Skip to main content

Full text of "Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States"

See other formats 


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 

<D 

a 

•»-i 

^ 

S-t 

S 

la 

ca 

< 

O 

hJ 

K 

^ 

T3 

O 

'c^ 


c 

CO 

CO 

o 

^H 

•^ 

•p-< 

0 

^ 

bn 

4-> 

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 

<D 

Ji 

X! 

i3 

•kJ 

-9 

0 

er 

CI 

0 

CO 

(U 

> 

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^^' 


<s> 


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 

' 

\       •■-<y 

^-v^VC 

^ 

K    / 

\ 

\ 

■/  INDIANA  BAT 
1       1    SUMMER 

'                     \ 

\    / 

\  __--A^— 

— ,r\ 

• 

WINTER   CAVES 

) 

,^>^^ 

^ 

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 

<D 

a, 

c 

■■-> 

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 


<i 


in 
< 

u 

(T  < 
<  UJ 

Q  Z 
UJ  Q 
UJ   UJ 


UJ 

cr 
m 


tt:  I- 

lu  z 

^  *^ 

"-  UJ 

o  q: 

u.  Q. 


<y% 


a 


^ 

} 


c. 


o 

o 
c 
o 


O    • 


0 


/ 


u 

E 

< 


\.     ^ 


o 

M 


3 
OQ 


$ 


z       < 
< 


o 
o 


U 


g 


o 

bO 


bO 


C 
aj 

en 
U 

l-H 


•    =  Recovery  or  Sighting 
CSS  =  Closed    Area 

(from  Byrd  and  Springer  1976) 


CALIFORNIA 


mPCMAk 


Wintering  areas  of  the  Aleutian  Canada  goose. 


D.  W.  Woolington  unpubl.  ms.).  The  main  food 
during  the  breeding  season  on  Buldir  Island  is 
sedge  (Carex  sp.)  and  red  fescue  [Festuca  rubra) 
(Byrd  and  Springer  1976). 

At  the  northwestern  California  spring  migra- 
tion staging  area,  geese  feed  on  fescue  [Festuca 
dertonensis),  velvet  grass  (Holcus  sp.),  plantain 
(Plantago  major)  and  other  plants  (Byrd  and 
Springer  1976). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Flightless  young  and  molting  birds  are  hidden 
by  over  1-m-taIl  rye  grass  {Elymus  arenarius)  and 
umbelliferous  plants  [Heracleum  lanatum  and 
Angelica  lucida)  on  Buldir  Island  (Byrd  and 
Springer  1976). 

NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

On  Agattu,  nests  were  composed  of  dead 
grass  and  a  few  feathers  carelessly  arranged  (Tur- 
ner 1886),  plus  large  masses  of  light  drab  or  dark 
gray  down  mixed  with  whitish  down,  numerous 
breast  feathers  and  bits  of  straw  (Bent  1925).  On 
Buldir  Island,  the  geese  place  nests  on  steep  slopes 
under  tall  vegetation,  mostly  ryegrass  (Byrd  and 
Springer  1976,  G.  V.  Byrd  and  D.  W.  Woolington 
unpubl.  ms.). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

None  Recorded. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

None  known  other  than  protection  from  pre- 
dation  by  introduced  Arctic  Foxes  on  breeding 
grounds  and  excessive  hunting  and  disease  on 
migration  and  wintering  areas. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Aleutian  Canada  geese  formerly  reared  young 
in  considerable  numbers  on  the  western  Aleutian 
Islands  and  were  domesticated  by  the  natives 
(Nelson  1883;  Turner  1886).  They  were  the  most 
abundant  birds  on  Agattu,  breeding  by  the  thou- 
sands (Clark  1910);  they  were  also  common  mi- 
grants throughout  the  Aleutian  Islands  area,  nest- 
ing on  many  of  the  islands.  Populations  appeared 
greatly  reduced  by  the  1936,  1937,  and  1938  ob- 
servations, as  the  species  had  disappeared  from 
most  of  the  islands  and  only  a  few  pairs  remained 


anywhere  (Murie  1959).  On  Amchitka,  the  7  seen 
on  27  June  and  2  on  5  July  1961  were  the  last 
observed  on  any  Aleutian  Island  prior  to  their  re- 
discovery on  Buldir  Qones  1963).  The  last  birds 
were  recorded  on  the  Commander  Islands  in  1914 
Qohansen  1961). 

In  1977  an  estimated  170  breeding  pairs  (340 
birds)  and  an  undetermined  number  of  non- 
breeders  were  located  on  Buldir  Island  (G.  V. 
Byrd  and  D.  W.  Woolington  unpubl.  ms.). 

A  flock  believed  to  be  almost  all  Aleutian 
Canada  geese  at  Crescent  City  in  northwestern 
California  peaked  at  790  in  mid-April  1975,  at 
about  900  in  late  March  1976,  and  at  1150  in 
the  spring  of  1977  (Byrd  and  Springer  1976, 
Springer  et  al.  1978).  This  indicates  a  total  popula- 
tion more  than  double  the  number  of  breeding 
birds  on  Buldir.  It  also  indicates  an  increase  from 
1976  to  1977.  The  fall  population  in  1977  was 
1600  (D.  W.  Woolington  et  al.  unpubl.  ms.). 

REPRODUCTION 

Turner  (1886)  said  clutches  of  eggs  of  Aleutian 
Island  geese  vary  from  7  to  13;  Byrd  and  Springer 
(1976)  noted  that  Buldir  Island  geese  averaged 
about  six  eggs,  laid  in  late  May  or  early  June.  In- 
cubation was  27-28  days,  with  over  80%  of  the 
nests  hatching  young.  Glaucous-winged  gulls  eat 
some  eggs  and  bald  eagles  take  a  few  birds,  but  pre- 
dation  apparently  is  not  severe  (Byrd  and  Springer 
1976).  Turner  (1886)  noted  that  parent  birds 
complete  their  molt  by  20  August,  at  which  time 
young  are  able  to  fly.  G.  V.  Byrd  and  D.  W.  Wool- 
ington (unpubl.  ms.)  made  similar  observations  on 
Buldir.  Turner  (1886)  noted  that  a  heavy  snowfall 
in  the  latter  part  of  June  on  Agattu  and  Semichi 
covered  the  ground  to  3  ft  (0.91  m),  and  incubat- 
ing geese  were  found  dead  after  the  snow  melted. 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  Recovery  Team  prepared  a  plan  with  4 
objectives:  1)  prepare  habitat  for  goose  reintro- 
duction  by  removing  fox;  2)  produce  adequate 
release  stock  of  geese  in  captivity;  3)  acclimatize 
and  release  birds  and  monitor  results;  4)  study 
and  protect  the  wild  birds  (Byrd  and  Springer 
1976). 

Control  of  foxes,  begun  by  Robert  D.  Jones, 
Jr.  in  the  late  1940's,  resulted  in  their  complete 
elimination  from  Amchitka.  To  safeguard  reintro- 
duced geese,  3  areas  were  selected  for  fox  removal, 


widely  separated  to  reduce  the  danger  of  local 
disasters  such  as  earthquakes  and  tidal  waves; 
these  are  Agattu  (22,000  ha)  with  nearby  Nizki/ 
Alaid  Islands  (1300  ha),  Amchitka  Island  (30,000 
ha)  and  Kanaga  Island  (37,000  ha),  all  of  which 
formerly  had  goose  populations.  Originally,  foxes 
were  eliminated  by  poison,  but  poisoning  is  now 
banned  by  law.  Fifty-four  foxes  were  taken  on 
Agattu  and  130  on  Nizki/Alaid  in  1974  and  1975. 
It  was  estimated  that  one  or  more  foxes  were  left 
on  Agattu  in  1978  (D.  W.  Woolington  and  D.  R. 
Yparraguirre  unpubl.  ms.)  and  none  on  Nizki/ 
Alaid  in  1976  (Springer  et  al.  1978).  Fox  control 
on  Kanaga  Island  in  1977  removed  142  animals, 
leaving  an  estimated  700  plus  Q.  L.  Martin  pers. 
comm.). 

Captive  propagation  began  in  1963  with  cap- 
ture of  18  goslings  on  Buldir  Island  for  transfer  to 
breeding  pens  at  Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Cen- 
ter, Laurel,  Md.,  in  1966.  Additional  goslings 
were  taken  for  that  project  in  1972  (21)  and 
1975  (20).  Altogether  over  451  goslings  have 
been  produced  from  1966  through  1978  (R.  C. 
Erickson  pers.  comm.). 

To  facilitate  acclimatization  and  develop  a 
tradition  for  homing  to  Aleutian  Islands,  a  facility 
was  developed  on  Amchitka  Island  in  1976  where 
goslings  will  be  held  to  maturity  before  being  re- 
leased, and  a  second  propagation  facility  was 
estabhshed  on  Amchitka.  Twenty  geese  raised 
from  Buldir  goslings  at  Northern  Prairie  Research 
Center,  together  with  75  birds  from  Patuxent, 
were  sent  to  Amchitka  in  fall  1977  to  initiate  that 
operation.  In  1977  and  1978,  150  goslings  were 
raised  at  Amchitka. 

First  releast  of  75  one-  two-  and  three-year- 
old  geese  was  on  fox-free  Amchitka  in  the  spring 
of  1971, but  all  birds  disappeared  soon  afterwards, 
some  because  of  predation  by  bald  eagles.  The  se- 
cond release  was  on  Agattu  in  the  summer  of 
1974,  when  the  island  was  admost  fox-free  and 
fox  control  was  continuing.  Four  pairs  of  geese 
nested  and  2  pairs  raised  5  young.  Other  released 
geese  remained  near  the  release  site  all  summer. 
Nine  molting  geese  were  brought  to  Agattu  from 
Buldir  to  serve  as  guides  for  captive-reared  birds 
in  the  fall  migration.  The  geese  departed  Agattu 
on  4  September,  headed  east.  In  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1974-75,  three  of  the  released  birds, 
identified  by  white  bands,  were  reported  on  the 
northwest  coast  of  California.  Released  birds  did 
not  return  to  Agattu  in  1975  nor  were  they  found 


on  Buldir  with  the  wild  birds  (Byrd  and  Springer 
1976,  Springer  et  al.  1978). 

In  the  spring  and  fall  1976,  a  release  of  30 
pen-reared  birds  and  3  wild  guide  birds  was  again 
made  on  Amchitka.  Most  of  the  birds  disappeared 
from  unknown  causes,  but  at  least  5  were  killed 
by  eagles.  Eight  birds  were  recaptured  and  held  at 
Amchitka  Q.  L.  Martin  pers.  comm.).  A  fourth  re- 
lease of  117  pen-reared  birds  and  22  wild  guide 
birds  was  made  on  Agattu  in  1978;  it  is  too  early 
to  determine  the  success  of  this  effort  (P.  F. 
Springer  pers.  comm.). 

Monitoring  of  geese  banded  on  Buldir  and 
Agattu  has  now  established  fairly  well  their  migra- 
tion routes,  their  principal  wintering  areas  in  Cali- 
fornia, and  their  staging  area  for  spring  migration. 
Further  plans  for  monitoring  include  careful 
counts  at  Castle  Rock  spring  staging  area  in  north- 
western California  and  several  likely  spots  to  the 
north  for  migrants.  Some  captive-reared  and  wild 
geese  are  equipped  with  colored  neck  collars  for 
easier  location. 

Based  on  times  and  places  of  band  recoveries 
and  sightings  in  1975,  the  California  Depairtment 
of  Fish  and  Game  closed  the  northwest  coastaJ 
counties  of  Del  Norte,  Humboldt,  and  Mendocino, 
to  hunting  for  the  entire  1976  season,  and  also 
closed  part  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  in  Glenn  and 
Colusa  counties  from  the  opening  of  the  season  in 
mid-October  to  mid-December,  and  part  of  the 
San  Joaquin  Valley  in  San  Joaquin,  Stanislaus, 
and  Merced  counties  from  mid-December  to  the 
close  of  the  season  in  mid-January.  Subsequently, 
on  the  basis  of  additional  recoveries,  the  closed 
area  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  was  extended  to 
include  parts  of  Butte  and  Sutter  counties  and  the 
San  Joaquin  Valley  closure  now  starts  during  the 
last  week  in  November.  Because  of  lack  of  re- 
coveries or  sightings  of  banded  wild  birds  in  Men- 
docino County,  this  county  was  reopened  to 
Canada  goose  hunting  in  1977.  It  seems  probable 
that  the  increased  goose  population  in  California 
since  1975  is  due  to  the  restrictions  on  hunting. 


AUTHORITIES 

Dennis  W.  Woolington 
Paul  F.  Springer 
Wildlife  Research  Station 
Humboldt  State  University 
Areata,  California  95521 


G.  Vernon  Byrd 
Aleutian  Islands  N.W.R. 
Box  5251 
Adak,  Alaska  98791 

Hawaiian  Islands  N.W.R. 

Box  87 

Kilauea,  Kannai,  Hawaii  96754 

Ray  C.  Erickson 

Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Center 

Laurel,  Maryland   20811 

Robert  D.  Jones,  Jr. 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
1011  E.  Tudor  Rd. 
Anchorage,  Alaska  99507 

Daniel  R.  Yparraguirre 

California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 

2166  Carriro  Brazos 

Pleasanton,  California  94566 

Karl  W.  Kenyon 

11964  Lakeside  Place 

N.E.  Seattle,  Washington  98125 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Good  progress  has  been  made  in  management 
of  the  Aleutian  Canada  Goose.  If  the  recovery 
plan  is  carried  out,  particularly  with  respect  to 
fox  control  and  reintroduction  of  geese  in  Aleutian 
Islands  and  hunting  control  in  migration  and  win- 
tering areas,  the  prospects  look  very  good  for  re- 
covery —  John  W.  Aldrich. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Aldrich,  J.  W.  1946.  Speciation  in  the  white- 
checked  geese.  Wilson  BuU.  58:94-103. 

Austin,  O.  L.,  Jr.  and  N.  Kuroda.  1953.  Birds  of 
Japan.  Bull.  Mus.Comp.Zool.  Harvard  109(4). 

Bent,  A.  C.  1912.  Notes  on  birds  observed  during 
a  brief  visit  to  the  Aleutian  Islands  and  Bering 
Sea  in  1911.  Smithsonian  Misc.  Colls.  56(32): 
1-29. 

Bent,  A.  C.  1925.  Life  histories  of  North  Ameri- 
can Wild  Fowl.  Part  II.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  Bull. 
130. 


Byrd,  G.  V.,  and  D.  W.  Woolington.  Breeding 
biology,  habitat  utilization  and  population 
structure  of  Aleutian  Canada  geese  on  Buldir 
Island.  Unpublished  manuscript.  Aleutian  Is- 
lands National  Wildlife  Refuge.  110  p. 

Byrd,  G.  V.  and  P.  F.  Springer.  1976.  Recovery 
program  for  the  endangered  Aleutian  Canada 
goose.  Cal-Neva  Wildlife  Transactions  1976: 
65-73. 

Clark,  A.  H.  1910.  The  birds  collected  and  ob- 
served during  the  cruise  of  the  United  States 
Fisheries  steamer  "Albatross"  in  the  North 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  in  the  Bering,  Okhotsk, 
Japan,  and  Eastern  Seas,  from  April  to  Decem- 
ber 1906.  Proc.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  38:25-74. 

Delacour,  J.  1951.  Preliminary  note  on  the  tax- 
onomy of  Canada  Geese,  Branta  canadensis. 
Amer.  Mus.  Novits.  1537:1-10. 

Delacour,  J.  1954.  The  Waterfowl  of  the  world. 
Vol.  1.  London,  Country  Life  Limited. 

Grinnell,  J.,  H.  C.  Bryant,  and  T.  I.  Storer.  1918. 
The  game  birds  of  California.  University  of 
California  Press,  Berkeley.  642  pp. 

Hansen,  H.  A.,  and  H.  K.  Nelson.  1964.  Honkers 
large  and  small.  P.  109-124  in  J.  P.  Linduska, 
ed.  Waterfowl  Tommorrow.  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service.  770  pp. 

Jochelson,  W.  1933.  History,  ethnology,  and 
anthropology  of  the  Aleut.  Carnegie  Inst. 
Wash.  Publ.  432.  91  pp. 

Johansen,  H.  1961.  Revised  list  of  the  birds  of  the 
Commander  Islands.  Auk  78:44-56. 

Johnson,  D.  H.,  D.  E.  Timm,  and  P.  F.  Springer. 
Morphological  characteristics  of  Canada  geese 
in  the  Pacific  Flyway.  Paper  to  be  presented 
at  Symposium  on  Biology  and  Management  of 
Pacific  Flyway  Geese,  Portland,  Or.,  Feb.  16, 
1979.24  pp. 

Jones,  R.  D.,  Jr.  1963.  Buldir  Island,  site  of  a 
remnant  breeding  population  of  Aleutian 
Canada  Geese.  Ann.  Rep.  Wildfowl  Trust  14: 
80-84. 

Kenyon,  K.  W.  1961.  Birds  of  Amchitka  Island 
Alaska,  Auk  78:305-320. 

Krog,  J.  1953.  Notes  on  the  birds  of  Amchitka 
Island,  Alaska.  Condor  55:299-304. 

Murie,  O.  J.  1959.  Fauna  of  the  Aleutian  Islands 


and   Alaska  Peninsula.  North   Amer.   Fauna. 
61:364  pp. 

Nelson,  E.  W.  1883.  Birds  of  the  Bering  Sea  and 
the  Arctic  Ocean.  Cruise  of  the  Revenue- 
Steamer  Corvvin  in  Alaska  and  the  N.W.  Arc- 
tic Ocean  in  1881.  Washington,  D.C.  Govern- 
ment Printing  Office. 

Palmer,  R.  S.  ed.  1976.  Handbook  of  North  Am- 
erican Birds,  Vol.  2.  New  Haven,  Yale  Univ. 
Press,  p.  211. 

Snow,  H.  J.  1897.  Notes  in  the  Kuril  Islands. 
Royal  Geographical  Society,  London.  91  pp. 

Springer,  P.  F.,G.  V.  Byrd,  and  D.  W.  Woolington. 
1978.  Reestablishing  Aleutian  Canada  geese. 
P.  331-338  in  S.  A.  Temple,  ed.  Endangered 
birds:  management  techniques  for  threatened 
species.  University  of  Wisconsin  Press,  Madi- 
son. 446  pp. 

Stejneger,  L.  1885.  Results  of  ornithological  ex- 
penditions  in  the  Commander  Islands  and 
Kamtschatak.  BuU.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  29:1-382. 


Stejneger,  L.  1887.  Revised  and  annotated  cata- 
logue of  the  birds  inhabiting  the  Commander 
Islands.  Proc.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  10:117-145. 

Turner,  L.  M.  1886.  Contributions  to  the  natural 
history  of  Alaska.  Results  of  investigations 
made  chiefly  in  the  Yukon,  District  and  the 
Aleutian  Islands;  conducted  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Signal  Service  United  States  Army,  ex- 
tending from  May,  1874,  to  August,  1881. 
No.  11.  Arctic  Series  of  Publications  in  con- 
nection with  the  Signal  Service,  U.S.  Army. 
Washington,     Government     Printing    Office. 

Woolington,  D.  W.,  P.  F.  Springer,  and  D.  R. 
Yparraguirre.  Migration  and  wintering  distri- 
bution of  Aleutian  Canada  geese.  Paper  to  be 
presented  at  Symposium  on  Biology  and  Man- 
agement of  Pacific  Flyway  Geese,  Portland, 
Or.,  Feb.  16,  1979.  11pp. 

Woolington,  D.  W.,  and  D.  R.  Yparraguirre.  Pro- 
gress report  on  restoration  of  Aleutian  Canada 
geese  on  Agattu  Island,  1978.  Unpublished 
manuscript.  Aleutian  Islands  National  Wildlife 
Refuge.  74  pp. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.35 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

WEST  INDIAN  MANATEE 


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  conser\'ation  of  the  subject 
species  is  included  (range  maps  and  other  distributional  data  arc  not  necessarily  equivalent 
to  critical  habitat  as  defined  in  the  l",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  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Eouisiana  704.58 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.35 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE   ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

WEST  INDIAN  MANATEE 


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 


WEST  INDIAN  MANTAEE 

Trichechus  manatus  Linnaeus 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Sirenia 

FAMILY Trichechidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES sea  cow;    sea 

siren. 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined. 

Updates 9  October  1976; 

8  March  1977;  1  June  1979 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:    Endangered    (32    FR   4001;   11   March 
1967  and  35  FR  8491;  2  June  1970). 

States:       Endangered:  Georgia,  South  Carolina, 
Texas,  Threatened;  Florida. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

The  manatee  population  has  decHned  severely 
from  an  estimated  several  thousand  individuals  in 
the  1700's  and  early  1800's  to  as  few  as  1,000 
today  (Hartman  1974). 

Initial  population  decreases  resulted  from 
overharvesting  for  meat,  oil,  and  leather.  Today, 
little  illegal  hunting  occurs,  but  heavy  mortality 
results  from  accidental  boat  and  barge  strikes  and 
entrapment  in  canal  locks  and  flood  control  dams 
(Campbell  and  Powell  1976;  Irvine  et  al.  1978). 
Some  malicious  killing  by  vandals  occurs,  but  is 
not  considered  a  significant  factor. 

Actual  physical  habitat  loss  may  be  of  con- 
siderable importance;  residential,  commercial,  and 
recreational  development  is  rampant  in  Florida. 
Heavy  boat  traffic  in  some  areas  is  a  serious  threat 
to  manatees  and  their  habitat. 

Recent  data  (Campbell  and  Irvine  1978)  in- 
dicate that  manatees  may  be  diverted  from  their 
southward  fall  movements  to  industrial  warm- 
water   effluents   located    north    of  their  historic 


winter  range.  During  exceptionally  cold  weather, 
water  temperatures  suitable  for  the  animals  may 
not  be  maintained.  During  the  prolonged  and  ex- 
ceptionally cold  winter  of  1976-77,  34  manatees 
died  in  northern  and  central  Florida  in  areas 
north  of  their  historic  winter  range;  many  of 
them  had  been  associated  with  power  plant  ef- 
fluents (Campbell  and  Irvine  1978). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  manatee  is  a  large  gray  or  brown  fusiform 
aquatic  mammal  that  lacks  a  dorsal  fin.  It  is  nearly 
hairless  except  for  stiff  whiskers  covering  the 
muzzle  and  widely  scattered,  fine  hairs  on  the 
back.  The  forelimbs  are  modified  into  flippers, 
and  the  paddle-shaped  tail  is  flattened  hori- 
zontally. Hind  limbs  are  absent.  The  sexes  are  dis- 
tinguished by  the  position  of  the  genital  opening; 
the  distance  from  the  anus  is  greatest  in  males. 
Within  its  range,  the  manatee  is  the  only  large 
aquatic  mammal  exhibiting  these  characteristics. 

Manatees  are  usually  3  m  long,  with  a  maxi- 
mum length  of  4.6  m  reported  (Hartman  1979b). 
Adult  weights  range  between  360  and  540  kg, 
with  a  maximum  of  approximately  1,000  kg 
(Hartman  1979b). 

Illustrations  of  manatees  have  been  published 
in  many  popular  and  scientific  articles:  Simpson 
(1930),  Ledbetter  (1960),  Walker,  et  al.  (1964), 
Hartman  (1969),Stephens(1972),Okeefe  (1973), 
Vietmeyer  (1974),  Campbell  and  Powell  (1976), 
Hartman  (1979a),  and  Reynolds  (1979). 

RANGE 

During  the  wdnter  months,  U.S.  populations 
appear  to  be  restricted  to  peninsular  Florida, 
south  of  Crystal  River  on  the  Gulf  coast  and 
Titusville  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  In  the  St.  Johns 
River,  the  animals  occur  from  Jacksonville  south 
to  at  least  Lake  Monroe  (Layne  1965;  Hartman 
1974). 

During  the  winter,  manatees  in  northern  and 
central  Florida  congregate  around  natural  and  in- 
dustrial warm-water  sources  (see  Hartman  1974 
for  a  list  of  sites).  Winter  distribution  has  expanded 
northward  during  the  last  few  decades  from  27° 
52'  to  39°  21'  on  the  east  coast  and  from  26°  45' 


to  27°  45'  on  the  west  coast.  The  expansion  is 
probably  due  to  the  proliferation  of  industrial 
and  power-generating  plant  warm-water  dis- 
charges (Moore  1951b,  1953;  Layne  1965; 
Hartman  1974). 

During  the  summer,  manatees  that  congre- 
gate at  winter  warm  water  refugia  appear  to 
disperse,  moving  north  along  the  Atlantic  and 
Gulf  coasts,  occasionally  as  far  as  the  Carolinas 
and  extreme  western  Florida.  Rarely,  sightings 
are  reported  in  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  and 
historic  records  document  sightings  as  far  north 
as  New  Jersey  (Hartman  1974,  Campbell  and 
Powell  1976).  Sightings  north  of  Georgia  are 
unusual  and  may  represent  vagrant  individuals. 
Historic  information  suggests  that  the  northern 
Gulf  of  Mexico  coast  may  once  have  been  more 
frequented  by  manatees  during  the  summer  than 
it  is  now  (Lowery,  1974).  It  is  unlikely  that 
manatees  could  survive  there  in  the  winter  due  to 
the  low  water  temperatures. 

Occasional  sightings  in  extreme  southern 
Texas  may  represent  remanents  of  a  population  on 
the  northern  Mexico  Gulf  coast  (Husar  1977). 

Trichechus  manatus  occurs  around  many  of 
the  Caribbean  islands:  Puerto  Rico,  Hispaniola, 
Jamaica,  Cuba,  and  Andros  (Husar  1977).  Recent 
sightings  have  been  reported  for  Grand  Bahama 
Island  (Odell  et  al.  1968). 

In  Central  and  South  America,  the  West  Indian 
manatee  occurs  from  at  least  central  Mexico 
south  along  the  coast  to  the  region  of  Alagoas 
State,  Brazil  (Bertram  and  Bertram  1973,  White- 
head 1977).  It  also  penetrates  the  Orinoco  River 
in  Venezuela  to  Apure  Falls  (Mondolfi,  1974)  and 
up  the  Amazon  River  an  undetermined  distance 
(Bertram  and  Bertram  1973). 

RANGE  MAP 

The  range  maps  (following)  show  the  present 
distribution,  historic  range,  peripheral  sightings, 
and  critical  habitat  of  the  West  Indian  manatee  in 
the  United  States. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Alabama:     Baldwin,  Mobile. 

Florida:  Bay,  Brevard,  Broward,  Charlotte,  Cit- 
rus, Clay,  Collier,  Dade,  De  Soto, 
Dixie,  Dural,  Escambia,  Flagler, 
Franklin,     Gilchrist,     Glades,     Gulf, 


Distribution  of  T.  manatus  in  the  southeastern  United  States  (shaded  area:  summer 
distribution;  dots:  peripheral  sightings;  arrows;  northern  limits  of  historic  range) 


Estimated  distribution  of  Trichechus  manatus  in  Florida. 


NORTHWESTERN  PART  OF 

FLORIDA 

S««(   SC»ie  *S  MAIN  U«P 


15  16    ■  17  19  \9 


21  22  23  a*  2S 


Critical  habitat  of  Trichechus  manatus  in  the  United  States. 


Georgia: 
Louisiana: 


Missis- 
sippi: 
North 
Carolina: 


Hendry,  Hernando,  Highlands,  HUls- 
Borough.  Indian  River,  Jefferson, 
Lake,  Lafayette,  Lee,  Levy,  Manatee, 
Marion,  Martin,  Monrow,  Okaloosa, 
Okeechobee,  Orange,  Osceola,  Palm 
Beach,  Pasco,  Pinellas,  Polk,  Putnam, 
St.  Johns,  St.  Lucie,  Santa  Rosa,  Sara- 
sota, Seminole,  Suwannee,  Taylor, 
Volusia,  Wakulla,  Walton. 
Bryan,  Camden,  Chatham,  Glynn, 
Liiaerty,  Mcintosh. 

(Parishes):  Cameron,  Iberia,  Jefferson, 
Lafourche,  Plaquemines,  St.  Bernard, 
St.  Mary,  Terrebonne,  Vermilion. 

Hancock,  Harrison,  Jackson. 

Beaufort,  Bertie,  Brunswick,  Camden, 
Carteret,  Chowan,  Currituck,  Dare, 
Hyde,  New  Hanover,  Onslow,  Pamlico, 
Pasquotank,  Pender,  Perquimans,  Tyr- 
rell, Washington. 

Beaufort,  Berkeley,  Charleston,  Colle- 
ton, Georgetown,  Horry. 

Aransas,  Brazoria,  Calhoun,  Cameron, 
Chambers,  Galveston,  Jefferson,  Ken- 
edy, Kleberg,  Matagorda,  Nueces,  Wil- 
lacy. 


HABITAT 

Manatees  inhabit  both  fresh  and  salt  water  of 
sufficient  depth  (1  meter  or  more)  throughout 
their  range.  They  may  be  encountered  in  water- 
ways with  access  to  coastal  habitats,  including 
canals,  sluggish  rivers,  estuaries,  and  saltwater 
bays.  They  also  have  been  seen  as  far  as  6  km  off 
the  coast  of  Florida  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  (Hart- 
man  1974).  Between  October  and  AprU  in  Florida, 
manatees  concentrate  near  warm  water  (Hartman 
1974,  1979),  but  during  other  months  they  appear 
to  choose  areas  with  adequate  food  near  sources 
of  fresh  water  (Huser  1977,  Hartman  1979a). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Manatees  consume  almost  any  vegetation 
available.  Comprehensive  lists  of  plant  species 
recorded  in  their  diet  have  been  published  by 
Hartman  (1971)  and  Campbell  and  Irvine  (1977). 


South 
Carolina: 

Texas: 


Emergent  and  floating  plants,  and  even  vegetation 
along  the  shore  are  acceptable  but  they  prefer 
submergents,  emergents,  and  floating  vegetation 
in  that  order  (Hartman  1979a).  A  partial  list  of 
plants  known  to  be  eaten  by  manatees  illustrates 
the  variety  of  their  diet: 

Floating  fern  (Ceratophyllum  pteridoides) 
Pondweed  (Diplanthera  wrightii) 
Water-hyacinth  (Eichhomia  crassipes) 
Waterweed  (Elodea) 
Hydrilla  (Hydrilla  verticillata) 
Water  milfoil  (Myriophyllum) 
Widgeon  grass  (Ruppia  maritima) 
Manatee-grass  (Syringodium  filiforme) 
Turtle  grass  (Thallasia  testudinum) 
Eelgrass  (Vallisneria  neotropicalis) 
Saw  palmetto  (Serenoa  repens) 
Various  types  of  algae 

While  generally  considered  completely  herb- 
iverous,  there  are  instances  of  wild  manatees 
feeding  on  fish  (Powell  1978)  and  captive  mana- 
tees will  take  fish  if  available  (Jenkins  1979). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

During  hurricanes,  manatees  may  seek  shelter 
in  protected  bays  and  canals  (Hartman  1971). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Not  applicable. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  appHcable. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Manatees  are  adapted  to  both  fresh-  and  salt- 
water habitats.  Dependance  on  freshwater  for 
drinking  has  been  suggested  by  Hartman  (1974, 
1979a).  Saltwater  populations  often  congregate 
around  sources  of  freshwater,  such  as  offshore 
springs,    river  mouths,   and  marina  water  hoses. 

Numerous  accounts  of  manatee  deaths  fol- 
lowing cold  weather  in  Florida  suggest  that  winter 
temperatures  at  the  margin  of  their  range  may  be 
a  limiting  factor  for  U.S.  populations  (Bangs  1895; 
Cahn  1940;  Hamilton  1941;  Kromholz  1943; 
Moore  1951b,  1956;  Layne  1965).  Water  temper- 
ature below  approximately  20°  C  stimulates  move- 
ment into  warm   water  refugia  (Hartman  1974, 


1979a;  Powell  1978;  Powell  and  Waldron  1978).       MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Hartman  (1974,  1979a)  estimated  the  U.S. 
population  at  750  to  850  animals  with  possible 
extremes  of  600  and  1,000.  More  recent  surveys 
(Irvine  and  Campbell  1978)  suggest  a  minimum 
population  between  750  and  900  animals,  while 
Brownell  et  al.  (1978)  estimated  a  U.S.  popula- 
tion of  1,000  or  more. 

No  accurate  historical  population  estimates 
cure  available,  but  numbers  today  are  believed  to 
be  reduced  compared  to  historical  levels  (Hart- 
man  1971).  Concern  for  reduced  population 
levels  was  expressed  as  early  as  1880  by  LeBaron 
and  1885  by  Canova.  All  populations  throughout 
the  species'  range  are  believed  to  be  critically  re- 
duced (Bertram  and  Bertram  1973). 

United  States  populations  appear  to  be  in- 
creasing in  some  areas,  decreasing  in  other  areas, 
and  remaining  stable  in  some  regions  (Hartman 
1974).  Husar  (1977)  suggested  that  numbers  were 
increasing,  but  Brownell  et  alj  (1978),  based  on 
mortality  figures,  thought  it  more  likely  that  an 
overall  decline  was  occuring. 

REPRODUCTION 

Mating  generally  involves  the  pursuit  of  an 
estrous  female  by  a  group  of  courting  males 
(Hartman  1979a).  Gestation,  as  estimated  from  a 
captive  conception  and  birth,  is  365  days  (Dek- 
ker  1977).  The  manatee  is  basically  uniparous, 
with  the  possibility  that  twinning  may  occasionally 
occur  (Hartman  1979a).  Hartman  (1979a)  believed 
that  there  was  no  specific  breeding  season,  but 
recovery  of  dead  calves  suggests  that  most  of 
them  are  bom  in  the  spring  and  early  summer 
(Hartman  1979a,  Irvine  et  al.  1978).  Calves  are 
bom  and  nursed  in  the  water  and  are  believed  to 
remain  with  the  female  for  up  to  2  years.  Re- 
productive maturity  may  be  reached  at  7  to  10 
years  (Odell  et  al.  1978). 

The  most  commonly  observed  social  unit  is 
the  cow  and  her  calf,  but  larger  social  groups  of 
unknown  composition  are  observed,  especially 
around  limited  resources  such  as  warm  water 
refugia  (Hartman,  1979a). 

Natural  longevity  is  unknown,  although  an 
individual  has  been  kept  in  captivity  in  Florida 
for  over  29  years  (Brownell  et  al.  1978). 


In  addition  to  the  Endangered  Species  Act, 
manatees  are  protected  in  the  United  States  by 
the  Marine  Mammal  Protection  Act  of  1972  (PL 
92-522;  80  stat  1027)  and  by  various  State  laws, 
such  as  the  Florida  Manatee  Sanctuary  Act. 
Manatees  are  also  protected  in  every  country 
throughout  their  range,  although  enforcement 
efforts  are  ineffective  in  most  areas. 

The  most  immediate  conservation  need  in  the 
United  States  is  for  management  (Wray  1976). 
Especially  critical  is  the  reduction  of  mortality 
caused  by  boat  strikes  and  entrapment  in  water 
control  structures  (Hartman  1974,  Campbell  and 
Powell  1976,  Brownell  et  al.  1978). 

The  State  of  Florida  has  designated  Blue 
Spring  State  Park  as  a  manatee  sanctuary  and 
Brevard  County,  Florida,  has  declared  itself  a 
manatee  sanctuary.  De  facto  sanctuaries  exist  in 
the  Everglades  National  Park,  various  National 
Wildlife  Refuges  throughout  Florida,  and  several 
Florida  State  Parks.  Critical  Habitat  was  designated 
in  1976  (41  FR  41916,  24  September  1976)  (see 
range  maps). 


AUTHORITIES 

Edward  Asper 
Seaworld  of  Florida 
7007  Seaworld  Drive 
Orlando,  FL  32809 

Robert  L.  Brownell,  Jr.  (Recovery  Team) 
National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
Museum  of  Natural  History 
Washington,  D.C.   29560 

John  C.  Oberheu  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
Jacksonville  Area  Office 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
900  San  Marco  Blvd. 
Jacksonville,  FL  32207 

Daniel  K.  Odell 

School  of  Marine  and  Atmospheric  Sciences 

University  of  Miami 

4600  Rickenbacker  Causeway 

Miami,  FL  33149 

Galen  B.  Rathbun 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Ave.,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Patrick  M.  Rose 
Florida  Audubon  Society 
P.O.  Drawer  7 
Maitland,  FL  32751 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Liturature  reviews  and  bibliographies  on  Tri- 
chechus  manatus  are  numerous. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Allsopp,  W.  H.  L.  1969.  Aquatic  weed  control  by 
manatees:  its  prospects  and  problems.  In  L.  E. 
Obeng,    ed.    Man-made    lakes.    Ghana   Univ. 
Press,  Accra. 

Bangs,  O.  1895.  The  present  standing  of  the  Flo- 
rida manatee,  Trichechus  [manatus?^  latiros- 
tris  (Harlan),  in  the  Indian  River  waters.  Am. 
Nat.  29:783-787. 

Bertram,  G.  C.  L.,  and  G.  K.  R.  Bertram.  1973. 
The  modem  sirenia:  their  distribution  and 
status.  Biol.  J.  Linn.  Soc.  5:297-338. 

Brownell,  R.  L.,  Jr.,  Kr.  Ralls,  and  R.  R.  Reeves, 
eds.  1978.  Report  of  the  West  Indian  Manatee 
Workshop,  Oriando,  Florida,  27-29  March 
1978.  Nad.  Fish  and  Wildl.  Lab,  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildl.  Serv.  Rept.  37  pp. 

Cahn,  A.  R.  1940.  Manatees  and  the  Florida 
freeze.  J.  Mammal.  21:222-223. 

Campbell,  H.  W.  1976.  The  Florida  manatee  and 
related  species.  Plaster  Jacket  25:10  pp. 

Campbell,  H.  W.  1977.  Mammalia;  Sirenia; 
Trichechidae  (Manatees).  In:  Endangered  and 
Threatened  Plants  and  Animals  of  North  Car- 
olina. N.C.  State  Museum  of  Natural  History. 
444  pp. 

Campbell,  H.  S.,  and  J.  A.  Powell.  1976.  Endan- 
gered species:  the  Florida  manatee.  Florida 
Nat.  AprU:15-20. 

Campbell,  H.  W.,  and  A.  B.  Irvine.  1977.  Feeding 
ecology  of  the  West  Indian  manatee.  Aqua- 
culture  12:249-51. 

.  1979.  Manatee  mortality  during  the  unu- 
sually cold  winter  of  1976-1977.  Proc.  West 
Indian  Manatee  Workshop,  27-29  March  1978, 
Orlando,  Florida.  12  pp. 

Canova,  A.    1885.  Life  and  adventures  in  south 


Florida.  Tribune  Printing  Co.,  Tampa.  145  pp. 

Gold,  J.  P.  1979.  The  Sirenia:  Dugong,  manatee, 
Steller's  sea  cow,  and  relatives.  Natl.  Mus.  of 
Natur.  Hist.,  Smithsonian  Inst.  11  pp. 

Dekker,  D.  1977.  Zeekoegeboorte.  Artis  23(4): 
111-119. 

Hamilton,  W.  J.  1941.  Notes  on  some  mammals 
of  Lee  County,  Florida.  Am.  Midi.  Nat.  25: 
686-691. 

Hartman,  D.  S.  1969.  Florida's  manatees,  mer- 
maids in  peril.  Natl.  Geogr.  Mag.  136(3): 
342-353. 

.  1971.  Behavior  and  ecology  of  the  Flo- 
rida manatee,  Trichechus  manatus  latirostris 
(Harlan),  at  Crystal  River,  Citrus  County.  Ph. 
D.  Dissert.  Cornell  Univ.,  Ithaca,  N.Y.  285  pp. 

-.   1974.  Distribution,  status  and  conserva- 


tion of  the  manatee  in  the  United  States.  U.S. 
Fish  Wildl.  Ser.  Unpubl.  Rep.  247  pp. 

Hartman,  D.  S.  1979a.  Ecology  and  Behavior  of 
the  Manatee  {Trichechus  manatus)  in  Florida. 
Am.  Soc.  of  Mammal.  Spec.  Publ.  5.  153  pp. 

.   1979b.  West  Indian  manatee.  Pages  27- 

39  in  J.  N.  Layne,  ed.  Rare  and  endangered 
biota  of  Florida,  Vol.  1,  Mammals.  Univ. 
Presses  of  Florida,  Gainesville. 

Husar,  S.  L.  1975.  An  annotated  bibliography  of 
the  recent  Sirenia  {Trichechus,  Dugong,  Hy- 
drodamalis).  National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Lab., 
U.S.  Fish  and  WUdlife  Service  Rept.  148  pp. 

.    1977.   The  West  Indian   manatee   {Tri- 

checus  manatus).  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildl.  Ser. 
WUdhfe  Res.  Rept.  7,  22  pp. 

.    1978.  Trichechus  manatus.  Mammalian 


Species  93:1-5. 

Irvine,  A.  B.,  and  H.  W.  Campbell.  1978.  Aerial 
census  of  the  West  Indian  manatee,  Triche- 
chus manatus,  in  the  southeastern  United 
States.  J.  Mammal.  59(3):613-617. 

Irvine,  A.  B.,  D.  K.  Odell,  and  H.  W.  Campbell. 
1978.  Manatee  mortality  in  the  southeastern 
United  States:  1974-1977.  Proc.  West  Indian 
Manatee  Workshop,  27-29  March  1978,  Or- 
lando, Florida. 

Jenkins,  R.  L.  1979.  Captive  husbandry  of  mana- 
tees   at  Marineland    of   Florida.  In    R.    L. 


Brownell,  K.  Ralls,  and  R.  R.  Reeves,  eds, 
Proc.  West  Indian  Manatee  Workshop,  27-29 
March  1978,  Orlando,  Florida. 

Kromholz,  L.  A.  1943.  Notes  on  manatees  in  Flo- 
rida waters.  J.  Mammal.  24:272-273. 

Layne,  J.  N.  1965.  Observations  on  marine  mam- 
mals in  Florida  waters.  Bull.  Florida  St.  Mus. 
Biol.  Sci.  9:131-181. 

LeBaron,  J.  F.  1880.  The  manatee  or  sea  cow. 
Forest  and  Stream  13:1005-1006. 

Ledbetter,  C.  S.  1960.  Amazing  mammals  of  Blue 
Springs  Run.  Florida  WUdl.  14(2):22-24. 

Lowery,  G.  H.  1974.  Mammals  of  Louisiana  and 
its  adjacent  waters.  Louisiana  St.  Univ.  Press, 
Baton  Rouge.  565  pp. 

MacDonald,  K.,  L.  J.  Seeley,  and  E.  C.  Amoroso. 

1978.  Biological  Synopsis  of  the  manatee.  In- 
ternational Development  Research  Centre,  Ot- 
tawa, Canada.  1 12  pp. 

Marsh,   H.,   P.    W.    Channells,    and  J.   Morrissey. 

1979.  A  bibliography  of  the  recent  Sirenia. 
James  Cook  Univ.,  Australia.  163  pp. 

Mondolfi,  E.  1974.  Taxonomy,  distribution,  and 
status  of  the  manatee  in  Venezuela.  Sci.  Cien. 
Nat.  La  SaUe  34(97) :5-23. 

Moore,  J.  C.  1951a.  The  status  of  the  manatee  in 
the  Everglades  National  Park,  with  notes  on 
its  natural  history.  J.  Mammal  32(l):22-36. 

.  1951b.  The  range  of  the  Florida  mana- 
tee. Q.J.  Florida  Acad.  Sci.  14(1):1-19. 

.   1953.  Distribution  of  marine  mammals 


Powell,  J.  A.,  Jr.  1978.  Evidence  of  camivory  in 
manatees  {Trichechus  manatus).  J.  Mammal. 
59:442. 

1978a.  Status  of  the  manatee  population 


in    Florida  waters.   Amer.  Midi.  Nat.   49(1): 
117-158. 

1956.  Observations  of  manatees  in  aggre- 


gations. Am.  Mus.  Novitates.  1811:1-24 

Odell,  D.  K.,  D.  J.  Forrester,  and  E.  D.  Asper. 
1978.  A  preliminary  analysis  of  organ  weights 
and  sexual  maturity  in  the  West  Indian  mana- 
tee {Trichechus  manatus).  Proc.  West  Indian 
Manatee  Workshop,  27-29  March  1978, 
Orlando,  Florida. 

OdeU,  D.  K.,  J.  E.  Reynolds,  and  G.  Waugh.  1978. 
New  records  of  the  West  Indian  manatee  {Tri- 
chechus manatus)  from  the  Bahama  Islands. 
Biol.  Conserv.  14:289-293. 

O'Keefe,  M.  T.  1973.  Blue  Springs-haven  for  the 
manatees.  Florida  Sportsman  5(1):10-14. 


in  Crystal  River,  Citrus  County,  Florida.  Proc. 
West  Indian  Manatee  Workshop,  27-29  March, 
1978,  Orlando,  Florida.  7  pp. 

Powell,  J.  A.,  and  J.  C.  Waldron.  1978b.  Status  of 
the  manatee  population  in  Blue  Spring,  Volu- 
sia County,  Florida.  Proc.  West  Indian  Mana- 
tee Workshop,  27-29  March  1978,  Orlando, 
Florida.  10  pp. 

Reynolds,  John  E.  III.  1979.  The  semi-social 
manatee.  Nat.  Hist.  88(2):44-53. 

Simpson,  G.  G.  1930.  Sea  sirens,  the  strange 
mammals  responsible  for  the  ancient  ideas  of 
mermaids.  Nat.  Hist.  30:41-47. 

Stephens,  W.  M.  1972.  Florida  mermaids.  Natl. 
Parks.  Conserv.  Mag.  46(3):28-31. 

United  Nations  Food  and  Agriculture  Organiza- 
tion Working  Party  on  Marine  Mammals. 
1978.  Mammals  in  the  seas.  Report  of  the 
FAO  Advisory  Committee  on  Marine  Re- 
sources Research.  FAO,  U.N.,  Rome.  264  pp. 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe  Service.  1979.  Administra- 
tion of  the  Marine  Mammal  Protection  Act  of 
1972.  April  1,  1978  to  March  31,  1979.  Dept. 
of  Interior,  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  86 
pp. 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1979.  West  Indian 
manatee  recovery  plan.  Tech.  draft.  U.S.  Fish 
and  WUdlife  Service.  33  pp. 

Vietmayer,  N.  1974.  The  endangered  but  useful 
manatee.  Smithsonian  Mag.  5(9):60-64. 

Walker,  E.  P.  et  al.  1964.  Mammals  of  the  world. 
Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore.  1,500  pp. 

Whitehead,  P.  J.  P.  1977.  The  former  southern 
distribution  of  New  World  manatees  {Triche- 
chus spp.).  Bio.  J.  Linn.  Soc.  9:165-189. 

Whitfield,  W.  K.  and  S.  L.  Farrington.  1975.  An 
armotated  bibliography  of  Sirenia.  Fla.  Marine 
Res.  Publ.  7:1-44. 

Wray,  P.  1976.  The  North  American  manatee. 
Endangr.  Species  Productions,  Inc.  Ayer, 
Maine.  26  pp. 

Wray,  P.  1978.  The  West  Indian  manatee  {Triche- 
chus manatus)  in  Florida.  U.S.  Dept.  Com- 
merce, NTIS,  PB-285-410,  89  pp. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.36 
March  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

ISLAND  NIGHT  LIZARD 


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  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  lu: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  leam 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Sen,  ice 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704.58 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.36 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

ISLAND  NIGHT  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 


ISLAND  NIGHT  LIZARD 

Xantusia  riversiana 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Reptilia 

ORDER Squamata 

FAMILY Xantusiidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES None 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates 15  October  1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal        Threatened    (42    FR  40682,    11    Aug 

1977). 
States  Not  nominated 


REASONS   FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

This  lizard  is  known  only  from  three  major 
California  islands:  Santa  Barbara,  San  Nicolas, 
and  San  Clemente.  Island  habitats  and  animal 
populations  have  been  severely  modified  as  a 
result  of  the  introduction  of  new  species,  espe- 
cially feral  cats,  goats,  pigs,  and  rabbits. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

Xantusia  riversiana  was  once  assigned  to  a 
separate  genus,  Klauberina  (Savage  1957).  This 
lizard  is  5.8  to  8.0cm  in  snout-to-vent  length, 
with  soft  granular  sccdes  and  folds  of  skin  on  the 


neck  and  along  the  sides  of  the  body.  The  back  is 
mottled  with  pale  ash  gray  or  beige  and  yellow 
brown,  darkened  in  varying  amounts  with  black. 
Occasional  individuals  have  a  pale  gray  dorso- 
lateral stripe  on  each  side,  edged  with  brown  and 
black;  a  brown  vertebral  stripe  may  also  be 
present.  It  is  pale  gray  below,  sometimes  with  a 
bluish  cast  suffused  on  the  belly  and  often  on  the 
tail  with  yellow.  Underside  of  feet  may  be  yellow- 
ish (Stebbins  1966).  A  photograph  is  in  the 
Endangered  Species  Technical  Bulletin  (1977, 
Vol.  2,  No.  9). 

RANGE 

Island  night  lizards  occur  on  Santa  Barbara, 
San  Nicolas,  and  San  Clemente  Islands,  in  the 
California  Channel  Islands  group  (Stebbins  1966, 
Savage  1967).  A  small  population  has  recently 
been  discovered  on  Sutil  Island  (J.  M.  Erode  pers 
comm).  Stebbins  (1954)  indicated  that  X.  river- 
siana  occurred  on  Santa  Catalina  Island,  but  this 
record  needs  confirmation. 

RANGE  MAP 

Arrows  on  the  accompanying  map  indicate 
islands  where  X.  riversiana  occurs. 

STATES /COUNTIES 

California:    Los  Angelos,  Ventura. 

HABITAT 

The  species  inhabits  grassland  brushy  areas, 
clumps  of  cactus  (Opuntia),  cliffs,  and  rocky 
beaches  (Stebbins  1954,  1966). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

X.  riversiana  is  an  omnivorous,  opportunistic 
feeder,  eating  a  large  variety  of  anthropods  — 
spiders,  marine  isopods,  scorpians,  centipedes, 
mites,  aphids,  wasps,  flies,  moths,  silverfish,  etc 
(Stebbins  1954).  Brattstrom  (1952)  notes  that 
ants  and  beetles  are  the  most  important  food 
items  for  this  species;  31%  of  the  animals  he 
examined  from  San  Clemente  Island  had  also 
ingested  plant  matter  consisting  of  flowers,  leaves, 
stems,  and  seeds  {Mesembryanthemum,  etc). 
These  lizards  are  thought  of  as  active  mostly  at 


night,  but   they   have  been  seen  foraging  in  the 
daytime  (Stebbins  1954). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

X.  riversiana  seeks  shelter  under  rocks,  drift- 
wood,    and     fallen    branches    (Stebbins     1966). 

NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

No  information  is  available  concerning 
nesting. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

No  data  are  available  on  absolute  densities. 
Bezy  (1976)  indicated  that  X.  riversiana  was 
widespread  on  San  Clemente  Island,  restricted  but 
locally  common  on  San  Nicolas  Island,  and 
restricted  by  limited  habitat  but  moderately 
abundant  on  Santa  Barbara  Island.  He  notes  seri- 
ous threats  to  X.  riversiana  or  to  its  habitat  on  all 
islands  due  to  populations  of  introduced  animals 
(See  Management  and  Conservation). 

REPRODUCTION 

X.  riversiana  is  viviparous.  Spermiogenesis 
begins  in  March  and  concludes  in  June;  females 
ovulate  from  late  May  to  early  June  (Goldberg 
and  Bezy  1974).  Breeding  probably  occurs  from 
May  through  June.  Goldberg  and  Bezy  (1974) 
report  a  range  of  3  to  9  young  per  breeding 
female  per  year,  with  a  mean  of  3.76  for  San 
Clemente  Island  females.  They  estimate  that 
about  half  of  the  female  population  is  reproduc- 
tively  active  in  a  given  year.  Young  are  born  in 
September,  following  a  14-week  gestation  period. 
Goldberg  and  Bezy  (1974)  estimate  that  sexual 
maturity  is  attained  in  the  spring  of  the  third  or 
fourth  year.  They  consider  X.  riversiana  to  be  a 
K-selected  species,  being  relatively  late-maturing, 
long-lived,  with   single  broods,  large  adult  body 


x: 


<b' 


Sonto 


I 


»c «e  >e     ■•Lfi 


Distribution  of  the  island  night  hzard  Xantusia  riversiana. 


size,  and  large  clutches,  and  demonstrating  a  low 
reproductive  potential. 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  greatest  threats  to  this  lizard  are  preda- 
tion  and  habitat  destruction  from  introduction 
of  exotic  species  into  these  fragile  island  eco- 
systems. Bezy  (1976)  notes  that  feral  goats  could 
have  a  serious  impact  on  this  partially  herbivorous 
lizard  and  its  habitat.  He  also  notes  that  feral  pigs 
and  cats  undoubtedly  feed  on  the  lizard  to  some 
extent. 

There  is  evidence  of  predation  by  feral  house- 
cats  on  X.  riversiana  on  San  Clemente  Island,  but 
the  magnitude  of  this  loss  has  not  been  determined. 
A  feral-cat  removal  program  is  being  planned  for 
San  Nicolas  Island  (Steele  1979).  The  Cahfomia 
Department  of  Fish  and  Game  and  the  U.S.  Navy 
are  currently  considering  a  removal  program  for 
some  feral  animals  on  San  Clemente  Island.  The 
Navy  has  a  program  for  the  control  of  feral  goats, 
but  it  is  currently  inactive  (Federal  Register  42, 
No.  155). 

The  alligator  lizard  [Gerrhonotus  multicarin- 
atus)  has  been  accidentally  introduced  on  San 
Nicolas  Island.  Bezy  (1976)  feels  that  this  lizard 
may  be  a  competitor  with  X.  riversiana.  G.  multi- 
carinatus  and  X.  riversiana  have  exclusive  distribu- 
tions on  the  California  Channel  Islands  (Savage 
1967),  which  suggests  that  alligator  lizards  may 
displace    the    smaller-sized    island    night    lizard. 

AUTHORITIES 

Robert  L.  Bezy 
Section  of  Herpetology 
Natural  History  Museum 
Los  Angelos,  California  90007 

John  M.  Brode 

California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 

1701  Nimbus  Road 

Rancho  Cordova,  California  95670 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Bezy  (1972,  1976)  indicated  that  there  is 
moderate  morphological  differentiation  between 
the  three  island  populations  of  X.  riversiana. 
Variation  within  the  species  needs  further  study. 

The  impact  of  predation  by  feral  animals  on 


San  Clemente  and  San  Nicolas  Island  populations 
of  X.  riversiana,  and  the  potential  competitive 
impact  by  Gerrhonotus  multicarinatus  on  San 
Nicolas  Island  populations  are  both  in  need  of 
immediate  investigation.  Control  of  these  intro- 
duced animals  may  be  critical  to  the  survival  of 
the  endemic  island  night  lizard.  Remaining  habi- 
tat on  San  Nicolas  and  Santa  Barbara  Islands 
should    be    protected    from    further   decimation. 

LITERATURE  CITED/ SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Bezy,  R.  L.  1972.  Karyotypic  variation  and 
evolution  of  the  lizards  in  the  family 
Xantusidae.  Los  Angelos  Nat.  Hist.  Mus., 
Contri.  Sci.,  227:  1-29. 


-.  1976.  Letter  in  response  to  federal  pro- 
posal of  threatened  or  endangered  status 
for  Klauberina  riversiana.  (42  FR  155: 
40682-40683. 


Brattstrom,  B.  H.  1952.  The  food  habits  of 
the  night  lizard,  genus  Xantusia.  Copeia 
1952(2):168-172. 

Goldberg,  S.  R.  and  R.  L.  Bezy.  1974.  Repro- 
duction in  the  island  night  lizard,  Xantu- 
sia riversiana.  Herpetologica  30:350-360. 

Savage, J.  M.  1957.  Studies  on  the  lizard  family 
Xantusiidae.  III.  A  new  genus  for  Xantu- 
sia riversiana  Cope,  1883.  Zoologica  42: 
82-86. 


-.  1967.  Evolution  of  the  insular  herpeto- 
fauna.  Pages  219-227  in  Philbrick,  R.  N. 
(ed.)  Proceedings  of  the  Symposium  on 
the  Biology  of  the  California  Islands.  363 
pp. 


Schwenkmeyer,  R.  C.  1949.  Food  habits  of 
the  island  night  lizard,  Xantusia  riversiana 
reticulata,  from  San  Clemente  Island.  Nat. 
Hist.  Misc.  38:1-3. 

Stebbins,  R.  C.  1954.  Amphibians  and  reptiles 
of  western  North  America.  McGraw-Hill, 
New  York.  537  pp. 


•.  1966.  A  field  guide  to  the  western  rep- 
tiles and   amphibians.  Houghton  Mifflin, 


Boston.  279  pp. 

Steele,  J.  1979.  San  Nicolas  Island  —  home  of 
Indian  artifacts,  unusual  wildlife  and 
guided  missiles.  Outdoor  Calif.  40(5): 
29-30. 

ACCOUNT  PREPARED  BY /UPDATED  BY 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
1300  Blue  Spruce  Drive 
Fort  Collins,  Colorado  80524 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.37 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  DELMARVA  PENINSULA  FOX  SttUIRREL 


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  (SVV'IS)  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  leam 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
SHdell,  Louisiana  70458 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.37 
March  1980 


SLLhXI KD  V1:R  1  LBRAl  i:  KNDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  1  HE  UNFFED  STATES- 

THE  DELMARVA  PENINSULA  FOX  SQUIRREL 


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 


DELMARVA  PENINSULA  FOX  SQUIRREL 

Sciurvs  niger  cinereus  Linnaeus 


KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Rodentia 

FAMILY Sciuridae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Bryant's  fox  squirrel, 

peninsula  fox  squirrel,  stump-eared  squirrel. 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 30  September   1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered    (32    FR    4001;    11    Mar. 
1967). 

States:  Endangered:  Maryland. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Primary  factors  for  current  status  are  destruc- 
tion of  habitat  from  timber  cutting,  agricultural 
clearing,  construction,  development  (Flyger  1964; 
lUCN  1972;  Taylor  and  Flyger  1973;  USFWS 
1973;  DFSRT  draft);  and  competition  with  the 
gray  squirrel  [Sciurus  carolinensis)  in  areas  of  sub- 
optimal  habitat.  Minor  mortality  results  from 
hunt  kills  and  road  kills  (Delmarva  Fox  Squirrel 
Recovery  Team  [DFSRT]  draft). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  Delmarva  Peninsula  fox  squirrel  is  a  fairly 
large  squirrel  (larger  than  gray  squirrel)  with  pelage 
a  uniform  light  grizzled-grayish  with  steel-blue 
cast  dorsally  and  white  ventrally.  The  feet  are 
white    and   the   tail  has   a  pronounced  black 


stripe  on  outer  edge.  Melanistic  forms  occur  with 
black  both  dorsally  and  ventrally.  Pictures  are  in 
Taylor  (no  date)  and  DFSRT  (draft). 

RANGE 

The  squirrel  is  presently  restricted  to  local  dis- 
junct populations  in  portions  of  four  eastern  shore 
counties  of  Maryland  (Allen  1942;Masueti  1950; 
Paradiso  1969;  J.  Taylor  personal  communication). 
There  is  an  introduced  population  on  Chincoteague 
National  Wildlife  Refuge,  Virginia  (lUCN  1972; 
USFWS  1973). 

The  species'  former  distribution  included 
southeastern  Pennsylvania,  eastern  shore  of  Mary- 
land and  Delaware  (Delmarva  Peninsula),  the 
eastern  shore  of  Virginia  into  Northampton  Coun- 
ty, and  possibly  southern  New  Jersey  (Abbot 
1830,  Rhoads  1903,  Poole  1932,  1944,  Hall  and 
Kelson  1959). 

RANGE  MAP 

Diagonal  hatching  on  the  following  map  de- 
picts present  range;  shading  indicates  former 
range  (Taylor  and  Flyger  1973,  DFSRT  draft). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Maryland:      Dorchester,     Kent,     Queen     Annes 


Virginia: 


Talbot. 
Accomack. 


HABITAT 

The  squirrel  prefers  mature  mixed  timber 
with  a  minimum  of  undergrowth  (Taylor  and 
Flyger  1973;  Taylor  1976).  It  is  thought  to  be 
closely  associated  with  stands  of  loblolly  pine 
[Pinus  taeda)  (lUCN  1972).  However,  others  argue 
that  this  may  not  be  correct,  because  its  former 
distribution  was  north  of  the  distribution  of  lob- 
lolly pine  (Taylor  and  Flyger  1973,  Taylor  1976). 

It  is  often  found  in  savanna  areas,  oak  open- 
ings and  in  narrow  tree  zones  along  rivers  and 
streams.  It  does  occur  sparingly  in  areas  with  dense 
undergrowth,  but  is  then  forced  to  compete  with 
the  gray  squirrel. 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

A  variety  of  large  trees  provide  adequate  mast 
in  fall.  Trees  utilized  include  oak,  hickory,  wal- 
nut, and  loblolly  pine.  In  spring  the  squirrel  con- 
sumes buds  and  flowers  of  trees,  fungi,  insects, 
fruits,  seeds,  and  occasionally  bird  eggs  and  young 
(Smith  and  Folmer  1972;  DFSRT  draft; Taylor  no 
date). 


