowman (1975) reports that the home range of adult red wolves varies from 65 to 130 km^ . POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Numbers are reduced or extirpated over most of the range (Pimlott and Joslin 1968). McCarley (1962) recorded species extant in only a few places in western and southern Louisiana. R. M. Nowak (personal communication) sums up the trend: Steady decline since the coming of the white man; accelerated since large-scale hy- bridization began about 1920; pure populations apparently survived until about 1920. The Recov- ery Team (RWRT personal communication) esti- mates probably fewer than 50 pure red wolves in the wild. McCarley and Carley (1979) assert that the red wolf will soon be extinct in the wild, and C. Carley (personal communication) states that the species will probably be extinct in the wdld by 1981. REPRODUCTION Mating occurs in January and February with pups born in March, April, and May (Nowak 1972, Riley and McBride 1972, Lowman 1975). Litters range from 3 to 12 with an average of 6 or 7 (Nowak 1972,Lowery 1974). Both parents participate in rearing the young (Riley and McBride 1972, Lowman 1975), and yearlings are often found in the vicinity of the dens, and may help in rearing young. After the young reach 6 weeks of age, they spend considerable time away from the den in well-covered beds (Riley and McBride 1972, Low- man 1975). Most die before the age of 6 months, with hookworms reported to be the major cause. Full size is attained in 1 year; sexual maturity by 3 years (Nowak 1972, Lowman 1975). Life ex- pectancy is about 5 years in the wild, and greater in captivity. Red wolves are more sociable than coyotes but less so than gray wolves {Cams lupus). It is not unusual to find three or more wolves tra- veling throughout the range as a group (Riley and McBride 1972). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Depletion of the red wolf was first reported in 1962. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed this in 1968 and further determined that two sub- species, Canis rufus rufus and C. r. gregoryi, pro- bably existed, but that C. r. floridanus (inhabiting the eastern part of the range) was extinct. More recently, C. r. rufus (western part of range) was deemed extinct also (Carley 1975). Efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1969 involved removing depredating animals from private lands. This served two purposes: (1) established rapport with owners of remaining red wolf habitat; and (2) facilitated removal of hy- brids and coyotes while relocating red wolves (Carley 1975). In 1973, biologists were assigned to implement the Red Wolf Recovery Plan. Removal of depre- dating animals was continued, but red wolves captured were treated for various infirmities and released (often radio -tracked) or transferred to captive breeding centers. An effort was ini- tiated to maintain a buffer zone between red wolves and coyotes. This was determined to be impossible because of the difficulty of main- taining such an extensive buffer zone and hybrids were already present (Carley 1975). Carley (1975) asserts that red wolves can be preserved only by relocation. Exclusion of coy- otes and hybrids from the remaining range is an insurmountable problem (Carley 1975). Relocation experiments were initiated in late 1976 on Bulls Island, South Carolina. Although there have been numerous problems with the pro- gram, a pair was successfully relocated in January 1978. This island was chosen for a number of technical reasons, but with no intent to start a viable population (Department of the Interior 1972, 1977a, 1977b; R. M. Nowak personal communication). The experiment was successfully completed in November 1978, when the pair was recaptured and returned to the captive breeding program. In 1977, there were 29 recognized pure adults and 13 young in a breeding pool in Point Defi- ance Zoo in Tacoma, Washington (R. M. Nowak personal communication). The Recovery Team (RWRT 1973) provided a step-down plan for restoring the red wolf to non- endangered status. The four major objectives are "(1) to restore surviving red wolf subspecies in their present ranges to desirable population levels; (2) to maintain an adequate captive red wolf gene pool; (3) to reestablish surviving red wolf subspe- cies in additional locations within their historic range; and (4) to determine the location and abundance of each surviving red wolf subspecies population." Specific goals include stopping of unauthorized killing by man, developing a posi- tive public attitude, preventing genetic contami- nation, developing landowner tolerance, improv- ing and protecting red wolf habitat, controlling debilitating pathogens and parasites, and control- ling detrimental effects of environmental contam- inants (RWRT 1973). A new Recovery Team was formulated in 1978. AUTHORITIES George R. Abraham (Recovery Team) State Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 271-273 Agriculture Center Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Curtis Carley Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, NM 87103 Russell Clapper Refuge Manager Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge AnahuacTX 77514 George G arris Refuge Manager Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge Awendaw, SC 29429 Joe L. Herring (Recovery Team) Chief, Division of Game Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Howard McCarley Austin Universtiy Department of Biology Sherman, TX 75090 Ronald M. Nowak Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, D.C. 20240 Mary Anne Neville (Recovery Team) Protected Species Coordinator Georgia Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30339 Dave Peterson (Recovery Team Leader) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 900 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32207 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Investigators (McCarley 1962, Lawrence and Bossert 1967, Paradiso 1968, Pimlott and Joslin 1968, Nowak 1970, Paradiso and Nowak 1971) have raised questions concerning the taxonomic status of the red wolf. Paradiso and Nowak (1971) and Gipson et al. (1974), using a multi- variate analysis of skull morphology, concluded that the red wolf was indeed a valid species. There are numerous gaps in the knowledge of the biology of this species which must be attribu- ted to its depleted numbers, secretive habits, and limited accessibility. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Carley, C. J. 1975. Activities and findings of the red wolf recovery program from late 1973 to 1 July 1975. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 211 pp. Freeman, R. C. 1976. Coyote X dog hybridiza- tion and red wolf influence in the wild Cants of Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis. Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater. 62 pp. Gipson, P. S., J. A. Sealander, and J. E. Dunn. 1974. The taxonomic status of wild Cants in Arkansas. Syst. Zool. 23(1):1-11. Goldman, E. A. 1937. The wolves of North Ame- rica. J. Mammal. 18(l):37-45. Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mam- mals of North America. Vol. 2. Ronald Press, New York. 547-1,083 pp. Harper, F. 1927. Mammals of the Okefenokee Swamp region of Georgia. Boston Soc. Natur. Hist.Proc. 38(7):191-396. Horan, J. 1977. Return of the red wolf. Defen- ders 52(1):16-19; lUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 1966. Red data book. Morges, Switzerland. Lawrence, B., and W. H. Bossert. 1967. Multiple character analysis of Canis lupus, latrans, and familiaris, with a discussion of the relation- ships of Canis niger. Am. Zool. 7(2):223-232. Lowery, G. H., Jr. 1974. The mammals of Louisi- ana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State Univ. Press, Baton Rouge. 564 pp. Lowman, G. E. 1975. A survey of endangered, threatened, rare, status undetermined, peri- pheral, and unique mammals of the south- eastern National Forests and grasslands. USDA For. Serv. Contract 38-2601. McCarley, H. 1962. The taxonomic status of wild Canis (Canidae) in the south-central United States. Southwest. Natur. 7(3-4); 227-235. . 1978. Vocalizations of red wolves {Canis rufus).]. Mammal. 59(l):27-35. McCarley, H., and C. J. Carley. 1979. Recent changes in distribution and status of wild red wolves (Canis rufus) . U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Endangered Species Report 4. 8 pp. Mech, L. D. 1974. Canis lupus. Mammalian spe- cies 37. Am. Soc. Mammalogists. 6 pp. Neville, M. A. T. 1977. In South Carolina, another transplant runs into trouble. Natl. Wildl. 15(5):10-11. . 1978. Counterfeit wolves and lonely islands. Sierra Club Bull. 63(2):22-23. Nowak, R. M. 1967. The red wolf in Louisiana. Defenders Wildl. News 42(l):60-70. . 1972. The mysterious wolf of the south. Natur. Hist. 81:50-53, 74-77. . 1974. Red wolf, our most endangered mammal. Natl. Parks Conserv. Mag. Aug:9-12. -. 1975. The cosmopolitaJi wolf. Natl. Rifle Assoc. Coserv. Yearb. 76-83. Ogilvie, P. W. 1970. Interim report on the red wolf in the United States. Int. Zoo. Yearb. (10):122-124. Paradiso, J. L. 1965. Recent records of red wolves from the Gulf Coast of Texas. Southwest Nat. 10(4):318-319. . 1968. Canids recently collected in east Texas, with comments on the taxonomy of the red wolf. Am. Midi. Natur. 80(2):529-534. Paradiso, J. L., and R. M. Nowak. 1971. A report on the taxonomic status and distribution of the red wolf. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 145. 36 pp. . 1972. Canis rufus. Mammalian Species 22. Am. Soc. Mammalogists. 4 pp. Pimlott, D. H., and P. W. Joslin. 1968. The status and distribution of the red wolf. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 33:373-384. RWRT (Red Wolf Recovery Team). 1973. Red wolf recovery plan. Draft. U.S. Dep. Inter. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Office Endangered Species and International Activities. 32 pp. Riley, G. A., and R. T. McBride. 1972. A survey of the red wolf {Canis rufus). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 162. 15 pp. Shaw, J. A., and P. A. Jorden. 1977. The wolf that lost its genes. Natur. Hist. 86(10):80-88. Soileau, C. 1977. Epitaph for a canine. Louisiana Conservationist 29(7-8): 14-17. Stevens, J. T. 1977. Almost gone. Texas Parks and Wildlife 35(5):2-7. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threa- tened wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and Interna- tional Activities. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 239 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1976. Red wolf released on Bulls Island, Cape Romain Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina, and recaptured. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. News Re- lease. 27 December 1976. 3 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977a. New red wolf pair to arrive at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. News Release. 30 June 1977. 3 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977b. Substi- tute pair of red wolves shipped to Cape Ro- maine National Wildlife Refuge, South Caro- lina. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. News Release, IJuly 1977. 1 pp. Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America. 2 parts. Am. Wildl. Inst., Washington, D.C. 630 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, Fl 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.2 MARCH 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States BLUNT NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this scries of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or tlireatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data are not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in tiie I'.ndangered Species Act of 197.S, as amended). This scries of accoimts is intended to complement the compuieri/ed Sensiti\e Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of I-^ndangercd Species and Biological Sei-viccs of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should he directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directcil to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems leam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senice . .\ASA-Slidell Computer Coinplc;\ 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 FWS/OBS-80/01.2 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES BLUNT NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WildHfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Crotophytus (Gambelia) silus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Reptilia ORDER Sauria FAMILY Iguanidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Blunt-nose leopard lizard DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 9 November 1979 LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967). States Endangered: California (21 May 1977) REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS This lizard has become increasingly difficult to find throughout most of its range because of agricultural development and urbanization. The few remaining areas of prime habitat, along the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, are under- going rapid development following the recent completion of a major new aqueduct (the Califor- nia Aqueduct) (Erode 1978, Bury 1972, Monta- nucci 1965, Snow 1972, U.S. Dep. Int. 1973). Off-road vehicle recreation is damaging the re- maining habitat in some nonagricultural areas (Erode 1978). Overgrazing and agricultural pest control may be detrimental to C. (G.) silus popu- lations (Anon 1978). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION A robust lizard with a long, slender, cylindri- cal tail, C. (G.) silus has a large head with a short, blunt snout; adults measure 89 to 127 mm in snout-to-vent length. The dorsal ground color is gray or brown, and the dorsum has broad, distinct whitish bands interspaced with dusky spots. The throat has dark gray blotches. Undersides of the tail and thighs are white to yellowish; during the breeding season, the males are salmon or rust color ventrally or all over the body except the head (Erode 1978; Bury 1972; Montanucci 1965, 1967, 1970; Snow 1972; Tollestrup 1979). Fe- males have a breeding color consisting of a single, or, occasionally, a double row of red-orange spots on the flanks and sides of the face and a continu- ous wash of the same color on the undersurface of the tail and thighs. (Tollestrup 1979). Monta- nucci (1965, 1967, 1970) describes distinction in color, pattern, and size between valley floor, foot- hill, and ecotonal hybrid populations, but Tolles- trup(1979) did not find such differences. RANGE The species occurs only in California. It was once found throughout the San Joaquin valley and adjacent foothills from about latitude 37°3l' north southward into San Luis Obispo County. It now occurs at scattered locations in the valley, east to the Sierra foothills, south to the Tehachapi Mountains, and along the east slopes of the Coast Range foothills, including the Carrizo Plain and lower Cuyama Valley (Erode 1978; Montanucci 1965, 1970; Snow 1972), at elevations below 600 m. RANGE MAP Known distribution is shown on the accom- panying map (Anon 1978). STATES/COUNTIES California Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mer- ced, San Eenito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, Ventura. HABITAT It prefers open habitat with scattered low bushes, occurring on sparsely vegetated plains, alkali flats, low foothills, canyon floors, large washes, and arroyos; it is usually found on sandy substrates and sometimes on coarse, gravelly soil and hardpan (Montanucci 1965, 1970). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR This lizard is an active predator and an oppor- tunistic feeder, subsisting primarily on large insects and small lizards. Montanucci (1965) re- ports seasonal and regional variation in diet, depending on the availability of insect and lizard prey. Insects taken include locusts (Trimeratropis calif ornica), grasshoppers (Melanoplus sp.), ci- cadas (Okanagana triangulata, O. pallidula), crickets {Acheta assimilis), and a wide variety of orthoptera, lepidoptera, and coleoptera species. Lizards eaten include Uta stansburiana, Phryno- soma coronatum, small Sceloporus magister, and Cnemidophorus tigris, as well as juveniles of its own species. Small amounts of vegetable matter are also taken (Montanucci 1965, 1967). Tolles- trup (1979) found that C. (G.) silus feeds princi- pally on grasshoppers, crickets, beetles, cicadas, flies, and spiders; no vertebrate prey was found in this large sample of stomachs (N = 142). Foraging habits vary relative to habitat and available prey (Montanucci 1967). Lizards will leap into the air or into shrubbery in pursuit of in- sects. Stalking and pursuit are employed in hunting both insect and lizard prey. Montanucci (1965) reports that C. (G.) silus will dig up lizards {Uta stansburiana) that have taken refuge in holes or loose sand. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Montanucci (1965) notes that population densities correlate to some extent with abundance of mammal burrows. Abandoned or occupied burrows of kangaroo rats {Dipodomys sp) and abandoned squirrel burrows [Spermophilus sp.), gopher burrows {Thomomys bottae), and badger dens {Taxidea taxus) are used for escape cover and permanent shelter. In areas where mammal burrows are scarce, adult C. (G.) silus construct shallow, simple chambered tunnels under exposed rocks or earthen banks. Immature lizards use rock piles, trash piles, brush, etc. for temporary cover (Montanucci 1965). . / Stanislaus Co^>j- n^ Moriposa Co. 'Merced Co. ^\ .' — • 'MERCEUX^/ I LOCATOR MAP Estimated Original Range of BNLL 0 0 Santa Barbara Co. • ~~ 'T I \ ' Ventura Co. \ 10 20 30 40 Miles | \ 16 32 48 64 Kilometers I \ Distribution of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. NESTING OR BEDDING POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Nesting habits of C. (G.) silus are almost identical to those of Gambelia wislizenii (see Parker and Pianka 1976). Females lay eggs in June and July, in burrows at about 50 cm depth. A chamber is excavated or enlarged, entrance tun- nels sealed, and eggs are laid one at a time and lightly covered with sand or soil. The exit tunnel is then plugged from without. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Males establish and defend home burrows, but appear to have overlapping home ranges (Monta- nucci 1965). The degree to which territoriality is exhibited is probably correlated with abundance and availability of food and cover; where mammal burrows are abundant, individual home ranges and home burrows are difficult to detect (Monta- nucci 1965). Recently, Tollestrup (1979) found that males defend home ranges, not just burrows. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Montanucci (1965) reported that several fac- tors limit the distribution of C. (G.) silus: ; 1. Agricultural practices 2. Flooding 3. Chaparral 4. Steep or extensive rocky areas. Tall grass may hamper foraging and rapid loco- motion, and may account for the relative scarcity of C. (G.) silus on the east side of the San Joa- quin Valley (Montanucci 1965). K. Tollestrup (pers. comm.) reported that tall grass improves foraging because insect abundance increases and it gives the lizards cover for escape from predators. Scarcity of C. (G.) silus in tall grass areas on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley is probably due to the fact that human settlements in this region and farming and grazing of the land date back many years. Also, in this area, it is common practice to plow and burn rangelands in the fall, which decreases or eliminates populations of C. (G.) silus. Entomologists working in Kern County reported finding leopard lizards killed by insecti- cides (DDT and Malathion) (Montanucci 1965). J. M. Sheppard {in Snow 1972) estimates a density of 300 to 400 Uzards per square mile of optimum habitat near Maricopa, Kern County. Since it is unlikely that all habitats occupied are optimum, he considered the mean density of lizards to be 100/mi' (38.6/km' or 0.4/ha). Tollestrup (1979) estimated that there were 3.5 Uzards per ha at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, which is the highest known density. Populations of C. (G.) silus are low (0.5 to 1 per acre or about 1 to 2.5 per ha) under optimum conditions (Anon. 1978). REPRODUCTION The reproductive cycle varies slightly with environmental conditions. Males will often mate with several females. Mating occurs from late April to early June; clutches of 2 to 5 eggs are laid in June or July; some females may have two clutches per year (Montanucci 1965). Incubation time is estimated at about 57 days. Young (42 to 47 mm in snout-to-vent length) appear from July 30 through September. Sexual maturity in both sexes occurs between 9 and 18 months (Mont- anucci 1965, 1967; Tollestrup 1979). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard hzard is rapidly being lost throughout its range. In the last 100 years, the natural wildlands of the San Joaquin Valley have decreased from 3 million ha to about 200,000 ha (Dickl977). Suitable habitat (salt-brush desert scrub) on the west side of the valley is now being developed for agriculture, since completion of the California Aqueduct. Also, off-road vehicles have denuded parts of this region. R. R. Montanucci ( in Snow 1972) recom- mended the establishment of a national grassland preserve in the southwestern part of the San Joa- quin Valley as the most rapid means of assuring partial protection of this species. Erode (1978) recommended protective management programs on the remnants of suitable lizard habitat on public lands (the Naval Petroleum Reserve near Taft, the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Re- fuges, Los Padres National Forest, and National Resources Land). These lands should be managed to maintain and enhance habitat suitable to the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Both refuges recognize the importance of their lands to the survival of the lizard; the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge was used as a study area on the ecology of this species (Tollestrup 1979). Also near Pixley, the U.S. Forest Service will manage a tract of grass- land comprising about 325 ha for this lizard (Erode 1978). Essential habitat on private land could be protected by agreement with land- owners. The California Department of Fish and Game has conducted field surveys and initiated coopera- tive studies with the U.S. Forest Service, Universi- ty of California at Berkeley, and several colleges to further determine the distribution and status of this lizard. A Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard Re- covery Team has been formed to provide needed coordination of effort to protect this species (Anon. 1978, Erode 1978). AUTHORITIES John M. Erode (Recovery Team Leader) California Department of Fish and Game 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Richard R. Montanucci Department of Zoology Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina 29631 Kristine Tollestrup Department of Biology University of Chicago 1103 E. 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Recent taxonomic changes for this lizard warrant explanation to prevent confusion and promote consistent use of currently accepted nomenclature. The relationshiops and systematic status of the lineages of crotaphytaform lizards (leopard and collared lizards) of North America have been undergoing revision by herpetologists as new data and techniques become available. Montanucci. (1970) presented evidence of genetic and ecologic differentiation between the leopard lizards of the San Joaquin Valley and those of more southern and eastern populations. This evi- dence supports the recognition of the blunt-nosed leopard lizard as a distinct species (Gambelia si- lus), rather than a subspecies of the longnose leo- pard lizard (G. wislizenii). Montanucci et al. (1975) present biochemical evidence indicating that leopard lizards are suffici- ently different from the closely related collared lizards (genus Crotaphytus) to be considered a separate genus [Gambelia). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Anonymous. 1978. Blunt-nosed lizard recovery plan. Part I. (draft). 12 pp. Erode, J. 1978. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard {Crota- phytus silus). Pages 24-25 in At the Cross- roads: a report on California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Biannual Rep. 103 pp. Bury, R. B. 1972. Status report on California's threatened amphibians and reptiles. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Inland Fisher. Rep. 72-2. 31 pp. Dick, D. 1977. Habitat disappearing for the leo- pard lizard. Outdoor Calif. 38(6):37-38. Montanucci, R. R. 1965. Observations on the San Joaquin leopard lizard Crotaphytus wislizenii silus Stejneger. Herpetologica 21(4):270-283. 1967, Further studies on leopard lizards, Crotaphytus wislizenii. Herpetologica 23(2): 119-126. 1970. Analysis of hybridization between Crotaphytus wislizenii and Crotaphytus silus (Sauria: Iguanidae) in California. Copeia 1970 (1):104-123. Montanucci, R. R., R. W. Axtell, and H. C. Dessaur. 1975. Evolutionary divergence among collard lizards (Cryophytus), with comments on the status of Gambelia). Herpetologica 31(3):336-347. Parker, W. W., and E. R. Pianka. 1976. Ecological observations on the leopard lizard (Crotophy- tus wislizenii) in different parts of its range. Berkeley. Herpetologica 32(1):95-114. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threatened Snow, C. 1972. Blunt nosed leopard lizard: Cro- wildlife of the United States. Bur. Sport Fish. taphytus situs. Bur. Land Manage. Tech. Note Wildl. Res. Publ. 114. 289 pp. 6601. 13 pp. PREPARED/UPDATED BY Tollestrup, K. 1979. The ecology, social structure, and foraging behavior of two closely related National Fish and Wildllife Laboratory, species of leopard lizards, Gambelia silus and 1300 Blue Spruce Drive Gambelia wislizenii. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Calif. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.3 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE WHOOPING CRANE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACi: The purpose of this scries of species accounts is to provide resr>urcc managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life histt)ry, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Fndangered Spci ies Act of ]97'>, as amended). This series of accoinits is intended to complement the compuieri/.cd Senbiti\c Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army C:orps of Kngineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of f.ndangered Species and Biological Sei-vices of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should he direc ted to: Office of F.ndangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seivice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 202 10 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be dirt Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal P^cosystems I cam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell ConipLitcr Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 d u FWS/OBS-80/01.3 March 1980 SELECl i:i) VI.Rl KBRATK ENDANGERED SPECIES OF IHE SEACOAS r OF 1 HE UNITED S lATES- THE WHOOPING CRANE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WildHfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National (Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald \V. VVoodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fisii and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1^^ "a '^ ^-^ ' CREDIT: W. F. KUBICHEK WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana Linnaeus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Gruiformes FAMILY Gruidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Great white crane DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 18 July 1978, 25 September 1978. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967; 35 FR 8491, 2 June 1970). States: Endangered: Colorado, Idaho, Mon- tana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS There are only 75 whooping cranes in the wild and 27 in captivity (WCRT 1977). They once nested widely over northern North America; nesting is now restricted to a small area in the southern MacKenzie District and northeastern Alberta, Canada. Breeding habitat and wintering habitat have been reduced as a result of drainage, agriculture, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and human settlements. Whooping cranes avoid areas of human disturbance even if the habitat is other- wise suitable (R. Erickson personal communica- tion). Cranes were hunted before legal protection was instituted. Losses were particularly acute on the Gulf Coast wintering grounds (Alleh 1952). Accidental shooting probably still occurs when whooping cranes are mistaken for snow geese (Chen hyperborea) and sandhill cranes [Grus canadensis), both legal game in some areas (WCRT 1977). Natural factors such as large nesting territories and a very low reproductive rate of one chick per year make recovery slow. The biannual migration covering over 3,800 km usually accounts for some mortahty (Allen 1962). Stormy weather during migration poses a serious threat to the few remaining whooping cranes. The nonmigratory Louisiana population was reduced 50% during a hurricane in 1940 and never recovered (Allen 1952). There remains the possibility of hazardous ma- terials being spilled on the wintering grounds along the heavily industrialized Texas Gulf Coast. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION Whooping cranes are the tallest birds in North America. Males are almost 1.5 m high, with a wingspan of 2.4 m and an average weight of 7 kg. Females are slightly smaller, with an average weight of 6 kg. Weight can vary 25% seasonally, with the maximum reached in winter. The adult plumage is velvety white except for the head and portions of the wings and feet. Forehead, crown, anterior part of occiput, lores, and cheeks are bare except for sparse black hair- like feathers. The skin in this area is warty or granulated, and a reddish color. The bill is a dull pink, proximally changing to dull brownish in the middle and dirty yellow on the tip. The alulae, 10 primaries, and 10 greater upper coverts are a slatey black. The feet are black with flesh-colored pads. Juvenal plumage is a variable mixture of white and buff or brown. The adult plumage is attained in about 1 year. The sexes are similar. Vocalizations range from a purring call near young to a low groaning call when approached by humans, to a shrill, bugle-hke 'kerloo! ker-lee-oo.' The latter is known as a unison call and is a defi- nite indicator of pair bonding (R. Erickson per- sonal communication). Photographs appear in Allen (1952), McNulty (1966), Novakowski (1966), Walkinshaw (1973), Lowery (1974), Kuyt (1976a, 1976b), Muir (1976), numerous drawings appear in Allen (1952). RANGE The natural population now nests only in Wood Buffalo National Park, southern MacKenzie District, and northeastern Alberta, Canada. It winters on the Gulf Coast of Texas, in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent peninsulas and islands. Its migration route is a nearly straight-line path through east central Texas, cen- tral Oklahoma, central Kansas and Nebraska, western and central North and South Dakota, northeastern Montana, southeastern Saskatche- wan, and northeastern Alberta. An experimentally transplanted disjunct population will hopefully nest at Grays Lake Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, Idaho, and winter in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. The migration route passes through southeastern Idaho, north- eastern Utah, southwestern Wyoming, western Colorado, and north-central New Mexico (WCRT 1977). The crane formerly bred from its present range south through the prairie provinces and northern prairie states, including Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota, and wintered from the Carolina coast to central Mexico. A geo- graphically isolated breeding population, believed to be nonmigratory (now extirpated), formerly lived in southestern Louisiana. RANGE MAP Wood Buffalo— Aransas population, Grays Lake Experimental Population and Critical Habi- tat from WCRT (1977) and Federal Register (43 FR 20938, 15 May 1978). Wood Buffalo National Park N I. 340 scale in km WOOD BUFFALO- ARANSAS POP. ▲ NESTING LOCATION • MAJOR MIGRATION STOPS D WINTER LOCATION O CRITICAL HABITAT NWR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SWA STATE WILDLIFE AREA WMD WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT i : APPROXIMATE MIGRATION ROUTE Pocasse NWR IOWA MO. Kirwin NWR Cheyenne Bottoms SWA Quivirg NWR -^alt\Plains NWR Wichita NWR Aransas NWR Map depicts the nesting and wintering locations of the Wood Buffalo-Aransas populations of the whooping crane and its migration route. Critical habitat is designated. MONTANA N k A Melville IDAHO Grays^ Lake<^ NWR 0 250 scale in km A Cora WYOMING ▲ Lonetree Jensen % Ouray NWR • GRAYS LAKE EXPERIMENTAL POP. ▲ SUMMER LOCATIONS • MAJOR MIGRATION STOPS D WINTER LOCATION O CRITICAL HABITAT NWR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SWA STATE WILDLIFE AREA COLORADO % Ridgeway Monte Vista(« Aionnosa NWR NEW /MEXICO D Bernardo SWA S) Bosque Del Apache NWR Map depicts summer and winter locations and migration stops for the Grays Lake experimental population of the whooping crane. Critical habitat is designated. STATES/COUNTIES Wood Buffalo-Aransas Population Winter Texas Aransas, Calhoun. Known Migration Stops Kansas Barton, Reno, Stafford. Montana Roosevelt, Sheridan Nebraska Adams, Blaine, Brown, Buffa- lo, Custer, Dawson, Franklin, Gosper, Hall, Harlan, Kearney, Keya Paha, Loup, Phelps, Rock, Sherman, Thomas, Valley, Webster. North Dakota Burke, Burleigh, Divide, Dunn, Emmons, McKenzie, McLean, Morton, Mountrail, Penville, Sioux, Ward, Wil- liams. Oklahoma Alfalfa, Comanche. South Dakota Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Haakon, Hughes, Potter, Stan- ley, Sulley, Walworth, Ziebach Grays Lake Experimental Population Winter New Mexico Luna, Socorro, Valencia. Mexico Chihuahua. Known Migration Stops Colorado Alamosa, Canejos, Ouray, Rio Grand. Utah Uintah. Summer Idaho Bonneville, Caribou. Montana Sweet Grass. Utah Uintah. Wyoming Sublette, Uintah. HABITAT The nesting grounds are marshy areas with many potholes, which are generally shallow and have soft, muddy bottoms. The pH is usually between 7.6 and 8.3. Potholes are separated by land areas with black spruce [Picea mariana), tamarack (Larix laricitia), and willows (notably Salix Candida), forming the canopy. The under- story includes dwarf birch {Betula glandulosa). bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and several species of lichen. The ground is deeply carpeted with sphagnum moss. Emergent vegetation in the potholes used by cranes is mainly bulrush (Scir- pus validus) (Novakowski 1966). The Wood Buffalo-Aransas population winters on salt-marsh flats in coastal lagoons on the Gulf of Mexico. Allen (1952) differentiated three types used by cranes: (1) permanent pond, lake, ditch, or bayou open to bay tides at all seasons; (2) semipermanent ponds connected by narrow bayous to permanent water areas; (3) ephemeral ponds that offer superior feeding places. Typical vegetation includes salt grass {Distichlis spicata), saltwort {Batis maritima), glasswort {Salicornia sp.), sea ox-eye [Borrichia frutescens), needle cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), and saltmarsh cordgrass [Spartina alterniflora) (Allen 1952). Cranes will occasionally forage into the oak {Quercus) brush region (Allen 1952), especially after a fire. The major requirement for whooping crane habitat selection, particularly during migration, is an open expanse for nightly roosting. The birds typically use sand or gravel bars in rivers and lakes (43 FR 36588, 17 August 1989). Historic habitat includes interior tall-grass prairies, sea-rim and brackish marshes, and higher interior grasslands (Allen 1952). Some of these habitat types are still used during migration. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Cranes are omnivorous, taking vegetation, in- sects, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals (Bent 1926). The whooper is more aquatic than the sandhill crane and has a greater preference for animal foods (Allen 1952). Prey species are listed in Allen (1952) and Novakowski ( 1966). Summer foods were studied by Novakowski (1966) and were determined to be primarily large nymphal or larval forms of insects, and crustace- ans. Terrestrial foods such as berries were taken when abundant (Novakowski 1966). A greater variety of foods are taken in the wdnter, and include grains, acorns, insects, marine worms, crustaceans, mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and, very occasionally, birds (Allen (1952). During migration, cranes feed while on mud flats and sandbars. Allen (1 952) suggests that crust- aceans, fishes, amphibians, and reptiles in the shal- lows compose the bulk of the diet. Recent data in- dicate that during fall migration, cranes often feed in recently harvested grain fields, eating insects and wasted grain, especially corn. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NESTING OR BEDDING Nests, 15 to 60 cm above the water, are made of rushes [Scirpus validus), sedge [Carex sp.), or cattail {Typha latifolia). Nests are restricted to areas with limited terrestrial accessibility, and are not usually reused in subsequent years; but a new nest is generally built in the same area (Kuyt 1976a). Allen (1952) describes in detail nests and their construction in historic breeding localities. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Premigration behavior in December or January includes a restless shifting of habitual winter terri- tories, increasing in frequency of dancing displays and circling flights which eventually result in actual movement northward (Allen 1952, WCRT 1977). Generally the cranes leave Aransas National Wildlife Refuge between the end of March and the middle of April. They arrive at Wood Buffalo National Park 18 to 28 days later (Allen 1956, WCRT 1977). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Climate plays a vital role in whooping crane survival. Extreme dryness has little effect on nest- ing success, but can force young and parents to travel farther in search of food (Novakowski 1966) and render nesting areas more accessible to terres- trial predators (E. Kuyt, personal communica- tion). Departure of cranes on spring migration is assisted by strong prevailing southeast winds (WCRT 1977). However, a hurricane or large storm could interfere with migration (Allen 1952). The average territory size is about 162 ha on the wintering ground. In tlie Sass River area, Wood Buffalo National Park, the radii of the nest- ing territories average 0.9 km. Rarely, however, are nests of two different pairs closer than 1.3 km, and when they are closer, nesting success is below average (Kuyt 1976a). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The numbers have increased since a low of 21 birds in 1941 -1942. The 1977 count of whooping cranes was 75 birds in the wild (Aransas Refuge - Wood Buffalo National Park had 69 birds, and experimental Rocky Mountain flock had 6) and 27 in captivity (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center had 22; International Crane Foundation, 3; and San Antonio Zoo, Texas, 2) (WCRT 1977). The potential for population growth in the wild is quite low for many reasons (Stevenson and Griffith 1946). Major reasons are that only one young survives and there is high juvenile mortality during migration. Erickson (1961) suggests that although numbers have increased, there has not been an increase in rate of annual production per breeding pair. Thus, while the average annual production per pair has remained essentially the same, an increasing proportion of the older birds is returning to Aransas without progeny. Novakowski (1966) also suggests that early separation of young from adults during spring migration may account for high losses of young of the year. Allen (1952) estimated that the historical (1870) population was about 1,500 birds. REPRODUCTION Usually two, smooth, buff eggs with dark blotches are layed in late April or early May. The incubation period is 29 days. Incubation is shared by both parents, with one parent generally inclin- ed to spend more time on the nest (Allen 1952). Parents and young leave the nest site 2 to 3 days after hatching, and spend the summer traveling from pond to pond feeding (E. Kuyt, personal communication). The family unit is maintained through the winter, with the young gradually gaining more independence. Just before the migra- tion, the parents begin to drive the young away, but do not separate entirely until enroute to the nesting grounds (Allen 1952, Novakowski 1966). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Early accounts of a superabundance of whooping cranes probably caused a delay in rec- ognizing and responding to the decline in popula- tion. Many people probably misidentified the more numerous sandhill crane (Allen 1952). Efforts to prevent whooping crane extinction have been considerable and have succeeded mar- ginally in increasing the total numbers in the wild. The sequence of events is detailed in Allen (1952) and WCRT (1977). The Migratory Bird Act of 1918 provided legal protection of migratory birds and paved the way for cooperation in whooping crane manage- ment between the United States and Canada. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 to protect whooping cranes, waterfowl. and other coastal Texas wildlife. The refuge lies between San Antonio Bay and Aransas Bay on the Texas Gulf coast, and in 1937 was the winter- ing ground for 60% of the whooping cranes (WCRT 1977). The American Ornithologists' Union wrote a report in 1944 calling for the National Audubon Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the status of whooping cranes, and to stop the trend toward extinction. The Wilson Soci- ety made the same request in 1944 (Allen 1952). In 1945, the Cooperative Whooping Crane Project, involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice and the National Audubon Society, was set up to investigate means to protect and restore the species. Robert Allen's 1952 monograph, The Whoop- ing Crane, a product of 39 months of study, out- lined early management needs. The nesting grounds were discovered in 1954 in Wood Buffalo National Park, which had been created in 1922 as a preserve and management area for bison. The Cooperative Whooping Crane Project was replaced by the Whooping Crane Advisory Group, appointed by the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildhfe in 1956 to provide advice to the Bureau on the crane's problems. The Standing Committee of the International Wild Waterfowl Association created the Whooping Crane Conservation Association in 1961. This association has both Canadian and United States membership and is privately funded. The associa- tion encourages artificial propagation to increase numbers, and promotes public education to protect the cranes on migration. The International Crane Foundation is another private organization whose goals are to conserve cranes worldwide (WCRT 1977), and also contributes to the whoop- ing crane project. Many efforts have been made to reverse the trend towards extinction. In 1946, food habit studies were initiated. Shordy afterwards, tech- niques for keeping abreast of population numbers were developed, e.g. monitoring flyways. Warning signs were posted on the Intracoastal Waterway, which bounds the Aransas Refuge. Oil drilling in the area of the refuge was handled in a coopera- tive spirit and cattle grazing was found not to compete with cranes (Allen 1952). Public educa- tion played a large role in reversing the downward trends (Walkinshaw 1973). The role played by the Canadian Wildlife Service of the Canadian Department of Environ- ment is equal in importance to that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This group has con- ducted surveys since 1954 to record events on the breeding grounds. Other important functions include (WCRT 1977): 1. Fire patrol and fire suppression 2. Prohibition of public access into or low-fly- ing aircraft over the area. 3. Resistance to attempts by commercial inter- ests to develop the breeding areas. 4. Conduct periodic censuses. A migration monitoring program was estab- lished by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the fall of 1975 to : 1. Attempt to prevent exposure to disease out- breaks and other unusual hazards. 2. Alert key areas along flyways. 3. Provide information to be used to determine major stop-over areas. 4. Provide information for determining critical habitat. The National Audubon Society has a network that is coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program; and several States along the fly- way assist in crane protection. A recovery team was approved in November 1975, and has produced a draft Recovery Plan (WCRT 1977). The primary objective of their plan is to remove the whooping crane from its endangered status. The requirements necessary to reach this objective are: 1. Increase the Wood Buffalo— Aransas popula- tion to at least 40 nesting pairs. 2. Establish at least two additional, separate and self-sustaining populations consisting of at least 20 nesting pairs. Additional research is advised on food habits and avEiilability in relation to climatic conditions, spatial requirements, and territorial behavior in an expanding population. Additional data are also needed on the impact of increasing human activi- ties in the habitat area. The Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed 50 eggs from Wood Buffalo in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, and 1974 and attempted to hatch them at Patuxent Research Center, Maryland. As of 1975, 19 whoopers have been raised in this effort. The goal of producing second-generation captive birds for release has not yet been achieved (Kuyt 1976a). In 1975, 14 eggs were taken from Wood Buf- falo nests and transplanted to foster sandhill crane parents at Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho. The goal of this effort is to estab- lish an additional isolated population so that a single calamity could not destroy the entire popu- lation (Kuyt 1976a). Eggs were also transplanted in 1976 and 1977. As of 1977, six birds have been successfully raised and now migrate with the sandhill cranes (WCRT 1977). Other management suggestions (Allen 1952) which have not been achieved include inclusion of Mustang Lake into the Aransas refuge, closure of it to fishing, and conversion of the lake to the predredged condition. Allen (1952) also suggested extending the boundaries of the refuge, and this has been accomplished in part by the National Audubon Society's leasing of lands adjacent to the refuge (WCRT 1977). Critical Habitat was designated in 1978 (43 FR 20938; 15 May 1978) and includes these areas: Colorado Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (all), and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge (all). Idaho Grays Lake National WildUfe Refuge (all plus a 1.6- km perimeter). Kansas Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (all), Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management Area (all). Nebraska A strip along the Platte River in Dawson, Gosper, Kearney, Buffalo, and Phelps Counties. New Mexico Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (part). Oklahoma Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge (all). Texas Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (all), northeast to Pringle Lake, southeast to Gulf Intracoastal Waterway plat- form channel marker 25, and north- west to the refuge. Eight additional areas have been proposed as critical habitat (43 FR 36588; 17 August 1978): Kansas Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Montana Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Nebraska A section of the Nebraska River in Brown, Burleigh, Divide, Dunn, Em- mons, McKenzie, McLean, Morton, Mountrail, Penville, Sioux, Ward, and areas in Campbell and Williams Counties. AUTHORITIES David Blankinship (Recovery Team) National Audubon Society 721 Pine Street Rockport,TX 78382 Roderick Drewien Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge Box 278 San Antonio, NM 87832 Ray Erickson (Recovery Team) Assistant Director Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, MD 20810 Conrad Fjetland c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5796 Bickel Church Road Pickerington, OH 43147 Harold D. Irby (Recovery Team) Program Director Migratory Game Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Ernie Kuyt Canadian Wildlife Service 9942 108th Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2JS Ross Lock (Recovery Team) Non-Game Specialist Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2200 North 33rd Street Lincoln, NE 68503 Dave Olsen (Recovery Team Leader) Division of Wildlife Refuges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 L. H. Walkinshaw 4691 Timberlane Road Lake Wales, FL 33853 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Natl. South Dakota Conson, Dewey, Haakon, Hughes, Potter, Stanley, Sully, Walworth, and Ziebach Counties. Allen, R. P. 1952. The whooping crane. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 2. New York. . 1954. Additional data on the food of the whooping crane. Auk. 71(2):198-199. . 1956. A report on the whooping crane's northern breeding grounds. Natl. Aud. Soc. Supple. Res. Rep. 3.60 pp. Archibald, G. W. 1976. Crane taxonomy as revealed by the unison call. Pages 225-251 in J. C. Lewis, ed. Proc. Intl. Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State Univ. Publ. and Printing. 355 pp. Bard, F. G. 1956. Whooping cranes in migration, 1956. Blue Jay 14 (2):39-42. . 1958. Whooping cranes, 1958. Blue Jay 16(1):11-14. Blankinship, D. R. 1976. Studies of whooping cranes on the wintering grounds. Pages 197- 206 in J. C. Lewis, ed. Proc. Intl. Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State Univ., Publ. Printing. 355 pp. Bent, A. C. 1926. Life histories of North Ameri- can marsh birds. Dover Publ., Inc., New York. 392 pp. Drewien, R. C. 1975 & 1976. Unpublished quar- terly progress reports 1-8, whooping crane transplant experiment. Idaho Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. Erickson, R. C. 1961. Production and survival of the whooping crane. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish Wildl. Serv. Rep. 29 pp. . 1966. Production and survival of the whooping crane. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Admin. Rep. . 1975. Captive breeding of whooping cranes at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Pages 99-114 in R. D. Martin, ed. Breeding Endangered Species in Captivity. Academic Press, New York. 420 pp. . 1976. Whooping crane studies at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Pages 166- 176 in J. C. Lewis, ed. Proceedings Intl. Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State Univ. Publ. Print- ing. 355 pp. . 1979. Whooping crane (Grus americana). In R. C. Erickson and Ruhr, eds. Crane research around the world. Cosponsored by U.S. Chapter of LC.B.P., Intl. Crane Found., and U.S. Fish Wildl. Sen'. Hahn, P. 1963. Where is that vanished bird. Royal Ontario Museum, Univ. Toronto, Toronto. Hovrard, J. A. 1954. Aransas, a national wildlife refuge. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv. 11: 1-12. Kepler, C. B. 1976. Dominance and dominance- related behavior in the whooping crane. Pages 177-196 in J. C. Lewis, ed. Proc. Intl. Crane Workshop. Cosponsored by U.S. Chapter I.C.B.P., Intl. Crane Found., and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Kuyt, E. 1968. Collection of whooping crane eggs from Wood Buffalo National Park. Trans Fed- Prov. Wildl. Conf. 32:30-35. . 1975. Nest site fidelity, productivity, and breeding habitat of whooping cranes. Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Crane Res. Around the World, Internl. Crane Found. . 1976a. Whooping cranes: the long road back. Natur. Can. (Ottowa) 5(2):2-9. . 1976b. The continuing story of the whooping crane. Pages 109-111 in Canada's threatened species and habitats. Symposium on Canada's threatened species and habitats, Canadian Nature Federation and World Wild- life Fund, Ottowa, 20-24 May 1976. . 1976c. Recent clutch size data for whooping cranes, including a three-egg clutch. The Blue Jay 34(2):82-83. Lowery, G. H., Jr. 1974. Louisiana birds. Pub- lished for Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission by Louisiana State Univ. Pres. 651 pp. McNulty, F. 1966. The whooping crane; the bird that defies extinction. Dutton, New York. 190 pp. Muir, D. 1976. Whooping crane summer: filming the great white cranes. Natur. Can. (Ottowa) 5(2):25-32. Novakowski, N. S. 1966. Whooping crane popula- tion dynamics on the nesting grounds. Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep. 1.20 pp. Pratt, J. J. 1961. Transactions of the whooping crane conservation conference. Modem Game Breeding, April 1961. Stevenson, J. O., and R. E. Griffith. 1946. Winter life of the whooping crane. Condor 48(4): 160-178. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1938-present. Whooping crane census. Informal reports by the refuge manager, Aransas National Wild- life Refuge, Austwell, Texas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A great white bird. 50-minute film, color. National Audiovisual Center, GSA, Washington, D.C. WCRT (Whooping Crane Recovery Team). 1977. Whooping crane recovery plan. Technical review draft. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv. 136 pp. Walkinshaw, L. H. 1973. Cranes of the world. Winchester Press, New York. 370 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesvnie, FL 32601 10 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.4 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- LIGHT FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL K'r^^r^^ Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the scacoasl of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivident to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed lo: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\'ice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report shoidd be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.4 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- LIGHT FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WildHfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-SHdell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: SANFORD WILBUR LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris levipes Bangs (1899) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Gruifonnes FAMILY Rallidae OTHER COMMON NAMES King Rail (part), California Clapper Rail (part), Southern Cali- fornia Clapper Rail, Bangs Rail, Light-footed Rail, Southwestern Clapper Rail, Los Angeles Clapper Rail (Grinnell and Miller 1944) DATES Entered into SWIS to be determined Update to be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (42FR36427, 14 July 1977). Protected Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (40 Stat. 755; 16 USC 703-711, 3 July 1918) as amended 3 Dec. 1969. PL91-135. State: California - Endangered REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Formerly common in aU coastal marshes with- in its geographic range, but now, because of drain- age and/or filling of some marshes and pollution with chemicals and debris/?. /. levipes is much more restricted in occurrence and fewer in numbers (Willett 1912,1933,GrinneIleta]. 1918, Stephens 1919, Edwards 1922). It was not as well protected from hunters as the California clapper rail, and its range is being reduced by reclamation of marshes (Bent 1926). Overharvesting may have occurred in some areas, but reduction in populations can be at- tributed almost entirely to loss of habitat. The area of the salt marsh between Santa Barbara and the Mexican Border is estimated to have been 10,500 ha, while at present there are approxi- mately 3,440 ha (Speth 1971), much of which has been degraded by water pollution, water di- version, and restriction of tidal flow. Of the 4 ma- jor habitat areas, only Anaheim Bay appears to be relatively safe from future habitat destruction. Los Penasquitos has dried up and does not sup- port rail, Upper Newport is "safe" under State management, and Tijuana Slough is vulnerable, but FWS plans to preserve it. Particularly hard hit were areas known to have supported large popula- tions of rails such as San Diego Bay, reduced from 990 to 146 ha; Mission Bay, from 970 to 8.5 ha; and the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, from 2750 to 28 ha. Thus, entire populations have been ex- terminated (Recovery Team 1977). PRIORITY INDEX 32 DESCRIPTION Rallus longirostris levipes is a chicken-size bird with a gray-brown back, tawny breast, ver- tical dusky and white bars on its flanks, and a white patch under its short, upcocked tail; it has long legs, toes and bill and is a strong runner and a weak flyer. Although similar to R. I. obsoletus, it is slightly smaller; with a more slender bill and a back darker, browner or more olive (less grayish) in tone, with narrower and less black marking; its breast is a richer cinnamon color and the stripe over the eye more whitish, less rusty (Bangs 1899, Bent 1926, van Rossem 1929, Ridgway and Friedmann 1941). The size of the adult male is: wing, 154.5 - 167 (av. 161.9) mm; tail, 62.5 - 69 (66.7); exposed culmen, 56-61 (58.9); tarsus, 53-60.5 (56.9); middle toe without claw, 50-54 (51.2^. The adult female is: wing, 138 - 155.5 (147.3); tail, 57 - 67 (62.6); exposed culmen, 51.5-58 (54.2); tarsus, 47-51 (49.5); middle two without claw, 41-48 (44.9) (Oberholser 1937) Weight - male, av. 306 gm.; female, av 248 gm. (Ohmart and Smith 1973). Its eggs are drab, cream-colored, and sparsely marked with purple 44.6 x 31.0 mm (Bent 1926). The light-footed clapper rail has a confusing taxonomic history. Originally thought to be a King Rail [Rallus elegans) by Henshaw (1876); then the same as California Rail [Rallus obsoletus), which at that time was considered a distinct spe- cies by Belding (1883); then thought to be a separate species [Rallus levipes) by Bangs (1899); then a subspecies of the California Rail [Rallus obsoletus levipes) that was still considered a dif- ferent species from either King or Clapper Rail by van Rossem (1929); then united with the King Rail as Rallus elegans levipes by Peters (1934); it was finally classified a clapper rail subspecies Ral- lus longirostris levipes (Oberholser 1937), which designation was accepted by Ridgway and Fried- mann (1941), the American Ornithologists Union (1957), and subsequent authorities. RANGE The light-footed clapper rail ranges the coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara County, Cali- fornia, south to San Quintin Bay, Baja California 1977), which is the originally described range of Cooke (1914), Grinnell et al. (1918) and Bent (1926). Later evaluations (Grinnell and Miller 1944, American Ornithologists Union 1957) found no Santa Barbara records after 1875, so set the northern limits at Point Mugu and Hueneme, Ventura County. Confusion over distinction of levipes from another subspecies farther south in Baja California resulted in placing the southern breeding limit of levipes at Ensenada, Baja Cali- fornia (Friedmann et al. 1950, American Ornith- ologists' Union). Study of more adequate speci- men samples extended the breeding range of levipes southward to San Quintin Bay (S. Wilbur ms.). Distribution is markedly interrupted be- cause of discontinuous habitat (van Rossem 1929; Grinnell et al. 1918, Edwards 1922, Dawson 1924). Areas that have recent records of light-footed clapper rails are: Santa Barbara Co. - Carpinteria Marsh (or El Estero or Sandyland Slough); Ven- tura Co. - Mugu Marshes (Pacific Missile Range); Orange Co. - Anaheim Bay marshes. Upper New- port Bay; San Diego Co. - Tijuana River estuary; Sweet Water Marsh ; Otay River Slough; Marine Biology Study Area; San Diego River; Mission Bay; Los Penasquitos; San Elijo Lagoon (Wilbur 1974). Despite published reference to the contrary (Friedmann et al. 1950, American Ornithologists' Union 1957, van Rossem 1947), there is no evi- dence of migration or of wandering from home marshes after the breeding season (Wilbur and Tomlinson 1976). RANGE MAP The past and present distribution is shown on tlie following page. LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER RAIL Past and Present Distribution Goleta Slough Carpinteria Marsh Mugu Lagoon' ■"^-^ %. Bolsa Chi CO Lagoon Upper Newport Bay » Santa Margarita River Batiquitos Lagoon San Elilo Lagoon San Dieguito River Los Penasquitos Lagoon San Diego River - Mission Bay San Diego Bay Tijuana Estuary La Mision - La Salina Bahia de Todos Santos Bahia de San Quintin Past and present distribution of the Hght-footed clapper rail. STATES/COUNTIES California: Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura. HABITAT The light-footed clapper rail is found in salt- water marshes traversed by tidal sloughs, where cordgrass {Spartina foliosa) and pickleweed {Salt- cornia) are the conspicuous plants. One nesting is recorded for an inland marsh grown to reeds in Los Angeles Co. (Willett 1906). In Tijuana Estuary, 22 of 34 nests were built in cordgrass. Nest den- sity is greater in tall cordgrass (0.52 nests per ha. of habitat). Generally speaking, the highest den- sities of rails appear to be in those marshes with the most cordgrass Qorgensen 1975). Clapper rails require a healthy tidal salt marsh environment with cordgrass or pickleweed for nesting and es- cape cover; abundant food in the form of crabs, clams and related invertebrates; and tidal flats interspersed with saltmarsh vegetation as a feed- ing area. These conditions prevail in coastal salt marshes that have a tidal prism adequate to pre- serve a normal salinity range and prevent stagna- tion. If suitable physical environment is available, other factors seem to have little influence. Preda- tion by other animals is seldom a limiting factor, and raUs seem to tolerate a high level of human occupancy of their habitat provided such use does not result in habitat degradation or loss of birds (Recovery Team 1977). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Striped shore crabs (Pachygrapsus crassipes) and purple shore crabs [Hemigrapsiis oregonensis) are regularly eaten by the clapper rail. Remains found in pellets cast by rails incorporated fiddler crab [Uca crenulata), beach hopper [Orchestoidea sp.), California hornshell [Certhidea californica), and a gastropod [Melampus olivaceus). Probably (like other clapper rails) the light-footed clapper rail eats various bivalve molluscs such as clams of the genus Macoma (Jorgensen 1975). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Dense growth of either pickleweed or cord- grass for nesting and escape cover (Recovery Team) is required by the clapper rail. NESTING OR BEDDING The clapper rail's nest is a loose arrangement of plant stems on high ground in a salt marsh, well concealed in dense or tall vegetation, usually Spartina. One nest measured 28 by 18 cm on the outside, with a cavity 13 cm across and 1.3 cm deep (Bent 1926, Edwards 1922). Nests are also frequently placed in cordgrass (Spartina). Those in Spartina most often are placed directly on the ground, while those in cordgrass are ele- eated 10 to 45 cm. Nests are constructed of what- ever vegetation is available at the site and are placed so as to be well concealed. The nests are bouyant and will float with the tide Qorgensen 1975). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Probably pairs are spaced by aggressive terri- torial defense as in other subspecies of clapper rails. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS None other than those mentioned elsewhere. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Estimates now indicate a total population of about 250 birds on the basis of work in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties (V. Basham, un- published), at Anaheim Bay (B. Massey, C. Collins, J. Lindell), and at Tijuana Estuary Qorgensen 1975). Tot£il population estimates are distributed as follows: Santa Barbara County, Carpinteria, 10; Orange County, Anaheim Bay, 40-50; Upper Newrport Bay 40-50; San Diego County, Los Penasquitos Lagoon 5, Mission Bay 8, San Diego River 5, San Diego Bay area 40-50, Tijuana Estu- ary 75-85; Baja California (occur but population size undetermined)* Bahia de Todos Santos, La Mision and La Salina may have rails also (Recovery Team 1977). REPRODUCTION The young of the clapper raU are able to swim on the day of hatching. Nesting occurs from mid-March to 1 July, with extreme dates for complete clutches 18 March to 31 July. Egg dates (56 records) are from 18 March to 11 June (Bent 1926). Most egg laying occurs from early April to early May, with 3 to 11 eggs per clutch, usually 5 to 9. The incubation period averages 23 days Qorgensen, 1975). Both sexes are believed to incubate (Bent 1926). At Tijuana Estuary 86% of 28 active nests successfully hatched at least 1 egg. There were losses due to eggs being washed away by high tides and failure to hatch for unknown reasons. Chicks were found dead in several nests apparently from drowning, although young are said to be able to swim at day of hatching (Bent 1926). Nests have been destroyed by rats. At least some renesting occurs and some pairs may raise second broods. MANAGEMENT A recovery team was appointed and a recovery plan prepared in January 1977. The light-footed clapper rail is endangered because its range is limited to a relatively small remnant of suitable marsh habitat, and this remnant continues to de- crease. Arresting the decline of the rail population requires stopping all loss and degradation of exist- ing habitat. Even then, population will remciin threatened because each segment is so small it could easily be eradicated by pollution, disease, predation, or other local catastrophes. The recovery plan proposed by the Light- Footed Clapper Rail Recovery Team includes: (1) protecting all existing habitat; (2) increasing its carrying capacity and stability, thereby in- creasing the size of each population unit; and (3) creating and stocking new habitat. The objec- tive of the recovery plan is to develop and maintain a breeding population of at least 400 pairs of light- footed clapper rails well distributed geographi- cally. This can be done by preserving and restor- ing approximately 1620 ha. of tidal saltmarsh habitat in 15 or more coastal marshes. Addition- ally, efforts should be made to have occupied salt marsh habitat preserved in Baja California. An action program to achieve these objectives includes: (1) preserving and increasing existing populations by preserving existing habitat, pre- venting development or degradation, increasing amount of habitat, and reducing effect of other limiting factors; (2) reestablishing former rail populations by restoring tidal flow to previously inhabited marshes, restoring cordgrass-pickleweed vegetation by planting if it fails to volunteer, and transplanting rails to new sites; (3) monitoring rail populations to determine progress of manage- ment and status of the populations; and (4) carry- ing on a program of education and planning ad- vise directed toward preservation of rail habitat (Recovery Team 1977). Saving Tijuana Marsh is the chief priority for recovery of the light-footed clapper rail (Sanford Wilbur pers. comm.). AUTHORITIES Sanford R. Wilbur U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1190 E. Ojai Avenue Ojai, California 93023 Ronald M. Jurek California Dept. of Fish and Game 1416 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Ronald Hein California Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California 90840 Charles T. Collins Department of Biology California State University at Long Beach Long Beach, California 90840 R. Guy McCaskie 1310 14th Street Imperial Beach, California 92032 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Because of the very small populations and limited suitable habitat that appears to be rapidly diminishing, the light-footed clapper rail appears to be in extreme jeopardy. Only vigorous efforts to preserve a number of unpolluted salt marshes with free-flowing tidal currents will be effective in saving this subspecies from extinction. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds. 5th ed. Baltimore, Md. AOU. 641pp. Bangs, O. 1899. A new rail from southern Cali- fornia, Proc. New Eng. Zool. Club 1:45-46. Belding, L. 1883. Catalogue of a collection of birds made at various points along the western coast of Lower California, north of Cape St. Eugenis. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 5:527-532. Bent, A. C. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds. U.S. Nat. Mus. BuU. 135:272. Cooke, W. W. 1914. Distribution and Migration of North American rails and their allies. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bull. 128:50 pp. Dawson, W. 1924. Birds of California. Vol. 3. p. 1533. Edwards, H. A. 1922. Some notes on the Light- footed Rail. Oologist 39:60-61. Frey, H. W., R. F. Hein, and J. L. Spruill. 1970. Report on the natural resources of Upper Newport Bay and recommendations concern- ing the Bay's development Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 68 pp. Friedmann, H., L. Griscom and R. T. Moore. 1950. Distributional Checklist of the birds of Mexico. Pac. Coast Avifauna 29:202 pp. Grinnell, J. 1898. Birds of the Pacific slope of Los Angeles County. Pasadena Acad. Sci. Pub. 2. . 1915. A distributional list of the birds of of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 11. 217 pp. Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribu- tion of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna 27:128. Grinnell, J., H. C. Bryant, and T. I. Storer. 1918. The Game birds of California, p. 289. Henshaw, H. W. 1876. Report on the ornithology of the portions of California visited during the field season of 1875. Ann. Rep. Geographic Survey west of the 100th Meridian. Appendix H8 of Appendix JJ. pp. 224-278. Jorgensen, P. D. 1975. Habitat preference of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in Tijuana Marsh, California. M.S. thesis, San Diego State Uni- versity. 115 pp. Light-footed Rail Recovery Team. 1977. Light- footed Clapper Rail recovery plan. Office of Endangered species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash., D.C. McCaskie, G. 1972. Southern Pacific Coast Re- gion. Am. Birds 26:903. Mudie, P., B. Browning and J. Speth. 1974. The natural resources of Los Penasquitos Lagoon and recommendations for use and develop- ment. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Coastal wetlands Series no. 7. 75 pp. Oberholser, H. C. 1937. A revision of the Clapper Rails {Rallus longirostris Boddaert) Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 84:313-354. Ohmart, R. D. and R. W. Smith. 1973. North Am- erican Clapper Rails {Rallus longirostris) liter- ature survey, with special consideration being given to the past and current status ofyuman- sis. Report in fulfillment of Bur. Reclamation contract 14-06-300-2409. Peters, J. 1934. Check-list of birds of the world. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p. 159. Ridgway, R. and H. Friedmann. 1941. Birds of North and Middle America. Part IX. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 50:75. Romero, P. D. 1972. Anaheim Bay study, July 1970 to June 1971. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 22 pp. Sams, J. R. and K. Scott, Jr. 1959. Birds of San Diego County, California. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap. No. 10. Sexton, C. W. 1972. Clapper Rails at Upper New- port Bay, California. Unpub. Ms. U. of Calif, at Irvine. Speth, J. W. 1971. The status of coastal wetlands in southern California. Paper presented at an- nual meeting. Western Section of The Wildlife Society. 