They  will  consume  a  large  vjuriety  of  agricul- 
tural products  such  as  corn,  soybeans,  or  other 
crops  in  fields  and  orchards.  They  are  more  ter- 
restrial than  the  gray  squirrel  and  will  venture 
farther  into  open  fields. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

See  nesting  or  bedding. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Tree  dens  and  leaf  nests  are  built  with  local 
materials.  They  appear  to  use  den  nests  in  the  win- 
ter and  leaf  nests  in  the  summer  (G.  \.  Taylor  per- 
sonal communication).  Paradiso  (1969)  states 
that  nests  are  placed  near  the  tips  of  branches  in 
old  pines,  from  9  to  15  m  above  the  ground. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

In  north  central  populations  of  Sciurus  niger, 
home  ranges  average  about  4  ha.  The  seasonal 
average  for  home  range  is  approximately  16 
ha  (Allen  1943).  They  are  not  disturbed  by  hu- 
man activity  any  more  than  gray  squirrels,  pro- 
vided habitat  is  satisfactory  (DFSRT  draft). 

This  species  encounters  potential  competition 
in  areas  of  local  sympatry  with  the  gray  squirrel 
in  suboptimal  habitat. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

There  are  no  estimates  of  the  total  number  of 
individuals.  They  are  considered  abundant  only  at 
Eastern  Neck  Island  National  Wildlife  Refuge, 
Kent  County,  Maryland  (DFSRT  draft).  Radio- 
collaring  projects  are  underway  to  provide  infor- 
mation on  numbers. 


REPRODUCTION 

Fox  squirrels  are  polygamous  and  after  mat- 
ing, the  female  raises  the  young  alone.  The  breed- 
ing season  is  extended,  with  peaks  in  February 
and  March,  and  in  July  and  August  (DFSRT 
draft).  Gestation  period  is  45  days  (Asdell  1964). 
Litter  size  is  2  to  4  with  an  average  of  3  (lUCN 
1972);  1  to  2  litters  are  produced  per  year. 
The  amount  of  food  available  seems  to  govern  the 
size  as  well  as  the  number  of  litters  (DFSRT 
draft).  Young  are  born  naked.  Eyes  open  at  5 
weeks  and  young  are  weaned  at  9  to  12  weeks. 


PENNSYLVANIA 


EASTERNNECK' 
NWR 


BLACKWfiTER<^\ 
NWR  V^ 


LE  COMPTE  WMA 


CHINCOTEAGUE 
NWR 


VIRGINIA 


KM 


70 


PRESENT 
RANGE 


HISTORICAL 
RANGE 


This  map  depicts  the  historical  and  present  range  of  the  Delmarva  Peninsula  fox  squirrel. 


Females  may  breed  at  10  to  11  months.  Young 
can  be  disturbed  and  handled  with  minimal 
adverse  effects.  Females  will  not  abandon  young 
if  disturbed  but  may  move  them  to  a  different 
location  (DFSRT  draft). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  establishment  of  Blackwater  National 
Wildlife  Refuge  (1933)  in  Maryland  has  helped 
protect  some  habitat  (lUCN  1972).  LeCompte 
Wildlife  Management  Area,  Maryland,  was  desig- 
nated as  a  refuge  for  this  species  in  1970.  Mary- 
land closed  the  hunting  season  on  this  species  in 
1971.  The  species  was  successfully  introduced  at 
Chincoteague  National  Wildlife  Refuge,  Virginia, 
in  1968. 

Several  hundred  nest  boxes  have  been  placed  in 
selected  habitats  and  many  used  in  Chinco- 
teague National  Wildlife  Refuge.  Several  thou- 
sand nest  boxes  have  been  built,  and  some  put  out 
in  Maryland.  Studies  with  gray  squirrels  have 
indicated  that  provision  of  nest  boxes  nearly 
doubled  the  population  (Barkalow  and  Soots 
1965;  Burger  1969). 

Management  proposals  by  the  State  of  Virgin- 
ia include  establishing  a  nest  box  program  and  sur- 
veying for  additional  sites  of  suitable  habitat  for 
reestablishment  (Taylor  and  Fisher  1978).  The 
State  of  Maryland's  proposals  include,  in  addi- 
tion, the  use  of  abundance  and  life  history  studies 
(G.J.  Taylor  personal  communication). 

A  recovery  team  has  been  formed  and  a  final 
draft  recovery  plan  will  be  formulated  by  late 
1978.  The  primary  objective  of  the  recovery  plan 
is  the  restoration  of  the  Delmarva  fox  squirrel  to 
a  secure  status  throughout  its  former  range 
(DFSRT  draft).  The  plan  includes  three  primary  ac- 
tions: (1)  preservation  and  management  of  essen- 
tial denning  and  feeding  habitat;  (2)  release  of 
Delmarva  fox  squirrels  into  suitable  habitat;  (3) 
protection  of  populations  through  law  enforce- 
ment, reduction  of  squirrel  competition  and  pre- 
dation;  and  (4)  promotion  of  public  support. 
Tentative  plans  also  include  aquisition  of  private 
lands  on  which  this  species  occurs.  Designation  of 
Critical  Habitat  will  be  proposed  by  30  June  1979. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  public  lands  on 
which  the  squirrel  occurs  and  related  population 
estimates  (F  =  Federal,  S  =  State,  NWR  =  Na- 
tional Wildlife  Refuge). 


State 

County 

Location/ 
Ownershp 

Pop. 

Source 

Md. 

Dor- 
chester 

Blackwater 
NWR(F) 

450 

W.H.     Julian 
pers.  com. 

Kent 

Ejistern 
Neck 
NWR  (F) 

250 

P.  Feiger 
pers.  com. 

Dor- 
chester 

LeCompte 
Wildl.  Man. 
Area  (S) 

no 
estimate 

Va. 

Acco- 
mack 

Chinco- 
teague 
NWR  (F) 

80-100 

DFSRT 

pers.com. 

AUTHORITIES 

Vagn      Flyger     (Recovery     Team) 
1222  H.J.  Paterson  Hall 
University  of  Maryland 
College  Park,  MD  20742 

Bernard  F.  Halla  (Recovery  Team) 

Nongame  Wildlife  Program, 

Maryland  Department  of  Natural   Resources 

Wildlife  Administration 

Tawes  State  Office  Building 

Annapolis,  MD  21401 

William  H.  Julian  (Recovery  Team) 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
Blackwater  National  Wildlife  Refuge 
Rt.  l,Box  121 
Cambridge,  MD  21613 

Gary  J.  Taylor  (Recovery  Team) 
Nongame  and  Endangered  Species  Program 

Manager 
Maryland  Department  of  Natural  Resources 
Wildlife  Administration 
Tawes  State  Office  Building 
Annapolis,  MD  21401 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Known  in  literature  as  Sciurus  niger  bryanti, 
S.  n.  neglectus,  and  S.  n.  cinereus. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Abbott,  C.  C.  1890.  The  geological  survey  of  New 
Jersey,  1890.  Vol.  2,  Part  2:500.  John  Mur- 
phy Co.,  Trenton. 


Allen, CM.  1942.  Extinct  and  vanishing  mammals 
of  the  western  hemisphere.  Am.  Comm.  Int. 
WUdl.  Port.  Spec.  Publ.  11:45-46. 

Allen,  D.  C.  1943.  Michigan  fox  squirrel  manage- 
ment. Mich.  Dep.  Conserv.  Game  Div.  Publ. 
100.  Lansing. 

Asdell,  S.  A.  1964.  Patterns  of  mammalian  repro- 
duction. Cornell  Univ.  Press,  Ithaca.  670  pp. 

Bakken,  A.  1952.  Interrelationships  of  Sciurus 
caroliinensis  (Gmelin)  and  Sciurus  niger  (Lin- 
naeus) in  mixed  popula.  Ph.D.  Dissert.  Univ. 
Wisconsin.  188  pp. 

Barkalow,  F.  S.,  Jr.  and  R.  F.  Soots,  Jr.  1965.  An 
analysis  of  the  effect  of  artificial  nest  boxes 
on  a  gray  squirrel  population.  Trans.  N.  Am. 
Wildl.  Natur.  Resour.  Conf.  30:349-360. 

Burger,  G.  V.  1969.  Response  of  gray  squirrels  to 
nest  boxes  at  Remington  Farms,  Maryland.  J. 
Wildl.  Manage.  33:796-801. 

DFSRT  (Delmarva  Fox  Squirrel  Recovery  Team). 
Draft.  Delmarva  fox  squirrel  recovery  plan. 
U.S.  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.  39  pp. 

Dozier,  H.  L.,  and  H.  E.  Hall.  1944.  Observations 
on  the  Bryant's  fox  squirrel,  Sciurus  niger 
bryantii,  (Bailey).  Md  Conserv.  21:1-12. 

Flyger,  V.  1964.  Urban  sprawl  endangers  native 
Maryland  mammals.  Md.  Conserv.  41:6-7. 

Hall,  E.  R.,  and  K.  R.  Kelson.  1959.  Mammals  of 
North  America.  2  vols.  Ronald  Press,  New 
York.  1,083  pp. 

lUCN.  1972.  Red  data  book.  Vol.  I,  Mammalia. 
Compiled  by  H.  A.  Goodwin  and  C.  W.  Hollo- 
way.  lUCN,  Morges,  Switzerland. 

Lustig,  L.  W.,  and  V.  Flyger.  1976.  Observations 
and  suggested  management  practices  for  the 
endangerd  Delmarva  fox  squirrel.  Proc.  Annu. 
Conf.  Southeast.  Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  29: 
433-440. 

Mansueti,  R.  1950.  Extinct  and  vanishing  mam- 
mals of  Maryland  and  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia. Md  Natur.  20:1-48. 

Moore,  J.  C.  1946.  Mammals  from  Welaka,  Put- 
nam County,  Florida.  J.  Mammal.  27:490-59. 


.  1957.  The  natural  history  of  the  fox 

squirrel    Sciurus    niger   shermani.    Bull.    Am. 
Mus.  Natur.  Hist.  113:1-70. 


Paradiso,  J.  L.  1969.  Mammals  of  Maryland.  N. 
Am.  Fauna  66:1-93. 

Poole,  E.  L.  1932.  A  survey  of  the  mammals  of 
Berks  County,  Pennsylvania.  Reading  Pub. 
Mus.  Art  Gall.  Bull.  13. 

•  1944.  The  technical  names  of  the  north- 


eastern fox  squirrels.  J.  Mammal.  25:315-317. 

Rhoads,  S.  N.    1903.  The  mammals  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  New  Jersey.  Philadelphia. 


Smith,  C,  D.  Follmer.  1972.  Food  preferences  of 
squirrels.  Ecology  53:82-91. 

Taylor,  G.  J.  1974.  Present  status  and  habitat  sur- 
vey of  the  Delmarva  fox  squirrel  {Sciurus 
niger  cinereus)  with  a  discussion  of  reasons 
for  its  decline.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast. 
Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  27:278-189. 

.    1976.  Range  determination  and  habitat 

description  of  the  Delmarva  fox  squirrels  in 
Maryland.  M.S.  Thesis.  Univ.  of  Maryland, 
College  Park. 


.  No  date.  Maryland's  Delmarva  fox  squir- 
rel. Maryland  Dep.  Natur.  Resour.  Fact  Sheet. 
2  pp. 

Taylor,  G.  J.,  and  V.  Flyger.  1973.  Distribution 
of  the  Delmarva  fox  squirrel  (Sciurus  niger 
cinereus)  in  Maryland.  Chesapeake  Sci.  14: 
59-60. 

Taylor,  W.  H.,  and  E.  Fisher.  1978.  Delmarva  fox 
squirrel  investigations.  Performance  report 
from  July  1977  to  June  1978.  Proj.  No.  E-2. 
Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  Comm.  Game 
Fish,  Richmond.  3  pp. 

USFWS.  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 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.38 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  HOUSTON  TOAD 


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  ihrcalencd  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  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 
.\,'\SA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704.'>8 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.38 
March  1980 


SELKCl  KI)  Vl.Rl  KBRAl  i:  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  rHE  SEACOAS 1  OF  1  HE  UNFFED  SFA FES- 

THE  HOUSTON  TOAD 


A  Cooperative  Effort 
by  tin- 
National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory, 
the  Office  of  Endangered  Species 
and  the 
National  C:()astal  Ecosystems  Feam, 
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 

I  ish  anti  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


HOUSTON  TOAD 

Bufo  houstonensis  Sanders 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Amphibia 

ORDER Anura 

FAMILY Bufonidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES Wottring's  toad 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 1  January  1978,  31  March  1978, 

22  May  1979 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered  (35  FR  16047,  13  Octo- 
ber 1970) 

States:  Endangered:  Texas. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Populations  are  extremely  small  and  their 
known  distribution  is  restricted  to  two  or  three 
disjunct  localities.  Early  field  studies  indicated 
Houston  toads  preferred  temporary  rain  pools  for 
breeding  sites,  whereas  other  native  toads 
generally  used  more  permanent  bodies  of  water. 
Man's  alteration  of  natural  watersheds  has  re- 
duced the  availability  of  temporary  pools,  forcing 
Houston  toads  to  breed  in  larger  ponds,  lakes,  and 
creeks  where  they  have  hybridized  with  the  Gulf 
Coast  toad  {B.  valliceps)  and  the  Woodhouse's 
toad  (J5.  woodhousei)  (Brown  1971).  The  prob- 
lem is  compounded  because  population  levels  are 
so  low  that  the  probability  of  a  female  Houston 
toad  finding  a  conspecific  mate  in  a  mixed  chorus 
of  toad  species  is  slim  (Brown  1971). 


The  Houston  toad  is  generally  considered  a 
post-Pleistocene  relict  of  the  more  northerly  dis- 
tributed American  toad  (B.  americanus)  (Blair 
1958,  1965)  and  may  be  ill-adapted  to  southern 
environments  (Brown  1971).  If  true,  this  may  ex- 
plain the  species'  apparent  failure  to  adapt  to 
habitat  alterations. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

A  small  toad,  the  Houston  toad  is  similar  to 
the  American  toad,  but  with  heavier  cranial  crests, 
especially  behind  the  eyes.  Males  have  a  49-  to 
66-mm  snout-to-vent  length;  females  meaure  57 
to  80  mm.  The  dorsum  is  light  brown  to  cream 
with  a  variable  number  of  dark  brown  to  black 
spots,  each  with  one  or  more  warts.  The  venter  is 
cream,  usually  heavily  mottled.  A  hght  mid-dorsjd 
stripe  is  usually  present.  Tadpoles  are  virtually 
indistinguishable  from  American  toad  larvae 
(Altig  1970).  The  mating  call  consists  of  a  long 
(7-  to  22-sec),  high-pitched  (1,646-  to  2,300-Hz) 
trill  with  14  to  16  pulses  per  second  (Brown 
1973). 

Photographs  appear  in  Sanders  (1953),  Blair 
(1959,  1972),  Kennedy  (1962),  Brown  (1971), 
Thomas  (1975),  Thomas  and  Potter  (1975),  Eh- 
renfield  (1976),  and  Hardy  (1977).  Audio- 
spectrograms  of  the  mating  call  are  given  in 
Brown  (1971,  1973). 

RANGE 

The  species'  historical  range  included  the  fol- 
lowing localities:  northwest  and  southeast  Hous- 
ton, Harris  County;  Lake  Woodrow,  Burleson 
County;  6  miles  south  of  Liberty,  Liberty  Coun- 
ty; Austin  County;  and  6  and  12.6  miles  east  of 
Columbus,  Colorado  County  (Sanders  1953). 
Brown  (1971)  also  reported  populations  2  miles 
west  of  Fresno  in  Fort  Bend  County  and  in  the 
vicinity  of  Bastrop  and  Buescher  State  Parks  in 
Bastrop  County. 

The  species  has  not  been  found  in  Liberty, 
Austin,  Colorado,  or  Fort  Bend  counties  since 
originally  reported.  It  is  now  known  to  exist  only 
in  the  vicinity  of  Bastrop  and  Buescher  State 
Parks,  Bastrop  County;  Lake  Woodrow,  Burleson 
County;  and  possibly  southeast  Houston,  Harris 
County. 


RANGE  MAP 

Historic  localities  are  designated  on  the  follow- 
ing map  by  triangles;  present  known  localities  are 
indicated  by  dots.  Critical  Habitat  as  designated 
in  43  FR  4022,  31  January  1978,  is  shown  on  a 
separate  map. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Texas:  Austin,'     Bastrop,    Burleson,   Colora- 

do,*    Fort    Bend,'    Harris,   Liberty.' 

HABITAT 

Houston  toads  are  restricted  to  areas  charac- 
terized by  sandy  soils.  Localities  in  Bastrop  and 
Burleson  Counties  are  heavily  wooded  with  lob- 
lolly pine  {Pinus  taeda)  and/or  mixed  deciduous 
forest,  interspersed  with  open  grassy  areas.  The 
southeast  Houston  locality  is  residential  with 
open,  grassy  fields. 

Breeding  habitats  include  roadside  ditches, 
temporary  ponds  in  residential  areas  and  pastures, 
and  other  seasonally  flooded  low  spots.  Houston 
toads  also  breed  in  Lake  Woodrow  and  nearby 
permanent  ponds. 

FOODS  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Bragg  (1960)  reported  captives  feeding  on  va- 
rious insects  and  smaller  toads.  Thomas  (unpub- 
lished data)  examined  17  specimens  and  found 
unidentified  red  ants  in  one  and  beetle  remains  in 
another. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Apparently  requires  sandy  loamy  soils  for 
burrowing. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

The  species  breeds  in  temporary  rain  pools, 
flooded  fields,  and  permanent  ponds. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Males  call  from  small  mounds  of  soil  or  grass 
surrounded    by    water,   or    from    shallow   water. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 


'  Believed  extirpated  in  these  counties. 


V 

H 


^ 


c 
o 

u 


•a 


-a 

o 
+-> 

c 
o 

CO 

3 
O 

X 

V 

J3 


C 

o 


3 
J2 


O 

c 

n) 

+-» 
C 
u 

(» 

u 

Si 

a. 

-a 

c 


o 


Critical  habitat  of  the  Houston  toad,  as  designated  in  43  FR  4022,  31  January  1978,  is  depicted 
by  shading  in  this  map. 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Populations  of  Houston  toads  in  Harris  County 
have  decreased  markedly  since  the  late  1940's,  but 
the  rate  has  not  been  documented.  John  Wottring, 
the  naturalist  responsible  for  recognition  of  the 
Houston  toad  as  a  distinct  species,  reported  collect- 
ing 66  from  a  single  chorus  in  1949,  and  "quite  a 
lot"  in  1953  (from  his  field  notes).  Brown  (1967, 
1971)  found  only  three  during  the  breeding  sea- 
sons in  1965,  1966,  and  1967.  Extensive  surveys 
in  1974,  1975,  and  1976  revealed  the  presence  of 
two  Houston  toads  in  southeastern  Houston  (R. 
Thomas  unpublished  data).  Surveys  in  1978  failed 
to  locate  any  Houston  toads  in  Harris  County 
(Jameson  and  Handerstein  unpublished). 

Populations  in  Bastrop  and  Burleson  Counties 
have  apparently  remained  stable  during  the  past 
10  years,  estimated  at  a  maximum  of  300  indivi- 
duals (Brown  1975). 

Thomas  and  Potter  (1975)  estimate  the  total 
population  to  be  near  1,500  individuals.  Mark-re- 
capture studies  have  not  been  attempted. 

REPRODUCTION 

Breeding  is  initiated  by  heavy  rains  from  Feb- 
ruary to  June  and  lasts  only  a  few  nights  (Kenne- 
dy 1962).  One  female  laid  728  eggs  (Kennedy 
1962).  Hybridization  with  Woodhouse's  toads 
(fertile  hybrids)  and  Gulf  Coast  toads  (infertile 
hybrids)    has    been    documented    (Brown    1971). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

A  Recovery  Team  was  appointed  in  January 
1978  to  develop  a  plan  for  removal  of  this  species 
from  endangered  status.  Critical  Habitat  has  been 
designated  (43  FR  4022,  31  January  1978).  Areas 
of  land,  water,  and  airspace  in  two  counties  were 
designated:  (1)  Bastrop  County,  from  the  junc- 
tion of  line  corresponding  to  30°12'00"N  and 
Texas  State  Highway  95  east  along  a  line  corres- 
ponding to  30°12'00"N,  to  where  it  intersects  a 
line  corresponding  to  97°17'30"W,  to  where  it 
intersects  the  Colorado  River,  west  and  northwest 
along  the  north  bank  of  the  Colorado  River  to 
the  due  southward  extension  of  Texas  State  High- 
way 95,  and  north  along  the  extension  and  Texas 
State  Highway  95  to  where  it  intersects  a  line 
corresponding  to  3O°12'00"N;  (2)  Burleson  Coun- 
ty: a  circular  area  with  a  1.6-km  radius,  the  center 
being  the  north  entrance  to  Lake  Woodrow  from 
Texas  FM  2000. 

About  285  ha  at  Buescher  State  Science  Park 
are  reportedly  being  maintained  in  a  condition 
as  favorable  for  Houston  toads  as  possible  (F.  Pot- 
ter personal  communication). 


The  endangered  Houston  toad  has  received 
considerable  publicity  and  most  local  land  owners 
are  aware  of  the  problem. 

Houston  toads  were  reared  at  the  Houston 
Zoo  in  1978  and  1979.  The  first  project  involved 
collecting  eggs  in  the  wild  and  then  releasing  over 
1,000  tadpoles  back  into  the  wild.  In  1979,  eggs 
from  Houston  toads  were  spawned  at  the  zoo  and 
at  the  time  this  report  was  prepared  (May  1979), 
tadpoles  were  being  raised  for  subsequent  release. 

AUTHORITIES 

Lauren  E.  Brown  (Recovery Team) 
Department  of  Biological  Sciences 
Illinois  State  University 
Normal,  IL  61761 

William  L.  McClure  (Recovery  Team) 
Houston  Urban  Project 
P.O.Box  187 
Houston,  TX  77001 

Floyd  E.  Potter  (Recovery  Team) 
Texas  Parks  and  Wildlife  Department 
4200  Smith  School  Road 
Austin,  TX  78744 

Norman  J.  Scott,  Jr.  (Recovery  Team) 
US   FWS 

Natl.  Fish  &  Wildl.  Lab. 
Albuquerque,  NM 

Robert  A.  Thomas  (Recovery  Team) 
Louisiana  Nature  Center 
4100  One  Shell  Square 
New  Orleans,  LA  70139 

Okla  W.  Thornton 
5525  4th  Street  No.  99 
Lubbock,  TX  79416 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

There  is  an  obvious  paucity  of  base-line  eco- 
logical information  about  the  Houston  toad.  Pro- 
per management  of  the  species  will  require  such 
data. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Altig,  R.  1970.  A  key  to  the  tadpoles  of  the  Con- 
tinental United  States  and  Canada.  Herpetolo- 
gica26(2):180-207. 

Blair,  W.  F.  1956.  Call  difference  as  an  isolation 
mechanism  in  southwestern  toads  (genus 
Bufo).  Texas  J.  Sci.  8:87-106. 

.  1958.  Distributional  patterns  of  verte- 
brates in  the  southern  United  States  in  rela- 


tion  to  past  and  present  environments.  Pages 
433-468  in  Hubbs,  C.  L.,  ed.  Zoogeography. 
Am.  Assoc.  Adv.  Sci.  Publ.  51. 

.   1959.  Genetic  conpatibility  and  species 


groups    in    U.S.    toads   (Bufo).   Texas  J.   Sci. 
427-453, 

1963.  Intragroup  genetic  compatibility 


in  the  Bufo  americanus  species  group  of  toads. 
Texas  J.  Sci.  15:15-34. 

.   1965.  Amphibian  speciation.  Pages  543- 

556  in  Wright,  H.  E.  and  D.  G.  Frey,  eds.  The 
Quartemary  of  the  United  States.  Princeton 
Univ.  Press,  Princeton. 

.   ed.   1972.  Evolution  in  the  genus  Bufo. 


Univ.  Texas  Press,  Austin. 

Bragg,  A.  N.  1960.  Feeding  in  the  Houston  toad. 
Southwest  Natur.  5:160. 

Brown,  L.  E.  1967.  The  significance  of  natural 
hybridization  in  certain  aspects  of  the  specia- 
tion of  some  North  American  toads  (genus 
Bufo).  Ph.  D.  Dissert.  Univ.  Texas,  Austin. 

.    1971.  Natural  hybridization  and  trend 

toward  extinction  in  some  relict  Texas  toad 
populations.  Southwest  Natur.  16:185-199. 

.    1973.  Bufo  houstonensis  Sanders.  Cat. 

Am.  Amphib.  Rep.  133.1-1-133.2.' 

.    1975.   The    status    of   the    near-extinct 

Houston  toad  (Bufo  houstonensis)  with 
recommendations  for  its  conservation.  Herp. 
Rev.  6:37-38. 

Ehrenfeld,  D.  W.  1976.  The  conservation  of  non- 
resources.  Am.  Sci.  64:648-656. 

Guttman,  S.  1.  1969.  Blood  protein  variation  in 
the  Bufo  americanus  species  group  of  toads. 
Copeia  1969:243-249. 

Hardy,  M.  1977.  Froggie  goes  to  court.  Texas 
Monthly  5:76. 

Kennedy,  J.  P.  1962.  Spawning  season  and  experi- 
mental hybridization  of  the  Houston  toad, 
Bufo  houstonensis.  Wer^etolo^ca.  17:239-245. 

Sanders,  O.  1953.  A  new  species  of  toad  with  a 
discussion  of  the  bufonid  skull.  Herpetologica 
9:25-47. 

Thomas,  R.  A.  1975.  Investigation  on  the  status 
of  the  Houston  toad,  Bufo  houstonensis 
Sanders.  Unpubl.  Final  Rep.  to  the  U.S.  Fish 
Wildl.  Serv.  Contract  14-16-0002-3557. 

Contains  complete  bibliography  for  the  species  through 
1973. 


•   1975.  (Cover  photo:  Bufo  houstonensis). 

Herp.  Rev.  6(2). 

Thomas,  R.  A.,  and  F.  E.  Potter,  Jr.  1975.  Species 
status  account:  Bufo  houstonensis  Sanders. 
Texas  Parks  Wildl.  Dep.  Job  Perform.  Rep. 
70:1-11. 

GATEKEEPER 

To    be  designated  by  Office  of  Endangered 
Species. 

ACCOUNT  PREPARED/UPDATED  BY: 

Louisiana  Nature  Center 
4100  One  Shell  Square 
New  Orleans,  LA  70129 

and 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.39 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  AMERICAN  ALLIGATOR 


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  ol  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  t)r  as  the  status  of  species  is  changed. 

Suggestions  or  questions  regarding  SWIS  should  be  directed  Id: 

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  t(;: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  leani 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Senice 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Shdell,  Louisiana  704.^)8 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.39 
March  1980 


SLLKCIKU  VI:RI  EBRAl  i:  KNDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  IHE  SEACOAS 1  OF  I  HE  UNFIED  STATES- 

THE  AMERICAN  ALLIGATOR 


A  Cooperative  Effort 
by  tin- 
National  Fish  and  WildHfc  Laboratory, 
the  Office  of  Endangered  Species 
and  the 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  1  eani, 
Office  of  Biological  Services 


Project  Officer 

Donald  VV.  Woodard 

National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 

NASA-Slidcll  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  Intenor 


CREDIT:  LUTH  ER  C.  GOLDMAN 


AMERICAN  ALLIGATOR 

Alligator  mississippiensis  (Daudin) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Reptilia 

ORDER Crocodylia 

FAMILY Alligatoridae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES alligator,  gator 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 21  August  1978. 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered  (40  FR  44418,  26  Septem- 
ber 1975),  wherever  found  in  wild  ex- 
cept where  threatened  (42  FR  2076, 
10  January  1977;  44  FR  37132,  25 
June  1979;  44  FR  49084,  12  October 
1979)  or  protected  by  Similarity  of  Ap- 
pearance (40  FR  44418,  26  September 
1975;  44  FR  37132,  25  June  1979; 44 
FR  59084,  12  October  1979). 


Threatened  (42  FR  2076,  10  January 
1977;  44  FR  37132,  25  June  1979; 
44  FR  59084,  12  October  1979)  in 
Florida  and  along  the  southern  Coastal 
Plain  within  the  following  boundaries: 
from  Winyah  Bay  near  Georgetown, 
S.C,  west  of  U.S.  Highway  17  to 
Georgetown;  thence  west  and  south  on 
U.S.  Alternate  Highway  17  to  junction 
with  U.S.  Interstate  Highway  95  near 
Watersboro,  S.C;  thence  south  on  U.S. 
Interstate  Highway  95  (including  in- 
complete portions)  to  junction  with 
U.S.  Highway  82;  thence  southwest  on 
U.S.  Highway  82  to  junction  with  U.S. 
Highway  84  at  Waycross,  Ga.,  thence 
west  on  U.S.  Highway  84  to  the  Ala- 
bama-Georgia border;  thence  south 
along  this  border  to  the  Florida  border 
and  following  Florida  border  west  and 
south  to  its  termination  at  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico;  then  from  the  Mississippi-Lou- 
isiana border  at  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
north  along  this  border  to  its  junction 
with     U.S.     Interstate     Highway     12; 


thence  west  on  U.S.  Interstate  Highway 
12  (including  incomplete  portions)  to 
Baton  Rouge,  La.;  thence  north  and 
west  along  corporate  limits  of  Baton 
Rouge  to  U.S.  Highway  190;  thence 
west  on  U.S.  Highway  190  to  junction 
with  Louisiana  State  Highway  12  at 
Ragley,  La.,  thence  west  on  Louisiana 
State  Highway  12  to  the  Beauregard- 
Calcasieu  Parish  border;  thence  north 
and  west  along  this  border  to  the  Texas- 
Louisiana  State  border;  thence  south 
on  this  border  to  Texas  State  Highway 
12;  thence  west  on  Texas  State  High- 
way 12  to  Vidor,  Tex.,  thence  west  on 
U.S.  Highway  90  in  the  Houston,  Tex., 
corporate  limits;  thence  north,  west, 
and  south  along  Houston  corporate 
limits  to  junction  on  the  west  with  U.S. 
Highway  59;  thence  south  and  west  on 
U.S.  Highway  59  to  Victoria,  Tex., 
thence  south  on  U.S.  Highway  77  to 
corporate  limits  of  Corpus  Christi, 
Tex.;  thence  southeast  along  the  south- 
em  Corpus  Christi  corporate  limits  to 
Laguna  Madre;  thence  south  along  the 
west  shore  of  Laguna  Madre  to  the 
Nueces-Kleberg  county  line;  thence 
east  along  the  Nueces-Kleberg  county 
line  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

Threatened  (Similarity  of  Appearance 
to  Endangered  and  Threatened  popula- 
tions) (40  FR  37132,  25  June  1979)  in 
the  wild  in  Cameron,  Vermilion,  Cal- 
casieu, Ibemia,  St.  Mary,  St.  Charles, 
Terrebonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Bernard, 
Jefferson,  St.  Tammany,  and  Plaque- 
mine  Parishes  in  Louisiana. 

States:  Endangered:  Delaware,  Georgia,  Mas- 

sachusetts,   Mississippi,    North    Caro- 
lina, Texas. 

Threatened:  Florida. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Although  the  range  of  the  American  alligator 
is  but  slightly  reduced  from  historic  boundaries, 
population  levels  over  much  of  the  present  range 
are  reduced  due  to  loss  of  habitat  and  overharvest. 
The  low  point  in  population  decline  was  reached 
in  the  late  1950's  to  mid-1960's,  and  in  1967  the 
species  was  listed  by  the  United  States  as  endan- 
gered. 


Man  and  his  associated  technology  are  the 
major  threats.  Alligators  were  killed  for  food  by 
the  early  settlers,  to  a  lesser  extent  for  leather,  in 
many  cases  out  of  fear,  and  because  of  livestock 
depredation.  It  was  not  until  1855,  however,  that 
any  attempt  was  made  to  take  large  numbers  for 
their  leather.  This  activity  was  interrupted  to 
some  extent  by  the  Civil  War,  although  limited 
commercial  use  by  the  Confederacy  for  leather 
and  grease  continued  during  the  war  (Audubon 
1931).  By  1870,  alligator  leather  again  became 
fashionable,  and  alligators  were  killed  in  the 
southeast  from  1870  until  the  mid-1960's.  Smith 
(1893)  stated  that  at  least  2,500,000  were  killed 
in  Florida  from  1800  to  1891.  Early  estimates  in- 
dicate that  the  number  surviving  in  Florida  and 
Louisiana  in  1902  was  less  than  20%  of  what  it 
had    been    20    years    earlier    (Stevenson     1904). 

From  the  late  1940's  through  the  mid-1960's, 
the  remaining  wetland  areas  were  opened  up. 
Improved  marsh  transportation  such  as  airboats 
and  marsh  buggies  placed  unreasonable  pressure 
on  remaining  alligator  populations.  Chabreck 
(1967)  estimated  that  between  the  late  1940's 
and  late  1950's,  populations  in  Louisiana  de- 
clined by  90%. 

Outright  destruction  of  wetlands  has  had 
serious  effects  upon  alligators  throughout  their 
range.  Millions  of  hectares  of  wetlands  that  at 
one  time  were  prime  alligator  habitat  have  been 
drained  throughout  the  southeast.  Areas  in  south 
Florida  that  harbored  impressive  numbers  of 
alligators  as  late  as  1954  are  now  dewatered  and 
in  agricultural  production  (Florida  Game  and 
Fresh  Water  Fish  Commission,  unpubl.  data). 
Other  areas  have  experienced  dramatic  changes  in 
annual  water-level  fluctuations,  which  have 
affected  populations.  Hines  et  al.  (1968)  docu- 
mented severe  nest  losses  in  the  Everglades  due  to 
flooding.  Man's  drainage  and  diking  activities  have 
increased  the  frequency  and  magnitude  of  water- 
level  fluctuations  in  the  Everglades,  resulting  in 
frequent  nest  destruction,  undoubtedly  an 
important  factor  limiting  reproduction  in  that 
part  of  Florida. 

State  and  Federad  protection  has  reversed  the 
population  decline,  and  alligators  are  now  stabili- 
zed or  increasing  in  numbers  in  most  of  their 
range. 

The  chief  threat  to  the  American  alligator  is 
now  probably  the  rapid  urbanization  underway 
throughout  its  range  and  the  increasing  conver- 
sion of  habitat  to  recreational  use  and  develop- 
ment. The  alligator  is  a  large  predatory  species, 
and,  in  close   contact  with  human  populations. 


may  constitute  an  apparent  threat  as  both  a 
competitor  to  and  predator  on  man,  Thus,  even 
a  few  homes  on  a  lake  or  river  can  generate  con- 
siderable pressure  for  a  reduction  in  the  local 
alligator  population,  especially  the  larger  indi- 
viduals. Growing  human  intolerance  could  result 
in  serious  and  possibly  insurmountable  obstacles 
to  maintaining  the  species  over  much  of  its 
present  range. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  alligator  is  a  lizard-Hke  reptile  that 
reaches  lengths  of  more  than  4  m  and  weights 
up  to  150  kg.  Adults  are  generally  dark  gray  or 
black,  but  the  young  are  brightly  patterned  with 
black  and  yellow.  The  body  is  covered  with  rough 
scales  dorsally  and  smooth  scales  ventrally.  The 
tail  is  strongly  compressed  laterally  and  crested 
with  high,  pointed  scales. 

The  only  native  species  with  which  the  alliga- 
tor might  be  confused  is  the  American  crocodile. 
The  alligator  has  a  broad,  rounded  snout,  whereas 
the  crocodile's  snout  is  sharply  tapered  forward 
of  the  eyes.  The  fourth  tooth  in  the  crocodile's 
lower  jaw  is  exposed  when  the  mouth  is  closed; 
in  the  alligator,  this  tooth  is  covered  by  the  upper 
lip.  Crocodiles  are  generally  lighter  colored  as 
adults  than  alligators,  being  light  gray  or  olive  as 
compared  to  the  alligator's  dark  gray  or  black. 
Young  crocodiles  are  olive  with  black  bars  and 
markings,  rather  than  black  and  yellow.  Most 
standard  field  guides  and  reptile  books  illustrate 
the  differences  between  these  species  (e.g.,  Dit- 
mars  1953,  Carr  and  Coin  1955,  Pope  1955, 
Bothwell  1962,  Neill  1971,Conant  1975,  Perrero 
1975).  All  these  works,  as  well  as  a  wide  range  of 
texts,  magazines,  and  general  outdoor  publica- 
tions provide  color  and  black-and-white  photo- 
graphs. 

RANGE 

Alligators  range  throughout  wetland  habitats 
in  the  coastal  region  of  southeastern  United  States 
from  central  North  Carolina  to  Texas  and  north 
along  the  Mississippi  River  drainage  into  extreme 
southeastern  Oklahoma  and  southern  Arkansas 
(Joanen  1974). 

The  present  range  approximates  the  historical 
range.  There  is  evidence  that  the  species  once 
ranged  north  of  central  North  Carolina  into  the 
Dismal    Swamp    region    of  southeastern  Virginia 


and  northeastern  North  Carolina  (Neill  1971). 
The  southern  extent  of  its  historic  range  in  Texas 
and  possibly  northeastern  Mexico  is  unknown; 
however,  records  exist  from  the  Rio  Grande,  indi- 
cating the  possiblity  that  it  once  ranged  into  the 
extensive  aquatic  habitats  of  northeastern  Tamau- 
lipas,  Mexico. 

RANGE  MAP 

Range  is  delineated  by  shading  on  the  follow- 
ing map  (T.  Joanen  personal  communication). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Alabama:  Autauga,  Baldwin,  Barbour,  Bullock, 
Butler,  Choctaw,  Clarke,  Coffee,  Co- 
necuh, Covington,  Crenshaw,  Dale, 
Dallas,  Escambia,  Geneva.  Greene, 
Hale,  Henry,  Houston,  Lowndes, 
Macon,  Marengo,  Mobile,  Monroe, 
Montgomery,  Perry,  Pickens,  Pike, 
Russell,  Sumter,  Tuscaloosa,  Washing- 
ton, Wilcox. 

Arkansas:    Hempstead,  Lafayette,  Miller. 

Florida:       All. 

Georgia:  Appling,  Atkinson,  Bacon,  Baker, 
Baldwin,  Ben  Hill,  Berrien,  Bibb, 
Bleckley,  Brantley,  Brooks,  Bryan, 
Bullock,  Burke,  Calhoun,  Camden, 
Candler,  Charlton,  Chatham,  Chatta- 
hoochee, Clay,  Clinch,  Coffee,  Col- 
quitt, Cook,  Crawford,  Crisp,  Decatur, 
Dodge,  Dooly,  Early,  Echols,  Effing- 
ham, Emanuel,  Evans,  Glynn,  Grady, 
Hancock,  Harris,  Heard,  Houston,  Ir- 
win, Jeff  Davis,  Jefferson,  Jenkins, 
Johnson,  Jones,  Lanier,  Laurens,  Lee, 
Liberty,  Long,  Lowndes,  Macon,  Ma- 
rion, Mcintosh,  Meriwether,  Miller, 
Mitchell,  Montgomery,  Muscogee, 
Peach,  Pierce,  Pulaski,  Putnam,  Quit- 
man, Randolph,  Richmond,  Schley, 
Screven,  Seminole,  Stewart,  Sumter, 
Talbot,  Tattnall,  Taylor,  Telfair,  Ter- 
rell, Thomas,  Tift,  Toombs,  Treutlen, 
Troup,  Turner,  Twiggs,  Upson,  Ware, 
Washington,  Wayne,  Webster,  Wheeler, 
Wilcox,  Wilkinson,  Worth. 

Louisiana:  All. 

Mississippi: Adams,  Amite,  Attala,  Carroll,  Clai- 
borne, Clarke,  Clay, Coahoma,  Copiah, 
Covington,  Forrest,  George,  Greene, 
Grenada,     Hancock,  Harrison,  Hinds, 


1 

I 


) 


Ctj 

-a 

V 

4-' 

c 
D 
u 


R) 


cd 
u 

•c 

u 

E 
< 

u 

.£3 


u 
bO 
C 
c<3 


c 

u 
w 

u 
l-l 

ex 

u 

J3 


C 
u 

u 
;^ 

Oh 
U 
l-l 


C 

o 

Rj 
U 
Sh 

nf 

u 

-a 

GO 
U 

H 


-^ 


Holmes,  Humphreys,  Issaguena,  Jack- 
son, Jefferson,  Jones,  Lafayette, 
Lamar,  Lauderdale,  Lawrence,  Leake, 
Leflore,  Lincoln,  Lowndes,  Madison, 
Marion,  Monroe,  Montgomery,  Ne- 
shoba, Newton,  Noxubee,  Panola, 
Pearl  River,  Perry,  Pike,  Quitman, 
Scott,  Sharkey,  Simpson,  Smith, 
Stone,  Tallahatchie,  Walthall,  Warren, 
Washington,  Wayne,  Wilkinson,  Yazoo. 

North 

Carolina:  Beaufort,  Bladen,  Brunswick, Carteret, 
Columbus,  Craven,  Cumberland,  Dare, 
Duplin,  Hyde,  Jones,  New  Hanover, 
Onslow,  Pamlico,  Pender,  Pitt,  Robe- 
son, Sampson,  Scotland,  Tyrrell, 
Washington. 

Oklahoma:  McCurtain. 

South 

Carolina:  Aiken,  Allendale,  Bamberg,  Barnwell, 
Beaufort,  Berkeley,  Calhoun,  Charles- 
ton, Chesterfield,  Clarendon,  Colleton, 
Darlington,  Dillon,  Dorchester,  Flo- 
rence, Georgetown,  Hampton,  Horry, 
Jasper,  Kershaw,  Lee,  Lexington, 
Marion,  Marlboro,  Orangeburg,  Rich- 
land, Sumter,  Williamsburg. 

Texas:  Anderson,  Angelina,  Aransas,  Archer, 

Atascosa,  Austin,  Beek,  Bexar,  Brazo- 
ria, Brazos,  Burleson,  Calhoun,  Came- 
ron, Cass,  Chambers,  Collin,  Colorado, 
Dimmit,  Ellis,  Fort  Bend,  Freestone, 
Frio,  Galveston,  Goliad,  Grimes,  Har- 
din, Harris,  Harrison,  Henderson, 
Houston,  Jackson,  Jasper,  Jefferson, 
Jim  Wells,  Johnson,  Karnes,  Kimble, 
Kleberg,  Lamar,  La  Salle,  Lavaca, 
Leon,  Liberty,  Live  Oak,  Madison, 
Marion,  Matagorda,  McMullen,  Mont- 
gomery, Morris,  Nacogdoches,  Navar- 
ro, Newton,  Nueces,  Orange,  Polk,  Re- 
fugio, Robertson,  Sabine,  San  Augus- 
tine, San  Jacinto,  San  Patricio,  Shelby, 
Smith,  Travis,  Trinity,  Tyler,  Victoria, 
Walker,  Waller,  Webb. 

HABITAT 

Alligators  inhabit,  or  inhabited,  practically  all 
fresh  and  brackish  water  habitats  in  their  range 
except  as  excluded  by  man.  Large  marsh-bordered 
lakes,  fresh  and  brackish  marshes,  and  savannas 
appear  to  provide  optimal  habitat  and  support  the 
densest  populations  (Reese  1915,  Mcllhenny 
1935,Fogarty  1974). 


FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  food  of  alligators  consists  of  virtually  any 
animal  small  enough  to  be  captured  and  swal- 
lowed (Kellogg  1929,  Mcllhenny  1935).  Available 
data  indicate  some  variation  between  size  classes 
(Kellogg  1929)  and  between  habitat  types  (Cha- 
breck  1971).  Small  alligators  feed  extensively  on 
invertebrates,  including  crayfish,  aquatic  and  ter- 
restrial insects,  and  mollusks  (Fogarty  and  Albury 
1967,  Neill  1971,  Valentine  et  al.  1972),  while 
larger  individuals  take  vertebrate  prey,  including 
wading  birds,  snakes,  turtles,  small  mammals,  and 
fish.  Very  large  alligators  may  attack  and  eat  large 
animals  such  as  deer,  cattle,  and  even  man  (Neill 
1971,  Hines  and  Keenlyne  1977). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Adults  often  dig  dens  or  'gator  holes'  at  the 
edges  of  rivers  or  lakes  and  in  marsh  habitats.  An 
underground  tunnel  with  an  underwater  entrance 
will  lead  into  an  underground  cave  a  short  dis- 
tance back  from  the  water  (Kellogg  1929; 
Mcllhenny  1935;  Craighead  1969;  Joanen  and 
McNease  1971,  1972;  Neill  1971). 

NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

Alligators  build  mound  nests  of  heaped-up  ve- 
getation in  clearings  in  marshes  or  along  the  edges 
of  lakes  or  rivers.  Mounds  are  generally  about  2  m 
in  diameter  and  0.5  to  1  m  high  (Mcllhenny  1935, 
Joanen  1969,  Joanen  and  McNease  1972,  Neill 
1971). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Joanen  (1974)  provided  estimates  of  alligator 
populations  in  all  areas  throughout  the  range.  The 
total  estimated  population  for  the  species  was 
738,384.  In  addition,  the  estimated  available 
habitat  was  given  as  116,550  km^  for  an  average 
of    six    alligators   per   km^    of   suitable    habitat. 

Trends  in  alligator  populations  have  been 
monitored  by  the  Cooperative  AHigator  Survey,  a 
yearly  night  survey  over  standardized  survey 
routes  throughout  the  range  (Chabreck  1974). 
These  data  indicate  a  generally  increasing  trend. 
Joanen  (1974)  also  presents  data  that  support  this 


observation.  Outside  of  Florida,  168  counties  had 
increasing  populations,  157  had  stable  popula- 
tions, and  25  had  decreasing  populations. 

Joanen's  (1974)  data  are  summarized  by  States 
below. 

Alabama:  Some  12,715  alligators  were  reported 
from  28  counties.  Only  two  counties  report 
decreasing  populations,  while  15  report  increasing 
and  11,  stable  populations.  There  is  a  trend  for 
increasing  populations  over  much  of  the  southern 
half  of  Alabama,  with  relatively  greater  abun- 
dance in  the  region  east  and  north  of  Mobile  Bay. 

Arkansas:  Most  of  the  previous  range  is  apparent- 
ly now  uninhabited;  1,900  alligators  were  present 
in  three  counties  in  the  southwestern  comer  of 
the  State.  These  individuals  are  presumed  to  have 
been  transplanted  into  the  area  from  Louisiana 
over  the  past  few  years. 

Florida:  Alligators  are  reported  in  every  respond- 
ing county.  Over  407,500  alligators  were  esti- 
mated for  the  State.  No  population  trend  esti- 
mates were  given.  In  general,  peninsular  Florida, 
roughly  south  of  the  Suwannee  Strait,  supports 
moderate  to  large  alligator  populations  that  are 
either  increasing  or  remaining  stable  in  areas  of 
increasing  urbanization  except  in  intensive  de- 
velopment centers.  The  panhandle  supports 
generally  lower  populations,  with  local  pockets 
of  abundance. 

Georgia:  95  counties,  essentially  all  counties  with- 
in the  historical  range  of  the  species  in  the  State, 
report  alhgator  populations;  45  counties  report 
populations  increasing  and  32  report  stable 
populations. 

Available  National  Wildlife  Refuge,  State,  and 
other  data  show  that  there  are  alligator  popula- 
tions in  the  coastal  counties  and  the  Okefenokee 
Swamp  area  that  are  subjectively  as  large  as,  or 
larger  than,  those  in  southeastern  South  Carolina 
and  northern  Florida.  As  to  the  remainder  of  the 
State's  populations,  it  can  only  be  said  that  they 
are  generally  widespread  and  may  be  locally 
abundant,  although  less  so  than  in  the  south- 
eastern sector. 

Louisiana:  A  total  of  200,682  alligators  distribu- 
ted over  63  parishes  v^th  40  reporting  increasing 
populations,  and  22  stable.  The  extensive  coastal 
marshes  of  southern  Louisiana  probably  support 
the  largest  alligator  populations  anywhere  in  the 
species'  range,  although  some  other  local  popula- 
tions, e.g.,  Okenfenokee  Swamp  in  Georgia,  may 
have  an  equal  density.  The  situation  in  the  north- 
em,  non-marsh,  parishes  is  less  clear,  but  numbers 


there  are  clearly  low  and  apparently  similar  to 
other  areas  of  the  species'  range. 

Mississippi: Only  4,740  alligators  were  found  in 
55  counties  —  13  with  increasing  populations  and 
38  stable.  Coastal  counties  generally  support  the 
highest  populations. 

North  Carolina:  Reports  1,300  alligators  on  about 
2,590  km^  of  habitat.  Highest  populations  are  in 
central  and  southern  coastal  counties.  No  alliga- 
tors are  reported  between  Albemarle  Sound  and 
the  Dismal  Swamp,  Virginia,  an  area  within  the 
recent  historical  range  of  the  species.  Only  4  of 
21  reporting  counties  show  an  increase  in  popula- 
tion. 

Oklahoma:  Estimates  10  alligators  in  one  south- 
eastern county.  Supplemental  data  from  field 
biologists  and  State  agencies  suggests  that  consid- 
erable unoccupied  habitat  exists  in  the  southeast 
corner  of  the  State. 

South  Carolina:  Reports  48,700  alligators  on 
9,479 km^  of  habitat.  Ten  of  the  28  responding 
units  report  increases,  while  the  others  have  stable 
populations.  As  in  North  Carolina,  populations  in 
the  southeastern  coastal  counties  are  the  largest, 
and  are  generally  increasing.  Reports  of  increases 
in  some  inland  and  northern  counties  suggest  that 
the  species  has  responded  well  to  protection 
throughout  the  State. 

Texas:  Has  26,784  alhgators  in  74  counties. 
Populations  are  reported  increasing  in  35 
and  stable  in  22.  Several  reporting  units  appear  to 
represent  introduced  alligators  outside  of  the 
historic  range  of  the  species.  Large,  increasing 
populations  are  recorded  for  counties  adjacent  to 
the  coastal  Louisiana  parishes,  and  south  along 
the  Gulf  coast  to  Matagorda  Bay.  Interior  coun- 
ties appear  to  support  small  scattered  populations 
which  are  generally  increasing  or  stable. 

REPRODUCTION 

Alligators  and  other  crocodilians  exhibit  the 
most  elaborate  social  behavior  of  any  reptile, 
most  of  which  is  related  to  reproduction  (Mcll- 
henny  1935,  Carr  1967,  Joanen  and  McNease 
1971,  Campbell  1972,  Kushlan  1973,  Carr  1976, 
Pooley  and  Gans  1976). 

Reproductive  behavior  begins  with  bellowing 
by  males  and  females,  usually  in  March  or  April, 
depending  on  local  climate.  The  bellow  has  been 
reported  to  serve  as  a  territorial  signal  and  as  a 
component  of  male -female  interaction,  but  data 


are  not  available  to  fully  document  its  function 
(Campbell  1973,  Herzog  1974,  Garrick  and  Lang 
1977). 

Copulation  takes  place  in  the  water  (Mcllhenny 
1935,  Joanen  1969).  Nests  are  built  and  eggs 
layed  in  May  to  June  depending  on  local  climate, 
and  eggs  hatch  in  August  to  September  (Kellog 
1929,  Mcllhenny  1935,  Joanen  1969,  Neill  1971). 
Clutch  size  varies  from  20  to  60  eggs. 

At  least  some  females  are  protective  of  the 
nest  and  remain  nearby  during  the  incubation 
period.  Eggs  hatch  in  about  9  weeks.  The  23cm 
hatchlings  are  very  vocal  with  a  high-pitched 
"umph,  umph"  which  may  stimulate  the  female 
to  help  open  the  nest.  The  young  often  stay  to- 
gether in  a  "pod"  for  the  rest  of  the  summer 
(Mcllhenny  1935,  Campbell  1973,  McNease  and 
Joanen  1974).  Tagged  young  have  been  recaptured 
near  the  nest  site  as  long  as  3  years  after  hatching 
(Mcllhenny  1935,  Joanen  1969,  Campbell  1973, 
McNease  and  Joanen  1974,Metzen  1979). 

Survival  rate  is  unknown  except  in  local  situa- 
tions, but  is  expected  to  be  low  in  mature  popula- 
tions and  higher  in  depleted  populations.  Variation 
in  water  level  appears  to  be  the  major  limiting 
factor  on  nesting  success  (Hineset  al.  1968,  Joanen 
1969,  Nichols  etal.  1976). 

Growth  rates  of  the  young  vary  widely  but 
may  approach  0.3m  per  year  with  optimal  habitat 
and  food  availability  (Mcllhenny  1935,  Jo;  nen 
and  McNease  1975).  Subadults  often  stay  togeth- 
er in  loose  groups  until  they  are  about  Im  long; 
those  over  1.5  m  long  often  make  extensive  pre- 
sumed dispersal  movements  (Chabreck  1965, 
McNease  and  Joanen  1974). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Laws  protecting  alligators  were,  with  some 
exceptions,  ineffective  until  amendment  of  the 
Lacy  Act  in  1969  enabled  the  federal  government 
to  control  interstate  shipment  of  alligator  hides. 
By  the  late  1960's,  populations  began  to  increase 
in  the  Louisiana  coastal  marshes  due  to  better  law 
enforcement  and  excellent  landowner  coopera- 
tion. However,  populations  in  other  States  did 
not  begin  to  increase  on  a  wide  scale  until  inter- 
state control  of  marketing  of  illegal  hides  was 
achieved  (Chabreck  1971b).  With  effective  control 
of  poaching  since  1969,  alligator  populations  have 
made  substantial  recoveries  in  most  areas  of  the 
species'  range. 

The  rapid  resurgence  suggests  that  the  species 
is  highly  responsive  to  conservation  efforts  and 
amenable    to    standard    management    programs. 


Managed  harvests  are  now  being  made  in  three 
Louisiana  parishes  —  Calcasieu,  Cameron,  and 
Vermillion  —  which  are  listed  as  threatened  (Simi- 
larity of  Appearance)  on  the  Endangered  Species 
List  of  the  U.S.  Department  of  Interior.  A  sport 
hunting  program  is  being  developed  in  the  same 
area.  A  control  program  for  nuisance  alligators  in 
Florida  derives  much  of  its  overhead  from  com- 
mercial use  of  the  skins. 

The  U.S.  Fish  and  WildHfe  Service's  Recovery 
Plan  for  the  species  is  in  draft  form  and  a  com- 
plex set  of  regulatory  and  management  recom- 
mendations for  dealing  with  regional  and  local 
problems  and  opportunities  will  soon  be  proposed. 

AUTHORITIES 

Frosty  Anderson  (Recovery  Team) 
National  Audubon  Society 
Miles  Wildlife  Sanctuary 
Sharon,  CT  06069 

Howard  W.  Campbell  (Recovery  Team) 
National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

Robert  Chabreck  (Recovery  Team) 
School  of  Forestry  and  Wildlife  Management 
Louisiana  State  University 
Baton  Rouge,  LA  70803 

Tommy  Hines  (Recovery  Team) 
Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water 

Fish  Commission 
4005  South  Main  Street 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

Ted  Joanen  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
Rockefeller  Wildlife  Refuge 
Route  l,Box  20-B 
Grand  Chenier,  LA  70643 

Larry  McNease 
Rockefeller  Wildlife  Refuge 
Route  1,  Box  20-B 
Grand  Chenier,  LA  70643 

Thomas  Murphy 

Biologist 

Coco  Sabo  Plantation 

Greenpond, SC  29446 

Ronald  R.  Odom  (Recovery  Team) 
Georgia  Game  and  Fish  Division 
Endangered  Species  Program 
Route  2 
Social  Circle,  GA  30279 


A.  William  Palmisano  (Recovery  Team 

Consultant) 
Natl.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Lab 
Alaska  Field  Station 
4454  Business  Park  Blvd. 
Anchorage,  AL  99503 

Jake  Valentine  (Recovery  Team) 

Wildlife  Biologist 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

Box  4753,  Univ.  of  Southwestern  Louisiana 

Lafayette,  LA  70501 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

None. 


LITERATURE  CITED /SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Audubon,  J.J.  1931.  Observations  of  the  natural 
history  of  the  alligator.  Louisiana  Conserv. 
Rev.  2(3):3-8. 

Bothwell,  D.  1962.  The  great  outdoors  book  of 
alligators  and  other  crocodilia.  Great  Out- 
doors Publ.  Co.  St.  Petersburg.  88  pp. 

Brazaitis,  P.  1973.  The  identification  of  living 
crocodilians.  Zoologica  58:(3-4):59-101. 

Campbell,  H.  W.  1972.  Ecological  or  phylogenetic 
interpretations  of  crocodilian  nesting  habits. 
Nature  238:404-405. 

.     1973.    Observations    on    the    acoustic 


behavior     of    crocodilians.    Zoologica     1973 
(Spring):  1-10. 

Carr,  A.F.  1967.  Alligators,  dragons  in  distress. 
Natl.  Geogr.  Mag.  131:133-148 

^.1976.  Excerpts  from  the  life  an  alli- 
gator: a  reappraisal  of  "the  alligator's  life 
history."  Foreword  to  Mcllhenny,  E.  A.  1935. 
The  alligator's  life  history.  Facsimile  reprint, 
1976.  Soc.  Study  Amphib.  Reptiles  Misc. 
Publ. 

Carr,  A.  F.  and  C.  J.  Goins.  1955.  Guide  to  the 
reptiles,  amphibians,  and  fresh-water  fishes 
of  Florida.  Univ.  Florida  Press,  Gainesville 
341  pp. 

Chabreck,  R.  H.  1965.  The  movement  of  alliga- 
tors in  Louisiana.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  South- 
east Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  19:102-110. 


.      1967.     The     American     alligator:past 

present  and  future.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  South- 
east Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  21:554-558. 

.  1972.  The   food  and  feeding  habits  of 

alligators  from  fresh  and  saline  environments 
in  Louisiana.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast 
Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  25:117-124. 

.  1971b.  The  management  of  the  Amer- 
ican alligator.  Proc.  1st  Working  Meeting  of 
the  Crocodile  Specialists.  lUCN  Suppl.  Paper 
32:137-144. 

1974.  Cooperative  surveys  of  the  Amer- 


ican   alligator    in    the    southeastern    United 
States,  Mimeo  report. 

Conant,  R.  1975.  A  field  guide  to  reptiles  and 
amphibians  of  eastern  and  central  North 
America.  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  Boston.  429 
pp. 

Craighead,  F.  C.  1968.  The  role  of  the  alligator  in 
shaping  plant  communities  and  maintaining 
wildlife  in  the  southern  Everglades.  Fla.  Natur. 
41:2-7,69-74. 

Ditmars,  R.  L.  1953.  The  reptiles  of  North 
America.  Doubleday  &  Co.,  Inc.,  New  York. 
476  pp. 

Fogarty,  M.  J.  1974.  The  ecology  of  the  Ever- 
glades Alligator,  in  P.  J.  Gleason.  ed..  Envi- 
ronments of  South  Florida:  Past  and  Present. 
Mem.  Miami  Geol.  Survey  2.  482  pp. 

Fogarty,  M.  J.  and  J.  D.  Albury.  1967.  Late 
summer  foods  of  young  alligators  in  Florida. 
Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast  Assoc.  Game 
Fish  Comm.  21:220-222. 

Garrick,  L.  D.  and  J.  W.  Lang.  1977.  Social  signals 
and  behaviors  ofadult  alligators  and  crocodiles. 
Am.  Zool.  17:225-239. 

GUes,  L.W.  and  V.  L.  Childs.  1949.  Alligator 
management  on  the  Sabine  National  Wildlife 
Refuge.J.Wildl.  Manage.  13(1):  16-28. 

Herzog,  H.  A.,  Jr.  1974.  The  vocal  communication 
system  and  related  behaviors  of  the  American 
alligator  (Alligator  mississippiensis)  and  other 
crocodilians.  M.  S.  Thesis,  Univ.  Tennessee, 
Knoxville.  87  pp. 

Hines,  T.  C,  M.  J.  Fogarty,  and  L.  C.  Chappell. 
1968.  Alligator  research  in  Florida:  a  progress 
report.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast  Assoc 
Game  Fish  Comm.  22:166-180. 


Hines,  T.  C.  and  K.  D.  Keenlyne.  1977.  Two 
incidents  of  alligator  attacks  on  humans  in 
Florida.  Copeia.  1977(4):735-738. 

Joanen,  T.  1969.  Nesting  ecology  of  alligators  in 
Louisiana.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast 
Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  23:141-151. 

,,1974.  Population  status  and  distribution 


of  alligators  in  the  southeastern  United  States. 
Southeastern  Regional  End.  Sp.  Workshop, 
Wildl.  Soc.  Tallahassee,  Fla.  Sept.  1974. 
Unpaged. 

Joanen,  T.  and  L.  McNease.  1971.  A  telemetric 
study  of  nesting  female  alligators  on  Rocke- 
feller Pvcfuge,  Louisiana.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf. 
Southeast  Assoc.  Game  Fish  Comm.  24: 
175-193. 

%1972.  A  telemetric  study  of  adult  male 


alligators  on  Rockefeller  Refuge,  Louisiana. 
Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast  Assoc.  Game 
Fish  Comm.  26:252-275. 

.1976.  Notes  on  the  reproductive  biology 


and  captive  propagation  of  the  American 
alligator.  Proc.  Annu.  Proc.  Southeast  Game 
Fish  Comm.  29:407-415. 

Kellogg,  R.  1929.  The  habits  and  economic 
importance  of  alligators.  U.S.  Dept.  Agric. 
Tech.  Bull.  147:36  pp. 

Kushlan,  J.  A.  1973.  Observations  on  maternal 
behavior  in  the  American  alligator.  Alliga- 
tor mississippiensis .  Herpetologica  29(3): 
256-257. 

•1974.  Observations  on  the  role  of  the 

American  alligator  {Alligator  mississippiensis 
in  the  southern  Florida  wetlands.  Copeia 
1974(4):993-996. 

Mcllhenny,  E.  A.  1935. The  alligator's  life  history. 
Christopher  Publ.  House,  Boston.  1 16  pp. 

McNease,  L.  and  T.  Joanen.  1974.  A  study  of 
immature  alligators  on  Rockefeller  Refuge, 
Louisiana.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Southeast  Game 
Fish  Comm.  28:482-500. 

Metzen,  W.  D.  1979.  Nesting  ecology  of  alligators 
on  the  Okefenokee  National  Wildlife  Refuge. 
Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  Game  Fish  Comm.  31. 

Neill,  W.  T.  1971.  The  last  of  the  ruling  reptiles: 
alligators,  crocodiles,  and  their  kin.  Columbia 
Univ.  Press,  Columbia.  486  pp. 

Nichols,  J.  O.,  L.  Viehman,  R.  H.  Chabreck,  and 
B.  Fenderson.  1976.  Simulation  of  a  commer- 
cially harvested  alligator  population  in  Louis- 


iana. Louisiana  Agric.  Exp.  Stn.  Bull  691.  59 
pp. 

O'Neil,  T.  1949.  The  muskrat  in  Louisiana  coastal 
marshes.  Louisiana  Wildl.  Fish  Comm.,  New 
Orleans.  159  pp. 

Perrero,  L.  1975.  Alligators  and  crocodiles  of 
the  world.  Windward  Publ.  Co.,  Miami.  64  pp. 

Pooley,  A.  C.  and  C.  Cans.  1976.  The  Nile  croco- 
dile. Sci.  Am.  234(4):114-124. 

Pope,  C.  H.  1955.  The  reptile  world.  Alfred  A. 
Knopf,  New  York.  325  pp. 

Reese,  A.  M.  1915.  The  alligator  and  its  allies. 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  New  York.  368  pp. 

Smith,  H.  M.  1893.  Notes  on  the  alligator  indus- 
try. Bull.  U.S.  Fish  Comm.  11:343-345. 

Stevenson,  C.  H.  1904.  Utilization  of  the  skins  of 
aquatic  animals.  U.S.  Comm.  Fish  Rep.  1902: 
281-532. 

Valentine,J.  M.,Jr.,J.R.  Walther,K.  M. 

McCartney,  and  L.  M.  Ivy.  1972.  Alligator 
diets  on  the  Sabine  National  Wildlife  Refuge, 
Louisiana.  J.  Wildl.  Manage.  36(3):809-815. 


ACCOUNT  PREPARED/UPDATED  BY: 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.40 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

BROWN  PELICAN 

Eastern  and  California  Subspecies 


Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 


U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


PREPACK 

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,  us  amended). 

This  series  of  accounts  is  intended  to  complement  the  computerized  Sensitive  Wildlife 
Information  System  (SVVIS)  developed  by  the  U.S.  Army  Corps  ol  Kngineers  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  series  to  facilitate  additions  .ind  deletions  as  new 
accounts  are  prepared  or  as  the  status  of  species  is  changed. 

Suggestions  or  questions  regarding  SWIS  should  he  direi  led  lo: 

Office  of  Endangered  Species 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Senicc 
Interior  Building 
Washington,  D.C.  20240 

Suggestions  or  questions  regarding  this  report  should  be  direcii'd  to: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  leam 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Ser\  ice 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704.^)8 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.40 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
BROWN  PELICAN 
Eastern  and  California  Subspecies 


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 


BROWN  PELICAN 

(Eastern  subspecies— Pelc caims 

occidcntalis  carolinensis  Gmelin) 

(California  s\ihspec\es—Pclcc anus 

occidcntalis  californicus  Rigdway) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Pelecaniformes 

FAMILY Pelecanidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES 

Eastern  subspecies Eastern  brown  pelican 

California  subspecies  .  .  .  California  brown  pelican 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:     Endangered:  (35  FR  16047,  13  October 
1970:35  FR  18319,  2  December  1970). 

States:       Endangered:  Georgia,  Mississippi, 
South  Carolina,  California. 
Threatened:  Florida. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Both  the  eastern  and  California  subspecies 
have  been  greatly  reduced  in  numbers.  The  main 
reason  for  their  decline  is  accumulation  of  chlorin- 
ated hydrocarbon  residues,  which  have  been 
shown  to  cause  eggshell  thinning  and  subsequent 
crushing  of  eggs  under  the  weight  of  parent  birds 
(Heath  et  al.  1969,  Peakall  1970,  Wiemer  and 
Porter  1970).  The  principal  residues  involved  are 
DDT  compounds  (DDE,  DDD,  and  DDT),  poly- 
chlorinated  biphenyls  (PCB's),dieldrin,andendrin 
(Schreiber  and  Risebrough  1972,  BIus  et  al. 
1974a).  The  correlation  between  eggshell  thinning 
and  DDE  concentrations  is  highly  significant 
(Schreiber  and  Risebrough  1972,  Blus  et  al.  1975). 
Blus  et  al.  (1974b)  demonstrated  that  the  success 
of  93  brown  pelican  nests  was  related  to  low  levels 
of  DDE  and  dieldrin. 

Other  factors  affecting  pelican  populations 
are  availability  of  food  supply  and  human  distur- 
bance of  nesting  colonies.  Parent  pelicans  flushed 
from  nests  exert  forces  large  enough  to  break 
eggs.  Normally,  one  of  the  parents  remains  on  the 


nest  throughout  incubation.  Desertion  of  the  nest 
can  resuh  in  losses  to  predation  as  well  as  tem- 
perature stresses  on  the  eggs  and  young  (Schreiber 
and  Risebrough  1972,  Schreiber  1979). 

Mercury  may  also  interfere  with  reproduction; 
mercury  has  been  found  in  some  pelican  eggs  at 
levels  known  to  have  adverse  effects  on  other  spe- 
cies (Blus  et  al.  1974a). 

Eastern  subspecies 

Along  the  Atlantic  Coast,  eggshell  thinning  is 
more  acute  at  the  northern  end  of  the  pelican's 
range  (Blus  et  al.  1970).  From  1969  to  1974,  Blus 
et  al.  (1974a)  noted  that  17%  eggshell  thinning  in 
North  Carohna  populations  was  associated  with 
subnormal  reproductive  success.  By  1975,  egg- 
shell thinning  had  decreased  to  10%  (L.  J.  Blus 
personal  communication).  The  present  Florida 
population  is  stable,  eggshell  thickness  has  been 
reduced  about  9%,  and  about  3%  of  all  eggs  on 
the  west  coast  of  Florida  have  been  thin-shelled 
and  crushed.  The  effects  of  these  factors  on  pop- 
ulation levels  may  not  be  apparent,  for  in  1975 
and  1976,  eggs  in  Florida  had  little  or  no  thinning 
or  crushing  (R.  W.  Schreiber  personal  communica- 
tion). 

In  Louisiana  and  Texas,  where  the  pelican 
populations  have  declined  rapidly  and  dramat- 
ically, the  levels  of  pollution  are  higher  (Schrei- 
ber and  Risebrough  1972).  In  Louisiana,  eggs 
from  transplanted  Florida  birds  showed  a  steady 
decline  in  shell  thickness  from  1970  to  1973. 
Levels  of  DDE  were  generally  lower  than  those 
associated  with  subnormal  reproductive  success 
in  South  Carolina,  but  dieldrin  levels  were  slightly 
higher.  Half  the  eggs  examined  contained  levels  of 
dieldrin  considered  potentially  detrimental  to  re- 
productive success  (Blus  et  al.  1975). 

Forty  percent  of  a  small  population  trans- 
planted to  Louisiana  from  Florida  died  of  endrin 
poisoning  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1975 
(Winn  1975). 

Freezes,  hurricanes,  and  beach  erosion  may 
have  affected  population  numbers  (Schreiber  and 
Risebrough  1972).  Blus  et  al.  (1974a)  believe  that 
in  South  Carolina,  storms  and  other  naturad  fac- 
tors have  minimal  effects  on  pelican  populations 
because,  while  they  may  temporarily  disrupt  nest- 
ing activities,  the  birds  are  persistent  renesters  in 
that  area. 

Human  disturbance  that  causes  the  parent 
birds  to  desert  the  nests  can  result  in  serious  losses 
to  predation  by  fish  crows  (Corvus  ossifragus),  as 
well  as  in  temperature  stress  on  eggs  and  young 


(Schreiber  and  Risebrough  1972,  Schreiber  1979). 

In  Florida,  a  significant  number  of  pelicans 
(500  or  more)  are  killed  each  year  after  being 
caught  on  fishhooks  or  entangled  in  monofila- 
ment fishlines.  Some  are  also  maliciously  killed  or 
maimed  by  people  (Schreiber  1979). 

The  decline  of  the  pelicans  in  South  Carolina 
in  the  1950's  coincided  with  a  decline  in  Atlantic 
menhaden  [Brevoortia  spp.).  There  is  some  evi- 
dence that  food  shortages  occur,  especially  in 
Florida,  and  the  red  tide  (Gymnodimium)  has 
probably  affected  pelican  food  supplies  on  the 
west  coast  of  Florida  at  times  (Williams  et  al. 
1976). 

California  subspecies 

Pelican  losses  in  California  resulting  from 
paratyphoid  infections  have  probably  had  little 
effect  on  the  total  population  (Bond  1942).  The 
complete  failure  of  reproductive  efforts  on  the 
California  Channel  Islands  in  1968,  reported  by 
Schreiber  and  DeLong  (1969),  probably  resulted 
from  chlorinated-hydrocarbon  pollution.  Levels 
of  residues  as  high  as  84.4  ppm  were  found  in  the 
muscles  of  birds  from  Monterey  Bay  in  December 
of  1966  (Risebrough  et  al.  1971).  Reproduction 
on  Anacapa  Island,  California,  and  Los  Coronados 
and  San  Martin  Islands  in  Baja  California,  was  al- 
most entirely  unsuccessful  from  1969  to  1972. 
Success  varied  on  San  Benito  Island  in  Baja  Cali- 
fornia (400  miles  south  of  the  U.S.  border)  and 
on  remote  islands  in  the  Gulf  of  California.  Far- 
ther south,  reproductive  success  Wcis  more  satis- 
factory. The  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe  Service  (1973) 
attributed  the  poor  reproductive  success  to  egg- 
shell thinning  brought  about  by  contamination 
with  DDE. 

In  1974,  eggshell  thinning  was  much  less  evi- 
dent than  in  previous  years  on  the  Pacific  Coast, 
and  many  more  young  were  produced  in  some  of 
the  colonies  where  egg  collapse  had  been  severe. 
More  adults  bred  in  1974,  as  well.  However,  col- 
lapsed eggs  and  lowered  productivity  continued 
to  be  evident.  Production  on  San  Martin  Island 
failed  completely  in  1974,  presumably  because 
of  human  disturbance. 

In  the  Gulf  of  California,  where  production 
had  been  comparatively  good,  it  was  very  poor  in 
1974.  The  cause  appeared  to  be  poor  food  condi- 
tions, although  the  presence  of  DDE  in  the  food 
chain  may  have  contributed.  A  decrease  in  the 
availability  of  anchovies  brought  about  by  over- 
fishing is  thought  to  have  affected  brown  pelican 
reproduction   (Keith   1978).  Recent  studies  indi- 


cate  that  minor  restrictions  in  food  supply  ser- 
iously impair  reproduction  and  that  the  presence 
of  DDE  intensifies  the  effects  of  food  deprivation 
(U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  Denver  WildHfe 
Research  Center  ms.  1974;  Keith  1978). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Eastern  subspecies:  None  assigned. 
California  subspecies:  13. 

DESCRIPTION 
Eastern  subspecies 

P.  o.  carolinensis  is  a  large  bird,  with  a  total 
length  of  114  to  137  cm  and  a  wingspan  of  2  m. 
It  has  a  long  bill  and  a  large  gular  pouch,  which  is 
colored  greenish  during  the  breeding  season. 
Adults  have  a  black  belly  with  gray  wings  and 
back.  The  head  is  yellow  from  early  autumn  until 
late  spring,  when  it  turns  white.  The  neck  is  white 
in  the  fall  and  winter,  but  becomes  chestnut 
brown  during  the  breeding  season. 

Immatures  are  brown  with  white  bellies  for 
the  first  3  to  5  years  (Schreiber  1979).  Photo- 
graphs may  be  found  in  Bent  (1922),  Peterson 
(1947),  and  Palmer  (1962),  among  others. 

California  subspecies 

P.  o.  californicus  is  distinguished  from  the 
eastern  subspecies  by  its  larger  size  and  darker 
coloration.  The  brown  color  of  the  back  of  the 
neck  is  almost  black,  and  the  gular  pouch  is 
reddish  instead  of  greenish  during  the  breeding 
season  (Baird  et  al.  1884,  U.S.  Fish  and  WOdlife 
Service  1973,  Bent  1922,  Wetmore  1945).  The 
young  have  white  down  when  first  hatched. 

The  eggs  of  both  subspecies  are  lusterless 
white,  becoming  dirty  during  incubation.  The 
measurements  of  the  eastern  birds'  eggs  average 
73  to  46  mm  and  those  of  the  California  birds, 
78.5  by  50.6  mm.  Pelicans  typically  fly  by  alter- 
nate flapping  and  soaring.  The  California  birds 
can  be  seen  to  take  advantage  of  updrafts  produced 
when  winds  axe  deflected  by  the  coastal  bluffs, 
soaring  considerable  distances  without  flapping 
and  thus  reducing  the  energy  required  for  flight 
(Woodward  1921). 

RANGE 

Eastern  subspecies 

On  the  eastern  seaboard,  the  pelican  ranges 
from  North  Carolina  to  Florida,  around  the  Gulf 


Coast  to  Texas  and  Mexico,  and  southward  to 
Venezuela.  It  also  inhabits  the  West  Indies  and 
many  islands  in  the  Caribbean.  Casual  or  sporadic 
sightings  have  been  reported  from  Nova  Scotia, 
Michigan,  Wyoming,  Colorado,  and  Bermuda 
(Bent  1922). 

Breeding  colony  sites  are  listed  in  Schreiber 
and  Risebrough  (1972),  Blus  et  al.  (1974a)  and 
WilHamset  al.  (1976). 

Pelicans  are  usually  resident  near  their  breed- 
ing grounds,  although  young  birds  tend  to  wander. 
Schreiber  (1976a)  color-marked  individuals  and 
observed  that  the  majority  of  fledglings  moved 
south  away  from  the  colony  during  the  first 
months  out  of  the  nest.  Some  individuals  wander 
extensively. 

The  Florida  population  has  been  found  to  be 
divided  into  east-  and  west-coast  groups  that  do 
not  appear  to  mix.  Birds  in  South  Carolina  and 
on  the  east  coast  of  Florida  move  south  in  the 
fall,  but  remain  on  the  east  coast  and  in  the  upper 
Florida  Keys.  Pelicans  hatched  at  Tampa  Bay  also 
move  southward  in  the  fall,  being  common  at 
Flamingo,  upper  Florida  Bay,  and  the  lower  Keys. 

The  former  range  is  the  same  as  the  present 
one,  except  that  the  pelican  was  once  a  common 
breeder  on  the  coast  of  Louisiana;  it  has  been  un- 
known there  since  1966  except  for  a  small  group 
transplanted  from  Florida.  The  Texas  and  northern 
Mexico  populations  have  been  much  reduced 
(U.S.  Dept.  of  the  Interior  1973,  Schreiber  1979). 
Brown  pelicans  breed  only  on  coastal  islands  and 
in  Florida;  fewer  than  50  islands  are  currently  in 
use  (Schreiber  1979). 

On  the  45  sites  occupied  since  1950,  26 
(58%)  are  in  State  ownership;  9  (20%)  are  Fed- 
erally owned;  5  (11%)  are  in  miscellaneous  or  un- 
certain ownership.  Only  the  Federally  owned  sites 
are  considered  secure  (Williams  et  al.  1976). 

California  subspecies 

At  present,  this  species  breeds  locally  on  is- 
lands along  the  Pacific  coast  from  Anacapa  Island, 
Ventura  County,  California  to  Los  Coronados, 
San  Martin,  and  San  Benito  Islands  off  the  coast 
of  Baja  California;  on  islands  in  the  Gulf  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  south  to  Tres  Marias  Islands  off 
Nayarit.  Historical  nesting  sites  are  Santa  Cruz 
and  San  Miguel  Islands,  Santa  Barbara  County, 
and  Bird  Rock,  Point  Lobos,  Monterey  County, 
California.  Postbreeding  movement  of  birds 
northward  along  Pacific  Coast  in  late  summer  and 
fall  is  common  (Wetmore  1945;  A.O.U.  1957; 
Anderson  and  Anderson  1976;  Fish  and  Wildlife 


Service  1973; Jehl  1973;Wmiams  1931).  Between 
breeding  seasons,  the  range  extends  northward 
along  the  coast  to  southern  British  Columbia 
(Burrard  Inlet)  and  inland  to  Central  British 
Columbia  (Chilcotin  District)  and  southward 
along  the  Pacific  Coast  of  Mexico  an  unknown 
distance,  but  at  least  to  Colima  (Bond  1942).  The 
main  northward  movements  are  in  July. 

Rarely,  pelicans  wander  inland  in  California 
(Stanislaus  County,  19  Sept.  1913)  (Wetmore 
1945;  Bent  1922),  but  usually  stay  very  closely 
restricted  to  the  seashore.  Sightings  in  the  interior 
are  rare  (Mailliard  1913);  Grinnell  and  Miller 
1944;  Wetmore  1945).  Of  71  recoveries  of  peli- 
cans banded  as  young  on  Anacapa  Island,  taken 
mostly  along  the  coast  from  Marin  County,  Cali- 
fornia south  to  Nayarit,  Mexico,  4  were  recovered 
inland  at:  Potrero,  San  Diego  Co.  (40  km  inland) 
San  Gabriel,  Los  Angeles  Co.  (34  km  inland) 
Santa  Maria,  Santa  Barbara  Co.  (18  km  inland) 
amd  Petrolia,  Humboldt  Co.  (9  km  inland)  (Bond 
1942,  1948).  Of  31  band  recoveries  or  sightings 
of  brown  pelicans  marked  as  nestlings  in  the  Gulf 
of  California  area  and  recorded  north  of  the  nest- 
ing area,  7  (33%)  were  from  inland  areas  in  the 
Southwest  Desert;  all  were  first-year  recoveries. 
Record  numbers  of  brown  pelicans  were  reported 
during  July  1972  in  the  Tucson-Phoenix,  Arizona 
vicinity  and  the  Salton  Sea  in  California  in  July 
and  August  1972.  Anderson  et  al.  (1972a,  1977) 
suggested  that  such  dispersal  results  from  dom- 
inant south  winds,  often  with  heavy  thunder- 
storms that  ground  the  birds,  rather  than  being 
the  result  of  searching  for  food. 

RANGE  MAPS 

The  distribution  of  the  eastern  brown  pelican 
is  indicated  by  shading,  and  its  breeding  colonies 
are  represented  by  dots  on  the  following  maps. 

The  breeding  rjinge  of  the  California  subspecies 
is  shown  on  the  range  map  for  this  group. 


STATES/COUNTIES 

Eastern  subspecies 

Alabama:         Baldwin,  Mobile. 

Florida:  Bay,  Brevard,  Broward,  Charlotte, 

Citrus,  Collier,  Dade,  Dixie  Duval, 
Escambia,  Flagler,  Franklin,  Gulf, 
Hernando,  Hillsborough,  Indian 
River,  Jefferson,  Lee,  Levy,  Mana- 
tee, Martin,  Monroe,  Nassau,  Oka- 
loosa, Palm  Beach,  Pasco,  Pinellas, 
Santa  Rosa,  Sarasota,  Seminole,  St. 


Johns,  St.  Lucie,  Taylor,  Volusia, 
Wakulla,  Walton. 

Georgia:  Bryan,   Camden,  Chatham,  Glynn, 

Liberty,  Mcintosh. 

Louisiana:  Cameron,  Jefferson,  LaFourclie, 
Plaquemines,  St.  Bernard,  St.  Mary, 
Terrebonne,  Vermilion. 

Mississippi:      Hancock,  Harrison,  Jackson. 

N.  Carolina:  Brunswick,  Carteret,  Currituck, 
Dare,  Hyde,  New  Hanover,  Onslow, 
Pamlico,  Pender. 

S.  Carolina:  Beaufort,  Charleston,  Colleton, 
Georgetown,  Horry. 

Texas:  Aransas,    Brazoria,   Calhoun,   Cam- 

eron, Chambers,  Galveston,  Jeffer- 
son, Kenedy,  Kleberg,  Matagorda, 
Nueces,  San  Patricio,  Willacy. 

California  subspecies 

California:  Del  Norte,  Humboldt,  Los  Angeles, 
Marin,  Montery,  Orange,  San  Diego, 
San  Luis  Obispo,  Santa  Barbara, 
Santa  Cruz,  Stanislaus,  Ventura. 

HABITAT 

Eastern  subspecies 

Pelicans  usually  feed  in  shallow  estuarine 
waters,  although  they  are  sometimes  seen  30  to 
60  km  offshore  (Schreiber  1979).  Groups  are 
often  observed  flying  over  the  surf  on  both  the 
Atlantic  and  Gulf  shores  of  Florida,  occasionally 
feeding  beyond  the  breakers.  Schreiber  (1979) 
states  that  sandspits  and  offshore  sandbars  are 
used  for  loafing  in  the  daytime  and  roosting  at 
night. 

Brown  pelicans,  especially  juvenile  birds, 
frequent  fishing  piers  where  scraps  are  available 
(Schreiber  1979). 

Habitat  photographs  are  found  in  Bent  (1922). 

California  subspecies 

The  primary  habitat  is  the  ocean  littoral  just 
outside  the  surf  line.  This  pelican  rarely  strays 
either  inland  or  far  offshore.  It  is  confined  to  the 
semiarid  western  coast,  bathed  by  the  relatively 
cool  waters  of  the  California  current,  which  pro- 
bably limits  its  range  southward  (Murphy  1936, 
Anderson  and  Anderson  1976). 

The  preferred  nesting  habitat  is  on  offshore 
islands,  although  some  individuals  nest  in  man- 
grove growing  in  estuarine  locations  along  the 
Sinaloa  coast. 


NORTHWESTEfiN  PART  OF 
FLORIDA 


15  16  17  18  19  20  II 


23  2*  25 


Brown  pelican  colony  sites  in  Florida. 


c 

m 
o 

bO 

C 

U 


o 

c 

u 


a. 
u 

-a 


D 


c 


XI     . 

-^    to 

O     --H 
CA 

^  o 


o 
.2    > 

'rt      -4-J 

o 

H   o 


Point  Lobos 


San  Miguel  Island 
Santa  C  ruz  Island 
Santa  Barbara  Island 
San  Nicolas  Island 
Santa  Catalina  Island 

Los  Coronados  Islands 
(Border  Island) 

San  Martin  Island 


San  Benito  Island 


Tres  Marias 
Islands 


NftpARrr 


Breeding  range  of  the  California  brown  pelican. 
8 


FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  mode  of  prey  capture  and  the  type  of 
food  are  the  same  for  both  subspecies.  The  birds 
fly  low  over  the  water,  spot  a  potential  prey  fish, 
and  dive  to  capture  it.  The  fish  is  then  transferred 
to  the  gular  pouch.  The  particular  species  of 
fishes  mjiking  up  most  of  the  diet  of  the  eastern 
subspecies  are  menhaden  {Brevoortia),  mullet 
[Mugil),  sardines  [Sardinella),  and  pinfish  {Lago- 
don)  (Bent  1922,  Schreiber  1979). 

The  California  subspecies  feeds  mostly  on 
anchovies  and  other  members  of  the  family  En- 
graulididea;  Scombridae;  and  Pacific  sardines 
(Sardinox  sagax)  when  available.  The  Pacific 
sardines  and  another  former  food  fish,  the  Pacific 
mackerel  [Scomber  japonicus)  are  now  essentially 
gone  from  CaUfomia  waters,  but  northern  ancho- 
vies appear  to  have  replaced  them,  and  most 
biologists  beheve  that  the  long-term  decline  of 
pelicans  on  the  west  coast  is  unrelated  to  changes 
in  food  supply  (Anderson  and  Anderson  1976). 
Keith  (1978),  however,  believes  that  former  sar- 
dine fishermen  in  the  Gulf  of  California  have 
switched  to  anchovy  fishing  to  the  probable  detri- 
ment of  pelican  food  supply.  Bostic  and  Banks 
(1966)  found  stingrays  (Dasyatidae)  and  tongue- 
fish  [Cunoglossidae)  in  the  pouch  of  a  dead  peli- 
can near  San  Felipe  in  the  Gulf  of  California.  A 
stingray  spine  embedded  in  the  bird's  throat  pro- 
bably caused  its  death. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

None  noted. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Pelicans  prefer  to  nest  on  offshore  island  sites 
that  are  protected  from  flooding,  human  distur- 
bance, and  terrestrial  predators  such  as  raccoons 
{Procyon  lotor)  (Blus  et  al.  1974a,  Schreiber  per- 
sonal communication).  Although  there  are  dis- 
tinct similarities,  there  are  also  conspicuous  dif- 
ferences in  the  types  of  nest  sites  selected  by  the 
two  subspecies. 

Eastern  subspecies 

Eastern  brown  pelicans  build  nests  on  the 
ground,  on  mud  lumps,  or  in  trees  (Bent  1922). 
In  Florida,  they  nest  primarily  in  mangrove  trees 
[Avicennia  germinans  and  Rhizophora  mangle) 
from  1  to  10  m  above  the  high-tide  mark  (Schrei- 
ber 1979). 

Ground  nests  vary  greatly  in  size  and  struc- 
ture from  practically  nothing  to  large,  well-built 


nests  of  sticks,  reeds,  straw,  palmetto  leaves,  and 
grasses.  Remains  of  old  nests  are  often  used,  and 
fresh  material  may  be  stolen  from  newly  con- 
structed nests  when  the  owner  is  gone.  Nest  dia- 
meter on  Pehcan  Island,  Florida,  ranges  from  46 
to  61  cm,  and  height  ranges  from  10  to  13  cm. 
Arboreal  nests  are  more  firmly  built  of  similar 
materials,  on  substantial  stick  platforms  securely 
interwoven  with  the  branches  of  the  supporting 
tree  (Bent  1922). 

Pelicans  are  colonial  nesters,  and  generally 
select  small  coastal  islands  in  salt  or  brackish 
water  and  lying  landward  of  barrier  islands  or 
reefs  where  they  are  protected  from  the  surf  and 
ocean  storms  (Williams  et  al.  1976). 

California  subspecies 

The  California  brown  pelican  prefers  to  nest 
on  steep,  rocky  slopes  of  islands,  building  its  nests 
of  sticks,  grasses,  and  rubbish.  In  some  areas, 
nests  are  reused  year  after  year,  accumulating 
filth  and  reaching  heights  as  great  as  1  m.  On  12 
April  1888,  A.  W.  Anthony  (m  Bent  1922)  found 
nests  in  groups  of  20  to  30  on  San  Martin  Island, 
located  about  0.4  km  from  the  beach  and  about 
76  m  above  the  sea.  Most  of  the  nests  were  built 
on  the  tops  of  low  bushes,  but  many  were  on  bare 
ground  or  blocks  of  lava.  Sticks,  twigs,  kelp,  sea- 
grass,  and  even  a  few  bird  bones  were  used  as 
building  material.  On  16  April  1939,  Bond  (1942) 
found  several  nests  on  Anacapa  Island  in  island 
oak  [Quercus  tomentella)  and  toyon  [Photinia 
arbutifolia),  at  heights  3.2  to  4.8  m  above  the 
ground— an  unusual  nesting  situation  for  the  spe- 
cies. 

Williams  (1927)  found  nests  on  top  of  mats  of 
poison  oak  at  Point  Lobos.  Nests  on  mangroves 
over  water  on  the  Sinaloa  coast  are  reported  in  a 
manuscript  of  the  Denver  Wildlife  Research  Cen- 
ter, U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  (1974). 

RITUAL  BEHAVIOR 

S.  C.  Arthur  {in  Bent  1922)  describes  court- 
ship behavior  of  a  male  P.  o.  occidentalis  as  a 
slow  circling  of  the  motionless  female  with  pon- 
derous elephantine  tread,  while  he  lifted  his 
wings  slightly  and  tilted  his  head  far  back.  It  is 
presumed  that  the  courtship  behavior  of  P.  o. 
califomicus  is  similar. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

None  other  than  noted  elsewhere. 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Eastern  subspecies 

The  Florida  population  is  stable  with  an  adult 
breeding  population  of  6,705  to  7,690  pairs  in 
1968-1970  (Williams  and  Martin  1968,  1970)  and 
6,000  to  8,000  pairs  for  the  last  6  years.  The  esti- 
mated total  population  in  Florida  is  less  than 
30,000  birds  (Schriber  1979). 

Blus  et  al.  (1974a)  state  that  the  South  Caro- 
lina population  declined  from  5,000  to  1,000 
pairs  by  the  late  1960's. 

Schreiber  and  Risebrough  (1972)  give  a  de- 
tailed breakdown  of  the  status  of  the  brown  peli- 
can population  in  each  State.  In  North  Carolina, 
the  population  on  Shell  Castle  Island  (northern- 
most breeding  colony  on  the  Atlantic  coast)  has 
fluctuated  between  1 1  and  100  from  1960  through 
1967.  Fewer  than  30  young  were  believed  fledged 
in  1970.  In  South  Carolina,  colonies  are  found  on 
the  Cape  Romain  Wildlife  Refuge  and  at  Deveaux 
Bank  south  of  Charleston.  At  Cape  Romain  Re- 
fuge, populations  have  fluctuated  drastically  from 
year  to  year.  The  Deveaux  Bank  colony  has  un- 
dergone a  90%  reduction  in  the  last  10  years,  due 
perhaps  to  much  of  the  bank's  washing  away. 
Brown  pelicans  have  probably  never  nested  in 
Georgia.  There  has  been  no  nesting  in  Alabama 
since  1900,  and  in  1956-57,  the  local  nonbreeding 
population  declined  sharply  with  no  recovery  as 
of  1972.  In  Louisiana,  the  once  large  population, 
estimated  at  between  75,000  and  85,000  (Arthur 
1931),  had  decreased  to  four  individuals  by  1960, 
according  to  Audubon  Christmas  Bird  Count  esti- 
mates. Although  Florida  pelicans  were  released  in 
Louisiana  from  1968  to  the  1970's  and  some 
were  reported  nesting,  no  native  pelicans  have 
bred  since  1966  (Schreiber  1979).  In  Texas,  fewer 
than  10  pairs  nested  in  1969  and  1970.  The  total 
population  in  Louisiana  and  Texas  is  now  esti- 
mated to  be  under  500  (Schreiber  1979). 

Population  status  is  essentially  unrecorded  in 
eastern  Mexico,  the  Caribbean,  and  Central  Am- 
erica (Schreiber  and  Risebrough  1972). 

California  subspecies 

About  1,000  to  1,500  adults  were  breeding  in 
California  in  1972;  the  California  population  has 
been  declining  14%  to  18%  per  year.  The  minimum 
population  in  Mexico  and  California  was  estimated 
at  100,000  (Fish  and  WHdHfe  Service  1973). 
Anderson  et   al.   (1972b)   estimated  21,000  resi- 


dents on  the  California  coast  and  somewhere  near 
62,000  breeding  in  the  Gulf  of  California. 

On  Santa  Barbara  Island,  California,  between 
300  and  400  birds  were  breeding  July  1912.  On 
Anacapa  Islands,  California,  there  were  a  large 
number  of  birds  which  apparently  were  not 
breeding  on  5  July  1912  (Wright  and  Snyder 
1913).  There  had  been  at  least  500  nests  there  in 
June  1910  (Willett  1912,  1933).  WUlett  (1910) 
counted  5  nests  containing  young  on  Prince  Islet 
off  San  Miguel  Island  on  15  June  1910. 

Wright  (1909)  and  Stephens  (1921)  found 
large  colonies  with  hundreds  of  nests  on  Los 
Coronados,  Baja  California,  in  early  1900's.  In  the 
early  1940's  there  were  still  several  thousand  pairs 
nesting  there,  according  to  Lewis  Walker  (in 
Schreiber  and  DeLong  1969).  In  1958,  pehcans 
were  present  in  large  numbers  on  Los  Coronados 
and  nesting  was  observed  by  Monte  Kirven  (m 
Schreiber  and  DeLong  1969).  During  the  1968 
breeding  season,  on  four  occasions  between  April 
and  June,  only  a  few  birds  were  present  and  none 
were  nesting  there  (Schreiber  and  DeLong  1969). 
There  was  no  nesting  in  1963  (Keith  et  al.  1970). 

For  Santa  Catalina,  Santa  Cruz,  San  Miguel, 
and  San  Nicolos,  records  are  scanty  but  indicate 
that  in  the  early  1900's  irregular  nesting  (not 
every  year)  occurred  on  all  of  them  (WUlett  1912; 
Howell  1917).  No  active  nests  were  found  on 
those  islands  at  any  time  in  1968  (Schreiber  and 
DeLong  1969). 

Historically,  Santa  Barbara  Island  has  been 
second  only  to  Anacapa  as  the  most  important 
pelican  rookery  on  the  Channel  Islands.  In  1912 
several  hundred  birds  bred  there  (Howell  1917). 
On  19  Aug.  1967,  there  were  400  to  500  on  Sur- 
tU  Rock  just  off  Santa  Barbara,  where  they  nested 
that  year.  In  1968,  4  adults  and  33  immatures 
were  present  on  4  April  and  11  on  12  May  but 
there  was  no  nesting;  nor  was  late  nesting  reported 
by  the  National  Park  Service.  On  Anacapa,  breed- 
ing was  first  reported  on  all  three  islets  in  1899 
(Schreiber  and  DeLong  1969).  In  1939,  Bond 
(1942)  reported  about  2,000  pairs  nesting  on  the 
West  islet,  Anacapa,  which  would  indicate  at  least 
as  many,  if  not  more,  birds  present  on  that  islet 
than  found  by  previous  observers.  The  largest 
number  recorded  for  East  Islet,  in  the  Anacapa 
group  is  about  500  nests,  found  5  June  1910  by 
Willett  (1912).  Pelicans  nested  on  West  Anacapa 
at  least  up  until  1968,  but  not  on  East  or  Middle 
Anacapa  (Bond  1942;  Banks  1966;  and  Schreiber 
and  DeLong   1969).   On   20  March  1969,  R.  W. 


10 


Risebrough  (Report  to  Patuxent  Wildlife  Research 
Center,  24  April  1969)  counted  298  nests  con- 
taining fresh  plant  material  on  Anacapa  Island, 
but  only  12  contained  intact  eggs. 

The  Monterey  Bay  and  Peninsula  area  is  very 
important  for  this  species,  as  large  numbers  occur 
there  following  dieir  northward  postbreeding 
dispersal  (Alan  Baldridge  in  lit.  1968).  Birds  ar- 
rive there  in  mid-June  and  remain  into  December, 
with  a  peak  of  2,243  on  23  Aug.  1968,  over 
1,000  present  from  August  to  October,  and  2,300 
counted  on  15  Sep.  1968.  Williams  (1927)  re- 
corded the  first  known  breeding  site.  He  found 
20  to  30  nests  on  25  May  1927,  8  with  eggs  on 
16  June  1977,  and  55  with  eggs  on  29  May  1929 
(WUliams  1927,  1931).  In  1966,  H.  L.  Cogswell 
{in  Alan  Baldridge  in  litt  (1968)  recorded  at  least 
three  nests  with  birds  at  Point  Lobos,  which  seems 
to  have  been  the  last  recorded  breeding  there. 

Between  1  and  8  May  1969,  there  were  nest- 
ing colonies  in  the  Gulf  of  California  at  Puerto 
Refugio,  Isla  Lorenzo  Norte,  Isla  Salsipuedes  and 
Isla  Poijo;  numerous  adults,  nests,  and  intact  eggs 
were  found  at  all  these  colonies.  Eggshells  appeared 
sound,  but  there  was  evidence  of  abnormal  repro- 
duction including  having  many  empty  nests,  col- 
lapsed and  dehydrated  eggs,  and  many  nests  hav- 
ing only  1  or  2  eggs  instead  of  the  usual  3  (Keith 
etal.  1970). 

In  1974,  about  95%  of  Pacific  coast  breeding 
sites  were  visited  and  found  to  have  present  about 
25,000  breeding  pairs  and  an  estimated  total 
population  of  about  70,000  (U.S.  Fish  and  Wild- 
life Service,  Denver  Wildlife  Research  Center  ms. 
1974). 

Pelican  populations  off  the  southern  Cali- 
fornia coast  appear  to  have  oscillated  historically 
in  response  to  environmental  changes,  including 
changes  in  abundance  of  principal  food  fishes. 
Also  the  oceanic  environment  in  diat  area  is  a 
constant  state  of  flux.  However,  the  overall  trend 
toward  population  decline  since  the  mid-1950's, 
with  the  normal  oscillating  pattern  superimposed, 
has  almost  certainly  been  due  to  environmental 
pollution  (Anderson  and  Anderson  1976). 

REPRODUCTION 

Eastern  subspecies 

The  breeding  season  depends  on  location. 
Bent  (1922)  states  that  nesting  begins  on  the 
Florida  east  coast  in  November  and  December, 
west  coast  in  April,  Louisiana  coast  in  February, 
and  South  Carolina  coast  in  May.  However,  L.  J. 
Blus  (personal  communication)  obsei^ved  nesting 


in  South  Carolina  in  March  and  April.  Anderson 
and  Hickey  (1970)  list  breeding  dates  for  the 
brown  pelican  throughout  its  range. 

Williams  and  Joanen  (1974)  report  that  peli- 
cans first  nest  successfully  when  3  years  old.  All 
courtship  activities  are  confined  to  the  nest  site. 
The  male  brings  nesting  materials  to  the  female 
and  she  builds  the  nest.  Normal  clutch  size  is  two 
or  three  eggs  (Bent  1922,  Schreiber  1979).  Eggs 
are  snowy  white  with  blood  stains  when  first  laid, 
but  turn  dull  and  dirty  during  incubation  (L.  J. 
Blus  personal  communication).  Eggs  have  a  granu- 
lar surface  texture  and  average  about  73  x  46.5 
mm  (Bent  1922).  Both  parents  share  in  incuba- 
tion and   chick   raising  duties   (Schreiber    1979). 

Henny  (1972)  estimated  that  1.2  to  1.5  fledg- 
lings per  nesting  effort  are  necessary  to  maintain  a 
stable  population.  Schreiber  and  Risebrough 
(1972)  state  that  this  species  is  long-lived.  One 
brown  pelican  banded  in  September  1933  was  re- 
captured in  November  1964  (Kennard  1975). 

California  subspecies 

Like  its  eastern  relative,  P.  o.  californicus  is  a 
colonial  nester.  It  first  breeds  at  about  2  years  of 
age.  The  timing  of  nesting  varies  considerably 
from  year  to  year  and  between  adjoining  colonies 
during  the  same  year.  Clutch  size  is  usually  3  eggs, 
less  often  2.  Incubation  is  by  both  sexes  in  turn, 
and  requires  about  4  weeks.  Young  are  hatched 
over  a  span  of  days,  and  are  fed  by  both  parents 
by  regurgitation.  Age  at  first  flight  is  9  weeks 
(Palmer  1962). 

On  12  April  1888,  most  of  the  nests  on  San 
Martin  Island,  Baja  California,  contained  young 
ranging  in  age  from  just  hatched  to  full-fledged 
birds  capable  of  flying  (A.  W.  Anthony  m  Bent 
1922).  Flightless  young  move  about  in  flocks  or 
"pods."  They  are  pugnacious  towards  intruders, 
but  vulnerable  to  attack  by  gulls  (Wright  1919, 
A.  B.  Howell  in  Bent  1922).  Egg  dates  for  Los 
Coronados  Islands  are  29  March  to  22  June  (33 
records)  and  4  April  to  6  May  (17  records)  (Bent 
1922).  On  Anacapa  Islaiid,  Cahfornia,  nest  con- 
tents on  16  April  1939  ranged  from  fresh  eggs  to 
young  about  half  grown  with  primaries  just  be- 
ginning to  show  (Bond  1942).  A  summary  of  re- 
production on  the  Anacapa  Islands  from  several 
obsei^vers  shows  great  variation  in  timing,  with 
adults  carrying  nesting  material  on  17  March 
1911,  while  egg  laying  had  begun  7  March  1916 
on  East  Island  and  egg  laying  completed  with  one 
nest  hatched  on  West  Island;  by  5  June  1910  on 
East  Island,  fresh  eggs  to  nearly  full  grown  were 
found;   in    August    1898    on  West  Island   nearly 


11 


grown  young  were  still  present  (Bond  1942). 

Adult  pelicans  usually  stayed  on  nests  until 
approached  within  5  or  6  m  and  returned  by  the 
time  that  observers  were  about  30  m  away,  but 
even  so,  ravens  carried  off  at  least  8  eggs  when 
they  were  left  exposed  (Bond  1942). 

On  20  March  1969,  R.  W.  Risebrough  (Report 
to  Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Center,  24  April 
1969)  counted  298  nests  containing  fresh  plant 
material,  indicating  occupancy,  on  Anacapa  Is- 
lands, but  only  12  contained  intact  eggs.  Nine 
contained  a  single  egg  and  3  contained  2  eggs. 
Fifty-one  nests  contained  a  single  broken  egg. 
Eggshells  were  spongy  in  texture  and  slight  pres- 
sure produced  a  change  in  shape.  Shells  appeared 
to  have  very  little  or  no  calcium  carbonate,  and  it 
was  apparent  that  the  weight  of  incubating  birds 
would  cause  breakage.  One  of  the  broken  eggs 
had  a  DDE  content  of  68  ppm  of  the  total  con- 
tents or  522  ppm  of  yolk  lipid.  In  a  second  colony 
on  Anacapa  on  April  1969,  there  were  339  nests, 
with  only  19  containing  intact  eggs  and  1  out  of 
3  nests  having  collapsed,  dehydrated  eggs  (Monthly 
Report,  Denver  Wildlife  Research  Center  April 
1969).  On  26  and  27  July  1969,  635  nests  were 
found  on  Anacapa.  Two  nests  contained  large 
chicks  and  2  contained  single  incubated  eggs. 
Thus,  out  of  a  minimum  of  1272  nests  built  in 
1969,  only  5  may  have  produced  young  (F.  H. 
Sibley,  Report  to  Patuxent  Wildhfe  Research  Cen- 
ter, 28  July  1969). 

There  were  552  nesting  attempts  in  two 
colonies  on  Anacapa  in  1970,  with  but  one  chick 
produced.  Reproductive  failure  was  attributed  to 
thin  eggshells  that  collapsed  during  incubation. 
Aberrant  behavior  associated  with  reproduction 
was  also  observed.  A  survey  of  all  traditional  nest- 
ing sites  in  California  produced  no  evidence  of 
nesting.  To  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  then,  only 
one  young  pelican  was  hatched  in  California  in 
1970  (Cress  1970). 

A  total  of  1,962  eggshells  taken  after  1949 
for  California  oological  collections  were  26%  be- 
low the  normal  weight  of  egg  specimens  taken 
before  1949,  supporting  the  belief  that  shell  thin- 
ning began  after  the  wide-scale  use  of  pesticides 
(Anderson  and  Hickey  1970). 

By  use  of  stepwise  regression,  Blus  et  al. 
(1971)  found  that  DDE  was  the  only  residue  that 
accounted  for  a  significant  amount  of  pelican  egg- 
shell thinning;  accounted  for  a  significant  amount 
of  pelican  eggshell  thinning;  PCB's  appeared  to  be 
of  Uttle,  if  any,  importance  in  this  respect. 

On  Border  Island,  Los  Coronados,  Baja  Cali- 
fornia, only  19  intact  eggs  were  found  in  300 
nests  in  April  1969.  On  Martin  Island,  150  miles 


south  of  the  U.S.  border,  only  17  eggs  were  found 
in  100  nests  (Monthly  Report  of  Denver  Wildlife 
Research  Center,  April  1969). 

Brown  pelicans  showed  varying  reproductive 
success  in  different  parts  of  their  range  and  from 

1969  to  1971,  with  the  poorest  off  the  California 
coast,  improving  slightly  down  the  west  coast  of 
Baja  California,  and  the  best  in  the  Gulf  of  Cali- 
fornia. About  4.4%  of  the  population  is  suffering 
widespread  excessively  low  recruitment.  Of  the 
relatively  satisfactory  Gulf  of  California  popula- 
tion, it  is  estimated  that  20%  suffered  eggshell 
thinning  in  excess  of  1  l%o.  Anacapa  Islands,  Los 
Coronados,  and  west  coast  Baja  Cahfornia  pop- 
ulations had  the  most  eggshell  thinning  in  1968, 

1970  and  1971.  Here  again,  DDE  seems  to  be  the 
major  factor  contributing  to  thin  eggshells  and  re- 
sults in  some  reduction  in  reproduction.  Other 
factors  reducing  reproduction  related  to  human 
interference  of  several  types.  Various  data  suggest 
that  the  major  source  of  DDE  for  brown  pehcans 
is  off  Southern  California  (Anderson  et  al.  1975). 

An  indication  of  improved  production  on  the 
California  Islands  was  noted  in  1972,  when  112 
nests  were  counted  on  Scorpion  Rock  off  Santa 
Cruz  Island,  and  31  young  had  been  produced 
there  by  13  July.  In  the  same  year,  150  nests 
from  which  26  young  had  been  produced  were 
found  on  Anacapa.  Early  nest  failures  were  evi- 
dent from  the  many  cracked  eggshells  (from 
Monthly  Narrative  Report  of  Activities  of  Denver 
Wildlife  Research  Center,  August  1972  by  David 
W.  Anderson  and  L.  Rodney  DeWeese). 

In  1974,  eggshell  thinning  was  much  less  evi- 
dent on  the  Pacific  coast;  many  more  young  were 
produced  and  more  adults  bred  in  some  colonies. 
About  1,400  adult  pelicans  were  present  in  July 
on  Anacapa  and  Santa  Cruz  Islands,  where  they 
build  about  400  nests  and  produced  about  300 
young.  However,  collapsed  eggs  were  found  and 
30%  of  nests  on  the  islands  were  empty  and  de- 
serted. Also,  15%  of  the  adults  were  incubating 
addled  eggs.  About  0.75  young  per  nest  were  pro- 
duced, which  is  still  too  little;  about  1.3  to  1.5 
young  per  adult  pair  are  required  to  maintain  the 
population.  On  the  Coronados  Islands,  Baja  Cali- 
fornia, the  colony  was  much  larger  in  1974  than  in 
any  recent  year  but  productivity  averaged  only 
0.70  young  per  nest  and  collapsed  eggs  and  nest 
desertions  were  common  (up  to  30%  in  some 
areas).  On  Isla  San  Martin,  pelicans  built  112 
nests,  all  of  which  failed,  probably  due  to  human 
disturbance.  At  Isla  San  Benito,  production  was 


12 


excellent  in  1974  with  at  least  1.5  young  per  nest, 
no  nest  desertion  and  no  excessive  losses  of  young. 
In  the  Gulf  of  Cahfomia  only  about  60%  of 
adults  came  to  colonies  to  breed  in  1974.  Adults 
that  did  come  failed  to  establish  nests  and  left. 
In  some  areas,  nest  desertion  approached  100%. 
Ultimate  production  was  about  0.80  young  per 
nest,  and  less  than  one  half  of  adults  established 
nests.  Unusually  poor  food  conditions  were 
thought  responsible.  In  recent  years,  severe  and 
widespread  failures  in  Gulf  of  California  produc- 
tion has  occurred  during  periods  of  food  scarcity. 
However,  it  is  possible  that  the  DDE  known  to  be 
present  has  aggravated  the  situation.  Experiments 
have  shown  that  minor  restrictions  of  food  supply 
seriously  impair  reproduction  and  that  presence 
of  DDE  in  birds  increases  the  effect  of  food  de- 
privation on  reproductive  condition(U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service,  Denver  Wildlife  Research  Center 
1974;Keith  1978). 

An  asynchronous  nesting  pattern  on  Anacapa 
and  Santa  Cruz  Islands  in  1975  made  estimates  of 
production  difficult.  Production  was:  Anacapa  - 
212  nests,  182  young  produced;  Santa  Cruz  -  80 
nests,  74  young  produced,  or  0.88  young  per  nest 
for  both  islands.  This  compares  with  0.73  in  1974, 
0.14  in  1973,  0.22  in  1972  and  0.007  in  period 
1969-71  for  the  same  colonies.  Neither  DDE  con- 
centrations nor  eggshell  thickness  differed  signif- 
icantly between  1974  and  1975,  although  the 
concentration  of  the  chief  food  fish  (anchovies) 
dropped.  Pelican  productivity  is  still  10%  to  50% 
below  the  level  necessary  to  maintain  long-term 
population  stability  (Anderson  et  al.  1975;  An- 
derson and  Anderson  1976;  Anderson  et  al.  1977). 


MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

State,  Federal,  and  private  cooperative  research 
has  been  directed  toward  analysis  of  brown  peli- 
can eggshell  conditions  and  the  resulting  repro- 
ductive failure.  Waste  discharge  from  pesticide 
manufacturing  plants  is  being  corrected.  Popula- 
tion surveys  have  been  conducted  by  the  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service.  Continued  research  on  the  effects 
of  environmental  pollution  and  on  life  history  and 
reproductive  biology  are  recommended,  but  visits 
to  nests  should  be  kept  to  a  minimum;  strict  reg- 
ulation of  the  use  of  persistent  chemical  pesticides 
and  discharge  of  wastes  from  plants  that  manu- 
facture those  products  should  be  encouraged  and 
all  forms  of  pollution  that  degrade  the  pelican's 
environment    should    be    eliminated.    Sanctuary 


status  should  be  recorded  for  all  areas  with 
nesting  colonies  (U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
1973). 

Many  eastern  colonies  are  protected  on  Fed- 
eral and  State  refuges  and  in  National  Audubon 
Society  sanctuaries. 

A  recovery  team  for  the  eastern  brown  peli- 
can has  been  appointed  by  the  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service  to  draft  a  recovery  plan  for  re- 
establishing this  species  throughout  its  former 
range  (Williams  et  al.  1976).  The  recovery  outline 
includes  restoring  the  pelican  in  vacant  breeding 
habitat  by  identifying  historic  distribution,  iden- 
tifying or  creating  suitable  breeding  habitat  and 
stocking  selected  sites. 

In  order  to  restock  historic  or  depleted 
colonies,  stocking  methods  must  be  developed 
and  sources  of  birds  located.  The  success  of  new 
colonies  should  be  monitored  for  survival,  repro- 
duction, and  limiting  factors.  Natural  and  restored 
colonies  should  be  maintained  at  self-sustaining 
levels.  Plans  for  monitoring  populations  and 
pertinent  environmental  factors  vary  from  area 
to  area  and  are  outlined  in  Williams  et  al.  (1976). 

AUTHORITIES 

Eastern  subspecies 

Lawrence  J.  Blus  (Recovery  Team) 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe  Service 
Patuxent  Wildlife  Research  Center 
Laurel,  MD  20810 

Kirke  A.  King  (Recovery  Team) 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
P.O.  Box  2506 
Victoria,  TX  77901 

Larry  L.  McNease  (Recovery  Team) 
Louisiana  Wildlife  and  Fisheries  Commission 
Route  l,Box  25 
Grand  Chenier,  LA  70643 

Burkett  S.  Neely  (Recovery  Team) 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
Division  of  Wildlife  Refuges 
Washington,  D.C.  20240 

Stephen  A.  Nesbitt  (Recovery  Team) 
Florida  Game  and  Freshwater  Fish 

Commission 
4005  South  Main  Street 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

Ralph  W.  Schreiber  (Recovery  Team) 
Natural  History  Museum 
Los  Angeles,  CA  90007 


13 


Lovett   E.  Williams  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
Florida  Game  and  Freshwater  Fish 

Commission 
4005  South  Main  Street 
GainesvUle,  FL  32601 

Cjilifomia  subspecies 

Daniel  W.  Anderson 

U.S.  Fish  £ind  Wildlife  Service 

P.O.  BoxC 

Davis,  California  91616 

Alan  Baldridge 
Hopkins  Marine  Station 
Pacific  Grove,  California  93950 

Monte  N.  Kirven 

Natural  History  Museum 

P.O.  Box  1390 

San  Diego,  Cahfornia  12112 

Robert  DeLong 
Department  of  Biology 
University  of  California,  Santa  Cruz 
Santa  Cruz,  California  95064 

Fred  C.  Sibley 

Peabody  Museum 

Yale  University 

New  Haven,  Connecticut  06520 

Ralph  W.  Schreiber 

Los  Angeles  County  Museum 

Exposition  Park 

Los  Angeles,  California  90007 

Robert  W.  Risebrough 
University  of  California 
Berkeley,  California  94720 

Franklin  Gress 
University  of  California 
Berkeley,  California  94720 


PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Eastern  subspecies 

None. 

California  subspecies 

The  California  brown  pelican  is  probably  the 
most  obvious  and  clearcut  example  of  the  effect 
of  pesticide  chemicals  in  the  environment  on  the 
reproduction  of  birds.  It  is  also  probably  the  most 
thoroughly  studied  and  documented  example  of 
those  effects.  The  brown  pelican,  like  other  spe- 
cies that  are  members  of  oceanic  current  ecosys- 
tems,  normally    fluctuate    widely    in    abundance 


with  the  primary  prey  species  (Anderson  and 
Anderson  1976;  Anderson  et  al.  1975).  This  is 
natural  and  the  population  dynamics  of  affected 
species  is  adapted  to  compensate  for  the  periodic 
failures  of  food.  However,  the  additional  lowered 
reproduction  caused  by  pesticide  chemicals  in  the 
food,  augmented  by  reduction  in  food  from  over- 
fishing (Keith  1978),  could  easily  tip  the  balance 
of  survival  toward  extinction.  Although  the 
amount  of  DDE,  the  most  important  of  chemicals 
affecting  California  brown  pelican  reproduction, 
has  been  reduced  somewhat  and  reproduction  has 
improved,  the  number  of  fledged  young  per  nest- 
ing pair  is  still  too  low  to  maintain  the  pelican 
population.  If  chemical  level  is  not  further 
improved,  and  if  overfishing  of  anchovies  does  go 
too  far,  it  would  appear  that  this  subspecies  of 
brown  pelican  is  doomed  to  extinction.— John  W. 
Aldrich. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Addor,  E.  E.,J.  K.  Stoll  and  V.  E.  LaGarde.  1973. 
Eastern  brown  pelican.  In  A  user-accessed 
computer  information  system  for  environ- 
mentally sensitive  wildlife.  U.S.  Army  Eng. 
Waterways  Exp.  Stn.  Tech.  Rep.  M-74-6. 
Rep.  M-74-6. 

Anderson,  D.  W.,  and  J.  J.  Hickey.  1970.  Oologi- 
cal  data  on  egg  and  breeding  characteristics 
of    brown    pehcans.    Wilson   Bull.    82:14-28. 

Anderson,  D.  W.,  J.  O.  Keith,  K.  A.  King  and  L. 
R.  DeWeese.  1972.  Field  ecology  investiga- 
tions of  effects  of  selected  pesticides  on  wild- 
life populations.  Post-breeding  dispersal  of 
brown  pelicans  and  other  waterbirds  into  the 
southwestern  United  States.  U.S.  Bureau  of 
Sport  Fisheries  and  Wildlife,  Denver  Wildhfe 
Research  Center  Administrative  Report,  4 
Dec.  1972. 


1972a.  Post-breeding  disperal  of  brown 


pelicans  and  other  waterbirds  into  south- 
western United  States.  U.S.  Bureau  of  Sport 
Fisheries  and  Wildlife,  Denver  Wildlife  Re- 
search Center,  Ann.  Prog.  Rep.  No.  3,  4  Dec. 
1972.  Prepared  by  D.  W.  Anderson  and  L.  R. 
DeWeese. 

Anderson,  D.  W.,  J.  O.  Keith,  R.  E.  White,  K.  A. 
King,  and  L.  R.  DeWeese.  1972.  Brown  Peli- 
C2ms— status  of  P.  o.  californicus.  U.S.  Bur. 
Sport  Fisheries  and  Wildlife,  Denver  Wildlife 
Res.  Center  Ann.  Progress  Report  No.  2,  030 
April    1972.    Prepared    by    D.    W.   Anderson. 


14 


Anderson,  D.  W.,J.  R.  Jchl,  Jr.,  R.  W.  Risebrough, 
L.  A.  Woods,  Jr.,  L.  R.  DeWeese  and  W.  G. 
Edgecomb.  1975.  Brown  Pelicans:  improved 
reproduction  off  the  southern  California  coast. 
Science  190  (4316):806-808. 

Anderson,  D.  W.  and  D.  T.  Anderson.  1976.  Dis- 
tribution and  status  of  Brown  Pelicans  in  the 
California  Current.  Amer.  Birds  30:3-12. 

Anderson,  D.  W.,  L.  R.  DeWeese,  and  D.  V.  Tiller. 
1977.  Passive  dispersal  of  California  Brown 
Pelicans.  Bird-Banding  48:228-238. 

A.O.U.  1957.  Check-list  of  North  American  Birds, 
Fifth  Edition.  Amer.  Omith.  Union,  Balti- 
more. 691  pp. 

Arthur,  S.  C.  1931.  The  birds  of  Louisiana.  Bull. 
Louisiana  Dept.  Conserv.  20:1-598. 

Baird,  S.  P.,  T.  M.  Brewer,  and  R.  Ridgway.  1884. 
Water  Birds  of  North  America  2:143. 

Banks,  R.  C.  1966.  Terrestrial  vertebrates  of  Ana- 
capa  Island,  California.  Trans.  San  Diego  Soc. 
Nat.  Hist.  14:173-188. 

Bent,  A.  C.  1922.  Life  Histories  of  North  Ameri- 
can petrels  and  pelicans  and  their  allies.  U.S. 
Nat.Mus.  BuU.  121:301. 

Blus,  L.  J.  1970.  Measurements  of  brown  pelican 
egg  shells  from  Florida  and  South  Carolina. 
BioScience  20:867-869. 

Blus,  L.J.,  A.  A.  Belisle,  and  R.  M.  Prouty.  1974a. 
Relation  of  the  brown  pelican  to  certain  en- 
vironmental pollutants.  Pestic.  Monit,  J.  7: 
181-194. 

Blus,  L.  J.,  R.  G.  Heath,  C.  D.  Ash,  A.  A.  BeUsle, 
and  R.  M.  Prouty.  1971.  Egg  shell  thinning  in 
the  brown  pelican:  implication  of  DDE.  Bio- 
Science  21:1213-1215. 

Blus,  L.  J.,  T.  Joanen,  A.  A.  Belisle,  and  R.  M. 
Prouty.  1975.  The  brown  pelican  and  certain 
environmental  pollutants  in  Louisiana.  Bull. 
Environ.  Contam.  Toxicol.  5:231-236. 

Blus,  L.  J.,  B.  S.  Neeley,  Jr.,  A.  A.  Belisle,  and 
R.  M.  Prouty.  1974b.  Orgcmochlorine  residues 
in  brown  pelican  eggs:  relation  to  reproduc- 
tive success.  Environ.  Pollut.  7:81-91. 

Bond,  R.  M.  1942.  Banding  records  of  California 
Brown  Pehcans.  Condor  44:116-121. 

Bond,  R.  M.  1948.  Returns  of  banded  California 
Brown  Pelicans.  Condor  50:89. 

Bostic,  D.  L.  and  R.  C.  Banks.  1966.  A  record  of 
stingray  predation  by  Brown  Pelican.  Condor 
68:515-516. 


Gress,  F.  1970.  Reproductive  status  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Brown  Pelican  in  1970  with  notes  on 
breeding  biology  and  Natural  History.  Wild- 
life Management  Branch  Administrative  Re- 
port no.   70-6.   Federal  Aid  Project  W-54-R. 

Grinnell,  J.  and  A.  H.  Miller.  1944.  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  Birds  of  California.  Pac.  Coast 
Avifauna  No.  27:51-52. 