19 pp. Speth, J., R. Fordice, R. Hein, and P. Giguere. 1970. Th*" natural resources of Golata Slough and recommendations for use and develop- ment. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 42 pp. Stephens, F. 1919. An annotated list of the birds of San Diego County, California. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 3:1-40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened WildUfe of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Resource Pub. 114. 289 pp. van Rossem,A.J. 1929. The status of some Pacific Coast Clapper Rails. Condor 31:213-215. . 1947. Comments on certain birds of Baja California, including descriptions of three new races. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 50:51-58. Warner, D. S. and R. W. Dickerman. 1959. The status oi Rallus elegans tenuirostris in Mexico. Condor 61:49-51. Wilbur, S. R. 1974. The status of the Light-footed clapper Rail. Amer. Birds 28:868-870. Wilbur, S. R. and R. E. Tomlinson. 1976. The literature of the Western Clapper Rails. USFWS Spec. Sci. Rep. - Wildlife. 194. 31 pp. Willett, G. 1906. The Southern Clapper Rail breeding on fresh water. Auk 23:432. . 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of south- em California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 7. 122 pp. . 1933. A revised list of the birds of south- wfestem California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 2 1 : 52. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.5 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- SAN CLEMENTE LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or ihrcatcned vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data are not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service iNASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704.58 FWS/OBS-80/01.5 March 1980 SKLKCri:i) VIR 1 KBRAir. KNDANGERED SPKCIES OF i hi: skacx)as 1 of ihk united S IA IES- SAN CLEMENTE LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National CoastaJ Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Scrxicc U.S. Department of the Interior PHOTO OF CLOSELY RELATED SUBSPECIES SAN CLEMENTE LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus meamsi Ridgway KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passerifonnes FAMILY Laniidae OTHER COMMON NAMES California shrike, island shrike, San Clemente shrike, Meams' shrike, Santa Barbara Island Shrike. DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Update To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered: FR 42 40685, 11 Aug. 1977. p. 40685. States: Protected by California law. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Destruction over large areas of the dense, brushy vegetation required for shrike territory headquarters has undoubtly reduced the number of possible wintering and breeding areas consider- ing the aggressive territorial behavior of the birds. This has reduced the reproductive potential of L. I. mearnsi to the point where it has almost the lowest ratio (30%) of immatures to adults, of any subspecies except L. I. anthonyi, another island race (Miller 1931). PRIORITY INDEX None assigned. DESCRIPTION The San Clemente loggerhead shrike is a medium-sized bird, slightly smaller than a robin, gray above, white below and on the rump, with a black mask over the eyes. Black wings and tail, each have patches of white. Of all the subspecies of L. ludovicianus, mearnsi is the most isolated and is among the most sharply characterized (Mil- ler 1931). Overall length is 224 mm (av. of 10 adults) (Meams 1898). It is similar to L. I. anthonyi of Santa Cruz Island, but the upper tail coverts are abruptly white; there is more white on the scap- ulars, the white spot at the base of the primaries is larger, and the underparts of the body much less strongly tinged with gray. In the white upper tail coverts and the greater extent of white on posterior scapulars and at the base of the primaries, it is similar to L. I. gambeli, but the gray of the upper parts is very much darker (quite as dark as L. I. anthonyi), with much less white at the base of primaries and on the lateral rectrices (Ridgway 1904). L. I. mearnsi may be readily distinguished from nelsoni by its much darker upper parts, more conspicuously white rump, shorter wing, smaller amount of white on primaries, and much smaller bill. Measurements: Wing length, av. 97.64 mm; white on primaries 53.8% of wing length; tail length av. 100.28 mm; white tip on outer tail feather 28.1% of tail length; bill length, av. 27.60 mm; middle toe av. 13.20 mm; hind toe av. 9.92 mm. The only race with which meanisi integrades is anthonyi to the north (Miller 1931). RANGE This shrike is a permanent resident on San Clemente Island, off southwestern California (American Ornithologists' Union 1957). RANGE MAP The range map on the following page shows the location of San Clemente Island, this shrike's total range. STATES/COUNTIES California: Los Angeles. HABITAT San Clemente Island, the southernmost of the California Channel Islands, is approximately 34 km long and 2.4 to 6.4 km wide. The nearest island, Santa Catalina, is about 34 km north. The nearest point on the mainland is about 80 km to the northeast. Goats were introduced not later than 1827, and by 1840 had formed a dense population. By 1877, large numbers of sheep grazed there also (Raven 1963). The island has been under jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy since 1934, when all ranching presum- ably terminated. The topography is dominated by a plateau with a steeply sloping east side and gently sloping west side, covered with introduced grasses except in places completely denuded by goats. Trees and shrubs grow only on the bottoms and sides of the canyons. On the east side, ironwood {Lyonotha- mus), island oak (Quercus toinentella), and lemonade bush {Rhus integrifolia) are the most abundant species. The west side canyons are mostly denuded, but have some growth of toyon (Heteromeles), lemonade bush, and island cherry [Prunus ilicifolia lyonii) (Stewart and Clow 1974). Shrikes are found in washes, ravines and mesas, where there are either scattered tall bushes such as toyon and wild cherry, or low thorny scrub and cactus patches (Grinnell and Miller 1944). The presence or absence of thorny bushes seems to have little effect on determining the hab- itat of American shrikes (presumably including L. I. mearnsi). Impaling devices are so varied as to be available in some form in almost any type of habitat except entirely barren areas (Miller 1931). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Dense tall brush or low tree growth is essential for roosting and nesting in each territory, whether breeding or wintering (Miller 1931). NESTING AND BEDDING In each territory there is a headquarters where the roosting place or, if a breeding territory, the nest is located. The headquarters provides good lookout perches, feeding facilities, and some sort of brushy growth for shelter at night. The requisite for roosting places seems to be some support above the ground within a screen of overhanging branches. Roosts are marked by conspicuous fecal deposits. For nesting, shrikes prefer dense bushes or small, thickly grown trees at medium heights, rarely less than 1 m or more than 7 m off the ground (Miller 1931). Howell (1917) speaks of nests of mearnsi placed about 0.6 m from ground in a "certain kind of thorny bush." This state- ment applies to the more barren parts of San Cle- mente. Where there are canyons on the island, Grinnell (1897) and Howell (1917) reported this shrike nesting in bushes on the steep canyon sides. Typical nests described by Grinnell (1897) and Linton (1908) were composed of dry twigs, weed stems, and grasses, thickly lined with rootlets and sheep's wool, and well concealed in thick bushes. SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA '0^=^ LOS ANGELES * ^ / ?^ SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND Total range of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS In regions where nesting sites are scarce, con- siderable modification of the winter and fall feed- ing territories probably takes place when they are converted into breeding territories. Presumably in reorganizing breeding territories into fall and win- ter feeding areas, one or the other of the adults keeps possession of the nesting locality, while the other members of the family seek territories un- occupied by shrikes, and which, in some cases, may be suitable only for winter and fall occu- pancy. Size and shape of territories depends on the vegetative types present, the concentration of food supply, the provision of nest sites, the local abundance of the species and local physical bar- riers (Miller 1931), as well as on the age, sex, and physical condition of the bird. POPULATION AND TRENDS No more than 16 individuals were seen from 1-5 and 8-9 May 1974 (Stewart and Clow 1974). Specific records were: 2 May (4); 4 May (5-6); 5 May (1 feeding fledgling) (Stewart and Clow 1974). Formerly, L. I. mearnsi was rated by some authors as "fairly common," but the total popula- tion has always been small (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Long ago, it was considered tolerably com- mon; that is, 2 or 3 could be generally seen during an hour's walk, but they were very shy and hardest to secure of any bird on the island (Grinnell 1897 ; Meams 1898). They were reported fairly well distributed over the whole island, but extremely shy by Linton (1908). In especially favored little canyons, several pairs would congregate. Two pairs were found breeding not 100 m apart, while a third was found within 0.4 kilometers (Howell 1917). Causes of shrike mortality on San Clemente are unknown, although some, particularly of nestlings and juveniles, is undoubtedly caused by predatory birds and mammals. Percentage of first year birds in samples of winter and spring popula- tions is only about 36%, by far the smallest per- centage of all races except anthonyi, another island form (most races have 50% or more im- matures). This indicates a relatively poor repro- ductive rate in the island populations. It may indi- cate a lower population loss than mainland birds, but it also shows the vulnerability of island birds to any change in mortality rate or reproductive potential (Miller 1931). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Shrikes hunt quite late in the evening and early in the morning, at least in warm weather. They are opportunists, living on the most abun- dcmt and readily obtainable supply of animal food, including all kinds of insects and other arthropods, small reptiles, birds, and mammals that they can capture. One was observed carrying a young house finch with the adult house finch in pursuit on 5 May 1974 (Stewart and Clow 1974). If there is an infestation of a particular kind of insect, shrikes will concentrate on that food (Miller 1931). The method of hunting is to perch on objects from 6 in (15.24 cm) to 6 ft (1.83 m) above the ground where prey may be seen clearly. Oc- casionally the bird hops about in search of animals. If prey is not secured from a certain post within a minute or two, it moves on to another part of the territory. Passive hunting has been noted com- monly during a large part of the day at times other than when feeding young. A less common method of feeding is capturing insects in the air (MUler 1931). Dead prey is impaled on a thorn, twig, splin- ter, or other sharp structure, or eaten almost im- mediately, depending on its size. If the shrike is hungry when large prey is impaled, it eats all it can— as much as 7 g at one feeding. Then the re- mainder is left hanging for later feedings, which usually continue until the last morsel is eaten. The practical value to shrikes of impaled food older than a few days is slight, as dry or spoiled food is not eaten (Miller 1931). REPRODUCTION A set consists of five or six eggs. Eggs vary from dull white to either light neutral gray or buff, covered with small spots of neutral gray, yellowish brown and umber, with occasional fine black scrawlings near the large end. Several sets have been found in March, and young are commonly found out of the nest at the end of March, indicating that eggs are present in February. Incubation usually starts with the lay- ing of the next-to-last egg; it is performed solely by female. The male feeds the female during in- cubation, either on or off the nest. Incubation lasts about 16 days. Twenty days is the normal time for young to remain in nest. Parents con- 4 tinue to feed young until about the 35th day (Miller 1931). Some birds raise two broods in one season. A female whose mate was killed did not find a new mate while feeding young older than 16 days (Miller 1931). It is not certain whether the male seeks the territory of the female or vice versa for breeding, but probably the former (Miller 1931). Specific instances of finding nests with eggs or young have been described by Bent (1950:182), Linton (1908), and Howell (1917). MANAGEMENT The only practical action to take for the benefit of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike would be to remove or confine all of the livestock, (particularly goats) on the island, to permit the regrowth of dense patches of tall brush. This must be accomplished over considerable areas to permit adequate spacing of territories— at least 100 m apart for each individual bird at all times of the year. Replanting of native woody species of plants in clumps for territorial headquarters would has- ten rehabilitation. Until livestock can be removed, exclosures to protect woody plants from over- browsing might help. AUTHORITIES Robert M. Stewart William C. Clow Point Reyes Bird Observatory Box 321 Bolinas, Calif. 94924 Lee Jones Dept. of Zoology University of California Los Angeles, Calif. 90024 Jan Larson Naval Ocean Systems Center Code 4105 SanDiego,CaHf. 92152 PREPARER'S COMMENTS It would appear that the widespread destruc- tion of dense patches of tall brush spaced widely enough to accomodate this shrike's aggressive ter- ritorial behavior and requirements for nesting and observation perches is the main reason for its poor reproduction and evident decline. Correc- tion of overbrowsing by livestock, particularly goats, is the only hope for survival. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th Ed. Baltimore, Md. Amer. Omith. Union. Bent, A. C. 1950. Life histories of North Ameri- can wagtails, shrikes, vireos, and their allies. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 197:180-182. Grinnell, J. 1897. Report on the birds recorded during a visit to the islands of Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, and San Clemente, in the spring of 1897. Pasadena Acad. Sci. Publ. 1:1-21. Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribu- tion of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna 2 7 . Howell, A. B. 1917. Birds of the islands off the coast of southern California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna 12:88. Linton, C. B. 1908. Notes from San Clemente Island. Condor 10:82-86. Mearns, E. A. 1898. Description of two new birds from the Santa Barbara Islands, Southern CaUfornia. Auk 15:258-264. Miller, A. H. 1931. Systematic revision and natural history of the American shrikes (Lanius). Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 38:11-242. Raven, P. H. 1963. A flora of San Clemente Island, California. Aliso 5:289-347. Ridgway, R. 1904. The Birds of North and Middle America. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 50, pt. 3:252. Stewart, R. M. and W. C. Clow. 1974. Part I. San Clemente Island, in The status of the Song Sparrow and Bewick's Wren on San Clemente Island and Santa Barbara Island, California, by R. M. Stewart, J. Small, W. C. Clow and R. P. Henderson. Report to Endangered Species Off. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. by Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.6 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE PINE BARRENS TREEFROG Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aic not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the F,ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of PLndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of F-ndangercd Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\ice NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.6 March 1980 SELFXTED VKR I EBRA IE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OE IHE UNITED STATES- THE PINE BARRENS TREEFROG A Cooperati\c Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National (Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. VVoodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1 010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Ser\ice U.S. Department of the Interior PINE BARRENS TREEFROG Hyla andersonii Baird States: Endangered: Florida, South Carolina. Threatened: New Jersey. KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Amphibia ORDER Salientia (Anura) FAMILY Hylidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Anderson treefrog DATE: Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 14 October 1976 5 April 1977 1 June 1979 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (Florida population only) (43 FR 18109; 5 Apr. 77). REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The species occurs in small, isolated popula- tions scattered along Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (relict distribution). Many of these sites are undergoing rapid alteration, including drainage, development and agricultural mod- ifications. The resultant loss of habitat con- stitutes the most serious threat to the Pine Bar- rens treefrog. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The animal is green dorsally with a narrow yellow or white stripe along the dorsolateral edge. Belly is white. A lavender or plum-colored band extends along the sides from the nostrils to the hind limbs. Axilla and normally con- cealed undersides of hind limbs are light orange or orange spotted. Adults are 30 to 50 mm (snout-vent length). Illustrated in color in Dickerson (1969), Leviton (1972), Conant (1975), Means and Longden (1976), and Means (1976b). Black and white photographs in Wright and Wright (1949). Eggs illustrated by Livezey and Wright (1947). Noble and Noble (1923) illustrated the tadpole stages. Gosner and Black (1967) and Means and Longden (1976) provide audiospec- trograms of the breeding call. RANGE The species distribution has three principal foci: 1) the Pine Barrens of central New Jersey; 2) the upper Coastal Plain and parts of the lower Coastal Plain of North and South Carolina; and 3) Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Walton counties in the western Florida Panhandle. A single speci- men from Richmond County, Georgia, and the holotype from Anderson, South Carolina, may represent a fourth distributional center. There is no indication that the distribution is contin- uous between New Jersey and Florida. Although individual populations have been extirpated and total numbers have no doubt been reduced, the geographic distribution has probably changed little in historic times. RANGE MAP Known distribution is presented on an ac- companying map. STATES/COUNTIES Florida Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton. Georgia Richmond (?). New Jersey Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, . Cape May, Cumberland, Glouces- ter, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Salem. N. Carolina Bladen, Cumberland, Duplin, Harnett, Hoke, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Moore, Onslow, Pende, Richmond, Sampson, Scotland, Wayne. Pennsylvania Delaware (?) S. Carolina Chesterfield. HABITAT Only the breeding habitat is known. Chorus- ing Pine Barrens treefrogs usually associate with evergreen shrubs in sphagnaceous seepage bogs on hillsides below pine-oak ridges. In New Jer- sey and North Carolina, Atlantic white cedar [Chamaecyparis thyoides) is a dominant tree species (Wright and Wright 1949). Means and Longden (1976) note the absence of cedar but the constant dominance of titi trees (Cliftonia and Cyrilla) in Florida localities. The breeding habitat can best be characterized as shrubby bogs. Means and Longden (1976) describe the habitat of the Pine Barrens treefrog in Florida, and Means (1976b) provides photographs of Florida breeding localities. Habitat photographs for New Jersey and North Carolina are in Noble and Noble (1923) and Wright (1932). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Noble and Noble (1923) reported that the food habits are not specialized. The treefrogs eat anything of small size moving in their vi- cinity, including grasshoppers, beetles, and ants. Tadpoles feed on algae (Gosner 1959). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Nothing is known about specific require- ments. Probably like other small treefrogs, they use small crevices or the undersides of leaves during the day, and forage at night. NESTING OR BEDDING Spawning occurs in sphagnaceous shrub bogs (see Habitat, above). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Males call during the breeding season from low bushes and occasionally from the ground. J>-^ -^ H ^- ^^-^^ -<^ r ° (''^^ " Tx r^ 1 \ ] \y\ ix « ----__ ' ,>'^'^' H l^^-^^-v^ v=» 0 so 100 SCALE 300 MILES ,^^..y^ ^ ^^•, • 00 CONIC PROJECTION KiLOMCTCnS ^^^ ^ ^ --,.\ — — — . J "^-: WEST LDMCITUftI The range of the Pine Barrens treefrog is indicated by shading on this map. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Little is known about the species beyond its specialized and unique breeding habitat des- cribed above. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS No population estimates are reported. Means (1976b) reported that since 1972, two known breeding sites have been rendered un- suitable because of clearing for improved pas- ture. A. J. Bullard (personal communication) reported some North Carolina breeding local- ities also have recently been destroyed. Since the discovery of the Pine Barrens tree- frog in Florida (Christman 1970), some 47 breeding congregations have been located in three West Florida counties (P. Moler, personal communication). These are all small seepage bogs, and none has been found to contain more than a dozen calling frogs, with most having fewer than four (P. Moler, personal communica- tions). REPRODUCTION Treefrogs breed from May (April in Florida) to August. Eggs are laid singly on the bo t- tom or attached to sphagnum (Wright and Wright 1949). Eggs hatch in 3 days and may number up to 200 or more per female. Tadpoles transform during the summer and frogs probably reach sexual maturity in 1 year. Nothing is known concerning natural longe- vity or survival rates, although a captive survived 7 years (A.J. Bullard, personal communication). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION No management or conservation measures have been instituted other than legal protection against taking, possessing or molesting the spe- cies. The relict, disjunct habitat should be pro- tected from development. Many of the known breeding localities in Florida are located within Eglin Air Force Base and Blackwater River State Forest. Means (1976b) suggests purchase of some of the re- maining breeding localities in Florida to prevent habitat destruction. Critical Habitat has been designated in Okaloosa County, Florida (42 FR 58754; 11 Nov. 77): (1) NW'/4 Sec. 35, T4NR22W; (2) NE'/4 Sec. 27, T4NR22W; (3) SWA Sec. 26, T5NR23W; (4) NWA Sec. 34, T4NR23W; (5) NW'/4 Sec. 32, T4NR22W; (6) NWA Sec. 12, T4NR22W; (7) NE'A Sec. 11, T4NR22W. AUTHORITIES A.J. Bullard, Jr. 103 Smith Chapel Road Mt. Olive, NC 28365 D. Bruce Means Tall Timbers Research Station Route l,Box 160 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Paul Moler Wildlife Research Lab. Florida Game & Fish Water Fish. Comm. Gainesville, FL 32601 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The disjunct distribution of the Pine Barrens treefrog makes it of considerable interest from an evolutionary and biogeographic point of view; it is the least known treefrog in the United States. There is a pressing need for basic distri- butional and biological information. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Bullard, A. J. 1965. Additional records of the treefrog, Hyla andersonii, from the coastal plain of North Carolina. Herpetologica 21 (2):154-155. Christman, S. P. 191 Q. Hyla andersonii m Flor- ida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 33(1):80. Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 429 pp. Dickerson, M. C. 1969. The frog book. Dover Publ.Inc, New York. 253 pp. Gosner, K. L. 1959. Systematic variations in tadpole teeth with notes on food. Herpeto- logical5(40):103-120. Gosner, K. L. and I. H. Black. 1967. Hyla andersonii Baird. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rep- tiles. 54.1-54.2. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Ave., Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Leviton. A. 1972. Reptiles and amphibians of North America. Doubleday and Co., New York. 250 pp. Livezey, R. L., and A. H. Wright. 1947. A sy- noptic key to the salientian eggs of the United States. Am. Midi. Natur. 37(1): 179- 222. . 1976a. Pine barrens treefrog. In Hillestad, H. O., D. B. Means, and W. W. Baker, eds. Endangered and threatened vertebrates of the southeastern United States. Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Misc. Publ. 4. . 1976b. Endangered species: Pine bar- rens treefrog. Florida Natur. 49(5): 15-20. . 1979. Pine Barrens treefrog. Pages 3-4 in R. W. McDiarmid ed.. Rare and endan- gered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gaines- ville. Means, D. B.,andC. T. Longden. 1976. Aspects of the biology and zoogeography of the pine barrens treefrog [Hyla andersonii) in northern Florida. Herpetologica 32(2): 117- 130. Noble, G. K., and R. C. Noble. 1923. The An- derson treefrog {Hyla andersonii Baird): Observations on its habits and life history. Zoologica ll(18):416-455. Wright, A. H. 1932. Life-histories of the frogs of Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Macmillian Co., New York. 497 pp. Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright. 1949. Hand- book of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publ. Assoc. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 640 pp. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.7 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE RED COCKADED WOODPECKER Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior prefacp: The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the pubhc with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aie not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as ainciuicd). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Kndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SUIS should he directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed lo: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal F,cosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 FWS/OBS-80/01.7 March 1980 SliLKCn:!) VI:R 1 EBRA 1 K KNDANGERP:D SPKCIES OF IHi: SKACOAS I OF 1 HE UNFFED S FA TES- THE RED COCKADED WOODPECKER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems i'eam, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidcll, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and U'iUllifc Ser\ice U.S. Department of the Interior RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER Picoides borealis Vieillot KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Piciformes FAMILY Picidae OTHER COMMON NAMES none DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 17 October 1976, 1 March 1977 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (35 FR 16047, 13 Octo- ber 1970). States: Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Missis- sippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas. Extirpated: Missouri. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The primary reason for the current status of the red-cockaded woodpecker is a decrease in quantity and quality of suitable habitat, primarily due to the short-term-rotation timber management currently being practiced in the Southeast. Short- term-rotation prevents the development of ma- ture, diseased pine trees that are necessary for roosting and nesting. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The red-cockaded woodpecker is small, 18 to 20 cm long, with awingspanof 35 to 38 cm. The cap and nape are black, surrounding a large, white cheek patch. Wings and back are black, horizon- tally barred with white. Underparts are whitish with dark spots on the flanks. The adult male has a small red streak, the 'cockade,' on each side of the black cap, but this is rarely visible except when the bird is displaying. The most distin- guishing field mark is the black cap and nape sur- rounding the large white cheek patch. The species is illustrated in Robbins et al. (1966). Black and white photos appear in Mur- phey (1939) and Jackson et al. (1976b). RANGE Present range (nonmigratory species) includes the following areas: Alabama, southern Arkan- sas, Florida, Georgia, Cumberland Plateau region of Kentucky, Louisiana, southeastern Maryland, Mississippi, eastern North Carolina, southeastern Oklahoma, South Carolina, eastern Tennessee, eastern Texas, and southeastern Virginia. Former range included the entire States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Caro- lina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Jackson 1971). In the Southeast, there are 76.7 million ha of commercial forest in major pine types. Approxi- mately 10.4 milHon ha, of which 0.9 million ha are in public ownership, are suitable for red-cock- aded woodpeckers (Czuhai 1971). RANGE MAP Known distribution is indicated by shading. Dots represent populations on publicly owned or managed lands; large dots represent at least 10 clans, while small dots represent 1 to 9 clans. STATES/COUNTIES Alabama Baldwin, Bibb, Calhoun, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Covington, Escambia, Hale, Jefferson, Lawrence, Macon, Perry, Shelby, St. Clair, Talledega, Tusca- loosa, Winston. Arkansas Ashley, Calhoun, Clark, Columbia, Hempstead, Lafayette, Monroe, Oua- chita, Polk, Scott, Union. Florida Alachua, Baker, Bay, Brevard, Char- lotte, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval, Franklin, Glades, Gulf, Hernando, Highlands, Lee, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Marion, Martin, Okaloosa, Okeecho- bee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, St. Johns, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton. Georgia Appling, Baldwin, Brantley, Charlton, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clinch, Deca- tur, Floyd, Glynn, Grady, Harris, Jas- per, Jenkins, Jones, Pierce, Putnam, Screven, Tattnall, Telfair, Thomas, Toombs, Turner, Ware, Washington, Wilkes. Kentucky Laurel, McCreary. Louisiana Allen, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, (Parishes) Caddo, Calcasieu, Catahoula, Clai- borne, Grant, La Salle, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Ouachita, Rapides, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Union, Ver- non, Washington. Maryland Dorchester, Worcester (?). Mississippi Choctaw, Copiah, Franklin, Harrison, Hinds, Jackson, Jones, Lafayette, Lau- derdale, Leake, Madison, Marion, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Pearl River, Scott, Smith, Stone, Wayne, Wilkin- son, Winston. North Carolina Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cumberland, Gates, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Jones, Montgomery, Moore, Northampton, Onslow, Pam- lico, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Wake, Wayne. Oklahoma Bryan, Latimer, Le Flore, McCurtain, Pittsburg, Pushmataha. South Carolina Aiken, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Dil- lon, Dorchester, Edgefield, Florence, Georgetown, Hampton, Horry, Lau- rens, Lee, Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter, Williamsburg. Tennessee Blount, Campbell, Cumberland, Morgan. Texas Angelina, Cass, Cherokee, Hardin, L» if. CONIC PROJECTION Shading on this map depicts the present range of the red-cockaded woodpecker in southeastern United States. Dots represent populations on public lands, small dots, 1-9 clans; large dots, 10 or more clans. 3 Houston, Jasper, Montgomery, Nacog- doches, Newton, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trini- ty, Tyler, Walker. Virginia Prince Georges (?), Southampton (?), Surry, Sussex (?). HABITAT Mature to over-mature southern pines are the best habitat for roosting and nesting. Longleaf {Pinus palustris), loblolly {Pinus taeda), shortleaf (Pinus echinata), slash {Pinus elliottii), and pond (Pinus rigida) pines are used, depending on local- ity (Thompson and Baker 1971). Younger pines (10 to 21cm d.b.h.) sometimes are used for forag- ing, especially after an unusually hot burning of the area which results in killed and weakened trees which offer high-grade feeding areas (Beck- ett 1974). Fire, an essential element of this habitat, prevents thick understory. Red-cockaded wood- peckers are discouraged by dense stands of pine saplings and thick hardwood understories. Although over-mature pines are required for nesting and roosting, the red-cockaded woodpeck- ers will forage in a variety of habitat types depending on food availability and proximity to cavity-tree sites. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com- mission (1976) and Nesbitt et al. (1978), have studied fall habitat usage in a Florida flatwoods community. Percent of total foraging time spent in each habitat type was: Pond /slash pine flatwoods 43.8 Longleaf pine flatwoods 38.2 Slash pine plantation 9.4 Bayhead/pond borders, cypress domes and others 6.5 Roosting areas 2.2 FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The red-cockaded woodpecker feeds chiefly on wood-boring insects, ants, beetles, grubs, grass- hoppers, crickets, and caterpillers (Murphy 1939). Analysis of 99 stomach content samples from the Southeast revealed a diet of 84% insects and 16% plant material (Beal 1911). Plant fruits eaten include (Murphy 1939, Ligon 1970, Baker 1971a): Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Magnolia {Magnolia grandi flora) Poison ivy {Rhus radicans) Wild grape ( Vitis sp) Pokeberry {Phytolacca americana) Blueberry {Vaccinium spp.) Wild cherry {Prunus serotina) Black gum {Nyssa sylvatica) Woodpeckers prey on the com earworm {Helicov- era armigeva) when corn fields are nearby. (Baker 1971a). Foraging on a tree trunk it uses the bill and/or feet to pry off pieces of bark, exposing insects. One technique involves backing down the tree, flaking off bark with the feet while catching prey with the bill. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Roosting requires a cavity in a living pine tree. A sample of 259 cavity trees in east central Missis- sippi ranged from 40 to 116 years in age, with a mean of 75.9 years (Jackson 1977). Usually the tree is infected with red heart {Fames pini), a fungus disease which weakens the heartwood (Affeltranger 1971). Jackson (1977) suggests a cavity can provide an infection site for red heart disease. After the heartwood is weakened, an excavation can be completed. A tree may have several roosting cavities. The distinguishing characteristic of a cavity tree is the flow of sap that glazes the tree around the opening. Birds initiate and maintain sap flow by pecking out chunks of bark and cambium, forming 'resin wells.' Active sap flow may pre- vent predators and/or competitors from entering the roost cavity (Ligon 1970, Dennis 1971, Jack- son 1974). NESTING OR BEDDING The adult male's roost cavity is used for nest- ing. The bottom of the gourd-shaped cavity is covered with chips and debris; sap often smears onto the eggs (Murphey 1939). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Mating behavior, as observed by Crosby (1971a): the female landed near the male and raised her tail. The male mounted from her left side, fell, separated, and resumed feeding after 3 seconds. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Clan (see Reproduction) home-range require- ments depend on three variables: clan size, habitat type, and season. Crosby (1971b) followed two color-marked adult pairs in north central Florida during the spring. This study produced an average estimate of 17.2 ha per adult pair. Baker (1971b), observing color-marked individuals in north Flo- rida, estimated home range of an eight-bird clan to be 65.6 ha during the summer. Lay and Russell (1970) divided known areas by the number of clans present to estimate home ranges of 26.7 ha and 67.7 ha per clan in two eastern Texas forests. Beckett (1974) used the same technique to estimate 86.2 ha per clan in a South Carolina forest. Skorupa and McFarlane (1979) compared summer and winter home range requirements of two adult pairs. Results indicated a 112% and 71% increase in winter forage range requirements. Fall home range requirements in central Florida were determined by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1976) and Nesbitt et al. (unpublished). A bird in each clan was equipped with a miniature radio transmitter. Results indi- cated an average home range of 69.8 ha. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Estimates of total population range from 3,000 to 10,000 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1973). The number of colonies (groups of cavity trees) on public lands is between 2,800 and 3,600; of these, an estimated 2,500 are active (see Man- agement and Conservation). Subpopulations exist on ecological islands of suitable habitat. The fractioning of distribution results in reduced gene flow between subpopu- lations, as well as reduced ability to disperse into and occupy suitable habitats that might be- come available in the future (Jackson 1976). Colonies were surveyed in 10 southeastern States in 1969-70. Thompson (1976) reported the status of 312 colonies resurveyed in 1973-74. Only 271 remained active, a 13.3% loss, at an an- nual loss rate of 3.5%. For the 4-year period, losses on Federal, State, and private lands were, respectively, 8.7%, 27.3%, and 22. 9%. The largest factor in this reduction was timber harvest. Clearcutting and short-term-rotation timber management have virtually eliminated the species from Kentucky, where Jackson et al. (1976b) found red-cockaded woodpeckers at only two locations. As trends continue toward short-term timber rotation throughout the Southeast, the species will become increasingly endangered. REPRODUCTION The species nests during April, May, and June. Clutch size is usually two to four eggs. The incu- bation period is approximately 10 days; duration of the nestling stage is about 27 days (Jackson et al. 1976a, W. W. Baker personal communication). Usually one or two young are fledged. Lon- gevity and survival rates are not known. A family unit is called a 'clan,' and consists of two pair-bonded adults, the young of the year, and sometimes several 'helpers' that are young of previous years. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION A Recovery Team has been appointed and a draft recovery plan submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review. Jackson (1976) suggests that properly man- aging interstate highway right-of-ways might re- unite fragmented populations. The following tabulation presents population estimates of species numbers on publicly owned or managed lands. Unless otherwise noted, all data were obtained by personal communication with the listed observers. (Key: NF = National Forest; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; SF = State Forest; SF = State Park; WMA = WildHfe Management Area.) State Location, estimate, and reference Alabama Conecuh NF; 22 colonies; O. Stewart Talledega NF; 30 colonies; O.Stewart Tuskegee NF; 3 colonies; O. Stewart W. B. Bankhead NF; 6 colonies; O. Stewart Felsenthal NWR; 20-30 colonies; J. Howe Arkansas Ouachita NF; no estimate available. Florida Apalachicola NF; 227 known; 647 estimated;D. Bethancourt Aucilla WMA; present; no estimates. S. Stafford Austin Gary Memorial Forest (Univ. of Florida) ; present; exact number not known; D. Hirth Big Cypress Swamp; 1 cl£m;J. Kern Blackwater River SF;approx. 25 colo- nies; J. Bethea Camp Blanding; 20-25 active colonies; J. Schatz Gary SF; approx. 6 colonies; J. Bethea Eglin Air Force Base; approx 55 colo- nies; W. Alford, Fisheating Creek WMA; at least 2 ac- tive colonies ;T. Breault Johnathan Dickinson SP; 1 active co- lony; J. Stevenson J. W. Corbett WMA; 20-30 birds; N. Eichholz Nassau WMA; present, number not known; S. Stafford Ocala NF; 30 colonies known, 48 es- timated; D Bethancourt Osceola NF; 32 known active colonies 50 estimated; pers. observation. Saint Marks NWR. 3 active colonies; J. White Secil Webb WMA; more than 20 active colonics; L. Campbell Three Lakes WMA; at least 5 colonies; R. McCracken Withlacoochee SF; approx. 27 colonies; J. Bethea Georgia Baldwin SF; present, exact no. not known; J. Hammond Dixon Memorial SF; present, exact no. not known; J. Hammond Ft. Benning; at least 80 colonies; J. Medcaff Fort Gordon; 4 birds (est.); H. Ford- ham Oconee NF; 24 active colonies; T. Richards Okefenokee NWR; 33 colonies; J. Eadia Piedmont NWR; 70 colonies; S. Pagans Daniel Boone NF; 2 or 3 active colo- nies; W. Williams. Louisiana D'Arbonne NWR; present, exact no. not known; J. Howe Kisatchie NF; 354 colonies; R. Wilson Fort Polk; at least 200 colonies; R. Aycock Maryland Blackwater NWR; 20 birds (est.) B. Julian Mississippi Bienville NF; 101 colonies; G. Sirmon Copiah County WMA; present, exact no. not known. W. Turcotte DeSoto NF; 88 colonies; G. Sirmon Homochitto NF; 84 colonies; G. Sir- mon Marion County WMA; present, exact no. not known. W. Turcotte. Natchez Trace Pkwy.; 1 active colony; W. Turcotte Noxubee NWR. 71 colonies; T. McDaniel North Carolina Blanden Lakes SF; at least 2 colonies; S. Taylor Crotan NF; 3-35 active colonies; B. Sanders Fort Bragg; over 100 active colonies; B. Sanders Mattamuskcet NWR; 6 colonies; J. Roberts Pee Dee NWR; Present, exact no. not known; J. Hollowman Uwharrie NF; 1-3 active colonies; B. Sanders Oklahoma McCurtain County; 48-53 active colo- nies (Wood 1975). South Carolina Carolina Sandhills NWR; over 90 colo- nies; M. Hurdle Cheraw SP; 16 colonies; R. Hendrick Francis Marion NF; 500 active colo- nies (est.) D. Urbston Givhans Ferry SP; at least 1 colony; R. Hendrick Harbison SF; 3 colonies; J. Tiller Huntington Beach SP; 1 colony; R. Hendrick Lee SP; at least 1 colony; R. Hendrick Little Pee Dee SP; 5 colonies; R. Hendrick Manchester SF; 50 colonies; J. Tiller Sand Hills SF; 55 colonies; M. Hurdle Santee NWR; 4 colonies; C. Strickland Santee State Resort; 3 colonies; R. Hendrick Savannah River Plant, U.S. Dept. of Energy; 14 colonies; D. Roth. Sesquicentennial SP; at least 2 colo- nies; R. Hendrick Sumter NF; 15 active colonies; D. Urbston Tennessee Catoosa WMA; 6 colonies; B. Yambert Great Smoky Mountains NP; sightings in Cade's Cove area; J. Collier Texas Angelina NF; min. 46 colonies, max. 60; D. Gates Davy Crocket NF; min. 245 colonies; max. 29 1;D. Gates Sabine NF; min. 104 colonies, max. 120; D. Gates Sam Houston NF; min. 87 colonies, max. 225; D. Gates AUTHORITIES W. Wilson Baker (Recovery Team) Tall Timbers Research Station Route l,Box 160 Tallahasse, FL 32303 Ted Beckett Magnolia Gardens Route 4 Charleston, SC 29407 Vernon Carter (Recovery Team) Regional Forester Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Executive Park Drive, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30329 Thad Cherry (Recovery Team) Wildlife Research Supervisor Weyerhauser Company P.G. Box 1391 New Bern, NC 28560 Melvin Hopkins (Recovery Team) National Forests in North Carolina P.O. Box 2750 Asheville,NC 28802 Jerome A.Jackson (Recovery Team Leader) Department of Zoology Mississippi State University P.O. Box Z Mississippi State, MS 39762 Daniel W. Lay Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Box 4608, SFA Nacogdoches, TX 75961 Michael R. Lennartz Department of Forestry Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Clemson University Clemson,SC 29631 Teddy E. Lynn, Jr. International Paper Company Georgetown Woodlands Region Georgetown, SC 29440 Robert W. McFarlane Savannah River Ecology Lab P.O. Drawer E Aiken, SC 29801 Richard L. Thompson Florida Management Biologist Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Cavities produced by red-cockaded wood- peckers are used by other species, including the honey bee (Apis mellifera), rat snake {Elaphe ob- soleta), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes caro- inus), red-headed woodpecker {Melanerpes ery- throcephalus), white-breasted nuthatch {Sitta car o line nsis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker {Dryo- copus pileatus), great crested flycatcher (Myiar- chus crinitus), screech owl (Otus asio), wood duck (Aix sponsa), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel {Sciurus niger), and flying squirrel {Glaucomys volans) (Baker 1971b, Jackson et al. 1976a). The fragmentation of nesting habitat, and thus of the woodpecker's distribution, may be leading to reduced gene flow between populations and a loss of ability to colonize new habitat that may develop. Subjects needing further investigation include seasonal variation of food habits and home range requirements, causes of high nestling mortality (relative to other woodpeckers), pesticide levels and their significance, and reintroduction tech- niques. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Affeltranger, C. 1971. The red heart disease of southern pines. Pages 96-99 in R. L. Thomp- son, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Oke- fenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Geor- gia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wild, and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Flo- rida. 188 pp. Baker, W. W. 1971a. Observations on the food ha- bits of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 100-107 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded wood- pecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. 1971b. Progress report on life history studies of the red-cockaded woodpecker at Tall Timbers Research Station. Pages 44-59 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and man- agement of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. Beal, F. E. L. 1911. Food of the woodpeckers in the United States. U. S. Dep. Agric. Biol. Sur- vey Bull. 37:1-64. Beckett, T. A. 1974. Habitat acreage requirements of the red-cockaded woodpecker. EBBA News 37:3-7. Crosby, G. T. 1971a. Ecology of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the nesting season. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 45 pp. 1971b. Home range characteristics of the red-cockaded woodpecker in north central Florida. Pages 70-73 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cock- aded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. Czuhai, E. 1971. Synoptic review of forest resources and use within the range of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 108-124 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and man- agement of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27; U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. Dennis, J. V. 1971. Utilization of pine resin by the red-cockaded woodpecker and its effec- tiveness in protecting roosting and nesting sites. Pages 78-86 in R. L. Thompson, ed. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1976. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 79- 87 in Cross Florida Barge Canal restudy report: endangered, threatened, rare, special concern, status undetermined, and biologi- cally sensitive species. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. unpublished. 267 pp. Jackson, J. A. 1971. The evolution, taxonomy, distribution, past populations and current sta- tus of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 4- 29 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. 1974. Gray rat snakes versus red- cockaded woodpeckers: predator prey adap- tations. Auk 91(2):342-347. 1976. Rights-of-way management for an endangered species — the red-cockaded wood- pecker. Pages 247-252 in Proc. Symp. Envi- ronmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Manage- ment. Mississippi State Univ., Jackson, J. A., W. W. Backer, V. Carter, T. Cherry, and M. L. Hopkins. 1976a. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker. 23 pp. Jackson, J. A., and R. L. Thompson. 1971. A glossary of terms used in association with the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 187-188 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and man- agement of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. Jackson, J. A., R. Weeks, and P. Shindala. 1976b. The present status and future of red-cockaded woodpeckers in Kentucky. Kentucky Warbler 52(4)73-80. Lay, D. W., and D. N. Russell. 1970. Notes on the red-cockaded woodpecker in Texas. Auk 87(4):781-786. Ligon, J. D. 1968. Sexual differences in foraging behavior in two species of Dendrocopus woodpeckers. Auk 85(2):203-215. 1970. Behavior and breeding biology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 87(2): 255-278. Murphey, E. E. 1939. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 75-79 in A. C. Bent, ed. North Ameri- can woodpeckers. Dover Publication, Inc. New York. Nesbitt, S. A., D. T. Gilbert, and D. B. Barbour. 1978. Red-cockaded woodpecker fall move- ments in a Florida flatwoods community. Auk 95(1)145-151. Robbins, C. S., R. Bruun, H. S. Zim, and A. Singer. 1966. A guide to field identification. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 340 pp. Skorupa, J. A., and M. W. McFarlane. 1979. Sea- sonal variation in foraging territory of red- cockaded woodpeckers. Wilson Bull. 88(4): 662-665. Thompson, R. L. 1976. Changes in status of red- cockaded woodpecker colonies. Wilson Bull. 88(3):491-492. Thompson, R. L., and W. W. Baker. 1971. A sur- vey of red-cockaded woodpecker nesting habi- tat requirements. Pages 170-186 in R. L. Thompson, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Proc. Symp. Okefenokee Natl. Wildl. Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. May 26-27. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Florida. 188 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threa- tened wildlife of the United States. Com- piled by Office of Endangered Species and International Activities, Bur. Sport Fish. WUdl. Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. Wood, D. A. 1975. Status, habitat, home range, and notes on the behavior of the red- cockaded woodpecker in Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis. Oklahoma State Univ. 60 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.8 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- IVORYBILLED WOODPECKER ^r* W% h » W' Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amcntlcd). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems leam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.8 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- IVORY BILLED WOODPECKER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior V CREDIT: LAURA DIXON, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IVORY BILLED WOODPECKER Camp ephilus principalis principalis (Linnaeus) Campephiliis principalis bairdii Cassin KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Piciformes FAMILY Picidae OTHER NAMES American Ivory -billed Woodpecker, Kent, Ivory-bill, Pearly- bill, Log-god, Log-cock, White-back Woodpecker, Poule de Bois, Grand Pique-bois, Lord -god, Cuban Ivory- billed Woodpecker, Carpentero Real. DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates to be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered: (42 FR 36428, 14 July 1977). States: Endangered: North Carolina; Pro- tected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 3 July 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-711) as amended 3 Decem- ber 1969. Public Law 91-135. South Carolina; Georgia; Florida; Alabama; Mississippi; Texas; Arkansas (black List, extinct or near extinction). REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS C. p. principalis is probably very close to ex- tinction because of the scarcity of suitable habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1973). Ivory-bHls disappeared when the mature forests they in- habited were cut over, and the larger timber es- sential for providing adequate food supply was removed. In many cases, their disappearance al- most coincided with logging operations; in other cases there was no close correlation, but there are not records of ivory -bills remaining very long after cutting of forests. Their disappearance in the Suwannee River region of Florida is believed to have been due to excessive collecting rather than logging (Tanner 1942). Herbert Stoddard and Whitney Eastman shared the conviction that ivory- bills were reduced to near extinction by gun pres- sure, but that with large land holdings coming into possession of ranchers and timber companies, the bird had a better chance of survivzd (Eastman 1958). Some shooting for sport or curiosity is known to have occurred, particularly before pas- sage of protective laws. Although direct killing by man is not as important as loss of habitat by log-' ging in reducing their numbers, it could be impor- tant locally when only a very few are left (Tanner 1942). C. p. bairdii, the Cuban Ivory-billed Wood- pecker was once widely distributed in Cuba, but is now limited to remote areas in Oriente Province. Land clearing during the speculative sugar boom of the early 1900's and later lumbering activities extirpated it from its former range. By far the ma- jor predator is man, as these woodpeckers are prized as food by the natives (Lamb 1957). PRIORITY INDEX 75 DESCRIPTION C. p. principalis is a very large (crow-sized) woodpecker, 50 cm long, with 46 cm wingspan. Its shape is long and slender, with a long tapering tail (Audubon 1842, Tanner 1942). Both sexes are mostly glossy blue-black, with tail and pri- maries duller black. There is a narrow white stripe on each side of neck, starting below the eye and continuing down to the folded secondaries, which are conspicuously white, as are all but 5 of the outermost primaries and the under-wing coverts. This makes a large white patch on the rear half of the wing, narrowing toward the tip. The nasal plumes and anterior edge of lores are white. The crest is red in the male, black in the femede. The iris is pale, clear lemon-yellow. Tarsi and toes are light gray. The bill is large and ivory-white (Ridg- way 1914, Tanner 1942). The best field identific- ation character is the large white patch on the wing, conspicuous when the bird is perched. Call notes are a nasal "kent, kent" (Tanner 1942). Measurements.- Adult male (15): wing, 240- 263 (255.8 mm); tail, 147-160.5 (154.4); culmen, 63-72.5 (68.2); tarsus, 42.5-46 (44.2); outer an- terior toe, 30-34 (32.1). Aduh female (11): wing, 240-262 (256.4 mm); tail, 151-166 (159.5); cul- men, 61-67.5 (64.3); tarsus, 40.5-44 (42.6); outer anterior toe, 30-33.5 (31.7) (Ridgway 1914). The eggs are pure china-white, exceedingly glossy, and more pointed than most woodpeckers. Measurements (13 eggs) 34.5 x 23.6 to 36.8 x 26.9 (av. 34.8 x 25.2 mm) (Bendire 1895). C. p. bairdii is similar to C. p. principalis but slightly smaller; the bill is decidedly smaller; nasal tufts much smaller; and white stripe on side of head continues nearly to the base of the bill. Measurements.- Adult male (2): wing, 236- 250 (243 mm); tail, 137-154 (145.2); culmen, 59-61 (60); tarsus, 40-42 (41); outer anterior toe, 30.5-31.5 (31). Adult female (2): wing, 240-255 (247.5 mm); tail, 159.5-165.5 (162.5); culmen, 58-60 (59); tarsus, 41; outer anterior toe, 30.5- 31.5 (31) (Ridgway 1914). RANGE C. p. principalis formerly was a resident in the bottomlands and swampy forests of southeastern United States from northeastern Texas, south- eastern Oklahoma, northeastern Arkansas, south- eastern Missouri, southeastern Illinois, southern Indiana and southeastern North Carolina, south- ward to the Brazos River, Texas, the Gulf Coast and southern Florida (A.O.U. 1957, Bent 1931, Tanner 1942). There are probably a few still in southeastern Texas, Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina (Dennis Unpubl.). C. p. bairdii was formerly distributed widely in Cuba, but is now apparently confined to north- eastern Oriente Province (from the pinares of Mayari eastward); it was seen at an elevation of ap- proximately 213 m in 1942 (Bond 1950). Records in the 20th century come only from northern Oriente Province in the extreme eastern part of Cuba. The Sierra del Cristo region apparently had ivory-bills until at least 1920 (Dennis 1948). A few pairs were thought by Barbour to be in the Sierra de Nipe near Mayari (1943); Abelardo a (U a 03 •a h O a a 0 OS O K >^ "0 rt t3 o OS / J pq 2r 3 c u u -G O (M .s i ■V? i \ \ ^\ jj \ A ij \ s %y 3 \ . \ nj \. V \ ^ \a \ O ^"^ \.* u nI a Ol •«^ • 1-1 "c >, £3 O u -0 O 0 (N TS K § 1—1 0 •5 a (h 1^ ■1— 1 3 o •^ O u ^ o o II \ O 0 i A 2 o Ph Moreno in Lamb (1957) found three ivory -bills in the Sierra de Moa region east of Sierra del Crista]. RANGE MAP (Adapted from Tanner 1942, Dennis 1967, Lamb 1957). STATES/COUNTIES: (from Tanner 1942) North Ciirolina: New Hanover. South Carolina: Chesterfield, Clarendon, Berk- ley, Georgetown, Charlestown, Barnwell, Allendale, Beaufort. Georgia: Tattnall, Pierce, Ware. Florida: Liberty, Gulf, Wakulla, Leon, Jefferson, Taylor, Dixie, Suwan- nee, Levy, Baker, Clay, Alachua, Putnam, Marion, Citrus, Sump- ter, Volusia, Seminole, Her- nando, Sumpter, Lake, Polk, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Pinel- las, Clearwater, Hillsborough, Manatee, Highlands, Okeecho- bee, Desoto, Charlotte, Collier, Lee. Mississippi: Alabama: Louisiana: Monroe, Clay, Hancock, Harri- son, Jackson, Warren, Bolivar. Hale, Dallas, Wilcox, Pike, Marengo. Morehouse Parish, West Carroll Parish, East Carroll Parish, Mad- ison Parish, Franklin Parish, Tensas Parish, Concordia Parish, West Feliciana Parish. St. Mar- tin Parish, Iberville Parish, Iberia Parish, Lafourch Parish. White. Stoddard. Fulton. Mississippi, Jackson, Poinsett, Phillips. Atoka, Bryan. Cooke, Jasper, Harris, Brazoria. Illinois: Missouri: Kentucky: Arkansas: Oklahoma: Texas: HABITAT C. p. principalis resides in swampy forests, es- pecially the large bottomland river swamps of the coastal plain and Mississippi Delta and the cypress swamps of Florida. It was most abundant in the lower bottoms of the Mississippi River, the rivers of South Carolina and Georgia, and in Florida swamps and swampy hammocks. Habitats were divided by Tanner (1942) into three main regional types: (1) Bottomlands of the Mississippi Delta; (2) River bottoms outside the Mississippi Delta; (3) the Florida region. The Mississippi Delta, the alluvial flood plain of the Mississippi River, stretches from the junc- tion of the Ohio and Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, and is from 64 to 130 km wide. Ivory- biU distribution was evidently limited to the higher parts of the "first bottoms," which were rarely covered with water more than a few months of the year. The soil is a moderately well-drained al- luvial clay. The forest is a sweet gum-oak associa- tion with dominant trees being sweet gum, bot- tomland red oak and green ash. Associated with them are willow oak, water oak, over cup oak, American elm, cedar elm, hackberry, water hickory, and pecan. Ivory-bills fed mostly upon sweet gvim and bottomland red oak. The river bottoms outside the Mississippi Delta are the floodplains of the larger rivers of the southeastern United States, flowing either into the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico. The soil is alluvial clay that is usually flooded annually. Ivory-bills have been observed in those bottomlands in both oak -sweet gum and cypress-tupelo forests but were most common in oat-sweet gum. These habitats differ from those of the Mississippi Delta primar- ily in their smaller area, but also in the predomin- ance of laurel oak and water oak. Dominant for- est species on dryer sites of these bottoms are sweet gum, laurel oak and water oak and associated with their dominants are overcup oak, cow oak, water hickory, green ash and American elm. West of the Mississippi Delta in eastern Texas, the sweet gum-oak association consists of sweet gum and willow oak as dominants, with overcup oak, water hickory, green ash, black gum and cedar elm as important associates. Loblolly and long- leaf pine woods border all of these river swamps, but ivory -bills rarely feed in them. Ivors-bill habitats in the Florida region vary considerably, although cypress is a dominant tree in all of them, a condition not found in ivory-bill habitat outside of the Florida region. Another dif- ference is that ivory-bills in Florida, unUke else- where, frequently feed in the pine woods bordering the swamp. Many ivory-bills are recorded in swamps along the small rivers of central and southern Florida where the predomin- ant trees are baldcypress, red maple, laurel oak, black gum, with some sweet gum and cabbage palmetto. Ivory-bills frequently nested in cypress trees, but only occasionally fed upon them. In the Mississippi Delta region, they nested only in var- ious species of hardwood trees (at least in the Singer Tract), in parts of the woods where the ground was at least partly covered with water dur- ing the nesting season (Tanner 1942). A characteristic of all habitats used by ivory- bills is that other species of woodpeckers, such as the pileated and red-bellied woodpeckers, reach their greatest abundance there also. The most likely places to look for ivory-bills are bottom- land forests where big sweet gums and oaks are abundant, where there are many dead and dying trees, and where other woodpeckers are abundant. The many dying and dead trees in old age stands of timber contain the wood-boring insects eaten by the woodpeckers. The sweet gum-oak bottom- land forests supply the best feeding conditions on the Mississippi Delta. The wood-boring insects are most abundant in wood 2 or 3 years dead from storm, fire, logging, or disease. These conditions occur most often in large, old forests, and their elimination or isolation has made it increasingly difficult for ivory-bills to find sufficient food and to move from one area to another in search of a variable food supply that has always been more or less eruptive and undependable (Tanner 1942). Virgin haidwood is not a necessity and pines are more important than Tanner thought in the Neches River Valley (Dennis 1967). The ivory-bill is a nomadic "disaster species," moving into areas where trees have been killed by fire, storms, insect attack, or flooding (Dennis 1967). Observations in Texas and Florida by Herbert Stoddard and John Dennis convinced them that old age or virgin hardwood forests are not essential as long as there are large numbers of recently dead trees to supply the type of wood-boring grubs prefened by ivory-bills. They thought that dead pine trees, including recently cut slash, were frequently used (Dennis 1967). C. p. bairdii. Gunclach (1876) found Cuban ivory-bills in the high country of Pinar del Rio and also in low country along river bottoms simi- lar to the habitat of the American ivory-bill, near Guantanamo in eastern Cuba. During the last half of the 19th century, Cuban ivory-bills were found mainly in high country in pine forests on deep lateritic soil. They feed in both hardwoods and pines, but nest and roost almost exclusively in old pine trees (Pinus cubensis) (Lamb 1957). The lateritic soil, composed of small, hard nodules of iron ore, drains very quickly and completely, so that it can support pine forest up to about 300 m elevation. Above that, hardwood becomes domin- ant. Most of the pine land has been lumbered, but the birds have managed to adapt to changing habi- tat, living in large dead pines that are still standing and feeding on dead pines and dead hardwoods, both of which are infested with wood-boring beetles. They roost and nest only in pines, and large enough pines are becoming rare.' FOOD AND FORAGING C. p. principalis. Audubon (1842) mentions grapes, persimmons £ind blackberries as food of ivory-bills, in addition to beetles and their larvae. Allen and Kellogg (1937) found ivory-bills digging trenches in rotten wood, as plicated wood- peckers do, to get at the large wood-boring beetle larvae. More often, they scaled off bark from recently dead trees or from dead branches of liv- ing trees to get at insects and larvae hidden be- neath. Most feeding was in dead pines at the edges of swamps. They sometimes fed on the ground like flickers. The most common feeding behavior is to knock the bark off recently dead trees with side- wise blows or quick flicks of the bill to uncover and eat the borers that live between the bark and the sapwood. When feeding the young, they hold grubs in the back of the bill while continuing to scale bark for additional food. Grubs 2.5 to 5 cm long are used to feed young. Ivory-bill workings for food show as bare places on recently dead limbs of trees where the bark has been scaled off clean for a considerable extent. Pileated wood- peckers do some scaling, but it is usually confined to smaller limbs and to those longer dead. They obtain most of their food by digging in the wood, while ivory -bills obtain theirs by scaling the bark. Extensive scaling of bark from a tree so recently dead that the bark is still tight, with a brownish or reddish color of the exposed wood showing that the work is fresh, is one good indication of the presence of ivory-bills (Tanner 1942). How- ever, they do also chisel into the wood, making somewhat conical holes. In the Singer Tract, Louisiana, most feeding was on sweet gum. Nut- tail's oak, and hackberry, over 30 cm in diameter. Wandering and ranges of ivory-bills are prob- ably controlled by abundance of food. They re- quire an unusually large supply of certain wood- boring insects which make up most of their diet and which is abundant only in occasional localities for a comparatively short period. Birds remain in one locality as long as the food lasts, then move, sometimes for considerable distances, until they find another area with an adequate food supply (Tanner 1942). Contents of three ivory-bUl stomachs from Louisiana and Texas summarized by Cottam and Knapper (1939) (including those reported by Beal 1911) were as follows: 46% of combined content was of animal origin, 45.33% being long-horned beetles (Cerambicidae), and 0.67% of engraver beetles (Tomiscus sp.); 54% was of vegetable origin, 14% being seeds of Magnolia grandiflora, 27% of Carya, 12.67% of seeds of poison ivy {Rhus radicans), and 0.33% being fragments of unidentified gall. In three stomachs from a Caro- lina region, Wilson (1811) found large quantities of large grubs fitting the description of some larger larval Cerambycids. In two stomachs from Louisiana, Goss (1859) found one large Cera m6yx and the stones of cherries. In debris from an ivory- bill nest in the Singer Tract, Louisiana, soon after the young had left, Tanner (1942) found 1 frag- ment of Elatrid larva; 21 mandibles of Cerambycid larvae; 1 mandible of a Scarabaeid beetle larva, and a few fragments of adult insects, probably Coleoptera. E. A. Mcllhenny [in Bendire 1895), said they fed on acorns. Alexander Sprunt, Jr., in Tanner (1942), saw ivory -bills feeding on black gum and tupelo berries. Probably, the seasons when fruits or seeds are eaten are from late sum- mer to early winter when they are most easily available; stomachs with large percentages of vegetable food were taken in November. Ivory -b ills drink water from hollows in trees (Tanner 1942). C. p. bairdii. Their feeding habits are about equally divided between pine and hardwood for- ests, and they have been seen feeding on both types of tree. They feed both by scaling bark and by digging holes in wood, with the majority of feeding signs of the scahng type. There are no re- cords of the actual food eaten, but presumably it consists of larvae of wood-boring beetles like those preferred by American ivory-bills. Such in- sects were found in trees used by the Cuban ivory- bills. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS - C. p. principalis nests and roosts in holes in large dead or living trees, usually hardwoods. C. p. bairdii requires holes in large dead pine stubs for both nesting and roosting. NESTING OR BEDDING C. p. principalis. Allen and Kellogg (1937) quote Audubon who believed the nesting hole is always made in the trunk of a live tree, generally an ash orhackberry, and at great height. However, they noted that there were records of nesting in live cypress, partly dead oaks, a dead royal palm stub, and an old and nccirly rotten white elm stump, indicating as great a variety as nest sites of the pileated woodpecker. Beyer (1900) found a nest as low as 8 m in a living over-cup oak. Allen and Kellogg (1937) found a nest in Florida 10 m up in a live cypress and three nests in Louis- iana in oak and one in a red maple. Nest trees were very large. One nest was in a dead pin oak stub about 16 m high; the entrance hole was 13 cm high and 11.4 cm wide; depth of nest cavity, 47 cm, and diameter 20 cm at egg level (Allen and Kellogg 1937). In Florida, height of nests from the ground averaged 15 m (Tanner 1942) with extremes of at least 8 m (Hoyt 1905) and 20 m (Ridgway 1898). In Louisiana, nests averaged 15.5 m and ranged from 12 to 21 m from ground, all in dead trees or dead parts of living trees where wood was a bit punky but still quite hard. The average depth of all reliably measured nest cavities is 48 cm (Tanner 1942). Nesting and roosting holes of ivory -bills have oval or irregular entrances measuring about 13 cm vertically and 10 cm across, or about 2.5 cm larger than pileated woodpecker entrance holes (Tanner 1942). Ivory-bills do not use old nesting holes, but excavate new ones usually in different trees. One roosting hole has never been seen occupied by more than one bird even by a young one still in the company of its parents. For at least 2 weeks after leaving the nest, young roost in the open in trees while the parents roost in holes. The birds emerge from their roosting holes much later in the morning than other woodpeckers. Then pairs and young join together for their daily feeding flights (Tanner 1942). C. p. bairdii nest and roost almost exclusively in holes in old pines. Only one instance of a roost hole in a hardwood has been reported. Nesting and roosting sites were found in 16 pine trees which contained 33 holes dug by ivory-bills (Lamb 1957). Dennis (1948) found a nest about 10 m from the ground in a dead pine stub. The opening was approximately 10.2 by 10.2 cm, forming a rough square. Old holes found by Lamb (1957) were all considerably lower than 10 m, averaging about 6 m above ground. The pine stubs used were never over 8 m tall. In the virgin forest area, holes were closer to 9 m from ground and one was nearly 18 m. Measurements of a female's roost entrance were 15.6 cm (width) by 24.1 cm (height); inside diameter of the cavity was 25.4 cm and depth of cavity from entrance to bottom was 32 cm. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS A pair of C. p. principalis was observed by Allen and Kellogg (1937) to clasp bills, evidently as part of courtship behavior. Tanner (1942) ob- served a similar event. He also described soft con- versational notes by both members of a pair when they exchanged places on the nest. The drumming display consists of a double tap instead of the multiple taps or drum-roll of other North Ameri- can woodpeckers (Tanner 1942). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS C. p. principalis. Earlier accounts gave no ac- curate or definite statements of abundance, but indicated that it never was common. An excep- tion was Audubon (1842) who said it was "very abundant along the Buffalo Bayou (near Hous- ton?), Texas." Audubon's "very abundant" may have meant compared with ivory-bills in other localities, where Audubon usually described the species as quite rare (Tanner 1942). Arthur T. Wayne and his hunters collected 5 ivory-bills in California Swamp, 97 km (58 mi) south of Old Town, Florida and saw 4 more several days after the fifth one was collected. The following year, 1893, five more were collected from that swamp. Later observations indicate that those 10 birds were practically all that were present in that area of 154 km^ . In vicinity of the Wacissa River, Florida, in 1894 Wayne collected 19 ivory- bills and some persisted there until about 1937. On that basis. Tanner (1942) estimated that there were probably about 12 pairs in that 188 km^ swampy area, or 1 pair per 16 km^ . Wayne (1910) stated that he saw 200 ivory-bills in Florida dur- ing the years 1892 to 1894. In the Singer Tract of about 300 km^ of virgin forest in Louisiana, in 1934, there were about 7 pairs, or 1 pair per 43 sq km. Total population in all areas in 1939 was estimated at about 24 individuals (Tanner 1942). The greatest distance a pair traveled from the roosting area in Singer Tract in breeding season was 2 km (Tanner 1942). Birds of the Singer Tract appeared to be sedentary, with ranges up to 6 km or more across. However, birds in other areas appear to wander considerable distances, probably in response to the availability of food (Tanner 1942) near the nesting site. Bark-stripping from recently dead pines, pos- sibly the work of ivory-bills, was seen along Men- ard, Big Sandy, and Village Creeks; along the Neches River north and northwest of Beaumont; and near Votaw and Silsbee, Texas, in December 1973 (Orie L. Loucks, Prof, of Botany, U. of Wisconsin in lit. 17 March 1975). On 22 May 1976, one ivory-bill was reported near the mouth of Wolf Creek, flying across Magnolia Ridge Road north of Beaumont, Texas (William B. Mounsey, University of the Wilderness ms. report, 4 Sept. 1976). There were repeated reports of sightings of ivory-bills in swamps along the Congaree and Wataree Rivers, South Carolona, during the per- iod 1966-67; John V. Dennis (Unpubl.) believed these to be valid in part. Herbert Stoddard saw a pair in beetle-killed pines near Thomasville, Georgia, probably in 1958 Q. V. Dennis ms. 1976). On 3 and 4 March 1950, Eastman reported seeing a male and female ivory-bill on the Chipola River in northwestern Florida, and in April 1950 Dennis heard one near the same place (Dennis 1967, J. V. Dennis ms. 1976). On 28 Aug. 1966, Bedford P. Brown J. and Jeffrey R. Sanders, Chicago bird watchers, heard the distinctive call notes and saw 2 female ivory- bills on Boiling Creek, a tributary of the Yellow River at the Elgin Air Force Base in northwestern Florida;they reported the sighting to J. V. Dennis, who tried unsuccessfully to find the birds again (Dennis 1967, Dennis 1976). A feather from a cavity of a wind-blown tree northwest of Lake Okeechobee, Florida, around 1965, was identified by Alexander Wetmore and John Aldrich as that of an ivory-bill. However, the white patch on the feather was stained brown, indicating it had been in the tree hole a long time Q. W. Aldrich pers. comm., Agey and Heinzman 1971). Near the Neches River north of Beaumont, Texas, above Dam B Reservoir, in April 1966, one was seen by Mrs. Olga Hooks Lloyd, bird watcher of Beaumont, and again in the same area on 10 December 1966, one was seen by John Dennis; there are also several other probable re- cords from theNechesRiver Valley (Dennis 1967). A sound recording of ivory-bill call notes was made at Stanford Preserve on Village Creek, north of Beaumont, Texas, 25 February 1968 by Helen and Peter Isleib of Cordova, Alaska, and John V. Dennis. The recording is now in possession of the National Geo.graphic Society. Isleib found bill marks on bark -striped trees nearby which measured the same as the tip of ivory-bill's bill rather than that of a pileated woodpecker, according to Alex- ander Wetmore (Peter Isleib pers. comm.). The sound recording was analyzed by Peter Paul Kellogg {in lit. 14 February 1969) at Cornell University Library of Natural Sounds and by John W. Hardy, Bioacoustics Laboratory, Florida State University, and both thought it sounded very much like the call of an ivory-bill, although Hardy (1975) believed that one of the call notes of a blue jay was possible. On 22 May 1971, 2 ivory -bills were sighted and one was photographed in the Atchafalaya River swamp west of Baton Rouge, La. by an un- identified dog trainer. The beginnings of a hole and fresh chips on the ground under the place the bird was photographed were found (George H. Lowery,Jr. pers. comm., Stewart 1971). James Tanner and PaulSykesin 1968 searched the same areas in the Neches River valley, Texas, where John Dennis and others reported evidence of ivory-bills in 1966, with negative results with respect to sightings, sound or indication of feed- ing (Sykes 1968, Tanner in lit. 6 March 1968). C. p. bairdii. Demiis (1948) found 3 Cuban ivory-bills, 2 of them a mated pair that were in- cubating, in April 1948, in the Sierra de Moa, Oriente Province, Cuba, and heard of another group of 6 being seen there in 1941. Lamb (1957) found 4 pairs in the Moa region and found another area supporting 2 pairs farther inland at a higher elevation, between the Moa and Punta Gorda Rivers, but with identical habi- tat (pine forest). In summary. Lamb (1957) esti- mated the number of Cuban ivory-bills extant in July of 1956 as 6 pairs or 12 individuals, all between the watersheds of the Moa-Cubanas Rivers to the west and the Punta Gorda River to the east, along the north coast of Oriente Pro- vince, and in the extreme headwaters of the Cale- tura River, a large tributary of the Moa River, and in the headwaters of the JaquEuii River, a tribu- Xaxy of the Toa River, and on the divide between the Toa and Moa Rivers. The population density was computed as about 40.2 km^ per pair, and the smallest area estimated for a single pair was 19.3 km^ . Observations were made during March, June, and early July. More recent sightings include 2 south of Cupeyal in late 1967, a female northwest of Cupeyalin February 1968, and a female at Yateras in May 1972. All are in the Moa-Guantanamo region, Oriente Province. Certainly no more than 8 pairs still exist and probably fewer than 6 (L. S. Varona 1974, and O. H. Garrido 1974 in King 1978). REPRODUCTION C. p. principalis. In the Florida region, most nests have been in living or dead cypress, but also in bay and cabbage palm (Tanner 1942). Thomp- son (1896) said ivory-bills nested in long-dead pine trees in the Okefenokee Swamp region. In northern Louisiana, Tanner (1942) found nests in red maple, sweet gum, and Nuttall's oak. In the same region, Beyer (1900) found nests in Ameri- can elm and overcup oak. In southern Louisiana, Mcllhenny in Bendire (1895) said birds built in cypress or tupelo, preferably partly dead. Audu- bon (1842) thought they preferred hackberry trees for nesting. The presence of eggs has been recorded on the following dates: Florida (4 records), 4 March to 19 April; Louisiana (5 records), 6 March to 19 May; Georgia (2 records) 6 and 10 April; Texas (2 records) 11 April and 3 May (Arthur Allen in Bent 1939). Time of nesting is evidently irregular. Scott (1881) collected an incubating female in Florida 20 January 1880. Scott (1888) found a nest containing a one-third grown young 17 March 1887. Ridgway (1898) collected a male that left the nest hole on 15 February 1898. Hoyt (1905) noted that nesting began in the latter part of January and eggs were laid by 10 February. Tanner in Bent (1939) noted young leaving the nest on 30 March 1937 in Louisiana, and appar- ently the same pair had young in the last week in February 1938. In contrast, there are 10 records of April nesting, 5 for May and 1 (Beyer 1900) of a young just out of nest in July. The later records might represent second attempts at nesting. Florida birds, in general, start nesting earlier than those in Louisiana (Bent 1939). There is no cor- relation between the erratic timing of nesting and weather, except possibly the amount of sunshine. They have tended to nest earher in cloudy winters. No correlation with food supply has been found, but the possible effects are not discounted (Tan- ner 1942). According to Mcllhenny in Bendire (1895), the female does all work of excavating the nesting cavity, but Audubon (1842) states that both birds work at excavating. Thompson (1896) also re- ports that both sexes excavate. Although Bendire (1895) said there were 5 eggs per clutch and only 1 brood per season, Arthur Allen in Bent (1939) found the number of eggs normally not more than 3, and 1 or 2 of those often infertile. Frequently, if nesting is suc- cessful at all, it results in a single young rather than 2 or3. Tanner (1942) figures that the average number of eggs per set is 2.9 with a range of 1 to 4, and that early nests had fewer eggs than later ones. He said the period of incubation and length of time young stay in the nest is unknown. In the Singer Tract, the male incubated every night and the female most of the time during the day. They exchanged places about eight times a day, with no regularity in the setting time except when the female relieved the male in the morning and just before he took his place for the night. Both sexes share about equally in feeding the young in the nest and for a while after they leave the nest. Young follow parents on feeding trips and gradually learn to obtain food for themselves after about 4 weeks, but still receive food from adults after 2 to 2.5 months (Tanner 1942). Hoyt (1905) states that after young leave the nest in April, they re- main with their parents until the mating season in December. Some young stay with parents even after another family is fledged the following nest- ing season. All aggregations of ivory-bills are probably family groups of one or more years pro- duction. Tanner (1942) says the average number of young per brood leaving the nest is 2.11 with a survival success of 50%. He says there is no data on survival of young to breeding age nor length of time an adult can live and successfully breed. The important difference between nesting of ivory- bills and other species is that it lays fewer eggs. A pair may go through a season without any attempt at nesting. It probably takes at least 2 years to reach breeding age. Possibly the quantity of food or lack of synchronization of the reproductive cycles of a mated pair may determine whether nesting will occur. The lower rate of reproduction accentuates the danger inherent in the small size of the population. The most likely serious preda- tors on nesting ivory-bills are barred owls, rac- coons, and nest mites. Ivory-bill pairs usually nest well separated from each other (about 4.8 km apart in the Singer Tract), and, at least occasionally, nest in the same area year after year. There are no records of birds protecting territory from trespass by another ivory-bill (Tanner 1942). C. p. bairdii. Incubation is shared by both sexes (Dennis 1948). Feeding and brooding are thought to be shared by both sexes (Lamb 1957). Causes of nesting failure are always traceable to human interference, although crows are thought by natives to be predators on nests (Lamb 1957). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION C. p. principalis. The only way of preserving the ivory-billed woodpecker is to preserve in their entirety any areas that can be found where the birds still exist. A suitable area would be about 6 to 8 km^ of good habitat for each pair. Pos- sibly some timber may be selectively cut, leaving dead and dying trees. The quantity of food may be artificially increased by progressively killing enough trees at a time to supply a large number of wood-boring insect larvae (Tanner 1942, Paul Sykes in lit. 1968). Dennis (1967) found that trees killed by girdling do not attract as many wood-boring insects as those killed by flooding and suggested limited inundation and cutting of pine slash as a means of increasing ivory -bill food supply. In October 1974, a bill was passed by Congress creating a preserve of 34,000 ha of potential ivory-bill habitat in the Big Thicket area of southeastern Texas (Dennis ms. 1976). Public information is an important part of ivory-bill management as with other endangered species. Only an interested and sympathetic public can save the bird from such threats as big dams, wholesale clearing of bottomland timber, and drainage of favorable habitat (Dennis 1967). In 1967, the U.S. Corps of Engineers halted the timber management plan at Dam B Reservoir on Neches River, Texas, in deference to ivory- bills. Federal and state wardens in area were alerted and public appeal received positive and gratifying response (Harry Goodwin in lit. to Roland Cle- ment 19 December 1967). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a policy of informing the public of locations of re- ported ivory-bill sightings as opposed to restric- tion of such information advocated by Herbert Stoddard and some other knowledgeable people (Letter from Director, Fish and Wildlife Service to E. V. Komarek of 12 September 1967, mem- orandum to Secretary of Interior from Director, Fish and Wildhfe Service of 20 July 1967; Letter of 1 July 1967 from John Dennis to George M. Sutton). C p. bairdii. Establishment of refuges in areas where birds are still known to exist in the most important step in management, for without pre- servation of habitat, fast disappearing due to lum- bering, the bird cannot survive. Further effort to locate existing birds is needed to pinpoint pros- pective refuge areas (Lamb 1957). Plans were made to erect nesting boxes as an experiment to substitute for suitable dead pine stubs which were disappearing. Whether this was done, and if so what happened, is unrecorded (Lamb 1957). For- est reservations have been established at Cuepyal and Jaguane under auspices of the Academy of Sciences since 1963. Each reservation is watched and no further exploitation of timber is being per- mitted, although much of the larger timber has already been removed (Lamb 1957; Fisher et al. 1969). The ivory-billed woodpecker is protected un- der the Protected Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755: 16 WSC 703-74, 3 July 1918; as amended 3 December 1969. PL 91-135. AUTHORITIES James T. Tanner Dept. of Zoology University of Tennessee Knoxville , Tennessee 37916 John V. Dennis 3 Joy Street Nantuckett, Massachusetts 02554 Paul W. Sykes P.O. Box 2077 Delray Beach, Florida 33444 PREPARER'S COMMENTS From the evidence presented, I believe that a few ivory-bills still exist in the United States, but they are so nomadic that it will continue to be difficult to verify the occasional sighting. Never- theless, every effort should be made to locate nesting pairs and to take measures to preserve nesting habitat in those locations. Then additional feeding areas should be artificially created near such locations. -J. W. Aldrich. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES A. O. U. 1950. Report of the AOU Committee on bird protection, 1949. Auk. 67:320. . 1957. Check-list of North American birds. American Ornithologists' Union, Balti- more. 691 pp. Agey, H. N. and G. M. Heinzman. 1971. The Ivory-billed woodpecker found in Central Florida. Florida Nat. 42: 46-47 and 64. Allen, A. A. and P. P. Kellogg. 1937. Recent ob- servations on the Ivory -billed Woodpecker. Auk. 54:164-184. Arthur, S. C. 1918. The birds of Louisiana. Bull. La. Dept. Cons. 5:53. Audubon, J. J. 1842. The birds of America. Vol. 4:214-226. Avery, W. C. 1890. Birds observed in Alabama. Amer. Field 34:608. Barbour, T. 1943. Cuban ornithology. Mem. Nut- tall Ornith. Club 9:129 pp. Baynard, O. E. 1913. Breeding birds of Alachua County, Florida. Auk. 30:245. Beal, F. E. L. 1911. Food of the Woodpeckers of the United States. Bull. U.S. Bur. Biol. Serv. 37:62-63. Bendire, C. E. 1895. Life histories of North Am- erican birds. U.S. Nat. Mus. Spec. Bull. 3:42- 45. Bent, A. C. 1939. Life histories of North Ameri- can woodpeckers. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 174:1- 12. Beyer, G. E. 1900. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana. Auk. 17:97-99. Bond, J. 1936. Birds of the West Indies. Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia. Bond, J. 1950. Check-list of birds of the West Indies. Acad. Nat. Sciences of Philadelphia. Bryant, H. 1859. Birds observed in eastern Florida 10 south of St. Augustine. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 7:11. Clarke, S. C. 1885. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Forest and Stream 24:367. Cooke, VV. W. 1914. Some winter birds of Okla- homa. Auk 31:480. Cory, C. B. 1886. The birds of the West Indies, including the Bahama Islands, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, excepting the islands of Tobago and Trinidad. Auk. 3:373-374. Cottam, C. and P. Knappen. 1939. Food of some uncommon North American birds. Auk 56: 162. Covington, J. D. 1922. The winter birds of Biloxi, Mississippi region. Auk 39:545. Dennis, J. V. 1948. Last remnant of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Auk 65:497-507. Dennis, J. V. 1967. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker —its present status and proposjds for its pre- servation. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Spec. Rep. Washington, D.C. Dennis, J. V. 1967a. The ivory-bill flies still. Audubon Mag. 69:38-45. Eastman, W. 1958. Ten-year search for the Ivory- billed Woodpecker. Atlantic Naturalist 13: 216-228. Fisher, J., N. Simon and J. Vincent. 1969. Wild- life in danger. New York, Viking Press. Gosse, P. H. 1859. Letters from Alabama. Lon- don pp. 91-93 (in Tanner 1942). Greenway, J. C. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the World. Amer. Comm. for Intemat. WildUfe Protection, New York, N.Y. Special Pub. 13:357-360. Gundlach, J. 1876. Contribucion a la Ornitologia Cubana. Habana. Hardy, J. W. 1975. A tape recording of a possible Ivory -billed Woodpecker. Amer. Birds 29: 647-651. Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The present status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker {Campephilus prin- cipalis) Auk 8:174-186. Howe, R. H. and L. King. 1902. Notes on various Florida birds. Contrib. N. A. Ornith. 1:30. Howell, A. H. 1907. Birds of Alabama. U.S. Bur. Biol. Surv. pp. 159-162. Howell, A. H. 1911. Birds of Arkansas. Bull. Bur. Biol. Surv. 38:45-46. Howell, A. H. 1932. Florida bird hfe. New York pp. 313-315. Hoyt, R. D. 1905. Nesting of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Warbler (ser. 2) 1:52- 55. King, W. B. 1978 (in press). (Revised) Red data book (Aves). I.C.B.P., Survival Service, Morges, Switzerland. Kline, H. A. 1886. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. For- est and Stream 26:163. Lamb, G. R. 1957. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Research Rept. No. 1, Pan-American Sect. Intnat. Comm. Bird Preservation. Mcllhenny, E. A. 1941. The passing of the Ivory- billed Woodpecker. Auk 58:582-584. Merriam, C. H. 1874. Ornithological notes from the south. Amer. Nat. 8:88. Murphy, R. C. 1929. A second topotype of Campephilus principalis. Auk 46:376. Nice, M. M. 1931. The birds of Oklahoma. Pub. Univ. Okla. 3:116. Oberholser, H. C. 1938. The bird life of Louisiana. Bull La. Dept. Cons. 28:38-382. Pindar, L. O. 1925. Birds of Fuhon County, Kentucky. Wilson BuU. 37:86. Ridgway, R. 1898. The home of the ivory-bill. Osprey 3:35-36. Ridgway, R. 1914. The birds of North and Middle America. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 50, pt. 6. Ridgway, R. 1915. Bird-life in southern Illinois. Bird-Lore 17:194. Scott, W. E. C. 1881. On birds observed in Sump- ter. Levy and Hillsboro Counties, Florida. Bull. Nuttall Ornith. Club 6:14-21. Scott, W. E. C. 1888. Supplementary notes from the Gulf coast of Florida, with a description of a new species of marsh wren. Auk 5:183- 188. Scott, W. E. C. 1889. A summary' of observations on the birds of the Gulf coast of Florida. Auk 6:251. 11 Stewart, J. R., Jr. 1971. Central Southern Region. American Birds 25:868. Sykes, P. W., Jr. 1968. Report on the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker [Campephilus principalis principalis) in eastern Texas, Jan- uary 1968. Administrative report, Fish and Wildlife Service. Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory -billed Woodpecker. Nat. Audubon Soc. Research Rep. No. 1, New York. Thompson, J. M. 1896. An archer's sojourn in the Okefinoke. Atlantic Monthly 77:486-491. Thompson, M. 1889. A red-headed family. Oologist 6:23-29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Resource Pub. 114, G.P.O. Washing- ton, D.C. Wayne, A. T. 1910. Birds of South Carolina. Con- trib. Charleston Mus.:87-88. Wetmore, A. 1943. Evidence for the former oc- currence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Ohio. Wilson Bull. 55:127. Williams, R. W., Jr. 1904. A preliminary list of the birds of Leon County, Florida. Auk 21: 455. Wilson, A. 1811. American Ornithology. Phil- adelphia Vol. 4:20-26. Yell. 1885. The big woodpecker. Forest and Stream 24:107. 12 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.9 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE OCELOT Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species /\ct of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of f^ndangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems leam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704'')8 u FWS/OBS-80/01.9 March 1980 SKLKCi i:d vi:r 1 kbra 1 i: kndangered spkcies OF THE SEACOAS 1 OF 1 HE UNFFED STA TES- THE OCELOT A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National ("oastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald \V. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish antl Wildlife Scr\ice U.S. Department of the Interior OCELOT Felis pardalis Linnaeus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Carnivora FAMILY Felidae OTHER COMMON NAMES leopard cat, ocelote, tiger cat, tigrUIo DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 31 May 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (non-U. S. populations only) (44FR43705, 25 July 1979). States: Endangered: Massachusetts, Texas. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Habitat destruction and degradation from brush-clearing operations are primarily responsible for the ocelot's population status (Culbertson and Schmidly 1974, Davis 1974). Population de- clines are also affected by predator control activi- ties and persecution. Serious population declines in Central and South America are due to pet and fur trade exploitation (lUCN 1972, Paradiso 1972). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION Medium-sized (0.8 to 1.2 m long) spotted cat wdth moderately long tail. Females average smaller than males. Ground color is grayish to cinnamon dorsally, paler on sides; underparts and inside of limbs are whitish; dark markings form streaks that run obliquely down sides; areas enclosed by black-bordered spots are more intense than ground color. There are two black stripes on the cheeks; the tail is spotted and ringed with black. Young have coloration similar to adults, but darker. Photographs appear in Davis (1974) and Guggisberg (1975). RANGE Extremely rare to nonexistent in Arizona (Cockrum 1960). In Texas, the ocelot occupies the lower Rio Grande Valley south of a line from Eagle Pass to just north of Corpus Christi (Hock 1955, Culbertson and Schmidly 1974, Davis 1974). There has been one record each from the Trans-Pecos (Schmidly 1977) and northern Texas (Davis 1951), but these are thought to be released or escaped captives (W. C. Brownlee and R. McBride personal communication). In Mexico, the species occurs in eastern Coahuila, along the Rio Sabines vicinity of the Sierra de San Marcos, and south and east of Saltillo (Baker 1956, lUCN 1972). It is also present in suitable habitat in Cen- tral and South America (lUCN 1972). The ocelot's former distribution included cen- tral and eastern Texas, into southern Arkansas and western Louisiana, and south into Mexico east of the highlands. Ocelots were also found from central Arizona south into the Sonoran and west slopes of the Sierra Madre. There are no records from Mexico City (C. Conway personal communication). The Mexican highlands form a barrier between the race of ocelot that occurs in Texas {F. p. albescens) and that which occurs (or occurred) in Arizona (F. p. sonoriensis) Goldman 1925). The ocelot was also distributed transcon- tinentally throughout Central and South America as far south as Uruguay and northern Argentina (Goldman 1943, Hock 1955, Hall and Kelson 1959, lUCN 1972, Guggisberg 1975). RANGE MAP Shading refers to present range (Cockrum 1960, Davis 1974, Brownlee 1978, R. McBride personal communication); dots indicate sightings and/or kills within the last century. STATES/COUNTIES Arizona Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz. Texas Cameron, Hidalgo, Kenedy, Willacy. HABITAT Ocelots inhabit tropical and subtropical for- ests ranging from low swamp to upland oak forests (Hall and Kelson 1959, lUCN 1972). In the northern part of their range they inhabit dense, nearly impenetrable chaparral thickets (Davis 1974); they also use second-growth forests and partially cleared lands (lUCN 1972). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Ocelots hunt mostly at night, but it is not un- usual for them to be seen in the daytime (Cala- hane 1947, Hall and Kelson 1959, Denis 1964). Their food habits are not well known; they are re- ported to feed on small and moderate-sized mam- mals, birds, monkeys, tree lizards, and, occasion- ally, domestic fowl (Hall and Kelson 1959, Denis 1964, Davis 1974). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Ocelots take refuge in caves in rock bluffs, hollow trees, or dense parts of thickets (Davis 1974). NESTING AND BEDDING The den site is usually a cave in a rocky bluff, hollow tree, or the dense part of a thicket (Davis 1974). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Home range area is not known. Pairs share the same territory but do not hunt together (Guggis- berg 1975). They often rest in trees (Davis 1974); they are excellent tree climbers (Hall and Kelson 1959). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS There are no firm estimates on populations in the United States or Latin America. lUCN is con- ducting a status survey in Latin America, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is making a field survey in Texas. Preliminary findings of the Texas survey indicate around 35 at Santa Ana Na- tional Wildlife Refuge and 24 at Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (Brownlee 1978). How- ever, others claim that there are only 12 to 15 ocelots on Laguna Atascosa and none are found a o U o u o Q d u ■f-t X I e ll o c c .(« CO D ■M .s >. ■t-J :^ g so ^ o -a c ^ top at Santa Ana, due to its small size (688 ha) (R. McBride, personal communication). Another survey in South Texas in 1976 esti- mated the ocelot population at 30 to 40 in Wil- lacy County, 0 to 2 in Hidalgo County, 12 to 20 in Cameron County, and an unknown number in Kenedy County (R. McBride personal communi- cation). The species rarely occurs in southern Arizona (Cockrum 1960). Populations are declining in Texas due to predator control activities and parti- cularly to brush-clearing operations in the lower Rio Grande Valley (Culbertson and Schmidly 1974, Davis 1974). Latin American populations are reduced and in some areas are seriously de- pleted (lUCN 1972, Paradiso 1972). REPRODUCTION There is no fixed breeding season in the tropics (Denis 1964). In Texas, breeding takes place in late summer, with young bom in September, October, and November (Davis 1974). Gestation period is believed to be about 70 days (Guggis- berg 1975). Litter size ranges from two to four, with two being more common (Leopold 1959, Denis 1964, lUCN 1972). In Texas, average litter size appears to be one (R. McBride personal com- munication). Growth and development of young are not well known. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION No recovery team has been appointed at this time. Ocelots are protected in Texas and some Latin American countries, but U.S. populations are not listed on the official U.S. Endangered Spe- cies list. Brush is no longer cleared on the National Wildlife Refuges in the lower Rio Grande Valley (lUCN 1972), in order to maintain natural habi- tat. Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge is thought to contain habitat most similar to that required by ocelots. AUTHORITIES W. C. Brownlee Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 W. B. Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 Roy McBride Department of Biology Sul Ross State University Box 725 Alpine, TX 78930 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The use of questionnaire surveys may lead to overestimates of populations and inaccurate dis- tributional patterns when escaped or released cap- tives are sighted or even when the same individual is sighted repeatedly. Intensive field surveys are needed to accurately define the current status of the ocelot. Its ecology and life history also require further investigation. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Bailey, V. 1905 Biological survey of Texas, Am. Fauna 25:1-222. N. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. N. Am. Fauna 53:283-285. Baker, R. H. 1956. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Natur. Hist. 9:125- 335. Bangs, 6. 1898. The land mammals of peninsular Florida and the coast region of Georgia. Proc. Boston Soc. Natur. Hist. 28:157-235. Brownlee, W. C. 1978. Feline status survey. Per- formance Report, Proj. W-103-R-7. Texas Parks Wildl. Dep. Austin. 4 pp. Calahane, V. H. 1947. Mammals of North Ameri- ca. MacMillan Co., New York. 682 pp. Chapman, F. M. 1894. Remarks on certain land mammals from Florida, with a list of species known to occur in the state. Bull. Am. Mus. Natur. Hist. 6:333-346. Cockrum, W. L. 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona: their taxonomy and distribution. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 276 pp. Culbertson, K., and D. J. Schmidly. 1974. Sum- mary of statements on the status of the rare, endangered, and peripheral mammals in Texas. Texas Organization for Endangered Species, Temple. 8 pp. Davis, W. B. 1951. Unusual occurrence of the oce- lot in Texas. J. Mammal. 32:363-364. 1974. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks Wildl. Dep. Bull. 41:1-294. Denis, A. 1964. Cats of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 144 pp. Goldman, E. A. 1925. Two new ocelots from Mexico. J. Mammal. 6:122-124. 1943. The races of ocelot and margay in Middle America. J. Mammal. 24:372-385. Goodwyn, F. 1970. Behavior, life history and pre- sent status of the jaguarundi, Felis yagour- oundi {Ldicepede) in South Texas. M.A. Thesis. Texas A&I University, Kingsville. 63 pp. Guggisberg, C. A. W. 1975. Wildcats of the world. Taplinger Publ. Co., New York. 382 pp. Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. Mammals of North America. 2 vols. Ronald Press, New York. 1,083 pp. Hock, R.J. 1955. Southeastern exotic felids. Am. Midi. Natur. 53:324-328. Harlan, R. 1825. Fauna Americana: being a des- cription of the mammiferous animals in- habiting North America. Anthony Finely, Philadelphia. 320 pp. lUCN. 1972. Red data book. Vol. I, Mamnalia. Compiled by H. A. Goodwin and C. W. Hollo- way. lUCN, Morges, Switzerland. Layne, J. N. 1974. The land mammals of Florida. In P. J. Gleason, ed. Environments of south Florida; past and present. Mem. 2 Miami Geol. Surv. 452 pp. Leopold, A. S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico; the game birds and mammals. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 568 pp. Lowery, G. H., Jr. 1974. The mammals of Louisi- ana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State Univ. Press, Baton Rouge. 565 pp. Lowman, G. E. 1975. A survey of endangered, threatened, rare, status undetermined, peri- pheral, and unique mammals of the south- eastern national forests and grasslands. USDA For. Serv., Atlanta, Ga. 121 pp. Maynard, C.J. 1883. The mammals of Florida. Q. J. Boston Zool. Soc. 2: 1-50. Paradiso, J. L. 1972. Status report on cats (Feli- dae) of the world, 1971. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 157. Schmidly, D. J. 1977. The mammals of Trans- Pecos Texas. Texas A&M Press, College Sta- tion. 225 pp. Sealander, J. A., and P. S. Gipson. 1974. Threat- ened Arkansas mammals. Unedited draft re- report to State of Arkansas Planning Depart- ment, Little Rock. Seton, E. T. 1937. Lives of game animals. Vol. I. Literary Guild, New York. Silveira, E. K. 1972. A case of cannabalism among ocelots, Felts parda lis nitis, at Brasilia Zoo. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 12:182-183. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 GainesvUle, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.10 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE ATTWATER'S GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN ''l:^^^ Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior prefacp: The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as air.iiulcd). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Kngineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should he directed lo: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and W ildlife Senice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be dirccicvl to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems leam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.10 March 1980 SELECTKD Vl.R 1 KBRA 1 K ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACt)AS T OF IHE UNFFED STA lES- THE ATTWATER'S GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildhfc Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. VVoodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior ATTWATER'S GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido attwateri Bendire KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Galliformes FAMILY Tetraonidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Attwater's prairie chicken greater prairie chicken, heath hen DATE: Entered into SWIS to be determined Update 1 August 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967) States: Endangered: Texas REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Conversion of natural tall grass prairie to agri- cultural lands for soybeans, grain, sorghum, rice, and cotton has eliminated extensive amounts of habitat. Commercial development and urban sprawl have contributed to the loss of habitat while overgrazing and oil development have re- duced habitat quality (Lehmann and Mauermann 1963, W. Shifflett personal communication). The Attwater's prairie chicken was formerly killed in great numbers for target practice and sport (Lehmann 1941). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION Prairie chickens are large, hen-like birds; males weigh almost 1 kg, and females 0.75 kg. They are brovm barred with black above, buffy barred with black below, and have a short, rounded, dark tail. Males have an orange comb above the eye, and, on each side of the neck, an area of orange skin that inflates during the courtship display. Tufts of feathers (pinnae) extend down each side of the neck, and point forward during courtship. The Attwater's prairie chicken is distinguished from the lesser prairie chicken (T. pallidicinctus), which still occurs in the Texas panhandle, by orange instead of reddish throat pouches. From the northern race {T. cupido pinnatus), formerly found in Texas, it differs in having the back of the tarsus unfeathered. From the extinct heath hen {T. cupido cupido), it differs in having pure white axillaries and rounded pinnae. Color plates appear in Lehmann (1941) and Peterson (1947); black-and-white illustrations appear in Lehmann and Mauermann (1963). RANGE This species' range formerly extended over the entire Gulf coastal prairie of southwestern Louisiana and Texas, and south to the Rio Grande (Lehmann and Mauermann 1963). At present, it is confined to small, disjunct popula- tions scattered over about 12 Texas counties, mainly Refugio, Austin, and Colorado. It is extir- pated in Louisiana. RANGE MAP Present range (W. Shifflett personal com- munication) is shaded on the following page. STATES/COUNTIES Texas Aransas, Austin, Brazoria, Cham- bers,' Colorado, Dewitt, Fort Bend, Galveston, Goliad, Harris, Jefferson,' Refugio, Victoria, Waller,' Wharton. HABITAT Coastal grassland prairie approaches ideal conditions when (1) vegetation is diversified and native grasses, sedges, legumes, brush, and dwarfed trees provide a variety of cover; (2) knolls, ridges, and hog wallows are frequent and soils vary from loose sand to tight clay or silt; and (3) permanent sources of water are not more than 0.2 km apart (Lehmann 1941). Cultivation causes immediate abandonment, but the birds will usually return after the field lies ' Indicates counties in which V. Lehmann (personal com- munication) believes the species may no longer occur. fallow for a year or two (V. Lehmann personal communication). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Food of adults is 85% vegetable and 15% animal; this ratio is approximately reversed in the young. Favorite plants are ruellia {Ruellia ciliosa), perennial ragweed {Ambrosia psilostachya), black- berry {Rubus sp.), doveweed {Croton sp.), and sensitive briar {Neptunia lutea); favorite animals are grasshoppers and beetles. Except during breeding season, adults feed twice daily (dawn to 08:00 and 16:00 to dark). Gizzards collected at noon are usually empty. Feeding is slow and dehberate. Their capacity is large; 20 cc in gullet and 30 cc in gizzard. The variety of foods found in a stomach is im- mense—up to 29 kinds of food and more than 1,300 items (Lehmann 1941). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS These birds require light to medium cover for roosting, especially on gentle slopes, and medium heavy to heavy cover for nesting and escape. Light cover is necessary for booming (see Repro- duction) and feeding. Hence, considerable habi- tat diversity is required (Lehmann 1941). Fallow rice fields and weedy, sandy slopes are used for brood habitat in Austin and Colorado counties (W. Shifflett personal communication). NESTING OR BEDDING Prairie chickens usually nest on well-drained mounds or ridges near trails and within 1.3 km of a booming ground. The nest is a shallow depres- sion about 18 cm in diameter, more or less roofed over by a medium to heavy grass cover, and lined with bits of dead grass and a few feathers (Leh- mann 1941). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Preferred booming sites are short-grass flats, often not elevated, 0.4 ha or so in area, and sur- rounded by moderate grass cover suitable for nesting. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Permanent sources of surface water no more than 1.6 km apart are a must. Heavy rainfall in late April or May is a hazard to nesting (Lehmann 1941). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The species formerly numbered nearly 1,000,000 birds. In 1937, the population was esti- mated at 8,700 (Lehmann 1941). In 1962, Leh- mann and Mauermann estimated the total popula- tion at 1,335. Since then, fluctuation has been only slight, and the 1978 estimate was 1,500 indi- viduals (W. Shifflett personal communication). REPRODUCTION Elaborate displays by males on the booming grounds commence in February, peak in March, and end in May. Females visit the booming ground briefly for copulation and then select sites and construct nests. Peak laying occurs in late March and early April, at which time an average of 12 eggs are laid. Hens take two feeding forays daily, incubating the eggs the remainder of the day. The incubation period is 23 days. Hatchlings are precocious and immediately follow the hen away from the nest. Some young leave the hen at 6 to 8 weeks of age, while others remain into the fall (Lehmann 1941). An annual increase of 100% is considered good, despite the potential for 600% (Lehmann 1941). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Prairie chickens have been protected from hunting since 1937. Lehmann (1941) conducted a thorough study of Attwater's prairie chicken. A 3,200-ha acquisition in the middle of prime prairie chicken range in Colorado County was de- signated the Attwater's Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge. Management techniques used to improve the habitat include a closely regulated grazing program, prescribed burning, mowing, shrub eradication, and experimental crop plantings (W. Shifflett personal communication). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitor the Texas population annually (W. Shifflett personal communication). Lehmann and Mauermann (1963) have made several management recommendations. Sugges- tions include posting signs on roads to alert motorists that they are in prairie chicken habitat; transplanting of chickens from inhospitable areas east of the Brazos River to better ranges (e.g., Victoria County); and organizing and supervising a predator control program. A Recovery Team has been appointed. AUTHORITIES Bill Brownlee (Recovery Team) Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Royce Jurries Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. 1131 Travis Street Columbus, TX 78934 Val. W. Lehmann P.O.Box 185 Carrizo Springs, TX 78834 Wayne Shifflett (Recovery Team) Attwater's Prairie Chicken NWR P.O.Box 518 Eagle Lake, TX 77434 Nova Silvy (Recovery Team Leader) Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 James Teer (Recovery Team) Welder Wildlife Foundation P.O. Box 1400 Sinton.TX 78387 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The prairie chicken population is rather stable due in part to the slowing down of conversion of prairie lands to croplands. If several large ranches should alter existing ranching operations, the prai- rie chicken could be pushed close to extinction. However, the Attwater's prairie chicken NWR should prevent the species from becoming extinct. LITERATURE CITED/ SELECTED REFERENCES Brownlee, W. C. 1970-1977. Attwater's prairie chicken population census. Texas Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin. Progress Rep. . 1973. Vegetative requirements of Att- water's prairie chickens. Texas Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin. Progress Rep. Lehmann, V. W. 1941. Attwater's prairie chicken, its life history and management. N. Am. Fauna 57:65 pp. Lehmann, V. W. and R. G. Mauermann. 1963 Status of Attwater's prairie chicken. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:713-725. Peterson, R. T. 1947. A field guide to the birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 230 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and WildHfe Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 GainesvUle,FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.11 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE CAPE SABLE SPARROW Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data are not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as aiiuridcd). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Knginccrs in coordina- tion with the Offices of Kndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems I cam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704')8 II FWS/OBS-80/01.11 March 1980 si:lp:cii:d vi;ri kbraii: kndangered spkcies OF rin: skacoast oi i hi: united siai es- THE CAPE SABLE SPARROW A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species ant! the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. VVoodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal F.cosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CAPE SABLE SPARROW Ammospiza marititna mirabilis Howell KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passeriformes FAMILY Fringillidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Cape Sable se2iside sparrow DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined. Updates 17 August 1978, 10 October 1978. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967) States: Endangered: Florida REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The Cape Sable sparrow inhabits only un- Credit: Harold Werner stable interior marshes within a limited area of southern Florida. There are only three known dis- junct populations, two of them nearly extir- pated. Progressive invasion of marshlands by fast-growing exotic trees (Casuarina, Melaleuca, Schinus) poses a major threat to the remaining habitat, which is also under pressure from hurri- canes, housing development, and inland encroach- ment of mangroves. Frequent man-induced wild- fires and predation by feral cats and dogs may have caused the declines of some previously extensive colonies (U.S. Department of the Interior 1973; Werner 1975,1976, 1979; Mac- Kenzie 1977). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The Cape Sable sparrow is about 13 cm long, and colored olive-gray with olive-brown tail and wings. It is marked with a yellow spot before the eye and a white streak and black whisker along the jaw. The ventral coloration is light gray to nearly white, with darker streaking on breast and sides. It tends to be greener above and whiter below than other races of seaside sparrows. The sexes are similar. Immature birds are streaked dorsally with brown to light buff, with less streaking on Hght underparts. The yellow eye spot and dark whisker are reduced or absent. Color illustrations appear in Holt and Sutton (1926), Howell (1932), Peterson (1947), and Sprunt (1954); Werner (1975) presents black-and- white photographs. RANGE This sparrow is a nonmigratory resident of fresh to slightly brackish marshes in extreme southern and southwestern peninsular Florida. It ranges from 8 to 34 km inland, and is isolated from other races of seaside sparrow by at least 260 km along the Gulf and 280 km along the At- lantic coast of the State. Three disjunct, low- density populations occur in marshes at Cape Sa- ble, the Big Cypress Swamp, and the Taylor Slough area of Everglades National Park, the last being the location of the bulk of the population (Werner 1975, 1976,1979). The species was once common landward of the mangrove zone from Carnestown to Shark Valley Slough, including the coastal marl prairie on Cape Sable (Stimson 1956). It is now only rarely seen in this area (Werner 1979). Emigration of fledglings is the chief dispersal mechanism for an otherwise sedentary popula- tions (Werner 1975, 1976). RANGE MAP Known localities for Cape Sable sparrows are based on surveys conducted in 1970-1975 (re- drawn from Werner 1976). Critical Habitat is re- drawn from 42 FR 49685, 11 August 1977. STATES/COUNTIES Florida Collier, Dade, Monroe. HABITAT The species inhabits seasonally flooded brush- less subtropical marshes (prairies) of interior sou- thern Florida. Habitats vary from entirely fresh to slightly brackish, generally remaining dry most of the year. Brushy or rocky marshlands are avoided, as are extremely dense stands of cordgrass {Spar- tina bakeri) (Werner 1975, 1976, 1979). Werner (1975, 1976) described Cape Sable sparrow habitat in terms of four major graminoid communities: muhly grass {Muhlenbergia filipes) prairie; short sawgrass [Cladium jamaicensis) prai- rie; prairies of tall, clumped cordgrass; and prairies of low cordgrass growing with an irregular spatial distribution. Photographs of habitat appear in Holt and Sutton (1926), Stimson (1968), and Werner (1975). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The Cape Sable sparrow is primarily insecti- vorous, with beetles and spiders comprising the bulk of the diet. Amphipods, mollusks, and vege- table matter are of minor importance (Howell (1932). They feed almost entirely on or near the ground, but are occasionally observed in sawgrass flowers during the breeding season (Werner 1975). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Sparrows generally remain hidden in marsh vegetation during the hottest part of the day. The microclimate may be moderated by moisture from heavy morning dew (Werner 1975, 1979). NESTING OR BEDDING A woven grass nest is generally concealed within a tussock of grass 6 to 37 cm above ground. Nest construction may be either cupped or domed (Werner 1975, 1979). Werner (1975) reported nests primarily in Muhly grass and occasionally in sawgrass. Nesting is also known to take place in cordgrass and glass- wort {Salicornia) (Nicholson 1928, Stimson 1968). Photographs of nests and nest sites appear in Stimson (1968) and Werner (1975). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Males often chase females during the breeding season. A female occasionally extends and vi- brates her wings when approached by a male. The significance of such interactions is not known (Werner 1975). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Fire is a dangerous but vital component of Cape Sable sparrow habitat. Periodic burning of interior marshlands is necessary for perpetuation (O UJ -Jl- ►- << bm —1 < q:< o OI _I • o .a CO c O c of optimal conditions. Sparrow populations are closely related to the age of vegetation after fires. Maximum density is achieved within 3 or 4 years after a burn, followed by a sharp decline as the dead component of vegetation increases. Pro- longed absence of fire permits the elimination of marsh by hardwood invasion. Colonies may be enhanced or reduced by fire, depending on several critical factors, such as burn pattern, percent of contiguous habitat burned, size and percent of colony evicted, proximity of and isolation from adjacent colonies, and frequency and season of burning (Werner 1975, 1976). The breeding season appears to be closely re- lated to the hydroperiod of the marsh. Singing and nesting decrease abruptly when when the on- set of heavy rains causes the marsh to flood (Werner 1979), MacKenzie 1977). Dew may be an important source of moisture during the dry sea- son (Werner 1975, 1976). Cape Sable sparrows interact very little with other birds in their habitat area. Predation on adult sparrows appears to be low. Mortality may increase as summer floods inundate protective vegetation. Nestlings are subject to attack by ants (Werner 1975, 1976); 19% of nests surveyed by Werner (1975) at Taylor Slough are known to have failed due to predation. Similar failure of an additional 6% is suspected. The entire nesting cycle is completed within the confines of a male's territory. Werner (1975) reported territories of from 0.3 to 6.8 ha, some of them overlapping. Territories, generally retained through successive breeding seasons, are defended by song and occasional chasing and combat. Ave- rage territory size decreased with increasing popu- lation density following fire. New residents usual- ly occupy suboptimal sites adjacent to established occupants. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Werner (1976) estimated the total Cape Sable sparrow population at 1,900 to 2,800 birds. Over 95% live in 8,800 to 12,800 ha of marshland in the Taylor Slough area of South Florida. Muhly grass prairie provides the principal habitat. Werner (1976) described this final stronghold as 'an area of widely spaced individuals, broken by various sized patches of unacceptable habitat, on which islands of greater density appear and disappear, following the tracks of fires. . . .' A formerly large population adjoining Big Cypress Swamp (Stim- son 1956) was devastated by extensive fires during the spring breeding season (Stimson 1961, 1968; Werner 1976, MacKenzie 1977). Recent surveys indicate at least a 95% reduction since 1955. Only two singing males were recorded at Ochopee site in 1975, compared with 10 in 1970 (Werner 1975, 1976, 1979). The species was regularly sighted on the coastal marl prairie of Cape Sable between 1918 and 1935 (Howell 1919, 1932; Holt and Sutton 1926; Nicholson 1928; Semple 1936; Stimson 1956). Believed to have been extirpated by a severe hur- ricane on 2 September 1935 (Stimson 1956, 1968), they were rediscovered on Cape Sable near Little Fox Lake in 1970 (Werner 1971). Altera- tion of the habitat by the storm of 1935 apparent- ly is responsible for the population decline. Only a few widely spaced individuals remain (Werner 1975, 1976). REPRODUCTION The potential breeding season slightly exceeds 5 months, extending from February to August. Up to three broods are produced in a single sea- son. The pair bond may change between broods or continue over two consecutive years (Werner 1975, 1979). Normally, three or four eggs are laid per nest, rarely two or five. Eggs are incubated by the fe- male. Incubation requires more than 11 days. Both parents feed the young. Flightless young leave the nest 9 to 11 days after hatching; they are capable of short flights about 2.5 weeks after hatching (Werner 1976, 1979). They become independent at about 45 days (MacKenzie 1977). Fledglings begin to molt in July; the post- nuptial molt of adults is completed August to September (Werner 1975). Photographs of nestlings appear in Werner (1975). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Recovery efforts have emphasized determina- tion of ecological requirements as well as restora- tion and maintenance of habitat. Primary manage- ment strategies involve controlling water, fire, and exotics to maintain historic conditions. Acquisi- tion and management of private land in Big Cy- press area has been recommended (Werner 1979, MacKenzie 1977). Specific management recommendations pro- vided by Werner (1975) are: (1) eliminate exotic plants and animals from areas occupied by Cape Sable sparrows; (2) employ controlled periodic burns to retard hardwood invasion of suitable marshes; (3) restrict burning to August and Sep- tember, to approximate timing of natural light- ning strikes that follow the breeding season; (4) start burns with a single ignition spot to pre- vent entrapment of birds in junction zones; (5) to promote optimum population size, bum 15% to 20% of the habitat each year, using small, evenly distributed fires in the oldest roughs; and (6) the habitat of small colonies should not be burned, but the burning of limited adjacent areas could prove beneficial by expanding the habitat. Critical Habitat has been designated to include 'areas of land, water, and airspace in the Taylor Slough vicinity of Collier, Dade, and Mon- roe Counties' (42 FR 49685, 11 August 1977; 42 FR 47840, 22 September 1977). Rulemaking in- cludes areas both within and outside Everglades National Park. No recovery team has been appointed. AUTHORITIES Sonny Bass Research Biologist Everglades National Park P.O. Box 279 Homestead, FL 33030 J. A. Kushlan Research Biologist Everglades National Park P.O. Box 279 Homestead, FL 33030 J.C.Ogden Research Department National Audubon Society 115 Indian Mount Trail Tavernier, FL 33070 W. B. Robertson, Jr. Research Biologist Everglades National Park P.O. Box 279 Homestead, FL 33030 L. A. Stimson 4339 S.W. 9th Terrace Miami, FL 33134 H. W. Werner Research Management Specialist Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks 3225 National Park Highway Carlsbad, NM 88220 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Previouslv known as Ammospiza mirabilis (Howell 1932). PREPARER'S COMMENTS Previously known as Ammospiza mirabilis (Howell 1932; Stimson 1954, 1968; American Ornithologist's Union 1957), the Cape Sable spar- row was considered the last avian species identi- fied in continental United States (Stimson 1968; Werner 1975, 1976). It has recently been designa- ted a subspecies of A. maritima (Eisenmann 1973). Morphologically and behaviorally similar to other subspecies of seaside sparrows (Griscom 1944, Stimson 1968), it is unique in its geographi- cal isolation and confinement to interior marshes (Werner 1975, 1976, 1979). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologist's Union. 1957. Check- Hst of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Baltimore. Anderson, W. 1942. Rediscovery of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow in Collier County. Fla. Nat. 16:12. Beecher, W. J. 1955. Late-Pleistocene isolation of salt-marsh sparrows. Ecology 36:23-28. Dietrich, A. L. 1938. Observations of birds seen in South Florida. Fla. Nat. 11:101. Eisenmann, E. (Chairman). 1973. Thirty-second supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 40:411-419. Griscom, L. 1944. A second revision of the sea- side sparrows. La State Univ. Mus; Zool. Occas. Paper 19:313-328. Holt, E. G., and G. M. Sutton. 1926. Notes on birds observed in southern Florida. Ann. Car- negie Mus. 16:409-439. Howell, A. H. 1919. Description oa a new seaside sparrow from Florida. Auk 36:86-87. . 1932. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann, Inc., New York. 579 pp. MacKenzie, J. P. S. 1977. Birds in peril. Hough- ton Mifflin Co., Boston. 191 pp. Nicholson, D. J. 1928. Nesting habits of seaside sparrows in Florida. Wilson Bull. 40:225-237. . 1938. An historical trip to Cape Sable. Fla. Nat. 11:41-44. Ogden, J. C. 1972. Florida region. Am. Birds 26: 852. Peterson, R. T. 1947. A field guide to the birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 230 pp. Robertson, W. B., Jr., and J. A. Kushlan. 1974. The southern Florida avifauna. Pages 414-452 in P. J. Gleason, ed. Environments of South Florida: present and past. Miami Geological Society, Memoir 2. Sample, J. B. 1936. The Cape Sable sparrow and hurricanes. Auk 53:341. Sprunt, A., Jr. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward- McCann, Inc., New York. 527 pp. Stimson, L. A. 1944. Rediscovery of the Cape Sable sparrow confirmed. Fla. Nat. 17:31-32. . 1948. Cape Sable sparrow still in Collier County. Fla. Nat. 21 :68-69. 1953. Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Fla. Nat. 26:57. . 1954, Cape Sable seaside sparrow: Am- mospiza mirabilis (Howell). Pages 479-481 in A. Sprunt, Jr. Florida bird life. Coward-Mc- Cann, Inc., New York. 527 pp, . 1956. The Cape Sable seaside sparrow: its former and present distribution. Auk 73: 489-502. 1961. Cape Sable sparrows: fire and range extension. Fla. Nat. 34:139-140. . 1968. Cape Sable sparrow. Pages 859- 868 in O. L. Austin, Jr. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, bun- tings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 237. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threat- ened wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and Interna- tional Activities. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. Werner, H. W. 1971. Cape Sable sparrows redisco- vered on Cape Sable. Auk 88:432. . 1975. The biology of the Cape Sable sparrow. U.S. Gov. Rep., Everglades Natl. Park. 215 pp. . 1976. Distribution, habitat, and origin of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. M.S. Thesi Univ. of Fla., Tampa. 53 pp. . 1979. Cape Sable seaside sparrow. Pages 19-20 m H. W. Kale, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 2, Birds. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.12 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoasl of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of F,ndangercd Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed lo: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.12 March 1980 SELIXTKD V1:R 1 EBRAl i: KNDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAS 1 OF 1 HE UNITED S lATES- LEATHERBAGK SEA TURTLE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WildHfc Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National (Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidcll Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wiltllife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: P. C. H. PRITCHARD LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE Dermochelys coriacea Linnaeus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Reptilia ORDER Testudinata FAMILY Dermochelyidae OTHER COMMON NAMES leathery turtle DATES Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates: . .22 September 1976, 20 January 1977. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (35 FR 8495;2June 1970). States: Endangered: Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas. Protected: Alabama REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS General population reduction and overuse by humans are the primary factors determining the status of leatherback turtles. Exposure and vul- nerability while nesting make overharvesting by man possible. Sea turtles require relatively undisturbed beaches for nesting. Increasing development and human activity on beaches is incompatible with successful turtle reproduction. Illumination of beaches at night can distract hatchlings away from the sea (McFarlane 1963). Harvesting eggs has put tremendous pressure on this species. Occasionally adults are slaughtered on nesting beaches. Meat is used as fish bait and as human food (lUCN 1968, Pritchard 1979a, Rebel 1974). Predation is extensive — particularly on hatch- lings. Pritchard (1971) identified several species of crabs, fishes, reptiles, and mammals that prey on hatchlings. Predation on adults is generally limited to sharks and killer whales {Orcinus orca) Caldwell and Caldwell 1969). Incidental catches by commercial shrimping and fishing boats result in entanglement and sub- sequent drowning in the trawler nets. Littering of the seas is believed to have some impact on sea turtle populations. Plastic bags have the appearance of jellyfish, but cause death when eaten by turtles (Rebel 1974). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The largest of all turtles, it is easily disting- uished by its leathery skin. The neck and limbs are thick and feebly retractible. Average carapace length is 155cm. Adults generally weigh from 290 to 590kg. The carapace is triangular, and is covered with a layer of rubbery skin rather than horny shields. Carapace has seven longitudinal ridges. Head and neck are black or dark brown with a few white or yellow blotches. Each side of the gray upper jaw has a tooth-like cusp. The lower jaw is hooked anteriorly. Paddle-like claw- less limbs are black with white margins, and may have white spots. Hatchlings are dark brown or black with white or yellow carapacial keels and flipper mar- gins. Skin is covered with small scales that become thinner with each molt — starting about 3 weeks after hatching. Black-and-white photographs are in Carr (1952, 1967), Bustard (1973), Rebel (1974), Riedman and Witham (1974), and LeBuff (1976). Deraniyagala (1939) presents a complete pictorial and descriptive anatomical discussion. RANGE The leatherback is widely distributed in the oceans of the world. From tropical Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, they are found as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the British Isles. They are found as far south as Australia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina. Other bodies of water, such as the Mediterranean Sea are also inhabited. In spite of what appears to be a large range, it represents a reduction as compared to the range in earlier times (lUCN 1968). Major nesting beaches are in Malaya, Surinam, French Guiana, Mexico, Costa Rica, South Africa, Dominican Republic, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Annual United States nesting is restricted to Florida, although one nesting incident in 1966 in North Carolina was reported by Schwartz (Per- sonal communication). Atlantic Coast nests have been recorded from Flagler Beach to Miami, with the majority of records from Palm Beach and Martin Counties. There appears to be a small population that nests regularly on Hutchinson Island, Martin County. On the Gulf Coast, nesting is common in March and April (A. F. Carr per- sonal communication). Two reported nesting occurrences in Florida have been on publicly owned beaches: Sebastian State Park, Brevard County, and St. Vincent National Wildhfe Refuge, Franklin County. Other recorded nesting beaches are in private ownership. They are protected by the Florida Department of Natural Resources which, according to Witham (Personal communication), protects all nesting sea turtles. RANGE MAP Distribution off the continental United States is illustrated by shading adjacent coasthnes. Recorded nesting localities are depicted by dots. STATES /COUNTIES Alabama: Baldwin, Mobile. California: Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Abispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Ventura. Delaware: Kent, Sussex. Florida: Bay, Brevard Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dade, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton. Georgia: Bryan, Camdon, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, Mcintosh. Louisiana: Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, (Parishes) Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion. Maine: Cumberland, Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo, Washington, York. Maryland: Calvert, Dorchester, Somerset, St. Marys, Talbot, Worchester. pp^ SCALE <^c ;oo 2»o aoo uiles 200 300 40O ■iLOMC'reBs CONIC PROJECTION vest LOMCtTWOC Eastern distribution of leatherback sea turtle offshore (shading) and nesting beaches (dots) Massachusetts: Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Middle- sex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth. Mississippi: Hancock, Harrison, Jackson. New Hampshire: Rockingham. New Jersey: Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Monmouth, Ocean. New York: Nassau, Suffolk. North Carolina: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender. Oregon: Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook. Rhode Island: Newport, Washington. South Carolina: Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Georgetown, Horry. Texas: Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Willacy. Virginia: Accomack, Gloucester, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northampton, Northumberland, Virginia Beach, York. Washington: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Pacific. HABITAT Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, and are often found near the edge of the continental shelf. In Northern waters, they some- times enter shallow estuarine bays (Deranigayala 1939, Pope 1939). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Although apparently omniverous, consuming sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed, its princi- pal food is jellyfish. Deeply notched , sharp edged jaws appear adapted for holding and cutting soft- bodied prey. The mouth has fleshy papillae, and the throat has a valve which probably assist in swallowing and retaining soft-bodied prey (Prit- chard 1971). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NESTING OR BEDDING Leatherbacks require a sloping sandy beach backed up by vegetation for nesting. There must be sufficient slope so that the crawl to dry sand is not too far. The depth of the coarse dry sand is important because the female first excavates a pit for her body and then must reach moist sand so that she can make the proper flask-shaped nest (Pritchard 1969a, Witham 1976). Preferred beaches are mainland or island areas near deep water and rough seas (Rebel 1974). Site specificity such as that displayed by the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is not apparent for the leatherback. Lund (1974) suggests renesting is generally greater than 7 miles from the initial nest. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Estimates are based on counts of nesting fe- males: Trengganu (Malaya), 4,000; French Guiana, 15,000; Costa Rica, 1,000; Trinidad, Surinam, Tongaland, and Ceylon, 200 to 400; and Jalsico (Mexico) to northern Peru, 5,000. Pritchard (1969b) estimates the world female breeding population to be from 29,000tto 40,000. Lund (1974) estimates that about 25 leather- back nest in Florida each year; The number of females involved is uncertain. REPRODUCTION The nesting season varies per locality; Suri- nam and Guyana, May to July; Costa Rica, April to July; Silebache (includes French Guiana) Miy to August; Trinidad, March to August; and the Danish West Indies, March to May (Rebel 1974). Florida nesting season is from April to August. Females nest at night at intervals of 2 to 3 years. As many as six cluches may be laid a season with an average inter-nesting period of 10 days (Pritchard 1969a; Lund 1976) Clutches av- erage 80 to 85 eggs with the last layer of eggs generally abnormal. The white spherical eggs are approximately 50 to 54 mm in diameter (Pope 1939; Lund 1976). Incubation takes from 55 to 74 days and emergence of the hatchlings occurs at night. Animals mature in 6 to 10 years. Mating takes place in shallow water offshore of the laying beach. Occasionally males will crawl up the beach in an attempt to mate with nesting females (Le- Buff 1976). Photographs of courtship and mating are in Bustard (1973). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The Malayan Nature Society transplanted eggs into enclosures to increase numbers of hatchlings. This project is now under the control of Malayan Fisheries Department (lUCN 1968). Marquez M. (1976) recommended formation of seven natural reserves for the coast of Mexico. These are the major Mexican sea turtle nesting sites and include Playa de la Escolbilla, Oaxaca State, a leatherback nesting beach. Other protective measures should include ef- forts to curtail the loss of leatherbacks in fishing or shrimping trawls, protection of nesting beaches from turtles, and a limitation of development on nesting beaches (Pritchard 1971). Legal protection to varying degrees exists in Mexico, Costa Rica, Surinam, French Guiana, Ascension Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific, Tahiti, Fiji Islands, Kingdom of Tonga, Australia, Sarawak, British Indian Ocean, Seychelle's Islands, South Africa and the United States (Pritchard 1969b; U.S. Department of Commerce 1976). The leatherback is listed in Appendix 1 of 1976 Convention on Internation Trade in Endan- gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Commer- cial trade in this species is subject to strict regula- tion, and both an export and import permit are necessary for trade by participating countries. Critical Habitat has been determined to in- clude a major nesting area on Sandy Point Beach at the western edge of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Is- lands (43 FR 43688-43689; 26 September 1978), as well as adjacent waters (44 FR 17710-17712; 23 March 1979). AUTHORITIES Archie Carr Department of Zoology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 George Hughes Oceanographic Research Institute P.O. Box 736 Durban, Natal South Africa Frank Lund P.O. Box 541 Jupiter Island, FL 33458 Nicholas Mrosovsky Department of Zoology University of Toronto Ontario , Canada M5 3 1 A 1 Peter Pritchard Florida Audubon Society P.O. Drawar 7 Maitland,FL 32751 J. P. Schults Surinam Forest Service P.O. Box 436 Paramaribo, Surinam PREPARER'S COMMENTS Nesting records for the United States are not complete because the entire coast has not been surveyed. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Brongersma, L. D. 1970. Miscellaneous notes on turtles. 111. Koninkl. Nederl. Akademic Weten- schappen-Amoterdam. Proc. Serv. C. 73(4): 323-335. Bustard, R. 1973. Sea turtles, natural history, and conservation. Taplinger Publ.,New York. 220 pp. Caldwell, D. K. 1959. On the status of the Atlan- tic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea coriacea, as a visitant to Florida nesting beaches, with natural history notes. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 21(3):285-291. Caldwell, D. K., and M. C. Caldwell. 1969. Addi- tion of the leatherback sea turtle to the known prey of the killer whale, Orcinus orca.. J. Mammal. 50(3):636. Caldwell, D. K., and W. F. Rathjen. 1969. Unre- corded West Indian nesting sites for the leath- erback and hawksbill sea turtles, Dermochelys coricaea and Ertmochelys i. imbricata. Copeia 1969(3):622-623. Carr, A. F. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja Califor- nia.Comstock Publ. Assoc, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 542 pp. . 1967. So excellent a fishe. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 248 pp. Carr, A. F., and A. R. Main. 1973. Report on an inquiry into ecological implications of a turtle farming project. In Turtle farming project in northern Australia. Union Offset Co., PTY, Limited, Canberra, Australia. 80 pp. Carr, A. F., and L. H. Ogren. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 3. Dermochelys in Costa Rica. Ame. Mus. November 1958. 29 pp. Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1939. Tetrapod reptiles of Ceylon. Vol. 1. Columbo Mus. Publ. Ceylon. 412 pp. Ernst, C. H. and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lex- ington. 347 pp. Frair, W., R. G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature oi Dermochelys cor- iacea: Warm turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-0793. lUCN. 1968. Red data book. Vol. 3. Amphibia and reptiha. Compiled by R. E. Honegger. lUCN, Morges, Switzerland. LeBuff, C. R., Jr. 1976. Tourist turtle. Florida Wildl. 30(2): 16-17. Lund, F. 1974. A survey of marine turtle nesting in the United States. Unpubl. 39 pp. . 1979. Atlantic leatherback. Pages 54-55 in R. W. McDiarmid ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, Amphibians and rep- tiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Marquez M., R. 1976. Reserves naturales papa la conservation de las tortugas marinas en Mexi- co. INP/SI 83:1-22. McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of logger- head hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeial963(l):153. Montoya, A. E. 1969. Programas de investigacion y conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexico. Pages 34-53 in Marine turtles. lUCN New Publ. Ser. Suppl. Paper 20. Neill, W. H., E. R. Stevens, E. G. Carey, K. D. Lawson, N. Mrosovsky, and W. Frair. 1974. Thermal inertia versus thermoregulation in 'warm' turtles and tunas. Science 184:1008- 1010. Pope, C. H. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 343 pp. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969a. Sea turtles ot the Gui- anas, Bull. Fla. St. Mus. 13(2): 120-132. . 1969b. Summary of world sea turtle su- vival situation. lUCN Bull. 2(11):90-91. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle Dermochelys coriacea. lUCN Monogr. 1. Morges, Switzerland. 39 pp. Rebel, T. P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle in- dustry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Ed. Univ. of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 250 pp. Riedman, S. R., and R. Witham. 1974. Turtles extinction or survival? Abelard-Schuman, New York. 156 pp. Survival Service Commission. 1969. Marine tur- tles. Proc. working meeting of marine turtle specialists organized by lUCN at Morges, Switzerland. Tweedie, M. W. F. 1953. The breeding of the leathery turtle. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 123 (2):273-275. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Proposed listing of the green sea turtle [Chelonia my- das), loggerhead {Caretta caretta), and pacific ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Draft EIS. Natl. Oceanic Atm. Admin., Natl. Marine Fish. Serv. Wash- ington, D.C. Witham, R. 1976. Dermochelys coriacea. In H. O. Hillestad, D. B. Means, and W. W. Baker, eds. Endangered and threatened vertebrates of the southeastern United States. Tall Timbers Res. Stn. Misc. Publ. 4. Worth, R. F., and J. B. Smith. 1976. Marine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida in 1973. Florida Dep. Nat. Resour. Marine Res. Lab. Florida Mar. Res. Publ. 18. Yerger, R. W. 1965. The leatherback turtle on the Gulf coast of Florida. Copeia 1963 (3):365- 366. Zim, H. S., and H. M. Smith. 1953. Reptiles and amphibians. A Guide to familiar America spe- cies. Simon and Schuster, New York. 147 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.13 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- 6REEN SEA TURTLE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the pubHc with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of F^ndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Ct)mputer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.13 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF IHE UNFI ED STATES- GREEN SEA TURTLE A Cooperative Effort by the National Pish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. VVoodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidcll Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior Credit: O. James GREEN SEA TURTLE Chelonia mydas Linnaeus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Reptilia ORDER Testudinata FAMILY Cheloniidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Edible turde, tortuga verde. DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined. Updates. . .22 September 1976, 8 February 1977. LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered : waters of Florida and Pa- cific Coast of Mexico (43 FR 32800- 32811, 28 July 1978). Threatened: elswhere throughout its range (43 FR 32800-32811, 28 July 1978). States: Endangered: Florida, Maryland, Mis- sissippi, New Jersey, Texas. Protected: Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The green turtle's vulnerability while nesting has led to its overexploitation for food by local populations seeking a readily available source of protein food. Recent technological advances such as freezing and canning have increased its use for food, and an increase in demand for turtle pro- ducts (leather, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals) has placed considerable stress on the species. Nesting populations in Bermuda, Florida, the Greater Antilles, and Jamaica have been extir- pated or nearly so (U.S. Department of Com- merce 1976). In many areas, excessive predation on eggs and hatchlings has substantially reduced recruit- ment, causing populations to decrease. Relatively undisturbed beaches are necessary for nesting. Increasing development and use of beaches is incompatible with sea turtle reproduc- tion. Illumination of beaches at night, for exam- ple, can distract hatchlings away from the sea (McFarlane 1963). Sea turtles are caught incidentally to commer- cial fishing and shrimping activities. Some turtles are eaten by fishermen, some are sold in local markets, and some are mutilated or drowned as a result of entanglement in trawls (U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce 1976). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The green turtle is a large sea turtle with a broad, heart-shaped shell and small head. Flippers are paddle shaped, each with a single claw. Adults are 91 to 122 cm long and weigh 100 to 200 kg. The color varies widely. In general, hatch- lings have black carapaces, white plastrons, and white margins on the shell and limbs. Adults have a smooth, keelless carapace, colored light to dark brown, with brown mottling. The plastron is whitish to hght yellow; the upper surface of the head is light brown with yellow markings; sides of the head are brown with broad yellow margins; the neck is dusky above and yellow near the shell below. The tail and flippers are colored like the carapace and plastron. The carapace can be identified by four costal plates, none of which borders the nuchal shield, and by the absence of jagged marginals. Large scutes on the carapace do not overlap. There is only one pair of prefrontals between the eyes. This species is illustrated in Carr (1967), Par- sons (1962), Ernst and Barbour (1972), Rebel (1974), and Riedman and Witham (1974). RANGE The green turtle is distributed world-wide in waters above 20° C in the coldest month. Juveniles are sometimes found over a wider temperature range and thus a greater area. Green turtles live in waters off the North American coast from Massa- chusetts to Mexico and from British Columbia to Baja California (U.S. Department of Commerce 1976). They are uncommon off California. Major nesting grounds in the Western Hemi- sphere include the Michoacan Coast, Mexico; Tor- tuguero, Costa Rica; Shell Beach, Guyana; Bigi Santi, Surinam; and Aves Island. See Hirth (1971) for nesting sites in the Eastern Hemisphere. Known annual nesting in the continental U.S. is limited to small nesting populations of the east coast of Florida, from Brevard County to Brow- ard County. Jupiter and Hutchinson Islands have the greatest number of nests. For detailed infor- mation on nesting at Hutchinson Island, see Galla- ger et al. (1972) and Worth and Smith (1976). Their former distribution included nesting beaches on the Dry Tortugas, Cayman Islands, several other previously undisturbed islands, and more extensively in Florida (lUCN 1968). A small population of Pacific green turtles {Chelonia mydas agassizii) bask and nest on some of the islands in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. These islands are Federally owned and protected, although until recently, according to Balazs (1976), turtles had been harvested. In Florida, green turtles have nested on pub- licly owned lands in Merritt Island and Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuges, and St. Lucie and Sebastian State Parks, Other nesting beaches are privately owned and the Florida Department of Natural Resources, according to R. Witham (personal communication), protects all nesting on these beaches. RANGE MAP Distribution offshore continental U.S. is illus- trated on the following maps by shading of the adjacent coastline; nesting beaches are depicted by dots. STATES/COUNTIES Alabama Baldwin, Mobile. Mobile. California Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Ventura. Delaware Sussex. Florida Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Cit- rus, Collier, Dade, Dixie, Duval, Flag- ler, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, Hillsbo- rough, Indian River, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Volusia, Wakulla, Wal- ton. Georgia Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Li- berty, Mcintosh. SCALE 0 to ioo io ioo ^^o _^oo », lE 0 -ex "° 3CMJ 400 K,.0«£T " CONIC PROJECTION Eastern distribution of green sea turtles offshore (shading) and nesting beaches (dots) 4 Louisiana (parishes) Maryland Massa- chusetts Mississippi New Jersey Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion. Worcester. Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth. Hancock, Harrison, Jackson. Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, Ocean. New York Nassau, Suffolk. North Carolina Oregon Rhode? Island South Carolina Texas Virginia Wash- ington Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender. Clatsop, Coos. Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Tillamook. Newport, Washington. Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Georgetown, Horry. Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Willacy. Accomack, Northampton. Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Pa- cific. HABITAT The green turtle inhabits comparatively shal- low waters inside reefs and in bays and inlets. Favored habitat appears to be lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. This habitat type occurs in much of the Gulf of Mexi- co and Caribbean shore waters and around many oceanic islands. Green turtles are long-distance migrants and are occasionally seen in the open sea en route from feeding grounds to nesting beaches or vice versa (Carr 1952, 1967). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Adults are largely herbivorous, feeding on marine algae and shallow water pastures of marine grasses (including Thalassia, Zostera, Cymodocea, and Halophila) (Carr 1952, Randall 1965). Small mollusks, sponges, crustaceans, and jellyfish are often consumed (Carr 1952,Hirth 1971). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Pacific green turtles bask on reefs or uninhab- ited islands. Some green turtles have been known to rest with their shells wedged under rocks or reefs on the bottom of the sea (Carr 1952). Witham (1976b) states that hatchlings find re- fuge and food in sargassum [Sargassum sp.). Frick (1975) observed hatchlings resting on sargassum clumps. NESTING OR BEDDING Successful nesting requires a sloping beach platform with open ocean exposure and minimal disturbance. A variety of textures of sand can be used, but it must be friable and well drained (A. F. Carr personal communication). The presence or absence of vegetation does not appear to be critical; vegetation can be helpful in nesting be- cause roots may prevent the sand from crumbling; on the other hand, it can be detrimental if the roots pierce the eggshells (Caldwell 1959). On beaches without rooted plants, rain or the wetting of the sand by the turtle aids in preventing the sand from crumbling (Bustard 1973, Carr and Main 1973). Illustrated descriptions of nesting appear in Hendrickson (1958), Carr and Ogren (I960), and Hirth(1977). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Estimates of the breeding female population for the Western Hemisphere nesting areas are: Sarawak Turtle Islands 10,000 Surinam 2,500 Tortuguero 6,000 Aldabra fewer than 1,000 Australia 75,000, but includes flatbacks {Chelonis depressa) and loggerheads {Caretta caretta) Florida 50 (Hirth 1971, Lund 1974). Ehrenfeld (1974) estimates the world popu- lation of green turtles at between 100,000 and 400,000. Numbers fluctuate vvdth losses of nesting beaches to storms or development. Thus, it is difficult to predict trends. According to A. F. Carr (personal communication), persons inves- tigating green turtles around the world are con- cerned with the apparent decline in total numbers. REPRODUCTION Breeding season varies with locality: Michoacan Coast, Mexico .... May to September Tortuguero, Costa Rica June to November Shell Beach, Guyana March to August Bigi Santi, Surinam February to August Aves Island March to December Florida April to July (Hirth 1971, Rebel 1974). Nocturnal nesting occurs at 2-, 3-, or 4-year intervals (Carr and Ogren 1960, Hirth 1971). As many as seven clutches are laid in one season, with renesting occurring at 9- to 13-day intervals. Carr and Ogren (1960) plotted returns of turdes at Tortuguero in 1956 through 1959 and observed that renesting was usually within 1.5 km of the previous site. Clutch size varies from 75 to 200 eggs with in- cubation taking from 48 to 70 days, depending on beach and water conditions (Carr and Hirth 1962). Hatchlings generally emerge at night with- in a period of 48 hours (lUCN 1968, Rebel 1974). Animals are believed to reach maturity in 4 to 6 years in tropical waters and 5 to 13 years in temperate waters. Hirth (1971) estimates survival rates to maturity to be 1% to 3% of the hatch- lings. A. F.Carr (personal communication to L.H. Ogren 1975) estimates survivorship in Costa Rica to be about 0.1% of the hatchlings. Copulation occurs near the nesting beach (Bustard 1973). Whether the female stores sperm for successive laying seasons has not been deter- mined. Photographs of courtship and mating appear in Booth and Peters (1972). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Carr (1969) has made several suggestions for protection of the green turtle: Export of turtle products should be discontinued and catches for local use should be strictly supervised. No turtle boats should be permitted to operate off the northern 20 km of Tortuguero Beach. The sale or storage of calipee in Costa Rica should also be prohibited. The Survival Service Commission (1969) sug- gests that setting aside Ascension, Astove, Aves, Aldabra, Jabal Aziz, Sabah Turtle Islands, and the French Frigate Shoal as turtle islands could help stabilize turtle populations in those areas. Marquez M. (1976) recommends formation of several natural reserves for the coast of Mexico, which include the major Mexican sea turtle nest- ing sites. Two reserves, Playa de Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas State, and Isla Contoy, Quintana Roo State, are green turtle nesting areas. Cayman Turtle Farm, Ltd., has made exten- sive efforts at captive breeding. At present, the farm is dependent on natural stocks of eggs, and according to Hirth (1971), the project cannot be considered a complete success until it is indepen- dent of those sources. Some biologists suggest that such a project may never be ecologically or economically efficient. Others are concerned that turtle production could increase demand and thus increase the pressure on natural stocks (Ehrenfeld 1974). Hatcheries operate in Australia, Malaysia, Mexico, United States, and other countries. These and similar efforts to curtail natural predation could have a beneficial impact on numbers. Stocking has been attempted in many areas, but there have been no indications of definite success. Green turtles are legally protected to varying degrees in the following places: Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Surinam, French Guiana, Ascen- sion Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific, Tahiti, Fiji Islands, Kingdom of Tonga, Australia, Sara- wak, British Indian Ocean and Seychelles Islands, Israel, South Africa, Europa Islands, and the U.S. (Pritchard 1969, U.S. Department of Commerce 1976,43 FR 32800-32811). Most populations are hsted under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; commercial trade is subject to strict regulation, and both an export and import permit are neces- sary for trade by participating countries. Austra- lian populations are listed under Appendix II, which requires export permits for trade in those populations. AUTHORITIES George H. Balazs University of Hawaii at Manoa Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology P.O. Box 1346, Coconut Island Kaneohe, HI 96744 Archie Carr Department of Zoology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Harold Hirth Department ofBiology University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112 George Hughes Oceanographic Research Institute P.O. Box 736 Durban, Natal South Africa Frank Lund P.O. Box 541 Jupiter Island, FL 33458 Peter Pritchard Florida Audubon Society P.O. Drawer 7 Maitland,FL 32751 J. P. Schulz Surinam Forest Service P.O. Box 436 Paramaribo, Surinam Ross Witham Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Lab P.O. Box 941 Jensen Beach, FL 33457 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Nesting records for the U.S. are not complete, as the entire coast has not been surveyed. Recruit- ment in Florida is probably very low due to pre- dation, particularly by raccoons [Procyon lotor). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1953. Know your reptiles: the green turtle. Florida Wildl. 7(4): 19,32. Banks, E. 1937. The breeding of the edible turtle (Chelonia mydas). Sarawak Mus. J. 4(15): 523-532. Balazs, G. H. 1976. Green turtle migrations in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Biol. Conserv. 9:125- 140; Booth, J., and J. A. Peters. 1972. Behavioural studies on the green turtle {Chelonia mydas) in the sea. Anim. Behav. 20(4):808-812. Bustard, H. R. 1970. The adaptive significance of coloration in hatchling green sea turtles. Herpetologica 26:224-227. • 1973. Sea turtles, natural history and conservation. Taplinger Publ., New York 220 pp. Caldwell, D. K. 1959. The loggerhead turtles of Cape Romain, South Carolina. Bull. Florida St. Mus.4(10):340. . 1963. The sea turtle fishery of Baja California, Mexico. Calif. Fish and Game 49(3):140-151. Caldwell, D. K., and A. F. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Comm. 22:457-463. Carr, A. F. 1952. Handbook of turtles: The turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California. Comstock Publ. Assoc, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 542 pp. • 1964. Transoceanic migrations of the green sea turtle. Bioscience 14(8):49-52. . 1967. So excellent a fishe. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N. Y. 248 pp. . 1969. Sea turtle resources of the Carib- bean and Gulf of Mexico. lUCN Bull. 2(10): 74-83. . 1970. Green sea turtles in peril. Natl. Parks Conserv. Mag. 44(271): 19-24. 1972. Great reptiles, great enigmas. Audubon Mag. 74(2)24-35. -. 1975. The Ascension Island green turtle colony. Copeia 1975(3):547-555. Carr, A. F., and H. Hirth. 1962, The ecology and migrations of sea turtles: 5 comparative fea- tures of isolated green turtle colonies. Am. Mus. Novit. 2091:1-42. Carr, R. F., and R. M. Ingle. 1959. The green tur- tle {Chelonia mydas) in Florida. Bull Mar. Sci. Gulf-Carib. 9(3):315-320. Carr, A. F., and A. R. Main. 1973. Report on an inquiry into ecological implications of a turtle farming project. In Turtle farming project in northern Australia. Union Offset Co., Pty., Limited, Canberra, Australia. 80 pp. Carr, A. F., and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtle, 4. The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. His- tory 121(l):l-48. Cox, G. A., and R. G. Mauermann. 1976. Inciden- tal catch and disposition of sea turtles by the Brownsville-Port Isabel Gulf shrimp fleet. Un- publ. Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1939. Tetrapod reptiles of Ceylon. Vol. 1. Columbo Mus. Publ. Ceylon. 412 pp. Ehrenfeld, D. 1974. Conserving the edible sea tur- tle: Can mariculture help? Am. Sci. 62(1):23- 31. Ehrhart, L. M. 1976. Final report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ken- nedy Space Center. A study of a diverse coastal ecosystem of Florida. Office of Gradu- ate Studies and Research, Florida Technologi- cal Univ. Orlando. Unpubl. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lex- ington. 347 pp. Frick, J. 1971. Observations on sea turtles at Al- dabra Atoll. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. Bull. 260:273-410. Gallagher, R. M., M. H. Hollinger, R. M. Ingle, and C. R. Futch. 1972. Marine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida in 1971. Florida Dep. Nat. Resour. Spec. Sci. Rep. 37. 11 pp. Harrisson, T. 1956. The edible turde {Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 4. Growing turtles and growing problems. Sarawak Mus. J. 7(7):233- 239. Hendrickson, J. R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, (Linn.) in Malaya and Sara- wak. Proc. Zool. Soc, London. 130(4) :455- 535. Hendrickson, J. R., and E. Balasingam. 1966. Nesting beach prefemces of Malayan sea tur- tles. BuU. Natl. Mus., Singapore. 33(10):69-76. Hirth, H. F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle, Chelonis mydas. F.A.O. Fish. Syn. 85. Firm/585. SAST-Green Turtle-5.31 (07)005.02. Ingle, R. M., and W. F. G. Smith. 1949. Sea tur- tles and the turtle industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. Miami. Press, Miami. lUCN. 1968. Red data book. Vol. 3. Amphibia and reptiha. Compiled by R. E. Honegger. lUCN, Morges, Switzerland. Lund, F. 1974. A survey of marine turtle nesting in the United States. Unpubl. 39 pp. .1979. Atlantic green turtle. Pages 23-24 in R. W. McDiarmid ed. Rare and endangered- biota of Florida, Vol. 3. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gaines- ville. Marquez M., R. 1976. Reservas naturales para la conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexi- co. INP/SIi83: 1-22. McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of logger- head hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeia 1963(1): 153. Montoya, A. E. 1969. Programas de investigacion y conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexico. Pages 34-53 in Marine turtles. lUCN New Publ. Ser. Suppl. Paper 20. Parsons, J. J. 1962. The green turtle and man. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville. 126 pp. Pope, C. H. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 343 pp. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969. Summary of world sea turtle survival. lUCN Bull. 2(11):90-91. Randall, J. 1965. Grazing effect on sea grasses by herbivorous reef fishes in the West Indies. Ecology 46:225. Rebel, T. P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle in- dustry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. of Miami Press, Miami. 250 pp. Riedman, S. R., and R. Witham. 1974. Turtles ex- tinction or survival? Abelard-Schuman, New York. 156 pp. Schwartz, F.J. 1976. Behavioral and tolerance re- sponses to natural cold winter water tempera- tures by three species of sea turtles in North Carolina. Page 5 in Florida and interregional conference on sea turtles. Florida Dep. Nat. Resour. Marine Res. Lab. Unpubl. Survival Service Commission. 1969. Marine turtles. Proc. Work. Meet. Marine Turtle Special, organized by lUCN at Morges, Switzerland. True, F. W. 1884. The fisheries and fishery indus- tries of the United States, Sec. 1, Pt. 2. The useful aquatic reptiles and batrachians. U.S. Comm. Fish. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Proposed listing of the green sea turtle [Chelonia my- das), loggerhead [Caretta caretta), and Pacific ridley sea turtle {Leptdochelys olivacea) as threatened species under the Endangered Spe- cies Act of 1973. Draft EIS. Natl. Oceanic Atm. Admin., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Washing- ton, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threat- ened wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and Interna- tional Activities, Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Re- sour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. Walker, W. F. 1971. Swimming in sea turtles of the family Cheloniidae. Copeia 1971(2):229- 233. . 1976a. Chelonia mydas account. In H. O. Hillestad, D. B. Means, and W. W. Baker, eds. Endangered and threatened vertebrates of the southeastern United States. Tall Timbers Res. Sta. Misc. Publ. 4. 1976b. Evidence for ocean-current me- diated dispersal in young turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus). M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Okla- homa, Norman. 48 pp. Worth, D. F., and J. B. Smith. 1976. Marine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, in 1973. Florida Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Publ. 18. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.14 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal F^cosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 FWS/OBS-80/01.14 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRA IE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF FHE UNITED STATES- THE TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and W'iltllife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: J.JOHNSON TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER Typhlomolge rathbuni Stejneger KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Amphibia ORDER Caudata FAMILY Plethodontidae OTHER COMMON NAMES None DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined. Updates 21 November 1977, 31 March 1978, 22 August 1978. LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered (32 FR 4000, 11 March 1978. States Endangered: Texas REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The Texas blind salamander is endangered be- cause of its extremely restricted distribution in a fragile subterranean ecosystem. At accessible lo- cations (especially Ezell's Cave), sightings de- clined sharply in the 1960's, due probably to overcollecting by scientific, commercial, and hobbyist collectors. When the cave was sealed to prevent human entrance, the bat colony that supplied a presumably important energy resource in the form of guano was eliminated. Recent research (Longley 1978) has shown that the major part of the population is located in inaccessible parts of the Edwards Aquifer and is probably stable at present. However, there is a po- tential for contamination of the aquifer, as well as evidence that extensive groundwater withdrawal is causing the head in that aquifer to decrease. This could ultimately lead to intrusion of poor quality water from adjacent aquifers (Longley 1978). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The Texas blind salamander is all white or pinkish with blood-red external gills and tooth- pick-like legs. Head and snout are strongly flat- tened with two small black dots representing vestigial eyes beneath the skin. It reaches a total length of 13 cm. Color photographs appear in Mohr and Poulson (1966), Zahl (1972), and Conant (1975). RANGE The species occurs only in subterranean waters of the Edwards Aquifer near San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. It can be seen only in caves, sinkholes, and fissures, including Ezell's Cave, Primer's Well, and Rattlesnake Cave. Two addi- tional sites, Johnson's Well and Wonder (Beaver) Cave, have been recorded, but no Texas blind salamanders have been seen in either location for many years (Russell 1976). Longley (1978) has placed nylon nets over Pipe Spring at San Marcos Springs and the type locality artesian well, Aqua- tic Station, Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos, and collected Texas blind salaman- ders as they were washed out of the aquifer. Their total distribution is limited to about 104 km? mostly beneath the city of San Marcos (Russell 1876). However, based on known distri- bution (see range map), the figure could be less than this, perhaps as little as 10 km^ (F. E. Potter personal communication). RANGE MAP Current localities (observed within the past 5 years) are indicated by dots. Former localities (not observed within the past 50 years) are shown by triangles (F. E. Potter personal communica- tion). STATES/COUNTIES Texas Hays. HABITAT The blind salamander inhabits water-filled caverns of the San Marcos Pool of the Edwards Aquifer. It is knovm only from incidental speci- mens washed out of the aquifer or found near the water surface in caves. Water quality is considered very good with average temperatures in the vicini- ty of 21° C (Longley 1978). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR These salamanders feed on any living inverte- brates they can handle, including a tiny snail species, copepods, amphipods, and a shrimp. Cap- tive specimens have been maintained for up to 2 years on epigeal forms of daphnia and other small crustaceans, suggesting use of any such forms as may happen to wash into the aquifer from the surface. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NESTING OR BEDDING Not known. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The blind salamander is completely adapted to the cave environment. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Information is lacking on population size, but it is believed to be stable because of the large number of specimens and high percentage of ju- veniles washed out of the aquifer by springs and artesian wells. In the 2-year period 1975-1977, Longley (1978) netted 133 specimens, 32 of which washed from the type locality artesian well and 101 of which washed from Pipe Spring at San Marcos Springs, a previously unreported locality for the species. REPRODUCTION Information on reproduction is scanty. One gravid female contained 39 eggs. Tiny specimens less than 2 cm long have been found throughout the year (Longley 1978). Dunn (1926) reported eggs laid March 15, 1886, and spermatheca packed with spermatozoa in early fall of 1916. Gravid females have been observed each month of the year (F. E. Potter personal communication). Brandon (1971) discusses tesdcular lobes ranging from zero to four in the seven specimens he ex- amined. There appears to be a correlation be- tween size (age class), number of lobes, and num- ber of times sperm has been produced. lin ^ 116 in III in III 1— I y~ < _i o < o o 1 o 1 K 7' oc III UJ ca :^ or cc 3 o O U- • ^ u -a c -a X u H o fl o -4-) J2 MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Following the original fear that the species was being depleted, the Nature Conservancy pur- chased Ezell's Cave in 1967. The bat colony that had roosted there and contributed much of the basic energy for the cave and local aquifer com- munity had been almost eliminated when the cave entrance was sealed some years before. Although efforts to reestablish the bat colony have thus far been unsuccessful, a few cave-dwellers, including Typhlomolge rathbuni, are still infrequently ob- served (F. E. Potter personal communication). The continued protection afforded by offi- cial Hsting should minimize the potential impact of collectors on the few cave habitats accessible to them. The major part of the blind salamander's habitat is inaccessible, but adverse impact is pro- jected as the aquifer level declines with increased ground water usage (Longley 1978). Concurrent vkdth this decline in water quantity is the increased potential for urban pollution as more and more urbanization takes place along the aquifer re- charge zone. General management plans, de- signed by action agencies to maximize recharge and minimize introduced contaminants, mostly to benefit human consumption, should also benefit the diverse assemblage of species occupying the aquifer, including Typhlomolge rathbuni. A study is currently underway at Ezell's Cave to deter- mine existing environmental conditions (water quality) and present trends in faunal abundance and diversity. The results should serve as a basis on which to monitor conditions in the cave. AUTHORITIES Glenn Longley Biology Department Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 Floyd E. Potter, Jr. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Samuel S. Sweet Department of Biological Sciences University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Mitchell and Reddell (1965) placed the Texas blind salamander in the genus Eurycea; however, Brandon (1971) retained Typhlomolge. New data on skull morphology support the continued recognition of the genus Typhlomolge (Potter and Sweet 1979). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Brandon, R. A. 1971. North American troglobi- tic salamanders: Some aspects of modification in cave habitats with special reference to Gyrinophilus palleucus. Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc. 33:1-2L Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and am- phibians of eastern and central North America, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 429 pp. Dunn, E. R. 1926. The salamanders of the family Plethodontidae. Smith College Publications, Northampton, Mass. 441 pp. Longley, G. 1975. Environmental assessment, Upper San Marcos River watershed. Environ- mental Sciences of San Marcos. Soil Conserv. Serv. Contract AG-48-SCS 01256. 367 pp. . 1978. Status of the Texas blind salaman- der. Endangered Species Report 2. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque. 45 pp. Mitchell, R. W., and J. R. Reddell. 1965. Eurycea tridentifera , a new species of troglobitic sala- mander from Texas and a reclassification of Typhlomolge rathbuni. TexasJ.Sci. 17:12-27. Mohr, C. E., and T. L. Poulson. 1966. The Hfe of the cave. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 232 pp. Potter, F. E., Jr. 1963. Gross morphological varia- tion in the genus Typhlomolge with descrip- tion of a new species. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Texas, Austin. 66 pp. Potter, F. E., Jr. and S. S. Sweet. 1979. Generic boundaries in Texas cave salamanders and a redescription of Typhlomolge robusta (Am- phibia: Plethodontidae). Copeia. In press. Russell, W. H. 1976. Distribution of troglobitic salamanders in the San Marcos area. Hays County, Texas. Unpubl. Rep. 7601, Texas Assoc. Biol. Invest. Trogl. Eurycea, Austin. 35 pp. Zahl, P. A. 1972. The shadowy world of salaman- ders. Natl. Geog. Mag. 142(1):104-117. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.15 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States YUMA CLAPPER RAIL Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aic not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Fndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Kngineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.15 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES YUMA CLAPPER RAIL A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior YUMA CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris yumanensis Dickey (1923) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Gruiformes FAMILY Rallidae OTHER COMMON NAMES None DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Update to be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 Mar 1967). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 3 July 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-711) as amended 3 December 1969. Public Law 91-135. State: California: Rare Arizona: Protected REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Grinnell (1914) did not report any clapper rails and noted that marshes were few and small in size during his 3-month vertebrate survey along the Lower Colorado River from 15 February to 15 May 1910, suggesting a considerable increase in both habitat and rails as a result of damming of river since then (Ohmart and Smith 1973). Since clappers normally do not return to the Colorado River habitat until about April 22-25, it would have been easy for Grinnell to miss the influx of birds. Reclamation projects along the Colorado River have both created and destroyed marsh habitat. Dam construction may have generally increased habitat by creating marshes. Therefore, birds may now be at the northernmost point of their historic range. Channelization has eliminated large areas of habitat near Yuma since 1963 (Tomlinson and Todd 1973). PRIORITY INDEX 8 DESCRIPTION R. I. yumanensis is a chicken-size bird, gray- brown above with cinnamon brown breast, flanks barred gray and white, and a white patch under the upturned tail. Bill, legs, and toes are long. Similar to R. I. levipes but paler underparts, duller and more olivaceous upper parts. More slender tarsus and bill (Dickey 1923). Very simi- lar to levipes of southern coastal California, differing only in more slender proportions and paler coloration (Van Rossem 1929). Similar to rhizophorae (of Sonora) in paleness but, in gen- eral, more brownish (less grayish) and has more pointed wings because of difference in length of primaries. Compared with levipes, it is paler on breast and throat, has grayer flanks, duller wing coverts and more extensive brown in the crown (Banks and Tomlinson 1974). Ripley (1977), although noting the above differences, is dubious about the validity of yumanensis as a subspecies. Measurements — Male: Wing 143.1-160.1 mm (av. 149.8 mm); tail 60.3-69.0 (av. 64.2); exposed culmen 55.4-61.8 (av. 59.2); tarsus 47.9-55.0 (av. 50.3); middle toe without claw 50.3-54.6 (av. 52.7); weight 222-307 g (av. 256g). Female: wing 135.6-148.5 mm (av. 141.8mm); tail 57.8- 62.6 (av. 59.9); exposed culmen 51.9-58.2 (55.5); tarsus 43.0-49.5 (45.4); middle toe without claw 46.5-51.1 (49.0); weight 192-268g (219g). Banks and Tomlinson 1974). Eggs are oval, glossy, pale pinkish buff and cartridge buff, with sparse spots of varying brown shades;41.8 by 28.8mm (Bent 1926). RANGE This rail breeds, at present, in marshes along the Colorado River in California and Arizona, from Needles to the Topock marsh south to the Colorado River delta in Sonora; west to marshes along the southeastern Salton Sea, California; east, locally, to the Gila River near Tacna, Ari- zona, and possibly the Salt River near Phoenix (Tomlinson and Todd 1973, Ohmart and Smith 1973). It is thought to winter, at least in part, in coastal and interior marshes and coastal mangrove swamps in Mexico, including Estero Mescales, 8 km north of Teacapan, and Castillo, 11km east of Mazatlan, Sinaloa; also at Laguna San Felipe, Puebla (Banks and Tomlinson 1974). The former more restricted range is documen- ted by Dickey (1923), Bent (1926, Van Rossem (1929), Moffitt (1932), Abbott (1940), and Grinnell and Miller (1944). Lack of authentic winter records in the north- em breeding areas is noted by Phillips et al. (1964), Todd (1971), and Tomlinson and Todd (1973). Winter records of clapper rails (presum- ably yumanesis but possibly wanderers of other subspecies) at Salton Sea appearing on two 1976 Christmas bird counts published in American Birds 31 (4):880, 1977 and confirmed by R. Guy McCaskie (pers. comm.) ; and also at Topock Marsh in January 1974 (Smith 1974), suggest that some individuals do not migrate. Breeding populations along the Colorado Riv- er, the Colorado River delta and at Salton Sea have been identified from specimens as yumanensis (Banks and Tomlinson 1974). No specimens rep- resentative of the small, isolated populations along the Gila and Salt Rivers in Arizona, nor any winter specimens from the Colorado River or Salton Sea have been critically examined. RANGE MAP: The following map depicts breeding range (from Tomlinson and Todd 1973) and winter re- cords (from Banks and TomHnson, 1974). STATES/COUNTIES: California: Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino. Arizona: Maricopa, Mohave, Yuma. HABITAT The Yuma clapper rail requires freshwater or NEV. ARIZONA SAN BERNARDINO CO. Needles ' MOHAVE CO. I Topock Marsh Topock Gorge LakeHavasu "*>s^ Bill Williams Delta Parker Dam CC o < Headgate Rock Dam_^ -jC Parker Lost Lake »\ Wl)(/ar Lake IVIodvalya RIVERSIDE CO. BIythe Palo Verde Diversion Dan U.S. Highway 60-70 Palo Verde Lagoon Davis L.( Three Fingers L. Draper L.Jl] Taylor Ferry /)£> Cibola L. YUMA CO. IMPERIAL CO. /Xii Aniencan Morelos Martinez I Laguna Dam i » Dobe L. Imperial Dam r.^^'y oi n^ 'MIttry L. Yuma Tacna BAJA CALIFORNIA Colorado River Delta • Riito MARICOPA CO. RWef WINTER RECORDS SONORA Known range of the Yuma clapper rail. 3 brackish stream sides and marshes, associated with heavy riparian and swamp vegetation (Grin- nel and Miller 1944), such as alkaline cattail mar- shes (Phillips et al. 1964). In general, habitat con- sists of shallow-water marshes containing dense stands of cattail (Typha latifolia) and big bulrush or tule (Scirpus acutus), in both brackish and freshwater situations. Shallow water with mud flats available for feeding are selected over areas where water is deep and steep banks prevalent. Stands of cattail and tules dissected by narrow channels of water 1.6 to 7 m wide had densest populations, according to Tomlinson and Todd (1973). Preferrred breeding habitat is light cattail or tule stands with downed vegetation, with adja- cent dry land a must (Ohmart and Smith 1973). Water of breeding habitat on the Colorado River Delta in Mexico is salty and growths of cattails and tules appear to be limited to small fresh or brackish sloughs. The vegetation is characterized by an overstory of saltcedar {Tamarix sp.) and an understory of iodine bush {Allenrolfia occident- alis), all quite different from the habitat above the delta (Tomlinson and Todd 1973). The rail seems to require wet mudflat or sand- bar sites, covered rather densely with mostly ma- ture vegetation exceeding 0.5m. Optimum condi- tions are created by open ponds or channels as opposed to unbroken stands of vegetation. Salt- cedar {Tamarix pentandra) stands are rarely utilized (Todd 1971). The following habitat characteristics appeared in locations where clapper rail densities were higher than average: 1. Water, flowing through many small channels from 0.5 to 3 m wide, either covered with vegetation or appearing as small bodies of open water 0.02 to 0.2 hectares in size. 2. Extensive areas of water of depth less than 0.3 m little or no daily fluctuation in water level. 3. High ground in strips or, less importantly, as small islands. 4. Emergent vegetation, cattail or bulrush, with little or no Phragmites sp., which are too high and have few down stems (Gould 1975). At Topock Marsh, the highest densities were found in light cattail stands — lowest, in heavy stands. Dense cattail had 0.9 rails per 10 ha; light light cattail 1.9 per 10 ha; dense buUrush 1.7 per 10 ha; light bullrush 1.8 per 10 ha. The majority of rails were in the ecotone between emergent vegetation and higher ground, either at the shore- line or on hummocks in the marsh (Smith 1974). Winter habitat probably includes mangrove swamps on the Pacific coast of Sinaloa and fresh- water marshes of Puebla (Banks and Tomlinson 1974). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The major food is invertebrates, with little vegetable matter. Crayfish [Procambarus and Oropectes) were the dominant food in 9 of 10 stomachs from Topock Marsh south to Imperial Reservoir. Of two stomachs from the confluence of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, one contained primarily (98%) freshwater clams {Corbicula sp.), and the other, 97% isopods. Colorado River delta specimens contained a greater variety of food, but the majorcomponents were water beetles and fish. Of 16 stomachs, 9 had crayfish, 1 1 had insect frag- ments, 4 had water beetles, 4 had fish, and 3 contained clams. Other insects in small amounts were weevils, damselfly nymphs, dragonfly nymphs, grasshoppers, and insect eggs. Spiders, leeches, prawns, and a small mammal bone were also found. Plant material consisted of twigs (10% in one stomach), 2 legume seeds (1 stomach) and 18 unidentified black seeds (3 stomachs). Like other subspecies of clapper rail, yumanensis seems to be a selective opportunist whose variety of food is limited by its availability in the particular habitat (Ohmart and Tomlinson 1977). In To- pock Marsh, crayfish are an important part of the diet. Crayfish are found in all areas where rails occurred, with the greatest number of crayfish in water 8 to 15 cm deep with abundent stems and leaves lying in the water. Floating and recumbent vegetation is important in foraging areas, as they provide habitat for crayfish and a platform to walk on (Smith 1974). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS None other than mentioned in other sections. NESTING OR BEDDING In three nests, material consisted of black sticks with dry leaves on them, two nests were made of fine stems with dry blossoms attached. Nests were located on hummocks and in the crotches of small shrubs just above water in dense cattail and tamarisk associations (Abbott 1940). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS The rail appears to defend its territory (Tom- linson in Ohmart and Smith 1973). The 'clatter call' is given in unison by male and female and with adjacent birds (Tomlinson in Ohmart and Smith 1973). Territory size averages 1.44 ha (Smith 1974). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS None other than specified in other sections. POPULATIONS NUMBERS AND TRENDS A multiagency Yuma clapper rail census re- corded 889 along the Colorado River in 1973 and 787 in 1974. In the Imperial Valley, 134 were recorded in 1974 (no count in 1973). Total count for the Colorado River and Imperial Valley com- bined in 1974 was 921 rails (Gould 1975). Esti- mated local populations in 1973 were: Topock Marsh 109-136, Topock Gorge-52-65, Bill Wil- liams River delta-21-35, Colorado River delta- 145 (Cornelius 1972, Ohmart and Smith 1973). Total population was estimated at over 1,000 (Tomlinson in Ohmart and Smith 1973). Factors regulating populations include preda- tion by raccoon and coyote (Abbot 1940), bob- cat, feral house cat, dog, and Cooper's hawk (Todd in Ohmart and Smith 1973); and habitat destruction (Tomlinson and Todd 1973, Corne- lius 1972). REPRODUCTION A nest with 7 slightly incubated eggs was found near the Salton Sea on 12 May 1940. Obser- vations along the lower Colorado River in summer (8 May to 16 September) include an adult with 3 young 2 weeks old on 17 July (Phillips et al. 1964); and a nest with one egg, another with two eggs, and two empty found on 5 May. A nest with six fresh eggs, one with seven fresh eggs, and one with seven slightly incubated eggs were found on 12 May. Abbot (1940) reports a clutch of six slightly incubated eggs on 26 May, and five clutches ranging from six to seven eggs (average 6.5). The incubation period is unknown, but is probably similar to other clapper rails, 21 to 23 days (Ohmart and Smith 1973). Hatching success is suggested by three quar- ter- to half-grown downy chicks found on 23 June (Tomlinson in Ohmart and Smith 1973) and three 2-week-old young (Phillips et al. 1964). A breeding period in May and June was indi- cated by responses to taped calls (Tomlinson and Todd 1973). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION An annual or periodic index to abundance of rails will be important in view of constant change in the rivers through reclamation projects. Taped call notes could be used to obtain such an index, but would be costly to maintain. Since cattails and tules are so important as habitat, estimates of rail population size can be determined by inspec- tion of aerial photographs taken periodically. Prior research could determine average density of rails for specific habitat types and sizes. Spot checks on the ground would help to determine accuracy (Tomlinson and Todd 1973). State, national, and international uses of Colorado River water are all involved in manage- ment of Yuma clapper rails. Occasionally, such management, even that for fish and wildlife, if it involves dredging out cattail growth, is detrimental to rail survival. The main requirement in manage- ment for Yuma clapper rails is that extensive growths of cattails and tules must be preserved throughout its range. AUTHORITIES Richard L. Todd Arizona Department of Game and Fish 2222 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023 Roy E. Tomlinson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Philip M. Smith 1613 W.Peoria Ave. No. 2 Phoenix, Arizona 85029 Robert D. Ohmart Department of Zoology Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85281 Gale W. Monson 8831 N. Riviera Drive Tucson, Arizona 85704 Gordon I. Gould, Jr. 1080 E.Nevada Blythe, California 92225 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Research attention focused on the Yuma clapper rail because of its endangered status has cleared up two important matters. Despite doubts expressed by Ripley (1977), Banks and Tomlin- son (1974) have shown, on the basis of critical study of adequate specimens, that it is a taxa- nomically valid subspecies, examples of which can be recognized as migrants when away from their breeding areas. Also, it has been found that the populations of this rail will respond to changing distribution of its preferred type of habitat, which has now been described in detail, by extending its range (Tomlinson and Todd 1973, Ohmart and Smith 1973, Smith 1974, Gould 1974). This informa- tion should make possible the continued exis- tence of this subspecies by means of specific habi- tat management for it, in addition to the several other competing land uses in the limited sites available along the lower Colorado River and adjoining areas.— John W. Aldrich. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Abott, C. G. 1940. Notes from the Salton Sea, California. Condor 42:264. Banks, R. C, and R. E. Tomlinson. 1974. Taxo- nomic status of certain Clapper Rails of south- western United States and northwestern Mexi- co. Wilson Bull. 86:325-335. Bent, A. C. 1926. Life histories of North Ameri- can marsh birds. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 135:275. California Department of Fish and Game. 1978. At the crossroads: a report on California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Bian- nual Rep. 103 pp. Cornelius, S. S. 1972. Yuma Clapper Rail census, Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. Unpubl. Dickey, D. R. 1923. Description of a new Clapper Rail from the Colorado River valley. Auk 40: 90-94. Gould, G. I., Jr. 1975. Yuma Clapper Rail study- censuses and habitat distribution 1973-74. California Dep. Fish Game Admin. Rep. 75-2, April 1975. Grinnell, J. 1914. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado Valley. Univ. Cahf. Publ. Zool. 12:51-294. Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribu- tion of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna 27:128. Moffitt, J. 1932. Clapper Rails occur on marshes of Salton Sea, California. Condor 34: 137. Oberholser, H. C. 1937. A revision of the Clapper Rails [Rallus longirostris Boddaert). Proc. U.S.Nat. Mus. 84:313-354. Ohmart, R. D., and R. E. Tomlinson. 1974. Food of western Clapper Rails. Wilson Bull. 89:332- 336. Ohmart, R. D., and R. W. Smith. 1973. North American Clapper Rails [Rallus longirostris), literature survey with special consideration being given to the past and current status of yumanensis. Bur. Reclam. Rep. PhilUps, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 31pp. Ridgway, R., and H. Friedmann. 1941. The birds of North and Middle America, Part 9. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 50. Ripley, S. D. 1977. Rails of the world. David R. Godine, Boston. Smith, P. M. 1974. Yun.a Clapper Rail study, Mohave County, Arizona, 1973. California Dep. Fish Game, Spec. Wildl. Investig. Prog. Rep. Job 11-5.9. June 1974. Todd, R. C. 1971. Report on the study of the Yuma Clapper Rail along the Colorado River. Prepared for Colorado River WildUfe Council Meeting,, April 5-6, 1971, Las Vegas, Nevada. Tomhnson, R. D., and R. L. Todd. 1973. Distri- bution of two western Clapper Rail races as determined by responses to taped calls. Con- dor 75:177-183. Van Rossem, A.J. 1929. The status of some Paci- fic Coast Clapper Rails. Condor 31:213-215. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.16 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- SANTA BARBARA SONG SPARROW Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the scacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Knginccrs in coordina- tion with the Offices of F.ndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should bo directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.16 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- SANTA BARBARA SONG SPARROW A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildhfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coeistal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PHOTO OF CUOSELY REUATED SUBSPECIES CREDIT: HERBERT CLARKE SANTA BARBARA SONG SPARROW Melospiza melodia graminea Townsend (1890) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passeriformes FAMILY Fringillidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Bell Finch, Coast Song Sparrow, California Song Sparrow. DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered. (42 FR 36427), 14 July 1977. States: Protected: California. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS There is general agreement among ornitho- logists who have searched for song sparrows on Santa Barbara Island during the breeding season that the subspecies M. m. graminea is extinct (G. L. Hunt, Jr. pers. comm. to J. W. Aldrich, 18 Aug. 1972, and Warren King, 26 March 1974; Small and Henderson 1974). The main reason for its decline and extinction was elimination of dense vegetation over the entire island by feral domestic rabbits whose population exploded from 1953-1959; and, finally, extensive fire in 1959 that destroyed the remaining vegetation and litter down to the mineral soil. Feral cats, which were numerous in earlier times, along with bam owls {Tyto alba) and American kestrels {Falco sparverius) may have contributed to the decline, particularly after the 1959 fire destroyed the concealing vegetation (Small and Henderson 1974). PRIORITY INDEX None assigned. DESCRIPTION M. m. graminea is small, brownish gray above, white streaked with black below, with a black spot on chest. It is distinguished from related races of song sparrow by shorter wings and tail, and, except for tnicronyx of San Miguel Island, by more grayish (less brownish) coloration. It differs from M. m. clementae of the Other Chan- nel Islands in smaller bill, tarsus, and feet; from M. m. cooperi, of the adjoining mainland; in smaller bill; from coronatorum of Los Coronados Islands in larger tarsi and feet. Nineteen adults measured: length, 5.50 - 6.12 in (140 - 155 mm) av. 5.80 in (147 mm); wing, 2.25 - 2.50 in (57.2 - 63.5 mm) av. 2.35 in (59.7 mm); bill, 0.40 - 0.46 in (10.2 - 11.7 mm) av. 0.43 in (10.9 mm) (Townsend 1896, Grinnell 1897, 1928, Van Rossen 1924). RANGE Formerly a permanent resident on Santa Bar- bara Island off southwestern California, it was confined to that island (Willett 1933; Grinnell and Miller 1944, American Ornithologist Union 1957). RANGE MAP See range map on following page. STATES/COUNTIES C^difomia: Los Angeles. HABITAT Santa Barbara Island, with an area of only 2.6 km^ , is 61 km from the mainland and 37 km from the nearest other island (Santa Catalina). No permanent fresh water is present on the island. A low ridge extends along the western edge with high points 171 and 193 m above sea level. The central portion is a graded slope, almost level in some areas, then falling steeply to the ocean on the eastern edge, which is cut by a number of canyons. It has an equable climate, and practically never frosts; rainfall is only 12 in (30.5 cm), but wet fogs are frequent. Vegetation was formerly long, coarse grass growing thick and tangled every- where, making walking difficult (Townsend 1890). Sparse brush covered slopes and ravines (Grirmell 1897). The song sparrows were found where the brush afforded protection (Wright and Snyder 1913). Song sparrows used bushes for nesting, and fog supplied the moisture essential to birds of this type (Grinnell and Miller 1944). In more recent times, thickets of giant tree-sunflower {Coreopsis gigantea) were abundant (Philbrick 1972; Sumner 1958). Gross changes in vegetation have taken place in the 20th century as a result of agriculture, the effect of overgrazing by rabbits, and more recently, a severe fire ( 1959) that burned over almost the entire island and eliminated most of the remaining vegetation (Small and Henderson 1974). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR No information is available, but the diet pre- sumably consisted of insects and small seeds, the same as mainland populations. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Dense growths of grass (Townsend 1890), sparse brush cover on slopes and ravines used for nesting (GrinneU 1897), and thickets of giant tree-sunflower (Small and Henderson 1974) were all important cover vegetation for song sparrows. NESTING AND BEDDING Five nests were all practically the same size and composition. A typical one was supported by obliquely growing twigs of a bush and lined with yellow grasses, in marked contrast to the larger brown grass and weed stems of which the nest structure was built (Grinnell 1897). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Song, notes and actions are the same as those of mainland races of song sparrow, a strongly territorial species. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS None is known other than dense vegetative cover for nesting and concealment. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Once extremely abundant - in fact, the most abundant bird - on the small island of Santa Bar- bara (Townsend 1890). They were numerous SAN FRANCISCXD CALIFORNIA t>t^' LOS ANGELES t SANTA BARBARA ISLAND Total range of the Santa Barbara song sparrow. everywhere, especially on the brush-covered fields on the southern part of the mesa (Grinnell 1897). They were abundant residents on Santa Barbara on first of May 1908, and at times were "fairly swarming" in short scrub (Howell 1917), abun- dant residents on the island in 1911 (Willett 1933); permanent residents, abundant, but no year given (Grinnell and Miller 1944). By 1967, the subspecies was extinct according to Kenneth Baker, National Park Service (pers. comm. to Chnton Lostetter, FWS 1972). Monitoring of all land birds by means of periodic searches of all parts of Santa Barbara Island from 15 May to 23 July 1972 failed to produce sight or sound of a song sparrow (George L. Hunt, Jr. pers. comm. 1972). No trace of song sparrows was found on the isleind by diligent search by Small and Hender- son from 13 to 17 May 1974, despite open condi- tion of land that made it easy to observe any bird present. A song sparrow sighting on the island by Robert DeLong on 19 August 1967 may be the last record of the subspecies (Small and Hender- son 1974). Records of single song sparrows in 1972 and 1973 by George Hunt, Jr. were thought by him to be migrants of other races from the mainland, since they were associated with waves of migrant landbirds (Small and Henderson 1974). REPRODUCTION Nest containing 2 eggs, advanced in incuba- tion, were found 16 June 1911. At that date most of the young were already full grown (Willett 1912 and 1933). In mid-May 1897, fuU-grovm juveniles were numerous, more so than adults, which were all apparently engaged in nest build- ing or raising second broods. From 3 to 5 eggs were laid per set. Five sets averaging 3.8 eggs each were secured on May 14 and 15. Eggs averaged 0.61 X 0.78 in (15.5 x 19.8 mm), with extremes of 0.70 to 0.82 in (17.8 - 20.8 mm) in length and 0.57 to 0.64 in (14.5 - 16.3 mm) in diameter (GrinneU 1897). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION It is now too late to manage for this species, but the example may be useful in planning habi- tat restoration and management to prevent ex- tinction of other wildlife species on Santa Bar- bara Island. The Santa Barbara song sparrow is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by the National Monument status of the island, under the National Park Service. AUTHORITIES George Hunt, Jr. U. of Calif. Irvine, Calif. Kenneth Baker Nat. Park Service John Small Point Reyes Bird Observatory R. P. Henderson Point Reyes Bird Observatory PREPARER'S COMMENTS The evidence seems conclusive that the subspe- cies of song sparrow that bred on Santa Barbara Is- land (M. m. graminea) is now extinct and that song sparrows observed on the island from time to time are probably migrants from other breed- ing areas. LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists Union. 1957. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th Edition. Balti- more, Md., Amer. Omith. Union. Grinnell, J. 1897. Report on the birds recorded during a visit to the islands of Santa Barbara, San Nicholas and San Clemente in spring of 1897. Pasadena Academy of Sciences Pub. 1:1-21(6). Grinnell, J. 1928. The Song Sparrow of San Miguel Island, California. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 41:37-38. Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribu- tion of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 27:608 pp. (554). Howell, A. B. 1917. Birds of the islands off the coast of southern California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna 12:1-127(80). Van Rossem, A. J. 1924. A survey of the Song Sparrows of Santa Barbara Islands. Condor 26:217-220. Philbrick, P. N. 1972. The plants of Santa Barbara Island, California. Madrono 21:329-393. Small, J., and R. P. Henderson. 1974. Part II. Santa Barbara Island, hi "The status of the Song Sparrow and Bewick's Wren on San Clemente Island and Santa Barbara Island, California" by R. M. Stewart, John Smail, William Clow and R. P. Henderson. Report to Endangered Species Office U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Point Reyes Bird Observa- tory, Bolinas, Calif. 94924. Oct 1974. Sumner, L. 1958. The rabbits of Santa Barbara Island, a progress report. In Smail and Hen- derson 1974. (hsted above). Townsend, C. H. 1890. Scientific results of ex- ploration by the U. S. Fish Commission Al- batross. No. XIV - Birds from the coasts of western North America and adjacent islands, collected in 1888-89 with descriptions of new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 13:131-142 (139). Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of southern California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 7:1- 122(84). Willett, G. 1933. A revised list of the birds of southwestern California. Pac. Coast Avifavma 21:1-204(185). Wright, H., and G.K.Snyder. 1913. Birds observed in the summer of 1912 among the Santa Bar- bara Islands. Condor 15:86-92(91). Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.17 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- ESKIMO CURLEW ^^^^^£^^^ Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc ncH necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.17 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRA IE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF IHE UNITED STATES- ESKIMO CURLEW A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex lOIO Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior M- i»^- •^-iV:.^ •.-^ ►>. ."f ^.r VT' • -^i .. . c ■* * ESKIMO CURLEW (Numenius borealis Forster) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER. Charadriiformes FAMILY Charadriidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Doughbird, fute, prairie pigeon, pipi-pi-uk or tura-tura courlis du nord or Corbigeau des Esquimaux, chittering curlew, zarapito, Chorlo campino and Chorlo grande. DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered: (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967; 35 FR 12122, 29 July 1970). States: Endangered: South Carolina, Texas, Alaska. CREDIT: PES, WASHINGTON, D.C. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The evidence is overwhelming that unrestricted hunting for the market, particularly during north- ward spring migrations through the midwestem \ prairies of the United States, and to a lesser degree in the fall migration in southeastern Labra- dor and (after severe storms) on the coast of Mas- sachusetts, drastically and rapidly reduced this cur- lew's population between 1870 and 1890 (Mackay 1892, Forbush 1912, p. 427, Swenk 1915, Bent 1929, p. 126, Greenway 1958, Vincent 1966, Fish and Wildlife Service 1973). Other factors that may have contributed to its rapid decline are severe storms during long overocean migrations (Townsend and Allen 1907, Forbush 1912);habi- tat altered by cultivation and grazing on winter- ing grounds and the spring migration route (Cooke 1910, Dement'ev and Gladkov 1951); and a succession of unsuccessful breeding seasons caused by unfavorable weather (Banks 1977). A characteristic of the Eskimo curlew that may have contributed to its rapid decline was its tame nature and extreme gregariousness, making it easy to shoot (Swenk 1916, Bent 1929 ,p. 127,Coues 1861 MacKay 1892). Its continued failure to recover after hunting in the United States was banned by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1916 must be attributable to some unique characteristic that makes it more vulnerable to environmental condi- tions than other shorebirds with similar migration, breeding, and wintering ranges. That characteris- tic may be a greater concentration of all members of the population at all times, making it more vulnerable to short but critical periods of unfavor- able weather and habitat conditions (Banks 1977). The conversion of native grasslands to cultivated fields in both the main wintering area in southern South America and the principle migration route through the tall grass prairie of the United States, which coincided with the population decline (Cooke 1910, Dement'ev and Gladkov 1969) and has continued to the present is one likely reason for its failure to recover. It may be that only the natural grasslands of the southern South American pampas and the tall grass prairies of the United States could produce enough easily available food, in the form of grass- hopper egg pods, to supply the energy for both the curlew's exceptionally long migration flights and the initiation of breeding in the spring. The Arctic tundra presumably provides enough crow- berries and blueberries to support the fall migra- tion, but the South American and North Ameri- can grasslands, whose more productive areas are now largely cultivated, may not provide enough suitable insect life in winter and early spriiig to enable the curlews to travel their long traditional migration routes. PRIORITY INDEX 55 DESCRIPTION Eskimo curlews are medium-sized shorebirds (about 30 cm long), smaller than whimbrels with shorter (about 5 cm), more slender, slightly down- curved bills; uniformly dark (rather than barred) primaries; greenish (rather than gray) legs; more blackish above with unstriped dark crowns. They may be distinguished from very similar little cur- lews [Numenius minutus) which breed in north- east Asia and migrate through western Asia to Austraha, by their generally darker and more buffy coloration with v-shaped black marks, in- stead of streaks, below and darker cinnamon buff coloration under wings (Forrand 1977). The two forms are considered races of the same species by Dement'ev and Gladkov (1951) but as two distinct species by the American Ornithologists' Union (1957). RANGE N. borealis formerly nested in the Arctic tundra of northwestern Mackenzie between the Mackenzie and Coppermine Rivers (MacFarlane 1891, Swainson and Richardson 1881). There have been several probable sightings by Canadian Wildlife Service personnel east of the Mackenzie River delta in a general area where nesting is known to have occurred formerly. They probably nested in Alaskan tundra west to the Bering Sea (Nelson 1887, Murdock 1885); they wintered in grasslands of southern South America from southern Brazil and Uruguay, with a few probably north of Buenos Aires, Argentina (Cooke 1910), south to middle-eastern Argentina, chiefly north of the Chubut River; casually to Chile and Tierra del Fuego (Greenway 1958, Barrows 1884, Bent 1929, Cooke 1910, Swenk 1926, Sclater and Hudson 1889,Wetmore 1926). Fall migration (adults preceeding young), be- ginning in July, was southeasterly from the breed- ing grounds to a feeding and staging area on the coast of southern Labrador (Audubon 1835, Townsend 1907,Coues 1861, Austin 1932, Todd 1963); thence via Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (Tufts 1961, Peters and Burleigh 1951) over the Atlantic Ocean directly to eastern South America, and ending on the wintering grounds in early Sep- tember (Sclater and Hudson 1889 , Barrows 1884). Severe storms occassionally forced the birds to land on the north Atlantic coast of the United States (Bent 1929,Forbush 19 12, Sage and Bishop 1913, Palmer 1949, Griscom and Snyder 1955), Bermuda, and the eastern islands of the West Indies (Bond 1956). There was a much smaller flight down the west side of Hudson Bay with a few individuals reaching points on the Great Lakes and even Cin- cinnati, Ohio, and Cooke Co. Texas (Cooke 1910, Hagar and Anderson 1977). By what route those birds reached the wintering grounds (if they did) is unknown. Spring migration began in late February (Bar- rows 1884), heading northwest from the winter- ing area, probably across the Andes in Chile, the Pacific Ocean, northern Middle America (Guate- mala - Salvin 1861), and the Gulf of Mexico, to the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, arriving there in early March (Greenway 1958); thence gradually northward, primarily through the prairies of mid- dle United States, to eastern South Dakota; thence rather quickly to the breeding grounds, arriving before the end of May (Bent 1929). There was some accidental in-migration in Greenland, Ice- land, Britain, the Falkland Islands, and north- eastern Siberia (American Ornithologists' Union 1957). RANGE MAP A map of breeding and wintering areas and migration routes is shown on the following page. STATES/COUNTIES Alaska: Cape Lisboume, Kotzebue Sound, Nulato, Point Barrow, St. Michael, St. Paul Id. Arkansas: Washington. Colorado: Denver. Connecticut: Middlesex, New Haven, Toland. Illinois: Cooke. Indiana: Knox, White. Iowa: Des Moines, Jackson, Johnson, Polk, Poweshiek. Kansas: Douglas, Ellis, Lyon, Russell, Sedgwick, Woodson. Louisiana: Acadia, Jefferson Davis, Orleans, Plaquemines. Maine : Cumberland, Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, Penobscot. Massachusetts: Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Nan- tucket, Suffolk. Michigan : Kalamazoo, St. Clair. Missouri: Jasper, St. Louis, Vernon. Nebraska: Adams, Buffalo, Douglas, Fill- more, Hall, Hamilton, Lincoln, Madison, York. New York: Monroe, Nassau, Niagara, Suffolk, Queens. Ohio: Hamilton. Oklahoma: Osage. Pennsylvania: Erie. South Dakota: Brown, Clay, Douglas, Hanlin, Pennington, Yankton. Texas: Aransas, Bexar, Cameron, Cal- houn, Cooke, Galveston, Kendall, Lampassas, Nueces, Pecos, San Patricio, Victoria, Washington, Wise, Young. Wisconsin: Dodge. HABITAT The Eskimo curlew nested on treeless Arctic tundra, fed in open natural grassland and tundra, burned prairies, meadows, pastures, plowed lands, and intertidal zones during migration and on win- tering grounds. Most of the time was spent in the North American tundra and tall-grass prairie, and the South American pampas (MacFarlane 1881; Coues 1861, 1874; Cooke 1910; Swenk 1916; Bent 1929; Greenway 1958). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The chief food in late summer on Arctic tun- dra, including the migration staging area in Labra- dor, was crowberry (Empetrum nigrum and blue- berry Vaccinium sp.). (Audubon 1835; Coues 1861, 1874; Townsend 1907; Greenway 1958.) A small species of snail abounding on rocks in intertidal areas in southern Labrador was also eaten extensively (Coues 1861). Ants were men- tioned as food on tundra breeding areas (Swainson and Richardson 1881, Bent 1929, Coues 1861). Grasshoppers [Melanoplus sp.) and their egg cap- sules or pods, obtained by probing in unplowed prairie land, were important food on the spring migration (Swenk 1916). On plowed land, they fed on white grubs and cutworms (Swenk 1916). Adult grasshoppers would not be available on the prairies as early in spring as curlews were moving through successive temperature zones on way north (U.S. Entomological Commission 1877), so only egg pods and emerging young grasshoppers were present at that time. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS None known. NESTING OR BEDDING Nests are shallow depressions in the surface of KNOWN BREEDING RANGE Dots Indicate Published Records D cC^^' Known range of the Eskimo curlew KNOWN WINTER RANGE 4 open tundra, lined sparsely with decayed leaves and dried grasses (MacFarlane 1891). There is no information on any special roost- ing behavior or requirements. Roosting is evidently in the open in the same habitat as nesting and winter and migration feeding. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS None known. Presumably, there is an aerial territory flight song like other shorebirds have. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Open Arctic tundra for nesting and summer feeding. Extensive natural upland grassland for winter and migration feeding. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS No exact population counts or even reliable estimates have ever been made. Comments of early observers were that the curlews were for- merly present in tremendous numbers on the Labrador and prairie migration stopovers. They arrived in Texas in "immense flocks" in spring from 1856-1875 (Bent 1929). In Kansas, they were abundant as late as 1878, but were much reduced in 1879 and decreased rapidly after that (Bent 1929). From 1866 to 1888, they reached Omaha, Neb., in late April, remaining in force for a week to 10 days. Enorm- ous flocks consisting of thousands of individuals formed dense masses extending a quarter to a half mile (0.4-0.8 km) in length and a hundred or more yards (91 m) in width which, when alighting, would cover 40 to 50 acres (16 to 24 hectares) of ground. At that time, they were slaughtered liter- ally by the cart-load. Their numbers in the prairies began diminishing rapidly in the early 1880's (Swenk 1916). On the Labrador migration staging area in 1833, Audubon (1835) described great flocks that reminded him of passenger pigeon abundance. A "cloud" of curlews in fall migration was seen on the Magdalen Islands in 1890— perhaps the last big flocks seen in the east (Forbush 1912). During the last 50 years, very few have been seen during migration at any one time. The most recent records are Galveston Island, Texas, 22 March 1959 (1), 3 April 1960 (1), 31 March 1961 (1), 24 March 1962 (1), and 31 March 1962 (2) (Emanuel 1962); Barbados, West Indies, fall migra- tion 1963 (1 specimen); North Point, West side of James Bay, Ontario, 15 August 1976 (2). REPRODUCTION Nests are very difficult to find. Incubating birds flush long before observers approach. Eggs, usually 4 to a clutch, resemble the grass in color, being dark brownish green to blue blotched with brown, more heavily on the larger end (MacFarlane 1891). Eggs were present in nests at Fort Anderson, Mackenzie from May 27 through June 13 (MacFarlane 1891). Eggs were found at Point Lake, Mackenzie, on 13 June 1822 (Swain- son and Rich2u:dson 1881). Time of hatching and length of time young duce dependent on adults is unknown, but by the end of July the breeding season is over for the most part and the adults head south, soon to be followed by the young. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION With the present state of our knowledge of the distribution of the remaining Eskimo curlew population, particularly during the breeding and wintering seasons, nothing can be done to manage it except to rigidly protect the occasional indivi- duals that are discovered; to keep a lookout for them in areas where they formerly concentrated, such as the southern tip of the Labrador Peninsula, the coast of New England and Long Island, the tail-grass prairie belt from the coast of Texas and Louisiana north to South Dakota, and the Argen- tina grasslands from Buenos Aires south to the Chubut River. Also, special effort should be made to locate the present breeding grounds of the small remaining population, with special attention given to the former breeding area along the Arctic coast between the Anderson and Coppermine Rivers and south to Great Bear Lake, Mackenzie. It might be beneficial to increase the area of un- plowed grassland along the migration routes and/ or in wintering grounds. AUTHORITIES No living person has had enough personal ex- perience with Eskimo curlews to be considered an authority on the species. PREPARER'S COMMENTS The preparer has been most impressed by the failure of the Eskimo curlew population to re- cover from its rapid decline in the 1880's after hunting was stopped, in contrast with the golden plover, a shorebird with a similar migration pat- tern with which it associated in migration and on its wintering grounds. The decrease in availability of grasshopper egg pods, which were much more numerous before most of the natural grassland of the tall grass prairie belt was plowed up to plant crops (U.S. Entomological Commission 1877) may have been the main reason for failure to re- cover. Grasshoppers avoid cultivated land for egg laying and the great destructive flights of grass- hoppers in the American prairies declined at about the same time as the Eskimo curlew; both coincided with the extensive breaking of the prairie sod in the American Midlands. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologists 's Union. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Baltimore, Md. Audubon, J. J. 1835. Ornithological Biography, Vol. 3:69. Austin, O. L., Jr. 1932. The birds of Newfound- land Labrador. Memoirs Nuttall Ornith. Club. Cambridge, Mass. Baerg, W. J. 1931. Birds of Arkansas. Agric. Exp. Sta. U. of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Banks, R. C. 1977. The dechne and fall of the Eskimo Curlew, or why did the curlew go ex- taille? Amer. Birds 31:127-134. Barrows, W. B. 1884. Birds of lower Uruguay. Auk 1:313-319. Beardslee, C. S. and H. D. Mitchell. 1965. Birds of the Niagara Frontier Region. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 22. Bent, A. C. 1929. Life histories of North Ameri- can shorebirds. Part IL U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 146. Bond, J. 1956. Checklist of birds of the West Indies. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York Area. New York, Harper and Row Publishers. Butler, A. W. 1898. The Birds of Indiana. Indiana Dept. Geol. & Nat. Resources 22nd Ann. Re- port. Indianapolis. Coues, E. 1861. Notes on the ornithology of Labrador. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 13:215-257. . 1874. Birds of the Northwest; a hand- book of the ornithology of the region drained by the Missouri River and its tributaries. U.S. Geol. Surv. Terr. Wise. Publ. No. 3, 791 pp. Cooke, W. W. 1910. Distribution and migration of North American shorebirds. Bur. Biol. Surv. Bull. 35:1-100. Dement'ev, L. P., and N. A. Gladkov, ed. 1969. Birds of the Soviet Union Vol. III. Translated from Russian by Israel Program for Scientific Translators, Jerusalem pp. 356-360. DuMont, P. A. 1934. A revised Hst of the birds of Iowa. U. of Iowa Studies 15(5):1-171. Emanuel, V. L. 1961. Another probable record of an Eskimo Curlew on Galveston, Island, Texas. Auk 78:259-260. . 1962. Texans rediscover the near extinct Eskimo Curlew. Audubon Magazine 64:162- 165. Farrand, J., Jr. 1977. What to look for: Eskimo and Little Curlews compared. Amer. Birds 31 : 137-138a. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened Wild- life of the United States. Resource Publ. 114, 289 pp. Forbush, E. H. 1912. A history of the game birds, wildfowl and shorebirds of Massachusetts and adjacent states. Mass. State Board of Agric. Boston 622 pp. (p. 416) . 1925. Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states. Part I. Mass. Dept. Agric. Boston. Greenway, J. C, Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world. Spec. Publ. No. 13 Amer. Comm. Intemat. Wildlife Protection. New York 518 pp. Griscom, L. and D. E. Snyder. 1955. The Birds of Massachusetts, and annotated and revised list. Salem, Peabody Museum. Griscom, L. and E. V. Folger. 1948. The Birds of Nantucket. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge. Hagar, J. A. and K. S. Anderson. 1977. Sight re- cord of Eskimo Curlew. Amer. Birds 31:135- 136. Housse, P. R. 1945. Las Aves de Chile. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile. Jones, Lynds. 1903. Birds of Ohio. Ohio State Acad. Sci. Spec. Papers No. 6. Johnson, A. W. 1965. The birds of Chile. Buenos Aires, Piatt Establecimientos Graficos S.A. Johnston, R. F. 1960. Directory to the bird- life of Kansas. U. of Kansas, Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Pub. 23:172. MacFarlane, R. 1891. Notes on and list of birds collected in Arctic America, 1861-1866. {Numeniiis p. 429) Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 14: 413-446. MacKay, G. H. 1892. Habits of the Eskimo Cur- lew {Nurnenius borealis) in New England. Auk 9:16-21. Merriam, C. H. 1877. A review of the birds of Connecticut. New Haven, Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor Printers. Murdock,J. 1885. Bird Migration at Point Barrow, Arctic Alaska. Auk 2:63. Murphye, R. C. 1933. Probable record of Eskimo Curlew {Nurnenius borealis) at Montauk Point, N.Y. Auk 50:101-102. Nelson, E. W. 1887. Report on Natural history collections made in Alaska between years 1877 and 1881. Arctic series of publications issued in connection with the Signal Service, U.S. Army. Wash. D.C. G.P.O. Oberholser, H. C. 1938. The bird Hfe of Louisiana. Louisiana Dept. of Conservation. Bull. 28. . 1974. The bird life of Texas. Vol. I. U. of Texas Press, Austin. Palmer, R. S. 1949. Maine birds. Bull. Mus. Comp. ZooL, Harvard, 102:656 pp. Peters, H. S. and T. D. Burleigh. 1951. The Birds of Newfoundland. Dept. Nat. Resources, Newfoundland, St. Johns. Ridgway, R. 1919. The birds of North and Middle America. Part VIII. Bull. 50. U.S. Nat. Mus. p. 413. Roberts, T. S. 1932. The birds of Minnesota. Vol. I. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press. Sage, J. H. and L. B. Bishop. 1913. The birds of Connecticut. Conn. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 20. Salvin, O. 1861. A list of species to be added to the ornithology of Central America. Ibis 39: 351-356. Sclater, P. L. and W. H. Hudson. 1889. Argentine Ornithology. Vol. 2. R. H. Porter London, p. 192. Swainson, W. and J. Richardson. 1881. Birds (part second) Fauna Boreali-Americana. Lon- don, John Murray. Swenk, M. H. 1916. The Eskimo Curlew and its disappearance. Smithsonian Rep. for 1915, pp. 325-340. . 1926. The Eskimo Curlew in Nebraska. Wilson Bull. 38:117-118. Todd, W. E. C. 1940. Birds of Western Pennsyl- vania. Univ. Pittsburg Press. . 1963. Birds of the Labrador Peninsula and adjacent areas. Toronto, Univ. Toronto press. Townsend, C. W. and G. M. Allen. 1907. Birds of Labrador. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 33: 277-428. Tufts, Robie W. 1961. The birds of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Museum, HjJifax. U.S. Entomological Commission. 1877. First An- nual Report of the U.S. Entomological Com- mission for the year 1877 relating to the Rocky Mountain Locust. Vincent, J. (Compiler). 1966. Red data book. Vol. 2. Aves. Intematl. Union for Conserva- tion of Nature and Natural Resources. Morges. Switzerland. Wetmore, A. 1926. Observations on the birds of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 133:448 pp. . 1939. Recent observations on the Eski- mo curlew in Argentina. Auk 56:475. Widmann, O. 1907. Birds of Missouri. St. Louis. Williams, G. G. 1959. Probable Eskimo Curlew on Galveston Island, Texas. Auk 76:539-541. Wood, N. A. 1951. The birds of Michigan. Univ. of Mich Press, Ann Arbor. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.18 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- SOUTHERN SEA OTTER ill a/ a Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoasl of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aic not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704.58 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.18 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN SEA OTTER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior ...^^^ *v*l^,^ f^j i'iBPhu^ ¥" ^ ^ vf^l&V^^^^^^ fl^^t^^l^^i^S^ ^> > ■ vj ■^/i»jjf^i^^||''^jij7'^^^^^SH! ^ ^SiF: ^■^ r^Fi-VSj^r^'^^^' "^\ ^ ^-^^^ ^•w^-*^ H[_ivT^^Qt^^'-;^^ "'.- . '^ V *w**^^^ *^«lJ^^^ "^^ m:.y'\ CREDIT: W. C. LOY, USFWS SOUTHERN SEA OTTER Enhydra lutris nereis [Merriam] KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Carnivora FAMILY Mustelidae OTHER COMMON NAMES California sea otter DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 1 November 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal Threatened (42 FR 2965, 14 Jan 1977) States Fully protected: California REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The southern sea otter is the southernmost form of a marine mammal that originally ex- tended along the rim of the Pacific Ocean from the northern islands of Japan to Baja California. Originally estimated to number from 16,000 to 10,000 off the California coast, the species was heavily hunted for its valuable fur by Russian, Indian, Spanish, British, and American traders. By 1911, the California population was reduced to an estimated 50 animals. Following protection afforded by the International Fur Seal Treaty of 1911 and by the State of California in 1913, the population began to recover. A survey conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1976 estimated the population at about 1,860 individuals located along a 257-km span of coast- line (Woodhouse et al. 1977). The population now (1978) occurs 2dong about 320 km of coast- line. Considering that there are oil depots at both ends of the current range (Moss Landing and Morro Bay) and increased tanker traffic offshore. and that sea otters may die if their fur is contami- nated by oil, the current population size and dis- tribution is marginal to insure survival. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION Although the smallest of marine mammals, the sea otter is the largest member of the weasel family. Adult otters in California weigh from 20 to 39 kg and are from 1 to 1.6 m long. The dense, dark-browTi fur may become grizzled with age, especially in older males, and the forelimbs are modified for feeding, while the flipper-like hind limbs are used in swimming (Merriam 1904, Kenyon 1969). The skull is flattened dorsally, with large nasal openings; two rear upper cheek teeth are wider than long; there are three upper premolars and two lower incisors on each side of the jaw (Hall and Kelson 1959). RANGE Originally found from Morro Hermoso, Baja California, north along the Pacific Coast to Cali- fornia, Oregon, and Washington, the sea otter is currently restricted to coastal waters of central California. Established populations now occur from Ano Nuevo Island in the north to Avila Beach to the south (Wild and Ames 1974). Occa- sional individuals are seen in California as far north as Humboldt County and as far south as Los Angeles County. RANGE MAP The extent of coastline supporting established populations of the southern sea otter is shown by shading on the accompanying map (Wild and Ames 1974, R. J. Jameson, pers. observ.). STATES/COUNTIES California HABITAT Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo Otter habitat is the neritic zone within 3 miles of shore; the animals are usually found within one-half mile of shore and occasionally on shore. Associated with a wide variety of sublittoral communities, the presence of an adequate food supply is an important factor in determining the presence of sea otters (Woodhouse et al. 1977). Although found over sandy substrates, sea otter population centers seem to be associated with hard substrates and stands of kelp [Macrocystis pyrifera and Nereocystis lutkeana). Water depth ranges from 0 to 36 m, in California, sea otters are usually found in depths of less than 25 m. Shelter from storm waves seems to be a require- ment, either in the form of kelp beds or sheltered coves (Kenyon 1969). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Food supply represents a critical environ- mental factor for sea otters. A sea otter consumes about 20% to 25% of its body weight in food each day (Kenyon 1969), and a meal passes through the digestive tract in about 2.8 hr (Stull- ken and Kirkpatrick 1955). This large volume of food is apparently needed to maintain body tem- perature in cold waters (Morrison et al. 1974). To meet these requirements, Loughlin (1977) found that radio-tagged otters spent 34% of their total time (or 73% of their active time) in foraging. Sea otters are active both day and night, and 45% of their foraging is nocturnal (Loughlin 1977,Shimek and Monk 1977). Feeding is usually in water 1 to 25 m deep. Occasionally, individuals will leave the water at low tide to forage for mussels {Mytilus calif ornianus) , but they return to the water to eat them (R. J. Jameson, unpubl.). Foraging dives range from 10 to 120 sec, but are usually less than 60 sec long. Depth of water and availability and type of prey seem to be important factors in de- termining the length of these foraging dives. Food is usually gathered from the bottom, but Califor- nia sea otters spend considerable time foraging in the kelp canopy where snails {Tegula spp) and kelp crabs {Pugettia producta) are abundant. A stone 'tool' may be used to break hard-shelled molluscs, such as abalone, from the bottom (Houk and Geibel 1974) and at the surface, this tool may be used as an anvil to break mollusc shells (Hall and Schaller 1964). Woodhouse et al. (1977) conclude that the type of food eaten cor- responds to availability more than to preference, although foraging energetics certainly favors the collecting of food items with high caloric rewards. Foods commonly taken by sea otters in Call- 't. Ano Nuevo Monterey Bay Pt. Lobos Pt. Sur MONTEREY O O O O o Morro Bay Avila -.1 L miles Pt. Conception The range of the southern sea otter 3 fornia include the following: abalone [Haliotis sp.), Turban snails {Tegula sp.), sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus sp.), rock crabs {Cancer sp.), kelp crabs {Pugettis. sp.), mussels {Mytilus sp), Pismo clams (Tivela stultorum), and octopus [Octopus sp.). (Hall and Schaller 1964, Ebert 1968, Wild and Ames 1974, Miller et al. 1975, Woodhouse et al. 1977). In recently reoccupied habitat, the diet may consist almost exclusively of readily available large food items such as abalone, sea urchins, and Pismo clams, but with continued occupancy and consequent depletion of large, easily obtained food items, the otters' diets become more diverse (WUd and Ames 1974). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS: Sea otters in California do not 'haul out' as frequently as they do in Alaska; however, in re- cent years several regular hauling areas have been discovered. These areas are used primarily during the winter and spring months when kelp beds are reduced in size, and air and water temperatures are lower (R. J. Jameson, unpubl.). Most of the year, otters seek shelter in the extensive beds of g\3int kelp that occur throughout most of the present range. area for extended periods (Loughlin 1977). Dur- ing the breeding season, a male-female pair may remain together for only one copulation, or may form a bond that can last several days (Kenyon 1969, Vandevere 1970). It is not known if a spe- cial set of habitat characteristics are required for courtship and breeding, but available information suggests there are none. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Lacking a layer of blubber, sea otters depend on air trapped in their dense fur for insulation against heat loss to their environment (Kenyon 1969). With captives, Kenyon discovered that soiled fur rapidly loses its insulating ability, ren- dering the animal a sure victim to hypothermia. Recent experiments in Alaska have shown that sea otters exposed to crude oil floating on the water can die (Siniff et al. 1977). This finding is of critical importance, since it relates to the po- tential damage to otters from offshore oil pollu- tion. Although no wild sea otter deaths have yet been reported from oil pollution in California, a major spill could be very damaging (California Department of Fish and Game 1976). NESTING OR BEDDING: Sea otters may roll themselves in kelp fronds while resting or sleeping, presumably to avoid transport by wind and currents. Mothers wdll similarly leave pups in kelp while diving for food (Fisher 1939). Typical haul-out areas are rela- tively low-lying intertidal rocks covered with a lush growth of a variety of marine algae. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS: Sea otters are most frequently members of aggregations known as 'rafts' (LoughUn 1977, Schneider 1978). Territoriality may be expressed by some males who defend areas near female rafts, but the evidence for territoriality is circum- stantial and needs to be better documented. Otters are known to remain in the same limited POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The rate of increase of the California sea otter population has been 5.4% per year since 1940 (Woodhouse et al. 1977). The present population is far below the 16,000 estimated as the potential for California waters (California Department of Fish and Game 1976), or the estimate of 47,800 given by Miller (1974) for all waters from the Oregon-California border to Morro Hermoso, Baja California. While the currently occupied range may be nearing carrying capacity, population growth has occurred in recent years by expansion of the range both up and down the coast (Wild and Ames 1974). Observations indicate that high densities of otters occur at the limits of the range. These groups, consisting primarily of males, move into unoccupied territory as the food supply behind them is depleted (California Department of Fish and Game 1976). If expansion and popu- lation growth are allowed to continue at current rates, doubling of population size could be expected every 15 years. Resident sea otters are relatively sedentary; the average linear dimension of the home range is about 2.5 km (Loughlin 1977). Females have larger home ranges (averaging 80 ha) than males (38.5 ha) (Loughlin 1977); however, recent tag- ging studies indicate that some otters, particularly males, use large segments of coastline up to 160 km (R. J. Jameson Unpubl.). These individuals spend the winter with large rafts of males near the ends of the range, returning to the central part during the peak breeding season (summer). They have few natural enemies. White sharks appar- ently prey on sea otters (Morejohn et al. 1975). Most mortality seems to occur in young of the year and older individuals (Kenyon 1969, More- John et al. 1975). Sea otters have moderate to heavy loads of internal parasites (Morejohn et al. 1975), and these may cause higher mortality during times of stress. Due to the high daily caloric requirement, severe winter storms pre- venting feeding may be responsible for additional mortality (Wild and Ames 1974), REPRODUCTION Some female sea otters begin reproductive activity at 3 years of age, and all over 6 years are reproducing. Males do not mature until 5 or 6 years of age (Schneider 1978). Breeding season peaks from July to September (R.J.Jameson Un- publ.), and pupping is most frequent from Novem- ber through March (Vandevere 1970). Implanta- tion is delayed 4 to 4'/2 months, and development then proceeds for 4 to 4V2 months, making the gestation period 8 to 9 months overall (Sinha et al. 1966, Schneider 1978). Twinning is rare among sea otters, and it is unlikely that a female could support two pups. Two years has been ac- cepted as the interval between births (Kenyon 1969), but recent studies in Alaska and California indicate that some females pup in consecutive years. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The California sea otter population currently represents a slowly recovering population of ma- rine mammals occupying only part of its original range. With few natural enemies, continued growth in numbers and range may be expected. Because of its relatively low reproductive potential, con- tinued protection from human predation and habitat degradation will be necessary if this recovery is to continue. The most recent sea-otter survey, conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1979 resulted in an estimate of less than 1,500, a decrease of about 300 from the 1976 census. Since the weather conditions during the 1979 survey were unfavorable, it is considered quite low. Kelp forests growing along rocky coasts ap- pear to constitute optimum otter habitat in Cali- fornia. Estes and Palmisano (1974) indicated that sea otter predation on herbivores may be impor- tant in the maintenance of large stands of kelp. If increased growth of macrophytes is correlated with this predation by sea otters, their presence in an area may increase primary productivity. The trophic consequences of the reestablishment of the sea otter population remain to be seen. Mean- while, protecting the kelp bed habitat from physi- cal and chemical degradation will continue to be important for the entire littoral ecosystem. The southern sea otter now occupies only a small fraction of its original range. The continuity of the sea otters' current territory makes the species quite vulnerable to catastrophic events and augments the importance of establishing satellite populations in other parts of its former range to insure its survival. Previous translocation programs have demonstrated the feasibility of es- tablishing new populations of the sea otter (Ken- yon 1969, Jameson et al. 1978). Estabhshment of satellite populations will greatly decrease the probability of the entire population's being des- troyed by an epizootic or an oil spill. In the past 10 years, questions have arisen concerning the compatabiHty of the sea otter with sport and commercial shellfishing interests. The abundance of large abalones, sea urchins, and Pismo clams diminishes following reoccupancy of an area by sea otters (Miller 1974, Woodhouse et al. 1977). However, other studies indicated that after the initial period of reinvasion, the diet of the sea otter becomes more diverse, and the com- munity food web may enjoy a broader base resulting from reduction of the numbers of large herbivores (Palmisano and Estes 1977, Rosenthal and Barilotti 1973), and a consequent increase of macrophytic algae. Under such a regime of preda- tion, large herbivores are usually restricted to refugia protected from carnivores (Lowry and Pearse 1973, Cooper et al. 1977). This was appar- ently the undisturbed condition of California sub- littoral communities (Rashkin 1972). The super- abundance of large herbivores upon which the commercial shellfish industry is based is appar- ently an artifact of the historic reduction in sea otter numbers. Herbivore-carnivore numbers can be expected to return to equihbrium following the sea otter's reoccupancy of its former range. AUTHORITIES Ronald J . Jameson National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory Piedras Blancas Field Station P.O. Box 67 San Simeon, California 93452 Karl W. Kenyon U.S. Fish and Wildlife 11990 Lakeside Place N.W. Seattle, Washington 98125 Service (retired) A. M.Johnson National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory Anchorage Field Station 4454 Business Park Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 James E. Estes National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory CCMS; Applied Science Building University of California Santa Cruz, California 95064 J. E. Vandevere 93 Via Ventura Monterey, California 93940 Tom Loughlin National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammals and Endangered Species Div. F-33 NMFS Washington, D.C. 20235 D. Miller and J. Ames California Department of Fish and Game 2201 Garden Road Monterey, California 93940 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Recently there has been some controversy over the systematic status of the southern popula- tions of sea otter (Roest 1973, 1976; Davis and Lidicker 1975). Pointing to an apparent latitudi- nal cline in some skull measurements, Roest (1973) contended that the southern sea otter is not subspecifically distinct, but represents one end of a size continuum. Davis and Lidicker (1975) argue that available evidence is best interpreted to suggest that a genetically distinct group of sea ot- ters exists off the California coast. Subspecies are often recognized primarily on morphological criteria, which usually are the result of genetic divergence due to selection with- in different sets of environmental parameters. To date, most attention has been paid to relatively few cranial measurements in sea otters. The north- ern and southern populations of the sea otter ap- pear to display some differences in diet and ana- tomy as well as in cranial morphology (Wood- house et al. 1977, Miller 1974), which may or may not be genetically based. It is certainly pos- sible that selection has resulted in some genetic divergence between these populations. However, we suggest the application of modern systematic techniques aimed at assessing this genetic distance between populations (such as karyology, protein electrophoresis, immunology, and perhaps DNA annealing) to adequately resolve this controversy. Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate to sacrifice the protection afforded the recovering southern populations to a disagreement over an as-yet unresolved taxonomic issue. This issue was ad- dressed by the USFWS in the Federal Register (14 January 1977): "This question actually is not relevant to the matter at hand, because sections 3 and 4 of the Act allows [sic] the listing of popu- lations of species in portions of their range, as well as entire species and subspecies. Since the southern sea otter does form a significant popu- lation, it can be treated independently under the Act, regardless of its taxonomic status. The Ser- vice decided, however, to utilize the subspecific designation Enhydra lutris nereis in this rule- making, although this decision had no connection with the decision to list as threatened." LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Barabash-Nikiforov, I. I., V. V. Reshetkin, and N. K. Shidlovskaya. 1947. The sea otter (kalan). Transl. from Russian by A. Birron and Z. S. Cole. 1962. Nat. Sci. Found, and U.S. Dept. Int., Washington, D.C. (Israel Program for Sci. Transl.). Bolin, R. L. 1938. Reappearance of the southern sea otter along the California coast. J. Mamm. 19:301-303. Boolootian, R. A. 1961. California sea otter. 47:287-292. The distribution of the Calif. Fish and Game California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1976. A porposal for sea otter protection and research, and request for the return of management to the state of California., 2 vol., unpubl. Cooper, J. M. and A. Hines. 1977. Subtidal aba- lone populations in an area inhabited by sea otters. Veliger 20:163-167. Davis, J. and W. Z. Lidicker, Jr. 1975. The taxon- omic status of the southern sea otter. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 40:429-437. Hall, K. R. L. and G. B. Schaller. 1964. Tool- using behavior of the California sea otter. J. Mammal 45:287-298. Houk, J. L. and J. J. Geibel. 1974. Observation of underwater tool use by the sea otter, Enhydra lutris Linnaeus. Calif. Fish and Game 60:207-208. Jameson, R. J., A. M.Johnson and K. W. Kenyon. 1978. The status of translocated sea otter populations in the eastern Pacific Ocejm. Proc. 2nd Conf. Biol. Marine Mamm. p. 8. Kenyon, K.W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific ocean. No. Amer. Fauna. 68 pp. Lensink, C. J. 1962. The history and status of sea otters in Alaska. Unpubl. Ph.D. disserta- tion, Purdue Univ. pp. Loughlin, T. R. 1977. Activity patterns, habitat partitioning, and grooming behavior of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris, in California. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles. pp. Lowry, L. F. and J. S. Pearse. 1973. Abalones and sea urchins in an area inhabited by sea otters. Mar. Biol. 23:213-219. Ebert, E.E. 1968. A food habits study of the hem sea otter, Enhydra lutris nereis. Calif. Fish and Game 54:33-42. Estes, J.A. 1977. Population estimates and feed- ing behavior of sea otters, pp 51 1-525 in M.L. Merritt and R. G. Fuller, eds., The Environ- ment of Amchitka Island, Alaska. U.S. ERDA TID-26712. Estes, J.A. and J. F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communi- ties. Science, 185:1058-1060. Fisher, E. M. 1939. Habits of the southern sea otter. J. Mammal 20:21-36. Hall, E. R. and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald Press, New York. Merriam, C. H. 1904. A new sea otter from southern California. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washing- ton 17:159-160. Miller, D.J. 1974. The sea otter Enhydra lutris. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Marine Resources Leaflet 7. pp. Miller, D. J., J. E. Hardwick and W. A. Dahlstrom. 1975. Pismo Clams and sea otters. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Marine Resources Tech. Rep. 31. pp. Morejohn, G. V., J. A. Ames, and D. B. Lewis. 1975. Post mortem studies of sea otters, Enhydra lutris L., in California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Marine Resource Tech. Rep. 30. pp. Morrison, P., M. Rosenmann, and J. A. Estes. 1974. Metabolism and thermoregulation in the sea otter. Physiol. Zool., 47:218-229. Palmisano, J. F. and J. A. Estes. 1977. Ecological interactions involving the sea otter, pp. 527- 567, in M. L. Merritt and R. G. Fullers, eds., The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska. U.S. ERDATID- 26712. Rashkin, P. 1972. Monterey Peninsula shell mounds — some general remarks. Monterey Co. Archael. Soc. Quart. 1:5. Roest, A. I. 1973. Subspecies of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. Los Angeles Co. Mus. Contrib. Sci. 252:1-17. . 1976. Systematics and the status of sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 75:267-270. Rosenthal, R.J. and D. C. Barilotti. 1973. Feed- ing behavior of transplanted sea otters and community interactions off Chichagof Island, southeast Alaska, pp. 74-88, in W.J. North, ed., Calif Inst Tech., Kelp Habitat Improv. Proj.,Ann. Rep. 1 July 1972-30 June 1973. Sandegren, F. E., E. W. Chu, and J. E. Vandevere. 1973. Maternal behavior in the California sea otter. J. Mammal 54:668-679. Scheffer, V. B., and F, Wilke. 1950. Validity of the subspecies Enhydra lutris nereis, the southern sea otter. J. Washington Acad, Sci. 40:269-272. Schneider, K. B. 1978. Sex and age segregation of sea otters. Alaska Dept of Fish and game, Final Rep. , Job 8.9R 45 pp. Shaw, S. B. 1971. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in California sea otters and harbor seals. Calif. Fish and Game 57:290-294. Siniff, D. B., A. M. Johnson, and T. W. Williams. 1977. Observations on responses of sea otters [Enhydra lutris) to oil contamination. Proc. 2nd Conf. Biol. Mar. Mammal, p. 32. Stephenson, M. D. 1977. Sea otter predation on pismo clams in Monterey Bay. Calif. Fish and Game 63:117-120. Stullken, D. E., and C. M. Kirkpatrick. 1955. Physiological investigation of captivity mor- tality in the sea otter {Enhydra lutris). Trans. 20th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. pp. 476-494. Vandevere, J. E. 1970. Reproduction in the sea otter, pp. 221-227, in Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. on Biol. Sonar and diving Mammals, Stanford Res. Inst., Menlo Park, Calif. Wild, P. W. and J. A. Ames. 1974. A report on the sea otter, Enhydra lutris L., in California. Calif. Dept Fish and Game, Marine Resources Tech. Rep. 20. PP- Woodhouse, C. D., R. K. Cowen, and L. R. Wilcoxon. 1977. A summary of knowledge of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris, L., in California and an appraisal of the completeness of bio- logical understanding of the species. U.S. Mar. Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-76/02 (PB 270 374). ACCOUNT PREPARED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory Piedras Blancas Field Station P.O. Box 67 San Simeon, California 93452 National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1300 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Shimek, S. J. and A. Monk. 1977. Daily activity of sea otter off the Monterey peninsula, California. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 41(2):277-283. Sinha, A. A., C. H. Conaway, and K. W. Kenyon. 1966. Reproduction in the female sea otter. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 30(1):121-130. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.19 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- MORRO BAY KANGAROO RAT Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Knginecrs in coordina- tion with the Offices of P^ndangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.19 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- MORRO BAY KANGAROO RAT A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Shdell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: GLENN R. STEWART MORRO BAY KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys heermanni morroensis (Merriam) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Rodentia FAMILY Heteromyidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Heermann's kangaroo rat DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 16 October 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered (35 FR 16047, 13 Oct 1970). States Endangered: California REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Historically, this isolated subspecies has occu- pied a range of less than 10 km^ (Grinnell 1922). Recent appraisals have documented a continually shrinking range and, concomitantly, decreased population size. Three factors have contributed to this decline (Congdon and Roest 1975): 1. Direct loss of habitat due to growth of resi- dential areas. 2. Successional changes of sparsely vegetated areas into more thickly vegetated chaparral communities. 3. Increased predation by domestic cats hunting in fields adjacent to human dwellings. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned DESCRIPTION The darkest colored of all kangaroo rats, this population was originally described as a distinct species, partly on the basis of its dark pelage and markings (Merriam 1907, Grinnell 1922). The hip stripe, characteristic of the genus, is often incom- pletely formed, thus failing to completely sepa- rate the thigh patch from the rest of the back (Grinnell 1922, Stewart and Roest 1960). The white side tail stripes are narrow; less than one- half the width of the dark dorsal and ventral stripes. The tail is often completely black just be- hind the white basal collar (Grinnell 1922). Audi- tory bullae are less highly inflated than neighbor- ing subspecies of D. heermanni (Grinnell 1922, Boulware 1943). RANGE This rat is found in six disjunct patches of habitat just south and southeast of Morro Bay, California. The total area currently occupied is estimated at 1.3 km^ (Roest 1977). All current populations occupy remnants of the historical range, and can be enclosed by a circle 6.5 km in diameter. RANGE MAP Distribution is shown on the accompanying map (after Roest 1977). Occupied areas are indi- cated by shading. STATES /COUNTIES California: San Luis Obispo. HABITAT Habitat consists of early serai stages of the chaparral community, where vegetation is low and sparse and shrubs are widely scattered (Cong- don and Roest 1975), on medium-textured sandy loam (Stewart and Roest 1960). Plants typical of the habitat include Lotus scoparius, Erigonum parvifolium. Salvia mellifera, and scattered annual grasses (Stewart and Roest 1960). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Food in the wild not known. In the related Tulare subspecies (D. h. tularensis) , food consists primarily of seeds of grasses and shrubs during the dry season, and grass and herb cuttings during the rainy season. Also, small amounts of insect mater- ial are taken seasonally (Tappe 1941, Fitch 1948). The Morro Bay subspecies probably stores small amounts of food material in its burrows, as reported for the Tulare subspecies (Fitch 1948). Captive Morro Bay kangaroo rats eat seeds and leaves of native plants found within their range, including those of Lotus, Dudleya, and Bromus (Stewart and Roest 1960). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Like other heteromyid rodents, the Morro Bay kangaroo rat constructs its own burrow in sandy soil. Burrows are often located along low ridges near open space, particularly in areas of thick brush (Congdon and Roest 1975). The burrow of D. h. morroensis consists of shallow tunnels (15 to 30cm below the surface) measuring 1.8 to 3 m long, with two or three chambers and a similar number of escape tunnels, the latter terminating about 2.5 cm below ground level (Stewart and Roest 1960). NESTING OR BEDDING Nests are located in one of the chambers of the burrow systems (Stewart and Roest 1960). No description of the nest of this subspecies is available, but Tappe (1941) described the nest of the Tulare kangaroo rat as an ovoid chamber 12.7 by 15 cm and 10 cm high, which was lined with fine grass stems, fine grass roots, and husks of grass seeds. The nests were used only during the breeding season. A similar nest may be made by the Morro Bay kangaroo rat. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS The behavior of this free-living nocturnal rodent is not known. Information for the related great basin kangaroo rat (Z). microps) indicates a need by members of the genus Dipodomys for open ground around the burrow (Kenagy 1976). In D. microps, courtship is limited to drumming miles Current distribution of the Morro Bay kangaroo rats. by the male around the burrow of the female. Receptive females emerge and copulation quickly commences in the vicinity of her burrow. Com- peting males interact, including bouts of locked fighting, near the female's burrow (Kenagy 1976). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The population density of other species of kangaroo rats has been shown to be inversely related to the density of shrubby vegetation (Rosenzweig 1973). This relationship reflects the requirements of saltatory locomotion and the erratic-leaping type of escape behavior that is highly developed in kangaroo rats. Kenagy (1976) suggests the leaping behavior may also function in reducing male-to-male physical contact during conflicts over access to females' burrows. Stewart and Roest (1960) report the invasion of a burned area by the Morro Bay kangaroo rat. Evidence indicates that open, sparsely vegetated habitat is a critical requirement for populations of this kangaroo rat. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The population of this subspecies is directly related to both the quality and quantity of avail- able habitat. The range was originally described by Grinnell (1922) as "less than 4 miles square" (41 km^ ). Stewart and Roest (1960) reported the area of remaining habitat to be less than 6.5 km^ . In 1960, the population numbered about 8,000 individuals (Congdon and Roest 1975). A 1971 study indicated a range of 3.6 km^ and a popu- lation of 3,000 kangaroo rats Congdon 1971, in Congdon and Roest 1975). Roest (1977) indi- cated that the range is now reduced to 1.3 km^ and the population numbers are between 1,500 and 2,000 individuals. The density varies from 42 kangaroo rats per hectare in the most favorable habitat to an esti- mated 5 per hectare in marginal habitat. Territory size is estimated to be about 0.07 ha (Roest 1977). Roest (1977) indicates considerable sea- sonality in their activity, with little or no activity in January and February, and increasing activity through early summer. A decline in activity was noted in mid-summer, and a fall resurgence is suggested. REPRODUCTION Most young are probably born from February through August, but breeding may continue throughout the year with a possible second peak of breeding in the fall (Roest 1977). A similar concentration of breeding in the spring and summer months occurs in D. h. tularensis, which also may have multiple litters per year (Fitch 1946). Average litter size is probably just over three. Four recorded litters for the Morro Bay subspecies were 4, 3, 3, and 3 (Stewart and Roest 1960). Other subspecies of D. heermanni are reported to have average litter sizes of 2.6 to 3.7 (Fitch 1946). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION A summary of management problems for this subspecies is presented in Congdon and Roest (1975). The most significant adverse factor is the loss of habitat, caused by conversion of parts of the former range into suburban housing develop- ments. While kangaroo rats may be tolerant of the proximity of human dwellings (Stewart and Roest 1960), they are eliminated from developed land. A concomitant problem is predation by do- mestic cats near houses. A more serious problem in remaining prime habitat is the absence of wild fires, leading to higher shrub density and the development of a mature chaparral community. This subspecies may invade habitat created by burning (Stewart and Roest 1960). It disappears from fields as the shrub height and density in- crease (Congdon and Roest 1975). Management should thus be directed towards prevention of further loss of habitat by a moratorium on devel- opment of any remaining Morro Bay kangaroo rat habitat and maintenance of existing habitat in the early stages of succession, which constitutes the favored condition for this subspecies. Both these management programs could be most easily achieved within the confines of a publicly owned preserve. Recently, a 20-ha refuge for this animal was established by the California Department of Fish and Game for the westernmost ('Dunes') population (see range map)(Gustafson 1978). But the habitat in this refuge contains the lowest population density of Morro Bay kangaroo rats measured by Roest (1977). Other areas of prime habitat should be acquired. Areas of favorable habitat which are used by off-road vehicles are likely to suffer severe deterioration (U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior 1973), and such use should be curtailed. Fitch, H. S. 1948. Habits and economic relation- ships of the Tulare kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 29:5-35. AUTHORITY Aryan Roest Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California 93407 PREPARER'S COMMENTS One reason for preserving this distinctive iso- lated population of kangaroo rats is its scientific status. From its first description in 1907 to the time of Boulware's publication (1943), it was recognized as a separate species. While no avail- able evidence indicates that it should not be con- sidered a subspecies of D. heermanni, Boulware (1943:393) found the characters of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat to be most different from its nearest neighbor (Z). h. jolonensis) and most simi- lar to a more removed southern relative (Z). h. arenae). Further study on the taxonomic position of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat is indicated. The species has a high reproductive potential and col- lection of a few specimens for critical examina- tion would present no danger to the population. The population of this subspecies is continu- ously declining and without protective measures, 'the Morro Bay kangaroo rat is almost certainly doomed to extinction.' (Congdon and Roest 1970). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Boulware, J. T. 1943. Two new subspecies of kangaroo rats (genus Dipodomys) from south- ern California. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 46:391-396. Congdon, J., and A. Roest. 1975. Status of the endangered Morro Bay kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 56:679-683. Csuti, B. A. 1971. Karyotypes of kangaroo rats from southern California. J. Mammal. 52: 202-206. Grinnell, J. 1922. A geographical study of the kangaroo rats of California. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 24:1-124. Gustafson, J. 1978. Morro Bay kangaroo rat land acquisition. California Dep. Fish Game Non- game Wildl. Invest. Final rep. E-1-1. 3 pp. Kenagy, G. J. 1976. Field observations of male fighting, drumming, and copulation in the Great Basin kangaroo rat {Dipodomys mi- crops).]. Mammal. 57:781-785. Merriam, C. H. 1907. Descriptions of ten new kangaroo rats. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 20:75-80. Roest, A. 1977. Distribution and population esti- mate of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat. Califor- nia Dep. Fish Game Nongame Wildl. Invest Final Rep. E-1-1. 19 pp. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1973. Habitat selection experi- ments with a pair of coexisting heteromyid rodent species. Ecology 54: 111-117. Stewart, G. R. and A. I. Roest. 1960. Distribution and habits of kangaroo rats at Morro Bay. J. Mammal. 41:126-129. Tappe, D. T. 1941. Natural history of the Tulare kangaroo rat. J. Mammal. 22:117-148. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. Resource Publ. 114.289 pp. PREPARED/UPDATED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1300 Blue Spruce Drive Fort ColHns, Colorado 80524 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.20 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the scacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services vi the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Flndangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.20 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WUdlife Laboratory, the Office of Endjingered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN Sterna albifrons browni KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Charadriiformes FAMILY Laridae OTHER COMMON NAMES Least tern, brown tern, brown least tern DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 22 Nov 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal States Endangered (35 FR 16047, 13 Oct 1970; 35 FR 18320, 2 Dec 1970) Endangered: California REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The least tern nests on sandy ocean beaches and salt flats near lagoons and estuaries. Coastal highway construction, recreational development, and beach cottages have reduced habitat and per- mitted increased access to tern nesting beaches. Feeding areas have been developed, filled in, and polluted (Wilbur 1974). Continuing loss of shore- side nesting and feeding habitat, along with high levels of human disturbance and domestic preda- tors at the remaining colonies, have been respon- sible for a decline in numbers up to the present times (Craig 1971, Wilbur 1974). DESCRIPTION Least terns (subfamily Sterninae) are the smallest of the terns, measing 23 cm long with a wingspread of about 51 cm (Davis 1968). They are characterized by a black cap and white fore- head, grey wings with black tips and leading edges, yellow legs, and a black-tipped yellow bill. The sexes are similar. Immatures have darker plumage and dark bills; the contrast between their white heads and dark eye stripes is often distinctive (K. Bender in Wilbur 1974). It has faster wingbeats than other terns, and can hover longer than the larger terns. The California least tern cannot be reliably differentiated from other races of the least tern in the field on the basis of plumage characteristics alone (Burleigh and Lowery 1942). Illustrations and descriptions appear in Ridg- way (1919) and Bent (1921). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. RANGE The historical breeding range of the California least tern extended along the California coast from Moss Landing, Monterey County, to San Jose del Cabo in southern Baja California (Daw- son 1924, Grinnell 1928, Grinnell and Miller 1944, A.O.U. 1957). Some least terns have nested in a number of locations farther north; between 1939 and 1954, they nested at the mouth of the Pajaro River, Santa Cruz County (Pray 1954, Wilbur 1974), and nesting near San Francisco Bay in Alameda, Alameda County, was confirmed in 1967 (Chandik and Baldridge 1967). There are numerous spring and summer records for this area (Grinnell and Wythe 1927, Allen 1934, Sibley 1952, DeBenedictis and Chase 1963, Chase and Paxton 1965). Wilbur (1974) suggests that nestmg may have occurred here previously. In south San Francisco Bay, 60 were counted on 1 Sept 1968, and a breeding colony of 30 pairs was established on Bay Farm Island, Alameda County, in 1969 (Gill 1977). A colony of 15 pairs was also reported in 1969 from Bair Island, San Mateo County (Anderson 1970). The nesting range has apparently always been widely discontinuous, with the majority of birds nesting in southern California from southern Santa Barbara County south through San Diego County (Wilbur 1974). Known nesting sites in Baja California are Scam- mons Lagoon (Bancroft 1927, Grinnell 1928), San Jose del Cabo (Lamb 1927, Grinnell 1928), Ensenada (Bahia Todos Santos), and Baliia de San Quintin (Massey 1977). The California least tern is migratory, usually arriving at its breeding area during the last week of April and departing again in August (Davis 1968, 1974; Massey 1971; Swickard 1971, 1973), although terns have been recorded as early as 1 3 March and as late as 31 October (Sibley 1952, Wilbur 1974). There are six records north of San Francisco Bay and four records of single birds seen at Hum- boldt Bay, Humboldt County; two specimens were collected at Fort Steven, Clatsop County, Oregon (DeSante et al. 1972, CLTRT, in prep.) Migrating least terns have also been recorded from the Colorado River valley (Grater 1939, Phillips et al. 1964) and at the Salton Sea, Imperial Coun- ty (McCaskie and Cardiff 1965, McCaskie 1971). The winter distribution of the California least tern is unknown. Least terns in Guatemala (Griscom 1932) and Veracruz (Warner and Mengel 1951) have been identified as members of the subspecies browni. California least terns are thought to migrate to Peru, but Murphy (1936) doubts this. Recent efforts to find them in Peru have been unsuccessful. RANGE MAP Known nesting locations for the California least tern are shown on the accompanying map (from Wilbur 1974). STATES/COUNTIES: California: Alameda, Imperial, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura. Mexico: Locations of breeding colonies in Baja California south of Bahia de San Quintin are unknown. HABITAT Nesting colonies require undisturbed flat areas with loose substrate, such as sandy upper sea beaches or open expanses of fill-dirt or dried mud characterized by little or no vegetation. For forag- ing, they need adjacent open ocean, surf-line, estuary or lagoon with a good supply of small fish (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Craig 1971; Massey 1971; Swickard 1971, 1973; Wilbur 1974). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Least terns often feed in small loose groups of 2 to 10 birds. While fishing, they hover above the water. If prey is sighted, the bird quickly plunges to the surface, usually breaking its fall just before reaching the water so it is only partially sub- merged instead of diving beneath the surface. Often, a series of short plunges and repeated hov- erings will occur before the actual dive, which is then usually made from only a few centimeters above the water (Bent 1921, Hardy 1957). They have not been seen eating anything but fish, including northern anchovy {Engraulis mor- dax), shiner perch {Cymanogaster aggregata), anchovy [Anchoa compressa), topsmelt (Athertn- ops affinis), killifish {Fundulus parvtpinnts) , ']a.ck- smelt [Atherinopsis calif orniensis) , California grunion [Leuresthes tenuis) and mosquito fish (_) Knovm occupied since 1970 ELDORADO V S CRUZ 5' 25//281 AJ30)^'"' °'^'^° I25/ 29 22- ^^ - y '32' 27 39 41 'ao^ 43 (34) California least tem nesting locations. {Gambusia affinis) (Swickard 1971;Massey 1972, 1974; CLTRT in prep). Other subspecies occa- sionally feed on Crustacea, molluscs, sand eels (Ammodytes), annelid worms, and insects (Tompkins 1959). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS At first the young are weak and helpless. Adults brood chicks continuously the first day. By the second day, chicks make short walking trips from the nest. From the third day on, they become more active and are increasingly mobile (CLTRT in prep.) NESTING OR BEDDING: Nests are simple, shallow depressions in sand, dirt or gravel, usually without twigs or other materials. Bent (1921) states that on beaches where there are shells, the birds may encircle their scrapes with them. Likewise, Swickard (1971, 1973) reported finding one nest, located on flat ground, that was completely lined with small twigs; Massey (1974) reported that nearly 20% of the nests she studied were partly or completely shell-lined. In sand, the bird scoops out the nest depres- sion (Davis 1968, 1974; Massey 1971, 1974;Swi- ckad 1971). But in hard soil, such as dried mud or fill, the nest can be any kind of natural or artifi- cial depression, including a dried boot track (Swi- ckard 1971). Scrapes are circular, about 20 mm deep and 120 mm in diameter (Hardy 1957). Temporary scrapes are used for brooding when chicks begin to wander (Hardy 1957). Least terns are colonial, but usually do not form dense concentrations (Wilbur 1974). The distance between nests is 3 to 5 m or more (Wolk 1954; Hardy 1957; Massey 1971, 1974). Nesting densities may be as low as 3 to 7 per ha (Swickard 1971, 1973), although they are often greater; 145 pairs nested on about 0.75 ha at FAA Island in Mission Bay, San Diego County, California. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Nesting beaches are usually used as a parading ground during courtship (Hardy 1957, Wilbur 1974). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Open expanses free from human disturbance are necessary for courtship, resting, and nesting; adjacent unpolluted lagoons or estuaries are needed for feeding (Longhurst 1969, Craig 1971, Wilbur 1974). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Thousands of terns once nested on the beaches and near the estuaries of the Pacific Coast of North America from Monterey Bay south to cen- tral Baja California. These flocks have dwindled rapidly in the last century. In 1970, the popula- tion in California was estimated at less than 300 pairs, scattered over 15 nesting colonies (Craig 1971), but this study was not made in the nesting season and did not attempt to obtain precise population data. The California Department of Fish and Game has since conducted annual cen- suses. In 1973, initial surveys estimated a popula- tion size of 624 pairs, with nesting activity at 19 sites (Bender 1973). The 1974 surveys estimated the breeding population at 582 pairs. Breeding activity was recorded at 20 sites, but nesting occurred at only 16 of them (Bender 1974). The estimated breeding population was 600 pairs in 1975 and 664 pairs in 1976 (Atwood et al. 1977). In 1977, 775 breeding pairs were located at 29 colony sites, but 9 colonies were abandoned or had poor nesting success because of human distur- bance, predation, or flooding (Atwood et al. 1977). This was the largest breeding population since the surveys began, but the greater numbers found are due in part to increased survey staff and more accurate survey methods (Atwood et al. 1977). The breeding population of the California least tern is difficult to assess for several reasons. Birds may shift breeding sites from year to year, breeding dates may not be uniform, and age at first reproduction and longevity are unknown. Less standardized and concentrated censusing in the past no doubt missed nesting birds at some locations, and some censuses were too late or too early to find breeding birds. Local perturbations compound the difficul- ty in estimating population trends. A colony at Huntington Beach (Sunset Aquatic Regional Park), Orange County, had 51 nests in 1968 (Davis 1968), 25 in 1969 (Massey 1971), 12 in 1970 (Massev 1971) and only 1 or 2 in 1972 (Bender 1973, 1974). At this site, fencing was in- stalled and vegetation removed to improve nesting success, but the birds gradually stopped nesting there for unknown reasons, and had not returned as of 1978. In 1969, a colony of 15 pairs was reported from Bair Island, San Mateo County (Anderson 1970). The birds did not use this area in 1971, but were present again from 1972 to 1975; 14 active scrapes were located in July 1975 (Gill 1977). REPRODUCTION California least terns are sociable and colonial nesters (Davis 1974). They are easily disturbed on the nest and will take flight for aerial territorial defense. If repeatedly disturbed, they abandon their nests (Hardy 1957, Davis 1974, Wilbur 1974). Eggs are small, measuring about 31 by 24 mm, and are buff-colored with various brown and purple streaks and specks. One to four are laid, with two to three the most common clutch size (Davis 1968, 1974; Anderson 1970; Swickard 1971, 1973; Massey 1972). Eggs are laid late in the morning on consecutive days (Davis 1968, Massey 1971, 1974). Nesting starts in mid-May, with most of the nests completed by mid-June (Bent 1921, Davis 1968, Swickard 1971, Massey 1974). Late season (July and August) nests may be renests (Wilbur 1974). Chambers (1908) believed that terns often reared more than one brood per season, but other authorities do not consider the least tern a multi- ple-nesting species (Wilbur 1974). Incubation, which begins with the laying of the first egg, is irregular at first, but become regu- lar once the clutch is completed (Davis 1968, Swickard 1971, Massey 1972). The female does most of the incubating, but both parents partici- pate (Davis 1968, 1974). The incubation period varies from 17 to 28 days; the normal length is 20 to 25 days (Hagar 1937; Hardy 1957; Davis 1968, 1974; Swickard 1971; Massey 1972). An incubation period of 14 to 16 days given by Bent (1921) apparently is in error. Eggs hatch on consecutive days. Chicks are initially weak, but become strong and mobile by the third day (Davis 1968, 1974). In two colonies, hatching success was 80% to 90%, and fledging rates varied betwen 1 1% and 50% (Swickard 1971, Massey 1972). Infertility appears to be a minor cause of egg failure (Wilbur 1974). Predation pressures appear to be high on both eggs and fledgings. Domestic predators (house cats and dogs) and Norway rats {Rattus norvegicus) are often implicated (Chambers 1908; Edward 1919; Craig 1971; Swickard 1971, 1973; Pentis 1972; Atwood et al. 1977). In the past, high tides caused heavy losses of California least tern eggs (Shepardson 1909, Sechrist 1915). Now few colonies are found in areas where tides are a problem. However, in areas with soil less permeable than beach sands, sum- mer rains can cause serious nest losses. Swickard (1971) noted that birds nesting on salt flats had only 43% hatching success after flooding from heavy rains, while on adjacent beach sands, rain water percolated through the nests and there was a 90% hatching success. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The least tern can tolerate some kinds of human activities; they have nested successfully between runways on military air fields (Atwood et al. 1977), in a small fenced enclosure on a pub- lic beach (Anon 1970, Massey 1972), beside a shopping center parking lot (Atwood et al. 1977), and on man-made fill alongside coastal lagoons and estuaries (Massey 1972, Pentis 1972). How- ever, use of any site depends on a nearby body of water containing abundant small fishes and on protection from harassment and predation (Wil- bur 1974). Fencing, posting and educational displays, and limited predator control provide protection for nesting birds (Craig 1971; Massey 1972; Bender 1973, 1974; Atwood et al. 1977). Suitable feeding areas appear to be in critically short supply. Protecting those few that remain and restoring others that no longer support ade- quate fish populations because of reduced tidal flow or pollution may be the most significant management plan for the tern (Wilbur 1974). Since least terns require open nesting areas, natural succession tends to eliminate suitable nesting areas, particularly on man-made sites. Vegetation removal is advocated to encourage the continued use of those nesting beaches under- going succession. At Bair Island, the substrate is sandy loam which, when wet, sticks to tern eggs. In 1977, artificial dry sand mounds about 1 m in diameter were distributed in the colony as an alternative nesting substrate (Atwood et al. 1977). Elsewhere, clay pipes, clay roofing tiles, and special concrete blocks strategically placed in nesting areas have been used successfully by chicks for shade and protection (Atwood et al. 1977). Continued banding projects will be useful to determine postbreeding movements to wintering areas, to understand site-faithfulness, intercolony aggregations, and age at sexual maturity (Rypka 1977). A recovery plan has been developed by the California Least Tern Recovery Team and is currently being reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The plan lists proposed actions for each colony. AUTHORITIES Sanford R. Wilbur Patuxent Wildlife Research Center California Field Station Ojai, California 93023 Alan Craig California Dept. of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 PREPARER'S COMMENTS It is unclear whether the number of California least terns is actually increasing or if the apparent increase is a function of the increased level of research on this subspecies. Overall trends are difficult to elucidate from the cursory survey data that is currently available. Better coordination is needed to standardize the censusing of colonies. Least terns are adaptable and even small colonies could form the basis of substantial new colonies. Thus all colonies, regardless of their size, should be protected as much as possible from human harassment and predation. At present, the concentration of birds in a few breeding locations (33% of the total population is at two locations in San Diego County) makes the future of this species precarious. LITERATURE CITED / SELECTED REFERENCES Allen, A. 1934. The season: San Francisco region. Bird Lore 36(4):316. American Ornithologists. Union. 1957. Check Ust of North American birds. 5th edition. 691 pp. Anderson, W. 1970. The California least tern breeding in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. California Fish and Game 56(2): 136- 137. Anonymous. 1970. Least tern. Wandering Tattler 17(9):4. Atwood, J. L., P. D. Jorgenson, R. M. Jurek, and T. D. Manolis. 1977. Cahfornia least tern census and nesting survey, 1977. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife. Investigations, E-1-1, Job V-2.11, Job Final Report. 35 pp. Bancroft, G. 1927. Breeding birds of Scammons Lagoon, Lower California. Condor 29(1):29- 57. Bender, K. 1973. California least tern census and nesting survey, 1974. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Investi- gation W-54-R, Progress Report. 47 pp. . 1974. California least tern population and nesting survey, 1974. California Depart- ment of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Investigation W-54-R, Job Final Report. 17 pp. Bent, A. C. 1921. Life history of North American gulls and terns. Nat. Mus. Bull. 13. Burleigh, T. D. and G. H. Lowery, Jr. 1942. An inland race of Sterna albifrons. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Louisiana State Univ. 10:173-177. Chambers, W. L. 1908. The present status of the least tern in southern California. Condor 10 (6):237. Chandik, T. and A. Baldridge. 1967. Nesting, middle Pacific coast region. Audubon Field Notes 21(5):600-603. Chase, T. and R. O. Paxton. 1965. Middle Pacific coast region. Audubon Field Notes 19(5): 574-576. Craig, A. M. 1971. Survey of California least tern nesting sites. California Department of Fish and Game Project W-54-R-4, Job II-5.1. Job Completion Report. 55 pp. Davis, M. E. 1968. Nesting Behavior of the least tern {Sterna albifrons). M. Sc. thesis, Univ. Cahf., Los Angeles. 72 pp. 1974. Experiments in the nesting behav- ior of the least tern Sterna albifrons browni. Proc. Linnaean Soc. N.Y. 72:25-43. Dawson, W. L. 1924. The birds of California. South Moulton County, San Diego. 2,162 pp. De Benedictis, P. and T. Chase, Jr. 1963. Middle Pacific Coast Region. Audubon Field Notes 17(5):480-483. DeSante, D., R. Le Valley, and R. Stallcup. 1972. Middle Pacific coast region. American Birds 26(1):112-118. Edwards, H. A. 1919. Losses suffered by breeding birds in southern California. Condor 21(2): 65-68. Gill, R. Jr. 1977. Breeding avifauna of the south San Francisco Bay estuary. Western Birds 8:1-12 Grater, R. K. 1939. New bird records for Nevada. Condor 41(1):30. Grinnell,J. 1928. A distributional summation of the ornithology of Lower California. Univ. Cahf., Publ. Zool. 32(l):l-300. Grinnell, J. and A. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avi- fauna 27:1 -608. Grinnell, J. and M. W. Wythe. 1927. Directory of the bird-life of the San Francisco Bay region. Pacific Coast Avifauna 18: 1 - 160. Griscom, L. 1932. The distribution of bird-life in Guatemala. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 64:1-439. Hagar, J. A. 1937. Least tern studies — 1935 and 1936. Bull. Mass. Audubon Soc. 21(4):5-8. Hardy, J. W. 1957. The least tern in the Missis- sippi valley. Publ. of Museum, Mich. State Univ., Biol. Series l(l):l-60. Lamb C. C. 1927. Notes on some birds of the southern extremity of Lower California. Condor 29(3):155-157. Leach, H. R. and L. O. Fisk. 1972. At the cross- roads: a report on California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Calif Dept. of Fish and Game. 99 pp. Longhurst, A. R. 1969. The status of an endang- ered bird {Sterna albifrons) in San Diego County, 1969. U.S. Bur. Commer. Fish., Lajolla. Unpbl. Rep. 7 pp. McCaskie, G. 1971. Southern Pacific Coast Region. American Birds 25(5):905-908. McCaskie, G. and E. A. Cardiff. 1965. Notes on the distribution of the parasitic jaeger and some members of the Laridae in California. Condor 67(6):542-544. Massey, B. W. 1971. A breeding study of the California tern. California Dept. Fish and Game Wildlife Manage. Branch. Admin. Rep. 71-9. 22 pp. . 1972. Breeding biology of the Califor- nia least tern. M.Sc. thesis, California State Univ. at Long Beach. 101 pp. . 1974. Breeding biology of the California least tern. Proc. Linnaean Soc. N.Y. 72:1-24. . 