Heath,  R.  G.,  J.  W.  Spann,  and  J.  F.  Kreitzer. 

1969.  Marked  DDE  impairment  of  mallard 
reproduction  in  controlled  studies.  Nature 
224:47-48. 

Henny,  C.  J.  1972.  An  analysis  of  the  population 
dynamics  of  selected  avian  species— with  spe- 
cial reference  to  change  during  the  modem 
pesticide  era.  U.S.  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.— Wildl. 
Res.  Rep.  1.99  pp. 

Howell,  A.  B.  1917.  Birds  of  the  islands  off  the 
coast  of  southern  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avi- 
fauna 12:40-41. 

Jehl,  J.  R.,  Jr.  1973.  Studies  of  a  declining  pop- 
ulation of  Brown  Pelicans.  Condor  75:69-79. 

Keith,  J.  O.  1978.  Synergistic  effects  of  DDE  and 
food  stress  on  reproduction  in  Brown  Pelicans 
and  Ringdoves.  Ph.D.  thesis,  Ohio  State  Uni- 
versity. 

Keith,  J.  O.,  L.  A.  Woods,  Jr.,  and  E.  G.  Hunt. 

1970.  Reproductive  failure  in  Brown  Pelicans 
on  the  Pacific  Coast.  Trans.  35th  N.  A.  Wild- 
life Conf.  pp.  56-63. 

Kennard,  J.  1975.  Longevity  records  of  North 
American  birds.  Bird-Banding  46:55-73. 

Mailliard,  J.  1913.  Dry  season  notes.  Condor  15: 
228. 

Murphey,  R.  C.  1936.  Oceanic  birds  of  South 
America.  2:808-810. 

Palmer,  R.  S.  ed.  1962.  Handbook  of  North  Am- 
erican birds.  Vol.  1.  Yale  University  Press, 
New  Haven.  567  pp. 

Peakall,  D.  B.  1970.  p,  p-DDT;  effect  on  calcium 
metabilism  and  concentrations  of  estradiol  in 
the  blood.  Science  168:592-594. 

1971.  Effects  of  poly  chlorinated  biphe- 


nyls  (PCB's)  on  the  egg  shells  of  ring  doves. 
Bull.  Environ.  Contam.  Toxicol.  6:100-101. 

Peterson,  R.  T.  1947.  A  field  guide  to  the  birds. 
Houghton  Mifflin,  Boston.  230  pp. 

Risebrough,    R.    W.,    F.    C.    Sibley,   and   M.    N. 
Kirven.    1971.    Reproductive    faikire    of   the 


15 


Brown  Pelican  on  Anacapa  Island  in    1969. 
Amer.  Birds  25:8-9. 

Schreiber,  R.  W.  1976a.  Movements  of  color- 
marked  brown  pelicans  in  Florida.  Bird-Band- 
ing 47:101-111. 

.    1976b.    Growth    and    development    of 

nesting  brown  pelicans.  Bird-Banding. 

•  1977.  Maintenance   activities  and  com- 


munication in  the  brown  pelican.  Am.  Orni- 
thologists' Union  Monogr.  22,  78  pp. 

1979.  Eastern  brown  pelican.  Pages  23- 


25  in  H.  W.  Kale  ed.  Rare  and  endangered 
biota  of  Florida,  Vol.  2,  Birds  Univ.  Presses 
of  Florida,  Gainesville. 

Schrieber,  R.  W.  and  R.  L.  DeLong.  1969.  Brown 
Pelican  status  in  California.  Audubon  Field 
Notes  23:57-59. 

Schreiber,  R.  W.  and  R.  W.  Risebrough.  1972. 
Studies  of  the  Brown  Pelican,  I.  Status  of 
Brown  Pelican  populations  in  the  United 
States.  Wilson  Bull.  84:119-135. 

Schreiber,  R.  W.,  and  E.  A.  Schreiber.  1973.  Flo- 
rida's brown  pelican  population:  Christmas 
bird   count   analysis.  Am.   Birds  27:711-715. 

Schreiber,  R.  W.,  G.  E.  Woolfenden,  and  W.  E. 
Curtsinger.  1975.  Prey  capture  by  the  brown 
pelican.  Auk  92:649-654. 

Sefton,  J.  W.  1927.  The  Ancient  Murrelet  at  San 
Diego,  with  a  note  on  the  Brown  Pelican. 
Condor  29:163-164. 

Stephens,  F.  1921.  Early  spring  notes  on  birds  of 
Coronado  Islands,  Mexico.  Condor  23:96-97. 

U.S.  Fish  and  WildHfe  Service.  1973.  Threatened 
Wildlife  of  the  United  States,  1973  edition. 
U.S.  Dept.  of  Interior  Resource  Publ.  114. 
GPO  Washington,  D.C. 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior.  197  3.  Threatened 
wildlife  of  the  United  States.  Compiled  by  Of- 
fice of  Endangered  Species  and  International 
Activities.  Bull.  Sport  Fish.  Wildl.  Resour. 
Publ.  114.  U.S.  Govt.  Printing  Office,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.  289  pp. 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  Denver  Wildhfe 
Research  Center.  1974.  Summary  of  Brown 
PeHcan  research  on  the  Pacific  Coast  of  Mexico 


and   the  United  States   in   1974.  Ms.  Denver 
Wildlife  Research  Center,  22  November  1974. 

Wetmore,  A.  1945.  A  review  of  the  forms  of  the 
Brown  Pelican.  Auk  62:577-586. 

Wiemeyer,  S.  W.,  and  R.  D.  Porter.  1970.  DDE 
thins  egg  shells  of  captive  American  kestrels. 
Nature  227:737-738. 

Willett,  G.  1910.  A  summer  trip  to  the  northern 
Santa    Barbara   Islands.  Condor   12:170-174. 

Willett,  G.  1912.  Birds  of  the  Pacific  slope  of 
southern  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avifauna  7: 
21. 

Willett,  G.  1933.  A  revised  Hst  of  the  birds  of 
southwestern  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avifauna 
21:18-19. 

WilHams,  L.  1927.  California  Brown  Pelicans  nest- 
ing at  Point  Lobos,  Monterey  County,  Cali- 
fornia. Condor  29:246-249. 

Williams,  L.  1931.  Further  notes  on  California 
Brown  PeHcans  at  Point  Lobos,  California. 
Condor  33:66-69. 

Williams,  L.  E.,  Jr.,  L.  J.  Blus,  K.  King,  L. 
McNease,  B.  S.  Neely,  S.  A.  Nesbitt,  and  R.W. 
Schreiber.  1976.  Recovery  plan  for  the  eastern 
brown  pelican.  Preliminary  Draft. 

Williams,  L.  E.,  Jr.,  and  T.  Joanen.  1974.  Age  of 
first  nesting  of  the  brown  pelican.  Wilson 
Bull.  86:279-280. 

Williams,  L.  E.,  Jr.,  and  L.  Martin.  1968.  Nesting 
status  of  the  brown  pelican  in  Florida  in  1968. 
Quart.  J.  Florida  Acad.  Sci.  31:130-140. 

.  1970.  Nesting  populations  of  brown  peli- 
cans in  Florida.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf.  S.E.  Assoc. 
Game  and  Fish  Comm.  24:154-169. 

Winn,  B.  1975.  Pesticides  decimate  transplanted 
pelicans.  Audubon  75:127-129. 

Woodward,  C.  H.  1921.  The  California  Brown 
PeHcan  as   a  navigator.  Condor  23:137-138. 

Wright,  H.  1909.  An  orithological  trip  to  Los 
Coronados  Islands,  Mexico.  Condor  11:96- 
100. 

Wright,  H.  and  G.  K.  Snyder.  1913.  Birds  observed 
in  the  summer  of  1912  among  the  Santa  Bar- 
bara Islands.  Condor  15:86-92. 


16 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.41 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  JAGUAR 


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  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  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  Ser\  ice 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Eouisiana  704.58 


FWS/OBS-80/01.41 
March  1980 


SELECl  KD  VERl  KBRA 1 1:  KNDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAS  I  OF  I  HE  UNITED  STATES- 

THE  JAGUAR 


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 

Doi^ald  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  W'ihllife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


JAGUAR 

Panthera  onca  Linnaeus 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Carnivora 

FAMILY Felidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES spotted  king  cat, 

American  tiger,  "el  tigre" 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates May  1978. 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered  (non-U. S.  wild  popula- 
tions) (35  FR  18320,  2  December 
1970);  (44  FR  43705,  25  July  1979). 
Threatened  (U.S.  captive  population) 
(42  FR  28956,  1  June  1977). 

States:  Endangered  Arizona,  New  Mexico  (ex- 
tirpated), Texas. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Deliberate  persecution,  excessive  and  illegal 
hunting,  overexploitation  by  fur  industry,  and 
predator  control  activities  have  extirpated  jaguars 
from  much  of  their  original  range  and  seriously 
reduced  numbers  in  most  of  the  rest  (lUCN  1972, 
Culbertson  and  Schmidly  1974,  Davis  1974). 
Timber  and  brush  clearing  have  degraded  and  des- 
troyed habitat  to  the  point  where  reestablishment 
of  populations  in  the  northern  part  of  the  range  is 
doubtful  (Davis  1974,  Brovmlee  1978).  Mining 
and  oil  exploration  and  development  have  made 
formerly  remote  Central  and  South  American 
areas  more  accessible  to  human  activity  and  sub- 
sequent illegal  killings  of  jaguars  (lUCN  1972). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

None  designated. 


DESCRIPTION 

The  jaguar  is  the  largest  (1.5  to  2.2  m)  and 
most  robust  of  the  American  cats.  The  tail  is 
short  and  somewhat  bristly.  Females  average 
smaller  than  males.  The  ground  color  varies  from 
pale  yellow  to  rusty  red  dorsally,  paler  on  the 
sides,  and  white  on  the  underparts  and  inner 
surfaces  of  the  legs.  Markings  are  irregular 
blotches  and  rosettes,  the  latter  centered  with 
black  spots.  Young  are  more  heavily  spotted  and 
their  coats  are  woolier.  Both  black  and  albino  in- 
dividuals occur  occasionally. 

Photographs  appear  in  Davis  (1974),  Guggis- 
berg  (1975),  and  Walker  (1975). 

RANGE 

The  jaguar  was  formerly  distributed  through- 
out the  tropical  lowlands  of  Mexico,  Central 
America,  and  South  America  to  about  40°  S  lati- 
tude (Calahane  1947,  Hall  and  Kelson  1959,  Gug- 
gisberg  1975).  The  former  U.S.  distribution  in- 
cluded southern  California  (Merriam  1919,  Strong 
1926,  Seton  1937),  New  Mexico  (Bailey  1931, 
Seton  1937,  Hill  1942,  Halloran  1946,  Findley  et 
al.  1975),  southern  Arizona  (Musgrave  1921, 
Schufeldt  1921,  Poole  and  Schantz  1942,  Hock 
1955,  Cockrum  1960),  and  possibly  Louisiana 
(Nowak  1973,  Lowery  1974),  and  Colorado 
(Seton  1920). 

Today,  jaguars  are  essentially  absent  from 
most  of  Mexico,  Argentina,  and  settled  provinces 
in  the  remaining  Central  and  South  American 
countries  (lUCN  1972).  There  is  no  evidence  for 
its  present  occurrence  in  Louisiana  (Lowery  1974) 
or  New  Mexico  (M.  C.  Conway  personal  commu- 
nication); however,  there  may  possibly  be  indivi- 
duals in  the  border  areas  of  the  latter  (Findley  et 
al.  1975).  It  is  essentially  absent  from  other  areas 
north  of  the  Mexican  border  except  as  occasional 
stray  individuals  in  the  border  counties  of  Texas 
and  Arizona  (Cockrum  1960,  Davis  1974,  Findley 
et   al.   1975,  Guggisberg   1975,  Lowman   1975). 

RANGE  MAP 

Crosshatched  areas  on  the  following  map  in- 
dicate possible  range  in  border  areas  of  U.S. 
(Cockrum  1960,  Davis  1974,  Findley  et  al.  1975, 
Guggisberg  1975,  Brownlee  1978).  Dots  refer  to 
sightings  and/or  kills  during  the  past  century. 


STATES/COUNTIES 

Arizona:      Cochise,  Pima,  Santa  Cruz. 

New 

Mexico:        Dona  Ana,  Grant,  Hidalgo,  Luna. 

Texas:  Brewster,  Cameron,  Dimmit,  Hidalgo, 

Kinney,  Maverick,  Starr,  Terrell,  Val 
Verde,  Webb,  Zapata. 

HABITAT 

The  jaguar  appears  to  require  areas  with  cover 
(Ewer  1973,  Lowman  1975).  It  inhabits  tropical 
and  subtropical  forests  ranging  from  mangrove 
swamps  to  rain  forests  (Alston  1882,  lUCN 
1972).  At  the  southern  extreme  of  the  range, 
open  savannas  and  deserts  are  used  (lUCN  1972). 
Chaparral  and  timbered  areas  are  preferred  at  the 
northern  extreme  of  the  range  (Davis  1974).  It 
appears  to  have  a  preference  for  areas  near  water 
(Davis  1974,  Guggisberg  1975),  but  has  been 
reported  from  deserts  (Guggisberg  1975). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Principal  foods  are  peccaries  {Tayassu  sp.)  and 
capybaras  {Hydro choerus  sp.)  (Guggisberg  1975). 
It  will  also  take  tapirs  (Tapirus  sp.),  agoutis 
{Agouti  sp.,  Dasyprocta  sp.),  otters  {Lutra),  deer, 
small  crocodilians,  turtles  and  their  eggs,  large 
ground-nesting  birds,  and  occasionally  livestock 
(Denis  1964,  Ewer  1973,  Davis  1974,  Guggisberg 
1975,  Lowman  1975). 

It  stalks  prey  until  close  enough  to  pounce 
(Guggisberg  1975),  then  drags  the  kill  to  the 
nearest  thicket  to  be  eaten.  Remains  are  not  usu- 
ally covered  (Hoffmeister  1971). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

The  jaguar  requires  dens  in  rocky  caves  or 
dense  thickets  (Davis  1974). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

The  jaguar  raises  its  young  in  dens  (see  Shel- 
ter) (Davis  1974,  Guggisberg  1975). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

The  jaguar  is  solitary  and  somewhat  territorial 
in  its  habits,  except  during  the  breeding  season. 
Little  is  known  about  its  territorial  behavior  be- 
yond the  fact  that  it  will  mark  trees  (Guggisberg 
1975). 


00 

c 


-a 

ID 

n 
u 

■3 
c 


o 
u 

'>< 


J2 


l-l 

3 
+-» 

C 
V 

u 


BS      C 
■t-» 

1)     5- 


S3 

3    ■« 
O    Ml 


03     t« 


§.' 


j=  .i 


rt 

o 

u 

o 

11 

hf 

V 

C 

u 

u 

c 

X! 

C/3 

n 

o 

CL, 

U 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Once  common  throughout  its  range,  the  jaguar 
is  now  uncommon  to  rare.  Fair  numbers  remain 
in  eastern  Campeche,  Selva  Lacandone,  eastern 
Chiapas,  and  eastern  Oaxaca  in  Mexico  and  west- 
em  El  Peten  in  Guatemala  (lUCN  1972).  It  is 
scattered  and  considered  a  pest  in  Argentina 
(lUCN  1972).  North  of  Mexico,  it  occurs  ex- 
tremely rarely,  in  Texas,  Arizona,  and  New 
Mexico  (Hock  1955,  Cockrum  1960,  Culbertson 
and  Schmidly  1974,  Davis  1974).  It  is  believed 
unlikely  that  the  jaguar  could  reestablish  in 
Texas,  due  to  habitat  loss  (Brownlee  1978).  No 
current  population  estimates  are  available.  There 
are  no  viable  breeding  populations  in  the  U.S.  (W. 
C.  Brownlee  personal  communication);  the  jaguar 
in   the  U.S.  exists  only  as  an  occasional  stray. 

REPRODUCTION 

The  breeding  season  is  year-round  in  tropical 
areas  of  the  range  (Cahalane  1946,  Ewer  1975, 
Guggisberg  1975).  In  the  more  northern  areas, 
breeding  takes  place  in  December  and  January 
wdth  births  in  April  and  May  (Davis  1974).  Fe- 
males are  polyestrous  (Ewer  1968)  and  males 
fight  for  first  breeding  rights  (Guggisberg  1975). 
Gestation  lasts  93  to  113  days  (Asdell  1964, 
Denis  1964,  Davis  1974).  Litter  size  ranges  from 
one  to  four  with  an  average  of  two  (Cahalane 
1947,  Denis  1964,  Ewer  1973).  The  growth  rate 
is  not  well  known,  but  8-week-old  cubs  will  weigh 
from  2  to  3  kg  (Hunt  1967).  Young  stay  with  the 
mother  for  about  2  years,  at  which  time  sexual 
maturity  is  reached  (Denis  1964,  Guggisberg 
1975),  Both  parents  help  rear  young,  but  the  bulk 
of  the  burden  is  on  the  female  (Guggisberg  1975). 
The  family  unit  is  maintained  until  the  young  are 
at  least  a  year  old  (Davis  1974).  Record  longevity 
for    a    captive    is    20   years   (Guggisberg    1975). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

No  recovery  team  has  been  appointed  for  the 
jaguar.  The  species  is  protected  in  the  U.S.  and 
most  of  the  Central  and  South  American  countries 
within  its  range,  but  laws  are  not  adequately 
enforced  (lUCN  1972).  Colombia  still  allows 
hunting  of  all  felid  species.  Protection  in  some 
Central  and  South  American  countries  is  provided 
in  National  Parks  (lUCN  1972).  Importation  of 
skins  to  the  U.S.  is  prohibited  except  by  permit. 
However,  illicit  commerce  to  European  and  Asian 
markets  is  common  (lUCN  1972). 


The  lUCN  is  surveying  the  jaguar's  status  in 
Latin  America;  in  a  cooperative  venture,  the 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  and  the  Direccion 
General  de  la  Fauna  Silvestre  of  Mexico  with  sup- 
port from  the  National  Wildlife  Federation,  the 
National  Audubon  Society,  and  the  Texas  and 
New  Mexico  Departments  of  Game  and  Fish,  are 
surveying  the  population  status  in  Mexico  (USFWS 
1978).  A  feline  status  survey  by  the  Texas  Parks 
and  Wildlife  Department  has  found  no  evidence 
of  recent  occurrence  of  jaguars  in  that  State 
(Brownlee  1978). 

Brush  clearing  in  national  wildlife  refuges  in 
the  Lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  of  Texas  has  been 
stopped  to  preserve  rapidly  disappearing  brush 
habitat. 

AUTHORITIES 

W.  C.  Brovsmlee 

Texas  Parks  and  Wildlife  Department 

4200  Smith  School  Road 

Austin,  TX  78744 

E.  Leddell  Cockrum 
Department  of  Zoology 
University  of  Arizona 
Tucson,  AZ  85719 

W.  B.Davis 

Department  of  Wildlife  and  Fisheries  Science 

Texas  A&M  University 

College  Station,  TX  77843 

Roy  McBride 
Department  of  Biology 
Sul  Ross  University 
Box  725 
Alpine, TX  79830 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Literature  is  scarce  on  the  habits  and  ecology 
of  wild  jaguar  populations.  More  research  is 
needed  in  this  area.  Status  surveys  are  needed  to 
assess  population  levels,  in  addition  to  protection 
of  habitat. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Alston,  E.  R.  1882.  Biologia  Centrali-Americana. 
Mammalia.  219  pp. 

Anthony,  H.  E.  1928.  Field  book  of  North  Ame- 
rican mammals.  Putnam  and  Sons,  New 
York.  674  pp. 


Asdell,  S.  A.  1964.  Patterns  of  mammalian  repro- 
duction, 2nd  ed.  Cornell  Univ.  Press,  Ithaca. 
670  pp. 

Bailey,  V.  1931.  The  mammals  of  New  Mexico. 
N.Am.  Fauna  53:283-285. 

.    1971.    Mammals   of   the   southwestern 

United  States  with  special  reference  to  New 
Mexico.  Dover,  New  York.  412  pp. 

Brownlee,  W.  C.  1978.  Feline  status  surveys.  Job 
performance  report.  Project  W-103-R-7.  Tex. 
Parks  Wildl.  Dep.,  Austin.  4  pp. 

Cahalane,  V.  A.  1947.  Mammals  of  North  Ameri- 
ca. MacMillan  Co.,  New  York.  682  pp. 

Cockrum,  E.  L.  1960.  The  recent  mammals  of 
Arizona;  their  taxonomy  and  distribution. 
Univ.  Ariz.  Press,  Tucson.  276  pp. 

Culbertson,  K.,  and  D.  J.  Schmidly.  1974.  Sum- 
mary statements  on  the  state  of  the  rare,  en- 
dangered, and  peripheral  mammals  in  Texas. 
Tex.  Organization  for  Endangered  Species, 
Temple.  4  pp. 

Davis,  W.  B.  1974.  The  mammals  of  Texas.  Tex. 
Parks  Wildl.  Dep.  Bull.  41: 1-294. 

Denis,  A.  1964.  Cats  of  the  world.  Houghton  Mif- 
flin Co.,  Boston.  144  pp. 

Ewer,  E.  F.  1968.  Ethology  of  mammals.  Logos 
Press  Ltd.,  London.  418  pp. 

•  1973.  The  carnivores.  Cornell  Univ.  Press. 

Ithaca.  494  pp. 

Findley,  J.  S.,  A.  H.  Harris,  D.  E.  Wilson,  and  C. 
Jones.  1975.  Mammals  of  New  Mexico.  Univ. 
New     Mex.     Press,    Albuquerque.     360    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.  The  mammals 
of  North  America.  2  vols.  Ronald  Press,  New 
York.  1,083  pp. 

Halloran,  A.  F.  1946.  Mammals  of  the  Chiricahua 
Mountains,  Cochise  County,  Arizona.  J. 
Mammal.  27:154-161. 

Hill,J.  E.  1942.  Notes  on  mammals  of  northeastern 
New  Mexico.  J.  MammaL  23:75-82. 

Hock,  R.  J.  1855.  Southwestern  exotic  felids. 
Am.  Midi.  Natur.  53:324-328. 

Hoffmeister,  D.  F.  1971.  Mammals  of  Grand  Can- 
yon.   Univ.    Illinois    Press,  Chicago.    183  pp. 


Hunt,  H.  1967.  Growth  rate  of  a  new-born,  hand- 
reared  jaguar  [Panthera  onca)  at  Topeka  Zoo. 
Int.  Zoo.  Yearb.  7:147-148. 

lUCN.  1972.  Red  data  book.  Vol.  I.  Mammalia. 
Compiled  by  H.  A.  Goodwin  and  C.  W.  Hollo- 
way.  lUCN,  Morges,  Switzerland. 

Layne,  J.  N.  1974.  The  land  mammals  of  Florida. 
In  Gleason,  P.  J.,  ed.  Environments  of  south 
Florida,  past  and  present.  Mem.  2.  Miami 
Geol.  Soc.  452  pp. 

Leopold,  A.  S.  1959.  Wildlife  of  Mexico:  the 
game  birds  and  mammals.  Univ.  California 
Press,  Berkeley.  568  pp. 

Lowery,  G.  E.  1974.  The  mammals  of  Louisiana 
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. 

McCarly,  H.  1959.  The  mammals  of  eastern  Texas. 
Tex.J.Sci.  2:385-426. 

Merriam,  C.  H.  1919.  Is  the  jaguar  entitled  to  a 
place  in  the  California  fauna?  J.  Mammal.  1: 
38-40. 

Musgrave,  M.  E.  1921.  Predatory  animals  in  Ari- 
zona. Am.  Game  Project.  Assoc.  Bull.  10: 
11-12. 

Nelson,  E.  W.,  and  E.  A.  Goldman.  1929.  Revi- 
sion of  the  jaguar.  J.  Mammal.  14:221-240. 

Nowak,  R.  M.  1973.  A  possible  occurrence  of  the 
jaguar  in  Louisiana.  Southwest  Natur.  17: 
430-432. 

Poole,  A.  J.,  and  V.  S.  Schantz.  1942.  Catalog  of 
the  type  specimens  of  mammals  in  the  United 
States  National  Museum,  including  Biological 
Survey  collection.  Bull.  U.S.  Natl.  Mus.  178: 
58. 

Schufeldt,  R.  W.  1921.  The  mountain  lion,  ocelot, 
lynx,  and  their  kin.  Am.  Forest.  27:629-636. 

Seton,  E.  T.  1920.  The  jaguar  in  Colorado.  J. 
Mammal.  1:241. 

.    1937.  Lives  of  game  animals.  Literary 

Guild,  New  York. 

Stehlik,J.  1971.  Breeding  jaguars;  PanM^ra  onca; 
at  Ostrava  Zoo.  Int.  Zoo.  Yearb.  11:116-118. 


Strong,  W.  D.  1926.  Indian  records  of  California 
carnivores.  J.  Mammal.  7:59-60. 

Taylor,  W.  P.  1947.  Recent  record  of  the  jaguar  in 
Texas.  J.  Mammal.  28:66. 

USFWS.  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. 

USFWS.  1978.  International  activities.  U.S. -Mexi- 
can Cooperation.  Endangered  Species  Tech. 
Bull.  lll(3):8-9. 

Walker,  E.  P.  1975.  Mammals  of  the  world.  2  vols. 
Johns   Hopkins    Press,   Baltimore.    1,500  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-80/01.42 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  GRAY  BAT 


p'. 


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  c()nscr\'ation  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  amciulcd). 

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  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  directed  to: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Eouisiana  70458 


FWS/OBS-80/01.42 
March  1980 


SELECi i:d  vkri ebrati:  endangered  species 

OF  IHE  SEACOAS T  OE  IHE  UNITED  STATES- 


THE  GRAY  BAT 


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.  VVoodard 

National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 

NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 

1010  Cause  Blvd. 

Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


Performed  for 

Coastal  Ecosystems  Project 

Office  of  Biological  Ser\iccs 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


GRAY  BAT 

My  Otis  grisescens  (Howell) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Chiroptera 

FAMILY Vespertilionidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Gray  myotis,  cave  bat, 

Howell's  bat,  Tennessee  brown  bat 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 8  August  1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered  (41   FR  17740,  28  April 
1976). 

States:  Endangered:  Florida,  Georgia,  Indiana, 

Illinois,    Missouri,    Tennessee,    North 
Carolina. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

The  primary  cause  for  the  species  current  re- 
ductions from  former  population  levels  is  human 
disturbance  of  caves  in  which  the  bats  roost,  rear 
young,  or  hibernate  (Manvilie  1962;  Barbour  and 
Davis  1969;  Tuttlel977,  1979).  Gray  bats  are  in- 
tolerant of  human  disturbance  and  Tuttle  (1979) 
has  shown  a  direct  correlation  between  frequency 
of  human  disturbances  and  population  reductions. 
Fully  95%  of  the  entire  species  winters  in  just 
nine  caves,  and  over  60%  winters  in  a  single  cave 
in  northern  Alabama,  making  the  species  ex- 
tremely vulnerable  to  significant  population 
reductions.  Gray  bats,  with  few  exceptions,  also 
spend  the  summers  in  caves  (not  the  same  ones 
used  for  hibernation)  and  are  equally  vulnerable 
in  these  (Tuttle  1979).  Deliberate  vandalism  as 
well  as  frequent  human  invasion  of  caves  where 
gray  bats  live  has  eliminated  many  colonies  and 
drastically    reduced    most    others   (Tuttle    1979). 

Environmental  disturbances  such  as  deforesta- 
tion   and   chemical  and  pesticide   contamination 


may  also  adversely  affect  gray  bat  populations.  A 
very  low  reproductive  rate  makes  recovery  of  de- 
pleted colonies  questionable. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

Adults  are  medium  sized.  Forearms  are  40  to 
47  mm  long.  Summer  weights  are  8  to  10  g,  but 
go  as  high  as  16  g  just  prior  to  migration.  Fur  is 
uniformly  gray  immediately  following  molting  in 
late  June  or  July,  and  bleaches  to  bright  russet  by 
the  following  May  or  June,  especially  in  repro- 
ductive females.  Russett  colored  animals  are  most 
conspicuous  in  crowded  or  southern  roosts.  The 
most  useful  field  mark  is  the  bat's  unicolored  dor- 
sad fur;  all  other  southeastern  bats  have  conspicu- 
ously bi-  or  tricolored  dorsal  fur  (Barbour  and 
Davis  1969).  Illustrations  appear  in  Barbour  and 
Davis  (1969)  and  Odum  et  al.  (1977). 

RANGE 

The  gray  bat's  range  extends  from  eastern  Ok- 
lahoma and  Kansas  eastward  to  southwestern  Vir- 
ginia and  western  North  Carolina;  southern  Illi- 
nois and  Indiana  southward  to  northern  Florida 
(Hall  and  Kelson  1959,  Hall  and  Wilson  1966, 
Tuttle  1966,  Barbour  and  Davis  1969,  Humphrey 
and  Tuttle  1979).  Bats  wanter  in  caves,  primarily 
in  North  Carolina,  Alabama,  Missouri,  and  Ten- 
nessee. 

RANGE  MAP 

Cross-hatching  on  the  following  map  shows 
the  species'  summer  range.  Dots  indicate  major 
winter  caves  (Hall  and  Kelson  1959,  Barbour  and 
Davis  1969,  Tuttle  and  Robertson  1969,  Tuttle 
1976b,  Elder  and  Gunier  1978). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Alabama:  Blount,  Bullock,  Calhoun,  Chambers, 
Cherokee,  Clay,  Cleburne,  Coffee, 
Colbert,  Coosa,  Cullman,  Dale,  De 
Kalb,  Elmore,  Etowah,  Geneva, 
Henry,  Houston,  Jackson,  Jefferson, 
Lauderdale,  Lawrence,  Limestone, 
Macon,  Madison,  Montgomery,  Mor- 
gan, Pike,  Randolph,  Russell,  St.  Clair, 
Shelby,  Talladega,  Tallapoosa. 

Arkansas:  Baxter,  Benton,  Boone,  Carroll,  Clay, 
Cleburne,  Conway,  Craighead,  Craw- 
ford,   Crittenden,    Cross,    Faulkner, 


Franklin,  Fulton,  Greene,  Indepen- 
dence, Izard,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Law- 
rence, Lee,  Logan,  Madison,  Marion, 
Mississippi,  Monroe,  Newton,  Poinsett, 
Pope,  Prairie,  Randolph,  St.  Francis, 
Searcy,  Sharp,  Stone,  Van  Buren, 
Washington,  White,  Woodruff. 

Florida:  Baker,  Bay,  Calhoun,  Columbia,  Dixie, 
Franklin,  Gadsden,  Gulf,  Hamilton, 
Holmes,  Jackson,  Jefferson,  Lafayette, 
Leon,  Liberty,  Madison,  Nassau,  Su- 
wannee, Taylor,  Wakulla,  Walton, 
Washington. 

Georgia:  Bartow,  Carroll,  Catoosa,  Chattahoo- 
chee, Chattooga,  Cherokee,  Clay, 
Clayton,  Cobb,  Coweta,  Dade,  Daw- 
son, Decatur,  De  Kalb,  Douglas,  Early, 
Fannin,  Fayette,  Floyd,  Forsyth,  Ful- 
ton, Gilmer,  Gordon,  Haralson,  Harris, 
Heard,  Lumpkin,  Meriwether,  Miller, 
Murray,  Muscogee,  Paulding,  Pickens, 
Polk,  Quitman,  Randolph,  Seminole, 
Stewart,  Towns,  Troup,  Union, 
Walker,  White,  Whitfield. 

Illinois:  Adams,  Alexander,  Bond,  Brown,  Cal- 
houn, Cass,  Clay,  Clinton,  Edwards, 
Fayette,  Franklin,  Gallatin,  Greene, 
Hamilton,  Hardin,  Jackson,  Jefferson, 
Jersey,  Johnson,  Macoupin,  Madison, 
Marion,  Massac,  Monroe,  Montgome- 
ry, Morgan,  Perry,  Pike,  Pope,  Pulas- 
ki, Randolph,  St.  Clair,  Saline,  Sanga- 
mon, Scott,  Union,  Wabash,  Washing- 
ton, Wayne,  White,  Williamson. 

Indiana:  Crawford,  Dubois,  Floyd,  Gibson, 
Harrison,  Knox,  Orange,  Perry,  Pike, 
Posey,  Spencer,  Vanderburgh,  Warrick, 
Washington. 

Kansas:  Barber,  Bourbon,  Chautauqua,  Chero- 
kee, Cowley,  Crawford,  Elk,  Harper, 
Labette,  Montgomery,  Neosho,  Sum- 
ner, Wilson, 

Kentucky:  Adair,  Allen,  Anderson,  Ballard,  Bar- 
ren, Rath,  Bell,  Bourbon,  Boyle, 
Breathitt,  Breckenridge,  Bullitt,  Butler, 
Caldwell,  Calloway,  Carhsle,  Carter, 
Casey,  Christian,  Clark,  Clay,  Clinton, 
Crittenden,  Cumberland,  Daviess,  Ed- 
monson, Elliott,  Estill,  Fayette,  Flem- 
ing, Franklin,  Fulton,  Garrard,  Grant, 
Graves,  Grayson,  Green,  Hancock, 
Hardin,  Harlan,  Harrison,  Hart,  Hen- 


^^^ 

\ 

■y^ 

^^P^>v 

1 

^ 

< 

\    ^i                  k 

^^ 

2 

\    3                 /      ^^ 

^^^ ' 

O 

\    o             /            'v 

/f^ 

tr 

\    ^            /               \ 

y-*^ 

> 

\    <I           (                   * 

fe^ 

y 

y 

► 

\  ^          \ 

^./^•O'WiVatSi^ 

r^ 

-c 

^^^       ^                 "^^-i^^J 

^5v^ 

/ 

CO 
LLI 

> 

J  s^^v.    \  «=i    y 

tei 

/                         > 

^ 

d     A    >N.     \o    X 

(                               ^. 

jC  ¥    \V\5C/ 

M< 

1                      f^.      «^ 

—  1 

-V 

n 

oJ 

\               \o--v„,„**'«'^ 

^^^^^^^^.^^^s..^ 

\h 

H 

J         p.      I  UJ             .1^  -      ' 

s 

n 

r 

• 

o        \ 

^     z     1  5            l^l 

^^,^-'^'"*^ 

L^ 

!i 

z          ^ 

\C     uJ      \  ^              \-J 

^^^^^"""^ 

^a 

'^ 

^             \' 

r-         \    ..y*^ 

v^^ 

— >Ar              ^" 

C'            «k 

T*A.             4           .^'"""^^ 

v*^  y^ 

/     ^*^    X,'""*'^     v^ 

J          i^^n^            l<^ 

x^  ^v           f* 

(O 

-^       '    «^             \^ 

r 

\               r^ 

o   y 

1 

? 

E 

V 

l<^   ^v 

-c- 

J 

i 

-^ 

(  f 

1 

1 

K 

^               1 
tr               i 

1_ 

^-^ 

>   o    . 

in\ 

4  ^             / 

\ 

(f)    X^ 

-^                    1               / 

{ 

\ 

S 

j::^:^,^-^^ 

1 

^ 

r^ 

\ 

<        *  / 

( 

\ 

in 

1 

o           / 

?     < 

p 

< 

I 

^     -    / 

en 

I 

<        / 

}       ^ 

z 

\ 

_l       / 

S,     LlI 

< 

\ 

^     / 

r  h- 

^ 

\ 

o   / 

5^ 

•5 


60 


c 

(U 


j5 


a. 
u 
■a 

a. 


derson,  Henry,  Hickman,  Hopkins, 
Jackson,  Jefferson,  Jessamine,  Knox, 
Larue,  Laurel,  Lee,  Leslie,  Letcher, 
Lincoln,  Livingston,  Logan,  Lyon, 
McCracken,  McCreary,  McLean,  Madi- 
son, Magoffin,  Marion,  Marshall, 
Meade,  Menifee,  Mercer,  Metcalfe, 
Monroe,  Montgomery,  Morgan,  Muh- 
lenberg, Nelson,  Nicholas,  Ohio,  Old- 
ham, Owen,  Owsley,  Perry,  Powell, 
Pulaski,  Rockcastle,  Rowan,  Russell, 
Scott,  Shelby,  Simpson,  Spencer,  Tay- 
lor, Todd,  Trigg,  Union,  Warren, 
Washington,  Wayne,  Webster,  Whitley, 
Wolfe,  Woodford. 

Mississippi:  Tishomingo. 

Missouri:  Audrain,  Barry,  Barton,  Benton,  Bol- 
linger, Boone,  Butler,  Callaway,  Cam- 
den, Carter,  Cedar,  Christian,  Cole, 
Cooper,  Crawford,  Dade,  Dallas,  Dent, 
Douglas,  Franklin,  Gasconade, Greene, 
Hickory,  Howard,  Howell,  Iron,  Jas- 
per, Jefferson,  Laclede,  Lawrence, 
Lincoln,  McDonald,  Madison,  Maries, 
Marion,  Miller,  Moniteau,  Monroe, 
Montgomery,  Morgan,  Newton,  Ore- 
gon, Osage,  Ozark,  Perry,  Pettis, 
Phelps,  Pike,  Polk,  Pulaski,  Ralls,  Ran- 
dolph, Reynolds,  Ripley,  St.  Charles, 
St.  Claire,  St.  Francois,  Ste.  Genevieve, 
St.  Louis,  St.  Louis  City,  Saline,  Shan- 
non, Stone,  Taney,  Texas,  Warren, 
Washington,  Wayne,  Webster,  Wright. 

North 

Carolina:  Avery,  Buncombe,  Cherokee,  Clay, 
Graham,  Haywood,  Jackson,  Macon, 
Madison,  McDowell,  Mitchell,  Swain, 
Yancey. 

Oklahoma:  Adair,  Alfalfa,  Cherokee,  Craig,  Creek, 
Delaware,  Garfield,  Grant,  Haskel, 
Hughes,  Kay,  Kingfisher,  LeFlore, 
Lincoln,  Logan,  Mcintosh,  Major, 
Mayes,  Muskogie,  Noble,  Nowata,  Ok- 
fuskee, Oklahoma,  Okmulgee,  Osage, 
Ottawa,  Pawnee,  Payne,  Pittsburg, 
Pottawatomie,  Seminole,  Sequoyah, 
Rogers,  Wagoner,  Woods. 

Tennessee:  Anderson,  Bedford,  Benton,  Bledsoe, 
Blount,  Bradley,  Campbell,  Cannon, 
Carroll,  Cheatham,  Chester,  Claiborne, 
Clay,  Cocke,  Coffee,  Crockett,  Cum- 
berland, Davidson,  Decatur,  DeKalb, 
Dickson,     Dyer,     Fayette,     Fentress, 


Franklin,  Gibson,  Giles,  Grainger, 
Greene,  Grundy,  Hamblen,  Hamilton, 
Hancock,  Hardeman, Hardin,  Hawkins, 
Haywood,  Henderson,  Henry,  Hick- 
man, Houston,  Humphreys,  Jackson, 
Jefferson,  Knox,  Lake,  Lauderdale, 
Lawrence,  Lewis,  Lincoln,  Loudon, 
McMinn,  McNairy,  Macon,  Madison, 
Marion,  Marshall,  Maury," Meigs,  Mon- 
roe, Montgomery,  Moore,  Morgan, 
Obion,  Overton,  Perry,  Pickett,  Polk, 
Putnam,  Rhea,  Roane,  Robertson,  Ru- 
therford, Scott,  Sequatchie,  Sevier, 
Shelby,  Smith,  Stewart,  Sumner, 
Tipton,  Trousdale,  Union,  Van  Buren, 
Warren,  Wayne,  Weakley,  White, 
Williamson,  Wilson. 


Virginia:      Lee,  Scott,  Wise. 


HABITAT 

In  summer,  this  migratory  species  inhabits 
areas  in  which  open  water  and  the  banks  of 
streams,  lakes,  or  reservoirs  are  within  manageable 
distances  of  roosting  sites  and  suitable  caves  in 
which  to  rear  young  (LaVal  et  al.  1976,  1977; 
Tutde  1976a).  In  winter,  it  inhabits  caves  having 
suitable  temperatures  for  its  hibernation. 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Major  food  items  consist  of  aquatic  and  non- 
aquatic  soft-bodied  insects  (R.  LaVal  personal 
communication),  especially  Mayflies  (Ephemerop- 
tera)  (Tuttle  1979). 

Gray  bats  fly  directy  from  cave  to  feeding  site 
with  few  stops.  They  feed  by  continuous  pursuits, 
remaining  in  the  air  most  of  the  time.  Most  forag- 
ing is  done  over  lakes  and  rivers  where  aquatic  in- 
sects are  abundant  (Tuttle  1976a,  1979).  LaVal  et 
al.  (1976,  1977)  found  foraging  taking  place 
along  the  vegetated  edges  of  bodies  of  water. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

In  winter,  the  species  requires  deep,  cold 
caves  (preferrably  6°  to  9°  C)  for  hibernation. 
These  caves  average  10°  below  the  mean  annual 
surface  temperature,  and  function  as  cold-air 
traps,  having  multiple  entrances  and  good  air 
flow  (Tuttle  and  Stevenson  1979).  The  caves  are 
already  cold  in  September  when  the  bats  arrive 
(M.  Tuttle  personal  communication). 


NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

In  summer,  females  need  warm  caves  (14°  to 
27°  C)  for  rearing  young.  Important  characteristics 
of  bat  caves  include  small  chambers  (Dvvyer 
1963),  high  places  in  domed  ceilings  (Davis  et  al. 
1962),  or  domes  or  small  pockets  within  these 
locations  (Dwyer  1963,  Dwyer  and  Hamilton- 
Smith  1965,  Dwyer  and  Harris  1972),  and  depth 
of  etching  and  porosity  of  the  rock  surface  (Tut- 
tle  1975b).  Males,  nonreproductive  females, 
postlactating  females,  and  juveniles,  also  use 
caves  in  summer,  but  not  the  same  ones  used  as 
maternity  sites  (Tuttle  1976b). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

The  gray  bat  is  perhaps  the  U.S.  mammal 
most  narrowly  restricted  to  cave  habitats  (Hall 
and  Wilson  1966;  Barbour  and  Davis  1969;  Tuttle 
1976a,  1979).  For  all  practical  purposes,  it  lives 
in  caves  the  year  round  (Tuttle  1979).  It  is  essen- 
tial that  the  bats  choose  roosts,  generally  caves, 
having  temperatures  appropriate  to  the  desired 
metabolic  processes:  warm  for  digestion  and 
growth  in  the  summer,  and  cool  for  torpor  in  the 
fall  and  winter  (Twente  1955).  However,  in  the 
summer,  gray  bats  will  use  man-made  structures 
that  simulate  cave  conditions  (e.g.,  storm  sewers 
in  Kansas  and  Illinois  [Hays  and  Bingham  1964, 
Elder  and  Gunicr  1978],  and  a  bam  in  Missouri 
[Gunicrand  Elder  1971]). 

A  minimal  colony  size  is  needed  to  maintain 
an  adequate  roost  environment;  otherwise,  the 
colony  may  fail  (Tuttle  1975b,  1979).  Because 
travel  is  such  a  high-energy  activity,  the  bats  need 
summer  caves  close  to  feeding  areas— usually  with- 
in 1  km  and  no  more  than  4  km  from  the  nearest 
feeding  areas.  The  distances  from  maternity  sites 
to  feeding  areas  are  important  in  influencing  post- 
flight  growth  and  survival  (Tuttle  1976a). 

POPULATION  TRENDS 

The  estimated  total  population  of  the  gray 
bat  is  1  million  (Tuttle  1975a).  Five  major  caves 
have  not  been  used  in  the  past  20  years  (Tuttle 
1975a).  Twenty-two  summer  localities  in  Tennes- 
see and  Alabama  were  censused  in  1970  and  again 
in  1976.  A  64%  reduction  in  numbers  was  recorded 
for  this  period  (Tuttle  1979).  The  decline  is  attri- 
buted mainly  to  a  marked  increase  in  human  dis- 


turbance over  that  period  (Tuttle  1979).  In  1978 
R.  LaVal  (personal  communication)  censused  27 
Missouri  caves  that  Myers  (1964)  had  censused  in 
1964.  Adult  females  and  young  had  declined  ap- 
proximately 80%,  and  16  caves  occupied  in  1964 
had  been  abandoned.  Estimates  for  the  entire 
State  are  not  available,  but  the  trend  is  downward 
(R.  LaVal  personal  communication),  and  is  likely 
to  continue  downward  because  of  the  bats'  intole- 
rance to  disturbance,  their  concentration  in  a  few 
caves,  and  the  possible  effects  of  pesticide  poison- 
ing (R.  LaVal  personal  communication). 

REPRODUCTION 

Copulation  occurs  in  the  fall;  females  store 
sperm  over  the  winter  (Barbour  and  Davis  1969). 
Young  are  bom  in  late  May  to  early  June  and  fly 
by  late  June  or  mid-July  (Tuttle  1976a).  Sexual 
maturity  is  reached  at  2  years  (Tuttle  1976a),  al- 
though LaVal  et  al.  (1976)  suggest  that  yearlings 
breed.  The  females  bear  one  young,  and  generally, 
only  females  and  young  occupy  the  nursery  cave 
(Tuttle  1976b).  Longevity  is  high— to  17  years— 
but  survival  is  only  about  50%  to  maturity,  so 
that  it  takes  a  female  about  5  years  to  produce 
two  surviving  offspring  (M.  Tuttle  personal  com- 
munication). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Until  recently,  there  has  been  no  manage- 
ment or  conservation  effort.  Most  caves  are  in  pri- 
vate ownership  (Tuttle  1975a).  Several  caves  have 
recently  come  under  protection  by  Federal  and 
private  owners  (Harvey  1975,  Tuttle  1979),  but 
improper  gating  of  entrances,  which  results  in  de- 
creased air  flow,  has  caused  the  loss  of  several  im- 
portant colonies  (Tuttle  1977,  Tuttle  and  Steven- 
son 1978).  Predation  at  cave  entrances  has  in- 
creased with  many  types  of  gate.  Bats  slow  down, 
circle,  or  climb  through  the  gates,  increasing  their 
vulnerability  to  predators  (Tuttle  1977).  The  U.S. 
Army  Corps  of  Engineers  Meramec  Park  Lake  and 
Union  Lake  Projects  in  Missouri,  which  could 
ehminate  50%  of  the  gray  bats  in  that  area  and 
alter  60%  of  the  foraging  habitat,  have  been  tem- 
porarily restrained  (LaVal  et  al.  1976).  A  Recovery 
Team  is  being  formed  (M.  Tuttle  personal  com- 
munication). 

Tuttle  (1979)  makes  the  following  recom- 
mendations for  conservation  of  this  species: 
(1)  purchase  severaJ  major  caves,  which  are  es- 
sential to  the  survival  of  the  gray  bat,  and  pro- 
tect them  by  proper  gating;  (2)  educate  spelunkers 
and  persons  interested  in  visiting  bats  in  winter 


caves;  (3)  disclose  the  locations  of  unprotected 
bat  caves  only  after  providing  information  on  the 
procedures  necessary  to  avoid  disturbing  the  bats. 


AUTHORITIES 

R.  K.  LaVal 

Missouri  Department  of  Conservation 

1110  College  Avenue 

Columbia,  MO  65201 

M.  D.  Tuttle 

Milwaukee  Public  Museum 
800  West  Wells  Street 
Milwaukee,  WI  53233 

Dr.  Richard  LaVal  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
2816  Mexico  Gravel  Road 
Columbia,  Missouri  65201 

Dr.  Merlin  Tuttle  (Recovery  Team) 
Vertebrate  Division 
Milwaukee  Public  Museum 
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin  53233 

Dr.  Tom  Kunz  (Recover^'  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 

Mr.  John  Brady  (Recovery  Team) 
St.  Louis  District 
Corps  of  Engineers 
210  North  12th  Street 
St.  Louis,  Missouri  63101 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

None. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Barbour,  R.  W.,  and  W.  H.  Davis.  1969.  Bats  of 

America.  Univ.  Press,  Kentucky,  Lexington. 

286  pp. 
Davis,  R.  B.,  C.  F.  Herreid,  II,  and  H.  L.  Short. 

1962.  Mexican  free-tailed  bats  in  Texas.  Ecol. 

Mongr.  32:311-346. 


Dwyer,  P.  D.  1963.  The  breeding  biology  of 
Miniopterus  schreibersi  blepotis  (Temminck) 
(Chirpotera)  in  north-eastern  New  South 
Wales.  Australian  J.  Zool.  11:219-240. 

Dwyer,  P.  D.,  and  E.  Hamilton-Smith.  1965. 
Breeding  caves  and  maternity  colonies  of  the 
bent-winged  bat  in  south-eastern  Australia. 
HeHctite  4:3-21. 

Dwyer,  P.  D.,  and  J.  A.  Harris.  1972.  Behavioral 
acclimitization  to  temperature  by  pregnant 
{Miniopterus)  (Chiroptera).  Physiol.  Zool.  45: 
14-21. 

Elder,  W.  H.,  and  W.J.  Gunier.  1978.  Sex  ratios 
and  seasonal  movements  of  gray  bats  {Myotis 
grisescens)  in  Southwestern  Missouri  and  ad- 
jacent States.  Am.  Midi.  Natur.  99(2):463- 
472. 

Gunier,  W.  J.,  and  W.  H.  Elder.  1971.  Experimen- 
tal homing  of  gray  bats  to  a  maternity  colony 
in  a  Missouri  barn.  Am.  Midi.  Natur.  86:502- 
506. 

Hall,  E.  R.,  and  K.  R.  Kelson.  1959.  The  mam- 
mals of  North  America.  Vol.  1.  Ronald  Press, 
New  York.  546  pp. 

Hall,  J.  S.,  and  N.  Wilson.  1966.  Seasonal  pop- 
ulations and  movements  of  the  gray  bat  in  the 
Kentucky  area.  Am.  Midi.  Natur.  75:317-324. 

Harvey,  M.J.  1975.  Endangered  Chiroptera  of  the 
southeastern  United  States.  Proc.  Annu.  Conf. 
Southeast.  Assoc.  Game  and  Fish  Comm.  29: 
429-433. 

Hays,  H.  A.,  and  D.  C.  Bingham.  1964.  A  colony 
of  gray  bats  in  southeastern  Kansas.  J.  Mam- 
mal. 45:150. 

Humphrey,  S.  R.,  and  M.  D.  Tuttle.  1979.  Gray 
bat.  Pages  1-3  in  J.  N.  Layne,  ed.  Rare  and 
endangered  biota  of  Florida,  Vol.  1 ,  Mammals. 
Univ.  Presses  of  Florida,  Gainesville. 

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  proposed 
Meramec  and  Union  Lake  project  areas,  Mis- 
souri. School  of  Forestry,  Fish,  and  Wildl. 
Univ.  Missouri,  Columbia.  136  pp. 

LaVal,  R.  K.,  R.  L.  Clawson,  M.  L.  LaVal,  and  W. 
Claire.  1977.  Foraging  behavior  and  nocturnal 
activity  patterns  of  Missouri  bats,  with  em- 
phasis on  the  endangered  species  Myotis  gris- 
escens and  Myotis  sodalis.  J.  Mammal.  58: 
592-599. 


U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1978.  Osceola 
National  Forest  phosphate  extraction  and 
processing:  impacts  on  Federally  listed 
threatened  or  endangered  and  other  species 
of  concern.  U.S.  Dep.  Inter.,  Fish  Wildl.  Serv., 
Office  Biological  Serv.,  Washington,  D.C.  414 
pp. 

Odum,  R.  R.,  J.  L.  McCollum,  M.  A.  Neville,  and 
D.  R.  Ettman.  1977.  Georgia's  protected  wild- 
life. Geogria  Dep.  Natur.  Rcsour.,  Game  Fish 
Div.,  End.  Wildl.  Progr.  84  pp. 

Tuttle,  M.  D.  1975a.  Proposal  for  inclusion  of  the 
gray  bat  (Myotis  grisescens)  on  the  U.S.  Rare 
and  Endangered  Species  List.  U.S.  Dep.  Inter., 
Fish  and  Wildl.  Serv.,  Office  Endangered 
Species. 

.   1975b.  Population  ecology  of  the  gray 

bat  (Myotis  grisescens):  Factors  influencing 
early  growth  and  development.  Occas.  Pap. 
Mus.  Natur.  Hist.,  Univ.  Kansas,  36:1-24. 

1976a.  Population  ecology  of  the  gray 


bat  {Myotis  grisescens):  Factors  influencing 
growth  and  survival  of  newly  volant  young. 
Ecology  57:587-595. 

.    1976b.  Population  ecology  of  the  gray 

bat  {Myotis  grisescens):  Philopatry,  timing 
and  patterns  of  movement,  weight  loss  during 
migiation,  and  seasonal  adaptive  strategies. 
Occas.  Pap.  Mus.  Natur.  Hist.,  Univ.  Kansas 
54:1-38. 

1977.  Gating  as  a  means  of  protecting 


cave  dwelling  bats.  Pages  77-82  in  Natl.  Cave 
Manage.  Symp.  Proc,  1976.  Speleobooks,  Al- 
buquerque. 106  pp. 

.   1978.  Myotis  grisescens.  In  Endangered 

species  of  the  Great  Laices  Region.  U.S.  Fish 
Wildl.  Serv.  Region  3.  3  pp. 

-.     1979.    Status,    causes    of   decline,    and 


management  of  endangered  gray  bats.  J. 
Wildl.  Manage.  43(1):  1-17. 

Tuttle,  M.  D.,  and  P.  B.  Robertston.   1969.  The 

gray  bat,  Myotis  grisescens,  east  of  the  Appa- 
lachians. J.  Mammal.  50:370. 

Tuttle,  M.  D.,  and  D.  E.  Stevenson.  1978.  An 
analysis  of  movement  as  a  mortality  factor  in 
the  gray  bat,  based  on  public  recoveries  of 
banded,  bats.  Am.  Midi.  Natur.  97:235-240. 

.  1978.  Variation  in  the  cave  environment 

and  its  biological  implications.  Natl.  Cave 
Manage.  Symp.  Proc.  1977.  In  press. 


Twente,  J.  W.,  Jr.  1955.  Some  aspects  of  habitat 
selection  and  other  behavior  of  cavern-dwell- 
ing bats.  Ecology  36:706-732. 

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 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.43 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  OKALOOSA  DARTER 


Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 


U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


PREFACE 

The  purpose  of  this  series  of  species  accounts  is  to  provide  resource  manaj^ers  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  I-',ndangcred  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  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  F^ndangcrcd  Species 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
Interior  Building 
Washington,  D.C.  20240 

Suggestions  or  questions  regarding  this  report  should  be  directed  lu: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


FWS/OBS-80/01.43 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VER 1  EBRA 1  E  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAS I  OF  IHE  UNITED  STATES- 

THE  OKALOOSA  DARTER 


A  Cooperative  Effort 

by  the 

National  Fish  and  Wildhfc  Laboratory, 

the  Office  of  Endangered  Species 

and  the 

National  ('oastal  Ecosystems  Team, 

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  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


OKALOOSA  DARTER 

Etheostoma  okloosae  Fowler 


KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Osteichthyes 

ORDER Perciformes 

FAMILY Percidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 4  October  1976,  24  January  1977 

21  May  1979 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered    (38    FR    14678,  4  June 
1973) 

States:  Endangered:  Florida. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

The  Okaloosa  darter's  limited  range  makes  it  a 
vulnerable  species.  In  1964  a  small  number  of 
brown  darters  {Etheostoma  edwini),  a  very  close- 
ly related  allopatric  species  with  similar  habitat 
and  ecological  requirements,  was  found  at  three 
stations  in  Rocky  and  Swift  Creeks,  perhaps  due 
to  human  introduction  (Yerger  1979).  By  1975, 
the  number  of  Okaloosa  darters  markedly  de- 
creased at  three  stations  along  Swift  Creek,  and 
the  number  of  brown  darters  increased  (Mettee 
1976).  Brown  darters  are  now  known  from  15 
sites  within  the  range  of  the  Okaloosa  darter  and 
appear  to  be  replacing  the  latter  species  at  several 
sites  in  Rocky  and  Swift  Creeks  (Mettee  and 
Crittenden  1977). 

Other  influencing  factors  affecting  the  Oka- 
loosa darter's  status  are  temporary  disruption  of 
habitat  due  to  road,  bridge,  and  powerline  con- 


struction,  increased  sedimentation,  and  possible 
construction  of  dams  in  the  future  (Yerger  1979). 
Mettee  (1976)  mentioned  that  there  has  been 
some  interest  in  damming  several  of  the  streams 
occupied  by  this  darter. 

There  are  presently  15  impoundments  on  the 
drainage  system  occupied  by  the  Okaloosa  darter. 
Two  on  Tom's  Creek  were  made  by  beavers  and 
the  rest  were  made  by  man.  Most  of  these  have 
produced  little  effect  on  darter  populations  above 
and  below  impoundments,  but  darters  are  unable 
to  use  the  reservoir  portions.  Two  eutrophic  im- 
poundments on  the  portion  of  Mill  Creek  flowing 
through  the  golf  course  at  Eglin  Air  Force  Base 
have  adversely  affected  populations  below  the 
impoundments,  presumably  due  to  higher  nutri- 
ent content,  higher  temperature,  and  increased 
turbidity  (Crittenden  1974). 

Some  types  of  habitat  alteration  such  as  road 
and  powerline  crossings  may  not  permanently  af- 
fect darter  populations.  Road  construction  ap- 
pears to  be  harmful  for  a  time  (due  to  excessive 
siltation),  but  once  established,  the  bordering 
stream  may  support  an  abundant  darter  popula- 
tion due  to  increased  sunlight,  stimulating  aquatic 
plant  growth  (Crittenden  1974). 

In  one  instance  (Swift  Creek  at  State  Highway 
285)  no  specimens  of  Okaloosa  darter  were  taken 
following  road  construction,  while  the  brown 
darter  was  abundant;  it  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  habitat  destruction  or  competition  with 
the  brown  darter  was  responsible  for  the  absence 
of  Okaloosa  darters  at  this  site  (Mettee  et  al. 
1976).  Right  of  way  clearing  for  powerlines  may 
be  detrimental  if  exposure  of  long  sections  of 
streams  to  sunlight  raises  the  water  temperature 
(Crittenden  1974). 

Presently,  a  new  highway  bypassing  the  cities 
of  Niceville  and  Valparaiso  is  being  constructed;  it 
will  bridge  Tom's  Creek  and  Turkey  Creek.  High- 
way 85  bridging  Juniper  (Ten  Mile)  Creek  is  being 
converted  to  four  lanes.  Okaloosa  darter  popula- 
tions are  being  monitored  at  these  sites  by  Crit- 
tenden and  Mettee  (Mettee  et  al.  1976). 

PRIORITY  INDEX: 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  Okaloosa  darter  is  a  slender,  small  (up  to 
44  mm)  perch-like  fish  with  two  dorsal  fins, 
rounded  caudal  fins  and  a  lateral  line  arched 
slightly  upward  with  32  to  37  (usually  34  to  35) 
lateral-line  scales.  There  are  longitudinal  rows  of 


dark  dots  along  the  sides  of  the  body  and  a  series 
of  dark  blotches  immediately  below  the  lateral 
line.  The  body  is  reddish-brown  to  yellow-brown 
becoming  lighter  on  lower  sides;  the  first  dorsal 
fin  has  an  orange-red  stripe  near  the  margin.  It 
is  distinguished  from  its  nearest  relative,  the 
brown  darter,  by  an  absence  of  conspicuous  red 
spots  and  a  nearly  complete  lateral  line.  Photo- 
graphs appear  in  CoUette  and  Yerger  (1962)  and 
Mettee  etal.  (1976). 

RANGE 

Okaloosa  darters  are  endemic  to  a  series  of 
five  small  creeks  in  Okaloosa  and  Walton  Counties 
in  west  Florida  that  empty  into  Rocky  and  Boggy 
Bayous  near  the  western  end  of  Choctawhatchee 
Bay:  Rocky  Creek,  Swift  Creek,  Turkey  Creek, 
Tom's  Creek,  Mill's  Creek  and  their  various  tribu- 
taries (Collette  and  Yerger  1962,  Crittenden 
1974). 

There  are  300  km  of  streams  in  which  the 
Okaloosa  darter  is  found  with  a  watershed  area  of 
45,730  ha.  Approximately  4,860  ha  are  in  private 
ownership  (including  cities  of  Niceville  and  Val- 
paraiso); the  remainder  are  located  within  Eglin 
Air  Force  Base  (Crittenden  1974). 

The  species'  former  distribution  is  the  same  as 
the  present,  but  it  apparently  occurred  at  more 
sites  on  the  five  creeks  (U.S.  Department  of  the 
Interior  1973). 

RANGE  MAP 

Distribution  illustrated  by  shading.  Detailed 
map  in  Draft  Recovery  Plan  (ODRT  1977). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Florida:       Okaloosa,  Walton. 

HABITAT 

The  Okaloosa  darter  inhabits  small  to  medi- 
um-sized (1.5  to  12.2  m  wide,  0.15  to  1.2  m  deep) 
clear  streams  with  moderate  to  swift  currents. 
Substrate  is  a  clean  sand  with  mud  or  detritus  in 
areas  of  reduced  current.  Waters  are  neutral  to 
slightly  acidic.  Vegetation  may  be  absent  or  in 
scattered  patches  or  clumps.  Bulrushes  (Scirpus), 
bog-moss  (Mayaca),  golden  club  (Oronttum 
aquaticum),  spatterdock  (Nuphar  luteum),  green 
algae  {Nitella),  and  pondweed  (Potamogeton)  are 
typical  plants.  Red  algae  (Batrachospermum) 
frequently  forms  thick  concentrations  (Collette 
and  Yerger  1962). 


o 
o 

O 

V 


C 
u 


Okaloosa  darters  usually  are  found  in  water 
from  0.15  to  0.61  m  deep  (Collette  and  Yerger 
1962)  associated  with  clumps  of  bulrushes  and 
bur-reed  {Sparganium  americanum)  where  cover 
and  protection  are  sought  (Yerger  1979).  They  do 
not  occur  in  impoundments  (ODRT  1977). 

Habitat  photographs  may  be  found  in  Crit- 
tenden (1974)  and  Mettee  et  al.  (1976). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Not  known. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Green  algae  clumps  are  used  as  egg-attach- 
ment sites  during  spawning  (Collette  and  Yerger 
1962).  For  water  depth  and  flow  requirements 
see  Reproduction. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Nothing  is  known  of  territoriality  or  home 
range  size  in  this  species.  Relationships  with  the 
brown  darter  are  discussed  under  Reasons  For 
Current  Status. 

Cool,  running  water  is  one  requirement,  and 
eutrophication  has  an  undesirable  effect  (Crit- 
tenden 1974). 

It  is  possible  that  severe  rainfall  with  associ- 
ated flooding  may  affect  the  distribution  in 
streams  at  least  temporarily  (R.  W.  Britte  personal 
communication ) . 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Estimates  of  population  size  range  from  1,500 
to  10,000  individuals  with  the  true  figure  proba- 
bly falling  somewhere  in  between  (Yerger  1976). 
Mettee  (1976)  estimates  between  1,500  and 
2,000  individuals. 

Population  levels  may  have  been  only  slightly 
reduced  in  the  past  15  years  except  in  areas  (parts 
of  Rocky  and  Swift  Creeks)  where  the  brown 
darter  has  been  introduced.  Here  the  numbers  of 
Okaloosa  darters  have  been  reduced,  probably 
due  to  competition  with  sibling  species  (Yerger 
1979). 


REPRODUCTION 

Spawning  was  observed  in  Tom's  Creek  on  25 
March  1961  in  sv«ft  water  0.30  to  0.46m  deep 
over  a  sandy  bottom  at  the  edge  of  clumps  of 
green  algae.  Several  eggs  were  deposited  individu- 
ally in  the  algae  and  one  egg  hatched  on  27  March 
in  the  laboratory  (Collette  and  Yerger  1962). 

On  25  March  1961,  several  mature  adults 
were  placed  in  aquaria  with  green  algae;  on  1  April 
1961,  six  eggs  were  discovered  individually 
attached  to  the  algae  (Collette  and  Yerger  1962). 

Nothing  is  known  of  longevity  or  survival 
rates. 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Yerger  (1979)  suggests  that  field  studies  be 
conducted  to  determine  the  species  population 
status  and  details  of  interaction  between  the  Oka- 
loosa and  brown  darters  as  well  as  to  monitor  the 
spread  of  the  latter  species.  He  also  suggests 
potential  methods  for  controlling  or  eliminating 
introduced  brown  darters  by  physical  removal.  He 
suggests  that  this  be  done  while  populations  are 
small  and  either  before  spawning  has  begun  or 
long  after  it  is  over.  Okaloosa  darters  would  be 
returned  to  the  water  after  the  operation  is  com- 
pleted. Removal  should  be  conducted  annually. 

Crittenden  (1974)  suggests  that  no  new 
impoundments  be  constructed  on  any  of  the  Oka- 
loosa darter  drainages.  If  determined  necessary, 
they  should  be  small  and  at  the  extreme  head 
waters  of  the  tributaries.  Measures  should  be 
taken  to  prevent  excessive  siltation.  Suggestions 
include  constructing  roads  at  oblique  angles  to 
streams,  maintaining  water  breaks,  and  seeding  of 
road  banks  as  soon  as  possible.  The  use  of  pesti- 
cides and  fertilizers  in  this  drainage  area  should  be 
exercised  with  great  caution. 

A  Recovery  Team  has  been  formed  and  a 
draft  Recovery  Plan  submitted  to  the  U.S.  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Service  for  review.  The  draft  plan 
calls  for  studies  to  determine  the  optimum  habi- 
tat for  Okaloosa  darters,  normal  population  levels 
and  fluctuations,  and  potential  hazards  to  the 
species'  continued  existence.  The  plan  also  out- 
lines actions  that  could  be  taken  if  the  results  of 
research  indicate  a  potential  extirpation.  These 
actions  include  defining  permissible  and  prohib- 
ited activities,  land  acquisition,  creating  more 
optimum  habitat,  transplanting,  and  reducing 
populations  of  competitors  or  predators  (ODRP 
1977). 


AUTHORITIES 

Robert  W.  Britt  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
Chief,  Natural  Resources  Division 
Directorate  of  Engineering 
Elgin  Air  Force  Base,  FL  32542 

Edward  Crittenden  (Recovery  Team)' 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
Great  Smoky  National  Park 
Gatlinburg,  TN  37738 

Maurice  F.  Mettee,  Jr.  (Recovery  Team) 
Geological  Survey  of  Alabama 
P.O.  Drawer  0 
University,  AL  35486 

Royal  D.  Suttkus 
Museum  of  Natural  History 
Tulane  University 
Belle  Chasse,  Louisiana 

Ralph  W.  Yerger  (Recovery  Team) 
Department  of  Biological  Sciences 
Florida  State  University 
Tallahassee,  FL  32306 

Norman  Young  (Recovery  Team) 
Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish 

Commission 
P.O.  Box  128 
DeFuniak  Springs,  FL  32433 

PREPARERS  COMMENTS 

Since  all  but  10%  of  the  watershed  area  is 
under  government  ownership  in  the  Eglin  Air 
Force  Base,  control  of  many  potentially  detri- 
mental factors  is  facilitated.  Development  of  the 
area  is  kept  to  a  minimum. 


Mettee,  M.  F.  Jr.  1970.  A  survey  of  the  fishes  of 
the  Choctawhatchee  Bay  drainage  in  Alabama 
and  Florida.  M.S.  Thesis.  Univ  of  Alabama. 
93  pp. 

.  1976.  Etheostoma  okaloosae  account.  In 


H.  O.  Hillestad,  D.  B.  Means,  and  W.  H.  Baker, 
eds.  Endangered  and  threatened  vertebrates  of 
the  southeastern  United  States.  Tall  Timbers 
Res.  Stn.,Misc.  Pub.  4. 

Mettee,  M.  F.,  Jr.  and  E.  Crittenden.  1977.  A 
study  on  the  distribution  o{  Etheostoma  oka- 
loosa  (Fowler)  and  Etheostoma  edwini 
(Hubbs  and  Cannon)  in  swift  and  rocky 
creeks,  Okaloosa  and  Walton  Counties,  Flor- 
ida, during  1975-1976.  Report  to  U.S.  Fish 
Wildl.  Serv.  130  pp. 

Mettee  M.  F.,  Jr.,  R.  W.  Yerger,  and  E.  Crittenden. 
1976.  A  status  report  on  the  Okaloosa  darter 
in  northwest  Florida.  Proc.  S.E.  Fishes  Counc. 
1:1-3. 

ODRT  (Okaloosa  Darter  Recovery  Team).  1977. 
Recovery  plan  for  the  Okaloosa  darter.  Draft. 
U.S.  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.,  Office  of  Endangered 
Species  19  pp. 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior.  1973.  Threatened 
wildlife  of  the  United  States.  Compiled  by  the 
Office  of  Endangered  Species  and  Interna- 
tional Activities,  Bur.  Sports  Fish,  Wildl. 
Resour.  Publ.  1 14.  U.S.  Govt.  Printing  Office. 
Washington,  D.C.  289  pp. 

Yerger,  R.  W.  1979.  Okaloosa  darter.  Pages  2-4  in 
C.  R.  Gilbert,  ed.  Rare  and  endangered  biota 
of  Florida,  Vol  4,  Fishes.  Univ.  Presses  of 
Florida,  Gainesville. 


LITERATURE  CITED /SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Collette,  B.  B.  and  R.  W.  Yerger.  1962.  The 
American  percid  fishes  of  the  subgenus 
Villora.    Tulane    Stud.    Zool.    9(4):213-230. 

Crittenden,  E.  1974.  Status  report  on  the  Okaloosa 
darter,  an  endangered  native  fish.  U.S.  Fish 
Wildl.  Serv.  Div.  Tech.  Assist.  Mimeo.  Rep 
20  pp. 

Fowler,  H.  W.  1941.  A  collection  of  freshwater 
fishes  obtained  in  Florida  1939-1940,  by 
Francis  Harper.  Proc.  Acad.  Natur.  Sci.  Phila- 
delphia. 92:227-244. 


ACCOUNT  PREPARED/UPDATED  BY: 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.44 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  EASTERN  COUGAR 


4^  ■ «.  -  > 


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  scries  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  learn 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
.NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.44 
March  1980 


SELECTKl)  VI.R  1  EBRA 1 1:  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAS  1  OE  IHE  UNITED  STATES- 

THE  EASTERN  COUGAR 


A  Cooperative  Effort 

by  the 

National  Eish  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-Slidcll  Computer  Complex 

1010  Cause  Blvd. 

Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


Performcil  for 

Coastal  l-cosystems  Project 

Office  of  Biological  Services 

Eish  and  Wildlife  Ser\ice 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


CREDIT:     COLORADO   DIVISION  OF  WILDLIFE 


EASTERN  COUGAR 

Felts  concolor  cougar  Kerr 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Carnivore 

FAMILY Felidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES cougar,  mountain  lion, 

panther,  puma,  pjiinter 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  detennined 

Updates 31  August  1978. 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered;    Eastern     United    States 
(38  FR  14678;  4  June  1978). 

States:  Endangered:  Georgia,  Maryland,  Mas- 

sachusetts, Mississippi,  Missouri, 
North     Carolina,    South    Carolina,    Ten- 
nessee, Vermont,  Virginia. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Regarded  as  extirpated  in  the  United  States  in 
1899  (USFWS  1973)  due  to  large  habitat  losses 
and  disruption,  excessive  hunting  and  persecution, 
and  decline  in  deer  population,  its  major  food 
(Laycock  1969;  lUCN  1972;  USFWS  1973; 
Lowman  1975). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

A  large  (1.5-3.1  m),  unspotted,  long-tailed 
cat.  Coloration  is  generally  a  uniform  fulvous  or 
tawny.  Males  are  larger  than  females.  Underparts, 
inner  ears,  lower  cheeks,  chin  and  lips  are  white. 
Tip  of  tail  and  base  of  whiskers  are  dark.  Young 
are  light-brown  and  irregularly  spotted  until 
about  6  months  old  (Dekay  1842;  Young  and 
Goldman  1946). 


Eastern  cougars  are  similar  in  appearance  to 
the  southern  and  western  subspecies  {Felis 
concolor  coryi  and  F.  c.  hippolestes,  respectively). 
Photographs  of  Felis  concolor  subspp.  are  in 
Wright  (1972). 

RANGE 

Former  range  was  the  entire  eastern  United 
States  and  Canada  as  far  north  as  Maine,  New 
Brunswick,  southern  Ontario  and  Quebec;  south- 
ward through  the  Appalachian  Mountains  to 
northern  Georgia  and  Alabama  where  it  integra- 
ted with  F.  c.  coryi  (Young  and  Goldman  1946; 
Hall  and  Kelson  1959). 

Recently  alleged  sightings  (by  reliable  observ- 
ers) and  unconfirmed  reports  (tracks,  hair,  scat) 
are  scattered  throughout  the  cougar's  former 
range. 

States  from  which  recent  sightings  have  been 
reported  include  Connecticut  (Dowhan  and  Craig 
1976,  L.  Gray  personal  communication),  Georgia 
(Odum  et  al.  1977,  R.  R.  Odum  personal  commu- 
nication), Kentucky  Q.  Durrel  personal  commu- 
nication) Maine  (Cram  1901,  Wright  1972),  Mary- 
land (Larson   1963,  Wright   1972),  Massachusetts 
(Mugford  1976),  Missouri  (Schwartz  and  Schwartz 
1959),  North  Carolina  (Linzey  and  Linzey  1971, 
Lee    1977a,  1977b,  Teulings  and  Cooper  1977), 
New  Hampshire  (Dearborn  1927,  Wright  1972), 
New  York  (Reilly  1964,  Manville  1951),  Pennsyl- 
vania (Grimm  and  Whitehead   1950,  1952,  Dout 
1969),  South  Carolina  (Lowman  1975),  Tennes- 
see (Kellog  1939),  Vermont  (Spargo  1950,  Wright 
1972),     Virginia     (Russ     1973),     West     Virginia 
(Handly    et  al.    1961),  and  Wisconsin   (Schorger 
1938). 

In  Canada  a  population  is  reported  to  exist  in 
New  Brunswick  (Wright  1953,  Calahane  1964, 
Wright  1972). 

RANGE  MAP 

No  range  map  has  been  prepared  because  of 
the  speculative  nature  of  this  subspecies'  occur- 
rence in  the  United  States. 


STATES/COUNTIES 

No  states  or  counties  are  given  because  of  the 
speculative  nature  of  this  subspecies'  occurrence 
in  the  United  States. 


HABITAT 

The  cats  show  no  preference  for  specific  habi- 
tat type  but  appear  to  require  large  areas  with 
adequate  food  supply  and  dense  vegetation  for 
refugia  (Wright  1972). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  cats  principal  food  is  white-tailed  deer 
{Odocoileus  virginianus)  (Wright  1972).  They  will 
feed  on  small  mammals,  insects,  and  reptiles.  They 
are  also  known  to  take  livestock  (True  1891; 
Hamilton  1943). 

Prey  is  stalked  until  the  cat  is  close  enough  to 
pounce  and  is  grabbed  by  the  throat  or  back  of 
the  neck  (Hamilton  1943).  Remains  and  unused 
portions  of  prey  are  covered  (Young  and  Gold- 
man 1946).  Western  subspecies  kill  every  3  to  4 
days  (Young  and  Goldman  1946). 
SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 
Not  known. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Not  known. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Populations  in  New  Brunswick,  Canada,  are 
estimated  from  25  to  100  (Cahalane  1964;  Wright 
1972).  Recent  sightings  in  the  United  States  may 
be  of  released  and/or  escaped  captives  of  western 
subspecies.  Wright  (1971,  1972)  suggests  that  the 
eastern  cougar  still  exists  in  the  United  States  and 
populations  are  widely  scattered  and  at  a  fraction 
above  the  limit  for  sustaining  the  population. 

REPRODUCTION 

Little  is  known  about  reproduction  of  the 
eastern  cougar.  Available  information  is  derived 
from  other  subspecies.  Breeding  season  in  the 
southern  race  {F.  c.  coryi)  is  believed  to  be  year 
round  with  peaks  in  February  (Schwartz  1952). 
Others  believe  cougars  breed  in  spring  or  fall 
(True  1891).  Females  are  polyestrous  and  ini- 
tiate the  courtship  and  mating  act  (Davis  1974). 
Gestation  period  is  90  to  98  days  (Young  and 
Goldman    1946;  Asdell    1964).   Litter  size  varies 


from  1  to  6  with  2  to  3  being  average  (Young  and 
Goldman  1946;  Hall  and  Kelson  1959;  Asdell 
1964).  Cougars  usually  breed  once  every  2  years 
(Young  and  Goldman  1946;  Asdell  1964).  There 
are  also  cases  where  two  litters  were  produced 
within  a  period  of  12  to  15  months  (Asdell  1964; 
Hornocker  1970). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

No  recovery  team  or  plan  has  been  initiated 
for  the  eastern  cougar.  There  is  a  Recovery  Team 
and  draft  plan  for  the  southern  race,  Florida 
panther  {F.  c.  coryi).  Several  States  are  conduct- 
ing questionnaire  type  surveys  and  some  actual 
field  searches.  Some  States  have  created  a  central 
clearing  house  for  sightings  of  eastern  cougars. 

There  have  been  sightings  and  unconfirmed 
reports  of  cougars  from  several  publicly  owned 
lands  in  the  eastern  United  States.  These  include: 
Georgia,  Savannah  River  Atomic  Energy  Plant; 
North  C.trolina,  Blue  Ridge  Parkway  (also  in  Vir- 
ginia), Great  Smoky  Mountain  National  Park,  and 
Uwharrie  National  Forest;  and  Virginia,  George 
Washington  National  Forest,  Jefferson  National 
Forest,  and  Shennandoah  National  Park  (Linzey 
and  Linzey  1971;  Russ  1973;  Lowman  1975; 
Teulings  and  Cooper  1977). 

AUTHORITIES 

None. 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Most  of  the  available  literature  on  life  history 
of  this  species  is  derived  from  findings  of  studies 
on  western  subspecies.  The  eastern  cougar  and 
Florida  panther  should  be  treated  together  in  the 
Recovery  Team  and  Plan  concepts. 

There  is  a  serious  question  as  to  whether  the 
eastern  cougar  exists  in  the  United  States.  More 
effort  should  be  concentrated  in  the  direction  of 
securing  documented  evidence  of  this  subspecies' 
existence  or  whether  released  and/or  escaped  cap- 
tive western  subspecies  are  the  animals  allegedly 
being  seen. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Asdell,  S.  A.  1964.  Patterns  of  mammalian  repro- 
duction. Cornell  Univ.  Press,  Ithaca.  679  pp. 

Cahalane,  V.  H.  1964.  A  preliminary  study  of  the 
distribution  and  numbers  of  cougar,  grizzly, 
and  wolf  in  North  America.  New  York  Zool. 
Soc,  New  York.  12  pp. 


Cram,  G.  1901.  Panther  in  Maine.  For.  Str.  56: 
123. 

Davis,  W.  B.  1974.  The  mammals  of  Texas.  Texas 
Parks  Wildl.  Bull.  No.  41:1-294. 

Dearborn,  N.  1927.  An  old  account  of  the  moun- 
tain lion  in  New  Hampshire.  J.  Mammal.  8: 
311-312. 

Dekay,  J.  E.  1842.  Zoology  of  New  York,  or  the 
New  York  Fauna.  Albany.  146  pp. 

Dout,  J.  K.  1969.  Mountain  lions  in  Pennsylvania. 
Am.  Midi.  Natur.  82:281-285. 

Dowhan,  J.  J.,  and  R.  J.  Craig.  1976.  Rare  and 
endangered  species  of  Connecticut  and  their 
habitat.  State  Geo.  Natur.  Hist.  Surv.  Conn., 
Dep.    Environ.    Protection    Rep.    6.    137   pp. 

Grimm,  W.  C,  and  R.  Whitehead.  1950.  Mammal 
survey  of  southwest  Pennsylvania.  Pa.  Game 
Comm.,  Harrisburg.  99  pp. 

,     1952.    Mammal    survey    of    northeast 

Pennsylvania.   Pa.  Game   Comm.,  Harrisburg. 
82  pp. 

Hall,  E.  R.,  and  K.  R.  Kelson.  1959.  The  mam- 
mals of  North  America.  2  vols.  Ronald  Press, 
New  York.  1,083  pp. 

Hamilton,  W.  J.  1943.  The  mammals  of  eastern 
United  States;  an  account  of  recent  land 
mammals  occurring  east  of  the  Mississippi. 
Cornell  Univ.  Press,  Ithaca.  432  pp. 

Handly,  C.  O.,  Jr.,  R.  Stafford,  and  E.  H.  Geil. 
1961.  A  West  Virginia  puma.  J.  Mammal. 
42:277-278. 

Hornocker,  M.  G.  1969.  Winter  territoriality  in 
mountain  Hons.  J.  Wildl.  Manage.  33:457-464. 

-.     1970.    An    analysis    of   mountain    lion 


predation  upon   mule  deer  and  elk  in  Idaho 
primitive  areas.  Wildl.  Monogr.  21.  39  pp. 

lUCN.  1972.  Red  data  book.  Vol.  I,  Mammalia. 
Compiled  by  H.  A.  Goodwin  and  C.  W. 
Holloway.  lUCN,  Morges,  Switzerland. 

Kellog,  R.  1939.  Annotated  list  of  Tennessee 
mammals.  Proc.  U.S.  Natl.  Mus.  86:245-303. 

Larson,  J.  S.  1963.  Panthers  in  Maryland.  Md. 
Conserv.Vol.XLlII. 


Laycock,  G.  1969.  America's  endangered  wildlife. 
Norton,  New  York.  226  pp. 

Lee,  D.  S.  1977a.  Felis  concolor  True.  Pages 
354-355  in  J.  E.  Cooper,  S.  S.  Robinson,  and 
J.  B.  Funderburg,  eds.  Endangered  and 
threatened  plants  and  animals  of  North 
Carolina.  North  Carolina  State  Mus.  Natur. 
Hist.,  Raleigh.  444  pp. 

.    1977b.  Unscrambling  rumor:  the  status 

of  the  panther  in  North  Carolina.  Wildl.  N.  C. 
41:6-9. 

Linzey,  A.  V.,  and  D.  W.  Linzey.  1971.  Mammals 
of  Great  Smoky  Mountains  National  Park. 
Univ.    Tennessee    Press,  Knoxville.    114   pp. 

Lowman,  G.  E.  1975.  A  survey  of  endangered, 
threatened,  rare,  status  undetermined,  peri- 
pheral, and  unique  mammals  of  the  south- 
western national  forests  and  grasslands.  USDA 
For.  Serv.,  Atlanta.  121  pp. 

Manville,  R.  1951.  Reports  of  cougars  in  New 
York.J.  Mammal.  32:227. 

Mugford,  P.  S.  1976.  Fish  and  wildlife  in  limited 
numbers  in  Massachusetts.  Mass.  Fish  Wildl. 
10  pp. 

Odum,  R.  R.,  J.  L.  McCuUom,  M.  A.  Neville,  and 
D.  R.  Ettman.  1977.  Georgia's  protected 
wildlife.  Georgia  Dep.  Natur.  Resour.  Atlanta. 

Reilly,  E.  M.,  Jr.  1964.  New  York's  spooky  big 
cats.  Conservationist  19:227. 

Russ,  W.  R.  1973.  The  rare  and  endangered 
vertebrates  of  Virginia.  M.S.  Thesis.  Virginia 
Polytechnic  Inst,  and  State  Univ.,  Blacksburg. 
338  pp. 

Schorger,  A.  W.  1938.  A  Wisconsin  specimen  of 
the  cougar.  J.  Mammal.  19:252. 

Schwartz,  A.  1952.  The  land  mammals  of  south- 
em  Florida  and  the  upper  Florida  Keys.  Ph. 
D.  Dissert.  Univ.  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor.  180 
pp. 

Schwartz,  C.  W.,  and  E.  R.  Schwartz.  1959.  The 
wild  mammals  of  Missouri.  Univ.  Missouri 
Press,    Missouri    Conserv.    Comm.    341    pp. 

Sparto,  J.  1950.  The  catamount  in  Vermont. 
Benningtion,  Vt. 


Teulings,  R.  P.,  and  J.  E.  Cooper.  1977.  Cluster 
areas.  Pages  409-433  in  J.  E.  Cooper,  S.  S. 
Robinson,  and  J.  B.  Funderburg,  eds.  En- 
dangered and  threatened  plants  and  animals 
of  North  Carolina.  North  Carolina  State  Mus. 
Natur.  Hist.,  Raleigh.  444  pp. 

True,  F.  W.  1891.  The  puma  or  American  lion: 
Felis  concolor  of  Linnaeus.  Pages  591-608  in 
Ann.  Rep.  Natl.  Mus.  Year  ending  June  30, 
1889. 

USFWS.  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. 

Wright,  B.  S.  1953.  Further  notes  on  the  panther 
in  the  northeast.  Canadian  Field  Natur.  67: 
12-28. 


.    1961.  The  latest  specimen  of  the  eastern 

puma.  J.  Mammal.  42:278-279. 

1971.  The  recovery  of  the  panther  in 


eastern  North  America.  Intl.  Symp.  Ecology, 
Behavior,  Conserv.  World  Cats.  Laguna  Hills, 
California. 

1972.  The  eastern  panther,  a  question  of 


survival.  Clarke,  Irvin  and  Co.,  Toronto.  180 
pp. 

Young,  S.  P.,  and  E.  A.  Goldman.  1946.  The 
puma,  mysterious  American  cat.  Am.  Wildl. 
Inst.  358  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-80/01.45 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  JA6UARUNDI 


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  Hsted  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  c()nscr\ation  of  the  subject 
species  is  included  (range  maps  and  other  distributional  data  are  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  Kngineers  in  coordina- 
tion with  the  Offices  of  Endangered  Species  and  Biohjgical  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 
i\'y\SA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.45 
March  1980 


SELIXIKI)  VKRl  KBRA 1  K  KNDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  IHE  SEACOAS T  OE  1  HE  UNEIED  STATES- 

THE  JA6UARUNDI 


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  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  Wilillife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


JAGUARUNDI 

Felts  yagouaroundi  Geoffroy 


KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Carnivora 

FAMILY Felidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES eyra,  ottercat,  ghost  cat 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 31  July  1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered  (F.  y.  cacomitli,  F.  y. 
fossata,  F.  y .  panamensis,  F.y.  tolteca) 
(41  FR  24064;  14  June  1976). 

States:  Endangered:   Texas  (F.  y.  cacomitli). 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Human  persecution  and  habitat  loss  due  to 
intense  habitat  alteration  and  destruction,  partic- 
ularly brush-clearing  operations  (Culbertson  and 
Schmidly  1974,  Davis  1974).  However,  recent 
data  may  indicate  a  range  extension  in  southern 
Texas  (Goodwyn  1970,  Brownlee  1978). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

A  small,  slender-bodied,  weasel-like  cat  0.8  to 
1.3m  long,  and  weighing  5.6  to  7.6kg.  It  is  some- 
what larger  than  a  housecat,  with  a  longer  tail  and 
unusually  short  legs.  Primarily  there  are  two  color 
phases  -  gray  and  red  -  with  black  animals  occuring 
in  the  southern  part  of  its  range.  In  the  gray  phase, 
upper  parts  are  grizzled   (salt  and  pepper)  with 


underparts  slightly  paler,  more  black  in  winter. 
The  red  phase  shows  reddish  upper  parts  inter- 
mixed with  black;  head  and  legs  are  more  brownish 
while  lips  and  throat  are  usually  white.  Fur  in 
both  phases  is  unspotted.  Young  are  paler  with  no 
spots.  Both  phases  may  appear  in  the  same  litter. 
Photographs  are  in  Goodwyn  (1970). 

RANGE 

The  United  States  distribution  is  restricted  to 
extreme  southern  Texas  and  Arizona.  Recent 
reports  from  Refugio  and  Hidalgo  Counties, 
Texas,  may  indicate  a  possible  range  extension 
(Goodwyn  1970,  Brownlee  1978).  These  sight- 
ings probably  represent  escaped  and/or  released 
captives  (R.  McBride  personal  communication). 
Two  subspecies  are  recorded  in  the  United  States: 
F.  y.  cacomitli  occurs  from  southern  Texas  to 
central  Vera  Cruz,  Mexico,  and  F.  y.  tolteca 
occurs  in  southern  Arizona,  south  in  Mexico 
along  the  Pacific  coast,  and  inland  to  the  Mexi- 
can Plateau.  The  Mexican  Plateau  is  thought  to 
form  a  barrier  between  the  two  subspecies  and 
may  explain  the  lack  of  records  in  New  Mexico 
(Hock  1955).  In  Central  and  South  America  it 
occurs  transcontinentally  as  a  poorly  known 
assemblage  of  subspecies  and  closely  related 
species.  One  was  reported  seen  at  Piatt  National 
Park  in  Oklahoma  (USFWS  1973). 


RANGE  MAP 

Cross-hatched  areas  on  the  following  map  re- 
fer to  presumed  U.S.  distribution  and  dots  refer 
to  sightings  and/or  kills  (Brownlee  1978,  Good- 
wyn 1970,  R.  McBride  personal  communication). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Arizona       Cochise,  Pima,  Santa  Cruz. 

Texas  Cameron,  Hidalgo,  Starr,  Willacy. 

HABITAT 

The  jaguarundi  inhabits  thick,  dense,  thorny 
brushlands  in  the  lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  (Davis 
1974).  Thickets  need  not  be  continuous,  but  may 
be  interspersed  with  clear  areas,  as  found  in  Mexi- 
co (Goodwryn  1970).  In  South  America  and  other 
southern  portions  of  the  range,  the  jaguarundi 
occurs  in  high  mountain  forests  (Alston  1882), 
tropical  forests,  savannas  (Bourliere  1964),  and 
forest  swamps  (Denis  1964).  It  seems  to  prefer 
areas  near  water  (Goodwyn  1970).  The  most 
common  plants  in  the  lower  Rio  Grande  Valley 


where  the  jaguarundi  is  known  to  occur  are  black- 
bush  acacia  {Acacia  rigidula),  chillipiquin  (Caosi- 
cum  annum),  lotebush  [Condalia  obstusifolia), 
Texas  persimmon  [Diospyrus  texana),  coyotillo 
{Karwinskia  humboltiana),  prairie  baccharis  [Bac- 
charis  texana),  allthorn  goatbush  {Castela  texana), 
common  lantana  {Lantana  horrida),  berlandier 
wolfberry  (Lycium  berlandieri),  javelinabrush 
{Microrhamuus  ericoides),  Texas  prickly  pear 
{Opuntia  linheimeri),  retama  [Parkinsonia  acule- 
ata),  mesquite  {Prosopis  glandulosa),  cedar  elm 
{Ulmus  crassifolia),  and  lime  pricklyash  {Zanth- 
oxylum  fagara).  From  about  1689  to  1885,  the 
lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  was  covered  with  dense 
brush,  with  a  relatively  treeless  plain  to  the  north 
(Inglis  1964).  The  spread  of  mesquite  north  into 
this  plain  (Peacock  1968)  may  offer  suitable  habi- 
tat for  the  jaguarundi  and  a  potential  for  range 
extension  (Goodwyn  1970). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  jaguarundi  stalks  its  prey  and  then 
pounces  (Cutter  1957,  Goodwyn  1970).  It  is  an 
excellent  tree  climber  and  will  forage  in  trees 
(Davis  1974).  Primarily  active  at  night,  it  will  also 
forage  during  the  day  (Goodwyn  1970,  Davis 
1974).  It  consumes  mostly  birds,  but  will  also 
take  small  mammals  and  some  fish  (Cahalane 
1947,  Ewer  1973,  HuUey  1976).  Goodwyn 
(1970)  suggests  that  principal  avifauna  prey  may 
be  a  dense-brush  subtropical  cohort  (Wolfe  1956) 
consisting  of  Bronzed  Cowbird  (Molothrus  aeneus), 
Chachalaca  [Ortalis  vetula).  Green  Jay  [Cyano- 
corax  yncas).  Groove-billed  Ani  [Crotophaga  sulcir- 
ostris),  Kiskadee  Flycatcher  {Pitangus  sulphuratus), 
Olive-backed  Tropical  Warbler  {Parula  pitiayuma). 
Red-bellied  Pigeon  [Columba  flavirostris).  White- 
fronted  Dove  {Leptoltila  verreauxi),  and  White- 
winged  Dove  (Zenaida  asiatica). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Dense  thickets  are  used  for  refugia  (Davis 
1974). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Dense  thickets,  fallen  logs,  tree  hollows,  and 
thick,  grassy  clumps  are  used  for  den  sites 
(Goodwyn  1970,  Davis  1974). 


>> 

x> 

-a 

u 

•M 

c 

u 

tfi 

u 

(H 

a, 

u 

kl 

in 

O 

u 

■  d 

»< 

u 

s 

e 

u 

X 

■4-* 

hi 

o 

a 

T3 

C 

CS 

en 

U 

•4-> 

BJ 

•M 

C/2 

-a 

S?r 

c 

a 

ra 

'kJ 

J<! 

S 

o 

(U 

C/1 

^ 

60 

-^ 

C 

3 
O 

■♦-» 

bC 

c 

VI 

•T3 

0 

C 

en 

tJ 

S 

.a 

_cfl 

o 

u 

X 

u 

+J 

4^ 

t4H 
O 

Ti 

c 

c 

o 

•  fH 

3 

J3 

•c 

Q 

W1 

bo 

-o 

C 

-a 

43 

(U 

-l-l 

6 

3 

in 

en 

en 

V 

O 

I-. 

1-1 

a< 

<J 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

The  jaguarundi  will  mark  territory  by  uri- 
nating and  scratching  with  hind  feet  (Hulley 
1976).  Thirteen  distinct  calls  are  recognized  with 
the  largest  repertoire  occurring  during  the  mating 
season  (Hulley  1976).  Cutter  (1957)  found  three 
calls  in  a  captive  kitten:  chirp,  purr,  and  cough. 
Goodwyn  (1970)  also  found  these  three  calls. 
Chirp  was  a  high-pitched,  bird-like  sound,  sono- 
graph  in  Goodwyn  (1970).  Purr  sounds  are  similar 
to  the  domestic  cat's  purr,  but  of  a  higher  tone 
and  more  erratic.  The  cough  is  a  throaty  sound  as 
of  air  forced  from  the  lungs. 

Jaguarundis  are  solitary  except  at  mating 
(Denis  1964).  Some  captive  animals  show  indica- 
tions of  gregariousness  within  family  groups  (Hul- 
ley 1976). 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Home  range  size  is  not  known,  but  a  captive 
female  was  tracked  a  distance  of  3.2  km  in  one 
morning  (Hulley  1976). 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

No  population  estimates  are  available  for 
most  of  the  range.  It  is  extremely  rare  in  Arizona 
(Cockrum  1960). 

A  questionnaire  survey  conducted  by  Texas 
Parks  and  Wildlife  Department  indicated  that  jag- 
uarundi may  occur  on  three  National  Wildlife  Re- 
fuges in  Texas:  12  on  Santa  Ana  NWR,  8  on  La- 
guna  Atascosa  NWR,  and  2  on  Aransas  NWR 
(Brownlee  1978).  R.  McBride  (personal  communi- 
cation) believes  jaguarundis  may  occur  on  Laguna 
Atascosa,    but    not    on    the    other    two   refuges. 

REPRODUCTION 

Mating  is  believed  to  take  place  in  November 
and  December  (Denis  1964).  Young  are  born  in 
March  or  August  and  may  weigh  up  to  22.7  g 
(Denis  1964,  Caras  1967,  Hulley  1976).  The  ges- 
tation period  is  given  as 6  months  (Walker  1975). 
There  may  be  two  litters  per  year  with  a  range  of 
one  to  four  (average  two)  young  per  litter.  Both 
gray  and  red  phase  may  occur  in  the  same  litter 
(Denis  1964).  There  is  an  indication  of  gregarious- 
ness and  tolerance  of  different  generations  by 
adults  in  captive  situations  (Hulley  1976),  which 
may  indicate  a  larger  degree  of  socialism  than 
once  thought.  Longevity  records  indicate  a  life 
span  of  8  to  10  years  (Rue  1967). 


MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  jaguarundi  is  protected  in  the  U.S.  and 
some  Latin  American  countries.  Brush  is  no 
longer  cleared  in  the  national  wildlife  refuges  in 
the  lower  Rio  Grande  Valley  (lUCN  1972)  in 
order  to  maintain  brush  habitat  in  its  natural 
form.  Santa  Ana  and  Laguna  Atascosa  National 
Wildlife  Refuges  are  thought  to  contain  habitat 
most  similar  to  the  original  brush  habitat  of  the 
lower     Rio    Grande    Valley     (Goodwyn     1970). 

No  recovery  team  or  plan  is  formalized  at  this 
time. 

AUTHORITIES 

William  C.  Brownilee 

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  University 
Box  725 
Alpine,  TX  79830 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

It  is  difficult  to  describe  current  population 
numbers  and  distribution  based  on  the  question- 
naire survey  methods  used  by  the  Texas  Parks 
and  Wildlife  Department.  Problems  are  encoun- 
tered with  sightings  of  escaped  and/or  released 
captive  individuals  and  sightings  of  the  same  in- 
dividual several  times.  These  factors,  as  well  as 
misidentification,  lead  to  inaccurate  distribution 
and  population  data. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Alston,  E.  R.  1882.  Biologia  Centralia-Americana. 
Mammalia.  219  pp. 

Bourliere,  F.  1964.  Mammals  of  the  world,  their 
life  and  habits.  A.  A.  Knopf  Co.,  New  York. 
223  pp. 

Brownlee,  W.  C.  1978.  Feline  status  survey.  Per- 
formance Report,  Proj.  W-103-R-7.  Texas 
Parks  Wildl.  Dept.,  Austin.  4  pp. 

Cahalane,  V.  H.  1947.  Mammals  of  North  Ameri- 
ca. MacMillan  Co.,  New  York.  682  pp. 


Caras,  R.  A.  1967.  North  American  mammals; 
furbearing  animals  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  Meredith  Press,  New  York.  578  pp. 

Cockrum,  E.   L.    1960.  The  recent  mammals  of 

Arizona:    their    taxonomy    and    distribution. 

Univ.  Arizona  Press,  Tucson.  276  pp. 
Culbertson,  W.  L.   1957.  A  young  jaguarundi  in 

captivity.  J.  Mammal.  38:515-516. 
Davis,  W.  B.  1957.  The  mammals  of  Texas.  Texas 

Parks  WUdl.  Dep.  Bull  41 : 1-294. 

Denis,  A.  1964.  Cats  of  the  world.  Houghton  Mif- 
flin Co.,  Boston.  144  pp. 

DeVos,  A.,  R.  H.  Manville,  and  R.  G.  Van  Gelder. 
1956.  Introduced  mammals  and  their  influ- 
ence on  the  native  biota.  Zoologica  41:163- 
194. 

Ewer,  E.  F.  1973.  The  carnivores.  Cornell  Univ. 
Press,  Ithaca.  494  pp. 

Findley,  J.  S.,  A.  H.  Harris,  D.  E.  Wilson,  and  C. 
Jones.  1975.  Mammals  of  New  Mexico.  Univ. 
New  Mexico  Press,  Albuquerque.  360  pp. 

Goldman,  E.  A.  1925.  Two  new  ocelots  from 
Mexico.  J.  Mammal.  6:122-124. 

Goodwyn,  F.  1970.  Behavior,  hfe  history,  and 
present  status  of  the  jaguarundi.  Felts  yagoua- 
roundi  (Lacepede),  in  south  Texas.  M.  A.  The- 
sis. Texas  A&I  University,  Kingsville.  63  pf . 

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.  Southwestern  exotic  felids. 
Am.  Midi.  Natur.  53:324-328. 

HuUey,  J.  T.  1976.  Maintenance  and  breeding  of 
captive  jaguarundis  {Felis  yagouaroundi)  at 
Chester  Zoo  and  Toronto.  Int.  Zoo.  Yearb. 
16:120-122. 

Inglis,  J.  M.  1964.  A  history  of  vegetation  on  the 
Rio  Grande  plain.  Texas  Parks  Wildl.  Dep. 
Bull.  45:1-122. 

lUCN.  1972.  Red  data  book.  Vol.  I.  Mammalia. 
Compiled  by  H.  A.  Goodwin  and  C.  W.  Hol- 
loway.  lUCN,  Morges,  Switzerland. 

Layne,  J.  N.  1974.  The  land  mammals  of  Florida. 
In  Gleason,  P.  J.,  ed.  Environments  of  south 
Florida,  past  and  present.  Mem.  2  Miami 
Geol.  Soc.  452  pp. 

Little,  E.  L.  1938.  A  record  of  the  jaguarundi  in 
Arizona.  J.  Mammal.  19:500-501. 


Neil,  W.  T.  1961.  On  the  trail  of  the  jaguarundi. 
Fla.  Wildl.  15:10-13. 

Peacock,  J.  T.  1968.  Historical  and  present  status 
of  the  southern  grassland,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  distribution  of  mesquite.  Unpubl. 
MS.  29  pp. 

Rue,  L.  L.  1967.  Pictorial  guide  to  the  mammals 
of  North  America.  T.  Y.  Crowell  Co.,  New 
York.  299  pp. 

Sanderson,  I.  T.  1959.  The  living  mammals  of  the 
world.  Hanover  House,  New  York.  303  pp. 

USFWS.  1973.  Threatened  wildhfe  of  the  United 
States.  USDI,  Bureau  of  Sport  Fisheries  and 
Wildlife,  Washington,  D.C.  Resource  Publ. 
114.289  pp. 

Walker,  E.  P.  1975.  Mammals  of  the  world.  2  vols. 
Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore.  1,500  pp. 

Wolfe,  L.  R.  1956.  Checklist  of  birds  of  Texas.  In- 
teUigence  Printing  Co.,  Lancaster. 


ACCOUNT  PREPARED/UPDATED  BY: 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.46 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  FLORIDA  PANTHER 


Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 


U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


PREPACK 

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  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  Kngineers  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  Sewice 
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-80/01.46 
March  1980 


SELECl  i:i)  VKR 1  KBRA n:  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  IHE  SEACOAS  I  OF  IHE  UNITED  SIATES- 

THE  FLORIDA  PANTHER 


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 

Fisii  and  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


CREDIT:    R.  CHRIS  BEL.DEN 


FLORIDA  PANTHER 

Felts  concolor  coryi  Bangs 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Carnivora 

FAMILY Felidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES  ....  cougar,  painter, 

mountain  lion,  puma 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 7  October  1976,  8  March  1977 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered  (32  FR  4001,  11    March 
1967) 

State:  Endangered:  Florida,  Georgia, 

Mississippi 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

The  primary  cause  for  their  present  status  is 
excessive  hunting  and  habitat  disruption  (Laycock 
1969,  Anon.  1973,  Nowak  and  McBride  1973). 
Although  legally  protected  since  1958,  illegal  kills, 
highway  mortality,  and  habitat  loss  probably  con- 
tinue to  depress  the  population  below  potential 
carrying  capacity  (Layne  and  McCauley  1976). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  panther  is  a  large  (1.5  to  3.1m),  long- 
tailed  cat,  usually  rusty  on  the  back,  fulvous  on 
the  sides,  and  buff  underneath.  The  sides  of  the 
nose,  tip  of  the  tail,  and  backs  of  the  ears  are  dark 
brown  or  blackish.  Young  panthers,  until  6  months 
old,  arc  buff  colored  with  black  spots  (Audubon 
and    Backman    1851,   Merriam    1901,   Hamilton 


1943,  Hall  and  Kelson  1959,  Hughes  1965). 
Photographs  are  in  Allen  (1950),  Tinsley  (1970), 
and  Lowery  (1974). 

RANGE 

The  species  formerly  ranged  throughout  Flor- 
ida, Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and 
Arkansas  (Hall  and  Kelson  1959).  Its  present  dist- 
ribution is  uncertain.  Tinsley  (1970)  and  Layne 
(1974)  state  that  remaining  major  concentrations 
seem  to  be  in  Florida  —  in  Big  Cypress  Swamp 
and  the  Everglades  National  Park  —  while  the 
extent  of  the  population  throughout  the  remain- 
der of  its  range  is  unknown. 

Although  it  is  questionable  that  the  panther 
survives  outside  of  Florida  (Williams  1979),  recent 
reports  suggest  that  they  do.  R.  Nowak  (personal 
communication)  in  1975  examined  what  may 
have  been  a  Florida  panther  in  Logan  County, 
Arkansas.  Lowman  (1975)  lists  sightings  near 
Valdosta,  Georgia;  Bankhead  National  Forest, 
Baldwin,  and  Clarke  Counties  in  Alabama;  the 
Pascagoula  Swamp  region  of  George  and  Jackson 
Counties,  and  Amite  and  Claiborne  Counties  in 
Mississippi;  Catahoula,  Concordia,  East  Baton 
Rouge,  Madison,  Natchitoches,  St.  Tammany,  and 
Webster  Parishes  in  Louisiana;  the  Ouachita  River 
bottomlands,  Ouachita  Mountains,  and  the  White 
River  National  Wildlife  Refuge  in  Arkansas.  Also, 
the  Mississippi  Game  and  Fish  Commission  (per- 
sonal communication)  has  a  recent  report  of  a 
sighting  in  Hancock  County,  Mississippi. 

RANGE   MAP 

The  estimated  range  in  eastern  United  States 
is  represented  by  shading,  and  confirmed  reports 
are  represented  on  the  following  map  by  stars 
(kills,  live  captures,  plaster  track  casts,  photo- 
graphs) (Goertz  and  Abegg  1966,  Noble  1971,  Sea- 
lander  andGipson  1973, Lowery  1974,Belden  and 
Williams  1976,  R.  C.  Belden  personal  communica- 
tion, R.  Nowak  personal  communication). 

The  Florida  map  shows  the  locations  of  con- 
firmed reports  by  stars,  and  unconfirmed  reports 
by  dots  (Belden  and  Wilhams  1976). 

STATES /COUNTIES 

Alabama  Baldwin,  Clarke,  Greene,  Mobile, 
Tuscaloosa,  Winston. 

Arkansas  Arkansas,  Ashley,  Carroll,  Dallas, 
Drew,  Franklin,  Jefferson,  Logan, 
Newton,  Nevada,  Pope,  Saline,  Scott, 
Stone,  Washington,  White. 


Florida  Alachua,  Baker,  Brevard,  Browerd, 
Citrus,  Collier,  Columbia,  Dade,  Dixie, 
Duval,  Glades,  Hendry,  Highlands, 
Lake,  Lafayette,  Levy,  Manatee, 
Marion,  Martin,  Okeechobee,  Osceola, 
Palm  Beach,  Pinellas,  Polk,  Santa  Rosa, 
Sarasota,  St.  Lucie,  Taylor,  Union, 
Wakulla,  Walton. 

Georgia        Charlton,  Clinch,  Lowndes,  Ware. 

Louisiana    Caddo,    Catahoula,    Concordia,    East 
(Parishes)    Baton  Rouge,  Madison,  Natchitoches, 
St,  Tammany,  Webster. 

Mississippi  Amite,   Claiborne,   George,  Hancock, 
Jackson. 

South 

Carolina       Aiken,  Barnwell. 

HABITAT 

The  panther  has  been  reported  in  every  habi- 
tat type.  No  preference  or  nonpreference  for  a 
specific  habitat  type  has  been  noted.  A  large  area 
is  required,  with  adequate  food  supply  and  dense 
vegetation  for  cover  (Bangs  1899). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Its  principal  food  is  white-tailed  deer  (True 
1891).  They  also  eat  small  mammals,  insects,  and 
reptiles  (Hughes  1965,  Smith  1968,  Tinsley  1970) 
and  livestock  (True  1891, Hamilton  1943,  Rodgers 
and  Crowder  1974). 

They  stalk  their  prey  until  close  enough  to 
pounce  on  it,  grabbing  the  throat  or  back  of  the 
neck  (Hamilton  1943,  Lowery  1974).  If  prey  can 
not  be  entirely  consumed  at  one  time,  a  panther 
will  cover  it  with  brush  and  leaves,  and  return  as 
long  as  it  is  palatable  (Goin  1948,  Allen  1950, 
Young  and  Goldman  1964,  Lowery  1974).  The 
frequency  of  meals  is  not  known,  although  hunters 
in  western  United  States  report  that  mountain 
lions  (Felis  concolor  ssp.)  kill  every  3  to  4  days 
(Young  and  Goldman  1964). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Not  known. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 


The  range  of  the  Florida  panther  is  depicted  by  shading.  Stars  represent  sites  of  kills,  live  captures, 
plaster  track  casts  or  photographs. 


NORTHWESIEBN  PURT  OF 

FLORIDA 

SAME  SCALE   as  M«IH  U«C 


9  10      11      12      13      It      IS      16      IT      IB 


20  31 


23       2t       25 


Confirmed  reports  of  Florida  panthers  in  Florida  are  indicated  by  stars  on  this  map;  unconfirmed 
reports  of  panthers  are  depicted  by  dots. 


4 


OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Because  of  its  scarcity  and  secretive  nature, 
almost  nothing  is  known  of  the  behavioral  and 
environmental  requirements  of  this  species.  It  is 
believed  to  require  large  expanses  of  undisturbed 
habitat  without  human  interference  (Layne  1970). 

The  panther's  home  range  is  unknowTi,  but 
speculations  vary  from  150km^  (Layne  1971)  to 
1,000  to  2,000km^  (Leposky  1975a). 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Specific  information  on  population  trends  are 
not  available,  but  Sealander  and  Gipson  (1973) 
and  Layne  and  McCauley  (1976)  feel  that  the 
population  has  been  on  the  increase  in  recent 
years.  Current  estimates  of  the  population  in 
Florida  are  between  30  and  300  (Wilhams  (1979). 

REPRODUCTION 

Little  is  known  about  the  reproduction  of  the 
Florida  panther.  Most  of  the  information  availa- 
ble is  from  the  western  subspecies.  Panthers  begin 
to  breed  at  2  to  3  years  of  age  (Hall  and  Kelson 
1959,  Young  and  Goldman  1964).  Breeding  is 
believed  to  occur  year-round  with  births  peaking 
in  February  (Schwartz  1952,  Frye  et  al.  no  date). 
Other  sources  indicate  that  panthers  breed  in  the 
spring  or  fall  (Maynard  1883,  True  1891). 

Davis  (1966)  states  that  females  start  the 
courtship  and  mating  act.  Males  will  fight  for 
first  breeding  privileges.  Copulation  is  followed 
by  subsequent  unions  with  other  males  (Lowery 
1974).  The  gestation  period  is  90  to  98  days 
(True  1891,  Asdell  1964,  Young  and  Goldman 
1964).  Litter  size  varies  from  1  to  6  (Hall  and 
Kelson  1959)  with  2  or  3  being  typical  (Asdell 
1964,  Young  and  Goldman  1964). 

Panthers  usually  breed  every  2  years  (Asdell 
1964,  Young  and  Goldman  1964,  Rogers  and 
Crowder  1974).  There  are  a  few  reports  of  two 
litters  being  born  within  a  12-  or  15-month 
period  (Asdell  1964,  Hornocker  1970). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  Florida  Panther  Recovery  Team  was 
organized  in  July  1976,  with  the  main  objective 
to  develop  a  recovery  plan  "...  that  delineates 
and  schedules  those  actions  required  for  securing 
or  restoring  .  .  ."  the  Florida  panther  ".  .  .  as  a 
viable,  self-sustaining  member  of  its  ecosystem." 
A  rough  draft  has  been  developed  which  calls  for 
four  major  efforts  (R.  C.  Beldon  personal  com- 


munication): 

1.  Find  and  delineate  present  populations. 

2.  Develop  a  captive  breeding  program  for  possi- 
ble restocking  in  the  future. 

3.  Develop  a  public  education  program. 

4.  Develop  a  program  to  evaluate  present  rules 
and  regulations  regarding  panthers,  and  form- 
ulate new  ones  where  necessary. 

The  Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish  Com- 
mission (R.  C.  Belden  personal  communication), 
has  outlined  an  investigation  to  locate  and  delin- 
eate the  present  population,  and  if  found,  to 
determine  important  habitat  and  management 
needs  to  assure  continued  survival.  To  locate  and 
delineate  the  present  population,  a  central  "Flor- 
ida Panther  Record  Clearinghouse"  will  be  set  up 
to  receive  panther  records.  The  public  will  be 
advised  whom  to  contact  and  what  to  report. 
These  records  will  then  be  analyzed  and  collated 
into  a  list  of  priority  areas  to  be  searched  for 
panther  sign.  Intensive  field  searches  will  be  con- 
ducted in  areas  with  positive  sign  of  a  panther 
population.  Efforts  will  be  made  to  determine 
habitat  utilization  and  population  dynamics.  All 
information  will  then  be  analyzed  to  determine 
panther  habitat  needs  and  to  develop  appropriate 
management  strategies. 

AUTHORITIES 

Ken  C.  Alvarez   (Recovery  Team) 

Division  of  Recreation  and  Parks 

Florida    Department    of   Natural    Resources 

P.O.  Box  398 

Osprey,  FL  33559 

Robert  E.  Baudy  (Recovery  Team) 
Rare  Feline  Breeding  Compound 
P.O.Box  132 
Center  Hill,  FL  33514 

Robert  C.  Belden  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish  Commis- 
sion 

4005  South  Main  Street 
Gainesville,  FL   32601 

James  N.  Layne  (Recovery  Team) 
Archbold  Biological  Station 
Route  2,  Box  180 
Lake  Placid,  FL  33852 

Brian  Noles   (Recovery  Team) 
Appalachicola  Ranger  District 
P.O.  Box  578 
Bristol,  FL  32321 


Peter  C.  H.  Pritchard  (Recovery  Team) 
Florida  Audubon  Society 
P.O.  Drawer  7 
Maitland,FL  32751 

Lovett  Williams 

Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish  Commis- 
sion 

4005  South  Main  Street 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Current  status,  life  history,  and  ecology  of  the 
Florida  panther  are  poorly  known.  Most  biologi- 
cal data  are  limited  to  general  accounts  or  brief 
notes  from  early  Florida  explorers  and  naturalists. 
The  majority  of  publications  since  the  turn  of  the 
century  rehash  the  limited  original  data  and  in- 
formation extracted  from  general  studies  done  on 
other  subspecies.  More  research  to  determine  sta- 
tus, distribution,  and  ecological  requirements  is 
needed  for  making  sound  conservation  and  man- 
agement decisions. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Addor,  E.  F.,  J.  K.  Stoll,  and  V.  E.  LaGarde. 
1974.  A  user-accessed  computer  information 
system  for  environmentally  sensitive  Wildlife. 
Vol.  2.  U.S.  Army  Eng.  Waterways  Exp.  Stn. 
Mob.  Environ.  Systems  Lab.  Vicksburg,  I  lis- 
sissippi. 

Allen,  E.  R.  1950.  Notes  on  the  Florida  panther, 
Felis  concolor  coryi  Bangs.  J.  Mammal.  31: 
279-280. 

Allen,  E.  R.,  and  W.  T.  Neill.  1954.  The  raccoon 
preyed  upon  by  panther  and  rattlesnake.  Ev- 
erglades Natur.  Hist.  2:46. 

Anon.  1971.  Wildlife  popular  in  state  parks.  Flor- 
ida Natur.  44(3  A)  :9. 

.  1973.  Floridapanther  in  imninent  danger. 

World  Wildl.  News  1(3): 3-4. 

Asdell,  S.  A.  1964.  Patterns  of  mammahan  repro- 
duction. 2nd  ed.  Comstock  Publ.  Assoc,  Cor- 
nell Univ.  Press,  Ithaca,  New  York.  670  pp. 

Audubon,  J.  J.  and  J.  Bachman.  1846,  1851, 
1854.  The  viviparous  quadrupeds  of  North 
America.  3  vols.  George  R.  Lockwood,  New 
York. 

Bangs,  O.  1898.  The  land  mammals  of  peninsular 
Florida  and  the  coast  region  of  Georgia.  Proc. 
Boston  Soc.  Natur.  Hist.  28(7):157-235. 


.  1899.  The  Florida  puma.  Proc.  Biol.  Soc. 

Washington,  D.C.  13:15-17. 

Barbour,  T.  1943.  Naturalist  at  large.  Little, 
Brown,  and  Co.,  Boston.  314  pp. 

Belden,  R.C.,  and  L.E.  Williams,  Jr.  1976.  Surviv- 
al status  of  the  Florida  panther.  In  Proc. 
of  a  Florida  panther  conference  and  work- 
shop. March  1976.  Florida  Audubon  Soc. 
In  Press. 

Blair,  W.  F.,  A.  P.  Blair,  P.  Brodkorb,  F.  R.  Cagle, 
and  G.  A.  Moore.  1968.  Vertebrates  of  the 
United  States.  2nd  ed.  McGraw-Hill,  New 
York.  616  pp. 

Cahalane,  V.  W.  1964.  A  preliminary  study  of  dis- 
tribution and  numbers  of  cougar,  grizzly  and 
wolf  in  North  America.  New  York  Zool.  Soc. 
12  pp. 

Carr,  A.  F.  1973.  The  Everglades.  Time-Life 
Books,  New  York.  184  pp. 

Cory,  C.  B.  1896.  Hunting  and  Fishing  in  Florida. 
Estes  and  Lauriat,  Boston.  304  pp. 

Davis,  W.  B.  1966.  The  mammals  of  Texas.  Rev. 
ed.  Texas  Parks  and  Wildl.  Dept.  Bull.  41: 

1-267. 

Dodson,  P.  1973.  Journey  through  the  old  Ever- 
glades, the  log  of  Minnehaha.  Trend  House, 
Tampa,  Florida.  75  pp. 

Eaton,  R.  L.  1970.  Pilot  study  on  ecology  of 
Florida  panther.  Unpubl.  M.S.  Thesis. 

.1973.  The  status,  conservation,  and  man- 
agement of  the  cougar  in  the  United  States. 
Pages  68-86  in  R.  L.  Eaton,  ed.  The  world's 
cats.  World  Wildlife  Safari,  Winston,  Oregon. 
349  pp. 

Elliott,  D.  G.  1905.  A  check  list  of  mammals  of 
the  North  American  continent,  the  West  In- 
dies, and  the  neighboring  seas.  Publ.  Field 
Col.  Mus.,  Zool.  Ser.  6:1-761. 

Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish  Commission. 
1976.  Cross  Florida  barge  canal  restudy  re- 
port; endangered,  threatened,  rare,  special 
concern,  status  undetermined  and  biologically 
sensitive  species.  Submitted  to  Fish  Wildl.  Ser. 
267  pp. 

Frye,  O.E.,  B.  Piper,  and  L.  Piper.  No  date.  The 
disappearing      panther.      Mimeogr.      4      pp. 

Goertz,  J.  W.,  and  R.  Abegg.  1966.  Pumas  in  Lou- 
isiana. J.  Mammal.  47:727. 


Goin,  O.  B.  1948.  Cat  of  a  dozen  names.  Fauna 
10(4):101-105. 

Hall,  E.  R.,  and  K.  R.  Kelson.  1959.  The  mam- 
mals of  North  America.  2  vols.  Ronald  Press, 
New  York.  1,083  pp. 

Hamilton,  W.  J.  1943.  The  mammals  of  eastern 
United  States:  an  account  of  recent  land 
mammals  occurring  east  of  the  Mississippi. 
Comstock  Publ.  Assoc,  Cornell  Univ.  Press, 
Ithaca,  New  York.  432  pp. 

Harper,  F.  1927.  The  mammals  of  the  Okefeno- 
kee  Swamp  region  in  Gerogia.  Proc.  Boston 
Soc.  Natur.  Hist.  38:191-396. 

Heilprin,  A.  1887.  Explorations  on  the  west  coast 
of  Florida  and  in  the  Okeechobee  wilderness 
with  special  reference  to  the  geology  and  zo- 
ology of  the  Floridian  peninsula.  Wagner  Free 
Inst.  Sci.  Trans.  134  pp. 

Homocker,  M.  G.  1969.  Winter  territoriality  in 
mountain  lions.  J.  Wildl.  Manage.  33:457-464. 

.  1970.    An    analysis    of   mountain    Hon 

predation  upon  mule  deer  and  elk  in  Idaho  pri- 
mitive area.  Wildl.  Monogr.  21.  39  pp. 

Howell,  A.  H.  No  date.  Xerox  copy  of  unpub- 
lished manuscript  on  Florida  mammals.  Con- 
tained in  the  files  of  U.S.  Fish  Wild.  Serv. 
Washington,  D.C.  114  pp. 

Hughes,  W.  1965.  Florida's  wild  cats.  Florida 
Wildl.  18(9):16-17. 

lUCN.  1972.  Red  data  book.  Vol.  1.  Mammalia. 
Compiled  by  H.  A.  Goodwin  and  C.  W.  Hol- 
loway.  lUCN,  Merges,  Switzerland. 

Jenkins,  J.  H.  1971.  The  status  and  management 
of  the  bobcat  and  cougar  in  the  southeastern 
states.  Pages  87-91  in  S.  E.  Jorgenscn  and 
L.  D.  Mech,  eds.  Proc.  of  a  symposium  on  the 
native  cats  of  North  America;  their  status  and 
management.  U.S.  Dept.  Inter.,  Fish  Wildl. 
Serv.,  Bur.  Sport  Fish.  Wildl.  Region  3.  139 
pp. 

Lahart,  D.  1973.  Florida's  endangered  dozen. 
Florida  Wildl.  Feb:  15-22. 

Laycock,  G.  1969.  America's  endangered  wildlife. 
Norton,  New  York.  226  pp. 

Layne,  J.  N.  1970.  Terrestrial  wildlife  of  the 
Oklawaha  regional  ecosystem,  effects  of 
Cross-Florida  Barge  Canal  construction  on 
terrestrial  wildlife  of  the  area.  Pages  33-41 
and    88-91   in   Environmental  impact   of  the 


Cross-Florida  Barge  Canal  with  special  em- 
phasis on  the  Oklawaha  Regional  Ecosystem. 
Florida  Def.  Environ.  115  pp. 