1977. Occurrence and nesting of the least tern and other endangered species in Baja California, Mexico. Western Birds 8: 67-71. Murphy, R. C. 1936. Oceanic Birds of South America. Macmillan, N.Y. 1,245 pp. Pentis, A. 1972. Who will save the least tern? Environment Southwest 446:6-8 Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 212 pp. Pray, R. H. 1954. Middle Pacific coast region. Audubon Field Notes 8(5):326-327. Ridgway, R. 1919. The birds of North and Middle America, part VIII. Bull. U.S. Nat Mus. 50: 1-793. Rypka, D. D. 1977. California least tern banding project, 1977. Calif Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations Project E-l-l,Job 2. 12, Job Final Report. 7 pp. Sechrist, E. E. 1915. Least Tern. Oologist 32 (1):18. Shepardson, D. I. 1909. Notes on the least tern. Oologist 26(9): 152. Sibley, C. G. 1952. The birds of the south San Francisco Bay region. Unpubl. Rep. 42 pp. (Copy at Oakland Public Museum). Swickard, D. 1971. The status of the California least tern at Camp Pendleton, 1971. Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base. Unpubl. Rep. 30 pp. . 1973. Status of the least tern at Camp Pendleton, California. California Birds 3(3): 49-58. Tompkins, I. R. 1959. Life history notes on the least tern. Wilson Bulletin 71(4):313-322. Warner, D. W. and R. M. Mengel. 1951. Notes on birds from the Veracruz coastal plain. Wilson Bulletin 63(4):288-295. Wilbur, S. R. 1974. The literature of the Califor- nia least tern. Bur. Sport Fish Wildl. Spec. Sc. Report-Wildlife 175. 18 pp. Wolk, R. G. 1954. Some Preliminary observations on the reproductive behavior of the least tern (Sterna albifrons antillarum Lesson). M.Sc. thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 42 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/ UPDATED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1300 Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.21 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- KIRTLAND'S WARBLER Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of P'.ndangercd Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.21 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES KIRTLAND'S WARBLER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior KIRTLAND'S WARBLER Dendroica kirtlandii (Baird) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passeriformes FAMILY Parulidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Jack pine warbler DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 24 Oct 1977, 10 Jan. 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 Mar 1967; 35 FR 18320, 2 Dec 1970). States Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Michi- gjui, North Carolina, South Carolina. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Small population size, restricted geographic distribution, and extremely narrow habitat re- quirements are the major causes of this species' precarious position. Prevention of fire and other forest management practices have eliminated much suitable breeding habitat. Nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird [Molothrus ater) has also contributed to past population declines. A pos- sible, but as yet unknown, factor may be opera- ting against Kirtland's warbler on the wintering grounds in the Bahama Islands (KWRT 1976). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The adult male has upper parts of bluish slate gray, streaked with black, a black mask and white eye ring, underparts dull yellow, sides streaked with black, and fuscous wings without bars. The adult female has upper parts bluish gray with fus- cous streaks, underparts of pale yellow, and fuscous speckling on the breast. It is large for a warbler— 14 to 15 cm long, with a short, stout bill. Color illustrations appear in Mayfield (1960) and the various field guides. RANGE Kirtland's warbler breeds in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan and winters in the Bahama Islands (Mayfield 1960). Strays have re- cently (1977, 1978) been observed near Peta- wawa, Ontario, Kazabazua, Quebec, and Black River Falls, Wisconsin (Ryel 1978b). Lane (1975) observed a male and female near Veracruz, Mexi- co in 1974. The strays are not believed to be evi- dence of additional populations (H. Mayfield, pers. comm.). RANGE MAP The known distribution of the Kirtland's warbler is depicted on the following map (KWRT 1976). STATES/COUNTIES Breeding Michigan Alcona*, Alpena*, Clare*, Crawford, Iosco, Kalkaska, Montmorency*, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego*, Presque Isle*, Roscommon, Wexford. *historical breeding localities in which the warb- ler has not been recorded since the 1972 breeding survey (Ryel 1978a). HABITAT This warbler has very specific breeding habitat requirements, including stands of jack pine {Pinus banksiana) 2 to 6 m high (8 to 21 years old) inter- spersed with many small openings, mmimal ground cover, and little or no hardwoods.The stands are usually on Grayling sands which drain very rapidly. Jack pine stands supporting breeding Kirtland's warblers are usually 30 ha or more in area. Historically, fire maintained the habitat by killing mature jack pines and opening up the forest for natural regeneration. The warbler then used these immature stands until they beccmie too old. The preferred wintering habitat on the Baha- ma Islands is not known, but Radabaugh (1974) suggests use of low, broad-leafed scrub, the pre- vailing form of vegetation. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR A variety of insects are taken from the ground, air, or pine foliage. Kirtland's warblers often hover at the ends of branches as they pluck in- sects out of the pine needle clusters. They also eat berries. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NESTING OR BEDDING The ground nest is built of sedges and grasses, rounded in shape with an inside diameter of 50 to 60 mm. Although a cover is not built, the place- ment of the nest under a grass tussock provides a canopy and often a tunnel entrance. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Males call from perches or from the ground. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS A breeding pair requires about 12 ha of young jack pine habitat for their territory (KWRT 1976). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS In 1951, there were an estimated 432 singing males; in 1961, 502; and in 1971, 201. In the 7 years since then (1972-78), there have been 200, 216, 167, 179, 200, 218, and 196 singing males counted on the breeding ground (Mayfield 1975, Ryel 1978b). In 1974 and 1978, there were unex- plained declines in singing males (Ryel 1978b). Mayfield (1953) stated that females and males are about equal in numbers; thus, the 1978 total for the species could be estimated at 400 individuals. REPRODUCTION They generally lay five eggs, which hatch in mid-June. Prior to cowbird control, nesting suc- cess averaged 1.4 fledglings per pair. After the cowbirds were trapped, the success rate rose to 4 fledglings per pair. Known distribution of the Kirtland's warbler. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The State of Michigan in 1957 set aside three tracts of 1,040 ha each (Mayfieid 1963, Radtke and Byelich 1963). Two were planted with open stands of jack pine, and all have attracted Kirt- land's warblers (KWRT 1976). The Kirtland's Warbler Management Area, es- tablished by the U.S. Forest Service in 1961, consists of some 1,620 ha of jack pine forest which is being managed for the warblers. Manage- ment activities on these refuges have included selective cutting, burning, and replanting to achieve the desired habitat type. The warblers have nested successfully in each of these areas (KWRT 1976). An intensive program to eliminate nest para- sitism by the brown-headed cowbird was begun in 1972 and has proven immensely successful. The Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team drafted a Recovery Plan (1976) whose primary objective is to reestablish a wild population throughout the former range at a minimum level of 1,000 pairs. Five steps are necessary to reach the primary objective: 1. Maintain and develop suitable nesting habitat throughout the former range 2. Protect the species on its wintering grounds and along the migration route 3. Reduce key factors adversely affecting re- production and survival 4. Monitor breeding populations to evaluate responses to management practices and envi- ronmental changes 5. Reintroduce the species into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or in other States to establish independent, self-sufficient popula- tions. AUTHORITIES John Byelich (Recovery team leader) P.O.Box 306 Mio, Michigan 48647 George W. Irvine (Recovery Team) Huron-Manistee National Forest 421 South Mitchell Street Cadillac, Michigan 49601 Nels Johnson (Recovery Team) Regional Biologist Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O.Box 128 Roscommon, Michigan 48653 Wesley R.Jones (Recovery Team) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 Harold Mayfieid (Recovery Team) 9235 River Road Waterville, Ohio 43566 Robert Radtke (Recovery Team) U.S. Forest Service 633 West Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 L.H. Walkinshaw 4691 Timberlane Road Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Richard Winters (Recovery Team) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 301 Manley Miles Building 1405 South Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES KWRT (Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team). 1976. Kirtland's warbler recovery plan. pp. Lane, J. 1975. Kirtland's warbler in Mexico. Am. Birds 29(1):144. Mayfieid, H. F. 1953. A census of the Kirtland's warbler. Auk 70:17-20. . 1960. The Kirtland's warbler. Cranbrook Inst. Sci., Bloomfield Hills, Mich. pp; . 1962. 1961 decennial census of the Kirt- land's warbler. Auk 79:173-182,263-268. -. 1963. Establishment of preserves for the Kirtland's warbler in the state and national forests of Michigan. Wilson Bull. 75:216-220. . 1972. Third decennial census of Kirt- land's warbler. Auk 89:263-268. . 1973a. Census of Kirtland's warbler in 1972. Auk 90:684-685. Statistical Serv. Rep. 167. . 1973b. Kirtland's warbler census. Am. Birds 27:950-952. . 1975. Numbers of Kirtland's warblers. Jack-Pine Warbler 53:39-47. Orr, C. D. 1975. 1974 breeding success of the Kirtland's warbler. Jack-Pine Warbler 53: 59-66. Radabaugh, B. E. 1974. Kirtland's warbler and its Bahama wintering grounds. Wilson Bull. 96: 374-383. Radtke, R., and John Byelich. 1963. Kirtland's warbler management. Wilson Bull. 75: 208-215. Ryel, L. A. 1976. 1975 census of Kirtland's warb- ler. Jack-Pine Warbler 54:2-6. . 1978a. How to see a Kirtland's warbler. Birding 10:53-58. 1978b. Kirtland's warbler status, June Shake, W. F., and J. P. Mattsson. 1975. Three years of cowbird control: an effort to save the Kirtland's warbler. Jack-Pine Warbler 53: 48-53. Walkinshaw, L. H. 1972. Kirtland's warbler— en- dangered. Am. Birds 26:3-9. Walkinshaw, L. H., and W. R. Faust. 1974. Some aspects of Kirtland's warbler breeding biology. Jack-Pine Warbler 52:64-75. 1975, 1974 Kirtland's warbler nesting 1978. Michigan Dep. Nat. Resour. Surveys success in northern Crawford County, Michi- gan. Jack-Pine Warbler 53:54-58. Zimmerman, D. A. 1956. Jack pine association in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan: its structure and composition. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor. PREPARED/UPDATED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Rm. 250 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.22 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- HAWKSBILL TURTLE .^*v C*.r.iiiJ Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aic not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Knginecrs in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.22 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES HAWKSBILL TURTLE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. SlidelL Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior HAWKSBILL TURTLE Eretmochelys imbricata Linnaeus KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Reptilia ORDER Testudinata FAMILY Cheloniidae OTHER COMMON NAMES carey DATES Entered into system To be determined Updates. . 22 September 1976; 14 February 1977 22 May 1979 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (35 FR 8491 ;2 June 1970). States: Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Mary- land, Mississippi, New York, Texas. Protected: Alabama, North Carolina REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The hawksbill turtle is clearly being extir- pated from Atlantic and Carribean waters (Carr and Stancyk 1975). The major cause is exploita- tion for the shell, but meat and skin are also used. Eggs are harvested by man and other predators. Relatively undisturbed beaches are required for nesting. Increasing development and modifi- cation of beaches are incompatible with sea turtle reproduction. For example, illumination of beaches at night can result in distraction of hatch- lings away from the sea (McFarlane 1963). Other causes contribute to low total numbers. These include increased numbers of snorkelers and scuba divers who spear turtles for sport and prize (Carr and Stancyk 1975). Littering of seas, according to Rebel (1974), may cause fatalities (e.g. if a plastic bag is mistaken for a jellyfish and consumed). Also, tremendous predation of hatch- lings and eggs by camiverous ants, crabs, fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals limits recruitment (Rebel 1974). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned DESCRIPTION The hawksbill is a small sea turtle with an elongated, oval shell with overlapping scutes on the carapace. The head is relatively small; flippers have two claws. Barnacles are often found on the carapace and plastron. General coloration is brovwi with numerous splashes of yellow, orange, or reddish-brown on the carapace. The plastron is yellowish with black spots on intergular and post- anal scales. Juveniles are black or very dark brown with light brown or yellow on edge of shell, limbs, and raised ridges on carapace. Adults are 76 to 89 cm long, and weigh 43 to 75 kg. It is the only sea turtle with two pairs of pre- frontal scales on the head and four costal plates on each side of the carapace. Illustrated in Carr (1952, 1967), Ernst and Barbour (1972), Bustard (1973), Rebel (1974), and Riedman and Witham (1974). RANGE The hawksbill is scattered throughout the world's tropical waters. Distribution in the Atlan- tic Ocean extends from southern Brazil to Massa- chusetts. They nest on scattered islands and shores generally between 25° latitude north and south. Some western hemisphere nesting sites include: the tropical Gulf Coast of Mexico, West Indies, Bahamas, and scattered beaches off Central and South America. Continental United States nesting is limited to infrequent Florida nestings. Maps of prominent nesting beaches are compiled in Sur- vival Service Commission (1969). The sea turtle's range probablyhas not changed significantly, but numbers have declined consider- ably. Many nesting beaches have been abandoned either due to natural disaster (hurricanes, erosion, etc.), alteration of habitat, or commercial use by man. RANGE MAP Distribution in waters off the continental United States is illustrated by shading of adjacent coastal States and counties. Nesting records are depicted by dots. STATES /COUNTIES Alabama: Baldwin, Mobile. Delaware: Sussex. Florida: Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dade, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, St. James, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton. Georgia: Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, Mcintosh. Louisiana: Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, (Parishes) Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion. Maryland: Worchester. Massachusetts: Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Middle- sex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth. Mississippi: Hancock, Harrison, Jackson. New Jersey: Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, Ocean. New York: Nassau, Suffolk. North Carolina: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender. Rhode Island: Newport, Washington. South Carolina: Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, Georgetown, Horry. Texas: Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Willacy. Virginia: Accomack, Northampton. HABITAT Hawkbills frequent rocky areas, reefs, shallow coastal areas, lagoons of oceanic islands, and narrow creeks and passes (Carr 1952). They are generally found in water less than 20m deep. Hatchlings are often found floating in masses of sea plants (Pope 1939). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Work by Carr et al. (1966) demonstrates that United States distribution (shading) and nesting records (dots) for the hawksbill turtle. although turtles are omnivorous, these prefer invertebrates. Stomach samples include ectoprocts of the genera Amthia and Steganoporella, a hydroid probably of the genus Sertularia, evidence of remains of sea urchins, and the major food item appears to be the sponge, Geodia gibberosa (Carr et al. 1966). Rebel (1974) lists mangrove, algae, fish, barnacles, mollusks, and jellyfish as hawksbill food. They feed on the bottom and forage close to shores and reefs. Divers have observed them scrap- ing and chewing at reef faces. They have also been seen swimming around refuse dumped in shore waters at Ascension Island (Carr and Stanyck 1975). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not Known. Surinam June to July Seychelles September to November Ceylon — northwest coast April to May —southwest coast November to February (Rebel 1974). Females nest nocturnally every 2 to 3 years but several times a season at 2-week intervals. Clutch size varies, but Carr et al. (1966) reported an average at Tortuguero to be 160 eggs. Carr and Main (1973) estimate that incubation lasts 60 days and believe that one in 1,000 or 10,000 survives to maturity. According to Ernst and Barbour (1972) maturity takes from 3 to 4 years. Mating takes place in shallow water near the nesting beaches (Pope 1939). Photographs of courtship and mating are in Bustard (1973). NESTING OR BEDDING Hawkbills use a variety of beach types for nesting. Carr et al (1966) stated that nearly every undisturbed deep-sand beach in the tropics may be visited by nesting females. Lund (1979) states that nesting occurs ran- domly. Carr and Stanyck (1975) believe there is some degree of site preparation, and Deraniyagala (1939) reports incidents of females returning to previous nesting sites. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not Known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Not Known. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Population estimates are not available. Carr and Stanyck (1975) point out that evidence from work at Tortuguero indicates a decline in popu- lation from 1956 to 1970. REPRODUCTION The nesting season varies with locality: Bermuda April to June British West Indies June to October Costa Rica May to November Venezuela May to August Guyana August MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Laws protect the hawksbill to varying degrees in the following areas: Mexico, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Surinam, French Guiana, Ascension Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific, Tahiti, Fiji Islands, Kingdom of Tonp^, Australia, Sarawak, British Indian Ocean and Seychelle's Islands, Israel South Africa, and Europa Island (Pritchard 1969; U.S. Department of Commerce 1976). Hawksbills are listed under Appendix 1 in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Commercial trade in the species is subject to strict regulation, and both an export and import permit are neces- sary for trade by participating countries. Marquez (1976) recommends preservation of several natural reserves along the coast of Mexico. Among these is Isla Contoy in Quintana Roo State, a nesting beach for hawksbills. Carr (personal communication) recommends that a ban be placed on international traffic and tourist sale of tortoise shells and protection of all nesting beaches. Pritchard (1969) suggested the following con- servation activites: more research devoted to studying the missing year (1st year) of the hatch- lings and developing a practical means of tagging hatchlings; investigating population dynamics and the possibility of sustained yield management; and promoting publicity concerning protection of sea turtles after population stability is deter- mined. Critical Habitat has been proposed for beach- es on Culebra and Mona Islands, Puerto Rico (43 FR 22224-22225, 24 May 1978). The species adapts well to captivity and the chances for captive breeding are are good, but the cost may be prohibitive (Witham 1976). AUTHORITIES Archie Carr Department of Zoology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 George Hughes Oceanographic Research Institute P.O. Box 736 Durban, Natal, South Africa Frank Lund P.O. Box 541 Jupiter Island, FL 33458 Bernard Nietschmann Department of Geology University of Michigan Ann Harbor, MI 48104 Peter Pritchard Florida Audubon Society P.O. Drawer 7 Maitland,FL 32751 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Bustard, R. 1973. Sea turtles, natural history and conservation. Taplinger Publ., New York. 220 pp. Carr, A. F. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja Califor- nia. Comstock Publ. Assoc, Univ. Cornell Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 542 pp. . 1967. So excellent a fish. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 248 pp. . 1972. Great reptiles, great enigmas. Audubon March: 24-35. Carr, A. F., H. F. Hirth, and L. Ogren. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 6. The hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Amer. Mus. Nov. 2248. 29 pp. Carr, A. F., and A. R. Main. 1973. Report on an inquiry into ecological implications of a turtle farming project. In Turtle farming project in northern Australia. Union Offset Co., Pty, Limited, Canberra, Australia. 80 pp. Carr, A. F., and S. Stancyk. 1975. Observations on the ecology and survival outlook of the hawksbill turtle. Biol. Conserv. (8): 161-172. Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1939. Tetrapod reptiles of Ceylon. Vol. 1. Columbo Mus. Publ. Ceylon. 412 pp. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. of Kentucky Press, Lexington. 347 pp. lUCN. 1968. Red data book. Vol. 3. Amphibia and reptilia. Compiled by R. E. Honegger. lUCN. Morges, Switzerland. Lund, F. 1979. Atlantic hawksbill. Pages 24-25 in R. W. McDiarmid, ed., Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, Amphibians and rep- tiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Marquez M., R. 1976. Reserves naturales para la conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexi- co. INP/SIi83: 1-22. McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of logger- head hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeia 1963(1):153. Montoya, A.E. 1969. Programs de investigacion y conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexi- co. Pages 34 to 53 in Marine turtles. lUCN New Publ. Ser. Suppl., Paper 20. Pope, C. H. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 343 pp. Pritchard P. C. H. 1969. Summary of world sea turtle survival situation. lUCN Bull. 2(11):90- 91. Rainey, W. E., and P. C. H. Pritchard. 1972. Dis- tribution and management of Ceiribbean sea turtles. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 37:1-17. Rebel, T. P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle in- dustry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Rev. ed. Univ. of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 250 pp. Riedman, S. R., and R. Witham. 1974. Turtles: ex- tinction or survival? Abelard-Schumann New York. 156 pp. Schmidt, S., and R. P. Witham. 1961. In defense of the turtle. Sea Frontiers 7(4):21 1-219. Survival Serivce Commission. 1969. Marine tur- tles. Proc. working meeting of marine turtle specialists organized by lUCN at Morges, Switzerland. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Proposed listing of the green sea turtle {Chelonia my- das). Loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and pacific ridley sea turtle {Lepidochelys olivacia) as threatened species under the Endangered Spe- cies Act of 1973. Draft EIS. Natl. Oceanic Atm. Admin., Natl. Marine Fish. Ser., Wash- ington, D.C. Walker, W. F. 1971. Swimming in sea turtles of the family Cheloniidae. Copeia 1971(2):229- 233. Witham, R. P. 1976. Eretmochelys imbricata ac- count. In H. O. Hillestad, D. B. Means, and W. W. Baker, eds. Endangered and threated ver- tebrates of the southeastern United States. Tall timbers Res. Stn. Misc. Publ. 4. Zim, H. S., and H. M. Smith. 1953. Reptiles and amphibians: A guide to familiar American species. Simon and Schuster, New York. 147 pp. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.23 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE INDIANA BAT Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the F.ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Kngincers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.23 March 1980 SELFXTKD VER 1 EBRAl K ENDANGERED SPECIES OF IHE SEACOAST OE 1 HE UNITED STATES- THE INDIANA BAT A C<)opcrati\c Effort by the National Fish and WiklHfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species ant! the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Scr\ ices Fish and Wildlife Ser\ice U.S. Department of the Interior CREDIT: STEVEN R. HUMPHREY INDIANA BAT Myotis sodalis Miller and Allen KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Chiroptera FAMILY Vespertilionidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Indiana myotis, social bat, Kentucky brown bat DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 28 April 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1977) States: Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Mis- souri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Ten- nessee, Vermont. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Approximately 87% of the entire species population winters in only seven caves (Humph- rey 1978). Disturbance or vandalism by man dis- rupts hibernation and results in deaths and abor- tions of young (Hall 1902, Humphrey and Scud- der 1978). Intrusion by vandals, spelunkers, and biologists have accounted for losses (IBRT 1975). Hall (1962) discusses clustering behavior of Indi- ana bats in caves and states that frequent disrup- tion of congregations could lead to extinction. Loss of habitat has caused 50% of the decline over recent years (Humphrey 1978). Some hiber- nation sites have been rendered unsuitable as a result of blocking or impeding air flow into the caves, thus changing the cave's climate (Humphrey 1978). Urbanization and deforestation have con- tributed to the species decline (Mohr 1972). Humphrey et al. (1974) found that females breed in scattered nurseries in trees and suggests that losses of large amounts of summer habitat could be catastrophic. Natural factors such as a low population growth rate (Humphrey and Cope 1977), floods (Griffin 1953, DeBlase et al. 1965), freezes (Humphrey 1978), and cave-ins (Hall 1962) tend to inhibit recovery. PRIORITY INDEX None designated. DESCRIPTION Adults are 41 to 49 mm long and weigh 6 to 9 g. The fur is huffy-brown on shoulders and sepia brown dorsally; underparts are pinkish white. Wing membrane and ears are blackish brown. Dark, fuscous brown hairs on and between toes do not extend beyond the tips of the claws. The calcar is keeled. FHght-age young lack distin- guishing markings. Barbour and Davis (1969), Humphrey (1975, 1977), and IBRT (1975) con- tain illustrations. RANGE Indiana bats range throughout most of the eastern U.S. from New Hampshire to Iowa to eastern Oklahoma, and southeast to the pan- handle of Florida. Their winter range is much smaller, being restricted primarily to Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. RANGE MAP Dots on the following map represent winter caves; cross-hatched area is summer range (Hum- phrey 1978). STATES/COUNTIES Alabama: Blount, Calhoun, Cherokee, Cullman, DeKalb,Etowah, Jackson, Limestone, Madison, Marshall, Morgan. Arkansas: Baxter, Benton, Carroll, Clark, Clay, Cleburne, Conway, Craighead, Craw- ford, Faulkner, Franklin, Fulton, Gar- land, Greene, Hot Spring, Howard, Independence, Izard, Jackson, John- son, Lawrence, Logan, Lonoke, Madi- son, Marion, Montgomery, Newton, Perry, Pike, Polk, Pope, Prairie, Pulas- ki, Randolph, Saline, Scott, Searcy, Sebastian, Sevier, Sharp, Stone, Van Buren, Washington, White, Woodruff, Yell. Con- necticut: Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middle- sex, New Haven, Tolland, Windham. Florida: Jackson. Georgia: Bartow, Catoosa, Chattooga, Chero- kee, Cobb, Dade, Dawson, Fannin, Floyd, GUmer, Bordon, Haralson, Lumpkin, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Towns, Union, Walker, White, Whitfield. Illinois: Adams, Bond, Brown, Bureau, Cal- houn, Carroll, Cass, Champaign, Chris- tian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Coles, Cook, Crawford, Cumberland, DeKalb, DeWitt, Douglas, DuPage, Edgar, Ed- wards, Effingham, Fayette, Ford, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Greene, Grundy, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin, Henderson, Henry, Iroquois, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jersey, Jo Daviess, Johnson, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Knox, Lake, LaSalle, Lawrence, Lee, Livingston, Logan, McDonough, McLean, Macon, Macoupin, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Mason, Menard, Mercer, Monroe, Montgomery, Mor- gan, Moultrie, Ogle, Peoria, Perry, Piatt, Pike, Pope, Putnam, Randolph, Richland, Rock Island, St. Clare, Sa- line, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Stark, Stephenson, Tazewell, Union, VermiHon, Wabash, Warren, Washington, Wayne, White, Whiteside, Will, Williamson, Woodford. Indiana: All counties. Iowa: Adair, Adams, Appanoose, Cedar, Clarke, Clayton, Chnton, Dallas, Davis, Decatur, Des Moines, Dubuque, Fre- mont, Henry, Iowa, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Jones, Keokuk, Lee, Louisa, Lucas, Madison, Mahaska, Marion, Monroe, Montgomery, Musca- tine, Page, Polk, Poweshiek, Ringgold, Scott, Taylor, Union, Van Buren, Wa- pello, Warren, Washington, Wayne. Kansas: Atchison, Bourbon, Brovm, Cherokee, Crawford, Doniphan, Jefferson, John- son, Leavenworth, Linn, Miami, Wyandotte. Kentucky: Adair, Allen, Anderson, Barren, Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Boyle, _ ..I -^ I 1 ' 4 ^^^^^^^;^^^3'~\ b -4-~ x \^.y^A^ ^ V Y", ^ ^1 Tvs ■ 1 ^1 ' \ •■-^^ ^ V ■ WINTER CAVES (CRITICAL HABITAT) ) 0 500 \ km Map showing the range, winter caves and critical habitat of the Indiana bat. Bracken, Breathitt, Breckenridge, Bul- litt, Butler, Caldwell, Campbell, Car- roll, Carter, Casey, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Crittenden, Cumber- land, Daviess, Edmonson, Elliott, Es- till, Fayette, Fleming, Floyd, Franklin. Gallatin, Garrard, Grant, Grayson, Green, Greenup, Hancock, Hardin, Harlan, Harrison, Hart, Henderson, Henry, Hopkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Jessamine, Johnson, Kenton, Knott, Knox, Larue, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, Livingston, Logan, Lyon, McCreary, McLean, Madison, Magoffin, Marion, Martin, Mason, Meade, Menifee, Mer- cer, Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Nelson, Nicholas, Ohio, Oldham, Owen, Owsley, Pendle- ton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Rus- sell, Scott, Shelby, Simpson, Spencer, Taylor, Todd, Trigg, Trimble, Union, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Whitley, Wolfe, Woddford. Maryland: Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, Washington. Massa- chusetts: Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden, Middlesex, Worcester, Michigan: Allegany, Barry, Berrien, Branch, Cal- houn, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Hillsdale, Ingham, Iron, Jackson, Kala- mazoo, Kent, Lenawee, Livingston, Ottowa, St. Joseph, Shiawassee, Van Buren, Washtenaw, Wayne. Missouri: Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Bol- linger, Boone, Buchanan, Butler, Cald- well, Callaway, Camden, Cape Girar- deau, Carroll, Carter, Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clin- ton, Cole, Cooper, Crawford, Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Dent, Doug- las, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Hickory, Holt, Howard, Howell, Iron, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, McDonald, Macon, Madison, Maries, Mercer, Miller, Moniteau, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nada- way, Oregon, Osage, Ozark, Perry, Pettis, Phelps, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski, Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Renolds, Ripley, St. Charles, St. Claire, St. Francois, Ste. Gene- vieve, St. Louis, St. Louis City, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Scott, Shannon, Shelby, Stoddard, Stone, Sullivan, Taney, Texas, Vernon,Warren, Wash- ington, Wayne, Webster, Worth, Wright. Nebraska: Nemaha, Pavmee, Richardson. New Hampshire: Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Sullivan. New Jersey: Bergen, Passaic, Sussex, Warren. New York: Albany, Broome, Cayuga, Chemung, Chenango, Columbia, Cortland, Dela- ware, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Ful- ton, Genessee, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Montgo- mery, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Os- wego, Otsego, Putnam, Rensselaer, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, Washington. North Carolina: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, McDowell, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Surrey, Swain, Tatauga, Wilkes, Yancey. Ohio: Adams, Allen, Ashland, Athens, Aug- laize, Belmont, Brown, Butler, Car- roll, Champaign, Clark, Clermont, Clinton, Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, Darke, Defiance, Delaware, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Frankhn, Ful- ton, Gallia, Greene, Guernsey, Hamil- ton, Hancock, Hardin, Harrison, Henry, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Lawrence, Licking, Logan, Lorain, Lucas, Madison, Marion, Medina, Meigs, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Mont- gomery , Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Perry, Pick- away, Pike, Preble, Putnam, Richland, Ross, Sandusky, Scioto, Seneca, Shel- by, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Union, Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Washing- ton, Wayne, Williams, Wood, Wyandot. Oklahoma: Adair, Cherokee, Craig, Delaware, Haskell, Latimer, Le Flore, Mayes, McCurtain, Mcintosh, Muskogee, Ot- tawa, Pittsburg, Pushmataha, Sequoy- ah, Wagone. Penn- sylvania: Adams, Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Bradford, But- ler, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, Clear- field, Clinton, Columbia, Cumber- land, Dauphin, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indi- ana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lawnrence, Lebanon, Lu- zerne, Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Washington, Wayne, Westmoreland, Wyoming, York. Tennessee: Anderson, Bedford, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Cheatham, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Cumberland, Davidson, De- Kalb, Dickson, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hickman, Jack- son, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Lin- coln, Loudon, McMinn, Macon, Marion, Marshall, Maury, Meigs, Mon- roe, Montgomery, Moore, Morgem, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Robertson, Rutherford, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Smith, Stewart, Sullivan, Summer, Trousdale, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washing- ton, White, Williamson, Wildon. Virginia: Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Ap- pomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Bucking- ham Campbell, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Culpeper, Cumberland, Dickenson, Fauquier, Floyd, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Greene, Henry, Highland, Lee, Lou- doun, Louisa, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Orange, Page, Patrick, Pittsyl- vania, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappa- hannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rock- ingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Spotsylvania, Tazewell, War- ren, Washington, Wise, Wythe. West Virginia: All counties. Wisconsin: Crawford, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafay- ette, Richland. HABITAT Winter hibernation is restricted to caves with specific climatic conditions, namely, temperature 4° to 8° C and relative humidity from 66% to 95% (Barbour and Davis 1969, Humphrey 1978). These requirements are met only in a narrow zone close to a cave entrance (Hall 1962). Sexes and age classes diverge in summer. Females and juveniles live in stream bank and floodplain areas, roosting under the bark of trees (Humphrey et al. 1977). Males use floodplain ridges and hillside forests and usually roost in caves (LaVal et al. 1976, 1977). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Females and juveniles eat mainly small, soft- bodied flying insects, primarily Diptera (J.J. Bel- wood and S. R. Humphrey personal communica- tion). In early summer, femcdes and juveniles for- age along stream banks most of the time, and shift later to include trees and the edges of flood- plain forests (Humphrey et al. 1977). Foraging areas average 1.47 ha per animal in early summer, and 4.54 ha per animal by mid-summer (Humph- rey et al. 1977). Males forage in densely wooded areas at tree-top height (LaVal et al. 1976, 1977). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Winter caves have stable, cool temperatures (usually 4° to 8° C, but sometimes as low as 1° C), and high humidity (Humphrey and Scudder 1979, LaVal etal. 1976). NESTING OR BEDDING Summer nursery roosts are located under the bark of live or dead hardwoods, which serves as a buffer against sudden temperature changes, shel- ters the bats from weather and predators, and acts as a solar heat collector (Humphrey et al. 1977). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS The bats swarm near caves from August to November in Missouri and from mid-August to the end of October in Indiana and Kentucky (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Swarming is des- cribed as a phenomenon in which large numbers of bats fly in and out of a cave entrance from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in the cave during the day (Humphrey and Cope 1976). The significance of this activity is not known; it has been suggested that it relates to mate selec- tion and copulation, adjustment to and familiari- zation with seasonal ranges, and/or rest stops during migration (IBRT 1975, M. D. Tuttle per- sonal communication). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS It is possible that in some instances, the gray bat (My Otis grisescens), another Federally hsted endangered species, may compete for roosting space in winter caves (Hall 1962) and could pos- sibly displace the Indiana bat from them. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The recent discovery of two new winter caves has brought estimates of total population to 509,000 (Richter et al. 1978). The bat once numbered 1 million, but major catastrophies, primarily flooding, killed many in wintering caves (Hall 1962, IBRT 1975). Humphrey (1978) recorded a 28% decline in total numbers from 1960 to 1975 (Table 1). Table 1. Population estimates and trends for the Indiana bat, by state 1960 1975 Trend State population population percentage Missouri 311,433 285,983 -8.2 Kentucky 209,796 55,782 -73.4 Tennessee 7,554 Arkansas 1,700 — Indiana 102,823 104,824 +1.9 Illinois 339 194 -42.8 Virginia 580 — West Virginia 1,757 — Pennsylvania 1,002 — New York ..... 500 — Vermont , . .not censused. . Totals 625,393 458,874 -26.6 The decline in Kentucky was due to flooding, disturbance, and man-caused alteration of cave climate. Humphrey (1976) believs the Indiana bat is headed for extirpation in Kentucky. Missouri reductions are a result of winter weather variation. Incidents of vandalism and the collapse of a mine contributed to the decline in Illinois (Mohr 1962, Humphrey 1978). The overall trend at present will lead to the species' extinction in 50 years, but most losses of winter habitat are reversible and this eventuality can be avoided (Humphrey 1978). REPRODUCTION Copulation occurs in the fall with the females storing the sperm over the winter (Barbour and Davis 1969). The females form nursery colonies under the bark of trees in late spring (usually May) and give birth to one young in late June or early July (Humphrey et al. 1977). Only females and young occupy the nursery roost (Humphrey et al. 1977). The longevity record for males is 13.5 years; for females, 14.8 years. The survival rate for females is high for the first 10 years, and for males, for the first 6 years only (Hum- phrey and Cope 1977). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The primary conservation effort to date has been to control human access to caves by the use of gates. The National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and some State agencies have installed gates on several caves. The Recovery Team suggests the gating of several more caves and mines, which will give protection to 99% of the bats (IBRT 1975). In one instance (Colossal Cave, Kentucky), a gate modified cave micro- climate and made it unsuitable for bats (Hum- phrey 1978). Gates or fences have also increased the bats' susceptibility to predation at the en- trances (Tuttle 1977). Other conservation efforts include a moratorium on issuance of bat bands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and restrictions on use of pesticides such as DDT. The National Speleological Society has appointed a Bat Con- servation Task Force and has taken some specific measures to protect bats. The original Recovery Team (since disbanded) outlined a Recovery Plan (IBRT 1975) listing three objectives critical to preservation of the species: (1) protecting winter habitat by securing caves and mines and restricting entry; (2) initi- ating a public information and education pro- gram; and (3) monitoring population levels and habitat quality. A new Recovery Team is being formed (J. M. Engel personal communication). Other management needs include protection of the summer riparian environment (Martin 1973, Humphrey 1978). The majority of the species winters in public- ly owned caves, but many private caves are also used (R. K. LaVal personal communication). Public aquisition of certain of the latter, including four in Missouri and one in West Virginia, is being sought at present (R. LaVal personal communica- tion, J. Rawson personal communication). Table 2 lists pertinent information on pub- licly owned wintering caves. Dr. Tom Kunz (Recovery Team) Department of Biology Boston University 2 Cummington Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Dr. Don Wilson (Recovery Team) National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory National Museum of Natural History Washington, D.C. 20560 Dr. Merlin Tuttle (Recovery Team) Vertebrate Division Milwaukee Public Museum Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 AUTHORITIES J. T. Brady (Recovery Team) Biologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 210 N. 12th Street, Room 853 St. Louis, MO 63101 J. B. Cope Joseph Moore Museum Earlham College Richmond, IN 47374 J. M. Engel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, MN 55111 S. R. Humphrey Florida State Museum Museum Road Gainesville, FL 32611 R. K. LaVal (Recovery Team Leader) Missouri Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife Research Center 1110 College Avenue Columbia, Columbia, MO 65201 R. Z. Mumford Dept. of Forestry and Conservation Purdue University Lafayette, IN 47904 A. Richter Joseph Moore Museum Earlham College Richmond, IN 47374 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. Table 2. Ownership of caves, Critical Habitat, and recent (1975) population estimates for Indiana bat caves (Humphrey 1978, Richter et al. 1978). [F=Federal, P=Private, S=State, CH=Critical Habitat.] State County Cave Owner- ship Population estimate Alabama ? Santa F ? Several caves F 700 in Sylamore Forestry Dist. Madison Denney ? 1,000 Illinois LaSaUe Blackball Mine (CH), S 192 ? No. Ill S 50,000 ? No. 175 S 1,250 ? No. 376 S 100,000 Crawford Wyandotte (CH), S 1,460 Crawford Saltpeter S 95 Greene Ray's (CH),P 2,700 Kentucky Carter Bat (CH), S 40,000 Edmonson Coach (CH), P 4,500 Edmonson Dixon F 3,600 Edmonson Long's F 7,600 Edmonson Colossal F 14 Edmonson Wilson F 0 Edmonson Bat F 68 ? Carter S Missouri Iron PUot Knob (CH), P Shannon No. 047 (CH),) 46,000 Washington No. 029 (CH), S 81,800 Crawford No. 021 (CH). F 12,850 Franklin No. 009 (CH), S 21,000 Franklin No. 017 S Camden No. 053 S Tennessee Blount White Oak (CH), F Blowhole 6,050 ? Nicajack F Anderson Norris Dam F West Virginia Pendelton Hellhole (CH), P 1,500 Tucker Big Springs F (Blowing Cave) 150 Tucker Cave Hollow F 23 lucifugus, in Indiana and north-central Ken- tucky. Am. Soc. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4:1-81. 1977. Survival rates of the endangered Per 42 FR 40687, 11 August 1977. Tuttie, personal communication, 1978. UTERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press, Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp. Cope, J. B., and S. R. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and autumn swarming behavior in the Indiana hdLt,Myotis sodalis. J. Mammal. 58:93-95. DeBlase, A. F., S. R. Humphrey, and K. S. Drury. 1965. Cave flooding and mortality in bats in Wind Cave, Kentucky. J. Mammal. 46:96. Engel,J.M. 1976. The Indiana bat, Afyofw sodalis, a bibliography. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. 196. 11 pp. Griffin, D. G. 1953. Deluge underground. Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc. 15:34-37. Hall, J. S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Reading Pub. Mus. and Art Gallery Sci. Publ. 12:3-68. 1972. The status oi Myotis sodalis, the West Virginia Dep. Natur. Resour. Elkins. 5 pp. Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mam- mals of North America. Vol. 1. Ronald Press, New York. 546 pp. Humphrey, S. R. 1975. Cover photo. Bioscience 25(9). 1977. Keep 'em flying. Animal Kingdom 89(5). 1978. Status, winter habitat, and manage- ment of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Q. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 41(2):65-76. Humphrey, S. R., and J. B. Cope. 1976. Popula- tion ecology of the little brown bat, Myotis Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. J. Mammal. 58: 32-36. Humphrey, S. R., J. B. Cope, A. R. Richter, and P. P. Humphrey. 1974. Summer ecology of the endangered Indiana bat. Fifth Am. Symp. Bat Res., Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock. Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the en- dangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. J. Mam- mal. 58:334-346. Humphrey, S. R., and S. J. Scudder. 1979. Indi- ana bat. Pages 3-4 in J. N. Layne, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 1, Mammals. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gaines- ville. IBRT (Indiana Bat Recovery Team). 1975. Reco- very plan for the Indiana bat. Draft. U.S. Dep. Interior, Fish Wildl. Serv. 34 pp. LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, W. Caire. L. R. Win- gate, and M. L. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of the status of Myotine bats in the propsed Meromec Park and Union Lake project areas, Missouri. School of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 136 pp. LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with em- phasis on the endangered species Myotis grises- cens and Myotis sodalis. J. Mammal. 58:592- 599. Martin, R. L. 1973. The current status of bat pro- tection in the United States of America. Period. Biol. 75:153-54. Mohr, C. E. 1972. The status of threatened spe- cies of cave-dwelling bats. Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc. 34:33-37. Mumford, R. E. 1974. The status of the Indiana bat and the eastern wood rat on the Wayne- Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. Purdue Univ. Dep. Forestry and Conserv. Spec. Study. Richter, A. R., D. A. Seerley, J. B. Cope, and J. H. Keith. 1978. A newly discovered concen- tration of hibernating Indiana bat, Myotis so- dalis, in southern Indiana. J. Mammal. 59: 191. Tuttie, M. D. 1977. Gating as a means of protec- ting cave dwelling bats. Pages 77-82 in Na- tional Cave Management Symposium Proc. 1976. Speleobooks, Albuquerque. 106 pp. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.24 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE ATLANTIC SALT MARSH SNAKE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Kngineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.24 March 1980 SELFCl KD VKR TEBRAl i: ENDANGERED SPECIES OF IHE SEACOAS T OF 1 HE UNITED STATES- THE ATLANTIC SALT MARSH SNAKE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Ser\'ices Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior ATLANTIC SALT MARSH SNAKE Nerodia fasciata taeniata Cope KINGDOM Animalia CLASS ReptUia ORDER Squamata FAMILY Colubridae OTHER COMMON NAMES salt water snake eastern Florida water snake east coast striped water snake DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 3 January 1978, 11 October 1978, 21 May 1979 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Threatened States: (42 FR 29 November 1977) Endangered: Florida 60743-60745, REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS This species has a Umited geographical range and is restricted to habitat that is subject to pro- gressive disturbances. Development on coastal barrier islands threatens the snake's remaining habitat. Draining and diking operations promote hybridization and genetic swamping by an adja- cent freshwater race, the Florida water snake Nerodia fasciata pictiventris (Kochman and Christman 1979a; 42 FR 60743-60745; 29 November 1977). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The Atlantic salt marsh snake is a small water snake approximately 70cm long. Its dorsal pat- tern is variable, combining elements of blotching and longitudinal striping. It has a median pair of dark brown stripes on pale olive ground color, often fragmented posteriorly into longitudinal series of blotches. Its sides have a row of dark blotches that may merge to form short stripes in the neck region. The belly is reddish-brown to black with a median row of yellowish spots. Color photograph is in Dodd (1978); black and white photographs in Carr and Goin (1942), Wright and Wright (1957) and Kochman and Christman (1979a). RANGE This species is endemic to the following localities on the Atlantic coast of Florida: Volusia County - vicinity of National Gardens, Daytona Beach, and New Smyrna Beach Brevard County — Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at Playalinda Beach (R. Demmer personal communication) and vici- nity of Micco (Kochman and Christman 1979a) Indian River County - Gifford (H. Kochman unpublished data) and vicinity of Vero Beach (Kochman and Christman 1979a). Snakes exhibiting various degrees of intermed- iacy between the Atlantic salt marsh snake, the Florida water snake, and the mangrove water snake (Nerodia fasciata compressicauda) occur at various localities throughout the known range of N.f. taeniata (Neill 1958,Kockman 1977). There is no evidence to suggest that the range of this species has changed significantly (42 FR 60743-60745; 29 November 1977). RANGE MAP Dots on the following map represent specific localities or general areas from which one or more specimens have been taken (adapted from Koch- man and Christman 1979a). STATES/COUNTIES Florida: Brevard, Indian River, Volusia. HABITAT The Atlantic salt marsh snake inhabits coastal salt marshes and mangrove swaimps. It has been specifically reported along shallow tidal creeks and pools in association with glasswort {Salicornia perennis) (Carr and Goin 1942), blackrush {/un- cus roemerianus) (Niell 1958), and black man- grove (Avicennia germinans) (H. Kale personal communication, H. Kochman unpublished data). It occurs in saline environments ranging from brackish to full strength seawater. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The species is ecologically and behaviorally similar to the Gulf salt marsh snake (N. f. clarki). It forages in shallow water during low tidal stages (Carr and Goin 1942, Neill 1958, Kochman and Christman 1979a), apparently feeding upon dense congregations of small fishes that become entrap- ped during the falling tide (Neill 1958). A similar feeding strategy has also been reported for the Gulf salt marsh snake (Pettus 1956). Although primarily regarded as nocturnal (Carr and Goin 1942, Kochman and Christman 1979a), Atlantic salt marsh snakes may be strong- ly influenced by ddal rhythms and have been reported to forage in daylight during favorable tides (Neill 1958). They are also known to enter minnow traps in shallow water (H. Kale personal communication) . SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Little specific information is available. One specimen reportedly withdrew into a fiddler crab (Uca) burrow when approached during daylight (Carr and Goin 1942). NESTING OR BEDDING Not known. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not knowTi. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Coastal races of N. fasciata are reproductively compatible with adjacent freshwater populations and require ecological isolation to maintain genetic integrity (Pettus 1956, 1963; Conant 1975, Kochman 1977). The Atlantic salt marsh snake appears to hybridize freely with the Florida water snake in ecotonal areas of distributional overlap (Kochman 1977). It can remain genetical- ly distinct only if hybridization is limited to narrow zones of ecological transition between freshwater and saline habitats. Alteration of coastal wetlands through drainage and diking enhances hybridization and promotes genetic introgression, i.e. swamping, by the Florida water snake (Kochman and Christman 1979a; 42 FR 60743-60745; 29 November 1977). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS No population estimates are available. Ap- proximately 50 specimens are known to science (H. Kochman unpublished data). Map indicating the range of the Atlantic salt marsh snake along the eastern coast of Florida. Dots represent sites where specimens have been collected. REPRODUCTION Very little information is available. One cap- tive female gave birth to nine young (eight alive and one stillborn) in late August (H. Kochman unpublished data). Their reproductive biology is probably similar to the Gulf salt marsh snake: 2 to 14 live young bom during midsummer (Kochman and Christman 1979a, 1979b), with an average litter size of 6 to 7 (H. Kochman unpub- lished data). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Portions of their known range include State and Federal lands along the Atlantic coast of Florida: Tomoka State Park (Volusia County), Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (Volusia and Brevard Counties), Cape Kennedy Air Force Station (Brevard County), Patrick Air Force Base (Brevard County), and the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (Indian River County). In a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, Office of Endangered Species (December 1976), H. Kochman emphasized that habitat alter- ation and subsequent hybridization pose the chief threats to the Atlantic salt marsh snake. In view ofM /a5aa to 's high variability along Florida's Atlantic coast, it was concluded that conservation measures must be oriented toward safeguarding habitats and populations rather than a specific phenotype. The designation of Critical Habitat in coastal areas of Volusia, Brevard and Indian River coun- ties has been recommended by representatives of various Federal, State and private organizations (42 FR 60743-60745; 29 November 1977). No formal advisory committee or recovery team has been established. AUTHORITIES Archie F. Can- Department of Zoology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Richard Demmer District V Naturalist Division of Recreation and Parks Florida Department of Natural Resources Route l,Box 107AA Clermont, FL 32711 Howard I. Kochman National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N. E. 16di Avenue, Room 250 GainesvUle, FL 32612 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The distribution and status of the Atlantic salt marsh snake remain essentially unknown. Further study may extend its knovsm home range northward and southward along the Atlantic coast of Florida. Potentially suitable habitat should be surveyed for undiscovered populations, followed by designation of Critical Habitat in ap- propriate areas. A special interagency advisory committee with recovery team functions should be established to evaluate alternatives for effec- tive conservation and management. Water snakes from scattered localities along the Gulf coast may exhibit a pattern of striping and spotting similar to the Atlantic salt marsh snake (Conant 1975). In many instances, this is the result of hybridization between the longi- tudinally striped Gulf salt marsh snake and ad- jacent cross-banded races (Pettus 1956, 1963). It has been suggested that the Atlantic salt marsh snake may likewise be the product of hybridi- zation dating back to Pleistocene contact of striped and banded populations (Kochman 1977, Kochman and Christman 1979a). Dunson (in preparation) does not consider the Atlantic salt marsh snake sufficiently distinct from the man- grove water snake to warrant subspecific status. UTERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Carr, A. F., and C. J. Coin. 1942. Rehabilitation of Matrix sipedon taeniata Cope. Proc. New England Zool. Club 21:47-54. Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and am- phibians of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 429 pp. Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1978. Amphibians & reptiles, the declining species. Water Spectrum 10(1):24- 32. Dunson, W. A. Occurrence of partially striped forms of the mangrove snake Nerodia fasciata compressicauda Kennicott and comments on the status of N. f. taeniata Cope. Unpubl. MS. Kochman, H. I. 1977. Differentiation and hybri- dization in the Matrix fasciata complex (Rep- tilia:Serpentes): A nonmorphological ap- proach. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 105 pp. Kochman, H. I., and S. P. Christman. 1979a. At- lantic salt marsh snake. Pages 27-28 in R. W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. . 1979b. Gulf salt marsh snake. Pages 62- 63 in R. W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endan- gered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Neill, W. T. 1958. The occurrence of amphibians and reptiles in saltwater areas, and a bibliog- raphy. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Caribb. 8(1): 1-97. Pettus, D. 1956. Ecological barriers to gene ex- change in the common water snake {Matrix sipedon). Ph. D. Dissert. Univ. of Texas, Aus- tin. 87 pp. . 1963. Salinity and subspeciation in Nat- trix sipedon. Copeia 1963(3) :499-504. Wright, A. H., and A. A. Wright, 1957. Handbook of snakes of the United States and Canada. Vol. 1. Comstock PubUshing Associates, Ith- aca. 564 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.25 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE DUSKY SEASIDE SPARROW Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704.'38 u FWS/OBS-80/01.25 March 1980 SELtXIKD VI:R I EBRA 1 1: ENDANGERED SPECIES OF I HE SEAC:OAS 1 OF 1 HE UNITED STA TES- THE DUSKY SEASIDE SPARROW A Cooperative P^ffort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior DUSKY SEASIDE SPARROW Ammospiza maritima nigrescens Ridgway KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passeriformes FAMILY FringUIidae OTHER COMMON NAMES black and white shore finch, black shore finch. DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined. Updates 10 October 1978. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001; 11 March 1967). States: Endangered: Florida. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The dusky seaside sparrow is distributed in an extremely limited area in northern Brevard County, Florida. It is adapted to narrow, un- stable zones of vegetation within salt marshes. Diking of the marshes for mosquito control has altered the vegetation and the species has disap- peared on northern Merritt Island. Wildfires and marsh drainage for housing, roads and pasture have reduced available habitat in the St. Johns River Basin (Sharp 1968, 1970; Baker 1973, 1976, in press; USDI 1973; DSSRT draft). Aerial spraying in coastal marshes with DDT and other insecticides to control mosquitoes from 1942 to 1953 may have been responsible for a 70% reduc- tion in the population (Trost 1968). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The dusky seaside sparrow is about 15 cm long. Adults have black or blackish brown upper parts, edged with grayish olive, white venter with heavy black streaking, bright yellow on lores and at bend of wing. The wings and tail are fuscous to fuscous black, edged with light yellowish olive. The sexes are similar. Juvenal plumage is lighter in color with nar- rov/er tan streaking, and reduced yellow on lores and wings. Color plates appear in Howell (1932), Peter- son (1947), Sprunt (1954), and Trost (1968). A black and white photograph appears in Eber- hart(1968). RANGE The dusky seaside sparrow is a sedentary inhabitant of brackish marshes and savannahs in northern Brevard County, Florida. The 1978 survey of singing males documented their pre- sence in the St. Johns River Basin at the following three locations: St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 1 km south of the refuge, and between the north and south forks of the BeeHne Highway (Baker in press). The sub- species is isolated from other populations of sea- side sparrow by 120 km to the north, 200 km to the west, and 400 km to the south (Trost 1968). Dusky seaside sparrows were formerly abun- dant in Indian River salt marshes on Merritt Is- land, from Dummitt Creek south to Banana Creek (Trost 1968). Sharp (1968) determined the main- land distribution to be from Salt Lake south near- ly to Florida Highway 520 and between 1-95 and the St. Johns River. RANGE MAP Critical habitat and 1977 range are indicated on the following page. The dusky seaside sparrow apparently no longer occurs on Merritt Island (J. Baker, personal communication). STATES/COUNTIES Florida: Brevard. HABITAT The species inhabits salt marshes with highly fluctuating water levels and salinities. It prefers moist zones dominated by cordgrass {Spartina bakerii), 3 to 5 m above mean sea level. The St. Johns River marshes present a savannah-like aspect, being dotted with small ponds, salt pans, cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto), and hammocks (Sharp 1968, 1970; Baker 1976;DSSRT draft). Sharp (1968, 1969a, 1970) believes zones of short and tall interdigitating plants form the pre- ferred microhabitat. The Merritt Island habitat was composed of a heterogeneous mosaic of the tall cordgrass and black rush (Jiincus roemerianus) with short saltgrass {Distichlis sptcata), saltwort {Batis maritima) and glasswort {Salicornia peren- nis). In the St. Johns River savannahs, fires and varying salinities and water levels produce the tall- short pattern with cordgrass. Black and white habitat photographs may be found in the following: diked salt marsh-Eberhart (1968); former Merritt Island habitat— Baynard (1914) and Nicholson (1928); St. Johns River sa- vannah—Sharp (1969b). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The subspecies is largely insectivorous. Six stomachs contained 37% grasshoppers and crick- ets and 25% spiders. Other items included miscel- laneous insects, seeds, and tubers (Howell 1932). Trost (1968) observed duskies feeding on small snails, a dragonfly larva, a butterfly, and possibly ants. They forage at or near the ground (Baker (1976, in press). Feeding has been observed on dikes and in tidal zone (Trost 1968). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS The dusky sparrow remains concealed in dense vegetation during the nonbreeding season (Trost 1968). Glasswort on Merritt Island (Bay- nard 1914) and cordgrass in the St. Johns flood- plain (Sharp 1968, Baker 1973) form the pre- ferred shelter. NESTING OR BEDDING The dusky seaside sparrow constructs a cupped nest from grasses. Nests are placed in tussocks 2 to 35 cm above ground and may be covered with arched vegetation (Nicholson 1928). Nest sites include tussocks of glasswort, black rush, cordgrass, salt grass, and wire grass (Sporo- bolus virginicus) (Baynard 1914; Nicholson 1928, 1929; Trost 1968). Baker (in press) reported a nest in a salt bush (Bacharis angusti folia). Baynard (1914) and Nicholson (1928) present black and white photographs of nests and nest sites on Merritt Island. z 1- 9 < H 1- Z3 HABI STRIB d Q 9 i 1— o ac z O i^ 1 a, C o -a +-» U C o S-H 1-1 a. u [A d X) o c C _o '■M 3 JO RITUAL REQUIREMENTS During the breeding season males sing from prominent perches atop the glasswort, grasses, or rushes. A male occasionally will flutter slowly upward 7 to 12 m and then descend to its perch while singing. Males chase females in low erratic flights over the tops of vegetation (Nicholson 1928,Trost 1968). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL * REQUIREMENTS Nesting is confined to a male's territory, which is defended by song and occasional chasing. Occupied nests were found within 12 m of one another in the 1930's, but territories appear to have increased to 100 m in diameter in recent years, due to thinning of marsh vegetation and re- duction in bird densities. Banding has shown that males defend the same territory year after year. Banded juveniles have returned a year later and established territories 300 m from where they were fledged. Birds may fly 200 m or more from nest sites to feeding areas (Trost 1968). Predation appears to occur mainly on eggs and young mostly by rats (Oryzomys palustris, Sigmodon hispidus), raccoons [Procyon lotor), and many snakes (Lampropeltis getulus, Agkistrodon piscivorous). Fish crows (Corvus ossifragus) and boat-tailed grackles [Casstdix mexicanus) may rob nests. Ants may force adults to abandon nests, especially during high water (Nicholson 1928; Trost 1968). Nesting red-winged blackbirds [Agelaius phoeniceus) constantly harass duskies which nest nearby (DSSRT draft). The dusky occupies a median position on the marsh moisture gradient between the 3 and 5 m contour lines. Above this elevation, the drier marsh has woody growth and is vulnerable to wildfire, and the eastern meadowlark [Sturnella magna) replaces the dusky. In lower areas with standing water and/or dense cordgrass, least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis), king rails (Rallus elegans) and probably black rails [Laterallus jamaicensis) occur. The dusky prefers patches of cordgrass with heights of 0.5 to 1.5 m and a density of approximately 1,700 stems/m^ (Sharp 1968, 1970). Natural fires seem to play a beneficial role in maintaining dusky habitat along the St. Johns River. Most lightning fires occur in the rainy season when the marsh is wet and humidity high; they move slowly and burn small, discontinuous areas, removing woody plants and allowing the tall and short cordgrass savannah required by the duskies to regenerate (Sharp 1968, Baker in press). Birds in the immediate vicinity are dis- placed, but presumably recolonize afterward. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Dusky sparrow populations were probably stable until the 1940's, when Nicholson estimated that aerial insecticide spraying from 1942 to 1953 reduced numbers 70% by 1957 (Trost 1968). De- creases may have resulted from reproductive failure and disruption of the food chain. Sharp (1968) estimated that there were 2,000 pairs on Merritt Island prior to spraying, based on his ob- served densities and the reports of Baynard (1914) and Nicholson (1928). Impoundment of the island marshes in the mid-1950's and resulting changes in salt marsh vegetation reduced popula- tions to four localities having 70 pairs in Trost's 1961-1962 study (Sharp 1968). Sharp (1970) found 33 or 34 males in his 1968 survey. Baker (in press) located two males at the north end of Merritt Island in 1977 and none in the 1978 sur- vey. Sharp (1970) found 372 singing males in the St. Johns River marshes in the spring of 1968 and estimated the probable total of the mainland population to be 894 pairs. The St. Johns Nation- al WUdlife Refuge surveys for 1970 and 1972- 1978 documented 143, 110, 54, 37, 47, 11, 12, and 9 singing males, respectively. Winter wildfires apparently caused the most drastic reductions. Singing males in the entire St. Johns Basin num- bered 28 in 1977 and 24 in 1978; no females were seen in 1978, although some were seen in 1977 (Baker, in press). REPRODUCTION Dusky sparrows breed from March to August, with two egg-laying peaks— one from late April to early May and the other from late June to early July, indicating production of two broods during an average season. Pair formation and copulation have not been observed (Trost 1968). One to five eggs have been found in nests; four is the most frequent clutch size (Baynard 1914, Nicholson 1928). The female incubates the eggs for 12 to 13 days and broods the young for 9 days more. Ju- veniles stay in the territory about 20 days more, after which the male may drive them away. Both parents feed the young (Trost 1968). The fledglings start to molt in late August and are almost identical to adults by November. The postnuptial molt of adults begins in August and concludes by October. The light edges of the con- tour feathers wear off during the winter and produce the dark nuptial plumage (Trost 1968). The average longevity is unknown, but an adult banded in 1972 was seen tv^dce in 1978 (Ba- ker in press). A color plate of a fledgling appears in Trost (1968), and black and white photographs of eggs and nestlings, in Baynard (1914) and Nicholson (1928). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION The conflict between mosquito control and the dusky 's stringent habitat requirements has made conservation extremely difficult. Attempts to recover the dusky on Merritt Island have in- cluded lowering impoundment water levels, con- necting an impoundment to the Indian River by a culvert, and removal of a 3,000-m dike. The high water levels and consequent vegetation changes, such as shrub encroachment, have prevented these measures from succeeding so far (DSSRT draft, Baker, in press). Management of the mainland dusky popula- tion involves primarily land acquisition and con- trolled burning. On the St. Johns National Wild- life Refuge, destructive winter wildfires now are checked by firebreaks maintained by refuge per- sonnel. Experiments to control brush encroach- ment include small prescribed bums, summer burning, and herbicide use. A refuge addition of 1,320 ha in the vicinity of the Beeline Highway is under negotiation (Baker, in press). In addition, the Recovery Team calls for the determination of habitat requirements, refining of habitat manipulation techniques, population monitoring by annual survey, and restoration of habitat such as that on Merritt Island (DSSRT draft). The 1978 survey documented 9 singing males on the St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge and 15 in the rest of the river basin. Most of those out- side the refuge inhabit the area of a proposed refuge addition between the forks of the Beeline Highway (Baker, in press). Critical Habitat is designated as the mainland area bounded by 1-95, the St. Johns River, and Florida Highways 45, 528, and 529, and as mos- quito-control impoundments T-IO-J and T-IO-K on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (41 FR 53074, 3 December 1976; 42 FR 40685, 11 Au- gust 1977; 42 FR 47849, 22 September 1977). AUTHORITIES J. L. Baker (Recovery Team) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 6504 Titusville, FL 32780 H. W. Kale (Recovery Team) Ornithological Research Division Florida Audubon Society 35 1st Court S.W. Vero Beach FL 32960 B. F. Sharp U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service Lloyd 500 Building 500 N.W. Multnomah Street Portland, OR 97232 P. W. Sykes (Recovery Team) Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 2077 Del Ray Beach. FL 33440 L. E. Williams (Recovery Team) Wildlife Research Office Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 4005 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The bird was named Ammodromus marttimus var. nigrescens by Ridgway in 1873. It was desig- nated Ammospiza nigrescens by Howell (1932), American Ornithologists' Union (1957), and Trost (1968). It was redesignated as a race of ^mmoipzza maritima (Eisenmann 1973). It is geographically isolated from, but morphologically similar to, other races of seaside sparrow (Trost 1968). It is unique in its extremely limited distribution (Chap- man 1912). LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds. 5th ed. Port City Press, Baltimore. 641 pp. Baker, J. L. 1973. Preliminary studies of the dusky seaside sparrow on the St. Johns Na- tional Wildlife Refuge. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 27:207- 214. . 1979. Dusky seaside sparrow. Pages 16- 19 in H. W. Kale, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 2, Birds. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. . In press. Status of dusky seaside spar- ro-w. In Rare and Endangered Wildlife Sym- posium. Georgia Dep. Natur. Resour. and Georgia Chapter Wildl. Soc. Aug. 3-4, 1978. Athens. Baynard, O. E. 1914. The dusky seaside sparrow {Passerherbulus nigrescens). Oologist 32(7): 130-134. Beecher, W. J. 1955. Late -Pleistocene isolation of salt-marsh sparrows. Ecology 36:23-28. Chapman, F. M. 1912. Handbook of birds of east- ern North America (rev. ed.). D. Appleton and Co., New York. DSSRT (Dusky Seaside Sparrow Recovery Team). Dusky seaside sparrow recovery plan. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 15 pp. Eberhart, J. 1968. The dwindling dusky. Sci. News. 93:501-501. Eisenmann, E. (Chairman). 1973. Thirty-second supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 40:411-419. Howell, A. H. 1932. Florida bird life. Coward- McCann, Inc. New York. 579 pp. Maynard, C. J. 1875. A new species of finch from Florida. Am. Sportsman 5:248. Nicholson, D. J. 1928. Nesting habits of seaside sparrows in Florida. Wilson Bull. 40:225-237. . 1929. Breeding of the dusky seaside sparrow on the mainland of Florida. Auk 46: 391. Peterson, R. T. 1947. A field guide to the birds, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 230 pp. Sharp. B. E. 1968. Numbers, distribution, and management of the dusky seaside sparrow. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison. 76 pp. . 1969a. Conservation of the dusky sea- side sparrow on Merritt Island, Florida. Biol. Conser. 1(2):175-176. . 1969b. Let's save the dusky seaside spar- row. Fla. Natur. (April 1969):68-70. -. 1970. A population estimate of the Sincock, J. L. 1958. Waterfowl ecology of the St. Johns River Valley as related to proposed conservation areas and changes in the hydro- logy from Lake Harney to Ft. Pierce, Florida. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm, Fed, Aid Project W-19-R. Sprunt, A., Jr. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward- McCann, Inc. New York. 527 pp. Trost, C. H. 1968. Dusky seaside sparrow. Pages 849-859 in O. L. Austin, Jr., ed. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, bunt- ings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 237. Part 2. USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and International Activities. Bur. Sport Fish Wildl. Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 dusky seaside sparrow. Wilson Bull. 8(2): 158- 166. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.26 MARCH 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- HAWAIIAN GOOSE (NENE) Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Kndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Kngineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this scries to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed lo: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senice Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.26 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- HAWAIIAN GOOSE (NENE) A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. SlideU, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and WUdhfe Service U.S. Department of the Interior HAWAIIAN GOOSE (Nene) Branta (Nesochen) sandvicensis (Vigors) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Anseriformes FAMILY Anatidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Nene; Lava Goose (Elder 1958) DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Update To be determined LEGAL STATUS FEDERAL Endangered (42 FR 36426, 14 July 1977). Listed: Appendix I, 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. States: Endangered: Hawaii. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS This highly specialized goose is adapted to life in an environment that was originally predator- free and waterless in the Hawaiian lava flows. Their weak wings, exceptionally long flightless period during molt, and young that are unable to fly because of their exceptionally long develop- ment period made them vulnerabfe to introduced predators (Elder 1958;Elder and Woodside 1958). There is evidence that overgrazing by sheep and goats may have adverse effects on the nene range, and the introduced mongoose is definitely a predator on the young. The spread of the mon- goose corresponded to the period of nene decline. Mongooses and dogs are probably the most sig- nificant predators, and the tameness and curiosity of the nene makes them extremely vul- nerable to predation as well as to poaching (Elder 1958; Elder and Woodside 1958). Zimmerman (1974) believes that the information necessary to identify and correct lethal dangers is still lack- ing. Hunting is believed to have contributed heavily to their original decline, especially since ignorance of the winter breeding season permitted hunting at the time when geese were either incubating, followed by broods, or molting and flightless (Henshaw 1902 in Elder and Woodside 1958). Hunting of this species was made illegal in 1911 (Ripley 1965). A gradual increase in the nene population in recent years has resulted from introduction of artificaUy propagated stock on Hawaii and Maui, the creation of sanctuaries in cooperation with land owners, and control of predators at release and breeding sites (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). However, it is not known if the present population can maintain itself or increase in the wild without additional introductions. The intro- duced population on Maui is clearly not main- taining itself. The future of the species in the wild will remain in doubt until it can be shown that re- production is high enough to offset losses from all sources (King in press). PRIORITY INDEX 39 DESCRIPTION The nene is a medium-sized goose, with a bill comparatively long, broad, and high near its base and depressed at the tip. The crown, face, area around eyes, throat, and a wide band on hind neck are deep black; sides of head and sides and front of neck are tawny buff; the feathers of the neck have dark bases forming deep furrows and producing a striped appearance; there is a blackish ring around the base of the neck, broadening on the back; the breast is pale brown; and the rest of the body plumage is grayish brown barred with whitish buff, the feathers having pale borders; the rump is black; coverts are white with gray bases; rectrices and primaries are black. The iris is brown. Bill and legs are black. The tarsus and toes are long and strong, with much reduced webbing. The female is smaller than the male, with shorter neck and slightly duller, darker plu- mage (Delacour 1954). Measurements. - male: wing 372 to 378 mm; the tail is 147 to 158 mm; culmen, 40 to 47 mm; tarsus, 81 to 90 mm. In the female: wing 350 to 368 mm; tail 144 to 151 mm; culmen 40 to 42 mm; and tarsus 73 to 78 mm (Delacour 1954). Reported weights of wild specimens were as follows: Males - summer, 2,074 g; winter (breed- ing season), 2,370 g. Females - summer 1,762 g, winter, 2,095 g (Kier et al. 1962). Immatures.- Duller and more mottled. Downy Chicks.- Grayish brown; forehead, sides of head, throat and center of underparts whitish buff; a dark spot on ear coverts and whitish spots on base of wing. Eggs.- Creamy white; five to eight in clutch; 80 X 50 mm (Delacour 1954). The clutch size for captive birds at Pohakuloa and those recorded in the wild on Hawaii is three to five eggs. This species has become highly specialized anatomically for its original environment, with legs and feet best adapted to a strictly terrestrial environment and wings poorly developed for flight compared to other related geese. It is so different morphologically from Branta that it should be accorded a separate genus (MiUer 1937). RANGE The Hawaiian goose or nene is native to and resident on the Island of Hawaii; it has been intro- duced and is still surviving on Maui, Hawaiian Is- lands (Delacour 1954). It occurs at several local- ities on the slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai volcanoes, chiefly between the 1,600- and 2,400- m elevations. Its former range was reported to have been much more extensive , even reaching to the seashore, although records of earlier writers are dubious (Baldwin 1945; Elder 1958). Nene bones considered of Pleistocene or early recent age are found on all the main Hawaiian Islands; those of most recent age, probably dating to the Polynesian occupancy, are on Molokai (Storrs Olson pers. comm. 1977). At present, breeding is recorded primarily in three areas: Keauhou Sanctuary, on the east slope of Mauna Loa ; Kahuku Sanctuary , on the southern slope of Mauna Loa; and Keauhou 2 Sanctuary, on the southeast slope of Haulalai (Hawaii Div. Fish & Game 1972). The only known major seasonal movement of the populations is from the winter breeding areas on the higher mountain slopes to a summering area on the saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. The summering flock makes daily flights from their nighttime range in the vicinity of Puu Oo Ranch southeast of Mauna Kea and north of the Saddle Road to the daytime range on lava flows on the slopes of Mauna Loa, at least 15 miles away (Woodside 1956; Ripley 1965;Hawaii Div. Fish & Game 1972). RANGE MAP The following map is adapted from Elder and Woodside (1958); National Park Service, Hawaii 17004, 1963; Zimmerman 1975. STATES/COUNTIES Hawaii: Hawaii, Maui HABITAT Nene are usually seen on mountain slopes be- tween 1525 and 2440 m elevation. Nesting and feeding habitat is supplied by kipukas, or islands of vegetation on lava flows, ranging in size from less than 1 ha to several thousand hectares. Vegetation grows on decomposing lava in various stages of succession from lichens on bare rock to such pioneering plants as ohelo [Vaccinium sp.), kukainene [Coprosma emodioides), gosmore {Hy- pochaeris radicata), pukeawe {Styphelia tameia- meiae), and various grasses. Older kipukas with deeper soils are vegetated with aalii [Dodonaea viscosa), mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), ohia [Metrosideros collina), and koa [Acacia koa) in association with other shrubs and grasses. Rain- fall is one of the most important factors in de- composition of lava and the progress of ecological succession. Average annual rainfall from 1960 through 1969 in the nene range on Mauna Loa at 2,042 m was 154 cm (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Nene are vegetarians. They consume a variety of available foods, but show a marked preference for gosmore [Hypochaeris radicata), eating the leaves, buds, and flowers. Ohelo {Vaccinium sp.) and kukainene [Coprosma emodioides) are the most important food berries in nene sanctuaries. The geese feed most heavily during morning and late afternoon. Goats and pigs are not numerous enough to be serious competitors to nene, even though they graze on the same plants. In some instances pigs may be beneficial by stimulating growth of gosmore and other succulents. At the present time, food resources are not considered a limiting factor to nene in the wild (Baldwin 1947; Hawau Div. Fish and Game 1972). Although nene do eat berries, their preference is for greens, especially the succulent leaves, stems and buds of pusdele [Sonchus oleraceus) and gos- more [Hypochaeris radicata). Also, the nene strips seeds from the heads of grasses and sedges. At more frequented altitudes, 1525 to 2440 m, there is no evidence of food shortage at any season. Grasses and greens are never scarce in that zone of high moisture and infrequent frosts (Elder 1958). In captivity, nene prefer green feed over com- mercial mixtures (Hawaii Div. Fish & Game 1972). Nene in the wild do not appear to be attracted to water. At waterholes, they seem to be con- cerned only with succulent green vegetation for food. Drinking water is obtained from fog and dew condensed on vegetation (Elder 1958; Hawaii Div. Fish & Game 1972). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Low bushes for concealing nests are the only known shelter requirements (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). NESTING OR BEDDING Most nests have been found under pukeawe bushes or scrub ohia trees, where the goose scoops out a shallow depression in the litter or duff. u C V C o o u •5 OJ Leaves, twigs, and down are used to cover eggs when the incubating bird leaves to forage (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Nene are more jealous and quarrelsome than is common among geese. The gander defends his territory, mate, and brood savagely, but some- times exhibits the unusual behavior of attacking his own mate (Delacour 1954). POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The wild population may have totaled 25,000 or more in the 18th century. Reduction began between 1778 and 1850, progressed rapidly until 1900, and tapered off slowly between 1900 and 1930. In 1953, the estimated population of wild birds was only 33 (Baldwin 1945). Smith (1952) estimated the total population in the wild at less than 30. Since 1940, coincident with conserva- tion efforts, the population has obviously increased if the earlier estimates were reasonably correct. Counts on the summer roosting area near Puu Oo Ranch north of the Saddle Road on the southeast slope of Mauna Kea have ranged from 42 in 1966 to 114 in 1969. An increase during the 17 years of counting in that area (since 1955) was in- dicated, although inconsistent. About 90% of birds in the summer roosting area are unhanded and presumed to be wild rather than pen-reared (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). The number of individual birds observed with eggs or young in the three nene sanctuaries have been: 1966, 2; 1967, 32; 1968, 36; 1969, 12; 1970, 16; 1971, 12. Of these parent birds, 40% were banded, indicating they were released pen- reared birds; and 60% were unhanded, indicating they were either wild or offspring of released birds. There is no indication of a new population developing from releases on the new sanctuary at Kipuka Ainahou, northeast of Mauna Loa be- tween Access Road and Saddle Road (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). Counts of introduced population on Maui re- corded 43, with 2 produced in the wild in August 1973; 45 were seen in October 1974, with un- handed birds shovwng up increasingly. Nests or young were found in 1972 and 1974 (Monthly re- ports of Hawaii Div. Fish and Game). The actual number of nene in the wild is un- known!. The "educated guess" is at least 600 wild and released birds and their progeny on Hawaii and a third as many more (200) on Maui (Wood- side in Zimmerman 1974). REPRODUCTION Clutch size has been reported as 5 to 8 eggs (Delacour 1954), although 3 to 5 eggs per clutch were recorded for the wild population on Hawaii and the captive birds at Pohakuloa. The incuba- tion period is 28 to 31 days (Ripley 1965). The nesting season may run from October through March. February to late May is a flight- less period for young and a molting period for adults (Ripley 1965). Wild pigs, dogs, cats and mongooses may threaten nene eggs and goslings and even adult birds during the 4- to 6-week flightless period (N. Santos m Zimmerman 1975). Young grow slowly, requiring 10 to 12 weeks to reach the flying stage; this is nearly twice the time required by Canada geese. Adults are completely grounded for 4 to 6 weeks by the wing molt; thus, part or all of the nene family may be vulner- able to ground predators for 3 months or more each year (Elder and Woodside 1958). Breeding potential is low because they rarely reach sexual maturity or lay fertile eggs in captivity until 3 years of age or more. Six pairs observed in the wild produced an average of only 2 young annually (Elder and Woodside 1958). In the captive flock at Shmbridge, England, the sex ratio is equal. Sixty-two percent laid eggs at the end of their second year. Ganders between their fourth and eighth years have fertilized the most eggs. Females laid the most fertile eggs in their fourth year. Clutch size at Shmbridge aver- aged 3.95 eggs, compared to 3.7 at Pohakuloa, Hawaii. In Hawaii, nene lay their first eggs in November; in England, about 9 February. Day length, rather than temperature, is thought to induce breeding. Long days inhibit breeding and induce molting (Kier et al. 1967). In the captive flock at Pohakuloa, inbreeding of original stock was determined to be the cause of low fertility; infusion of a new wild bird strain and selection of birds for productivity greatly in- creased fertility. Fertility increased with age of breeders to 75% at 15 years in the Shipman strain and to 100% at 8 years in the wild strain. Dates of first egg laying at Pohakuloa ranged from 21 Sep- tember (1969) to 5 December (1953), and was most frequent during the first 2 weeks in Novem- ber. Time of nesting in the wild is generally simi- lar to that at Pohakuloa. Nene in the wild have nested as early as October and as late as April, depending on weather conditions. Nest sites are usually located in kipukas, which tends to isolate nesting pairs. Nests are left uncovered until the last egg is laid, then thoroughly covered with down, leaves, and twigs before the female leaves. The male guards the nest from an elevated lookout point a short distance away and gives warning at the approach of danger. The fe- male leaves the nest when approached during the early stages of incubation, but sits tight during late stages. Males have never been found incubat- ing. Most pairs return to the same kipuka each year. Released birds will pair with wild mates as well as with other released birds, although of 56 pairs in the wild, only a few cases of captive reared birds mated with other released individuals were observed. No evidence has been seen of renesting if the nest is deserted; in contrast, renesting is common in captivity when the first clutch has hatched and young have been removed (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). In 1956-57, the breeding area at Keauhou on Mauna Loa had at least 6 adult pairs and 1 "un- employed" bird; 12 young were produced, for an average of 2 young per pair. The one unmated bird indicates either that reproduction was poor the preceding year or that most nonbreeders spend their time elsewhere (Elder and Woodside 1958). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION In 1949, lUCN placed the Hawaiian Goose on its list of the 13 most threatened bird species in the world, stimulating the beginning of a restora- tion program with $6,000 appropriated by the Territory of Hawaii. Captive rearing was started at a former Civilian Conservation Corps Camp at Pohakuloa, on the saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, with 4 birds from Herbert C. Ship- man's aviary in Hilo, 1 from the Honolulu Zoo, and 1 wild bird caught by a hunter's dog. In 1950, 2 birds were reared at Pohakuloa. In 1951, 3 were sent from Shipman's aviary to the wild- fowl Trust at Slimbridge, England, to start a rear- ing project there. In 1958, the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service provided a grant of $15,000 per year, later increased to $25,000, for a nene restoration project. The nene was officially designated the territorial— now State— bird of Hawaii (Ripley 1965). In early attempts at propagation, only 1 in 5 eggs hatched at either Pohakuloa or Slimbridge. After about 10 years of frustratingly poor pro- duction, inbreeding was identified as the cause, so several wild birds were added to the captive flock. The result was to almost triple the yield of fertile eggs. Careful selection of goslings for quality eliminated a "hairy dowTi" mutant. Old and un- productive adults were also culled from stock (Zimmerman 1975). Through the 1973-74 breeding season, 1,306 goslings were raised at Pohakuloa and about one- third as many at Slimbridge and other sites in Europe and North America. Most of these birds have been released to the wild— 934 on Hawaii and 391 on Maui. The non-Pohakuloa reared birds were released on Maui, all before 1971. Since 1971, only Pohakuloa-reared birds have been released on both islands. Production at Pohakuloa has been between 100 and 150 gosHngs per year at an average cost of $250.00 per gosling (D. Woodside in Zimmerman 1975). Birds are released into the wild in a flightless stage, mostly as young between 2 and 4 months old, but some as molting adults, into predator- proof enclosures of habitat having natural food available in addition to artificial food and water. From there, birds fly over the fence into the wild after their flight feathers grow. This is known as the "gentle release" method (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). The "nene park" method, pro- posed by Peter Scott, where young are hatched under incubating nene in large pens in natural habitat, was tried, but the Hawaii Div. of Fish and Game considered it too costly to build large en- closures and assure predator-proof conditions. Nene park methods would seem to avoid the pos- sibility of imprinting goslings to unnatural condi- tions of artificial brooders and pens, and has other possible advantages (Pratt 1972). No ade- quate testing to show the relative merits of the two methods has been done (Zimmerman 1975). Propagated stock has been liberated on the island of Hawaii in three areas known to be fre- quented by nene, starting on 17 March 1960. These areas were established as "sanctuaries" by cooperative agreement with the land owners. They are: Keauhou Sanctuary- 1,2 7 8 ha on the eastern flank of Mauna Loa; Keauhou 2 Sanctu- ary-514 ha on southeastern slope of Haulalai in North Kona; and Kahuku Sanctuary, on the southern flank of Mauna Loa. A nene park has been built in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Island of Hawaii with Pohakuloa stock. All released birds are marked with bright, color-coded plastic leg bands that identify where and when liberated (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). Roughly half of the 100 geese released each year survive their first year, and at least 25% survive at least 7 years. Data are still too sparse to construct complete life tables (D. Woodside in Zimmerman 1975). Older birds, when liberated, appear to leave flocks of younger birds and range over a wider area. Data are insufficient to determine if age at the time of release affects adaptability or survival. Some released birds disperse to unknown areas, then reappear after 4 or 5 years (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). A total of 391 birds have been released in Haleakala Crater on Maui within National Park boundaries, some every year from 1962 through 1970 except 1967. The first nests were found there in 1968. A total of 38 nests have been found and 1 1 young are known to have hatched. Five dead goslings were attributed to heavy rains. Mature young were found with parents in May 1971. In January 1972, nene produced the pre- vious year were observed paired with Slimbridge- reared birds. The tendency of Maui nene is to re- turn to the same locality for nesting and some- times, to the same site. An exceptional case of dispersal was the one bird that flew back to Hawaii and appeared at Pohokuloa (Hawaii Div. of Fish and Game 1972). No thorough study of the Maui population has ever been conducted (Berger 1972). Predator control has involved the use of poison, injected into chunks of meat scattered in crevasses frequented by predators. This bait was placed throughout the sanctuaries for control of dogs, cats, pigs, and mongooses. Additional bait was placed in the vicinity of nene nests. Poisoning is believed to have been effective, at least against rats and dogs. Bait was placed so as to prevent its being eaten by Hawaiian hawks, which species was observed to harass nene on two occasions, but is not believed to be a serious predator because of its small number. Since the inception of the predator control program on sanctuaries, only two known incidents of predation have been ob- served: a partly consumed carcass of a gosling, presumed to have been the work of a rat, and 3 adult nene killed by dogs (Hawaii Div. Fish and Game 1972). Among measures proposed for the manage- ment of nene are: preservation of the natural en- vironment, including the establishment of perman- ent refuges; control of predators and feral grazing and browsing animals in breeding areas; continua- tion of the captive and "nene park" propagation program, if necessary to reinforce propagation or extend the population to new range; conduct of field studies to follow up on the fate of released captive-reared birds and appraise total popula- tions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1973; King in press); expansion of education program. More specific recommendations of the Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources (1976) were to con- tinue the propagation project in 1976 to furnish nene for release in South Kona; reduce propaga- tion effort to 24 breeders and produce only 1 brood per pair; continue use of same propagation methods; discontinue plucking primaries because deformed primaries can result when this is done; expand the information and education program. At least five nene have been illegally killed within the last 2 yeais. In only one instance was the kill- ing believed to be malicous; the remainder ap- peared to have been through ignorance. In addition to 3 nene sanctuaries cooperatively managed on private lands, the Division of Fish and Game announced the establishment of a State sanctucuy, Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary con- sisting of 15,540 ha on the northeast slope of Mauna Loa between the Mauna Loa access road and Saddle Road, approved 13 March 1974. AUTHORITIES David H. Woodside Hawaii Division of Fish and Game 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Eugene Kridler U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 835 Akumu Street Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Paul H. Baldwin Department of Zoology Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 William Elder 108 Stephens Hall Columbia, Missouri 65201 Ernest Kosaka Division of Fish and Game 1179 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Of the 2 to 36 individual nene observed in Hawaii sanctuaries with eggs or young each year from 1966 to 1971, 40% were banded, indicating they were released pen-reared birds, and 60% were unhanded, indicating they were either wild or the offspring of released birds. Since 90% of the birds observed on the summering grounds were unhanded, it appears that this group draws from a wider breeding population than that re- corded in the sanctuaries, where only 60% were unhanded. On the other hand, in 2 years with high counts in the breeding area (32 in 1967 and 36 in 1968), 46 and 45 appeared in the summer- ing area in 1967 and 1968, respectively, showing only a small difference in the two annual counts. This would seem to indicate that most of the breeding population of the three sanctuaries moves to the Puu Oo summer area. On the other hand, with over 100 birds observed in the sum- mering area in 2 different years, it would appear that probably less than half of the total popula- tion is observed in either the breeding season or the summer counts in most years. In any case, with data so far presented for Hawaii and Maui, the "educated guess' of 600 for the two islands (Zimmerman 1974) appears far too optimistic and points up the need to establish much more detailed investigation of the population as a pri- mary objective of the nene restoration project in the future. It is hoped that a census technique, using transects and census blocks, will be developed by 1980. If this approach proves valid in the sanctu- aries, a method for censusing the entire nene range will be devised. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Baldwin, P. H. 1945. The Hawaiian Goose, its distributiou and reduction in numbers. Con- dor 47:27-37. Baldwin, P. H. 1947. Food of the Hawaiian Goose. Condor 49:108-120. Berger, A. 1972. Hawaiian birdlife. Honolulu, Univ. of Hawaii Press, p. 75. Berger, A. 1972a. Hawaiian Birds. 1972. Wilson Bull. 84:212-222. Delacour, J. 1954. The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 1. London, Country Life Limited. Elder, W. H. 1958. Nene in Hawaii. Preliminary report on the Nene in Hawaii. Wildfowl Trust. Ninth Annual report. 112-117. Elder, W. and D. Woodside. 1958. Biology and management of the Hawaiian Goose. Trans. 23rd N. Amer. Wildlife Conf. p. 206. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Re- sources (contributed by Ronald L. Walker). 1976. Nene restoration project, 1 July 1972- 30 June 1975. Elepaio 36(9):104-108. Hawaii Division of Fish and Game. 1972. A re- port of the nene restoration program. Unpub- lished administrative report of Hawaii Div. Fish amd Game. Kier, J. 1975. Returning the Hawaiian Goose to the wild, pp. 115-123, in Breeding endangered species in captivity, R. D. Martin ed. London, New York, San Francisco, Academic Press. Kier, J., H. S. Roberts and R. Warren. 1967. The Hawaiian Goose in Captivity, unpub. ms. King, W. In press. (Revised) Red data book Vol. 2 - Aves. Internationa] Union for the Conserv- ation of Nature and Natural Resources, Sur- vival Service, Morges, Switzerland. Miller, A. H. 1937. Structural modifications in the Hawaiian Goose [Nesochen sandvicensis). A study in adaptive evolution. Univ. Cali- fornia Press 42:1-80. Pratt, J. 1972. Research study proposal for inves- tigation of behavior of the Hawaiian Goose under the "Nene park" plan. Elepaio 33:33- 34. Ripley, S. D. 1965. Saving the Nene, World's rarest goose. Nat. Geog. Nov. 1965:745-754. Schwartz, C. W. and E. Schwartz. 1948. An eco- logical survey of the game birds in the Hawiian Islands with recommendations for management. Board of Commissioners of Agric. and Forestry, Territory of Hawaii, pp. 273-275. Scott, P. A. 1962. A project for a Nene park in Hawaii. Elepaio 22:80-81. Smith, J. D. 1952. The Hawaiian Goose (Nene) restoration program. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 16:1-9. State of Hawaii Department of Game and Natural Resources. 1976. Nene restoration project. 1 July 1972-30 Jan. 1975. Elepaio 36:104-108. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publi- cation 114, U.S. Department of Interior, G.P.O. Woodside, D. H. 1956. Wild Nene on Hawaii. Elepaio 16:67-68. Zimmerman, D. R. 1974. Return of the nene. Animal Kingdom. May, June, July 1974. Zimmerman, D. R. 1975. To save a bird in peril, Chap. 5. New York Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.27 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED DEER Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the pubhc with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data aic not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of PLndangercd Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.27 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES COLUMBIAN WHITE TAILED DEER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-SIidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus leucurus [Douglas] KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Artiodactyla FAMILY Cervidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Pacific white-tailed deer, tideland deer, cotton-tail deer DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates 8 Nov. 1978 LEGAL STATUS Federal . . .Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967). States Endangered: Oregon, Washington. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The Columbian white-tailed deer was once abundant in the low and moist prairie habitat of the Willamette River Valley of Oregon and north- ward across the Columbia River into the river valleys of southern Washington (Cowan 1936, Gavin 1979). Supression of burning by Indians and conversion of land for agricultural uses have eliminated the native grass-herb association upon which the deer depended. Drainage of beaver ponds and their accompanying microenvironment may also have eliminated essential habitat (Gavin 1978). These deer were also shot for food and sport until early in this century, by which time they were extirpated from most of their former range. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION This subspecies is a small-sized white-tailed deer, with a greyish-brown tail distinguishing it from the race of yellow-tailed deer (O. v. ochrou- rus) of eastern Washington (Cowan 1936). The skull is smaller in all measurements, and there is little possibility of confusion with neighboring subspecies when adult specimens are compared (Cowan 1936). The posterior margin of the palate is even with or extending little farther (2 mm) than the posterior end of the third upper molar. Antlers are exceptionally small for northern races of the white-tailed deer. RANGE It occurs in three widely separated groups of relict populations. The first is found primarily within the boundaries of the Columbian White- Tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge, which con- sists of several islands and the adjacent mainland near the mouth of the Columbia River. These deer are also found on private land in the lower Columbia River area: Puget Island, Washington, Wallace Island, Oregon, and near Westport, Ore- gon. A search conducted by the Washington De- partment of Game did not locate any Columbian white-tailed deer between these populations and Portland, Oregon, to the east. Recently, Colum- bian white-tailed deer were found at a second Columbia River area near Camas and Washougel, Clark County, Washington (T. A. Gavin, pers. comm.). A third group of populations occur in the foothilUs near Roseburg, Oregon, some 320 km (200 mi) to the south. RANGE MAP Location of known populations is indicated on the accompanying map (after Gavin in press). STATES/COUNTIES Washington . . .Wahkiakum, Clark Oregon Clatsop, Columbia, Douglas, Multnomah HABITAT The Columbia River herd prefers low-lying islands and bottomlands. Much habitat has been converted to pasture and is enclosed within dikes or levees. Native trees and shrubs, occuring in patches, are composed mostly of Sitka spruce {Picea sitchensis), dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) , Cottonwood {Populus trichocarpa), red alder (Alnus rubra), and willow (Salix) (Gavin 1979). Common pasture grasses and forbs include Festuca, Dactylus, Trifolium, Ranunculus, and Lolium. Carex and /uncus are found in wet areas. Common shrubs are Rubus, Rosa, Sambucus, and Symphoricarpos (Gavin 1979). Forest cover in the refuge areas has been reduced from 70% in 1939 to 17% in 1972 and the pasture lands are heavily used by the Columbian white-tailed deer (Suring 1974). The deer are less abundant on islands (e.g.. Price and Hunting Islands) that are primarily brushy and heavily wooded (Gavin 1978). The Roseburg herd is found from river bot- toms into rolling hills covered by oak woodland. Major plants include Quercus garryana. Arbutus menziesii, Acer macrophyllum, Fraxinus latifolia, and the shrubs Rosa and Symphoricarpos. Annucd grasses are interspersed among trees (Gavin in press). Much habitat is privately owned and used for sheep ranching. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The Columbian white-tailed deer is unusual in its tendency to feed almost exclusively on herba- ceous vegetation (grasses and forbs). Scheffer (1940) reported finding only grass in a sample of four stomachs, and Gavin (in press) found only herbaceous material in the contents of 33 stom- achs. Food plants include Ranunculus, Trifolium, Alopecurus, and Phalris. There is some browsing in the spring on twigs of Cornus, Rubus, Sambu- cus, Lonicera, Symphoricarpos, and Fraxinus. Of all the feeding deer observed by Suring (1974) 99% were grazing. These deer appear to prefer feeding on pasture where grasses and forbs are kept short and in a palatable stage of growth by cattle grazing (Gavin in press). However, they avoid such areas when cattle are actually present (Suring 1974). Suring (1974) suggests there is more feeding during the night than during day- light hours, and that the percentage of time spent feeding varies seasonally, with the greatest per- centage of active time (90%) in summer devoted to feeding. MILES The locations of known populations of Columbian white-tailed deer. The University of Washington is conducting a detailed study of the food habits of this deer, including food availability and plant community characteristics on the refuge. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Resting deer seek cover in woodlands or brushy areas adjacent to feeding pastures (Suring 1974). The physiognomy of cover seems more important than the particular species composi- tion. NESTING OR BEDDING Scheffer (1940) reports that these deer are seen to emerge from v^^illow thickets about day- break to begin feeding activities. They are also reported to bed down in mint or hay fields (Scheffer 1940). Fawns are sometimes discovered resting in high grass of unmowed pastures in mid- summer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS A relatively solitary animal, the average group size is two to three individuals (Suring 1974). The largest aggregations seen by Suring (1974) occurred in winter and usually did not exceed 10 animals. Intraspecific interactions are relatively infrequent in this deer, and then they are of low intensity (only 17% of all male-male conflicts result in physical contact, as opposed to 42% in Michigan whitetails) (Suring 1974). Most of the high-intensity threat actions observed were during the rut. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Juxtaposition of grazing and cover areas seems to be critical for this deer. Large expanses of grazing land, providing ample forage, are unused unless there is cover nearby. Tenasillahee Island supports a low density of whitetails, pri- marily because the available cover is concentrated around the perimeter of the island (Gavin in press). Diking of Columbia River islands is essen- tial to prevent mass mortality, especially to fawns, during high water (Scheffer 1940, Gavin 1978) and to provide grazing habitat. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS The entire lower Columbia River population was estimated to number 300 to 400 individuals, with the refuge population exhibiting a very stable trend from 1972 to 1977 (Gavin 1979). The refuge mainland population ranged from a total of 164 to 215 deer during those years, or 3.67 to 4.82 deer per ha (Gavin 1979). Densities on adjacent islands, both refuge-owned and pri- vate, were much lower (e.g., about 1 deer per 100 ha on Puget Island, a private island). The sex ratio of yearling and adult deer on the refuge was quite stable from 1972 to 1977 at about three fe- males per male (Suring 1974, Gavin 1979). Mean home range size was 103.6 ha (N=18) and 108.6 ha (N=7) for adult females and adult males, re- spectively (Gavin 1979). All sources agreed that this population has probably been at carrying capacity for some time. Stability of population size has been enforced by low fawn recruitment and moderate adult mortal- ity. Fawn mortality is very high (69% to 80%) during the summer, and adult mortality is often associated with bacterial infections and parasites (Gavin 1979). Population density varies greatly among parts of the refuge, with some refuge islands notably underpopulated (e.g., Tenasillahee Island). Small populations of whitetails are in danger of extinc- tion by chance catastrophic events, such as flooding of the Columbia River. Little informa- tion is available for the Roseburg herd, since most of the habitat is on private land and research was only recently begun on these deer. Rough esti- mates indicated there might be 1,900 whitetails in Douglas County (Gavin in press). There is no indication that recent hunting has been detrimen- tal to the deer. On the other hand, sheep ranchers' clearing of brushy cover used by deer is contin- uing at a high rate, and this could be very dam- aging. REPRODUCTION Rutting begins during the first week of No- vember and reaches its peak later in the month (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). Circum- stantial evidence indicates that some deer are re- productively active through March (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). No specific information is available on gestation period, but researchers have assumed it is similar to that of the eastern white- tail (210 days). In November of 1972, 1974, and 1975, the fawn/doe ratio was 35, 60, and 37 per 100, respectively Many does are observed without fawns, and there are few reports of twins, both of which further indicate a low survival rate for fawns in the Columbia River herd, presumably due to poor conditions of individuals in a popula- tion at or near carrying capacity (Suring 1974). Most births occur around the second week of June. Female fawns are not known to breed their first year. There is no information available on the population dynamics of the Roseburg herd. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Habitat within the Columbian White-Tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge is currently pro- tected, and efforts should be directed toward its improvement. Originally an animal of wet prairies, riparian habitat, and river bottoms, the deer on the refuge feed on grazed and mowed pasture. Maintaining pasture land in favorable condition for deer is a primary task of refuge personnel. Habitat management on Tenasillahee Island to produce more dispersed cover would increase the carrying capacity of this part of the refuge (Gavin in press). Reducing the time spent by cattle in favorable areas might increase their utilization by deer (Suring 1974). But Gavin (pers. comm.) and Suring and Vohs (1979) pointed out that cattle grazing is a benefit in maintaining herbaceous vegetation on the pastures in a short, actively growing state. Timing of mowing should be tied to the reproductive cycle, so as to avoid fawn mortality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). Although the present density of deer appears to have no adverse effect on the habitat (T. A. Gavin pers. comm.), as Suring (1974) concludes, 'a healthy population (one able to weather times of stress) is to be desired, not one of maximum den- sity.' Surplus animals should be used to reestab- lish the species in other areas of its former range that can be identified as favorable habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). These deer are responsible for some agricul- tural damage (Scheffer 1940, U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service 1977). Their current protected status engenders reluctance on the part of local manage- ment and agricultural agencies to establish satel- lite herds, due to the difficulty in controlling damage to crops and orchards (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). The policy concerning management of surplus animals should be reeval- uated for species demonstrated to have a high intrinsic rate of increase. Loss of habitat, rather than mortality, seems to be the primary reason for the decline of such species. For example, it has been demonstrated that reestablished herds of Tule elk can grow rapidly (McCullough 1969). Since conservation of the Columbian white-tailed deer required maintenance of a minimum of five viable subpopulations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice 1977), that goal should not be subverted by resistance stemming from technical restrictions placed on control of new populations. The Roseburg herd poses special management problems, initially because so few data are avail- able on its population size and dynamics. Studies are urgently needed to determine these data prior to developing a management program. Habitat preservation is needed for this herd. Urbanization and clearing are ongoing problems. The primary range of this herd is closed to hunting. Deer dam- age to ornamentals and gardens is an increasingly serious problem. There have been repeated allegations that the white-tailed deer of the Roseburg herd interbreed occasionally with the sympatric black-tailed deer (Gavin in press, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). But in this area deer can usually be easily assigned to one species or the other by field observations (Gavin, personal communication). Evidence indicates that hybridization between these two species is possible in captive animals (Gavin in press) and probably occurs in the wild. The Washington Department of Game is con- ducting a study of the Columbia River islands as potential release sites for this species. A recovery team has been established and has drafted a recovery plan. AUTHORITIES Thomas A. Gavin Department of Ecology, Fisheries and Wildlife Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 E. Charles Meslow Oregon Cooperative Research Unit Oregon State University CorvaHis, Oregon 97331 Winston Smith Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Fred Martinsen Columbia White-Tailed Deer Recovery Team (Leader) Washington Department of Game 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501 PREPARER'S COMMENTS Most of our information about this deer is from studies made on the Columbia River herd. Since the Roseburg herd occupies different habi- tat, generalization about the biology and manage- ment of this deer should be extrapolated to the Roseburg herd with caution. LITERATURE CITED /SELECTED REFERENCES Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North Am. Fauna 55:1-416. Columbia White-Tailed Deer Recovery Team. 1977. Columbian white-tailed deer ref overy plan. Draft Rep. Cowen, I. McTaggert. 1936. Distribution and variation in deer (genus Odocoileus) of the Pacific coastal region of North America. Calif. Fish and Game 22:155-246. Dalquist, W. W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. Univ. Kans. Pubis. Mus. Nat. Hist. 2:1 -444. Gavin, T. A. 1978. Status of Columbian white- tailed deer [Odocoileus Virginianus leucurus): some quantitative uses of biogeographic data, pp. 185-202 in Threatened Deer. lUCN, Merges, Switzerland. 434 pp. . 1979. Population ecology of the Colum- bian white-tailed deer. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis, Oregon 149 pp. In press. The Columbian white-tailed in Halls, L. K. (ed). The Ecology and deer. Management of White-Tailed Deer. The Stack- pole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. McCullough, D. R. 1969. The tule elk. Its history, behavior, and ecology. Univ Calif. Publ. Zool. 88:1-209. Scheffer, V. B. 1940. A newly located herd of Pacific white-tailed deer. J. Mamm. 21: 271-282. Suring, L. H. 1974. Habitat use and activity patterns of the Columbian white-tailed deer along the lower Columbia River. Unpubl. M. S. thesis, Oregon State Univ. Suring, L. H. and P. A. Vohs, Jr. 1979. Habitat use by Columbian white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:610-619. ACCOUNT PREPARED /UPDATED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1300 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.28 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the F.ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal F,cosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scr\ice NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.28 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Lziboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys raviventris Dixon KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Mammalia ORDER Rodentia FAMILY Cricetidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Red-bellied harvest mouse, Petaluma marsh harvest mouse DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined. LEGAL STATUS Federal Endangered (35 FR 16047, 13 Oct 1970). States Endangered: California REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Distribution of the salt-marsh harvest mouse is Hmited to native salt marsh habitat bordering bays, estuaries, and rivers of the San Francisco Bay region. Destruction of salt marsh habitat by land filling and diking has greatly reduced and fragmented the habitat of this species (Leach 1976,Shellhammer 1977). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION This species is distinguished from the western harvest mouse {Reithrodontomys megaiotis) by darker coloration on the back (especially in the southern subspecies), many hairs being tipped with black, especially mid-dorsally. Underparts are white to fulvous; hairs at the anterior base of the ear often form an ochraceous tuft. Hind feet and tail are usually very dark. The tip of the tail is blunt as opposed to pointed in R. megalotis, and the thickness of the tail is greater (2.1 mm) 20 mm distal from the base (Fisler 1965:14). The skull is longer than in R. megalotis (Dixon 1908, 1909; Howell 1914; Hall and Kelson 1959). RANGE R. raviventris is restricted to salt and brackish marshes bordering south San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays. It is found on both sides of the Golden Gate and the Sacramento River. Two subspecies have been described, which differ in some aspects of morphology, coloration, and behavior (Fisler 1965). The easternmost occur- rence of the species is in the vicinity of Antioch, eastern Contra Costa County, and the extreme western occurrence is in Sacramento County. A marginal record from Grand Island, 2 miles north of Knight's Landing, Solano County (Hall and Kelson 1959) is actually a capture of/?, megalotis (Fisler 1965). RANGE MAP Distribution is shown on the accompanying map (Fisler 1965, Shellhammer, 1977). To make the locations of populations visible on the map, the width of the coastal strip occupied by the mice has been exaggerated. Often the distribution is limited to a linear strip of marsh within a few hundred feet of the coast. STATES/COUNTIES California HABITAT Sonoma, Solano, Marin, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Napa. This mouse is restricted to salt and brackish marshes where plants provide a dense mat of cover, ideally 0.2 to 1.0 m high, and a network of spaces on the ground (Hooper 1944, Wondolleck et al. 1976). Pickleweed {Salicornia) is the most important indicator species; other plants typical of R. raviventris habitat are Atriplex semibaccata, A. patula, Grindelia cunifolia, Spartina, and Distichlis. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The salt marsh harvest mouse's diet is domi- nated by green vegetation. It can eat salt grass (Distichlis) and pickleweed (Salicornia), as well as some seeds. Seasonal shifts in diet are influ- enced by available food plants: much more green vegetation is eaten in winter (Fisler 1965). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS It is restricted to areas with considerable cover, mostly in the form of halophytic vegeta- tion, and does not venture into open areas, even a few feet from vegetation (Fisler 1965, Zetterquist 1977). Since most of its habitat is within the range of the extreme high winter tides, high ground from which to escape the rising water is a necessity. The lower high tides of summer are avoided by climbing into the higher vegetation of the marsh or by swimming to floating objects (Fisler 1965). Fills and habitat alteration along the upper edge of marshes that have no cover are unsuitable as refugia. NESTING OR BEDDING The subspecies R. r. halicoetes builds a nest of dry grasses or sedges, usually located on the ground or in a hummock of vegetation. Nests are often used by several individuals, and are aban- doned when fouled (Fisler 1965). Reithrodonto- mys r. raviventris is not known to build nests, but merely huddles in an accumulation of vegetation or nesting material (Fisler 1965). It is also reported to use abandoned nests of other species as tempo- rary shelters, including those of song sparrows Qohnston 1956). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. Its secretive habits render field observation difficult. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMNTS Fisler (1965) stressed the behavioral adapta- tions in R. raviventris that restrict it to areas of high cover: a placid temperament and loss of the frenetic escape behavior typical of R. megalotis. R. raviventris is strongly dependent on the presence of densely vegetated salt marsh habitat for survival. °l CHV^ l<==:^x o "o a n i 0 1 1 miles 10 i Range of the salt marsh harvest mouse. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS It occurs throughout the salt marshes of the San Francisco Bay area, except for very small marshes and those extensively modified by human activity (Fisler 1968). The southern sub- species (R. r. raviventris) seems the most immedi- ately threatened, for its range includes marshes surrounded by heavily populated areas. It has already been eliminated from the Corte Madera marshes in Marin County (Fisler, 1965). Density estimates are unavailable for this spe- cies, partly because of the rapidly changing pat- tern of marsh occupation by harvest mouse popu- lations. The few remaining large marshes support moderately high populations (Schaub 1971), especially in San Pablo and Suisun Bays. The rate of population turnover is high; few mice reach the age of 12 months, and most survive less than 6 months (Fisler 1971, Wondolleck et al. 1976). The main influence on the decreasing num- bers of these mice is habitat destruction rather than any direct removal or direct mortality result- ing from human activities. Seasonal changes in population distribution occur in these mice. Dur- ing the winter months there is a movement toward the upper edge of the marsh to escape the highest tides, whereas the population spreads throughout the marsh during the summer. In some high tides, the populations move to higher ground. REPRODUCTION Some males are reproductively active during most of the year, with the low point in the winter months. The season for pregnancy and lactation in females is March through November (Fisler 1965). Females may produce only one litter per year in the field (Fisler 1965). Average litter size is 3.7 in R. r. raviventris and 4.2 in R. r. halico- etes (Fisler 1965). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION This small, secretive mouse is little noticed by humans. It poses no economic problems. Habitat protection is the critical factor in its management. The dense cover available in the preferred salt marsh habitat would seem to effectively protect the species from predation by human commensals during most of the yearly cycle. Occasionally, mice forced onto levees during high tides may be captured by feral cats and birds of prey. Increas- ing pressure for land in the San Francisco Bay area has resulted in outright destruction of much of the original range of this species. Its continued survival depends directly on the persistence of the remaining salt-marsh habitat. AUTHORITIES George F. Fisler Department of Biology California State University, Northridge Northridge, California 91330 Howard S. Shellhammer Department of Biological Sciences San Jose State University San Jose, California 95192 PREPARER'S COMMENTS The two subspecies of this mouse appear to have evolved different physiological and genetic traits and they may be considered incipient spe- cies (Fisler 1965, Shellhammer 1967, 1977). While some populations of the northern subspe- cies (R, r. halicoetes) appear to occupy secure habitat, others are restricted to small areas. The remaining populations of the southern subspecies are all restricted to small refugia of native salt marsh and need careful management. Habitat occupied by the salt marsh harvest mouse is much diminished and fragmented from its original condtion. Remaining populations are isolated genetically, living on natural islands in a sea of human-altered land. Under such circum- stances, populations can be predicted to become extinct (McArthur and Wilson 1967). Since these mice avoid areas without cover, a single levee or wide space may effectively isolate two adjoining marshes, reducing the effective genetic pool. At- tention should be given to the maintenance of larger refugia of continuous salt-marsh habitat, rather than equal areas of habitat dissected by access roads, walkways, or barren ground. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Dixon, J. 1908. A new harvest mouse from the salt marshes of San Francisco Bay, California. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 21:197-198. . 1909. A new harvest mouse from Peta- luma, California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 5:271-273. Fisler, G. F. 1963. Effects of salt water on food and water consumption and weight of harvest mice. Ecology 44:604-606. -. 1965. Adaptations and speciation in har- vest mice of the marshes of San Francisco Bay. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 77:1-108. 1968. Adaptations in movement patterns ._ • . _r._i» u 1 t„ D..1I c„ of two species of salt-marsh rodents. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 67:96-103. . 1969. Mammalian organizational systems. Contrib. Sci., Los Angeles County Mus. 167: 1-32. 1971. Age structure and sex ratio in populations of Reithrodontomys . ] . Mammal. 52; 653-662. Grinnell, J. 1933. Review of the recent mammal fauna of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 40:71-234. Hadaway, H. C, and J. R. Newman. 1971. Differ- ential responses of five species of salt marsh mammals to innundation. J. Mammal. j2: 818-820. Haines, H. 1964. Salt tolerance and water require- ments in the salt-marsh harvest mouse. Physiol. Zool. 37:266-272, Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. 2 vols. Ronald Press Co., New York. 1,083 pp. Hooper, E. T. 1944. San Francisco Bay as a factor influencing speciation in rodents. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., Univ. Michigan 59: 1-89. Howell, A. H. 1914. Revision of the American harvest mice (Genus Reithrodontomys). No. Am. Fauna 36:1-97. Leach, H. R. 1976. Salt marsh harvest mouse [Reithrodontomys raviventris) . Pages 4-5 in At the crossroads: a report on California's en- dangered and rare fish and wildlife. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Biannual Rep. 103 pp. Johnston, R. F. 1956. Population structure in salt marsh song sparrows. Part I. Environment and annual cycle. Condor 58:24-44. 1957. Adaptation of salt marsh mam- mals to high tides. J. Mammal. 38:529-531, MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton. 203 pp. Rice, V. C. 1974. The population ecology of the salt marsh harvest mouse at Triangular Marsh. M.A. Thesis, San Jose State Univ., San Jose, Cahf. 128 pp. Schaub, D. B. 1971. Salt marsh harvest mouse survey, 1971. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Spec. Wildl. Invest. Final Rep. 11 pp. Shellhammer, H. S. 1967. Cytotaxonomic studies of the harvest mice of the San Francisco Bay region. J. Mammal. 48:549-556. Wondolleck, J. T., W. Zolan, and G. L. Stevens. 1976. A population study of the harvest mice [Reithrodontomys raviventris Dixon) in the Palo Alto Baylands salt marsh. Wasmann J. Biol. 34:52-64. Zetterquist, D. K. 1977. The salt marsh harvest mouse [Reithrodontomys reviventris) in mar- ginal habitats. Wasmann J. Biol. 35:68-76. PREPARED/UPDATED BY National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1300 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.29 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- PUERTO RICAN PARROT Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior prefacp: The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as ainendcd). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of F.nginccrs in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report shiiuld be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.29 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- PUERTO RICAN PARROT A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Shdell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PUERTO RICAN PARROT Amazona vittata (Boddaert) KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Psittaciformes FAMILY Psittacidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Puerto Rican Amazon (Forshaw 1973); Cotorra de Puerto Rico (Leopold 1963); Cotorra Puertorriquena (Rules and regulations concerning wildlife and hunt- ing in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Update To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (42 FR 36426, 14 July 1977). Listed Appendix I, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (42 FR 10478, 22 February 1977). States: Protected against hunting, killing, or capture permanently by Rules and Regulations concerning the Wildlife and Hunting in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 1972, Article 8a. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Deforestation, widespread hunting, and taking of parrots for pets almost certainly brought about the original decline of this species. Now that the population is so small, all adverse pressures are very serious. Severe hurricanes in 1928 and 1932 decimated the population, probably by destruc- tion of fruit (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). Inter- actions between parrots and red-tailed hawks, broad-winged hawks, and sharp-shinned hawks have been seen (Cameron Kepler in Forshaw 1973). The pearly-eyed thrasher {Margarops fus- cata), which competes with parrots for nesting sites and also preys on eggs and chicks, has be- come much more abundant and widespread in re- cent years (Nathan Leopold 1968 pers. comm.; Cameron Kepler in Forshaw 1973). Pearly-eyed thrashers and red-tailed hawks are believed to be the most serious predators; rats and screech owls are not considered serious (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). A critical shortage of nesting holes in hollow trees combined with fierce competition from the exploding population of pearly-eyed thrashers continue to threaten parrots. lUegcil hunting and nest robberies by humans are still threats (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). PRIORITY INDEX 65' DESCRIPTION The adult parrot is about 29 cm long, with predominantly green plumage, paler and more yellowish on underparts; feathers are edged with dusky black, p2U"ticularly on head and neck ; lores and frontal band are red; there is a distinct white eye ring; under tail coverts are yellowish-green; feathers of abdomen are sometimes slightly tinged with dull red; primary-coverts and primaries axe dark blue; outer webs of outermost secondaries are blue narrowly edged with dull green; under wing-coverts are green; undersides of flight fea- thers are bluish-green; tail is green narrowly tipped with yellowish-green, bases of lateral feathers are marked with red on inner webs and outermost feathers are edged with blue; bill is yellowish horn; iris is brown; legs are yellowish brown. Immatures ^u■e similar to adults (Forshaw 1973). The extinct subspecies A. v. gracilipes of nearby Culebralsland was very similar, but smaller and with smaller, more slender feet (Forshaw 1973). Measurements. A. v. vittata: (8 males) wing 182-193 mm (av. 188.5 mm); taU 90-103 (96.9); exposed cuhnen 27-30 (28.5);tarsus 21-24 (22.1); (5 females) wing 178-196 (av. 185.6 mm); tail 93- 104 (98.2); exposed cuhnen 27-28 (27.2); tarsus 22-24 (23.0). A. v. gracilipes: (2 males) wing 169- 173 (av. 171.0 mm); taU 93-95 (94.0); exposed culmen 26 (26.0); tarsus 20-21 (20.5); (1 female) wing 175 mm; tail 100; exposed culmen 23; tar- sus 20 (Forshaw 1973). RANGE The present range is confined to Puerto Rico; it formerly included nearby Culebra, Vieques and Mona Islands. This parrot was last recorded on Culebra Island in 1899; it disappeared from other offshore islands of Puerto Rico earlier. It has not been recorded from the mangrove swamp at the mouth of the Mameyes River since Wetmore (1927) found it there. It was known to be in Guanjataca Forest at medium altitudes up to 1910, in Rio Abaja Forest also at medium elevations up to 1920's, and in Carite Forest at high elevations up until the 1930's. It is now virtually confined to Luguillo National Forest, which comprises 11,200 ha of relatively high- elevation tropical rainforest in extreme eastern Puerto Rico (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). RANGE MAP The range of the parrot has included most areas of Luguillo Forest above 400 m elevation. STATES/COUNTIES Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. HABITAT Mature wet forests with high rainfall between about 400 and 800 m elevation are required by this species. It is now confined in breeding areas having the largest number of old Colorado trees, o o I— I o (£! W A, u o u S u J3 which supply nesting cavities. It formerly fre- quented more diversified habitat, particularly at lower elevations (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). Dwarf forest at higher elevations and second growth lowland forest are not used by parrots (Cameron Kepler in lit. 8 Feb. 1971). Parrots occupy the Tabonuco, Sierra Palm, and Colorado forest types of Wadsworth (1952). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Rodriguez-Vidal (1959) lists more than 50 species of fruiting plants used by parrots. Most commonly used was sierra palm {Prestoea mon- tana [Euterpe geobosa] ) with a long fruiting pe- riod from November tojune (chiefly Feb. through March). Other important food plants were bejuco de rana vine {Marcgravia sintenisii), camasey de paloma [Miconia sintenisii), tabonuco {Dacryodes excelsa), cabeilo {Casearia guianensis), guara [Cupania triquetra) and hueso bianco (Mayepea domingensis) trees. Kepler (1970) has seen par- rots extracting nectar from fleshy bracts below flower clusters on marcgravia vines and noted that, in some areas parrots feed more heavily on Clusia krugiana than any other tree. Rodriguez-Vidal (1959) also stressed the im- portance of the tabonuco tree in providing fruit during August to November because parrot food is scarce during that period of heavy rains. How- ever the largest flocks he counted (200) were feeding on sierra palm, bejuco de rana and cama- sey de paloma (with no mention of tabonuco); on 8 November 1953 and 31 October 1954, both at Valle Hicaco on El Yunque. He never observed parrots feeding on the ground. They fed chiefly on pericarps of wild fruits but silso on flowers and tender shoots. If fruit is in clusters, parrots cut off the entire small supporting branch, held it in one foot, and picked off ripe fruit, letting un- ripe fruit fall to ground. They fed in groups and if frightened while eating would fly off, some carrying one piece or clusters of fruit in their bills. He did not see any parrots fighting over food. Parrots move about widely to feed especially be- tween September and December when tabonuco is in fruit. They are highly regular in their daily flights of from 1 to 5 km to and from food sources and night roosts (Kepler 1973). Kepler (1970) points out the possibility that an adequate supply of their essential foods is not found within the Forest Reserve, accounting for reported flights from the forest during the summer months. They forage in semi-social groups. The normal foraging range of a nesting pair is about 1.6 km, but some- times 8 km or farther. There is no evidence of a shortage of food. With failure of the sierra palm crop in 1974, parrots shifted to other foods (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Cavities for nesting are the only shelter re- quired. NESTING OR BEDDING The nest is a hollow in a tree. In Luquillo Forest Reserve nearly all nests found have been in cavities in large Colorado trees {Cyrilla racemiflora) formed by rotting of wood of trunk after branches have been lost to wind or other accidents. Parrots prepare nests by clearing out the interior of the cavity, but do not add lining material. Most sites chosen have been more than 5 m from the ground. Cavities have been random in compass orientation, with minimum observed entrance diameters of 10 cm and minimum observed internal diameters of about 23 cm. Cavity depths have ranged to 240 cm with the deepest cavities apparently pre- ferred. All recent nests have been about 500 m elevation. Historically, parrots nested in holes in cliffs as well as hollow trees, but recently located nests have all been in rotted out cavities in large color- ado trees. Most such cavities are unsuitable for nesting because they are too wet or too small. Suitable nest sites are scarce and limiting to breed- ing of parrots in their traditional areas, which they seem to be reluctant to leave for other areas where suitable nest sites exist (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Kepler (1973) says there are distinct take-off calls, flight calls, and series of contact calls, in- cluding duetting between pair members. The lat- ter probably serve as "station identification" (Helen Snyder pers. papers 9 May 1975). Calls are pair specific. Pairs are very territorial and aggressively defend their territory. There is evidence that pairs identify one another by calls, and don't pay much attention to nonterritorial pairs (Noel Snyder pers. comm.). OTHER CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Wetmore (1927) points out that in 1836, Moritz reported great flocks of parrots in Puerto Rico, and in 1864 Taylor found them to be common. It seems that until the turn of the cen- tury they were plentiful, particularly in the in- terior, but in 1911-12, Wetmore located popula- tions only in the karst of western Puerto Rico, in the lowlands near the mouth of the Mameyes River, and in the Luquillo Forest of eastern Puerto Rico (Forshaw 1973). Counts in Luquillo National Forest Reserve from August 1953 to March 1956 never exceeded approximately 200 individuals (Rodriguez-Vidal 1959). By December 1966, the highest count achieved by Victor Marquez in a several month effort was 70 indivi- duals (pers. comm.), and by 1968 the highest count achieved by Kepler was only 24. The wild population dropped to a low point of only 13 or 14 in 1974, but has been showing some signs of recovery since that time. By summer 1979, there were 26 to 28 birds in the wild, including 4 breed- ing pairs. REPRODUCTION With but one exception— a 1974 cavity in a laurel sabino (Magnolia splendens)~dll recent nests of the parrots have been in cavities in palo colorados. The predominant use of palo colorados is probably a reflection of the greater abundance of natural cavities in this species. Nevertheless, good nesting cavities are not abundant in general. Sys- tematic climbing and checking of over 1200 trees within the parrot nesting areas from 1973-1976 reve8ded a dearth of good cavities, and several pairs of recent years have failed to lay eggs be- cause of apparent failures to locate good sites, a problem that has been alleviated in the last 4 years by provision of artificial nest sites (Snyder arid Wiley pers. comm.). Incubation is approximately 26 days; clutch size 2 to 4 (average 3), and nestling period 8 to 11 weeks (average 9 weeks). Only femjiles incubate and males provide all food to females during the incubation period. Both adults provide food for young. Sexual maturity is reached at 3 to 4 years of age. Before 1973, when intensive nest manage- ment efforts were begun, nesting success for all nests found at the egg stage was between 1 1% and 26%. Since 1973, success has increased to 71%, primarily due to efforts to alleviate nest predation by pearly-eyed thrashers and to maintain the quality of nest sites. Sources of nesting failure in addition to nest-site disintegration and predation by thrashers have been parasitism of nestlings by bot flies and predation on adults and nestlings by red-tailed hawks {Buteo jamaicensis), but neither of these factors appears to have been a major cause of the historical decline of the species. Nest- robbing by man accounted for a large fraction of the nestlings that survived other pressures up until the late 1960's, but has not been a major problem since that time. Numbers of young fledged in the wild in re- cent years have run: 1973,3; 1974,3; 1975,6; 1976,8; 1977,3 ;1978,9;and numbers of egg-laying pairs have run: 1973,3; 1974,2; 1975,5; 1976,4; 1977,3; 1978,4. MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION A program of study conducted by the Fishery and Wildhfe Section of the Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce financed by the Pitman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Pro- gram from 18 August 1953 to 30 June 1956, with Jose A. Rodriguez-Vidal as chief investigator, was followed by a project developed in 1968 by the U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service, U.S. Forest Ser- vice, World Wildlife Fund, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The latter project is still continu- ing with primary funding from the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Studies from 1968 to 1971 were under the direc- tion of Cameron Kepler; from 1972 to 1976 were under the direction of Noel Snyder; and from 1977 to the present are under James Wiley. Management efforts began in 1956 with rat- poisoning with warfarin in the parrot nesting areas. Rat control has been continued in most years of study since that date. However, recent evidence strongly suggests that rats are only a secondary threat to nests (Snyder pers. comm.), and in recent years management emphasis has shifted from rat control to efforts to reduce the impacts of thrashers and to provide and enhance the quality of nest sites. In the years just prior to 1973, thrashers were apparently responsible for the majority of parrot nest failures, although this species was not present in Luquillo Forest in any abundance before 1950 and thus was not involved in the early decline of the parrots there. Starting in 1973, intensive guarding of parrot nests has prevented any further cases of nest failure from this cause. In 1973, 1974, and 1975, thrashers were eliminated by shooting whenever they threatened parrot nests, and in addition some nests were protected by artificial incubation of eggs and later replacement of young into nests. Parrots were maintained in these nests by dummy eggs made from plaster. At least 2, very likely 4, and possibly as many as 6 parrot nests were saved from thrasher predation during these years by these efforts. Studies of nest-site preferences of thrashers conducted in 1974, 1975, and 1976 demonstrated a reluctance of this species to enter deep structures with bottoms not visible from entrances. Parrots, in contrast, appear to prefer such structures, and in 1976 efforts to convert parrot nests into such structures were begun. All parrot nests were deepened and provided with baffles - changes which the parrots accepted without obvious dif- ficulties. Thrashers have been provided with alternative nest sites close to each parrot nest and once established in these alternative sites, have greatly reduced the frequency with which thrash- ers have attempted to enter parrot nests by their intraspecific territorial behavior. Since 1977 there have been no significant thrasher threats to any parrot nests, and it has not been necessary to eliminate any thrashers. The provision of artificially created nest sites has also met with considerable success, and all currently active parrot pairs are using such sites. As a hedge against loss of the wild population and to provide a source of birds for future release into the wild, a number of parrots have been taken into captivity in recent years, primarily as eggs. The current (1979) captive population stands at 15 individuals. As yet, no successful reproduction has taken place in the captive flock, although several females have laid infertile eggs and one pair laid fertile eggs that did not hatch in 1978. By chance, the captives taken consist largely of females so their number of potential egg-laying pairs has remained low. Success in breeding the closely related Hispaniolan Parrot {Amazona ventralis) at Patuxent and at other facilities pro- vides optimism that the captive program may soon begin to produce young. Other management efforts of recent years have been directed at reducing the impact of bot fly parasitism of young parrots. Experiments are currently underway with methods of prevent- ing this parasitism. Nestlings of the past few years have been closely monitored for parasitism and treated when such parasitism has occurred. AUTHORITIES James Wiley Box 21 Palmer, Puerto Rico 00721 Noel Snyder Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, MD 20810 Cameron Kepler RR Maalaea Road Kula, Hawaii 96790 Frank H. Wadsworth Institute of Tropical Forestry University of Puerto Rico Box AQ Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928 PREPARER'S COMMENTS It appears that we now have the technology for ensuring satisfactory reproduction of Puerto Rican Parrots in the wild by appropriate effort in nest site enhancement, brood care, and pearly- eyed thrasher management. Future parrot man- agement should concentrate on providing and maintaining suitable nest sites combined with continued routine censusing of the species. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Danforth, S. J. 1935. Supplementary account of the birds of the Virgin Islands, including Culebra and adjacent islands, pertaining to Puerto Rico, with notes on their food habits. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 19(4):430-472. Forshaw, J. M. 1973. Parrots of the World. New York, Doubleday & Company, p. 522. Kepler, C. B. 1970. The Puerto Rican Parrot in Chapter E-14: Preliminary comparison of bird species diversity and density in Luquillo and Guanica Forests, H. J. Odum ed. A Tropical Rain Forest, Oak Ridge, Tenn. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Div. of Tech. Info. Leopold, N. J. 1963. Checklist of birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Bull. 168, Uni- versity of Puerto Rico Agric. Exp. Sta. 119 pp. Rodriguez-Vidal, J. A. 1959. Puerto Rican Parrot {Amazona vitata vitata) study. Monog. Dept. Agric. and Commerce, Puerto Rico, No. 1:1-. 15. Wadsworth, F. H. 1952. Forest Management in the Luquillo Mountains. Caribbean Forests, Ann. Rep. Vol. 14 ( 1&2) p. 40. Wetmore, A. 1916. The birds of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. Auk 33:403-419. Wetmore, A. 1927. The birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Island-Psittaciformes to Passeri- formes. Scient. Surv. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, New York Acad. Sci. 9(4):409-598. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.30 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY SEA TURTLE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoasl of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the I'.ndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and W'ildlifc Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed lo: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal P^cosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\ ice NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 704r)8 u FWS/OBS-80/01.30 March 1980 SELECTKD VER 1 EBRAIK ENDANGERED SPECIES OF IHE SEACOAS I OF 1 HE UNITED STATES- KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY SEA TURTLE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and WildHfe Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal FJcosystenis Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY SEA TURTLE Lepidochelys kempii Carman KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Reptilia ORDER Testudinata FAMILY Cheloniidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Mexican ridley, Atlantic ridley, Tortuga lora. DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined. Updates. .22 September 1976, 25 February 1977. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (35 FR 18310, 2 De- cember 1970) States: Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Mary- land, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas. CREDIT: P. C. H. PRITCHARD Protected: Alabama, North Carolina. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Overuse by man is the primary factor respon- sible for the present small numbers of sea turtles. Diurnal nesting on a single beach in Mexico makes this turtle particularly susceptible to predation by man and wild animals. Commercial harvesting of eggs and skin has played a significant role in the decline (lUCN 1968). Harvesting has recently (1966) been prohibited by the Mexican goven- ment, but no upward trend in population num- bers has been observed (Pritchard and Marquez M. 1973). Predation by wild animals is acute, espe- cially on hatchlings. Crabs, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are predators; adult predation is limited to sharks (Rebel 1974). Because of aggregate nesting on a single beach, Rancho Nuevo in TamauHpas State, Mexico, any habitat modification there could result in loss of the entire breeding population. Sea turtles are caught incidental to commer- cial fishing activities. Some turtles drown in trawls, some are eaten by fishermen, sold in local markets, or mutilated as a result of entanglement in the trawls (U.S. Department of Commerce 1976). According to Pritchard (1976), ridleys are caught north and south of the Rio Grande off the States of Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, as well as in Tabasco, Veracruz, and off the Campeche Bank in Mexico. PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The ridley is a small sea turtle with an unusu- ally broad (compared with other sea turtles), heart-shaped, keeled carapace that is serrated be- hind the bridge. It has a triangular head and a somewhat hooked beak with large crushing sur- faces. The plastron has several small pores on each side, leading to Rathke's glands (secretory struc- tures). Hatchlings are black on both sides. As the tur- tle matures, the bridge and hingeless plastron change to white, then yellow; and the carapace changes to gray and then olive green. The head and paddle-like limbs are gray. Adults weigh between 35 and 42 kg, and have a carapace length of 56 tp 70 cm. Close examination of the carapace reveals five pairs of pleural shields with the nuchal shield touching the first costals. There are 12 to 14 mar- ginals on each side of the carapace and pores in the four bridge shields. Black-and-white photographs appear in Carr (1952, 1967), Ernst and Barbour (1972), Bustard (1973), Rebel (1974) and Pritchard (1976). RANGE Adults are restricted to the Gulf of Mexico. Immatures may be observed along the Atlantic coast as far north as Massachusetts and are sighted infrequently along European shores. The former range was probably equivalent to the present range (lUCN 1968, Witham 1976). RANGE MAP On the following pages distribution is shown by shading, and U.S. nesting sites by dots. STATES/COUNTIES Alabama: Baldwin, Mobile. Delaware: Sussex; Florida: Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dade, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Sarasota. Volusia, WakuUa, Wal- ton. Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Li- berty, Mcintosh. Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion. Worchester. Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth. : Hancock, Harrison, Jackson. : Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, Ocean. Nassau, Suffolk. Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender. Newport, Washington. Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, GeorgetowTi, Horry. Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Willacy. Accomack, Northampton. Georgia: Louisiana: (parishes) Maryland: Massa- chusetts: Mississippi New Jersey New York: North Carolina: Rhode Island: South Carolina: Texas: Virginia: HABITAT The ridley inhabits shallow coastal and es- tuarine waters; it is often associated with sub- tropical shorelines of red mangrove [Rhizophora mangle) (Witham 1976). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR The ridley 's diet consists primarily of inverte- brates, mostly crabs {Arenaeus, Calappa, Callinec- tes, and Hepatus), but also shrimp, snails, sea ur- chins, sea stars, fish, and, occasionally, marine plants (Ernst and Barbour 1972, Pritchard and Marquez M. 1973, R. Marquez M. personal communication). WUT LOHCITUDC Distribution of Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the eastern United States. Distribution (shading) and nesting sites (dots) of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the western United States. SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NESTING OR BEDDING With the exception of occasional females known to nest on Padre Island, Texas (Werler 1951), the entire population nests on about 24 km of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostio- nal in State of Tamaulipas, Mexico. They prefer sections of beach backed up by extensive swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal, narrow ocean connections (Pritchard and Mar- quezM. 1973). A well-defined and elevated dune area is ne- cessary for successful nesting. Pritchard and Mar- quez M. (1973) suggest that this provides a land- mark for the turtle to dig a nest that will be above mean high tide. RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not Known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Females land in large numbers only when strong or moderate north winds blow. Pritchard (1976) suggests that this may cover the turtle's tracks and/or dissipate nesting smell. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS In 1947, a Mexican, Sr. Herreva, filmed nest- ing. Estimates based on this film put the breeding population at 40,000 at that time. Despite the protection of the nesting beach since 1966, the breeding population now is reported to be be- tween 1,500 and 3,000 adults, with only about 500 females nesting during the 1978 season (Anon. 1978). The 1947 film shows what is believed to be the entire breeding population swarming ashore at once. Such a massive landing is called an 'arriba- da.' R. Marquez M. (personal communication) has observed nesting since 1966 and reports that the number within arribadas is declining. In 1976, the largest was made up of approximately 150 fe- males, and there are usually between five and seven arribadas per season. Failure to rebuild population numbers in spite of beach protection may result from low survivor- ship (Pritchard 1976). REPRODUCTION Ridleys nest from April to June, during which time turtles appear off Tamaulipas. After strong winds, females swarm ashore to nest in daylight hours. A female nests a maximum of three times a season with an intemesting interval of 10 to 28 days. Individuals often nest annually with an ave- rage clutch size of 110 eggs (Pritchard 1969a, Lund 1976). Copulation takes place offshore near the nesting beach, and some pairs remain embraced for hours. Black-and-white photographs of court- ship and mating activities appear in Bustard (1973). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Since 1966, the Mexican government has con- ducted a tagging program for adults at Rancho Nuevo and has protected the beach with military personnel. About 330 clutches of eggs have been relocated annually to fenced compounds (R. Mar- quez M. personal commnication). Pritchard (1976) argued for the perfection and deployment of a modified trawl net to pre- vent the incidental catch of sea turtles, and work on this project is well underway by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. Lund (1974) reported on a private effort to stock Texas waters with eggs taken from the Ran- cho Nuevo beach in Mexico. In 1978, a multi- agency effort was initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in coordination with the Mexican government (Anon. 1978). This program incorporates a wide variety of techniques, in- cluding more intensive protection for the Rancho Nuevo beach, an attempt to establish a breeding population at Padre Island National Seashore by transplanting 2,000 eggs annually, and head- starting of 2,000 hatchlings from the Rancho Nuevo beach and the hatchlings from Padre Island at the NMFS laboratory in Galveston, Texas (Anon. 1978,Wauer 1978). Marquez M. (1976b) recommends formation of seven natural reserves for Mexican coasts, which include Playa de Rancho Nuevo, Tamauli- pas, the Kemp's ridley's nesting beach.. AUTHORITIES Archie Carr Department of Zoology University of Florida GainesvUlcFL 32611 Henry Hildebrand Department of Zoology Texas A&M University Kingsville.TX 78363 Frank Lund P.O. Box 541 Jupiter Island, FL 33458 Rene Marquez M. Apdo Postal 79-052 Col. Doctares Mexico 7. D.F. Peter Pritchard Florida Audubon Society P.O. Drawer 7 Maitland.FL 32751 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Adams, D. E. 1966 More about the ridley opera- tion: Padre Island egg transporting. Int. Turt. and Tort. Soc. J. l(l):18-20, 40-43, 45. Anon. 1978. U.S. -Mexico restoration efforts may be only hope for Kemp's ridley. End. Sp. Tech. Bull, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 3(10): 6-8. Brongersma, L. D. 1968. Miscellaneous note, on turtles. I. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Serv. C. Biol. Med. Sci. 71:439-442. Bustard, R. 1973. Sea turtles: natural history and conservation. Taplinger Publ. Co., New York. 220 pp. Carr, A. F. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California. Comstock Publ. Assoc, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y. 542 pp. . 1955. The riddle of the ridley. Anim. Kingd. 58(5): 146-156. . 1956. The windward road. Alfred Knopf. Inc.,New York. 258 pp. . 1961. The ridley mystery today. Anim. Kingd. 64:7-12. . 1967. So excellent a fishe. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N. Y. 248 pp. Chavez. H. 1969. Tagging and recapture of the lora turtle {Lepidochelys kempii). Int. Turt. and Tort. Soc. J. 3(4):14-19, 32-36. Chavez, H., M. Contreras G., and T. P. E. Hernan- dez D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas, Parts I and II. Int. Turt. Tort. Soc. J. 2(4) :20- 29, 37and2(5):19,27-34. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. of Kentucky Press, Lexington. 347 pp. lUCN. 1968. Red data book. Vol. 3, Amphibia and reptilia. Compiled by R. E. Honegger. lUCN, Morges, Switzerland. Lund, F. 1974. A survey of marine turtle nesting in the United States. Unpubl. 39 pp. . 1979. Atlantic ridley. Pages 25-26 in R. W. McDairmid ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Marquez M., R. 1973. Instructivo para la protec- cion de las tortugas marina. Serie Dioulgacion. INP/SD 2:1-34. . 1976a. Estado actual de la pesquina de tortugas marina en Mexico, 1974. INP/SI 1-27. . 1976b. Reservas naturales para la con- servacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexico. INP/SIi 83:1-22. Marquez M., R., A. Villanueva O., and C. Pena- flores S. 1976. Sinopsis de dates biologicos sobre la tortuga golfma. Lepidochelys oliva- cea (Eschscholtz, 1829). INP Sinop. Pesca 2: 1-61. Montoya, A. E. 1969. Programas de investigacion y conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Mexico. Pages 34-53 in Marine turtles. lUCN. New Publ. Ser. Suppl. Paper. 20. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969a. Studies of the systema- tics 3S\A reproductive cycles of the genus Lepi- dochelys. Ph. D. Dissert. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 226 pp. . 1969b. Summary of world sea turtle sur- vival situation. lUCN Bull. 2(1):90-91. . 1969c. The survival status of ridley sea turtles in American waters. Biol. Cons. 2(1): 13-17. . 1976. Endangered species: Kemp's ridley turtle. Florida Nat. 49(3): 15-19. Pritchard, P. C. H., and R. Marquez M. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or Atlantic ridley Lepi- dochelys kempii. lUCN Monogr. 2. Marine turtle series. Morges, Switzerland. Rebel, t. P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle indus- try of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. Rev. ed. Univ. of Miami Press, Coral Gables. 250 pp. Svkreat, D. E. 1968. Capture of a tagged ridley tur- tie. Q. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 31(l):47-48. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Proposed listing of the green sea turtle {Chelonia my- das), loggerhead [Caretta caretta), and pacific ridley sea turtle [Lepidochelys olivacea) as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Natl. Oceanic Atm. Ad- min., Natl. Marine Fish. Serv., Washington, D.C. Walker, W. F. 1971. Swimming in sea turtles of the family Cheloniidae. Copeia 1971(2):229- 233. Wauer, R. 1978. Headstart for endangered turtles. Natl. Parks Conserv. Mag. 52(11): 16-20. Werler, J. E. 1951. Miscellaneous notes on the eggs and young of Texas and Mexican reptiles. Zoologica36(3):37-48. Witham, R. 1976. Lepidochelys kempii account. In H. O. Hillestad, D. B. Means, and W. W. Baker, eds. Endangered and threatened verte- brates of the southeastern United States. Tall Timbers Res. Stn. Misc. Publ. 4. Zim, H. S., and H. M. Smith. 1953. Reptiles and amphibians. A guide to familiar American spe- cies. Simon and Schuster, New York. 147 pp. GATEKEEPER To be designated by the Office of Endangered Species. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 GainesvUle, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.31 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- BACHMAN'S WARBLER Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-SHdell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.31 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- BACHMAN S WARBLER A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-SIidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior DWG. BY WALTER DAWN BACHMAN'S WARBLER Vermivora bachmanii Audubon KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Passeriformes FAMILY Parulidae OTHER COMMON NAMES None DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined. Updates 5 April 1978; 10 October 1978. LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered: 32 FR 4001; 11 March 1967. States: Endangered: Florida, Georgia, Missis- sippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Stevenson (1938), USDI (1973), Shuler (1977b, 1977c, personal communication) and Arthur Wayne's (approximately 1910) unpublish- ed statement, "I never expect to see another spec- imen as the great swamp in which I found it breeding has been deforested by a lumbering company," all suggest that the clearing of the southern swamp forests contributed to the de- cline of the Bachman's warbler. On the other hand, Stevenson (1972) and personal communica- tions from P. Hamel, R. Hooper, and D. Urbston insist that the reasons for the current status of this species are unknown. Other suggestions for the species' current status have included: (1) competition with other species on the breeding grounds (Hamel 1977a); (2) excessive collecting along migration route in Florida (USDI 1973); (3) climatic catastrophe such as storms (R. Hooper personal communica- tions); and (4) "genetic or evolutionary probl- blems" (Hamel 1977a: R. Hooper personal com- munications). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The Bachman's warbler is 10 to 11 cm long, with a small, sharp-pointed bill. Their color pattern is somewhat variable. Males usually have a bright yellow shoulder patch, forehead, eye ring, chin, and belly and a black throat patch with some black on crowm. Crown is otherwise gray and black olive. Wings and tail aie dusky with subterminal white patches on tail. Females usually lack black on throat (although some may be present); the breast is shaded with gray; white markings on tail are reduced, and underparts are often much less yellowish. Distinguishing field marks are the yellow un- derparts and the black crown and throat. Color il- lustrations appear in Howell (1932), the Decem- ber 1977 cover of Birding, £ind the inside back cover of South Carolina WUdlife 23(2), 1976. RANGE Bachman's warblers are known to have nested in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and South Carolina (Hooper and Hamel 1977). The last nest known in Alabama was discovered in 1937 (Stevenson 1938). Their present range is unknown; the species may be extinct (Hamel 1977b). Shuler (1977a) reported sightings of individual males in South Carolina's I'On Swamp (Francis Marion National Forest) in 1974, 1975, and 1976, one in each year. Shuler et al. (1978) reported sightings of a male and a female in I'On Swamp in 1977, in- cluding reported verification by subsequent sightings by different individuals. Other recent reported sightings include Berkeley County, S. C. (1967), Louisiana (1973), Long County, Georgia (1975), Kentucky (1977), Maryland (1977), and Cameron Parish, Louisiana (1977). Hamel (1977b) considers all of these sightings as uncon- firmed and D. Urbston (personal communication) considers them all 'questionable.' The last sighting accepted by Hamel (1977b) as valid was in Charleston County, S. C. in 1962. If the Bachman's warbler still exists, most au- thorities agree that it is most likely in the I'On Swamp area in Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. RANGE MAP Not provided. STATES/COUNTIES South Carolina: Berkeley (?), Charleston (?). HABITAT Nested in bottomland hardwood swamps. FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Five stomach samples contained caterpillars and Hymenoptera (Meanley and Mitchell 1958). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Dense understory of shrubs and vines within hardwood swamps. NESTING OR BEDDING They nest in low bushes or vines, 0.7 to 1 m off the ground (Wayne 1907), in nests con- structed of dried weed and grass stalks and dead leaves, lined with black threads of pendent lichens {Ramalina sp.) (Widmann 1897). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Not known. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Formerly locally abundant (Widmann 1897; Embody 1907). Formerly abundant during migra- tion along the Suwannee River, Florida (Brewster 1891). Present population, if any, unknowoi. REPRODUCTION Eggs are laid March through June with three to five eggs per set (Wayne 1907). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Shuler (1977b, 1977c, personal communica- tion) suggests discontinuing of harvesting of bot- tomland hardwoods in the I 'On Swamp, Francis Marion National Forest, South Carolina. R. Hooper (personal communication) suggests in- creased cutting to open up the canopy and thus allow secondary growth of shrubs and vines. Extensive studies by U.S. Forest Service biol- ogists Urbston and Hooper and Clemson Universi- ty zoologist Hamel are underway to better define the status and requirements of the Bachman's warbler. AUTHORITIES Paul B. Hamel Department of Zoology Clemson University Clemson, SC 29631 Robert G. Hooper U. S. Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Forestry Sciences Laboratory 2730 Savannah Highway Charleston, SC 29407 Jay Shuler P.O. Box 288 McCleUanville, SC 29458 David F. Urbston USDA Forest Service Ouachita National Forest Hot Springs, AR 71901 PREPARER'S COMMENTS None. LITERATURE CITED/SELECTED REFERENCES Barnes, I. R. 1954. A new look at Bachman's warblers. Atlantic Nat. 10: 18-30. Bent, A. C. 1953. Life histories of North Ameri- can wood warblers. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 203. 734 pp. Brewster, W. 1891. Notes on Bachman's warbler {Helminthophila bachmanii). Auk 8:149-157. Chamberlain, G. B. 1958. Bachman's warbler in South Carolina. Chat 22:73-74, 77. Embody, G. C. 1907. Bachman's warbler breeding in Logan County, Kentucky. Auk 24:41-42. Evenden, F., D. Marshall, and W. Zeedgk. 1977. Revised final report of the Bachman's warbler Panel. 30 pp. Hamel, P. B. 1977a. Problem analysis for research to determine the status of Bachman's warbler, and the evolutionary, ecological, and histori- cal factors associated with its decline. U.S. For. Serv. Southeast. For. Exper. Stn., Charleston, SC. Contract 18-409. 25 pp. . 1977b. Progress report, research to de- termine the status of Bachman's warbler, the ecological, evolutionary, and historical factors responsible for its decline. U.S. For. Serv. Southeast, For. Exper. Stn., Charleston, SC. Contract 18-409. 24 pp. Hamel, P. B., and R. G. Hooper. In press. The status of Bachman's warbler, a progress re- port. Proc. Endangered Species Symp., Athens, Ga. Hamel, P. B., R. G. Hooper, D. Urbston, and A. McDonald. 1977. Bachmem's warbler breeding habitat: A hypothesis. Presented before 95th Annu. Mtg. Am. Omithol. Union, Berkeley, Ca., 25 August 1977. Hamel, P. B., R. G. Hooper, and L. M. Wright. 1976. Where is the Reverend Bachman's war- bler? S.C. WUdl., March-April 1976: 9-13. Holt, G. G. 1920. Bachman's warbler breeding in Alabama. Auk 37:103-104. Hooper, R. G., and P. B. Hamel. 1977. Nesting habitat of Bachman's warbler: A review. Wil- son Bull. 89(3):373-379. Howell, A. H. 1910. Notes on the birds of the sunken lands of southeastern Missouri. Auk 27:381-384. Howell, A. H. 1932. Florida bird life. Coward- McCann, Inc., New York. 597 pp. Meanley, B. and R. T. Mitchell. 1958. Food hab- its of Bachman's warbler. Atlantic Nat. 236-238. Shuler, T. 1977a. Three recent sight records of Bachman's warbler. Chat 41(1):11-12. . 1977b. Bachman's phantom warbler. Birding9(6): 245-250. . 1977c. Bachman's warbler habitat. Chat 41(2):19-23. Shuler, T., P. Nugent, J. Trochet, and J. Vanos. 1978. Bachman's warbler observations contin- ue in the I'On Swamp. Chat 42(2):23-24. Stevenson, H. M. 1938. Bachman's warbler in Ala- bama. Wilson Bull. 50:36-41. 1972. A recent history of Bachman's warbler. Wilson Bull. 84:344-347. U. S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threat- ened Wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and Inter- national Activities, Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. Wayne, A. T. 1907. The nest and eggs of Bach- man's warbler, Helminthophila bachmanii (Aud.), taken near Charleston, South Caro- lina. Auk 24:43-48. Widman, O. 1897. The summer home of Bach- man's warbler no longer unknown. Auk 14: 305-309. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.32 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- THE FLORIDA EVERGLADE KITE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data are not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SVVIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.32 March 1980 SELECTKD VLR 1 EBRA 1 K ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAS r OF I HE UNITED STATES- THE FLORIDA EVERGLADE KITE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald VV. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior FLORIDA EVERGLADE KITE Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Ridgway KINGDOM Animalia CLASS Aves ORDER Falconiformes FAMILY Accipitridae OTHER COMMON NAMES. . . . Everglade kite, snail kite, Florida snail kite, snail hawk. DATE Entered into SWIS to be determined Updates 15 October 1976, 13 April 1977 LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967). States: Endangered: Florida. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Reduction of suitable habitat due to drainage of marshes is the primary reason for the kite's en- dangered status. By 1967, only 3,981 km^ of the original 7,112 km^ of Everglades remained un- drained (Stieglitz and Thompson 1967, U.S. De- partment of the Interior 1973, Sykes 1979). Droughts and water management have also affected kite habitat by reducing populations of apple snails (Pomacea paludosa), the kite's only food source (U.S. Department of the Interior 1973). The introduced water hyacinth [Eichornia crassipes) now covers the water surface in many areas, making it impossible for kites to locate apple snails (Sykes 1979). Excessive human disturbance and malicious killings have also contributed to population de- clines (Stieglitz and Thompson 1967, Sykes 1979). Potential factors of unknovwi importance in- clude parasites transmitted by snails, weather pat- tern changes, and inbreeding due to reduced population size (Stieghtz and Thompson 1967). Pesticide concentrations in snails, kites, and kite eggs are very low and probably do not pre- sent a threat (Steiglitz and Thompson 1967). PRIORITY INDEX Not assigned. DESCRIPTION The kite is a medium-sized hawk, 41 to 46 cm long, with a wingspan of 114 cm. Its beak is slen- der and strongly hooked. Adult males are slate gray with black head and wing tips, and a white patch at the base of the tail. Legs are orange-red. Females and immatures are buffy, heavily streaked vsath dark lines, with a white rump and yellow legs. RANGE The species ranges wddely in the Neotropics, with three recognized subspecies. The Florida race is restricted to peninsular Florida and Cuba. It formerly ranged over much of Florida, wherever suitable habitat occurred, including the following counties: Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade, Flagler, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Indian River, Jefferson, Lake, Monroe, Okeechobee, Or- ange, Osceola, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Wakulla (Sykes 1979). It is now restricted to the headwaters of the St. Johns River, the southwest side of Lake Okee- chobee, a portion of Everglades National Park, a portion of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Re- fuge, and small areas in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties (Sykes 1979). RANGE MAP Present distribution is adapted from Sykes (1979). STATES/COUNTIES Florida Broward, Dade, Glades, Indian River, Palm Beach, St. Lucie. HABITAT The species is typically found in fresh- water marshes with a distant horizon. Favorable areas consist of shallow open water vegetated with sawgrass [Cladium jamaicensis) and spike- rushes {Eleocharis sp.). Flats, often interspersed with tree islands or small groups of shrubs and trees including dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), coastal plain willow [Saltx caroliniana), wax myrtle [My- rica cerifera), and buttonbush [Cephalanthus occi- dentalis). Other common aquatics include water- lily [Nymphaea odorata), big floating heart [Nym- phoides aquatica), maidencane {Pantcum hemito- mon), bulltongue [Sagittaria lancifolia), pickerel- weed [Pontederia lanceolata), cattail [Typha do- mingensis), waterlettuce [Pistia stratiotes), and water hyacinth (Stieglitz and Thompson 1979). Water levels may fluctuate so long as the sur- face does not completely dry (Sykes 1979). Habi- tat photographs appear in Stieglitz and Thompson (1967), Snyder and Snyder (1969), and Sykes (1979). FOOD AND FORAGING BEHAVIOR Snail kites feed only on the freshwater apple snail. They fly 1.5 to 9 m above the surface, de- scending when a snail is sighted. Snails are grasped with a single talon and are usually transferred to the beak in flight. They also sometimes hunt from perches. Snails are extracted and the shells dis- carded. Captives will survive on horse meat and will take other species of snails. Their dependence up- on apple snails in nature probably results from this snail's occurrence near the water's surface, unlike other large snails (Snyder and Snyder 1969). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS Not known. NORTHWESTERN PART OF FLORIDA Z 3 e 9 10 la 13 1* 15 16 n 18 19 » ai 22 23 2« !^ The present distribution of the Everglades kite in Florida is depicted by shading. NESTING OR BEDDING Kites normally nest in loose aggregations, with 150 m or less between nests (Howell 1932, Bent 1937, Stieglitz and Thompson 1967). They often nest among or near other colonial nesters such as herons and egrets (Ardeidae) and An- hingas (Anhtnga anhinga). Nests are usually 1 to 3 m above the water in low trees or shrubs, although occasionally sawgrass or cattails are used for support (Howell 1932, Stieghtz and Thompson 1967, Sykes 1976). In the Loxahatchee marshes, nests are built in small cypress trees {Taxodium sp.) 2 to 3 m above the surface. The nest is loose and bulky, 30 to 38 cm in diameter, and 20 to 30 cm deep. It is built of twigs and Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and lined with green grasses and vines (Bent 1937). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS An important part of the courtship display consists of the male carrying a small twig in his beak while flying and making a series of swooping dives wdth the wings folded (Stieglitz and Thomp- son 1967). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Adequate water levels are essential, as snail populations are drastically reduced when the marsh dries. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Snail kite numbers have dropped drastically. Bent (1937) stated that kites were common in 1909, but that population levels had declined sharply by 1937, due to the draining of the Ever- glades. Estimates for 1973 were slightly over 100 individuals (Sykes 1979). The total population of Florida Everglade kites has probably averaged close to 100 birds for the past 4 to 5 years, with 80% of the reproduc- tion occurring on the southwest side of Lake Okeechobee (T. Martin personal communication). Seventeen young were fledged from 7 of 9 nests in 1968 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1973). REPRODUCTION The breeding season is variable and probably correlated vwth snail availability, rainfall, and/or temperature; generally, from February to June (Howell 1932, Bent 1937). Average clutch size is two to four. Eggs are oval or elliptical and smooth, colored dull white with brown mottling (Bent 1937); average size is 44.2 by 36.2 mm (Bent 1937). The male builds the nest, and both sexes incu- bate eggs and assist in rearing young (Bent 1937). Courtship displays consist of soaring about 150 m above the marsh, folding the wings for sud- den short dips, stretching the legs while diving as if to grapple, somersaulting while diving, and stick-carrying (Stieghtz and Thompson 1967). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION In a 2-year habitat management study by Martin and Doebel (1973), water levels were raised on a 142-ha site in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge; plant density was controlled and snails were stocked. The first two techniques were successful, but stocking of snails had little effect on population level. Other methods will be imple- mented in a projected second experiment. Arti- ficial nesting platforms have been successfully used to support nests that would otherwise be subject to damage from high winds or heavy rains (Sykes and Chandler 1974). Kite response to management efforts was rapid and extremely favorable. Martin and Doe- bel (1973) concluded that continued research in- to life history of both snail and kite is critical to management success. They believe the kite can re- main a part of our natural fauna only through sound management practices and maintenance of natural habitats. The American Ornithologists' Union (1975) states that the only solution for saving the kite is a very expensive land-aquisition program. Sykes (1979) makes several recommen- dations for preservation of the Everglade kite. These include purchasing and managing suitable kite habitat, providing protection during the hunting season, establishing a 0.4 km buffer zone closed to entry around nesting areas, maintaining adequate surface water in the kite areas, and re- searching both kite and apple snail biology. Critical habitat has been designated (42 FR 47841, 22 September 1977) as parts of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties and the west- em shore of Lake Okeechobee in Glades County. AUTHORITIES Thomas Martin Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Route l,Box 278 Delray Beach, FL 33444 4 Alexander Sprunt, IV Natl. Audubon Society 115 Indian Mound Trail Tavemier, FL 33070 PaulW. Sykes.Jr. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O.Box 2077 Delray Beach, FL 33444 PREPARERS COMMENTS None. Sykes, P. W., Jr., and R. Chandler. 1974. Use of artificial nest structures by Everglade kites. Wilson Bull. 86:282-284. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Threat- ened wildlife of the United States. Compiled by Office of Endangered Species and Inter- national Activities, Bur. Sport Fish. Wild!. Resour. Publ. 114. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 289 pp. LITERATURE CITED/ SELECTED REFERENCES Amadon, D. 1975. Variation in the Everglade kite. Auk 92:380-382. American Ornithologists' Union. 1975. Report of the committee on conservation. Auk 92 (4, Suppl.):lB-16B. Bent, A. C. 1937. Life histories of North Ameri- can birds of prey. Part I. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 267.409 pp. Howell, A. H. 1932. Florida bird life. Coward- McCann, Inc. New York. 527 pp. Martin, T. W., and J. H. Doebel. 1973. Manage- ment techniques for the Everglade Kite, pre- liminary report. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. Annu. Conf. 27:225-236. Peterson, R. T. 1947. A field guide to the birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 230 pp. Snyder, N. F. R., and H. R. Snyder. 1969. A com- parative study of mollusk predation by limp- kins, Everglade kites, and boat-tailed grackles. Living Bird 8:177-223. Sprunt, A.,Jr. 1945. The phantom of the marshes. Audubon Mag. 47:15-72. . 1954. Florida bird Ufe. Coward-McCann, Inc., and Natl. Audubon Soc, New York. 527 pp. Stieglitz, W. O., and R. L. Thompson. 1967. Status and life history of the Everglade kite in the United States. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 198. 21 pp. Syke%, P. W., Jr. 1979. Florida Everglade kite. Pages 4-7 in H. W. Kale ed. Rare and endan- gered biota of Florida, Vol. 2, Birds. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. ACCOUNT PREPARED/UPDATED BY: National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250 Gainesville, FL 32601 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.33 March 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- PUERTO RICAN WHIP POOR WILL >'4X Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and conservation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensiti\c Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 11 FWS/OBS-80/01.33 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- PUERTO RICAN WHIP POOR WILL A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endangered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastsd Ecosystems Team NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PUERTO RICAN WHIP-POOR-WILL Caprimulgus noctitherus (Wetmore) KINGDOM Animalia ORDER Caprimulgiformes FAMILY Caprimulgidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Pajaro Bobo (Reynard 1962); Guabairo Pequeno de Puerto Rico (Biaggi 1979 and Leopold 1963); Guabairo Chico and Guaraiba (Bond 1936 and Wetmore 1916); Puerto Rican Nightjar (Leopold 1963). DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Updates To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered (42 FR 36428, 14 July 1977). Protected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 2, 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-711) as amended Dec. 3, 1969. Public Law 91-135. Puerto Rico: Listed as "very endangered." Commonwealth "Wildlife Law" protects ail nongame bird species including Puerto Rican Whip-poor- WUl. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS Wetmore (1927), Wadsworth (1949), and Wolcott (1953) assumed that the exotic mongoose [Herpestes jarvanicus), introduced in 1877, had stripped the whip-poor-will population from much its former more extensive range. Some of this former range still has habitat that appears suitable for whip-poor-wills, but also has rainfall and standing water sufficient to support mon- gooses. At present, lowland semiarid scrubby forest habitat is being reduced by expanding human population and developing industries. A rapidly expanding petrochemical industry is adjacent to the Guayanilla whip-poor-will population, only 8 km east of the Guanica Forest which harbors the largest number of the remaining birds. The Com- monwealth Forest system is not immune to in- dustrial pressure and over 400 hectares were des- troyed between 1968 and 1973 (Kepler and Kepler 1973). PRIORITY INDEX 33 DESCRIPTION The Puerto Rican whip-poor-will is a small ground-inhabiting nocturnal bird with fluffy, mottled brown, black, and gray plumage, a very short bill, and very wide mouth with long bristles. There is a white band across the throat and white spots at the ends of the taU feathers. It is similar to the North American whip-poor-will {Caprimul- gus vociferus) but smaller, with much shorter wings, and plumage tending more toward brown and less toward gray throughout. Buff breast spots are more prominent; posterior underparts are deep cinnamon buff rather than pale buff. White or buff tips on three outer tail feathers are greatly restricted. The type specimen has the following measurements: wing 135 mm; tail 112 mm; bill 11 mm; tarsus 16.3 mm; middle toe without claw 16 mm (Wetmore 1919 and Wetmore in Reynard 1962; J. W. Aldrich personal observations 1977). Downy young are entirely reddish buff or cinna- mon. Toes and legs are flesh gray. The iris is dark brown. Eyes open on the day of hatching (Kepler and Kepler 1973). Authorities differ as to whether noctitherus is a distinct species or a subspecies of the North American whip-poor-will (C. v. vociferous). Wet- more (1919, 1922, 1927), Vincent (1966), Mayr and Short (1920), Fish and Wildlife (1973), Kep- ler and Kepler (1973), and Storrs Olson (pers. comm. 1977) prefer to consider it a distinct spe- cies, whereas Peters (1940), Bond (1945), and Greenway (1958) consider it a subspecies of C. v. vociferous. Vocalizations of nocfzi/ierMX, described by Reynard (1962), are completely different in structure from vociferous and may serve to main- tain reproductive isolation between two closely related species (Kepler and Kepler 1973). Storrs Olson (pers. comm. 1977) is impressed by the much smaller bones of noctitherus. The question of correct classification has no completely satis- factory answer, but the preponderance of current thinking seems to favor classification as two dis- tinct species. RANGE This species is confined to the island of Puerto Rico. It was formerly found in the moist limestone forest of the northwest coast. Specimens were taken in Bayamon in 1888 (Cory 1889, Wetmore in Reynard 1962, Peters 1940). Bones found in cave deposits near Morovis are estimated to be less than 2,000 years old (Wetmore 1919, 1922, 1927). A bird presumed to be this species was sighted at Rio Piedras (Wetmore 1916, 1919, 1927). AU three of those localities were in the moist northwestern section of the island. More recent records are all from the dry limestone for- est of the southwest coast, including two popula- tions at Guanica and the hills above Guayanilla and one in Susua Commonwealth Forest. It prob- ably once ranged over most of the coastal plain on both sides of the island, but now is probably confined to an area of about 3,200 hectares, or approximately 3% of its probable former range, the limestone regions, and only 0.7% of the total land surface of the island (Kepler and Kepler 1973). Distribution of the Puerto Rican whip-poor- will has remained stable since 1969 (American Ornithologists' Union 1976). MAP Past and present distribution (after Kepler and Kepler 1973) is shown on the following page. STATES/COUNTIES Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: HABITAT Habitat formerly included the moist limestone forest that covered most of the northwestern third of the island north of the Cordillera Central described by Little and Wardsworth (1964) and Kepler and Kepler (1973). Probably once occupied the dry limestone forest on southwestern part of the island as well, since they have been heard by residents there at least since 1900 (Reynard 1962). At present, they are known tp occur only in the dry limestone forests of the southwestern area. eo r^ 0> I— 1 ►h" ^ w 3. K m 1^ e "S ^ T3 p o 1— t § O o 3 < 0) k4 "a- u i 3 O o i4 •p4 CQ •i-t > (D U 3 6 Q C .j^ a >«— ' 4.9 o CO T3 O a 1 CQ u tn a u o C\ 0 -i-i o a 0 >A ^ u TJ 4j ft B u 1 — r •1-4 CO 8 ID m o 01 < 03 a. 1 2 m 0 d U 0 o S-i ca Q) ■4-* ft ft pq 1 3 » * < 3 1) XI <4-( o The species frequents the drier, more open sec- tions of the Susua Forest and has not been found in the riparian forests or the denser scrub at eleva- tions above 350 m (Kepler and Kepler 1973). The Guanica forest, where whip-poor-wills occur most commonly, has an annual rainfall of 750 mm, contrasting with an annual water loss through evaporation and plant transpiration of 2,000 mm. The porous limestone permits no standing or running fresh water anywhere. Elevations range from sea level to 230 m. Semideciduous vegeta- tion consists of hardwood trees on top of Ume- stone hills, normally above 75 m. Below this, par- ticularly on the southern slopes, forest changes to mixed cactus and semideciduous growth. The canopy is 4 or 5 m high, with some trees 6-7 m. Important species include Pisonia alba, Swietenia mahogoni. Acacia famesiana and Bursera sima- ruba. There is no well-marked stratification or epiphytic flora. Whip-poor-will population cen- tered on higher slopes of central hills coincident with semideciduous forest. They are largely ab- sent from south-facing slopes below 75 m domin- ated by cactus, open patches of grassland and scrub, and thickets of Agave (Kepler and Kepler 1973). Susua Commonwealth Forest is xeric scrub on steep rounded hills of decomposed serpentine soils. It receives 1500 mm of rain per year. The elevation is 100 to 430 m. Two permanent streams support a lush riparian plant life less than 100 m in width. Scrub 4-5 m high predominates 50 or more meters from streams and extends to hill tops, where it becomes much denser. The Puerto Rican whip-poor-wiU occurs here in small num- bers but not in riparian habitat. Greatest numbers occur in open scrub forest with horizontal visibil- ity from 5 to 7 m. None are found in denser sec- tions where visibility dropped to 3 m. Susua For- est is considered suboptimal habitat for whip- poor-wills based on only one pair in 14.1 hectares as compared with one pair in no more than 6.9 hectares in Guanica Forest (Kepler and Kepler 1973). FOOD AND FORAGING The whip-poor-wUl captures flying insect prey by flying from perches well above the ground. It has favorite perches used regularly for feeding in the evening and ventures from forest canopy protection after dark to more isolated trees for feeding perches (reported by Cotte in Kepler and Kepler 1973). SHELTER REQUIREMENTS It requires the shelter of low scrubby forest and undergrowth for daytime concealment and nesting (Kepler and Kepler 1973). NESTING AND BEDDING The species nests on leaf litter of the forest floor without additional nest material. It roosts on the ground or on branches of trees beneath cover of leafy canopy (Kepler and Kepler 1973). RITUAL REQUIREMENTS Vocalizations are thought to proclaim terri- tory possession and determine spacing of breeding pairs (Kepler and Kepler 1973). OTHER CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Predation by introduced mongoose and domestic cats and dogs should be controlled ; also overbrowsing of habitat by domestic livestock, particularly goats, should be prevented. POPULATION NUMBERS AND TRENDS Subfossil bones were found in a cave near Morovis (Wetmore 1919, 1922; Storrs Olson pers. comm. 1977). Cory (1889) reported receipt of a specimen later used as the type specimen. Wet- more (1919, 1922, 1927; Wetmore in Reynard 1962) during 10 months field work in Puerto Rico in 1911 and 1912 saw only one bird that he thought might belong to this species. It was thought to be extinct (Bond 1940; Greenway 1958) until rediscovered in 1961 near Guanica by Reynard (1962) who collected one male and heard six others nearby. Leopold (1963) estimated the Guanica population as about 25 pairs. Bond (1962) reported "numerous individuals heard on semi- arid hills near the coast." J. B. McCandless esti- mated that as many as 100 birds remained within the Guanica Forest (Kepler and Kepler 1973). During the period 1969-1971, total Guanica pop- ulation was estimated at about 400 breeding pairs, based on a density of one pair per 6.9 hectares to one pair per 4.9 hectares (Kepler and Kepler 1973). Comparison with estimated densities of the European whip-poor-will suggests that the Guanica birds may be at maximum possible densities with- in their limited range. In the Susua Commonwealth Forest 10 km to north of Guanica, and the hills behind Guayanilla 8 km to the east, the total population is estimated at about 80 pairs or one pair per 14.1 hectares, more than twice the area needed in Guanica Forest, indicating that Susua forest is suboptimal for whip-poor-wills (Kepler and Kepler 1973). The total of all known populations is estimated at 450 to 500 breeding pairs, over 80% of which are in Guanica Commonwealth Forest. The Puerto Rican whip-poor-will population has remained stable since 1969 when the first ac- curate data were obtained (American Ornitho- logistists' Union 1976). REPRODUCTION Calling is at its peak in February in Guanica Forest, suggesting that territorial encounters are frequent and vigorous at that time, with possible emigration of young or subordinate birds from the central population (Kepler and Kepler 1973). In a nest found 18 June 1969, 2 chicks were estimated to be 14 or 15 days old. A nest with 2 eggs 1 May 1971, hatched on 4 and 5 May. A nest with 1 egg, 1 July and 2 eggs 3 July, took 19 days for incubation (McCandless report to Kepler and Kepler 1973). Nesting occurs mid-April through early July. May and June probably are peak nest- ing months, but calling is maintained from Febru- ary to May with low numbers calling in July in Guanica Forest. There may be two broods per year, although this has not been verified. No nests are built; eggs are laid directly on leaf litter under scrub vegetation with canopy 4 to 6 m high (never in open areas). Young wander a short distance (20 cm) from the nest on the third day after hatching and ir- regularly farther thereafter. They are able to fly on the 14th day. Based on 3 nests, the clutch size is 2 eggs laid on successive days. Eggs are buffy brown with numerous brownish purple spots over the entire surface, and are only moderately cryptic against the substrate (Kepler and Kepler 1973) of dry leaf litter. Protective coloration of the incubating bird provides safety from predators. The in- cubating bird remains on eggs even when closely approached. When driven from nest or chicks, adults engage in distraction display by flapping wings, spreading tail and opening mouth while on the ground (Kepler and Kepler 1973). MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION Although Susua and Guanica Commonwealth Forests are nominally protected, the tremendous industrial expansion to the east and possibly real estate development to the west threatens them both. These forests must be given additional recognition and protection from human use and domestic predatory and herbivorous animals, par- ticularly goats, to assure the continued existence of the Puerto Rican whip-poor-will (Fish and Wildlife Service 1973; Kepler and Kepler 1973). A recent favorable action has been the ruling by the Environmental Quality Board that any new industrial growth east of Guanica cannot be accompanied by increased air pollution. Emissions from existing oil refineries would have to decrease to accomodate new growth. Also, an attempt to use Guanica as a sanitary landfill site has been temporarily shelved. The most recent serious threat is a proposed condominium complex on Punta Ballena, a pri- vately owned tract 3.2 km south of the center of Guanica Forest. Several thousand people would be housed within easy walking distance of the whip-poor-wills, necessitating road and commer- cial development with the expected onslaught of people, cats, rats, and mongooses and the danger of fire (American Ornithologists' Union 1976). The proposed sanitary landfill at Guanica Forest and highway development along its southern boundary remain threats (H. Rafael pers. comm. 1977). AUTHORITIES Cameron B. Kepler and Angela K. Kepler R. R. Maalaea Rd. Kula, Hawaii 96709 Ricardo Cottee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta, Georgia Warren King Smithsonian Institution Washington, B.C. Dr. James B. McCandless P.O. Box 1060 Mayaquez, P.R. 00709 George B. Reynard 105 Midway Riverton, N.J. 08077 James Wiley Box 21 Palmer, Puerto Rico 00721 Noel Snyder Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, Md. 20810 PREPARER'S COMMENT Obviously, the preservation of habitat is the key to survival of the Puerto Rican whip-poor- wUl. Vigorous action to preserve the approxi- mately 3,200 hectares of occupied habitat, and particularly the 2,300 hectares of optimal habitat in Guanica Forest, and prevention of human in- terference there is the only way to save the spe- cies from extinction. LITERATURE CITED/ SELECTED REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Uniqp. 1976. Report of the Committee on Conservation. Auk 93(4th Suppl.): 1DD-19DD. Biaggi, V. 1970. Las aves de Puerto Rico. Editorial Universitaria. Universidad de Puerto Rico. pp. 230-231. Bond, J. 1936. Birds of the West Indies. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Bond, J. 1940, 1945, 1962. Checklist of birds of the West Indies. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Cory,C. B. \889.Antrostomusvociferus in Puerto Rico. Auk 6:276. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened Wild- life of the United States, 1973 Ed. U.S. Gov't. Print. Off. Greenway, J. C, Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world. Amer. Comm. Internat'l. WildUfe Prot. Spec. Publ. 13, New York. Kepler, C. B. and A. K. Kepler. 1973. The distri- bution and ecology of the Puerto Rican whip- poor-will, an endangered species. Living Bird, Eleventh Annual Report Cornell Lab. Omith. Leopold, N. F. 1963. Checklist of birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Bull. 168 Univ. Puerto Rico Agric. Exp. Sta., Rio Piedras. Little, E. L. and F. H. Wadsworth. 1964. Com- mon trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Is- lands. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Handbook 249: 1-548. Mayr, E. and L. Short. 1970. Species taxa of North American birds, a contribution to compjira- tive systematics. Publ. Nuttall Omith. Club 9. McCandless, J. B. 1958. A field guide to the birds of Puerto Rico. Inter-American University Press, San German, Puerto Rico. Peters, J. 1940. Check -list of the birds of the world. Vol. 4:200. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge. Reynard, G. B. 1962. The rediscovery of the Puerto Rican Whip-poor-will. Living Bird, 1: 51-60. Vincent, J. 1966. Puerto Rico Whip-poor-wiU. In: Red data book. Vol. 2:Aves I.U.C.N. Survival Service Comm., Morges, Switzerland. Wadsworth, F. H. 1949. The development of the forest land resources of the LuquiUo Moun- tains, Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Thesis University of Michigan. Wetmore, A. 1916. Birds of Puerto Rico. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agr. 326. Wetmore, A. 1919. Description of a Whip-poor- wdll from Puerto Rico. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 32:235-237. Wetmore, A. 1922. Bird Remains from the caves of Puerto Rico. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 46:297-333. Wetmore, A. 1927. The birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. New York Acad. Sci. Vol. 9,pt.4. Wolcott, G. N. 1953. The food of the mongoose (Herpestes javanicus auropunctatus Hodgson) in St. Croix and Puerto Rico. Jouml. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 36:241-247. Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-80/01.34 MARCH 1980 Selected Vertebrate Endangered Species Of the Seacoast of the United States- ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior PREFACE The purpose of this series of species accounts is to provide resource managers and the public with information about Federally listed endangered and/or threatened vertebrate species that occur along, or within 100 kilometers of, the seacoast of the United States. In- formation about life history, distribution, requirements and consersation of the subject species is included (range maps and other distributional data arc not necessarily equivalent to critical habitat as defined in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended). This series of accounts is intended to complement the computerized Sensitive Wildlife Information System (SWIS) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordina- tion with the Offices of Endangered Species and Biological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service. A 3-ring binder is used for this series to facilitate additions and deletions as new accounts are prepared or as the status of species is changed. Suggestions or questions regarding SWIS should be directed to: Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior Building Washington, D.C. 20240 Suggestions or questions regarding this report should be directed to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\'ice NASA-Slidell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Eouisiana 70458 u FWS/OBS-80/01.34 March 1980 SELECTED VERTEBRATE ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE SEACOAST OF THE UNITED STATES- ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE A Cooperative Effort by the National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, the Office of Endjingered Species and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services Project Officer Donald W. Woodard National Coastal Ecosystems Team NASA-Shdell Computer Complex 1010 Cause Blvd. Slidell, Louisiana 70458 Performed for Coastal Ecosystems Project Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis leucopareia (Brandt) KINGDOM Animalia ORDER Anseriformes FAMILY Anatidae OTHER COMMON NAMES Hutchins' Goose; Turner 1886; Cackling Goose; Lesser Canada Goose; Legch; Luch or lugach or Lagix; land goose; Shijukara gan. DATE Entered into SWIS To be determined Update To be determined LEGAL STATUS Federal: Endangered: (42 FR 36427, 14 July 1977). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-711) as amended Dec. 3, 1969. Public Law 91-135. States: Endangered: Alaska. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS The rapid population decline during the last 50 years and reduction of known breeding range to one small island is due primarily to introduc- tion of arctic or blue foxes {Alopex lagopus) on the Aleutian Islands, although excessive hunting along the migration route and wintering grounds has probably contributed to the decline (Grinnell et al. 1918, Murie 1959, Jones 1963). Blue foxes have been introduced on almost every island in the Aleutian chain from Yunaska westward, excluding Attu which had an ancestral population of foxes Qones 1963), primarily in the 1920's when fox fur commanded high prices. Large fox populations were produced rapidly and maintained. Buldir Is- land, the most isolated and inaccessible of the chain, is one of the few where foxes were not in- troduced and the only one known to have breed- ing Canada geese at present (Jones 1963, Springer et al. 1978). Possibly islands of the northern Kuril group where geese formerly bred may also be fox- free (Snow 1897). Recovery of bands from Buldir Island geese (Springer et al. 1978) shows that hunting pressure in the interior valleys of California is a consider- able mortality factor. Avian cholera present in the San Joaquin Valley produced some Aleutian Can- ada goose mortality (D. W. Woolington et al. unpubl. ms.). PRIORITY INDEX 24 DESCRIPTION The Aleutian Canada goose is a small goose, slightly larger than the mallard, with grayish brown body and black tail, neck, bill, feet and legs; white cheeks; a ring at the base of the black neck; and black belly, rump, and tail coverts. It is smaller and paler than B. c. occidentalis and about the same size and color as B. c. tavemeri, except that adults almost always have a relatively wide white collar which tavemeri usually lacks, and the bUl is more tapered and pointed at the tip when viewed from above. Legs are relatively long. It is slightly larger than B. c. minima, with longer legs and a more tapered or pointed bill. The white collar is usually absent in minima (Del- acour 1951, 1954; J. W. Aldrich ms.; Palmer 1976). Nelson (1883) commented on the con- spicuous wide white collars of Aleutian Island Canada geese. Size.- Male: Wing 356 to 425 mm (av. 386.4 mm);tail llOto 137mm(av. 125.8 mm);exposed culmen 31 to 38 mm (av. 34.4 mm); tarsus 67 to 88 mm (av. 80.5 mm); middle toe without claw 58 to 69 mm (av. 63.2 mm). Size.- Female: wing 358 to 390 mm (av. 372.6 mm); tail 110 to 130 mm (av. 122.8 mm); exposed culmen 30 to 35 mm (av. 32.7 mm); tar- sus 69 to 80 mm (av. 74.2 mm); middle toe with- out claw 53 to 66 mm (av. 59.4 mm) Q. W. Aldrich ms.). Shape of bill.- The more tapered bill of B. c. leucopareia is shown by the ratio of width of bill at base to width at tip (base of nail). Based on averages of those measurements, bills of leu- copareia are 7% more tapered than tavemeri and 9% more tapered than minima. The more pointed appearance of leucopareia bills is due to greater length of the nail in proportion to its width. Based on ratio of nail length to width leucopareia bills are 8% more pointed than tavemeri and 16% more pointed than minima (J. W. Aldrich ms.). Weight.- A female specimen from Amchitka Island, 10 May 1959, 1927 g (Kenyon 1961); a female specimen from Amchitka Island, 10 June 1952, 1954 g (Krog 1953). Avg. Qohnson et al.): males - 1946 g (Buldir I.), 2110 g (California); females - 1703 g (Buldir I.), 1863 g (California). Juvenile plumage is somewhat paler ventraUy, with more blended overall coloring. The white neck ring is indistinct or absent (J. W. Aldrich ms.. Palmer 1976, D. H. Johnson et al. unpubl. ms.). Downy young are brownish olive above, whitish yellow below. RANGE B. c. leucoparei formerly bred in the Com- mander and northern Kuril Islands, U.S.S.R., and the western Aleutian Islands from Attu east to Atka and Islands of Four Mountains (Nelson 1883, Turner 1886, Stejneger 1885 and 1887, Snow 1897, Clark 1910, Bent 1925, Jochelson 1933, Murie 1959, Delacour 1954, Johansen 1961); possibly also in Pribilof Islands (Delacour 1954), but not according to Nelson (1883). It now breeds only on Buldir Island in Aleutian Is- lands, as far as is known Qones 1963, Murie 1959, Springer et al. 1978). The last breeding re- cord for other Aleutian Islands was on Agattu in 1937 (Murie 1959). The species has apparently been extirpated on the Commander Island since 1914 Qohansen 1961). This species formerly wintered in Japan (Aus- tin and Kuroda 1953), and is reported also to have wintered from British Columbia south to California (Delacour 1951) and northwestern Mexico (Hansen and Nelson 1964). The popula- tion in Japan was reduced to one bird in the fall of 1978 (Y. Yokota pers. comm.). At present, it winters chiefly in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, Monro Bay, on the southeast Farallon Island of California, in the lower Colorado River Valley of Arizona and Mexico (Wollington et al. unpubl. ms.); and in northwestern Mexico near Obregon, Sonora Q. W. Aldrich ms.). There are no definite winter records north of California (Springer et al. 1978). In fall migration, the geese leave the Aleutian Islands breeding area as early as late August (Woolington and D. R. Yparraguirre unpubl. ms.) and early September (Byrd and Springer 1976), and move eastvi^ard along the Aleutian chain to possible staging areas on Unimak Island. They arrive on the northwestern California coast and in the Sacramento Valley between October and early November. They are not found north of there, suggesting that they fly directly overwater from the western Aleutians to the coast of north- western California. From there, they move south- ward through the interior valleys of California to their wintering grounds (Springer et al. 1978, D. W. Woolington et al. unpubl. ms.). The migrants move from their San Joaquin Valley wintering area to a staging area near Cres- cent City in northwestern California between middle of February and early March. They leave that staging area for the Aleutian Islands breeding grounds during the latter part of April, presum- ably flying directly northwestward over the Pacific Ocean, although several reports of unhanded specimens presumed to be Aleutian Canada geese have been received from the mouth of the Colum- bia River (Byrd and Springer 1976, Springer et al. 1978). Confusion in taxonomy of Aleutian and Com- mander Islands populations of Branta canadensis has led to misconceptions, including the reported nesting of three subspecies, hutchinsii, minima, and asiatica in those islands (Bent 1912, 1925; Murie 1959; J. W. Aldrich 1946). ActuaUy, only one subspecies, leucopareia, nests in the Aleutian Islands (Delacour 1954), and B. c. asiatica of the Commander Islands is now thought to be the same as leucopareia (]. W. Aldrich ms.; Austin and Kuroda 1953; Palmer 1976). RANGE MAP Past and present breeding areas and present wintering area from Byrd and Springer (1976) and Springer et al. (1978) are shown on the fol- lowing range map. STATES/COUNTIES Alaska (localities): Attu I., Agattu I., Semichi Ids., Buldir I., Kiska I., Amchitka I., Tanaga I., Kanaga I., Adak I., Atka I., probably taverneri on un- derlined areas, Unimak I. and possibly on Izembek Bay, head of Morzhovoi Bay, Nelson Lagoon, Port MoUer. California (counties) : Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Solano, Sac- ramento, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, San Luis Obispo, Imperial, and San Fran- cisco (southeast Farallon Island). Arizona: Mohave. Sonora. Hokkaido and Honshu I. Mexico: Japan: HABITAT Nesting habitat was reported along the banks of small streams that enter the sea through gaps in high bluffs and on grassy hillsides on Agattu (Clark 1910), and in marshes and lagoons with rank aquatic vegetation on the Semichi Islands (Turner 1886). Nesting on rugged sea cliffs cut by watercourses where grasses and sedges grow in rank profusion was reported (not interior flatlands with ponds) on Buldir (Murie 1959, Jones 1963, G. V. Byrd and D. W. Woolington unpubl. ms.). Nesting habitat in the Aleutian Islands is charac- terized by polar maritime climate with high hum- idity, fog, rain, and small diurnal annual range of temperature Qones 1963). Molting habitat is in the uplands. Night roosting habitat is shallow pools on mountainsides on Attu (Turner 1886); islands, ponds, and flooded fields in migration and wintering areas (D. W. Woolington et al. un- publ. ms.). Fall, winter, and spring habitats in California are fields from which lima bean, black- eyed bean, rice and com have been harvested; green barley and wheat fields; and flood-irrigated and nonirrigated land (D. W. Woolington et al. and Springer 1977 unpubl. ms.). FOOD AND FORAGING The birds fatten in the fall on Vaccinium ber- ries on Attu (Turner 1886) and on crowberries (Empetrum migrum) at Buldir (G. V. Byrd and