1971.  Mammals  of  Amelia  Island.  Pages 


237-261  and  338-359  in  J.  McCormick,  ed.  A 
preliminary  ecological  inventory.  Wallace, 
McHarg,  Roberts,  and  Todd,  Inc.,  Philadel- 
phia. 359  pp. 

.  1974.  The  land  mammals  of  south  Flori- 


da. Pages  386-413  in  P.  J.  Gleason,  ed.  Envi- 
ronments of  South  Florida:  present  and  past. 
Memoir  2  Miami  Geol.  Soc.  452  pp. 

Layne,  J.  N.  and  M.  N.  McCauley.  1976.  Biologi- 
cal overview  of  the  Florida  panther.  In  Proc. 
of  a  Florida  panther  conference  and  work- 
shop.   March    1976.    Florida   Audubon    Soc. 

Leposky,  G.  1975a.  Panther's  progress.  Florida 
Wildl.  (20)8:2-5. 

.  1975b.  Have  you  seen  this  cat?  Peters- 
burg   Times    Floridian    Mag.    8    June:  14-16. 

Lewis,  J.  C.  1969.  Evidence  of  mountain  lions  in 
the  Ozarks  and  adjacent  areas.  1948-1969.  J. 
Mammal.  50:371-372. 

Linzey,  A.  V.,  and  D.  W.  Linzey.  1971.  Mammals 
of  the  Great  Smoky  Mountains  National  Park. 
Univ.  of  Tennessee  Press,  Knoxville.  114  pp. 

Loveless,  C.  M.  1959.  The  Everglades  deer  herd 
life  history  and  management.  Florida  Game 
Fresh  Water  Fish  Comm.  Tech.  Bull.  6. 
104  pp. 

Lowery,  G.  H.,  Jr.  1974.  The  mammals  of  Loui- 
siana 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  Forest  and  Grasslands.  U.S. 
Dep.  Agric,  Forest  Serv.,  Atlanta,  Georgia. 
121  pp. 

Maynard,  C.  J.  1872.  Catalogue  of  the  mammals 
of  Florida,  with  notes  on  their  habits,  distri- 
bution, etc.  Bull.  Essex  Inst.  4:135-150. 

.   1883.  The   mammals  of  Florida.  Q.  J. 

Boston  Zool.  Soc.  2(l):l-8,  (2):17-24,  (3):38- 
43,(4):49-50. 

Merriam,  C.  H.  1901.  Preliminary  revision  of  the 
pumas  [Felis  concolor  group).  Proc.  Washing- 
ton Acad.  Sci.  3:577-600. 


Miller,  G.  S.,  and  R.  Kellogg.  1955.  List  of  North 
American  recent  mammals.  U.S.  Natl.  Mus. 
Bull.  205.954  pp. 

Moore,  J.  C.  1946.  Mammals  of  Welaka,  Putnam 
County,     Florida.     J.     Mammal.     27:49-59. 

Noble,  R.  E.  1971.  A  recent  record  of  the  puma 
(Felis  concolor)  in  Arkansas.  Southwestern 
Natur.  16:209. 

Nowak,  R.  M.,  and  R.  McBride .  1973.  Feasibility 
of  a  study  on  the  Florida  panther.  Rep.  to 
World  Wildl.  Fund.  Xerox.  13  pp. 

Pearson,  P.  G.  1951.  Mammals  of  Gulf  Hammock, 
Levy  County,  Florida.  M.S.  Thesis.  Univ.  of 
Florida,  Gainesville.  155  pp. 

Pritchard,  P.  C.  H.  1976.  Endangered  species: 
Florida  panther.  Florida  Natur.  49(4):  15-22. 

Rabb,  G.  R.  1959.  Reproductive  and  vocal  beha- 
vior in  captive  pumas.  J.  Mammal.  40:616- 
617. 

Ray,  C.  E.  1958.  Additions  to  the  Pleistocene 
mammalian  fauna  from  Melbourne,  Florida. 
Bull.  Mus.  Comp.  Zool.  119:421-449. 

Robertson,  W.  B.,  Jr.  1959.  Everglades— the  park 
story.  Univ.  of  Miami  Press,  Coral  Gables. 
88  pp. 

Robinette,  W.  L.,  J.  S.  Gashwiler,  and  O.  W. 
Morris.  1961.  Notes  on  cougar  productivity 
and  life  history.  J.  Mammal.  42:204-217. 

Rodgers,  D.  P.,  and  J.  P.  Crowder.  1974.  Threat- 
ened wildlife  of  south  Florida.  South  Florida 
Environ.  Proj.  Ecol.  Rep.  DI-SFEP-74-25. 
34  pp. 

Rogers,  A.  J.  1953.  A  study  of  the  exodid  ticks  of 
northern  Florida,  including  the  biology  and 
life  history  oi Ixodes  scapularis  Say  (Ixodidae: 
Acarina).  Ph.  D.  Dissert.  Univ.  Maryland,  Col- 
lege Park.  176  pp. 

Russ,  W.  P.,  1973.  The  rare  and  endangered  verte- 
brates of  Virginia.  M.S.  Thesis.  Virginia  Poly- 
technic Inst,  and  State  Univ.,  Blacksburg. 
338  pp. 

St.  Amant,  L.  S.  1959.  Louisiana  wildlife  inven- 
tory and  management  plan.  Louisiana  Wildl. 
Fish  Comm.  329  pp. 

Schemnitz,  S.  D.  1974.  Populations  of  bear,  pan- 
ther, alligator,  and  deer  in  the  Florida  Ever- 
glades. Q.J.  Fla.  Acad.  Sci.  37:157-167. 

Schwartz,  A.  1952.  The  land  mammals  of  south- 
ern Florida  and  the  upper  Florida  Keys.  Ph.  D. 


Dissert.  Univ.  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor. 
180  pp. 

Sealander,  J.  A.,  Jr.  1951.  Mountain  lion  in  Ar- 
kansas. J.  Mammal.  32:364. 

•    1956.   Provisional  checklist  and  key  to 

the  mammals  of  Arkansas  (with  annotations). 
Am.  Midi.  Natur.  56:257-296. 

Sealander,  J.  A.,  Jr.,  and  P.  S.  Gipson.  1973.  Sta- 
tus of  the  mountain  lion  in  Arkansas.  Proc. 
Arkansas  Acad.  Sci.  27:38-41. 

Seidensticker,  J.  C,  IV.,  M.  G.  Hornocker,  W.  V. 
Wiles,  and  J.  P.  Messick.  1973.  Mountain  lion 
social  organization  in  the  Idaho  Primitive 
Area.  Wildl.  Monogr.  35:1-61. 

Smith,  G.  1968.  The  Florida  panther.  Florida 
Wildl.  21(8):30-31. 

.  1970.  Mystery  cat.  Florida  Wildl.  24(3): 

4-6. 

Tinsley,  J.  B.  1970.  The  Florida  panther.  Great 
Outdoors  Publ.  Co.,  St.  Petersburg,  Florida. 
60  pp. 

True,  F.  W.  1891.  The  puma,  or  American  lion: 
Felis  concolor  of  Linnaeus.  Pages  591-609 
in  Ann.  Rep.  U.S.  Natl.  Mus.  Year  ending 
June  30,  1889. 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior.  1969.  Environ- 
mental impact  of  the  Big  Cypress  Swamp  Jet- 
port.  155  pp. 

.  1973.  Threatened  wildlife  of  the  United 

States.  Compiled  by  Office  of  Endangered 
Species  and  International  Activities.  Bur. 
Sport  Fish.  Wildl.  Res.  Publ.  114.  U.S.  Gov. 
Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.  C.  289  pp. 

Webb,  S.  D.  1974.  Chronology  of  Florida  Pleisto- 
cene mammals.  Pages  5-31  in  S.  D.  Webb,  ed. 
Pleistocene  mammals  of  Florida.  Univ.  of  Flo- 
rida Press,  Gainesville.  270  pp. 

Wolfe,  J.  L.  1971.  Mississippi  land  mammals.  Mis- 
sissippi Game  Fish  Comm.  44  pp. 

Young,  S.  P.,  and  E.  A.  Goldman.  1964.  The 
puma,  mysterious  American  cat.  Dover  Publ., 
Inc.  New  York.  358  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-80/01.47 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  AMERICAN  CROCODILE 


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  c<)nscr\'ation  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  ainendcd). 

This  series  of  accounts  is  intended  to  complement  the  computerized  Sensitive  Wildlife 
Information  System  (SVVIS)  developed  by  the  U.S.  Army  Corps  o(  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  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  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.47 
March  1980 


stLECi i:d  vi:ri ebra  1  i:  endangered  species 

OF  THE  SEACOAS  1  OF  IHE  UNITED  STATES- 

THE  AMERICAN  CROCODILE 


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.  VV'oodard 

National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 

NASA-Slidcll  Computer  Complex 

1010  Cause  Blvd. 

Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


Performed  for 

Coastal  Ecosystems  Project 

Office  of  Biological  Ser\iccs 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


M^:."^^^ 


«      •  '■A 


"^^^ 


^■l^^-'^P-^ 


CREDIT:    J.  ROSS  WILCOX 


AMERICAN  CROCODILE 

(Crocodylus  acutus  Cuvier) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Reptilia 

ORDER Crocodylia 

FAMILY Crocodylidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Florida  crocodile 

DATES 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 20  September  1976;  8  March  1977 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal!       Endangered  (Florida  populations  only) 
(40  FR  44149,  25  September  1975). 

States:  Endangered:  Florida. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Loss  of  habitat  due  to  urbanization  of  south 
Florida;  habitat  loss  is  not  all  physical  alteration, 
but  includes  reduction  in  suitability  of  remaining 
habitats  through  increased  human  recreational 
and  other  uses  (Ogden  1979). 

Excessive  mortality  occurs  through  malicious 
and  ill-advised  killing  by  humans  and  through 
accidental  deaths  in  commercial  fishing  nets  and 
on  highways  (Lang  1975). 

Heavy  predation  on  hatchlings  in  Florida  Bay, 
primarily  by  raccoons,  is  believed  to  be  hampering 
recruitment  (Lang  1975). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 


DESCRIPTION 

The  crocodile  is  a  large,  lizard-shaped  reptile. 
Its  back  is  covered  with  regular  series  of  keeled, 
bony  scales  and  the  belly  with  smooth  white 
scales.  It  is  dorsally  greenish  or  gray-brown  with 
irregular  black  mottling.  Young  are  more  con- 
trastingly colored  than  adults.  Hatchlings  are 
about  23  cm  in  length;  adults  may  grow  to  4.5  m 
or  larger. 

The  characteristics  that  distinguished  the 
crocodile  from  the  alligator  are  the  crocodile's 
generally  more  slender  build  and  its  snout,  which 
tapers  noticeably  forward  of  the  eyes,  while  the 
alligator's  snout  is  untapered  and  rounded  at  the 
end.  The  fourth  tooth  in  the  crocodile's  lower  jaw 
is  exposed  when  the  mouth  is  closed;  this  tooth  is 
concealed  in  the  alligator.  Coloration  of  the  alliga- 
tor is  dark  gray  or  black  with  yellow  markings. 

Illustrations  of  the  crocodile  appear  in 
Ditmars  (1953),  Carr  and  Coin  (1955),  Pope 
(1955),  Bothwell  (1963),  Neill  (1971),  Conant 
(1975),  Lang  (1975),  and  Perrero  (1975),  among 
other  technical,  semitechnical.  and  popular  works. 

RANGE 

In  the  United  States,  the  American  crocodile 
is  known  to  breed  currently  only  in  southern 
parts  of  the  Everglades  National  Park,  chiefly  Flo- 
rida Bay,  and  outside  the  park  on  adjacent  Key 
Largo  and  Turkey  Point.  Another  population  is 
reported  in  the  Lower  Florida  Keys  on  Big  Pine, 
Little  Pine,  and  Howe  Keys,  with  breeding 
rumored  on  Little  Pine  Key  (Powell  1973,  Ogden 
1979). 

Individuals  are  still  occasionally  reported  north 
of  Key  Largo  into  Biscayne  Bay  on  the  east  coast 
of  Florida,  and  as  far  north  as  Marco  Island  and 
Charlotte  Harbor  on  the  west  coast.  Breeding  in 
these  areas  has  not  been  documented. 

Historically,  the  crocodile  ranged  north  at 
least  to  Lake  Worth,  Palm  Beach  County,  on  the 
east  coast  (Dimock  and  Dimock  1908).  Breeding 
is  suspected  but  undocumented  for  these  northern 
populations.  On  the  west  coast  of  Florida,  no  his- 
toric records  exist  for  sightings  outside  the  areas 
that  still  occasionally  report  crocodiles,  although 
a  record  does  exist  for  Mobile  Bay,  Alabama 
(Loding  1922). 

The  largest  segment  of  the  known  population 
in  Florida  is  found  in  the  Everglades  National 
Park.  The  lower  Keys  population,  if  a  viable 
breeding  unit,  lives  primarily  in  the  National  Key 
Deer  Refuge.  Crocodiles  occasionally  use  the 
cooling  canals  of  the   Florida  Power  and  Light 


Corporation's  Turkey  Point  power  plant.  Individ- 
uals are  also  occasionally  seen  in  Homestead  Bay- 
front  Park. 

RANGE  MAP 

Shading  indicates  the  known  range  in  Florida. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Florida  Collier  ( ?) ,  Dade ,  Monroe. 

HABITAT 

Primarily  coastal,  crocodiles  use  mangrove 
swamps,  salt  and  brackish  bays,  and  brackish 
creeks.  They  also  enter  coastal  canals  and  borrow 
pits.  Nesting  occurs  primarily  in  hardwood  thick- 
ets at  the  heads  of  small  sand  beaches  and  on  marl 
banks  along  narrow  coastal  creeks  (Ogden  1979). 

Present  data  indicate  that  hatchlings  cannot 
tolerate  seawater  salinities,  but  must  have  brackish 
or  freshwater  for  the  early  development  period 
(Neill  1971,  T.  Ellis  and  W.  E.  Evans  personal 
communication),  but  this  has  been  questioned 
(Lang  1975).  Adults  are  able  to  withstand  full 
seawater  salinity  and  may  wander  widely  in 
coastal  areas  (Neill  1971). 

Critical  habitat  for  the  American  crocodile  in 
Florida  has  been  designated  (41  FR  41915,  24 
September  1976).  All  land  and  water  (excluding 
man-made  structures  or  settlements  not  necessary 
to  the  normal  needs  or  survival  of  the  species) 
within  the  followdng  boundaries  are  included:  be- 
ginning at  the  easternmost  tip  of  Turkey  Point, 
Dade  County,  on  the  coast  of  Biscayne  Bay; 
thence  southeastward  along  a  straight  line  to 
Christmas  Point  at  the  southernmost  tip  of  Elliott 
Key;  thence  southwestward  along  a  line  following 
the  shores  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean  side  of  Old 
Rhodes  Key,  Palo  Alto  Key,  Angelfish  Key,  Key 
Largo,  Plantation  Key,  Windley  Key,  Upper  Mate- 
cumbe  Key,  Lower  Matecumbe  Key,  and  Long 
Key,  to  the  westernmost  tip  of  Long  Key;  thence 
northwestward  along  a  straight  line  to  the  western- 
most tip  of  Middle  Cape;  thence  northward  along 
the  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  north  of 
the  mouth  of  Little  Sable  Creek;  thence  eastward 
along  a  straight  line  to  the  northernmost  point  of 
Nine  Mile  Pond;  thence  northeastward  along  a 
straight  line  to  the  point  of  beginning. 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

No  detailed  information  on  foraging  behavior 
is  known,  but  the  food  of  adults  is  believed  to 
consist  primarily  of  fish  (Fernandez  1971,  Ogden 


_1 2 3  * 5 6 7 

A'.  J  '^  xy.A\ 


17 ^18  19 


31 a 33 2* 2S 


NOBIHWESItCfJ  PART  OF 

FLORIDA 

5»»E  se»i.£  as  ifiis  "i- 


Shading  on  the  map  depicts  the  present  range  of  the  American  crocodile  in  Florida. 


23 24 2', 


ALABAMA. 


NORTHWESTERN  PART  OF 

FLORIDA 


2  3 


13  14  15 


Shading  on  this  map  indicates  critical  habitats  of  the  American  crocodile  in  Florida  (41  FR  41915, 
24  Sept.  1976). 


1979).  Young  feed  chiefly  on  aquatic  inverte- 
brates (Martin  de  Lucenay  1942,  Alvarez  del  Toro 
1974,  Ogden  1979).  In  general,  crocodilians  feed 
on  any  prey  items  that  can  be  caught  and  over- 
powered (Cott  1961,Neill  1971). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Nesting  site  preferences  appear  to  be  hardwood 
thickets  at  the  edge  of  small  sand  beaches  or  the 
banks  of  narrow  coastal  creeks  (Ogden  1979). 
Loose  soil  that  can  be  scraped  into  mounds  ap- 
pears to  be  a  general  requirement,  although  the 
Florida  Bay  population  appears  variable  in  this  re- 
gard (Campbell  1972,  Ogden  1979).  Fifty  meters 
between  nests  may  be  required  for  successful 
nestin  ;  (Alvarez  del  Toro  1974). 

Dens  consisting  of  burrows  dug  into  creek 
banks  are  often  constructed,  but  the  relation  of 
these  dens  to  nesting  areas  or  hibernation/estiva- 
tion needs  is  unknown  (Alvarez  del  Toro  1974, 
Ogden  1979). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Crocodihans  exhibit  the  most  elaborate  nest- 
protection  behavior  of  any  reptile,  including  assis- 
tance to  the  young  during  the  hatching  process 
and  posthatching  protection  of  young  (Alvarez 
del  Toro  1969,  1974;  Neill  1971;Kushlan  1973; 
Ogden  and  Singletary  1973;  Pooley  and  Gans 
1976).  Ogden  and  Singletary  (1973)  document 
this    behavior   for   the    Florida   Bay    population. 

Requirements  for  this  ritualistic  behavior  are 
unstudied,  but  Dixon  and  Staton  (1976)  have  evi- 
dence that  disturbance  of  the  female  while 
guarding  the  nest  will  disrupt  her  behavior  and 
may  lead  to  higher  egg  mortality.  Freedom  from 
human  disturbance  during  the  period  of  incuba- 
tion and  hatching  may  thus  be  a  critical  factor. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Hatchling   crocodiles    may    require  access   to 
freshwater   during  their  early  lives   (Neill    1971, 
T.  Ellis  andW.  E.  Evans  personal  communication); 
Lang  (1975)  differs  from  this  view. 

Home  range/territoriality  requirements  are 
unknown,  but  crocodiles  wander  over  considerable 
areas  at  times  (Neill  1971).  Local  or  seasonal  vari- 
ation in  food  supply  may  prompt  these  moves 
(Ogden  1979). 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Present  population  structure  in  Florida  may 
be  slanted  toward  larger  individuals  with  no  evi- 
dence of  recruitment  of  young  into  the  popula- 
tion. No  data  are  available  on  the  structure  of 
natural,  healthy  populations  of  American  croco- 
diles. 

Population  trends  in  Florida  are  clearly  down- 
ward. The  estimated  population  in  Florida  is  be- 
tween 200  and  400  individuals  with  fewer  than  25 
known  breeding  females  (Ogden  1979).  Loss  of 
several  breeding  females  on  Key  Largo  has  been 
documented  over  the  past  5  years. 

REPRODUCTION 

Courtship  and  mating  are  described  by  Lang 
(1975).  Females  in  south  Florida  begin  construc- 
tion of  nests  in  April  and  eggs  are  laid  in  April  or 
May.  Twenty  to  80  eggs  may  be  layed  in  a  clutch 
(Ogden  1979).  Hatching  occurs  in  July  and 
August. 

An  adult  crocodile,  presumably  the  female 
parent,  opens  the  nest  and  assists  the  young  in 
hatching  (Ogden  and  Singeletaryl973,  Alvarez  del 
Toro  1974).  A  close  early  protective  relationship 
between  the  parents  and  young  is  known  for 
several  crocodile  species  (Kushlan  1973,  Alvarez 
del  Toro  1974,  Pooley  and  Gans  1976)  and  has 
been  postulated  for  the  Florida  population 
(Ogden  1979),  although  its  duration  and  extent 
are  unknown. 

The  survival  rate  of  young  is  unknowm  under 
natural  conditions  but  is  very  low  for  the  Florida 
population  (Lang  1975). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Crocodilians  in  general,  with  their  high  repro- 
ductive potential,  usually  respond  well  to  effec- 
tive management/ conservation  programs,  as  the 
rapid  recovery  of  the  American  alligator  in  the 
United  States  indicates.  However,  no  population 
of  the  American  crocodile  has  as  yet  received 
such  protection  and  thus  its  potential  for  response 
to  specific  programs  cannot  be  evaluated.  The 
State  of  Florida  and  the  Everglades  National  Park 
have  given  legal  protection  to  crocodile  popula- 
tions for  some  time,  yet  the  population  has 
continued  to  decline.  These  data  indicate  that 
enforcement  or  protective  legislation  alone  is 
inadequate  to  rebuild  the  Florida  crocodile 
population.  An  active  program  to  decrease 
accidental  mortahty  and  increase  recruitment 
in    conjunction   with    a  public  information 


program  to  increase  the  public's  tolerance  to  large 
breeding-sized  individuals  would  appear  manda- 
tory. 

The  Recovery  Plan  for  the  American  croco- 
dile has  been  approved  (12  Feb  1979)  and  out- 
lines steps  to  be  taken  to  assure  a  self-sustaining 
population  throughout  suitable  habitat  in  the 
United  States.  The  plan  calls  for  research  to 
determine  habitat  needs,  habitat  distribution, 
crocodile  distribution,  habitat  ownership,  and 
availability  of  crocodile  habitat.  The  plan  also 
outlines  action  steps  that  may  be  necessary  pend- 
ing research  findings,  including  controlling  man- 
related  mortality,  educating  the  public,  increasing 
recruitment  by  captive  propagation  and  release, 
reducing  natural  mortality,  and  protecting  nesting 
sites. 
AUTHORITIES 

Howard  W.  Campbell  (Recovery  Team  Leader) 
National  Fish  and  WildHfe  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Ave,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

Tommy  Hines  (Recovery  Team) 

Research  Biologist 

Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish 

Commission 
4005  South  Main  Street 
GainesvUle,  FL  32601 

Richard  Klukas  (Recovery  Team) 
Resource  Management  Specialist 
National  Park  Service 
Southeast  Regional  Office 
1895  Phoenix  Blvd. 
Atlanta,  GA  30349 

James  A.  Kushlan  (Recovery  Team) 
Research  Biologist 
Everglades  National  Park 
P.O.  Box  279 
Homestead,  FL  33030 

Paul  Moler 

Florida  Game  and  Fresh  Water  Fish 

Commission 
4005  South  Main  Street 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 

John  C.  Ogden  (Recovery  Team) 
Research  Biologist 
National  Audubon  Society 
115  Indian  Mound  Trail 
Tavemier,  FL  33070 


PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Although  no  subspecies  of  the  American 
crocodile  have  been  described,  unpublished  data 
indicate  that  geographic  variation  in  several  char- 
acters exists  and  studies  are  required  to  determine 
the  relationships  of  the  Florida  crocodile  popula- 
tion to  other  populations.  It  appears,  on  the  basis 
of  available  data,  to  be  distinct  on  an  average  sub- 
species level  of  difference  from  at  least  the  Jamaica 
and  Pacific  coast  of  Mexico  populations.  Its  iso- 
lated and  peripheral  status  suggests  that  genetic 
differentiation  from  other  populations  is  a  strong 
possibility. 

LITERATURE  CITED /SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Alvarez  del  Toro,  M.  1969.  Breeding  the  spec- 
tacled caiman  at  Tuxtla  Gutierrez  Zoo. 
Internat.  Zoo  Yearb.  9:35-36. 


.  1974.  Los  Crocodylia  de  Mexico  (Estudio 

Comparativo).  Ediciones  de  Inst.  Mex.  Re- 
cursos  Natur.  Renovables,  A.C.  Mexico,  D.F. 
70  pp. 


Bothwell,  D.  1962.  The  great  outdoors  book 
of  alligators  and  other  crocodiUa.  Great  Out- 
doors Publ.  Co.  St.  Petersburg.  88  pp. 

Campbell,  H.  W.  1972.  Ecological  or  phylo- 
genetic  interpretations  of  crocodilian  nesting 
habits.  Nature  238  (5364):404-405. 

Carr,  A.  F.  and  C.  J.  Goin.  1955.  Guide  to  the 
reptiles,  amphibians,  and  fresh-water  fishes  of 
Florida.  Univ.  of  Florida  Press.  Gainesville. 
341  pp. 

Conant,  R.  1975.  A  field  guide  to  reptiles  and 
amphibians  of  eastern  and  central  North 
America.  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  Boston. 
429  pp. 

Cott,  H.  B.  1961.  Scientific  results  of  an  inquiry 
into  the  ecology  and  economic  status  of  the 
Nile  crocodile  {Crocodylus  niloticus)  in 
Uganda  and  northern  Rhodesia.  Trans.  Zool. 
Soc.  London  29(4):21 1-357. 

Craighead,  F.  C.  1968.  The  role  of  the  alligator  in 
shaping   plant  communities  and  maintaining 
wildlife  in   the  southern   Everglades.   Florida 
Natur.  41(8):2-7,  69-74. 


Dimock,  A.  W.  and  J.  A.  Dimock.  1908.  Florida 
enchantments.  Outing  Publ.  Co.,  New  York. 
289  pp. 

Ditmars,  R.  L.  1953.  The  reptiles  of  North 
America.  Doubleday  and  Co.,  Inc.  New  York. 
476  pp. 

Dixon,  J.  and  M.  Staton.  1976.  Breeding  biology 
of  Caiman  crocodilus  crocodilus  from  the 
Venezuelan  Llanos.  U.S.  Fish  Wildl.  Res.  Rep. 
5:1-21. 

Fernandez,  W.  1971.  The  American  crocodile. 
Mus.  News,  Miami.  1(9):209-211. 

Fittkau,  E.  J.  1970.  Role  of  caimans  in  the 
nutrient  regime  of  mouth-lakes  of  Amazon 
effluents.  Biotropica  2(2):  138-142. 

.  1973.  Crocodiles  and  the  nutrient  metabo- 
lism of  Amazon  waters.  Amazonia  4(1): 
103-133. 

Kushlan,  J.  A.  1973.  Observations  on  maternal 
behavior  in  the  American  alligator.  Alligator 
mississippiensis .  Herpetologica  29(3):  256-257. 

.  1974.  Observations  on  the  role  of  the 


American  alligator  [Alligator  mississippiensis) 
in  the  south  Florida  wetlands.  Copeia  1974 
(4):993-996. 

Lang,  J.  W.  1975.  The  Florida  crocodile:  will 
it  survive.  Bull  Field  Mus.  Natur  Hist.  46(8): 
5-9. 

Loding,  H.  P.  1922.  A  preliminary  catalog  of 
Alabama  reptiles  and  amphibians.  Alabama 
Geol.   Surv.  Natur.   Hist.  Mus..   Pap.   5:1-59. 

Martin  de  Lucenay,  A.  1942.  El  crocodrilo 
mexicano  II,  el  desarroUo  y  la  alimentacion. 
Rev.  Gral.  de  Marina.  Mexico. 


Ogden,  J.  and  C.  Singletary.  1973.  Night  of  the 
crocodile.  Audubon  75(3):32-37. 

Perrero,  L.  1975.  Alligators  and  crocodiles  of  the 
world.  Windward  Publ.  Co.  Miami.  64  pp. 

Pooley,  A.  C.  and  C.  Cans.  1976.  The  Nile  croco- 
dile. Science  234(4):  114-124. 

Pope,  C.  H.  1955.  The  reptile  world.  Alfred  A. 
Knopf,  New  York.  325  pp. 

Powell,  J.A.  1973.  The  status  of  Crocodylus 
acutus  in  southern  Florida.  In  Proc.  2nd 
working  meet,  of  crocodile  specialists.  lUCN 
Pub.  New  Sen,  Suppl.  Pap.  41:1-115. 


ACCOUNT  PREPARED  BY: 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Ave.,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Neill,  W.  T.  1971.  The  last  of  the  ruling  reptiles. 
Columbia  Univ.  Press,  New  York  and  London 
486  pp. 

Ogden,  J.  1979.  Florida  crocodile,  in  R.  W. 
McDiarmid  ed.  Rare  and  endangered  biota  of 
Florida,  Vol  3,  Amphibians  and  reptiles.  Univ. 
Presses  of  Florida,  Gainesville.  Pages  21-22. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.48 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

THE  KEY  DEER 


ts»-^  *<■•:•<;  ■'--- 
-"--'.■..      if'. 


t^e^^^. 


.:d.^im' 


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  Kndangcred  Species  Act  of  1973,  as  dmendcd). 

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  oi  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  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  Sen  ice 
N  ASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.48 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERI  EBRA  IE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  1  HE  UNFFED  STATES- 


THE  KEY  DEER 


A  Cooperative  Effort 
by  tin- 
National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory, 
the  Office  of  Endangered  Species 
and  the 
National  (Coastal  Ecosystems  1  earn, 
Office  of  Biological  Services 


Project  Officer 

Donald  VV.  Woodard 

National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 

NASA-Slidcll  Computer  Complex 

1010  Cause  Blvd. 

Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


Performed  for 

Coastal  Ecosystems  Project 

Office  ()f  Biological  Services 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


KEY  DEER 

Odocoileus  virginianus  clavium  Barbour  and  Allen 


KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Artiodactyla 

FAMILY Cervidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES toy  deer 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 15  October  1976,  4  March  1977 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered   (32  FR  4000,  11  March 
1977) 

States:  Endangered:  Florida. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Loss  of  habitat  to  development  of  Lower  Keys 
is  the  primary  reason  for  the  deer's  current  status. 
Big  Pine  Key  supports  some  two-thirds  of  the 
total  population,  and  37%  of  this  island  had  been 
cleared  for  development  as  of  1973  (Klimstra  et 
al.  1974).  The  human  population  of  the  keys  is 
projected  to  increase  by  48%  by  1990,  implying 
even  more  loss  of  deer  habitat. 

Other  factors  include  mortality  of  young 
falling  into  drainage  ditches  and  being  killed  by 
automobiles.  Overhunting  with  dogs  and  jack- 
lights  (U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior  1973)  was 
probably  an  important  factor  in  the  1940's  and 
1950's,  and  reports  of  poaching  are  still  rather 
frequent  (Klimstra  et  al.  1974). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 


DESCRIPTION 

The  smallest  race  of  North  American  deer,  the 
adult  key  deer  is  63  to  76  cm  high  at  the  shoulder 
with  an  average  weight  of  36  kg  for  males  and  29 
kg  for  females.  The  body  is  stockier,  the  legs 
shorter,  and  the  skull  wider  than  other  races  of 
white-tailed  deer.  The  coat  varies  from  a  deep  red- 
dish brown  to  a  grizzled  gray  color.  Bucks  usually 
develop  antlers  by  their  second  year,  and  eight 
points  by  the  fifth  year  (Klimstra  1979). 

RANGE 

The  key  deer's  range  is  restricted  to  the 
islands  of  the  lower  Florida  Keys:  Annette,  Big 
Munson,  Big  Pine,  Big  Torch,  Cudjoe,  Howe, 
Johnson,Knockemdown,  Little  Pine,  Little  Torch. 
Mayo,  Middle  Torch,  No  Name,  Porpoise,  Ram- 
rod, Sugarloaf,  Summerland,  Toptree  Hammock, 
Wahoo,  and  Water  Key  (Dickson  1955,  Klimstra 
et  al.  1974).  The  deer  are  resident  only  on  keys 
with  permanent  freshwater:  Big  Pine,  Big  Torch, 
Cudjoe,  Howe,  Little  Pine,  Litde  Torch,  Middle 
Torch,  No  Name,  Sugarloaf,  and  Summerland 
Keys. 

RANGE  MAP 

Present  distribution  is  indicated  by  shading  on 
the  following  page. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Florida:       Monroe 

HABITAT 

Only  islands  having  permanent  freshwater 
are  used  consistently  by  key  deer.  Other  islands 
are  used  temporarily  during  the  rainy  season 
(Klimstra  1979).  Big  Pine  Key  (2,428  ha)  and  No 
Name  Key  (404  ha)  support  the  largest  deer  pop- 
ulation. Both  have  permanent  freshwater  and  ex- 
tensive pineland  habitat.  Klimstra  et  al.  (1974) 
noted  use  of  five  habitat  types  in  descending  or- 
der of  preference:  pinelands,  hardwood  hammock, 
buttonwood-scrub  mangrove,  mangrove  swamp, 
and  developed  areas.  Habitat  selection  varies  with 
season,  time  of  day,  and  sex  and  age  of  the  ani- 
mal. Pinelands,  hardwood  hammocks,  recent 
clearings,  roadsides,  and  grassy  areas  are  used  for 
feeding.  Hammocks  and  mangrove  swamps  are 
used  for  cool  retreats  during  the  day  (Klimstra 
1979). 

The  pineland  community  on  Big  Pine  Key  is 
open  as  a  result  of  fire,  with  abundant  plant  spe- 
cies including    Dade  County  Pine  {Pinus  elliottii 


var.  densa),  silver  palm  {Coccothrinax  argentata), 
stopper  {Myrtus  verrucosa),  devil's  claw  (Pisonia 
rotundata),  and  grasses. 

Dominant  species  in  the  hammocks  include 
Spanish  stopper  {Eugenia  foetida),  maiden 
bush  {Savia  bahamensis),  poisonwood  {Metopium 
toxiferum),  white  indigo  berry  (Randia  aculeata), 
and     darling     plum     (Reynosia    septentrionalis). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Red  mangrove  {Rhizophora  mangle)  is  an  im- 
portant food  source,  with  63%  occurrence  in  pel- 
let analysis  (Dickson  1955).  Klimstra  et  al.  (1974) 
list  the  following  food  plants:  joeweed  {Jacquinia 
keyensis);  white  indigo  berry;  devil's  claw;  poison 
ivy  {Toxicodendron  radicans);  morinda  {Morinda 
royoc);  catbrier  {Smilax  havanensis);  blolly  {Pi- 
sonia discolor);  ground  cherry  {Phy sails  augusti- 
folia);  blazing  star  {Liatris  tenuifolia);hegg,articks 
{Bidens  pilosa);  capweed  {Lippia  nodiflora); 
hempvine  {Mikania  batatifolia);  false  foxglove 
{Agalinis  spp.);  borreria  {Borreria);  snowberry 
{Chiococca  pinetorum);  saffron  plum  {Bumelia 
celastrina);  Christmas  berry  {Crossopetalum  ilici- 
folium);  nightshade  {Solanum  blodgettii);  vine 
milkweed  {Cynancfium  blodgettii);  white  vine 
{Sarcostemma  clausa);  mallow  {Eustoma  exalta- 
tum);  and  saw  palmetto  {Serenoa  repens).  Dick- 
son (1955)  adds  silver  palm,  acacia  {Acacia  pine- 
torum), wild  dilly  {Manilkara  bahamensis),  and 
brittle  thatch  palm  {Thrinax  microcarpa). 

Klimstra  et  al.  (1974)  determined  caloric 
values  of  food  plants  used  by  key  deer  and  noted 
that  many  are  equivalent  in  energy  content  to 
commercial  animal  feeds,  alfalfa,  corn,  wheat,  and 
barley. 

Food  plants  change  seasonally,  probably  re- 
flecting availability  and  nutritional  needs  (Klim- 
stra et  al.  1974).  Some  plants  are  regularly 
browsed,  resulting  in  stunting  and  near-extirpa- 
tion. Following  fire  in  the  pinelands,  new  growth 
immediately  attracted  deer  and  extensive  brows- 
ing occurred  for  6  to  9  months. 

Virtually  no  plant  species  is  immune  from 
deer  use  at  one  time  or  another  (Klimstra  et  al. 
1974). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Open  areas  and  subdivisions  are  favored  bed- 
ding sites  at  night,  and  mangrove  swamps  provide 
cool    retreats    during   the    day    (Klimstra    1979). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Not  known. 


3  3 


A  "-  >.  B  A  M  A  . 
_   Ihoustom  \ 


as 24  25 


3  4  5  6 


e        9       10       11       12       13       M       15       16       n       IB       19       aO       21       23      23       2* 


The  present-day  distribution  of  key  deer  is  depicted  on  this  map  by  shading. 


RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Adult  males  maintain  home  ranges  of  about 
120  ha  (and  larger  during  the  breeding  season), 
and  adult  females  range  over  about  50  ha  (Klim- 
stra  1979). 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Dickson  (1955)  estimated  the  population  at 
25  to  80  individuals.  Numbers  have  increased 
since  then  to  between  300  and  400  animals,  and 
the  population  is  now  believed  stable  (Klimstra 
1979). 

The  official  estimate  of  the  National  Key 
Deer  Wildlife  Refuge  is  600  animals,  but  this  may 
be  re\i:5ed  downward  as  monthly  census  data  are 
analyzed    'D.    Kosin    personal    communication). 

REPRODUCTION 

Dickson  (1955)  stated  that  there  was  no  spe- 
cial breeding  season,  although  Klimstra  (1979) 
observed  a  breeding  peak  in  September  and  Octo- 
ber. Territorial  activity  seems  limited  to  defend- 
ing a  receptive  doe  from  other  bucks  (Klimstra  et 
al.  1974).  Dickson  (1955)  observed  evidence  of 
fighting  between  adult  bucks  in  February.  Bucks 
with  full  racks  are  generally  the  earliest  breeders, 
and  exclude  yearling  males  and  those  with  lesser 
racks. 

The  gestation  period  is  204  days,  with  peak  of 
fav^ming  coinciding  with  the  rainy  season  in  April 
and  May  (Dickson  1955,  Khmstra  1979).  Birth  of 
fawns  occurs  in  all  habitat  types,  but  usually  in 
areas  of  open  understory. 

Key  deer  have  a  relatively  low  reproductive 
rate,  with  an  average  of  1.08  fawns  per  adult  doe 
annually  (Khmstra  et  al.  1974).  Male  fawns  out- 
number females,  but  the  sex  ratio  changes  until 
adult  females  outnumber  males  by  2.38  to  1.  Fif- 
ty percent  of  male  fawns  survive  1.5  years,  and 
50%  of  female  fawns  survive  2.1  years  (Klimstra 
et  al.  1974).  Longevity  records  are  8  years  for 
males  and  9  years  for  females. 

Adult  females  form  loose  matriarchal  groups 
with  one  or  two  generations  of  offspring,  while 
bucks  feed  and  bed  together  during  the  nonbreed- 
ing  season  only  (Klimstra  1979). 


MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

In  1954,  the  National  Key  Deer  Wildlife  Re- 
fuge was  established  and  now  includes  1,764  ha, 
of  which  300  ha  are  leased.  Since  1954,  the  deer 
population  has  increased  by  more  than  600%,  and 
is  now  considered  to  be  stable. 

Recommendations  for  management  include 
continuation  of  closed  season,  acquisition  of  addi- 
tional habitat  on  Big  Pine,  No  Name,  and  Cudjoe 
Keys,  controlled  burning  in  pinelands,  mainten- 
ance of  existing  waterholes,  fencing  of  islands 
where  refuge  lands  and  subdivisions  adjoin,  popu- 
lation and  habitat  monitoring,  visitor  manage- 
ment, and  additional  research  on  all  aspects  of 
key  deer  biology  (Khmstra  et  al.  1974,  Klimstra 
1979). 

AUTHORITIES 

Donald  J.  Kosin,  Refuge  Manager 
National  Key  Deer  Wildlife  Refuge 
P.O.  Box  510 
Big  Pine  Key,  FL  33043 

W.  D.  Klimstra,  Director 
Cooperative  Wildlife  Research  Laboratory 
Southern  Illinois  University 
Carbondale.IL  62901 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Khmstra  et  al.  (1974)  noted  that  key  deer 
appear  to  be  growing  to  a  larger  size  in  the  last 
few  years,  perhaps  due  to  improved  nutrition. 
The  tiixonomic  status  of  the  key  deer  has  been 
questioned  and  is  now  under  investigation  by 
Klimstra  and  others. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Alexander,  T.  R.,  and  J.  H.  Dickson.  1970.  Vege- 
tational  changes  in  the  National  Key  Deer  Re- 
fuge. Q.  J.   Florida  Acad.  Sci.   33(2):81-89. 

.  1972.  Vegetational  changes  in  the  Na- 
tional Key  Deer  Refuge -II.  Q.  J.  Florida 
Acad.  Sci.  35(2):85-96. 

Barbour,  T.,  and  G.  M.  Allen.  1922.  The  white- 
tailed  deer  of  eastern  United  States.  J.  Mam- 
mal. 3(2):65-78. 

Dickson,  J.  D.,  III.  1955.  An  ecological  study  of 
the  Key  deer.  Florida  Game  Fresh  Water  Fish 
Comm.,  Tech.  Bull.  3.  104  pp. 


Dooley,  A.  1975.  Foods  of  the  Florida  key  deer. 
M.  A.  Thesis.  So.  IlHnois  Univ.,  Carbondale. 
80  pp. 

Hardin,  J.  W.  1974.  Behavior,  socio-biology,  and 
reproductive  life  history  of  the  Florida  key 
deer,  Odocoileus  virginianus  clavium.  Ph.  D. 
Dissert.  So.  Illinois  Univ.,  Carbondale.  226 
pp. 

Harlow,  R.  F.,  and  F.  K.  Jones,  Jr.  1965.  The 
white-tailed  deer  in  Florida.  Florida  Game 
Fresh  Water  Fish  Comm.,  Tech.  Bull.  9.  240 
pp. 

Klimstra,  W.  D.  1968-1972.  Key  deer  investiga- 
tions annual  progress  reports  to  the  U.S. 
Dept.  of  Interior.,  Bur.  Sport  Fish.  Wildl., 
Coop.  Wildl.  Res.  Lab.,  So.  Illinois  Univ.,  Car- 
bondale. Unpubl. 

.     1979.   Key   deer.   Pages    15-17  in].  N. 

Layne,    ed.    Rare    and    endangered   biota  of 

Florida,   Vol.    I,  Mammals.  Univ.  Presses  of 
Florida,  Gainesville. 

Klimstra,  W.  D.,  J.  W.  Hardin,  N.  J.  Silvy,  B.  W. 
Jacobson,  and  V.  A.  Terpening.  1974.  Key 
deer  investigations  final  report  to  the  U.S. 
Dept.  of  Interior,  Bur.  Sports  Fish.  Wildl.,  Co- 
op. Wildl.  Res.  Lab.,  So.  Illinois  Univ.,  Car- 
bondale. 184  pp.  Unpubl. 

Sokoloff,  B.,  J.  B.  Reed,  and  R.  Dutcher.  1949 
(1950).  Nutritive  value  of  mangrove  leaves 
(Rhizophora  mangle).  Q.J.  Florida  Acad.  Sci. 
12(3):191-194. 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior.  1973.  Threatened 
wildlife  of  the  United  States.  Compiled  by  Of- 
fice of  Endangered  Species  and  International 
Activities,  Bur.  Sports  Fish.  Wildl.  Resour. 
Publ.  114.  U.S.  Govt.  Printing  Office,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.  289  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 
Gainesville,  FL  32601 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.49 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

LAYSAN  DUCK 


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  Unitetl  States.  In- 
formation about  life  history,  distribution,  requirements  and  c()nscr\'ation  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  Knginccrs  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  \.u: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Coinputcr  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  70458 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.49 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE   SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


LAYSAN  DUCK 


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 


CREDIT:   DAVID  B.  MARSHAUL 


LAYSAN  DUCK 

Anas  laysanensis  Rothschild 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Anseriformes 

FAMILY Anatidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES  .  .  .  .Laysan  teal,  Laysan  Island  duck 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Update To  be  determined 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered    (42   FR   36425,    14  July 

1977;  42  FR  10476,  22  Feb  1977. 
States:  Endangered:  Hawaii 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Palmer  found  these  ducks  exceedingly  tame 
(Rothschild  1900).  Other  observers  since  have 
commented  on  their  tame  behavior  (Ely  and 
Clapp  1973).  Weak  flight  allows  capture  by  hand 
after  a  flight  of  125  yards  (Wetmore  in  Delacour 
1956).  Their  dependence  on  the  lagoon  increased 
their  vulnerability  (Warner  1963).  They  are  now 
rare,  after  recovering  from  near  extinction  due  to 
denudation  of  vegetation  by  European  rabbits 
{Oryctolagus  caniculus)  introduced  about  1903. 
The  last  rabbits  were  eliminated  in  1923,  and 
vegetation  recovered.  The  duck  population  also 
recovered,  but  has  fluctuated  considerably  since. 
By  1957,  it  was  thought  to  be  near  its  saturation 
point;  it  then  declined  from  unknown  causes  to 
the  point  where  it  was  close  to  extinction  again 
(King  in  press.   Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  1973. 


Ely  and  Clapp  1973,  Berger  1972,  Warner  1963, 
Ripley  1960).  More  recent  counts  have  varied 
from  69  in  July  1974  to  287  in  August  1976. 
The  last  count  w^as  240  in  August  1977,  so  the 
present  status  is  relatively  good  (Eugene  Kridler 
personal  communication). 

Reasons  for  the  rapid  and  extreme  population 
fluctuation  in  recent  years  are  evidently  unknown, 
but  the  main  one  is  probability  inability  to  count 
all  birds  present  (Eugene  Kridler  pers.  comm.). 
Ely  and  Clapp  (1973)  say  adults  have  no  known 
enemies  on  the  island  and  destruction  of  eggs  by 
Laysan  finches  and  young  by  frigatebirds  is  prob- 
ably negligible.  The  limiting  factor  in  the  past  and 
now  must  have  been  the  environment. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

33 

DESCRIPTION 

The  Laysan  Duck  is  a  small,  dark  brown  duck 
similar  to  the  Hawaiian  duck,  but  smaller  and 
redder;  head  and  neck  are  blackish,  often 
speckled  irregularly  wdth  white  almost  around  the 
bill  and  on  the  face  and  chin;  there  is  always  a 
white  ring  around  the  eyes.  The  speculum  is  green 
and  black,  bordered  with  white  posteriorly.  The 
bill  is  narrow.  Females  are  more  boldly  marked 
than  males;  the  speculum  is  sooty  brown,  some- 
times with  a  little  green  (Delacour  1956). 

Size  —  Male:  wingspan  192-210  mm,  tail  100- 
105  mm;  culmen  39-40  mm;  tarsus  37-39  mm; 
Female:  wingspan  190-196  mm;  tail  90  mm, 
culmen  38-39  mm;  tarsus  35-38  mm  (Delacour 
1956). 

The  downy  young  are  like  those  of  the  com- 
mon mallard,  but  smaller  and  redder  above  and 
cinnamon  below;  markings  on  upper  parts  are 
indistinct  (Delacour  1956). 

Eggs  are  greenish  white,  55  by  38  mm  (Fisher 
1903). 

RANGE 

Laysan  Island  (4  km  ),  in  the  northwestern  or 
leeward  Hawaiian  Islands,  is  the  only  known 
range.  According  to  von  Kittlitz  in  Phillips 
(1923),  it  also  occured  on  adjoining  Lisianski 
Island  in  1928,  but  this  statement  has  never  been 
verified   and  is  considered     almost  certainly  er- 


roneous (King  in  press,  Ely  and  Clapp  1973, 
Berger  1972).  Although  525  individuals  have  been 
banded  since  1958,  no  natural  occurrences  away 
from  Laysan  Island  have  been  recorded  (Ely  and 
Clapp  1973).  The  details  of  published  records  of 
Laysan  ducks  on  Laysan  Island  from  28  March 
1928  to  9  September  1960  are  given  by  Ely  and 
Clapp  (1973). 

RANGE  MAP 

Total  Range  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973). 

STATES /COUNTIES 

Hawaii         Leeward  Islands 

HABITAT 

All  plant  associations  on  Laysan  Island  are 
used,  but  concentrations  are  found  in  low  sedges 
and  vines  around  the  central  lagoon  (Ely  and 
Clapp  1973,  Warner  1963,  E.  Kridler  in  King  in 
press).  Fisher  (1903)  and  Bailey  (1956)  found 
birds  concentrated  at  a  small  brackish  or  fresh- 
water pond  near  the  southwest  corner  of  the 
lagoon,  always  a  favorite  spot  until  its  disappear- 
ance in  the  1920's.  They  rarely  occur  on  the 
hypersaline  and  almost  lifeless  main  lagoon  and 
almost  never  on  the  ocean  (Warner  1963,  Ely  and 
Clapp  1973).  A.  Wetmore  in  Ely  and  Clapp 
(1973)  noted  that  birds  rested  among  rocks 
during  the  day,  and  at  night  walked  inland  to 
the  lagoon  margin  and  patches  of  vegetation 
which  probably  provided  food.  More  recently, 
ducks  have  concentrated  around  slightly  brackish 
water  available  at  several  points  following  heavy 
rains.  They  apparently  survive  long  periods  when 
neither  fresh  nor  slightly  brackish  water  is  avail- 
able. The  home  range  of  each  pair  usually  con- 
tains a  strip  of  lagoon  shore  (Woodside  and 
Kramer  in  Ely  and  Clapp  1973).  Ducks  occur 
throughout  the  island,  but  most  of  them  are 
found  in  the  beach  morning  glory  near  the 
lagoon  during  the  day  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973). 

They  formerly  used  permanent  freshwater 
areas  that  are  now  filled  with  sand  as  a  result  of 
the  rabbits'  destruction  of  the  vegetation  cover 
(Warner  1963),  complete  except  for  three  patches 
of  sesuvium  that  may  have  enabled  the  remnant 
population  of  ducks  to  survive  (Warner  1963). 
Now  that  vegetation  has  recovered,  the  sesuvium 


<  <  /ff 

L- 

1 

<       <     _i 

I  -      —     < 

—               Z         iii 

u 

3 

o 

c 

> 


CO 


< 


a. 


a 

QC 

< 


«  UJ 

u 

UJ 


CO 

_i 
< 

o 

X 


< 

CD 


M 
u 


s 

< 


CC 
00 


< 

00 

< 


o 

LU 
CE 


73 

■w 
O 

•M 

u 


z 
< 


QC 
< 


<  ^ 


00 

< 

00 


QC 


is  completely  ignored.  Present  vegetation  is  dis- 
tributed in  zones  away  from  the  lagoon.  The  la- 
goon flat  at  the  water's  edge  is  covered  with  alter- 
nating strands  of  sedge  {Sicyos  sp.),  heliotrope 
[Heliotropium  currasavicum) ,  and  sesuvium  (Se- 
suvium  portulacastrum) .  The  next  zone  is  a  knee- 
deep  mat  of  beach  morning  glory  [Ipomoea  pes- 
caprae),  which  almost  surrounds  the  lagoon. 
Farther  up  the  gradual  slope  above  the  water 
table,  morning  glory  is  replaced  by  a  dense  belt  of 
bunch  grass  [Erogrostis  variabilis),  often  mixed 
with  puncture  vine  {Tribulus  cistoides)  and  boer- 
haavia  (Boerhaavia  diffusa).  Still  farther  up  the 
slope,  the  plant  cover  thins  to  scattered  mats  of 
prostrate  succulent  boerhaavia  interspersed  with 
bunch  grass.  Occasional  clumps  of  scaevola 
{Scaevola  fructescens)  are  scattered  about  the 
higher  ridges  of  the  island.  Ducks  use  all  of  these 
vegetation  zones  for  feeding,  although  they  are 
restricted  to  the  morning  glory  and  bunch  grass 
interphase  and  boerhaavia  zones  when  molting 
and  flightless  (Warner  1963).  Fresh  or  slightly 
brackish  water  seeps  are  used  for  bathing  when 
available,  but  there  are  long  periods  when  these 
are  not  available.  There  is  some  evidence  of  salt 
secretion  by  the  nasal  glands,  and  also  that  rain 
water  on  bushes  is  used  for  bathing  (Warner 
1963). 


FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  stomach  of  a  male  collected  near  a  pond 
was  gorged  with  small  flies  resembling  the  com- 
mon housefly  (Fisher  1903).  Warner  (1963) 
noted  that  sesuvium,  so  heavily  utilized  when  it 
was  the  major  remaining  vegetation  on  Laysan 
during  rabbit  infestation,  is  now  completely 
ignored  as  food.  Most  feeding  and  other  activity 
begins  at  dusk  and  continues  to  about  midnight 
(Ely  and  Clapp  1973.  Warner  1963).  These  ducks 
are  primarily  insectivorous,  at  least  during  the 
summer  months  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973).  Warner 
(1963)  describes  nocturnal  feeding  on  cutworms, 
which  are  larvae  of  a  nocturnal  moth  {Agrostis 
sp.),  both  from  vegetation  and  the  sand  beneath, 
and  pursuit  of  brine  flies  along  the  lagoon  edge. 
He  observed  feeding  on  littoral  invertebrates  in 
tide  pools  as  well  as  on  larvae  and  pupae  of  flies 
and  beetles  in  the  sand  around  seabird  carcasses. 
He  believed  that  plant  materials  were  eaten,  if  at 


all,  only  incidentally  to  the  animal  food  which 
was  actively  sought.  He  noted  that  ducks  follow 
favored  routes  for  feeding  activities.  He  deter- 
mined the  home  range  to  be  about  0.81  ha,  and 
much  smaller  during  the  summer  flightless  period 
while  molting. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

When  approached,  the  birds  usually  walk  into 
vegetation,  and  less  often,  paddle  into  the  lagoon 
or  take  flight  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

The  nest  is  a  down-lined  depression  under 
vegetation  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973).  One  nest  was 
placed  under  a  thick  chenopodium  bush  close  to 
a  pond.  The  shallow  bowl  was  a  little  over  12.7 
cm  in  diameter,  formed  of  long,  dry  sedge  stems 
(Fisher  1903). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

None  described. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  REQUIREMENTS 

None  known. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Fisher  (1903)  estimated  their  numbers  at 
less  than  100  in  1903.  Dill  and  Bryan  (1912) 
could  not  be  sure  of  more  than  6  individuals 
in  1911.  Munter  (1915)  counted  13  on  the  fresh- 
water pond  in  1915.  J.  S.  Palmer  (m  Phillips 
1923)  reported  about  35  in  1918.  A.  Wetmore 
(in  Phillips  1923)  left  14  in  1923.  Brock  (1951) 
found  33  in  1950. 

Never  very  common,  they  declined  to  mini- 
mum between  1920  and  1930.  A  thorough 
search  in  1930  discovered  only  1  female  (Ely 
and  Clapp  1973).  By  1957,  the  population  had 
recovered  to  an  estimated  600  (Warner  1963). 
Estimates  fluctuated  between  200  and  300  until 
1969,  then  dechned  to  only  75  birds  in  1970 
(Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  Ely  and  Clapp,  Berger 
1972;  King  in  press).  In  1972,  the  estimated 
number  was  175,  but  in  1973,  they  were  down 
to  less  than  40  (E.  Kridler  1974  in  King  in  press). 
More  recent  counts  are:  July  1974—69,  August 
1975-251,  May  1976-100,  August  1976-287, 
August  1977— 240,  (Eugene  Kridler  pers.comm.). 


The  extreme  variation  in  counts  even  during  the 
same  year  shows  the  difficulty  of  observing  all 
birds  present,  probably  due  to  the  secretiveness 
and  nocturnal  habits  of  the  species  noted  by 
Warner  (1963). 

There  is  a  captive  population  of  over  150  in 
zoos  and  private  collections  (King  in  press). 

REPRODUCTION 

H.  M.  Smith  found  7  downy  young  in  broods 
of  3  and  4  in  1950  (Brock  1951).  Fisher  (1903) 
found  6  eggs  in  a  nest.  The  species  breeds  readily 
in  captivity  (Ripley  1960). 

The  nesting  cycle  is  evidently  an  extended 
one.  Pairing  is  first  observed  in  early  March  and 
continues  until  mid-summer.  There  seems  to  be 
no  published  report  of  courtship  behavior  (Ely 
and  Clapp  1973),  Warner  1963).  Usual  clutch 
size  is  5  or  6.  The  earliest  recorded  hatching  date 
is  19  May  (Fisher  1903).  Most  eggs  are  laid  in 
May,  but  the  season  extends  through  July. 
Incubation  takes  27  to  28  days,  The  drake 
guards  the  incubating  female.  The  chicks  remain 
in  the  nest  with  the  female  for  2  days.  In  the 
wild,  males  sometimes  tend  the  brood  (Warner 
1963,  Ely  and  Clapp  1973). 

High  chick  mortality,  which  reduced  brood 
size  from  an  average  of  3  at  hatching  to  about  1 
or  less  at  1  month,  strongly  suggests  that  this 
may  be  a  limit  on  population  growth  (Warner 
1963). 

Warner  (1963)  considered  destruction  of 
eggs  by  Laysan  finches  and  young  by  frigate- 
birds  a  possible  but  unproved  limiting  factor  on 
population;  Ely  and  Clapp  (1973)  thought  it  to 
be  probably  negligible. 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  entire  range  (Laysan  Island)  is  within 
the  Hawaiian  Islands  National  Wildlife  Refuge. 
Landings  on  the  island  are  restricted  by  permit. 
The  species  is  protected  by  Federal  and  State 
law,  and  Listed  in  Appendix  1  of  the  1973  Con- 
vention on  International  Trade  in  Endangered 
Species  of  Wild  Fauna  and  Flora.  A  census  is 
conducted  periodically  by  the  U.S.  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service.  Conservation  measures  pro- 
posed by  King  (in  press)  are: 

1.    Increase    patrols    of    Laysan    Island    to 
prevent   unauthorized  landings  and  to  prevent 


introduction  of  additional  pest  plants,  in- 
sects, and  predators  such  as  dogs,  cats,  and 
rats. 

2.  Introduce  captive-reared  Laysan  ducks 
to  another  Pacific  island  with  suitable  habi- 
tat (Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  King  in  press). 

Introduction  attempts  include  a  release  of 
24  or  25  in  the  Kewalo  marsh  on  the  outskirts 
of  Honolulu  in  1894  by  a  Mr.  Whitney,  but  none 
have  been  taken  since  (Ely  and  Clapp  1973).  In 
March  1968,  12  were  transported  from  Laysan 
to  Southeast  Island,  Pearl  and  Hermes  Reef,  by 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  personnel.  All  disap- 
peared soon  after  introduction  (Ely  and  Clapp 
1973,  E.  Kridler  1974  in  King  in  press,  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service  1973).  Beginning  with  44  cap- 
tured birds,  rearing  in  captivity  has  been  very 
succesful  in  the  Hawaii  zoo  and  numerous  main- 
land aviaries  (Warner  1963,  Ripley  1960).  A  re- 
covery team  has  been  appointed  and  a  recovery 
plan  for  the  Laysan  duck  is  now  in  progress. 

AUTHORITIES 

Eugene  Kridler 
835  Akumu  Street 
Kailua,  Hawaii  96743 

Richard  Warner 
Building  737  IFAS 
University  of  Florida 
Gainesville,  Florida  32611 


PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

The  great  variation  in  population  estimates 
at  different  times,  even  during  the  same  year,  is 
evidence  of  the  inadequacy  of  present  inventory 
methods.  Also,  the  almost  complete  lack  of  in- 
formation on  the  factors  that  limit  the  population 
indicates  a  definite  need  for  additional  research 
on  both  of  these  problems  in  particular. 

Introduction  of  predatory  or  competing  ani- 
mals, particularly  rats,  on  Laysan  Island  as  a 
result  of  unauthorized  or  unknown  landings  re- 
mains the  greatest  threat  to  the  continued  sur- 
vival of  the  duck,  so  the  sooner  another  popu- 
lation can  be  established  on  another  island,  the 
safer  it  will  be  from  such  accidents.— John  W. 
Aldrich. 


LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Bailey,  A.  M.  1942.  The  portuluca  flats  of  Lay- 
san.  Audubon  Mag.  44:150-161. 

.   1956.  Birds  of  Midway  and  Laysan  Is- 


lands. Denver  Mus.  Nat.  His.,  Mus.  Pictorial 
12:1-130  (80-38). 

Berger,  A.  J.  1972.  Hawaiian  birdlife.  Univ. 
Press  of  Hawaii,  Honolulu. 

Brock,  V.  E.  1951.  Some  observations  of  the 
Laysan  Duck,  Anas  wyvilliana  laysensis.  Auk 
68:371-372. 

Delacour,  J.  1956.  The  waterfowl  of  the  World, 
Vol.   2.,  Country  Life  Ltd.,  London,  p. 49. 

Dill,  H.  R.,  and  W.  A.  Bryan.  1912.  Report  of  an 
expedition  to  Laysan  Island  in  1911.  U.S. 
Dep.    Agric.    Biol.    Surv.    Bull.    42.    30    pp. 

Ely,  C.  A.,  and  R.  B.  Clapp.  1973.  The  natural 
history  of  Laysan  Island,  northwestern  Ha- 
waiian Islands.  Atoll  Res.  Bull.  177.  pp. 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1973. Threatened  wild- 
life of  the  United  States.  U.S.  Bur.  Sport 
Fish.    Wildl.    Resource    Publ.     114.         pp. 

Fisher,  W.  K.  1903.  Notes  on  the  birds  peculiar 
to  Laysan  Island,  Hawaiian  group.  Auk  20: 
384-397. 


Greenway,  J.  C,  Jr.  1958.  Extinct  and  vanishing 
birds  of  the  World.  Spec.   Pub.   13,  Amer. 
Commit,  for  Internat.  Wildl.  Protect. 
New  York.  pp.  167-168. 

King,  W.  in  press.  (Revised).  Red  data  book, 
Aves.  Survival  Service,  lUCN,  Morges,  Switz- 
erland. 

Lint,  K.  D.  1960.  Preserving  the  Laysan  Teal. 
Zoonooz  33(8):6-7. 

Munter,  W.  H.  1915.  Report  of  destruction  of 
bird  life  on  Laysan  Island.  Ann.  Rep.  Coast 
Guard  for  1915:130-140. 

Phillips,  J.  C.  1923.  Natural  history  of  the  ducks. 
Vol.  2.  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  New  York, 
pp.  51-52. 

Ripley,  S.  D.  1960.  Laysan  Teal  in  captivity. 
Wilson  Bull.  72:244-247. 

Rothschild,  W.  1900.  The  avifauna  of  Laysan 
and  neighboring  islands;  with  a  complete  his- 
tory to  date  of  the  birds  of  the  Hawaiian 
possessions.   Pt.    3.    R.  H.  Porter,  London. 

Warner,  R.  E.  1963.  Recent  history  and  ecology 
of  the  Laysan  Duck.  Condor  65:3-23. 

Wetmore,  A.  1925.  Bird  life  among  lava  rock 
and  coral  sand.  Nat.  Geog.  Mag.  48:77-108. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.50 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

RED  HILLS  SALAMANDER 


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  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  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  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  1  eam 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
iNASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704.58 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.50 
March  1980 


/ 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE   SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

RED  HILLS  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  Wildlife  Service 

U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior 


A 

ifSBfeb 

hSBli 

feta 

i 

l^s^v  n.,  'S ^^^^H^2*htar^^m 

^ 

^^ 

^^1 

^te^' 

CREDIT:     R.H.  MOUNT 

RED  HILLS  SALAMANDER 

Phaeoffiatbus  hubrichti  High  ton 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Amphibia 

ORDER Caudata 

FAMILY Plethodontidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Hubricht's  salamander, 

Alabama  red  hills  salamander. 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Updates 23  July  1977,31  March  1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Threatened     (41     FR     53032-53034, 
3  December  1976). 

States:  None. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Timber  harvesting  by  clearcutting,  site  prepa- 
ration, and  conversion  of  mixed  hardwood  stands 
to  pine  plantations  have  been  shown  to  cause  lo- 
calized extermination  of  red  hills  salamanders 
(French  1976).  The  amount  of  suitable  habitat  is 


steadily  shrinking  due  to  these  timber  manage- 
ment practices  (Jordan  and  Mount  1975). 

Overcollection  by  amateur  and  professional 
herpetologists  has  reduced  populations  in  some 
areas  (41   FR  53032-53034,  3  December  1976). 

Natural  low  fertility  (Brandon  1965)  inhibits 
recovery  of  decimated  populations. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

The  red  hills  salamander  is  solid  dark  brown 
to  black,  with  no  pattern.  Palms,  soles,  and  snout 
are  somewhat  paler.  Adults  are  80  to  119  mm  in 
snout-to-vent  length  (total  length  up  to  256  mm); 
the  body  is  elongate  with  20  to  22  costal  grooves 
and  proportionately  small  limbs.  The  eyes  are 
protuberant. 

RANGE 

The  salamander  is  known  only  from  south 
central  Alabama  between  the  Conecuh  and  Ala- 
bama Rivers,  where  it  is  restricted  to  the  Talla- 
hatta  and  Hatchetigbee  geological  formations.  Its 
known  distribution  includes  22,213  ha  (French 
1976).  An   additional   1,485  ha  contiguous  with 


the  present  range  are  believed  to  have  supported 
red  hills  salamanders  prior  to  timber  harvesting 
and  conversion  to  pine  within  the  last  decade 
(French  1976). 

RANGE  MAP 

The  total  known  distribution  is  indicated  by 
shading. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Alabama      Butler,     Conecuh,    Covington,    Cren- 
shaw, Monroe. 

HABITAT 

The  species  lives  in  burrows  on  the  slopes  of 
cool,  moist  ravines  shaded  by  an  overstory  of 
mixed  hardwood  trees.  It  does  not  occur  in  pine 
forests. 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

The  salamander  feeds  at  or  very  near  the 
mouth  of  its  burrow  at  night,  especially  for  the 
first  hour  or  two  after  sunset.  Prey  items  include 
spiders  and  small  insects  that  are  caught  with  its 
sticky  tongue. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

This  species  requires  shaded,  moist  ravines 
with  ground  litter  and  a  friable  soil  for  burrow- 
ing. Displaced  individuals  apparently  do  not  make 
(or  find)  new  burrows,  and  are  thus  permanently 
eliminated  from  the  population  (R.  Jordan  per- 
sonal communication).  Burrows  are  apparently 
not  started  from  the  surface,  but  only  by  sub- 
surface branching  off  from  other  burrows. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Nesting  requirements  are  unknown.  A  cap- 
tive female  laid  a  clutch  of  infertile  eggs,  attached 
to  the  underside  of  a  piece  of  bark  (R.  Mount  per- 
sonal communication). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

The  very  specific  habitat  of  this  species  may 
be  its  only  environmental  requirement. 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

The  species  was  discovered  in  1960.  No  popu- 
lation estimates  are  available.  Most  of  the  suitable 
habitat  is  owmed  by  timber  companies  who  have 
been  harvesting,  preparing  sites,  and  converting 
the  mixed  hardwood  forests  to  pine  plantations. 
French  (1976)  estimates  that  at  least  6%  of  its 
range  has  been  made  unsuitable  by  these  practices 
within  the  past  10  years. 

REPRODUCTION 

Little  is  known,  but  the  presence  of  only  a 
few  large  ovarian  ova  in  adult  females  suggests 
that  direct  development  occurs  within  the  egg, 
without  a  free-living  larval  stage  (Brandon  1965). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Within  the  range  of  the  red  hills  salamander, 
most  timber  companies  are  now  'marking  out'  the 
ravines  and  steep  slopes  and  harvesting  only  the 
largest  trees  (French  1976).  One  company  has 
issued  a  policy  statement  indicating  its  intention 
to  protect  salamander  habitat  (R.  Mount  personal 
communication) . 

AUTHORITIES 

Thomas  W.  French 
Department  of  Life  Sciences 
Indiana  State  University 
Terre  Haute,  IN  47809 

Ralph  Jordan,  Jr. 

Tennessee  Valley  Authority 

Regional  Heritage  Program 

Division  of  Forestry 

Fisheries  and  Wildlife  Development 

Norris,TN  37828 

Robert  H.  Mount 

Department  of  Zoology-Entomology 

Auburn  University 

Auburn,  AL  36830 

Terry  D.  Schwaner 
Museum  of  Natural  History 
University  of  Kansas 
Lavinrence.KS  66044 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Although  much  remains  to  be  learned  about 
this  salamander,  the  knowledge  required  to  pre- 
vent threats  to  its  existence  is  apparently  available. 


>-l 

V 

n3 


13 

Pi 


^ 


LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Brandon,  R.  A.  1965.  Morphological  variation 
and  ecology  of  the  salamander  Phaeognathus 
hubrichti.  Copeia  1965(1):67-71. 

.    1966.  Phaeognathus   and  P.   hubrichti. 

Pages   26.1-26.2  in    Cat.  Am.   Amphib.  Rep- 
tiles. Am.  Soc.  Ichtyol.  Herpetol. 

French,  T.  W.  1976.  Report  on  the  status  and 
future  of  the  red  hills  salamander,  Phaeog- 
nathus hubrichti.  Office  of  Endangered  Spe- 
cies, U.S.  Fish  Wildl.  Serv.,  Washington, 
D.C. 

French,  T.  W.,  and  R.  H.  Mount.  1978.  Current 
status  of  the  red  hills  salamander,  Phaeog- 
nathus hubrichti  Highton,  and  factors  affect- 
ing its  distribution.  J.  Ala.  Acad.  Sci.  49:172- 
179. 

Highton,  R.  1961.  A  new  genus  of  lungless  sala- 
mander from  the  Coastal  Plain  of  Alabama. 
Copeia  1962(l):65-58. 

Jordan,  J.  R.  1973.  Sexual  dimorphism  in  the  red 
hills  sa\2imai\dcx ,  Phaeognathus  hubrichti  High- 
ton  (Amphibia:  caudata:  plethodontidae), 
with  comments  on  its  phylogenetic  assign- 
ment.   Assoc.    S.    E.    Biol.    Bull.    20(2)-62. 

.    1975.  Observations  on  the  natural  his- 


tory and  ecology  of  the  red  hills  salamander, 
Phaeognathus  hubrichti  Highton  (caudata: 
plethodontidae).  M.S.  Thesis,  Auburn  Univ., 
Auburn,  Ala.  53  pp. 

Jordan,  J.  R.,  and  R.  H.  Mount.  1975.  The  status 
of  the  red  hills  salamander,  Phaeognathus 
hubrichti.  J.  Herpetol.  9:211-215. 

Mount,  R.  H.  1975.  The  reptiles  and  amphibians 
of  Alabama.  Auburn  Printing  Co.,  Auburn, 
Ala.  347  pp. 

Mount,  R.  H.,  and  T.  D.  Schwaner.  1970.  A  tech- 
nique for  collecting  the  plethodontid  salaman- 
der Phaeognathus  hubrichti.  Copeia  (1):205- 
206. 

Schwaner,  T.  C.  1970.  The  Alabama  red  hills  sala- 
mander. Alabama  Conserv.  1970:7. 

Schwaner,  T.  D.,  and  R.  H.  Mount.  1970.  Notes 
on  the  distribution,  habits,  and  ecology  of  the 
salamander  Phaeognathus  hubrichti  Highton. 
Copeia  1970(3):571-573. 

Valentine,  B.  D.  1963a.  The  plethodontid  sala- 
mander Phaeognathus:  external  morphology 
and  zoogeography.  Proc.  Biol.  Soc.  Washing- 
ton 76:153-158. 

1963b.    The    plethodontid   salamander 


Phaeognathus:   collecting  techniques  and  ha- 
bits. J.  Ohio  Herpetol.  Soc.  4:49-54. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.51 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

ARCTIC  PEREGRINE  FALCON 


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  l",ndangered  Species  .\ct  of  1973,  as  diiniulcd). 

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  Biok)gical  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  lo: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell.  Louisiana  704.'')8 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.51 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
ARCTIC  PEREGRINE   FALCON 


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 


PHOTO  OF  CLOSELY   RELATED  SUBSPECIES 


CREDIT:     KENNETH    FINK 


ARCTIC  PEREGRINE  FALCON 

Falco  peregrinus  tundrius  White  (1968) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Falconiformes 

FAMILY Falconidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Duck  Hawk  (AOU  1931); 

Beach  Peregrine,  Blond  Peregrine  (fal- 
coner's names,  White  1968);  Tundra  Pere- 
grine (Ruos  1970  and  numerous  authors). 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates To  be  determined 


LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered:  (42  FR  36425,  14  July 
1977  p.  36425).  Protected,  Migratory 
Bird  Treaty  Act  of  3  July  1918  (40 
Stat.  755;  16  U.S.C.  703-711)  as 
amended  3  Dec.  1969.  Public  Law  91- 
135.  Listed,  Appendix  I,  Convention 
on  International  Trade  in  Endangered 
Species  of  Wild  Fauna  and  Flora  (42 
FR  10476,  22  Feb.  1977). 

States:  Endangered:  Alaska,  South  Carolina, 
Texas  -  Listed:  Florida. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Up  to  1960,  no  long-term  data  are  available 
by  which  to  detect  either  an  increase  or  decrease 


in  the  total  population  of  peregrines  of  northern 
Canada.  In  general,  up  to  that  time,  it  had  been 
observed  as  a  common  breeding  bird  in  an  exten- 
sive area  (Fyfe  1969). 

In  1969,  J.  L.  Ruos  (pers.  comm.)  estimated 
the  annual  harvest  of  tundra-breeding  peregrines 
(taken  by  falconers,  mostly  during  migration)  at 
between  60  and  120  individuals,  over  90%  of 
which  were  first-year  birds.  The  effect  of  this 
former  harvest  on  the  population  is  unknown,  but 
it  has  been  prohibited  under  present  migratory 
bird  regulations  in  the  United  States,  where  most 
of  it  occurred. 

Earlier  investigation  of  the  Alaskan  popula- 
tion (Enderson  et  al.  1968;  Cade  et  al.  1968)  and 
the  Canadian  population  (Enderson  and  Berger 
1968)  indicated  that  members  of  this  subspecies 
were  reproducing  normally.  However,  Cade  et  al. 
(1968)  found  that  residues  of  organochlorines  in 
tissues  and  eggs  appeared  to  be  near  the  threshold 
at  which  abnormal  reproductive  effects  begin. 
More  recent  studies  by  Cade  and  Fyfe  (1970), 
Berger  et  al.  (1970),  and  Cade  et  al.  (1971)  indi- 
cated that  shell  thinning  was  pronounced  in  pere- 
grines from  the  northwest  territories,  the  Ungava 
region,  and  Alaska.  The  thinning  approached  or 
exceeded  20%,  the  level  at  which  reproductive 
failures  seem  to  begin.  In  addition,  there  was  evi- 
dence that  F.  p.  tundrius  populations  of  arctic 
Canada  and  Alaska  had  declined  suddenly.  No 
other  reason  for  this  decline  than  the  effect  of 
pesticide  poisoning  on  reproduction  is  suggested 
(Cade  and  Fyfe  1970:235). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

10 

DESCRIPTION 

The  Arctic  peregrine  falcon  is  a  medium- 
sized,  pointed  winged,  swift  flying  bird  of  prey 
with  prominent  black  and  white  facial  markings; 
adults  have  slate  gray  back  and  white  underparts 
streaked  and  barred  with  black.  Immatures  are 
brownish  above  and  more  heavily  streaked  below 
than  adults.  They  are  similar  to  American  pere- 
grine falcons  (anatum),  but  smaller  and  in  all 
plumages  more  lightly  marked  with  paler  browns 
or  bluish  grays  and  less  ventral  rufous  wash.  Black 
facial  markings  are  more  restricted  (White  1968). 

Distinction  between  tundris  and  anatum  in 
adult  plumage  is  best  made  by  facial  markings 


(width  of  black  between  eye  and  white  auriculcir, 
and  width  of  malar  stripe  at  base)  and  white  fore- 
head. The  rufous  basal  portion  of  nape  feathers, 
which  is  whiter  ventrally  and  somewhat  paler  dor- 
sally,  are  also  useful  characters.  Immature  plum- 
aged  tundrius  is  distinguished  from  anatum  by 
facial  characters,  including  a  complete  white 
superciliary  stripe,  with  darker  stripe  running 
posterior  to  the  eye  usually  present;  also  a  median 
pair  of  tail  feathers  conspiciously  barred  with 
"vinaceous  buff"  (M.  Ralph  Browning  ms.  1972). 
Measurements  (all  in  mm  unless  otherwise 
indicated;  values  in  parentheses  are  averages). - 
Adult  male  (64  specimens):  wing  (chord)  292-330; 
tail,  134-154  (140.5);  tarsus  40-50  (44.3);  bHl 
without  cere  15-20  (18.7);  bUl  with  cere  22-25 
(24.0);  weight  (12  breeding  specimens),  550-647 
(610.9)  g.  Adult  female  (62  specimens);  wing 
331-368  (351.8);  tail  138-180  (167.8);  tarsus  42- 
57  (49.8);  biU  without  cere  21-24  (22.7);  bill  with 
cere  26-30  (27.8);  weight  (19  breeding  specimens) 
825-1094  g  (952.9  g).  Immature  male  (27  speci- 
mens): wing  295-319  (311.1);  tail  135-162 
(151.8);  tarsus  38-50  (44.0);  bill  without  cere  17- 
19  (18.3);  bill  with  cere  22-25  (22.7);  weight  (4 
specimens,  fuUy  fledged)  477-662  (570.0).  Im- 
mature female  (30  specimens):  wing  320-367 
(349.6);  tail,  155-189  (175.6);  tarsus  44-(?)55 
(49.1);  bill  without  cere  19-24  (21.4);  bill  with 
cere  23-28  (26.4);  weight  (3  specimens,  fully 
fledged)  844-925  g  (889.0  g)  (White  1968). 

RANGE 

F.  p.  tundrius  breeds  in  tundra  areas  through- 
out Arctic  Alaska,  Canada,  and  western  Green- 
land, from  the  northern  tip  of  the  Mackenzie  Dis- 
trict south  and  east  across  the  Arctic  tundra  to 
Hudson  Bay,  along  the  north  coast  of  Ungava  and 
north  into  the  Arctic  islands  as  far  as  northern 
Baffin  Island  and  Melville  Island;  wesward  as  far 
as  Cape  Prince  of  Wales,  Alaska,  and  eastward  to 
the  western  coast  of  Greenland.  The  subspecies 
intergrades  morphologically  with  anatum  in  open 
boreal  forest  or  taiga  areas  of  Alaska  and  Canada 
(Fyfe  1969;  White  1968). 

These  peregrines  migrate  largely  along  the 
Atlantic  coast  and  to  some  extent  through  the  in- 
terior of  the  continent.  The  Atlantic  coastal  flight 
includes  some  birds  from  western  Greenland. 
They  winter  north  (sparingly)  from  at  least  Cape 
Sable,    Florida    and    Cameron   Bayou    Louisiana 


(probably  along  entire  gulf  coast)  and  Baja  Cali- 
fornia (occasionally);  south  through  West  Indies, 
Central  and  South  America  to  40°  S  in  Chile  and 
35°  S  in  Argentina  (White  1968;  Rice  in  Hickey 
ed  1969;  Shor  1970a;  Mueller  and  Berger  1961; 
Hofslud  1966;Enderson  1965,  1969). 

Ward  and  Berry  (1972),  analyzing  records  of 
sightings  and  bandings  of  fall  migrants  on  the 
outer  beaches  of  Assateague  Island,  Maryland, 
from  1939-1971,  determined  that  the  proportion 
of  immatures  in  different  years  was  81%  to  91%. 
Of  birds  trapped  for  banding  in  those  years,  only 
8%  of  the  adults  and  30%  of  the  immatures  were 
males.  A  decline  in  total  numbers  during  the 
study  period  was  indicated  (Ward  and  Berry 
1972).  Shor  (1970)  points  out  that  data  on  pro- 
duction indicate  that  this  great  preponderance  of 
immatures  is  impossible  unless  we  assume  that 
about  90%  of  adult  birds  are  not  seen  in  migra- 
tion. It  was  assumed  that  most  of  the  birds  re- 
corded were  Arctic  Peregrines,  the  majority  pos- 
sibly from  Greenland  breeding  localities,  as  in- 
dicated by  Shore  (1970). 

Migrants  appear  in  numbers  on  an  island  off 
Kenai  Peninsula,  Alaska  around  1  September.  It 
is  not  known  where  they  go  from  there.  Some  in- 
dividuals, almost  certainly  from  the  Arctic  migrant 
population,  have  been  taken  in  July  and  August 
in  mid-latitudes  of  the  United  States  (White 
1969). 

Mueller  and  Berger  (1961)  recorded  150  pere- 
grines in  fall  migration  along  the  west  shore  of 
Lake  Michigan  from  1952  to  1957.  They  were 
seen  with  concentrations  of  hawks  of  various 
species  along  that  migration  route,  and  their 
abundance  at  any  one  time  was  correlated  with 
weather  conditions  that  caused  updrafts  of  air. 

RANGE  MAP 

The  Breeding  range  (Fyfe  et  al.  1976)  and 
migration  range  are  shown  on  the  following  map. 

STATES/COUNTIES  (within  main  migration 
routes): 

Barnstable,  Nantucket,  Dukes 

Washington 

Suffolk,  Nassau 

Monmouth,     Ocean,     Atlantic, 
Cape  May 

Delaware:  Sussex 


Maryland: 
Virginia: 
North  Carolina: 

South  Carolina: 

Georgia: 

Florida: 


Minnesota: 
Wisconsin: 

Illinois: 
Texas: 


Massachusetts: 
Rhode  Island: 
New  York: 
New  Jersey: 


Worcester 

Accomack,  Northampton 

Currituck,  Dane,  Hyde,  Carteret, 
Onslow,  Pender,  Hanover, 
Brunswick 

Horry,  Georgetown,  Charleston, 
Colleton,  Beaufort 

Chatham,  Liberty,  Mcintosh, 
Glynn,  Camden 

Nassau,  Duval,  St.  Johns,  Flag- 
ler, Volusia,  Brevard,  Indian 
River,  St.  Lucie,  Martin,  Palm 
Beach,  Broward,  Dade,  Collier 

St.  Louis 

Douglas,  Door,  Kewaunee,  Man- 
itowoc, Sheboygan,  Ozaukee, 
Milwaukee,  Racine,  Kenosha 

Lake 

Jefferson,  Chambers,  Galveston, 
Brazoria,  Matagorda,  Calhoun, 
Aransas,  Nueces,  Kleberg, 
Kenedy,  Willacy,  Cameron 


HABITAT 

Peregrines  prefer  cliff  ledges  for  nesting  sites, 
but  in  the  absence  of  these,  will  nest  on  cutbanks 
along  rivers  or  coastal  areas,  on  elevated  landforms 
known  as  dykes,  and  occasionally  on  low  mounds 
or  even  boulders.  In  nearly  all  instances,  nests  are 
located  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  a  body  of 
water,  either  salt  or  fresh.  If  cliffs  are  not  close  to 
water  or  if  no  food  species  are  available,  nesting 
peregrines  will  be  scarce  or  absent  (Fyfe  1969).  In 
the  case  of  joint  occupancy  of  bluffs  by  peregrines 
and  gyrfalcons  along  the  Colville  River  in  Alaska, 
peregrine  nests  were  usually  at  the  brink  of  a 
slope  or  on  a  bluff  to  which  a  person  could  walk, 
whereas  gyrfalcon  nests  were  on  ledges  on  vertical 
faces  of  cliffs,  usually  under  an  overhang,  and  ac- 
cesible  only  by  rope  (White  1969). 

In  arctic  Canada,  these  falcons  nest  on  cliffs 
and  cut  banks  of  rivers  if  food  is  available  nearby. 
In  the  central  Canadian  barrens  near  Cotwoyto 
Lake,  the  landforms  known  as  dykes  provide 
rocky  formations  elevated  over  the  surrounding 
countryside  that  are  suitable  for  nesting.  Where 
land  relief  is  slight  in  the  central  barrens  (tundra) 
of  Canada,  peregrines  nest  on  boulders  and  hum- 
mocks as  little  as  1  m  above  the  surrounding  area. 


Breeding  range  and  migration  routes  of  the  Arctic  peregrine  falcon 


Rivers  are  important  in  the  falcon's  environ- 
ment; they  create  the  nesting  cliffs  by  erosion  and 
provide  bathing  facilities,  especially  on  gravel 
bars;  rivers  also  provide  habitat  for  shorebirds  and 
v^aterfowl  for  the  falcon's  food.  Peregrines  also 
hunt  extensively  over  the  surrounding  country, 
particularly  taking  ptarmigan  and  longspurs  (Cade 
1960). 

They  seldom  nest  on  the  cliffs  along  the  Bering 
Sea  coast  of  mainland  Alaska  or  in  the  mountains 
above  800  m.  A  cliff  of  some  sort  is  the  most  im- 
portant feature  of  the  nesting  habitat  (Cade  1960). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING 

Food  would  not  be  a  limiting  factor  in  most 
of  northern  Canada.  Throughout  that  area,  pas- 
serines, shorebirds  and  waterfowl  are  abundant 
in  summer,  with  the  exception  of  the  Arctic 
desert  areas  or  relatively  barren  mountain  tops  on 
Baffin  Island  (Fyfe  1969;  Cade  1954). 

Bumham  and  Maddox  (m  Fyfe  et  al.  1976) 
reported  that  four  species  of  small  passerine  birds 
made  up  over  90%  of  the  food  of  peregrines  in 
western  Greenland.  J.  N.  Rice  and  R.  B.  Berry 
(ms.  1970)  also  found  that,  with  the  exception  of 
a  single  ptarmigan,  the  peregrines  nesting  at 
Ungava  Bay  in  1970  fed  entirely  on  small  pas- 
serines, primarily  horned  larks,  snow  buntings, 
and  water  pipits.  Cade  (1960),  however,  reported 
that  Arctic  peregrines  take  a  wide  variety  of  avian 
prey  (waterfowl,  shorebirds,  and  passerines),  with 
no  single  species  predominating  except  possibly 
ptarmigan.  In  his  opinion,  peregrines  probably 
feed  heavily  on  lemmings  during  their  cyclical 
abundance,  but  that  the  availability  of  lemming 
does  not  affect  the  peregrine  population. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

None 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

In  Arctic  Alaska  and  Canada,  nests  are  scrapes 
in  either  earth  or  gravel,  on  bare  grass,  rocky  cliffs, 
cutbanks,  dykes,  boulders,  or  hummocks.  Three 
nests  in  old  rough-legged  hawks  nests  had  eggs 
laid  on  bare  sticks  with  no  soft  material.  Five 
nests  in  old  rough-legged  hawk  nests  had  eggs 
and  other  plant  material  (Hohn  1955,  McEwen 
1957;Cade  (1960);  Fyfe  1969). 

Cliff  nests  are  typical  for  the  species  and  are 
situated  on  a  ledge  or  in  a  hole,  often  under  a  pro- 


tecting overhang.  Nests  on  boulders  and  hum- 
mocks have  little  or  no  protection  from  above 
(Fyfe  1969).  All  nesting  sites  known  in  Alaska 
were  on  cliffs  on  islands  or  along  the  coast  or 
river  bluffs  (Cade  1960).  Of  57  eyries  along  the 
Colville  River,  height  of  the  nests  above  the  river 
ranged  from  3.2  m  to  96  m  (average  35  m);  the 
distance  below  the  brink  of  the  cliff  was  0  to  90 
(average  14)  m.  Fifteen  of  57  eyries  were  located 
on  shale  formations,  17  on  sandstone  or  conglo- 
merate, and  27  on  earth  or  talus  banks.  Eleven 
were  in  old  rough-legged  hawk  nests.  The  brinks 
of  the  cliffs  are  usually  overgrown  with  dense 
thickets  of  alder  and  willow  scrub  (Cade  1960). 
All  nests  found  by  Burnham  and  Mattox  (in  Fyfe 
et  al.  1976)  in  western  Greenland  were  located 
on  rocky  cliffs  varying  in  height  from  25  to  120 
m.  All  nests  found  in  Alaska  were  on  cliffs,  mostly 
along  rivers  (Cade  1960). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

The  complex  courtship  and  mating  ritual  is 
described  under  Reproduction.  A  strong  pair 
bond  is  essential  to  the  reproductive  success  of 
the  species  (Cade  1960). 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Suitable  nesting  sites  near  an  adequate  food 
supply  and  freedom  from  organochlorine  chemi- 
cals in  the  environment  are  the  most  critical  re- 
quirements. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

White  (1969)  said  the  number  of  breeding 
adults  on  the  Arctic  Slope  of  Alaska  seems  to  be 
maintaining  itself  and  there  was  no  evidence  of  a 
decrease  in  reproductive  capacity. 

Population  density  was  approximately  one 
pair  per  52  km^  of  suitable  habitat  in  the  Bathurst 
Inlet  area,  Canada,  and  about  one  pair  per  259 
km^  in  areas  of  limited  nesting  habitat.  In  esti- 
mating 7,500  breeding  pairs  in  northern  Canada 
(Fyfe  1969,  J.  H.  Enderson  and  D.  D.  Berger  in 
Fyfe  1969),  a  sharp  decline  of  nesting  peregrines 
was  found  along  the  Mackenzie  River  and  at 
Campbell  Lake  in  1966. 

Enderson  (1969)  calculated  the  mortality  rate 
of  peregrines  on  the  basis  of  band  recovery  (pre- 
sumably mostly  tundrius)  as  70%  for  immatures 
and  an  annual  rate  of  25%  for  adults.  He  assumed 


that  the  70%  immature  mortality  rate  is  indicative 
of  a  declining  population. 

Rice  (1969)  calculated  from  peregrines  trapped 
for  banding  on  the  beaches  of  the  Maryland- 
Virginia  coast  that  immatures  constituted  83%  of 
the  population  in  the  1954-1959  period  and 
84%  in  the  1960-65  period.  The  1954-59  sample 
included  2  adult  males,  37  adult  females,  50  im- 
mature males  and  144  immature  females.  The 
1960-65  sample  included  4  adult  males,  26  adult 
females,  56  immature  males  and  116  immature 
females.  Cade  (1960)  estimated  200  to  250  breed- 
ing pairs  in  Arctic  Alaska. 

Cade  (1960)  suggests  that  gyrfalcons  can  suc- 
cessfully prevent  peregrines  from  occupying  the 
larger  river  cliffs  and  thus  affect  their  density  and 
distribution. 

In  the  Colville  River  area  of  about  36,800 
km^  on  the  Arctic  slope  of  Alaska,  the  popula- 
tion of  peregrines  appears  to  have  held  rather 
constant  in  the  number  of  breeding  pairs  until 
about  1970-71,  and  then  started  a  severe  drop.  It 
may  now  have  leveled  off  at  about  30%  to  35%  of 
its  former  numbers,  as  suggested  by  data  from  1973 
and  1975.  Total  numbers  of  pairs  or  single  adults 
were  as  foUows:  1952-1959,  32-36;  1967,  27; 
1968,32;1969,33;  1971,  25;  1973,  14; 1975,  13. 
Based  on  early  1950  studies  by  Cade,  the  total 
population  of  the  Colville  drainage  may  have  been 
between  120  and  160  pairs  (White  and  Cade  1975; 
Peakalletal.  1976). 

In  the  Sagavanirktok  River  area  of  about 
2400  km^  on  the  Arctic  Slope  of  Alaska,  the 
population  followed  a  similar  pattern,  but  appears 
to  have  started  to  decrease  earlier  and  declined 
slightly  more.  Total  numbers  of  pairs  or  single 
adults  were  as  follows:  pre-1950,  11;  1958,  5; 
1963,  5;  1970,  3;  1972,  2;  1973,  2;  1974,5;  1975, 
3  (White  and  Cade  1975). 

Fyfe  et  al.  (1976)  note  that  limited  data  for 
other  parts  of  Arctic  Alaska  indicate  a  population 
decline  similar  to  the  well-documented  decline 
for  the  Colville  drainage,  and  that  it  is  doubtful 
that  as  many  as  50  pairs  are  still  producing  young 
in  northern  Alaska  where  Cade  (1960)  estimated 
the  breeding  population  at  200  to  300  pairs  in  the 
late  1950's. 

In  the  Canadian  Arctic,  most  populations 
have  dechned  to  50%  or  less  of  their  historically 
known  size.  On  Ungave  Bay,  the  Interior  Barrens, 
Central  Arctic  Coast,  Banks  Island,  and  the  North 
Slope  of  Canada  where  historical  records  exist. 


only  41%  of  known  nesting  sites  were  occupied  in 
1975.  Occupancy  of  newly  found  nests  declined 
60%  from  20  in  1973  to  8  in  1975,  indicating  an 
accelerated  decline  of  Canadian  Arctic  popula- 
tions since  1973. 

In  western  Greenland,  the  observations  of 
Bumham  and  Mattox  (in  Fyfe  et  al.  1975)  re- 
vealed a  substantial  density  of  one  peregrine  per 
200  km^ 

REPRODUCTION 

In  the  Colville  River  area  (36,800  km^)  on 
the  Arctic  Slope  of  Alaska,  production  of  young 
may  have  started  to  fall  off  as  early  as  1965  or 
1966.  The  numbers  of  young  produced  in  1952- 
1959  was  40  to  50;  in  1967,  34;  in  1968,  34;  in 
1969,  26;  in  1971,  14;andin  1973,9  (White  and 
Cade  1975;  Peakal  et  al.  1975).  The  DDE  residue 
in  eggs  in  that  area  through  1971  averaged  about 
190  parts  per  million  dry  weight  (Peakall  et  al. 
1975)  and  egg  shells  had  thinned  to  about  23% 
(White  and  Cade  1975). 

Burnham  and  Mattox  (m  Fyfe  et  al.  1976),  in 
an  approximately  1800  km^  area  of  western 
Greenland,  found  a  productivity  of  peregrines 
averaging  nearly  2.5  young  per  pair  over  a  4-year 
period.  DDE  residues  of  332  parts  per  million 
found  in  addled  eggs  and  egg-shell  thinning  of 
14%  indicate  incipient  problems  for  that  popula- 
tion. Eleven  peregrine  egg  shells  taken  from  Arc- 
tic Ungava  in  1967  ranged  in  thickness  between 
0.25  and  0.33  mm  (mean  thickness  0.291  mm), 
representing  a  24.4%  drop  from  the  0.385  mean 
of  30  eggshells  measured  by  Dan  Anderson  from 
"eastern  Arctic"  eggs  collected  during  the  first 
third  of  the  century.  In  ten  eggs  checked,  DDE 
ranged  from  137  to  498  ppm  on  a  fat  basis  (D.  D. 
Berger  pers.  comm.  1970). 

Cade  (1960)  suggests  that  when  peregrines 
and  gyrfalcons  are  in  direct  competition,  the  gyr- 
falcon  is  the  dominant  competitor.  On  the  Ander- 
son River,  Fyfe  (1969)  found  the  gyrfalcon  to  be 
dominant  and  believed  that  where  the  two  species 
nest  during  the  same  season,  the  gyrfalcon  may 
displace  the  peregrine  from  the  better  nesting 
sites  such  as  cliff  locations,  relegating  the  peregrine 
to  dirt  cutbanks.  Natural  hazards  to  nesting  are 
late  spring  storms  or  excessive  erosion.  Because  of 
the  short  nesting  season,  renesting  is  usually  not 
possible  (Fyfe  1969).  A  significant  correlation  of 
immature  peregrine  migration  counts  along  Atlan- 


tic  coastal  beaches  in  October  with  mean  daily 
minimum  July  temperatures  in  eastern  Arctic 
Canada  indicate  that  minimum  temperature  on 
the  breeding  grounds  will  cause  a  31.6%  (1-bird) 
change  in  numbers  of  migrant  immature  birds 
identified  along  the  Atlantic  coast  per  party-day 
(Ruos  1970). 

The  Arctic  peregrine  is,  in  effect,  reproduc- 
tively  isolated  from  the  more  southern  taiga  pop- 
ulation by  its  gonad  cycle.  The  entire  courtship 
cycle  of  tundrius  and  thus  the  factors  regulating 
pair  bonding  is  at  variance  with  more  southern 
breeding  peregrines  (Cade  1960;  White  1968). 

Peregrines  apparently  become  established 
along  the  lower  ColviUe  river  between  4  and  10 
May,  with  peak  arrivals  after  the  middle  of  May. 
Falcon  arrival  is  synchronized  with  the  arrival 
of  their  chief  prey  species.  The  incubation  pe- 
riod probably  averages  about  29  days  for  each 
egg.  Since  there  are  intervals  of  2  days  between 
egg  layings  and  incubation  begins  with  laying  of 
the  first  egg  in  the  Arctic,  there  may  be  as  much 
as  a  week's  difference  in  the  ages  of  the  youngest 
and  oldest  nestlings.  On  the  Colville,  there  was 
one  instance  of  laying  in  the  last  week  of  May,  12 
instances  in  the  first  week  of  June,  and  6  instances 
in  the  second  week  of  June.  The  total  range  for 
any  given  event  in  the  breeding  cycle  is  barely 
more  than  3  weeks.  Since  the  total  period  of  the 
breeding  cycle  from  laying  to  the  beginning  of 
independent  existence  of  the  young  is  not  less 
than  95  days  in  Arctic,  peregrines  must  begin  to 
lay  eggs  not  later  than  the  third  week  in  June  to 
ensure  successful  rearing  of  young  before  the 
food  is  gone.  The  average  clutch  of  Arctic  birds  is 
3  eggs  (54  samples),  whereas  the  mean  for  the 
U.S.  is  3.74  (299  samples)showing  a  decreasing 
size  of  clutch  northward.  Average  fledging  success 
on  the  Colville  River,  Alaska  was  1 .4  young  per 
nest.  Predators  on  eggs  and  young,  in  addition  to 
man,  are  a  negligible  factor  in  the  Arctic.  Fairly 
certain  predators  are  the  timber  wolf,  red  fox, 
arctic  ground  squirrel,  and  golden  eagle  (Cade 
1960). 

Preincubation  or  courtship  behavior  divided 
into  8  parts:  (1)  attraction  of  mates  to  each  other, 
(2)  mutual  roosting  on  cliffs,  (3)  cooperative 
hunting  excursions,  (4)  courtship  flights,  (5) 
"familiarities"  on  cliff,  (6)  courtship  feeding,  (7) 
copulation,  (8)  nest  scraping.  Females  are  dom- 
inant over  males  and  successful  mating  depends 


on  the  males'  ability  to  adjust  to  that  situation.  In- 
cubation and  brooding  is  done  mostly  by  the  fe- 
male, who  sits  more  closely  than  females  in  more 
southern  latitudes.  Food  is  brought  by  the  male, 
and  even  during  the  early  fledging  period,  the 
male  continues  to  transfer  food  to  the  female  for 
feeding  young.  When  young  are  about  3  weeks 
old,  the  female  begins  to  hunt  actively  again 
(Cade  1960).  Peregrines  are  definitely  territorial 
during  the  breeding  season  and  defense  of  terri- 
tory, which  is  roughly  3.22  km  in  diameter,  has  a 
graded  intensity  from  less  intense  at  the  outer 
limits,  where  defense  is  only  over  food,  to  most 
intense  near  the  nesting  cliff,  which  is  always  de- 
fended against  all  other  predatory  birds,  although 
rough-legged  hawks  are  sometimes  allowed  to  nest 
on  the  same  cliffs  within  100  yards  (Cade  1960). 

First-year  falcons  not  engaged  in  breeding 
may  pass  their  first  summer  within  or  at  the  peri- 
phery of  their  breeding  range,  but  are  not  obvious 
because  they  are  not  associated  with  nesting  sites. 
In  1967  one  first-year  female  was  seen  on  the 
Colville  River  (White  1969). 

Tradition  is  important  in  the  occupancy  of  a 
particular  cliff.  Once  vacant,  it  may  take  a  long 
time  for  another  pair  to  reoccupy  it  and  establish 
a  new  tradition.  New  occupancy  is  probably  the 
result  of  population  pressure  as  well  as  attractive- 
ness of  the  site  (Cade  1960). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

The  most  important  actions  that  might  be 
taken  in  behalf  of  the  Arctic  peregrine  would 
probably  be  to  designate  for  special  protection 
against  land-use  exploitation  the  areas  where  eyries 
are  concentrated  in  Arctic  Alaska,  Canada,  and 
western  Greenland;  as  well  as  major  migration 
concentration  areas  along  the  Atlantic  and  Gulf 
coasts  and  the  shores  of  the  western  Great  Lakes; 
and  to  conduct  an  intensive  educational  and  law- 
enforcement  program  to  reduce  the  use  of  chlor- 
inated hydrocarbon  pesticides  in  areas  along  the 
major  migration  pathways  and  wintering  grounds 
in  the  eastern  United  States,  West  Indies,  and 
Central  and  South  American  countries. 

AUTHORITIES 

Thomas  J.  Cade 
Laboratory  of  Ornithology 
Cornell  University 
Ithaca,  New  York   14850 


Clayton  M.  White 
Department  of  Zoology 
575  Widtsoe  Bldg. 
Brigham  Young  University 
Provo.Utah  84601 

Richard  Fyfe 

Room  1110 

10025  Jasper  Avenue 

Edmonton,  Alta.  Canada 

T5J  1S6 

James  H.  Enderson 

Dept.  of  Biology 

Colorado  College 

Colorado  Springs,  Colorado  80903 

David  B.  Peakall 
Laboratory  of  Ornithology 
Cornell  University 
Ithaca,  New  York   14850 

Daniel  D.  Berger 

1328  N.Jefferson,  Apt.  313 

MiWaukee,  Wisconsin  53202 

WiUiam  H.  Bumham 
Dept.  of  Zoology 
Brigham  Young  University 
Provo,Utah  84601 

Joseph  J.  Hickey 
226  Russell  Laboratories 
University  of  Wisconsin 
Madison,  Wisconsin  53706 

James  L.  Ruos 

7145  Deer  Valley  Road 

Highland,  Maryland  20777 

Walter  R.  Spofford,  II 
Aguila-Rancho 
Portal,  Arizona  85632 

F.  Prescott  Ward 
302  Belfast  Court 
Joppa,  Maryland  21085 

Wilston  Shor 
6614  32nd  Street 
Washington,  D.C.   20015 

James  N.  Rice 

Contention  Lane 

Berwy n ,  Pennsylvania   19312 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

It  seems  obvious  that  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant factor  contributing  to   the  reproductive 


difficulties  and  population  decline  of  the  Arctic 
peregrine,  as  in  the  case  of  the  now-extinct  eastern 
Unites  States  population  of  the  American  pere- 
grine, is  high  levels  of  chlorinated  hydrocarbon 
chemicals  in  the  environment.  Correction  of  this 
situation  should  receive  the  highest  priority  in  all 
efforts  in  behalf  of  this  species— J.  W.  Aldrich. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

A.  O.  U.  1931.  Ahcek-list  of  North  American 
birds.  American  Ornithologists'  Union,  Lan- 
caster, PA. 

Berger,  D.  C,  D.  W.  Anderson,  J.  D.  Weaver,  R. 
W.  Risebrough  and  J.  A.  Keith.  1970.  Shell- 
thinning  in  eggs  of  Ungava  Peregrines.  Canad. 
Field-Nat.  84:256-267. 

Berry,  R.  B.  1971.  Peregrine  Falcon  population 
survey,  Assateague  Island,  Mary  land,  fall  1960. 
Raptor  Research  News  5(ll):31-43' 

Bumham,  W.  H.  1975.  Breeding  biology  and 
ecology  of  the  Peregrine  Falcon  in  West 
Greenland.  MSc.  thesis.  Brigham  Young  Univ. 
Provo,  Utah. 

Bumham,  W.  H.,  M.  A.  Jenkins,  F.  P.  Ward,  W.  G. 
Mattox,  D.  M.  Clement,  and  J.  T.  Harris.  19  74. 
Falcon  research  in  Greenland.  1973.  Arctic 
27:71-74. 

Cade,  T.  J.  1954.  On  the  biology  of  falcons  and 
the  ethics  of  falconers.  Falconry  News  and 
Notes  1:12-19. 

.  1960.  Ecology  of  the  Peregrine  and  Gyr- 

falcon    populations    in    Alaska.    Univ.   Calif. 
PubLZool.  63:151-290. 

Cade,  T.  S.,  and  R.  Fyfe.  1970.  The  North  Amer- 
ican Peregrine  survey,  1970.  Canad.  Field-Nat. 
84:231-245. 

Cade,  T.  J.,  C.  M.  White  and  J.  R.  Haugh.  1968. 
Peregrines  and  pesticides  in  Alaska.  Condor 
70:170-178. 

Cade,  T.  S.,  J.  L.  Lincer,  C.  M.  White,  D.  G.  Ros- 
eneau,  and  L.  G.  Schwartz.  1971.  DDE  resi- 
dues and  eggshell  changes  in  Alascan  falcons 
and  hawks.  Science  172(3986):955-957. 

Campbell,  R.  W.  and  B.  Davies.  1973.  Nesting 
raptor  survey  in  western  Canadian  Arctic.  En- 
vironmental Protection  Board  Report;  1973, 
Sect.  1. 


8 


Enderson,  J.  1965.  A  breeding  and  migration  sur- 
vey of  the  Peregrine  Falcon.  Wilson  BuU.  77: 
327-339. 

.    1969.  Coastal  Migration  data  as  popula- 


tion indices  for  the  Peregrine  Falcon.  Chapt. 
23  in  J.  J.  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  popul- 
ations: their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wis- 
consin Press,  Madison. 
Enderson,  J.,  and  D.  Berger.  1968.  Chlorinated 
hydrocarbon  residues  in  Peregrines  and  their 
prey  species  from  northern  Canada.  Condor 
70:149-153. 

Enderson,J.J.,D.G.  Rosenau,andL.  G.  Schwartz. 
1968.  Nesting  performance  and  pesticide  resi- 
dues in  Alaska  and  Yukon  Peregrines  in  1967. 
Auk  85:683. 

Fyfe,  R.  1969.  The  Peregrine  Falcon  in  the  Can- 
adian Arctic  and  eastern  North  America. 
Chapt.  8.  in  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  pop- 
ulations, their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wis- 
consin Press  Madison. 

1977.  Status  of  Canadian  raptor  popula- 


tions, ICBP  World  Conf.  Birds  of  Prey  Proc: 
34-39. 
Fyfe,  R.,  S.  A.  Temple,  and  T.  J.  Cade.  1976.  The 
1975  North   American  Peregrine  Falcon  sur- 
vey. Canad.  Field-Nat.  90:228-273. 

Hickey,  J.  J.  (ed).  1969.  Peregrine  Falcon  popula- 
tions: their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wis- 
consin Press,  Madison. 

Hofslund,  P.  B.  1966.  Hawk  Migration  over  the 
western  tip  of  Lake  Superior.  Wilson  Bull., 
78:79-87. 

Hohn,  E.  O.  1955.  Birds  and  Mammals  observed 
on  a  cruise  in  Amundsen  Gulf,  N.W.T.  July 
29-August    16.   1953.  Canad.  Field-Nat.   69: 

41-44. 

Kessel,  B.  and  T.  J.  Cade.  1958.  Birds  of  the  Col- 
ville  River,  northern  Alaska.  Biol.  Papers 
Univ.  Alaska  no.  2. 

Mattox,  W.  G.,  R.  A.  Graham,  W.  A.  Burnham, 
D.  M.Clement.  1972.  Peregrine  Falcon  survey, 
west  Greenland,  1972.  Arctic  25:308-311. 

McEwen,  E.  G.  1957.  Birds  observed  at  Bathhurst 
Inlet,  Northwest  Territories,  Canad.  Field- 
Nat.  71:109-115. 

Mueller,  H.  C.  and  D.  D.  Berger.  1961.  Weather 
and  fall  migration  of  hawks  at  Cedar  Grove, 
Wisconsin.  Wilson  Bull.  73:171-192. 


Peakall,  D.  B.,  T.  J.  Cade.  C.  M.  White  and  J.  R. 
Haugh.  1975.  Organochlorine  residues  m 
Alaskan  Peregrines.  Pesticide  Monitoring 
Journ.  8:255-260. 

Rice,  J.  N.  1969.  A  peregrine  population  index  on 
the  Maryland-Virginia  coast,  pp.  279-280,  in 
J.  J.  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations: 
their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin 
Press,  Madison. 

Ruos,  J.  L.  1970.  Correlation  of  Arctic  tempera- 
tures in  July  with  numbers  of  Tundra  Pere- 
grines (F.  p.  tundrius)  seen  per  partyday  in 
October  along  the  Mid-Atlantic  coast.  Special 
study  Report  prepared  for  Rare  and  Endan- 
gered Species  Committee,  U.S.  Fish  and  Wild- 
hfe  Service,  15  Feb.  1970. 

Shor,  W.  1970.  Peregrine  Falcon  population  dy- 
namics deduced  from  band  recovery  data. 
Raptor  Research  News  4(2):49-59. 

.  1970a.  Banding  recoveries  of  Arctic  mi- 
grant Peregrines  of  the  Atlantic  Coast  and 
Greenland  population.  Raptor  Research  News 
4(4):125-131. 

Spofford,  W.  R.  1969.  Hawk  Mountain  counts  as 
population  indices  in  northwestern  America, 
pp.  323-332,  in  J.  J.  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Fal- 
con populations:  their  biology  and  decline. 
Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Walker,  W.,  W.  G.  Mattox,  and  R.  W.  Risebrough. 
1973.  Pollutant  and  shell  thickness  determina- 
tion of  Peregrine  eggs  from  west  Greenland. 
Arctic  26:256-158. 

Ward,  F.  P.  and  R.  B.  Berry.  1972.  Autumn  migra- 
tions of  Peregrine  Falcons  on  Assateague  Is- 
land, 1970-72.  Journ.  Wildl.Mngmt.  36:484- 
492. 

White,  C.  M.  1968.  Diagnosis  and  relationships  of 
the  North  American  tundra  inhabiting  Pere- 
grine Falcons.  Auk  85:179-191. 

•  1969.  Breeding  Alaskan  and  Arctic  mi- 
grant populations  of  Peregrines.  Chap.  2  in 
Hickey,  J.J.  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations 
their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin 
Press,  Madison. 

White,  C.  M.,  and  T.  J.  Cade.  1971.  Chff-nesting 
raptors  and  ravens  along  the  Colville  River  in 
Arctic  Alaska.  Living  Bird  10:107-150. 

•    1975.   Long   term   trends  of  Peregrine 

populations    in    Alaska.    ICBP    World    Conf. 
Birds  of  Prey  Proc. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.52 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 


MISSISSIPPI 

SANDHILL 

CRANE 


^•'^T-mmr  •»:,' 


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  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  lo: 

Information  Transfer  Specialist 
National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704r}8 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.52 
March  1980 


SELECTKD  VKR 1  KBRA 1  K  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAS 1  0\    1  HE  UNITED  STATES- 
MISSISSIPPI   SANDHILL   CRANE 


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  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 


(PHOTO  OF  C1-OSEI.Y   REL.ATED  SUBSPECIES) 


MISSISSIPPI  SANDHILL  CRANE 

Grus  canadensis  pulla  Aldrich 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Gruiformes 

FAMILY Gruidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES.  .  .  .  Florida  Crane  (Mcllhenny  1938); 
Florida  SandhUl  Crane  (Valentine  1963). 


CREDIT:   LUTHER  C.  GOLDMAN 


DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates To  be  determined 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered:  (42FR36425,  14  July 
1977).  Protected  (Migratory  Bird  Treaty 
Act  of  July  3,  1918.  (40  Stat.  755;  16 
U.S.C.  703-711)  as  amended  3  Dec. 
1969.  Public  Law  91-135. 


States:       Endangered:       Mississippi      (protected 
under    the   Nongame    and    Endangered 
Species  Act  of  1974; 
Listed:  Alabama. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS: 

The  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  is  nearing  ex- 
tinction because  of  its  very  small  and  restricted 
population  and  the  deterioration  of  its  habitat, 
semiopcn  wet  pine  savanna,  because  of  drainage, 
planting  of  trees  for  timber,  urban  and  suburban 
development,  and  highway  construction  (U.S. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  1973;  Morine  1975; 
Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane 
1976). 

Since  the  mid-1950's,  timber  companies  have 
acquired  or  leased  thousands  of  hectares,  which 
have  been  planted  to  slash  pine  (Pinus  elliottii). 
Drainage  ditches  dug  through  savannas  and  water- 
courses speed  run-off.  Fire,  the  natural  agent  in 
maintaining  even  wet  prairies,  has  been  controlled 
or  eliminated,  encouraging  pine  plantation  sur- 
vival and  also  permitting  natural  reproduction  of 
pine  and  brush  in  unplanted  savannas.  Many  ac- 
cess roads,  trails,  and  fire  lanes  have  been  built, 
giving  people  easier  access  to  crane  habitat.  Tim- 
ber management  has  made  thousands  of  hectares 
of  former  crane  habitat  unsuitable  for  these  birds 
(Valentine  and  Noble  1970;  Morine  1975;  Re- 
covery Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane 
1976). 

Housing  developments  and  small  farms  are  ex- 
panding into  crane  habitat  from  Ocean  Springs, 
Fontainebleau,  and  Gautier  communities.  Recent 
release  of  St.  Regis  timber  land  holdings  allowed 
the  sale  of  about  2,000  hectares  of  crane  environ- 
ment for  development. 

U.S.  Highway  90,  a  four-lane  east-west  avenue 
through  crane  range,  now  a  "strip  city"  extends 
the  entire  distance  between  Ocean  Springs  and 
Pascagoula.  Other  highways  through  crane  habitat 
are  being  built  or  improved.  The  adverse  effects 
of  highways  on  cranes  are:  (1)  direct  loss  of  land 
to  right-of-way  and  borrow  areas;  (2)  disturbance 
by  noise,  vibration,  and  visual  factors;  (3)  pollu- 
tion of  surrounding  air  and  soil;  (4)  facilitation  of 
public  access  to  crane  environment;  and  (5)  stim- 
ulation of  residential  and  commercial  develop- 
ments along  highway  route  (Recovery-  Team  for 
the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 


PRIORITY  INDEX 

50 

DESCRIPTION 

This  species  is  similar  in  size  to  the  Florida 
sandhill  crane,  Grus  canadensis  pratensis,  but 
colored  portions  of  plumage  are  much  darker 
throughout.  It  differs  from  the  greater  sandhill 
crane,  Grus  canadensis  tabida,  in  smaller  size 
(except  tarsus)  and  darker  color;  and  from  the 
lesser  sandhill  crane,  Grus  canadetuis  canadensis, 
in  larger  size  in  all  dimensions  and  darker  color. 
It  can  be  distinguished  from  the  Canadian  sandhill 
crane,  Grus  canadensis  rowani,  by  longer  tarsi  and 
darker  color  (Aldrich  1972). 

Measurements.  (8  live  adult  birds  hatched 
from  Mississippi-taken  eggs,  sex  undertermined): 
wind  (chord),  470-493  mm;  bill  (from  posterior 
end  of  nostrO),  82-91;  tarsus,  216-258  (Aldrich 
1972). 

Eggs.  Light  buffy  background  with  splotches 
of  reddish  brown  and  lavender,  particularly  around 
the  large  end  (Mcllhenny  1938;Walkinshaw  1960). 
Average  measurements  of  16  eggs  was  95.9  (89- 
104)  x  58.55  (56.2-59.0)  (Walkinshaw  1973). 

RANGE 

Sandhill  cranes  are  permanent  residents  in 
Jackson  County  Mississippi  near  Ocean  Springs  and 
at  Fontainebleau,  between  the  Pascagoula  River 
on  the  east  and  Jackson-Harrison  county  line  on 
the  west,  Graveline  Bayou  on  the  south  and  on 
the  north  the  30°37'  latitude  line  (Valentine  1978, 
pers.  comm.). 

Their  former  distribution  is  poorly  known, 
but  presumed  to  have  been  more  extensive  than 
at  present  with  populations  in  widely  separated 
areas  of  suitable  habitat  in  southern  Louisiana 
(Cook  1914;  Figgins  1923;  Mcllhenny  1943; 
Lower>'  1960),  southern  Mississippi  (Mcllhenny 
1 93 8 ;  Turcotte  1 94 7 ;  Walkinshaw  1949;  Valentine 
1963;  Valentine  and  Noble  1970),  and  southern 
Alabama  (Howell  1928;  Imhof  1962).  No  speci- 
mens of  the  populations  outside  southern  Missis- 
sippi are  extant,  so  their  identification  as  pulla 
must  be  assumed.  In  a  more  detailed  statement  by 
the  Recovery  Team  of  the  Mississippi  Sandhill 
Crane  (1976),  the  range  is  said  to  be  confined  to 
southern  Jackson  County,  Mississippi,  from  the 
Pascagoula  River  to  about  the  Harrison  County 


Line.  The  northern  Hmit  is  the  east-west  line  (lat. 
30°  35'),  about  6.4  km  north  of  Vancleave.  The 
southern  limit  is  Simmons  Bayou  and  Graveline 
Bay.  Eleven  nesting  areas  were  located  within 
those  limits  during  1965  through  1978.  It  is  not 
known  where  unpaired  birds  go  when  paired 
adults  are  nesting. 

Although  this  subspecies  leaves  its  breeding 
rjinge  to  feed  and  roost,  it  probably  does  not  mi- 
grate far.  One  individual  was  seen  as  far  as  1 1  miles 
from  the  nesting  area.  However,  some  individuals 
of  other  populations  of  sandhill  cranes  may  win- 
ter within  the  range  of  the  Mississippi  birds,  as 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  two  cranes  found  dead 
in  1974  within  the  range  of  G.  c.  pulla  neither 
clearly  fit  the  original  description  of  that  subspe- 
cies nor  matched  the  specimens  of  cranes  reared 
from  eggs  taken  in  Mississippi  (Aldrichm  Recovery 
Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 
Also,  migrant  sandhill  cranes  have  been  found 
wintering  at  Gulf  Shores  in  Baldwin  County, 
Alabama,  about  80  km  from  the  range  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi subspecies  (Hamilton  1971;  James  1972). 

RANGE  MAP 

Breeding  range  (from  Valentine  and  Noble 
1970:763;  Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi 
Sandhill  Crane  1976)  is  shown  on  the  following 
map.  Hatched  areas  are  recent  (1965-70)  nesting 
grounds.  Numbers  indicate  active  nests  found. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Mississippi:  Jackson. 

HABITAT 

Nesting  habitat  was  described  by  Walkinshaw 
(1949),  Valentine  (1963)  and  Valentine  and  Noble 
(1970)  as  wet  areas  in  semiopen  pine  flats.  It 
would  appear  that,  although  savanna-like  in  as- 
pect, breeding  areas  have  more  trees  than  is  usually 
the  case  wdth  sandhill  cranes  of  other  subspecies 
(Walkinshaw  1949,  1960,  1973).  However,  the 
area  immediately  surrounding  the  nest  is  fairly 
open.  In  the  larger  savannas,  there  are  scattered 
long-leaf  pines  [Pinus  palustris),  slash  pine  (Pinus 
elliottii),  baldcypress  (Taxodium  distichum),  and 
shrubs,  but  the  view  is  quite  open.  Grassland  open- 
ings in  the  swamps,  forests  and  pine  plantations 
used  for  nesting  may  be  less  than  0.4  hectares  in 
area.  Of  55  nests,  24  (44%)  were  in  open  savannas; 


24  (44%),  in  swamp  edges  and  openings;  4  (7%), 
in  pine  plantations;  and  3  (5%),  along  pine  forest 
edges  (Valentine  and  Noble  1970;  Valentine  in 
Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane 
1976). 

Habitat  in  the  winter  roost  in  the  Pascagoula 
River  marsh  is  mainly  sawgrass  [Cladium)  with 
minor  components  of  other  marsh  plants.  The 
creek  and  bayou  banks  are  lined  with  baldcypress 
and  several  brush  species.  The  roost  marsh  is  fresh 
to  slightly  brackish,  but  fairly  salty  water  may 
run  up  the  bayous  during  droughts  and  high  tides 
(Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane 
1976). 

Factors  in  the  natural  environment  that  can 
cause  mortality  are  severe  storms  with  flooding, 
droughts,  and  fires.  Despite  some  losses  of  nests 
from  fire,  it  is  essential  to  the  ecology  of  cranes 
because  it  checks  encroachment  of  woody  vegeta- 
tion on  open  savannas  (Recovery  Team  for  the 
Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976;  Aldrich  pers. 
comm.). 

The  most  serious  threat  to  the  success  of  crane 
breeding  is  probably  habitat  destruction  through 
the  current  timber  management  practices,  drain- 
ing marshes  and  planting  pine  (Valentine  and 
Noble  1970). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

During  the  summer,  cranes  feed  on  natural 
foods  found  in  swamps,  savannas,  and  open  forest 
lands.  Animal  foods  include  adult  and  larval  in- 
sects, earthworms,  crayfish,  frogs,  and  small 
rodents.  Plant  foods  are  roots,  tubers,  seeds,  nuts, 
fruits  and  leafy  parts.  During  the  fall,  winter,  and 
early  spring,  most  cranes  feed  on  waste  grain  and 
invertebrates  in  small  com  fields  and  pastures 
several  kilometers  north  of  the  breeding  range. 
Such  farms  are  scarce  in  that  area.  There  have 
been  a  few  complaints  of  crane  depredations  on 
com  fields,  but  most  farmers  welcome  the  cranes 
(Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill 
Crane  1976).  In  winter  and  spring,  they  also  feed 
on  freshly  sprouted  grass  on  burned  open  pine 
flats  (Mcllhenny  1938). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Nests  are  buUt  in  savannas,  sparsely  forested 
areas,  or  swamp  openings  that  hold  shallow  water 
or  may  be  dry.  Nests  placed  on  ground  in  open 


areas  are  built  of  dead  vegetation  gathered  near  the 
nest  site  (Recovery  Team  for  Mississippi  Sandhill 
Crane  1976).  Walkinshaw  (1960)  found  nests  of 
dried  sedges  that  were  124  by  104  cm  across  and 
13  cm  high  and  were  situated  in  water  21  cm 
deep.  Mcllhenny  (1938)  described  a  nest  of  dried 
grasses  and  weed  stalks  about  128  cm  across  and 
20  to  36  cm  above  water  15  cm  deep.  The  active 
nest  is  often  within  a  short  distance  of  the  one 
used  the  previous  year.  Old  or  "dummy"  nests 
are  often  in  close  proximity  to  active  nests  (Re- 
covery Team  for  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 
Valentine  found  one  instance  of  the  same  nest 
being  used  3  consecutive  years;  two  used  for  2 
years;  and  another  use  1  year,  deserted  for  one 
season  and  used  again  the  next  year  (Valentine 
1978,  pers.  comm.). 

The  main  winter  roost  is  in  the  Pascagoula 
River  marsh,  in  the  vicinity  from  Bluff  Creek, 
Bayou  Castelle,  and  Paige  Bayou  to  the  West 
Pascagoula  River  (Recovery  Team  for  the  Missis- 
sippi Sandhill  Crane  1976).  The  Pascagoula  River 
marsh  roosts  are  used  mainly  from  Ausust  to 
March.  During  the  breeding  season,  most  cranes 
roost  in  the  nesting  and  feeding  range.  Cranes 
may  be  vulnerable  to  hunters  as  they  fly  into  and 
out  of  the  roost,  generally  only  during  brief  pe- 
riods at  daybreak  and  sundown  (Recovery  Team 
for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

All  subspecies  of  sandhill  crane  engage  in 
spectacular  dances.  Sometimes  a  single  member  of 
a  pair  will  dance,  sometimes  both;  sometimes  a 
group  forms  a  circle,  facing  inward.  The  dances 
consist  of  a  great  variety  of  postures,  particularly 
bowing  low  and  leaping  2  or  more  meters  into  the 
air,  accompanied  by  vocalizations.  Walkinshaw 
(1949)  describes  these  dances  in  detail.  They 
seem  to  be  related  to  courtship  in  some  cases,  but 
may  take  place  at  any  time  of  the  year. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

None  known. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Leopold  (1929)  estimated  50  to  100  or  more 
cranes  in  Mississippi.  Mcllhenny  (1938)  reported 
1 1  nests  in  the  Fontainebleau  area  and  counted 
34  in  one  flock  in  April  1938.  Walkinshaw  (1949) 


estimated  more  than  25  pairs  in  1940.  Turcotte 
(1947)  estimated  30  in  1947.  Strong  (1969)  es- 
timated 16  pairs  and  a  population  of  50  to  60 
birds.  Valentine  and  Noble  (1970)  estimated  about 
38  to  40.  Valentine  (1975)  judged  a  minimum  of 
10  to  a  maximum  of  15  breeding  pairs  with  a 
population  between  30  and  50  individuals.  He 
found  20  fairly  distinct  nesting  territories  in  11 
areas  during  1965  through  1978,  but  the  most 
nests  found  in  any  one  year  was  8  in  1969. 

During  the  period  19-22  January  1977,  a  total 
of  52  cranes  was  counted  in  the  wintering  area  of 
Mississippi  sandhill  cranes.  It  is  not  known  whether 
they  were  all  of  that  subspecies  or  some  were 
migrants  from  elsewhere  (Jacob  Valentine,  official 
trip  report  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  27  Jan. 
1977). 

REPRODUCTION 

Paired  cranes  select  a  breeding  territory  for 
courtship,  mating,  and  nesting  and  defend  it  from 
other  cranes.  Territory  size  may  depend  on  the 
density  of  cranes  and  physical  attributes  of  the 
habitat.  In  open  savannas,  it  appears  that  only 
one  pair  has  possession  of  a  territory  despite  the 
size  of  the  savanna.  The  smallest  savanna  occupied 
by  one  pair  was  36  ha,  the  largest,  over  202  ha.  In 
Ben  Williams  Swamp  and  other  areas  where  open- 
ings suitable  for  nesting  are  shielded  from  each 
other  by  large  trees  and  shrubs,  cranes  will  nest 
close  together.  In  1971,  three  nests  in  a  row  along 
southern  edge  of  Ben  Williams  Pond  were  only 
0.8  km  apart.  The  same  nesting  territories  are 
often  used  year  after  year.  Territories  have  been 
deserted  (or  searchers  could  not  find  the  nest)  for 
years  and  then  reoccupied.  Desertions  may  have 
been  caused  by  brush  or  tree  encroachment  on 
the  open  area  around  the  nest.  Three  territories  ap- 
parently were  not  occupied  after  roads  were  built 
nearby.  One  nesting  site  was  destroyed  by  excava- 
tion of  a  borrow  pit  in  construction  of  Interstate 
10.  Of  the  14  or  15  known  nesting  territories,  6 
appear  to  be  abandoned  (Recovery  Team  for  the 
Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 

The  egg-laying  period  is  4  April  to  20  May. 
Hatching  occurs  between  11  April  and  20  June, 
with  a  peak  during  1-20  May.  Of  54  nests  found 
between  1965  and  1975,  9  contained  1  egg  and 
45  held  2,  a  mean  of  1.83  eggs  per  clutch.  The 
incubation  period  is  30  to  31  days.  Both  parents 
incubate.  The  hatching  success  of  38  eggs  in  the 
wild  was  61%,  compared  to  60%  of  42  eggs  arti- 


ficially  incubated  for  propagation.  Hatching  failure 
of  15  wild  eggs  was  attributed  to  desertion  (4); 
rotten  eggs  (2);  eggs  missing  (3);  crow  depreda- 
tion (3);  chick  dying  in  eggs  (1);  and  eggs  cracked 
by  flushing  birds  (2).  Human  disturbance  can  be 
credited  with  at  least  5  egg  losses;  crow  depreda- 
tions occurred  during  periods  when  cranes  were 
off  nests  after  being  frightened  by  humans.  Two 
eggs  were  broken  by  cranes  flushed  from  nests  by 
humans.  The  fate  of  three  missing  eggs  is  un- 
known; some  eggs  found  were  outside  the  nest 
after  desertion.  Heavy  rains  are  known  to  destroy 
some  eggs.  Cranes  attend  nests  constantly  and  so 
are  not  normally  subject  to  robbing  by  birds  or 
mammals.  Crows  have  not  been  abundant  untU 
recently,  when  sanitary  fill  dumps  along  the  road 
now  attract  hundreds  of  them.  Raccoons  are 
present  but  not  numerous  in  the  breeding  range 
(Walkinshaw  1973;  Valentine  in  Recovery  Team 
for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 

Poor  hatchability  of  eggs,  weak  chicks  and 
foot  and  leg  deformities  in  chicks  have  been  noted 
in  cases  of  captive  chicks  hatched  from  eggs  in  in- 
cubators. Relatively  low  hatchability  and  survival 
is  thought  by  some  to  be  due  to  genetic  problems 
resulting  from  inbreeding  because  of  the  obviously 
small  gene  pool.  On  the  other  hand,  J.  M.  Valen- 
tine has  observed  10  wild  chicks,  all  free  of  ap- 
parent defects  (Valentine  1978  pers.  comm.). 
Another  chick  died  while  trying  to  break  out  of 
the  egg  (Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sand- 
hill Crane  1976).  Chicks  are  able  to  scramble  off 
the  nest  at  8  hours  of  age  and  can  swim  if  neces- 
sary (Walkinshaw  1973). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Restoration  of  this  population  of  sandhill 
cranes  began  before  it  was  recognized  as  a  distinct 
subspecies,  with  the  rearing  of  young  hatched 
from  eggs  taken  from  wild  nests  in  Mississippi. 
Captive  propagation  has  been  at  the  Patuxent 
Wildlife  Research  Center,  Laurel,  Maryland.  The 
intent  was  to  reintroduce  the  propagated  stock 
into  the  wild.  Acquisition  and  restoration  of  habi- 
tat in  the  present  range  and  adjoining  areas  and 
rerouting  proposed  sections  of  Interstate  Highway 
10  were  proposed  as  essential  protection  measures 
(U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe  Service  1973). 

As  of  20  September  1976,  a  Mississippi  Sand- 
hill Crane  Recovery  Team,  with  Jacob  M.  Valen- 
tine as  leader,  was  appointed  by  the  U.S.  Fish  and 


Wildlife  Service,  and  a  recovery  plan  approved 
in  September  1976  was  revised  in  1978  (Recovery 
Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 
Lands  available  for  crane  occupancy  are 
limited.  The  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  has 
proposed  some  refuge  lands  which  are  the  best 
available  that  still  contain  either  nesting  cranes  or 
potential  nesting  habitat.  With  the  assistance  of 
the  Nature  Conservancy,  the  Service  acquired 
3,490  ha  of  habitat  in  two  units  and  has  estab- 
Ushed  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  National 
Wildlife  Refuge.  A  habitat  management  plan  for 
the  refuge  was  completed  by  the  Service  on  28 
March  1975  (Morine  1975;  Recovery  Team  for 
the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976).  In  June 
1977,  202  ha  of  forest  and  savanna  v^dthin  the 
breeding  range  of  the  Sandhill  Crane  refuge  were 
burned  for  the  purpose  of  opening  the  cover  and 
improving  nesting  habitat  Qacob  Valentine  in  lit 
15  June  1977). 

Competition  with  other  animals  for  food  or 
living  space  need  not  be  a  concern  of  management, 
as  there  are  few  competitors  in  the  crane's  range. 
Closing  of  the  open  range  policy  in  the  1950's 
prohibited  cattle  and  hog  grazing  on  timber  com- 
pany holdings,  and  cattle  are  now  confined  to 
better  grazing  lands.  Deer  are  scarce  but  are  in- 
creasing as  trees  and  brush  invade  the  savannas 
(Valentine,  pers.  comm.).  Management  of  the 
crane  range  should  not  include  improvement  of 
the  habitat  for  deer  or  game  birds,  as  this  would 
create  a  demand  for  hunting  there  as  well  as  make 
the  habitat  less  suitable  for  cranes  (Recovery 
Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  1976). 

The  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  has  conducted  a 
study  and  propagation  program  at  the  Patuxent 
Wildlife  Research  Center  with  the  objective  of 
rearing  10  captive  breeding  pairs  to  produce  young 
cranes  for  transplanting  to  suitable  habitat  within 
the  range  of  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane.  Up  to 
the  present,  14  captive  birds  have  been  produced 
at  Patuxent  from  Mississippi-taken  eggs;  several 
captive  pairs  reared  have  laid  eggs  and  from  these, 
2  have  been  raised  (Ray  Erickson  pers.  comm, 
1978). 

The  U.S.  Forest  Service,  in  cooperation  with 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  and  the  Mississippi 
Game  and  Fish  Commission,  will  clear  and  main- 
tain two  areas  in  the  DeSoto  National  Forest  in  an 
effort  to  improve  crane  habitat.  No  cranes  are 
nesting  there  at  present. 


The  U.S.  National  Park  Service  has  made  sur- 
veys and  will  recommend  National  Landmark 
status  for  some  lands  included  within  the  proposed 
Federal  refuge  boundaries. 

The  Jackson  County,  Mississippi,  Board  of 
Supervisors  passed  a  resolution  supporting  pur- 
chase of  a  county  school  section  by  the  Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service  to  become  part  of  the  Fountaine- 
bleau  Unit  of  the  refuge. 

The  Mississippi  Game  and  Fish  Commission 
has  participated  in  sandhill  crane  studies  and  pro- 
tection for  many  years.  It  has  cooperated  with 
the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  in  crane  pro- 
pagation since  1965  by  approving  and  assisting 
taking  of  eggs.  It  approved  establishment  of  a 
Federal  crane  refuge  in  1971. 

The  National  Wildlife  Federation  and  Missis- 
sippi Wildlife  Federation  filed  a  federal  court 
action  against  the  Department  of  Transportation, 
Federal  Highway  Administration,  and  Mississippi 
Highway  Department  for  violations  of  Section  7, 
Endangered  Species  Act  for  construction  of  Inter- 
state Highway  I- 10  through  the  Mississippi  Sand- 
hill Crane  National  Wildlife  Refuge.  They  asked 
the  court  for  elimination  of  an  interchange  on  the 
Gautier-Vancleave  Road,  the  elimination  of  bor- 
row pits  in  the  sensitive  area,  and  the  acquisition 
of  lands  by  the  highway  agencies  to  mitigate  the 
loss  of  critical  habitat  by  the  highway. 

If  it  is  concluded  that  the  present  population 
of  Mississippi  sandhill  cranes  is  doomed  to  extinc- 
tion because  of  impaired  reproduction  resulting 
from  inbreeding,  it  may  be  justified  to  try  a  gene- 
tic infusion  of  another  strain  such  as  that  of  the 
Florida  or  Georgia  populations  of  the  Florida 
Sandhill  Crane.  This  would  be  with  hope  of  con- 
tinuing to  have  a  crane  population  in  the  remnant 
habitat  now  occupied  by  the  Mississippi  subspecies. 
This  might  be  accomplished  by  placing  eggs  of 
Florida  Sandhills  in  the  nests  of  Mississippi  birds, 
which  would  act  as  foster  parents.  This  action 
would  be  taken  only  as  a  last  ditch  option  (MSCRT 
1976).  Critical  habitat  has  been  designated  in 
Jackson  County,  Mississippi  (42FR39985,  8 
August  1977). 

AUTHORITIES 

Lawrence  H.  Walkinshaw 
1145  Scenic  Drive 
Muskegon,  Michigan  49445 


Robert  E.  Noble 

Department  of  Forestry  and  Wildlife  Manage- 
ment 
Louisiana  State  University 
Baton  Rouge,  Louisiana  70803 

William  H.  Turcotte 

Mississippi  Game  amd  Fish  Commission 

P.O.  Box  451 

Jackson,  Mississippi  39205 

Jacob  M.  Valentine,  Jr. 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
1 1 1  East  Main  St. 
Lafayette,  Louisiana  70501 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

The  Mississippi  sandhill  crane  has  had  the 
benefit  of  adequate  study  to  show,  in  detail,  what 
is  necessary  to  prevent  its  extinction.  However,  its 
habitat  and  population  have  been  reduced  to  such 
a  small  remnant  by  drainage  and  planting  for  pine 
timber  production,  and  human  population  expan- 
sion and  economic  pressures  are  becoming  so 
great  in  and  around  the  crane's  habitat,  that  only 
an  overwhelming  public  sentiment  to  do  every- 
thing possible  for  it  can  save  the  Mississippi  sand- 
hill crane. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Aldrich,  J.  W.  1972.  A  new  subspecies  of  sandhill 
crane  from  Mississippi.  Proc.  Biol.  Soc.  Wash. 
85:63-70. 

Cooke,  W.  W.  1914.  Distribution  and  migration  of 
North  American  rails  and  their  allies.  U.S. 
Dept.  Agric.  Bull.  128. 

Figgins,  J.  D.  1923.  The  breeding  birds  of  the 
vicinity  of  Black  Bayou  and  Bird  Island, 
Cameron  Parish,  Louisiana,  Auk  40:666-667. 

Hamilton,  R.  S.  1971.  Central  Southern  Region. 
Amer.  Birds  25:590. 

Howell,  A.  H.  1928.  Birds  of  Alabama  (2nd  Ed.) 
U.S.  Dept.  of  Agric.  Bur.  Biol.  Surv.  and  Ala. 
Dept.  of  Game  and  Fisheries. 

Imhof,  T.  A.  1962.  Alabama  birds.  Dept.  of  Con- 
servation, Game  and  Fish  Div.  Univ.  Alabama 
Press. 

James,  F.  G.  1972.  Central  Southern  Region. 
Amer.  Birds  26:616. 


Valentine,  J.  M.,Jr.  1963.  The  status  of  the  Flor- 
ida Sandhill  Crane  in  Jackson  County,  Missis- 
sippi. Admin.  Rept.  U.S.  Bur.  Sport  Fish.  & 
Wildl.,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

Valentine,  J.  M.  1975.  The  Mississippi  Sandhill 
Crane  Grus  canadensis  pulla).  Report  to  Crane 
Working  Group,  I.C.B.P.  ms. 

Valentine,  J.  M.  Jr.,  and  R.  E.  Noble.  1970.  A 
colony  of  Sandhill  Cranes  in  Mississippi. 
Journ.  WUdl.  Mgmt.  34:761-768. 

Valentine,  J.  M.,  Jr.,  and  R.  E.  Noble.  1976.  The 
Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  -  Endangered  or 
Doomed.  Proc.  Int.  Crane  Workshop  1:343- 
346. 

Valentine,  J.  M.,  Jr.  1978.  The  Mississippi  Sand- 
hill Crane  -  A  Status  Update.  Presented  at  the 
crane  workshop,  December  7,  1978. 

Walkinshaw,  L.  H.  1949.  The  Sandhill  Cranes. 
Cranbrook  Institute  of  Science.  Bull.  29. 

Walkinshaw,  L.  H.  1960.  Some  Mississippi  Crane 
notes.  Migrant  31:41-43. 

Walkinshaw,  L.  H.  1973.  Cranes  of  die  World. 
Winchester  Press,  pp.  136-140. 


Leopold,  A.  1929.  Report  on  a  game  survey  of 
Mississippi,  ms. 

Lowery,  G.  H.,  Jr.  1960.  Louisiana  birds.  Loui- 
siana Wildl.  and  Fisheries  Comm.  La.  State 
Univ.  Press. 

Mcllhenny,  E.  A.  1938.  Florida  Crane  a  resident 
of  Mississippi.  Auk  55:598-602. 

Mcllhenny,  E.  A.  1943.  Major  changes  in  the  bird 
life  of  southern  Louisiana  during  sixty  years. 
Auk  60:541-549. 

Morine,  D.  E.  1975.  Saving  the  Mississippi  Sand- 
hill Crane.  Nature  Conservancy  News.  Winter 
1975:15-18. 

Recovery  Team  for  the  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane 
1976.  Mississippi  Sandhill  Crane  Recovery 
Plan  (Draft  April  1976). 

Strong,  L.  1969.  An  investigation  of  the  status  of 
the  Sandhill  Crane  in  Mississippi.  Miss.  Game 
and  Fish  Comm.  PR  Project  Report  W-48-R. 

Turcotte,  W.  H.  1947.  The  Sandhill  Crane  in  Mis- 
sissippi. Mississippi  Game  and  Fish.  June 
1947:8-9. 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1973.  Threatened 
Wildlife  of  the  United  States,  1973  Edition. 
U.S.  Dept.  of  Interior.  Resource  Publication 
114,  GPO. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.53 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

GRAY  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 
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.  ,\rmy  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 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.53 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE   ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE   SEACOAST  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES 


GRAY  WOLF 


A  Cooperative  Effort 

by  the 

National  Fish  and  WildUfe  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 


CREDIT:   L.  DAVID  MECH 


GRAY  WOLF 

Canis  lupus  Linnaeus 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Mammalia 

ORDER Carnivora 

FAMILY Canidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Lobo,  Timber  Wolf 


DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates 1  Feb.  1978;  U  July  1978 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered  in  United  States  (48 
conterminous  States  other  than  Min- 
nesota)  and  Mexico  (43  FR  9607;  9 


Mar  1978).  Threatened  in  Minnesota 
(43  FR  9607;  9  Mar  1978). 

States:  Endangered:  Colorado,  Idaho  (TorE), 

Massachusetts  (Extinct),  Michigan, 
Montana,  New  Mexico,  Rhode  Island 
(Extinct),  Texas,  Wisconsin. 

REASONS   FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Clearing  of  forests  and  proliferation  of  civili- 
zation in  the  eastern  United  States  led  to  extirpa- 
tion there.  Habitat  alteration  caused  depletion  of 
prey  such  as  deer,  moose,  and  beaver;  loss  of 
natural  prey  probably  led  to  predation  on  domes- 
tic animals  (Mech  1977a).  Bounties  were  imposed 
in  the  1600's  and  wolves  were  essentially  extir- 
pated from  this  region  by  the  1800's  (Ruther  and 
Pimlott  1968). 

In  the  Great  Plains,  wolves  preyed  on  live- 
stock as  bison  (Bison  bison)  became  depleted.  In 
the  1800's,  bounties  on  wolves  were  offered  by 
cattlemen.  In  1907,  the  U.S.  Biological  Survey 
concluded  that  wolf  predation  caused  an  annual 
loss  of  several  million  dollars.  The  agency  deter- 
mined that  destruction  of  young  in  dens,  together 
with  trapping  adults,  significantly  reduced  loss  of 
cattle  and  sheep  (Young  and  Goldman  1944).  In 
1915,  Biological  Survey  was  authorized  to  control 
wolf  numbers,  and  they  systematically  reduced 
wolf  numbers  by  trapping,  poisoning,  and  other 
means  (Rutter  and  Pimlott  1968). 

Bounties  are  still  maintained  in  some  Cana- 
dian provinces,  and  unorganized  but  effective 
control  continues  in  Mexico  (Mech  1974a, 
McBride  1978).  Minnesota  (which  has  the  last 
major  concentration  of  gray  wolves  in  the  48 
contiguous  states,  Wisconsin,  and  Michigan  offered 
bounties  until  1965,  1950,  and  1960,  respectively 
(Thompson  1952,  Hendrickson  et  al.  1975,  Mech 
1977a).  Regulations  providing  bounties  for 
wolves  in  Alaska  were  repealed  for  units  1-3  in 
1978,  and  the  balance  of  the  state  in  1969-1970 
(R.  Rausch,  personal  communication). 

Killing  by  man  for  commercial  purposes,  as 
well  as  for  sport,  has  been  the  major  factor  in  the 
decline  of  the  wolf  in  the  contiguous  United  States 
and  Mexico  (43  FR  9611;  9  Mar.  1978).  Illegal 
hunting  continues  today,  largely  because  of  wolf 
predation  on  livestock  and  game  and,  to  a  lesser 
extent,  because  of  an  age-old  unsubstantiated  fear 
of  attack  on  human  beings  (not  one  nonrabid 
wolf   has   been    known   to  deliberately   attack  a 


person  in  North  America.—  Mech  1966). 

PRIORITY   INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

Canis  lupus  is  a  dog-like  canid.  Males  are 
larger  than  females,  weighing  20  to  70  kg  and 
measuring  1.27  to  1.64  m  in  total  length.  Females 
weigh  18  to  55  kg  and  measure  1.37  to  1.52  m. 

Pelage  is  extremely  variable,  usually  grayish 
with  black  extending  from  upper  side  of  neck 
over  back.  The  head  is  more  or  less  suffused  with 
cinnamon.  Underparts  vary  from  white  to  pinkish 
buff  with  scattered  dark  hairs,  becoming  a  clearer 
white  in  the  inguinal  region.  Limbs  range  in  color 
from  a  pinkish  buff  to  a  rich  cinnamon,  with 
some  specimens  having  a  prominent  narrow  black 
line  on  the  forearms.  The  tail  is  grayish  above  and 
buff  below  with  a  black  tip.  Summer  colors  are 
similar  to  winter  but  somewhat  paler.  Other  color 
phases  include  all  white,  or  all  black,  and  any 
color  variation  between  them. 

It  is  distinguished  from  the  coyote  (Canis 
latrans)  by  its  larger  size,  broader  snout,  shorter 
ears,  and  proportionately  smaller  brain  case.  It 
resembles  a  German  shepherd  (Canis  familiaris); 
however,  there  are  subtle  skull  differences  (Mech 
1974a).  Gray  wolves  are  more  massive  and  not  as 
lanky  as  red  wolves  (Canis  rufus)  (Riley  and 
McBride  1972). 

Black-and-white  photographs  are  found  in 
Murie  (1944),  Young  and  Goldman  (1944),  Mech 
(1966),  and  McBride  (1978);  and  color  pictures, 
in  Mech  (1974a,  1977b),  Peters  and  Mech  (1975), 
and  March  (1977). 

RANGE 

The  present  range  is  essentially  equal  to  the 
former  range  in  Alaska  and  much  of  northern 
Canada.  In  the  48  conterminous  United  States 
and  Mexico,  however,  populations  are  limited  to 
Isle  Royale,  Michigan,  the  northern  third  of 
Minnesota,  the  northern  Rocky  Mountains  in 
Montana,  and  the  States  of  Chihuahua  and 
Durango  (and  possibly  San  Luis  Potosi,  Sonora, 
and  Zacatecas)  in  Mexico.  Scattered  reports  of 
sightings  occur  in  three  other  areas: 

1.  Southwestern  Texas,  southern  New  Mexico, 
and  southeastern  Arizona; 


2.  The  Rocky  Mountains  in  Wyoming  and 
Idaho; and 

3.  (more  commonly  than  the  other  two  areas) 
the  Upper  Peninsula  of  Michigan  and  north- 
ern Wisconsin. 

While  formely  common  in  most  of  North 
America  from  the  Polar  ice  cap  south  to  middle 
Mexico,  there  were  probably  very  few  or  none  in 
California  or  the  southeastern  United  States. 

RANGE  MAP 

Present  range  is  delineated  by  shading  (Mech 
1974a;  McBride  1978).  Critical  habitat  is  taken 
from  the  official  listing  (43  FR  9607,  9  Mar. 
1978). 

STATES /COUNTIES 

Alaska:         All. 

Arizona:       (?) 

Idaho:  Fremont,  Clark,  Lemhi. 

Michigan:  Chippewa,  Iron,  Keweenaw,  Mackinac, 
Marquette. 

Minnesota:  Aitkin,  Becker,  Beltrami,  Carlton, 
Cass,  Clay,  Clearwater,  Cook,  Crow 
Wing,  Dakota,  Hubbard,  Itasca, 
Koochiching,  Lake,  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
Mahnomen,  Marshall,  Norman,  Penn- 
ington, Pine,  Polk,  Red  Lake,  Roseau, 
St.  Louis,  Wadena. 

Montana:  Beaverhead,  Flathead,  Glacier,  Lewis 
and  Clark,  Madison  (?),  Park  (?). 
Pondera,  Teton. 

New  Mexico:(?) 

North  Dakota:(?) 

Texas:  (?) 

Washington:(?) 

Wisconsin:  (?) 

Wyoming:    Fremont,  Park,  Teton. 

HABITAT 

The  gray  wolf  has  no  particular  habitat 
preference  except  areas  of  relative  wilderness 
where  human  habitations  are  scarce  (Stabler 
1944).  Mech  (1974b)  suggests  that  wild  land  is 
not  actually  preferred,  but  is  the  only  place  to 


survive  human  persecution. 

Olson  (1938)  observed  that  wolves  use  a 
variety  of  habitats,  depending  on  prey  items  and 
season  of  the  year.  De  Vos  (1950)  studied  wolf 
movements  in  Ontario  and  concluded  that  topog- 
raphy was  also  important;  all  topographies  and 
habitats  are  utilized  except  deserts  and  high 
mountain  tops  (Mech  1974a).  McBride  (1978) 
and  R.  Rausch  (personal  communication),  how- 
ever, also  include  deserts  and  high  mountain  tops. 

FOOD  AND   FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Predominant  prey  in  Alaska  depends  on  loca- 
tion. Sitka  deer  {Odocoileus  hemionus  sitkensis), 
moose  {Alces  alces),  and  caribou  {Rangifer  taran- 
dus)  are  of  greatest  value,  with  numerous  other 
species  also  taken  (Murie  1944;  Rausch  1967; 
R.  Rausch,  personal  communication). 

Gray  wolves  in  the  United  States  and  Canada 
prey  on  white-tailed  deer  [Odocoileus  virginianus), 
moose,  snowshoe  hare  [Lepus  americanus), 
cottontail  rabbit  [Sylvilagus  floridanus),  beaver 
[Castor  canadensis),  various  rodents,  carrion,  and 
livestock.  The  white-tailed  deer  is  the  single  most 
important  food  source,  particularly  in  winter 
(Young  and  Goldman  1944;  Thompson  1952; 
Weise  at  al.  1975). 

In  Wood  Buffalo  Park  in  Canada,  bison  are 
taken  (Pimlott  1967).  Tundra  wolves  in  Canada 
have  a  winter  diet  almost  exclusively  of  caribou. 
Summer  diet  varies  and  includes  fish,  small  birds, 
and  rodents  (Kuyt  1972). 

Wolves  in  Mexico  prey  almost  exclusively  on 
livestock,  particularly  weaned  yearling  cattle, 
burros,  and  colls.  Natural  prey  levels  are  low  over 
wolf  range  (McBride  1978). 

Wolf  predation  is  largely  restricted  to  mal- 
nourished, young,  old,  or  otherwise  weakened 
individuals  (Murie  1944,  Crisler  1956, Mech  1966, 
Pimlott  1967,  Mech  and  Frenzel  1971,  Mech 
1975,  Wolfe  1977).  Studies  by  McBride  (1978) 
and  R.  Rausch  (personal  communication),  how- 
ever, indicate  that  wolves  in  Mexico  and  Alaska 
take  healthy  animals  in  preference  to  unhealthy 
ones. 

Wolves  use  a  variety  of  hunting  techniques. 
Murie  (1944)  and  Mech  (1966)  describe  many 
hunts,  including  ambushes,  chases,  and  stalkings. 
Wolves  often  stalk  the  prey  until  it  makes  a  move, 
and  then  chase  at  56.3  to  64.4  km/h  for  up  to  3 
km  (Mech  1970). 


^h  j  'r  " — r— M 


Present  range  of  the  gray  wolf 


Methods  of  kill  depend  upon  the  size  and 
condition  of  the  prey.  On  occasion,  one  wolf  will 
grab  the  prey  by  the  nose  while  others  attack 
from  behind.  They  feed  side  by  side  and  gorge  up 
to  4.5  kg  per  day  (Mech  1975).  They  can  go 
several  days  without  eating  (Mech  1966).  Remains 
of  the  kill  are  often  left,  but  wolves  seldom  return 
(McBride  1978)  unless  they  are  in  poor  condition, 
extremely  hungry,  or  feeding  pups  (Young  and 
Goldman  1944). 

Hunting  success,  studied  by  Mech  (1966)  on 
Isle  Royale,  Michigan,  indicated  that  less  than 
8%  of  attacks  on  moose  by  wolf  packs  were  suc- 
cesful.  Kolenosky  (1972)  estimated  that  25%  and 
63%  of  deer  hunts  were  successful  on  two  winters 
in  Ontaria,  although  these  values  might  be  in- 
flated. Wolves  in  Alaska  appear  to  take  prey  in 
proportion  to  its  abundance,  and  are  highly  suc- 
cessful. When  conditions  such  as  deep  snow  or 
abundant  prey  are  present,  they  kill  in  excess  of 
their  needs  (R.  Rausch,  personal  communication). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

See  NESTING  OR  BEDDING. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Ryon  (1977)  describes  the  den-digging  of  a 
captive  wolf.  The  work  was  started  in  April  and 
May,  with  the  female  doing  most  of  the  work 
(although  on  one  occasion,  the  male  was  observed 
doing  most  of  the  work).  Three  dens  had  lengths 
from  138  to  183  cm,  widths  of  36  to  41  cm,  and 
heights  of  31  to  38  cm.  All  had  domed  roofs  with 
somewhat  restricted  entrances  . 

Wolves  often  occupy  fox  dens  or  make  dens 
in  hollow  logs,  rock  caves,  bases  of  trees,  or  sides 
of  hills  (Murie  1944,  Young  and  Goldman  1944, 
Joslin  1967).  Many  dens  are  located  in  sandy  soils 
and  may  be  in  spots  where  there  is  limited  visibili- 
ty or  on  slopes  where  there  is  a  clear  view  of  the 
surrounding  terrain  (Young  and  Goldman  1944, 
Jordan  et  al.  1967,  Joslin  1967). 

Photographs  of  dens  appear  in  Murie  (1944) 
Young  and  Goldman  (1944),  Mech  (1966),  and 
McBride  (1978). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Not  known. 


OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

The  wolf  territories  studied  in  Superior  Na- 
tional Forest,  Minnesota,  ranged  in  size  from  125 
to  310  km^  (Mech  1974b).  Territories  in  Alaska 
and  Canada,  however,  cover  a  greater  range  of 
areas     (R.     Rausch,     personal     communication). 

A  pack  will  travel  its  territory  irregularly,  but 
will  cover  most  areas  every  3  weeks  or  oftener  in 
Superior  National  Forest.  Boundaries  are  scent- 
marked  (Peters  and  Mech  1975).  Mech  (1974b) 
found  that  lone  wolves  have  a  nomadic  range  over 
a  large,  nonterritorial  area  and  attempt  to  avoid 
packs. 

Maximum  wolf  densities  on  Isle  Royale  in 
Lake  Superior,  Algonquin  Provincial  Park,  On- 
tario, and  Superior  National  Forest  have  been 
estimated  at  one  wolf  per  2,590  ha.  Wolf  density 
can  be  much  compressed  in  areas  of  very  high 
prey  density,  such  as  parts  of  Canada  and  the 
eastern  edge  of  the  Superior  National  Forest 
(Kuyt  1972,  Mech  1974b). 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

On  Isle  Royale  in  Lake  Superior,  R.  Linn 
(personal  communication)  reports  that  there  are 
40  or  more  wolves.  Mech  (1977a)  estimates  1,000 
to  1,200  in  Minnesota.  R.  Ream  (personal  com- 
munication) reports  that  from  10  to  20  can  be 
found  in  the  extreme  northern  Rocky  Mountains 
of  Montana.  Wisconsin  is  believed  to  have  a  few 
(Anon.  1977),  and  there  are  perhaps  six  in  the 
Upper  Peninsula  of  Michigan  (Hendrickson  et  al. 
1975). 

Mech  (1977b)  and  R.  Rausch  (personal  com- 
munication) estimate  that  wolves  number  10,000 
to  15,000  in  Alaska  and  17,000  to  28,000  in 
Canada.  Fewer  than  50  adult  wolves  probably  sur- 
vive in  Mexico  (McBride  1978). 

Murie  (1944)  recorded  a  decline  in  wolf  num- 
bers which  he  was  unable  to  explain  in  Alaska 
from  1916  to  1925;  he  suggested  that  disease  may 
have  accounted  for  it. 

Numbers  in  Minnesota  increased  following  the 
prohibition  of  aerial  hunting  in  1950,  curtailment 
of  wolf  control  programs  in  1955,  and  repeal  of 
bounties  in  1965.  However,  between  1968  and 
1970,  the  Superior  National  Forest  population 
decreased  32%  based  on  the  1967-68  numbers, 
and   55%  based  on   the    1969-70  numbers.  This 


appears  to  be  a  direct  result  of  a  decrease  in  the 
deer  population,  which  is  being  stressed  by 
wolf  predation,  inclement  weather,  and  the 
decline  of  their  habitat  as  cut-over  forests  mature 
(Mech  197 7d,  Mech  and  Karns  1977). 

Studies  on  Isle  Royale,  Michigan,  indicated 
that  successful  rearing  of  young  is  dependent  on 
ready  availability  of  food.  Two  or  more  pups  sur- 
vived rather  than  the  usual  one  in  years  when 
twinning  was  observed  in  the  moose  population 
(Jordan  et  al.  1967). 

REPRODUCTION 

Courtship  lasts  from  a  few  days  to  months, 
with  a  definite  mate  preference.  Estrus  lasts  5  to 
7  days,  with  copulation  occurring  in  February  in 
Minnesota  and  later  further  north  and  at  higher 
altitudes.  The  gestation  period  is  63  days;  average 
litter  size  is  six. 

The  female  stays  with  the  young  for  1  to  2 
months,  while  the  male  and  other  family  members 
provide  food.  Weaning  is  at  5  weeks,  and  sexual 
maturity  at  1  to  2  years  (Medjo  and  Mech  1976). 

In  each  pack,  there  is  usually  a  dominant  pair; 
the  male  leads  attacks  on  prey  or  intruders. 
Young  that  survive  the  first  winter  may  disperse 
before  the  next  year's  litter  is  born,  but  usually 
stay  until  after  it  is  born  (Rutter  and  Pimlott 
1968). 

An  unexploited  population  in  Ontario  con- 
tained 35%  pups,  40%  yearlings,  and  25%  adults. 
Exploited  populations  in  Alaska  contained  42% 
pups,  29%  yearlings,  and  30%  adults  (Mech 
1974a). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Cessation  of  wolf  controls,  including  boun- 
ties, and  prohibition  of  aerial  hunting  have  had 
positive  effects  on  wolf  numbers  in  the  Supe- 
rior National  Forest,  Minnesota  (Mech  1973). 

Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  rein- 
troduce gray  wolves.  In  1952,  four  zoo  animals 
were  released  on  Isle  Royale,  but  they  became 
a  public  nuisance.  In  1960,  four  animals  were 
released  on  Coronation  Island,  Alaska.  By  1964, 
they  numbered  1 1  and  had  learned  to  prey  on 
black-tailed  deer  {Odocoileus  hemionus  colum- 
bianus).  In  1972,  five  laboratory  animals  were 
unsuccessfully  released  near  Umiat,  Alaska 
(Weise  et  al.  1975). 


In  1974,  four  live-trapped  radio-tagged 
Minnesota  animals  were  released  in  the  Upper 
Peninsula  of  Michigan.  All  four  were  killed  by 
human-related  causes.  However,  it  was  demon- 
strated that  wolves  can  be  translocated.  For  a 
successful  reintroduction  program,  Weise  et  al. 
(1975)  recommended  a  strong  public  education 
campaign,  abatement  of  all  coyote  bounties, 
and  release  of  a  larger  number  of  animals. 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  reclassification 
of  Canis  lupus  (43  FR  9607, 9  Mar  1978)  provides 
Endangered  status  for  all  gray  wolves  south  of 
Canada,  excluding  Minnesota  (where  they  are  con- 
sidered Threatened).  This  ruling  supersedes  a  pre- 
vious ruling  which  listed  four  subspecies  as  En- 
dangered and  was  considered  unsatisfactory  be- 
cause the  taxonomy  was  outdated,  wolves  wander 
outside  recognized  boundaries,  and  unlisted  sub- 
species may  still  occur  in  the  lower  48  States 
(possibly  in  Washington  and  North  Dakota).  Re- 
classification of  the  wolf  as  Threatened  in  Minne- 
sota was  considered  necessary  to  provide  for  the 
future  well-being  of  both  the  wolves  and  persons 
living  in  areas  inhabited  by  wolves.  The  ruling 
provides  for  establishment  of  five  management 
zones  in  Minnesota,  of  which  three  (Zones  1,  2, 
and  3)  are  considered  Critical  Habitat  (43  FR 
9607,  9  Mar  1978).  Zone  1  is  in  the  extreme 
northeastern  part  of  the  State  and  includes  parts 
or  all  of  Cook,  Koochiching,  Lake,  and  St.  Louis 
Counties.  Zone  2  borders  the  southern  part  of 
Zone  1  and  includes  parts  of  Lake  and  St.  Louis 
Counties.  Zone  3  is  in  the  north-central  part  of 
the  State  and  includes  portions  of  Beltrami,  Itasca, 
Koochiching,  Lake  of  the  Woods,  Marshall,  and 
Roseau  Counties.  Zones  4  and  5  comprise  the 
remainder  of  the  State.  Wolf  numbers  in  these 
zones  will  be  held  below  biological  potential  (43 
FR  9607,  9  Mar  1978). 

The  Eastern  Timber  Wolf  Recovery  Team 
(1975)  outlined  the  three  major  objectives  it  be- 
lieves are  necessary  to  remove  this  subspecies 
from  Endangered  status: 

1.  Determine  the  status  and  distribution 
of  the  population 

2.  Insure  perpetuation   in   its  present  range 

3.  Reestablish  populations  in  suitable  areas 
within  the  former  range  where  viable 
populations  do  not  now  exist. 

Other  considerations  include  establishing  mechan- 
isms for  resolving  conflicts  between  the  interests 


of  the  wolves  and  the  interests  of  people;  resolving 
taxonomic  questions,  and  identifying  essential 
habitat  and  species  requirements.  The  plan  out- 
lines coordination  among  several  Federal  agencies 
and  the  States  of  Idaho,  Montana,  and  Wyoming 
to  achieve  these  objectives. 

In  the  United  States,  there  are  a  number  of 
captive  wolves.  The  species  breeding  potential  is 
very  good.  Jack  Lynch's  Loboland  in  Gardiner, 
Washington,  has  over  100  wolves  whose  primary 
genetic  origin  is  in  the  Northern  Great  Plains  and 
Rocky  Mountain  areas  (area  of  overlap  of  C.  I.  nu- 
bilus  and  C.  I.  irremotus).  Reintroduction  of  some 
of  these  animals  to  the  wild  in  a  national  park  has 
been  suggested  (March  1977). 

McBride  (1978)  believes  the  wolf  will  become 
extinct  in  Mexico  in  the  next  20  years.  The  Ari- 
zona-Sonora  Desert  Museum  in  Tucson,  Arizona, 
however,  is  working  to  establish  a  breeding  colo- 
ny of  the  Mexican  wolf  (C  /.  baileyi)  (McBride 
1978). 

Wolves  are  persecuted  in  Canada  for  their  im- 
pact on  caribou.  Kuyt  (1972)  suggests  that  wolves 
be  listed  as  a  game  animal,  which  would  render 
some  protection  and  help  insure  survival. 

Estimates  of  1978  wolf  numbers  on  Federal 
lands,  based  on  responses  to  letters  of  inquiry,  are 
listed  in  the  table  below. 


AUTHORITIES 

Eastern  Timber  Wolf  Recovery  Team 

Ralph  E.  Bailey,  Leader 

Michigan    Department    of  Natural   Resources 

P.O.Box  190 

Marquette,  Michigan  49855 

William  C.  Hickling 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
279  Federal  Building 
Ashville,  N.  Carolina  22801 

Robert  M.  Linn 
National  Park  Service 
Biological  Science  Department 
Michigan  Technological  University 
Houghton,  Michigan  49931 

L.  David  Mech 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

North    Central     Forest    Experiment    Station 

Folwell  Avenue 

St.  Paul,  Minnesota  55101 

Ron  Nicotera 

Wisconsin  Department   of  Natural  Resources 

Box   450 

Madison,  Wisconsin  53701 


State 

Location 

Status 

Reference 

Alaska 

Arctic  NWR 

Not  surveyed 

Chugach  NF 

40-50  estimated  to  be  in  Unit  7 

R.  Walker,  pers.  comm. 

Glacier  Bay  NM 

28-55  estimated 

B.  Paige,  pers.  comm. 

Katmai  NM 

30-40  estimated 

W.  Troyer,  pers.  comm. 

Kenai  National  Moose  Range 

94  estimated 

T.  Bailey,  pers.  comm. 

Mt.  McKinley  NP 

35-50  estimated 

D.  Kuehn,  pers.  comm. 

TongassNF 

No  estimate,  numbers  increasing. 
87  harvested  1975-76 

W.  Overdorff 

Arizona 

Coronada  NF 

Several  unconfirmed  reports 
of  possible  transient  wolves 

P.  Karp,  pers.  comm. 

Idaho 

Salmon  NF 

5  estimated 

L.  Campbell,  pers.  comm. 

Tar  ghee  NF 

Numerous  unauthenticated 
reports 

O.  JOhnson,  pers.  comm. 

Michigan 

Isle  Royale  NP 

40  or  more  wolves  known  to  be 

present 

R.  Linn,  pers.  comm. 

State 


Location 


Status 


Reference 


Minnesota 


Montana 


OttowaNF 

Chippewa  NF 

Superior  NF 

Voyageurs  NF 

Beaverhead  NF 

Blackfeet  Indian    Reservation 

Custer  NF 

Flathead  NF 

Gallatin  NF 
Glacier  NP 

Kootenai  NF 
Lewis  and  Clark  NP 


Texas 

Big  Bend  NP 

Wisconsin 

Chequamegon  NF 

NicoletNF 

Ottawa  NF 

Wyoming 

Bridger-Teton  NF 

Shoshone  NF 

Yellowstone  NP 


5  wolf  activity  centers 

40  is  present  estimate 

300-400 

Not  surveyed 

Some  documented  observation 

Not  surveyed 

Not  surveyed 

Sporadic  reports  of  sign  or 
sightings  of  single  wolves 

Not  available 

10-20  estimated,  no  persistent 
pack  activity 


R.  Prause,  pers.  comm. 
J.  Mathisen,  pers.  comm. 
D.  Mech  (1976) 

R.  Kiewit,  pers.  comm. 


R.  Hensler,  pers.  comm. 


C.  Martinka,  pers.  comm. 


Not  surveyed 

Scattered  reports  of  sightings  and        J.  Schulstad 
sign— no  estimate 

Occasional  unauthenticated  reports     G.  Balaz,  pers.  comm. 
of  transient  wolves 


Not  surveyed 

No  estimate— some  transient 
visitors 

No  estimate,  but  good  evidence 
of  wolf  activity  there 

No  estimate,  but  sightings  and 
sign  reported 


A.  Rinaldi,  pers.  comm. 
T.  Wingle,  pers.  comm. 
R.Jackson,  pers.  comm. 


No  estimate,  but  unauthenticated        R.  Hall,  pers.  comm. 
sightings 

Unauthenticated  sightings,  recent        Weaver  (1978) 
search  failed  to  confirm  any  wolves 


Key:NF-National  Forest;  NM-National  Monument;  NP-National  Park;  NWR- National  Wildlife  Refuge. 


Robert  E.  Radtke 

U.S.  Forest  Service 

633  W.  Wisconsin  Avenue 

Milwaukee,  Wisconsin  53203 

Leroy  Rutske 

Minnesota  Department  of  Natural  Resources 

Centennial  Building 

St.  Paul,  Minnesota  55155 

Karl  Siderits 

Superior  National  Forest 


P.O.  Box  338 

Duluth,  Minnesota  55801 

Northern  Rocky  Mountain  Wolf  Recovery  Team 

Dennis  L.  Flath,  Leader 

Nongame  Species  Biologist 

Montana  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 

Box  5,  MSU  Campus 

Boseman,  Montana  59717 

Levi  Mohler 
602  Michael 
Boise,  Idaho  83704 


Roger  Evans 

Wildlife  Biologist 

Lewis  and  Clark  National  Forest 

Great  Falls,  Montana  59401 

Mary  M.  Meagher 

Research  Scientist 

Yellowstone  National  Park,  Wyoming  83020 

Donald  Mcintosh 

Bureau  of  Land  Management 

P.O.Box  30157 

Billings,  Montana  59101 

Robert  K.  Turner 
National  Audubon  Society 
P.O.Box  3232 
Boulder,  Colorado  80303 

Robert  K.  Ream 
School  of  Forestry 
University  of  Montana 
Missoula,  Montana  59801 

Donald  S.  Balser 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
Room  3035,  Federal  Building 
Billings,  Montana  59101 

Other  Authorities 

Durward  Allen  (Eastern  Timber  Wolf) 
Department  of  Wildlife  Ecology 
Purdue  University 
West  Lafayette,  Indiana  47907 


Roy    McBride    (Mexican 
Department  of  Biology 
Sul  Ross  State  University 
Box  725 
Alpine,  Texas  79830 

Douglas  H.  Pimlott 
Department  of  Zoology 
University  of  Toronto 
Toronto,  Ontario,  Canada 


Robert  Rausch  (Alaskan  Wolf) 
Alaskan     Department     of     Fish 
Division  of  Game 
Juneau,  Alaska  99801 


and    Gray   Wolves) 


and    Game 


PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

There  is  extensive  controversy  concerning 
competition  between  wolves  and  hunters.  Pimlott 
(1975)  suggests  that  wolves  feed  on  the  non- 
breeding  sector  of  the  population  and  thus  do  not 
depress  prey  populations,  although  he  states  that 
in  areas  of  heavy  hunting,  competition  probably 
does  exist.  R.  Rausch  (personal  communication) 
states  that  work  in  Alaska  has  shown  that  in 
many  cases  wolves  show  a  preference  for  adults 
and  thus  can  depress  prey  populations.  A  recent 
study  by  Mech  and  Karns  (1977)  indicated  that, 
given  a  particular  combination  of  factors,  wolves 
could  severely  deplete  deer  numbers  and  keep 
them  at  a  depressed  level. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Anon.  1977.  Timber  wolf  declassification  debated. 
End.  Species  Tech.  Bull.  2(3):  1,  2-4,  7. 

Crisler,  L.  1956.  Observations  of  wolves  hunting 
caribou.  J.  Mammal.  37:337-346. 

DeVos,  A.  1950.  Timber  wolf  movements  of  Sib- 
ney  Peninsula,  Ontario.  J.  Mammal.  31(2): 
167-169. 

Eastern  Timber  Wolf  Recovery  Team.  1975.  Re- 
covery plan  for  the  eastern  timber  wolf.  Preli- 
minary draft.  79  pp. 

Hall,  E.  R.,  and  K.  R.  Kelson.  1959.  The  mammals 
of  North  America.  2  vols.  Ronald  Press,  New 
York. 

Hendrickson,  J.,  W.  L.  Robinson,  and  L.  D.  Mech. 
1975.  Status  of  the  wolf  in  Michigan,  1973. 
Am.  Midi.  Nat.  94(l):226-232. 

Ingles,  L.  G.  1963.  Status  of  the  wolf  in  Califor- 
nia. J.  Mammal.  44:109. 

Jordan,  O.  A.,  P.  C.  Shelton,  and  D.  L.  Allen. 
1967.  Numbers,  turnovers,  and  social  struc- 
ture of  the  Isle  Royale  wolf  populataion.  Am. 
Zool.  7:233-252. 

Joslin,  P.  W.  B.  1967.  Movements  and  home  sites 
of  timber  wolves  in  Algonquin  Park.  Am.  Zo- 
ol. 7:279-288. 


Kolenosky,  G.  B.  1972.  Wolf  predation  on  winter- 
ing deer  in  east-central  Ontario.  J.  Wildl. 
Manage.  36:357-369. 

Kuyt,  E.  1972.  Food  habits  and  ecology  of  wolves 
on  barren-ground  caribou  range  in  the  North- 
west Territories.  Canadian  Wildl.  Serv.  Rep. 
Ser.  21.  36  pp. 

March,  J.  1977.  Courage  and  the  art  of  wolf  main- 
tenance. Audubon  79(6):80-113. 

McBride,  R.  T.  1978.  Status  of  the  gray  wolf  (Ca- 
ms lupus  baileyi)  in  Mexico.  A  progress  report 
to  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  Contract 
14-16-0002-3728.  72  pp. 

Mech,  L.  D.  1966.  The  wolves  of  Isle  Royale.  U.S. 
Dep.  Inter.  Natl.  Park  Serv.  Fauna  Ser.  7, 
240  pp. 

1970.  The  wolf:  the  ecology  and  behav- 


ior of  an  endangered  species.  Doubleday,  New 
York.  389  pp. 


.  1973.  Wolf  numbers  in  the  Superior  Na- 
tional Forest  of  Minnesota.  North  Central 
For.  Exp.  Sta.,  USDA,  For.  Serv.  Res.  Pap. 
NC-97.  10  pp. 

.   1974a.  Canis  lupus.  Mammalian  Species 


37.  Am.  Soc.  Mammal,  pp.  1-6. 

1974b.  A  new  profile  for  the  wolf.  Nat. 


Hist.  83(4):26-31. 

.    1975.   Hunting  behavior  in  two  similar 

species  of  social  canids.  Pages  363-368  in  M. 
W.  Fox,  ed.  The  wild  canids.  Van  Nostrand 
Reinhold  Co.,  New  York.  508  pp. 


.  1977a.  A  recovery  plan  for  the  eastern 

timber     wolf.     Natl.     Parks     Conserv.     Mag. 
1977(1):17-21. 

.  1977b.  Where  can  the  wolf  survive?  Natl. 


Geogr.  Mag.  152(4):518-537. 

.    1977c.  Wolf-pack  buffer  zones  as  prey 

reservoirs.  Science  198:320-321. 

.     1977d.    Productivity,    mortality,    and 


population  trends  of  wolves  in  northeastern 
Minnesota.  J.  Mammal.  58(4):559-574. 

Mech,  L.  D.,  and  L.  D.  Frenzel.  1971.  Ecological 
studies  of  the  timber  wolf  in  northeastern 
Minnesota.  U.S.  Dep.  Agric.  For  Serv.  Res. 
Pap.  NC-52.  62  pp. 

Mech,  L.  D.,  and  P.  D.  Kams.  1977.  Role  of  the 
wolf  in  a  deer  decline  in  the  Superior  National 
Forest.  USDA  For.  Serv.  Res.  Pap.  NC-148. 
23  pp. 

Medjo,  D.  C,  and  L.D.  Mech.  1976.  Reproductive 
activity  in  nine-  and  ten-month-old  wolves. 
J.  Mammal.  57(2):406-408. 

Murie,  a.  1944.  The  wolves  of  Mt.  McKinley. 
Fauna  of  the  National  Parks  of  the  United 
States.  U.S.  Dep.  Inter.  Natl.  Park  Serv. 
Fauna  Series  5.        pp. 

Northern  Rocky  Mountain  Wolf  Recovery  Team. 
1978.  Draft  plan  for  the  recovery  of  the 
northern  Rocky  Mountain  wolf.  40  pp. 

Olson,  S.  F.  1938.  A  study  in  predatory  relation- 
ship with  particular  reference  to  the  wolf.  The 
Sci.  Monthly  46:323-336. 

Peters,  R.  P.,  and  L.  D.  Mech.  1975.  Scent-marking 
in  wolves.  Am.  Sci.  63(6):628-637. 

Pimlott,  D.  H.  1967.  Wolf  predation  and  ungulate 
populations.  Am.  Zool.  7(2):267-278. 

.   1975.  The  ecology  of  the  wolf  in  North 

America.  Pages  280-285  in  M.  W.  Fox,  ed. 
The  wild  canids.  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold  Co., 
New  York.  508  pp. 

Rausch,  R.  A.  1967.  Some  aspects  of  the  popula- 
tion ecology  of  wolves,  Alaska.  Am.  Zool. 
7(2):253-265. 

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. 

Rutter,  R.  J.,  and  D.  H.  Pimlott.  1968.  The  world 
of  the  wolf.  Lippincott,  Philadelphia.  202  pp. 


10 


Ryon,  J.  C.  1977.  Den  digging  and  related  behav- 
ior in  a  captive  timber  wolf  pack.  J.  Mammal. 
58(l):87-89. 

Schenkel,  R.  1947.  Expression  studies  of  wolves. 
Behavior  1:81-129. 

Stebler,  A.  M.  1944.  The  status  of  the  wolf  in  Mi- 
chigan. J.  Mammal.  25:37-43. 

Stenlund,  M.  H.  1955.  A  field  study  of  the  timber 
wolf  (Cams  lupus)  on  the  Superior  National 
Forest,  Minnesota.  Minn.  Dep.  Cons.  Tech. 
Bull.  55  pp. 

Thompson,  D.  Q.  1952.  Travel,  range,  and  food 
habits  of  timber  wolves  in  Wisconsin.  J.  Mam- 
mal. 33(4):429-442. 

Weise,  T.  F.,  W.  L.  Robinson,  R.  A.  Hook,  and  L. 
D.  Mech.  1975.  An  experimental  translocation 
of  the  eastern  timber  wolf.  Audubon  Conser. 
Rep.  5  in  cooperation  with  U.S.  Dep.  Inter., 
Fish  Wildl.  Ser.  Region  3.  28  pp. 


Wolfe,  M.  L.  1977.  Mortality  patterns  in  the  Isle 
Royale  Moose  Population  .  Am.  Midi.  Nat. 
97(2):267-279. 

Wolfe,  M.  L.,  and  D.  L.  Allen.  1973.  Continued 
studies  of  the  status,  socialization,  and  rela- 
tionships of  Isle  Royale  wolves,  1967  to  1970. 
J.  Mammal.  54(3):61 1-635. 

Young,  S.  P.,  and  E.  A.  Goldman.  1944.  The 
wolves  of  North  America.  2  vols.  Am.  Wildl. 
Inst.,  Washington,  D.C.  636  pp. 

Zimen.E.  1975.  Social  dynamics  of  the  wolf  pack. 
Pages  336-363  in  M.  W.  Fox,  ed.  The  wild  ca- 
nids.  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold  Co.,  New  York. 
508  pp. 

PREPARED/UPDATED  BY 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
412  N.E.  16th  Avenue,  Room  250 
Gainesville,  Florida  32601 


11 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.54 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

THICK  BILLED  PARROT 


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  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  Endangered  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  704.58 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.54 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 


THICK  BILLED  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-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:    SAN   DIEGO  ZOO 


THICK-BILLED  PARROT 

Rhynchopsitta  p .  pachyrhyncha  (Swainson) 
Rhynchopsitta  p.  terrisi  Moore  1947 

KINGDOM Animalia 

ORDER Psittachiformes 

FAMILY Psittacidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES 

R.p.  pachyrhyncha Cotora  serrana, 

guacamayo,  guacomaja 
R.p.  terrisi Maroon-fronted  parrot, 

cotora  fiente  purpurea, 
guacamaya,  papagayo 


DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS to  be  determined 

Update to  be  determined 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  Endangered.  Fed.  Reg.  Vol.  42,  No. 
135,  14  July  1977,  p.  36427.  Listed 
Appendix  I,  Convention  on  Interna- 
tional Trade  in  Endangered  Species  of 
Wild  Fauna  and  Flora  (Federal  Register, 
Vol.  42,  No.  35,  22  February  1977,  p. 
10478). 

States: 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Cutting  of  mature  mountain  pine  forests,  de- 
priving the  birds  of  food  and  nesting  sites,  is  the 
primary  cause  of  the  decline  of  the  thick-billed 
parrot  (Vincent  1967,  Monson  1965,  Ridgley 
WWF  Report,  Crossin  pers.  comm.,  W.  King 
1977). 

Killing  of  birds  and  taking  of  eggs  for  food, 
sport,  or  specimens  is  known  to  occur  but  is  cer- 
tainly of  minor  significance  because  of  the  inac- 
cessibility of  areas  where  these  birds  live  and  the 
difficulty  of  finding  nests  (Ridgley  WWF  Report, 
Crossin  pers.  comm.,  King  1977,  Lusk  1900, 
Wetmore  1935,  Thayer  1906,  and  Bergtold  1906). 

Capture  for  zoos  and  for  pets  occurs  but  is 
also  a  minor  cause  of  decline  (Lanning  and  Law- 
son  pers.  comm.,  Crossin  pers.  comm..  King  in 
press,  Wetmore  1935).  Apparently,  this  species  is 
not  used  much  in  the  commercial  cage  bird  trade, 
as  it  is  not  listed  as  imported  into  the  U.S.  in 
recent  years  (Clapp  1975). 

Forest  fires  and  logging  are  considered  the 
greatest  potential  threats  to  R.  p.  terrisi  at  present 
in  southeast  Coahuila  (Lanning  and  Lawson  pers. 
comm.). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

R.  p.  pachyrhyncha  is  mostly  dull  olive  green; 
the  forehead,  lores,  and  a  stripe  extending  along 
the  sides  of  the  crown,  bend  of  wings,  and  thighs 
are  deep  red;  the  tail  is  long  and  pointed,  outer 
feathers  graduated.  In  flight,  the  bright  yellow 
patch  on  under-wing  converts  is  conspicuous. 
The  bin  is  black  and  notably  thick.  The  iris  is  red- 
dish. R.  p.  terrisi  is  larger  and  darker  green;  the 
forehead  and  supercilliary  stripes  are  brownish 
maroon  (instead  of  bright  red);  the  patch  on  the 
underwing  converts  is  brownish  gray  (not  bright 
yellow  as  in  R.  p.  pachyrhyncha)  (Blake  1953). 
All  color  characters  of  pachyrhyncha  and  terrisi 
are  highly  variable  and  not  definitely  distinguish- 
ing, except  color  of  under  primary  converts, 
which  are  bright  yellow  in  pachyrhyncha  and 
olive  yellow  in  terrisi;  terrisi  is  also  larger  (Hardy 
and  Dickerman  1955).  All  examples  of  terrisi  seen 
at  close  range  in  the  field  have  had  maroon  rather 
than  scarlet  foreheads,  but  five  adults  in  the  Uni- 


versity of  Kansas  collection  have  a  few  scarlet 
feathers  on  forehead  (Ely  1962). 

Length,  16  -  16.7  in.  (41-42  cm);  wing,  8.5  - 
10.5  in.  (22  -  27  cm);  taU,  6.3  -  7  in.  (16  -  18  cm); 
bill  length,  1.4  -  1.5  in.  (3.6  -  3.8  cm);biU  height, 
1.6  -  1.7  in.  (4-4.3  cm).  Bill  relatively  very  large 
and  greatly  compressed  laterally  (Bailey  1938). 
Weight:  terrisi,  SW,  Coahuila,  2  males,  391.5  and 
467.5  gms;  female,  same  area,  466  gms  (Urban 
1959). 

Whether  pachyrhyncha  and  terrisi  are  con- 
sidered as  two  distinct  species  or  two  weU-marked 
subspecies  of  a  single  species  is  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion. Prior  to  Dickerman  and  Hardy(1955)  all  au- 
thors who  reported  specimens  with  mixed  charac- 
ters considered  them  2  distinct  species.  Since  then, 
subspecific  status  has  been  accepted  by  Dicker- 
man  and  Hardy  (1955),  Ely  (1962),  Forshaw 
(1973),  Urban  (1959),  Vincent  (1967),  and  King 
(1977).  However,  Hardy  (1967)  changed  his 
mind  on  the  basis  of  the  hypotheticail  importance 
of  the  difference  in  shade  of  red  of  the  forehead, 
which  he  thought  might  be  significant  in  social 
recognition  of  the  birds  belonging  to  the  two 
populations,  serving  as  effective  reproductive 
isolating  mechanisms,  thus  making  them  two  dis- 
tinct species  by  definition. 

RANGE 

R.  p.  pachyrhyncha  formerly  bred  in  high 
coniferous  forests  in  Sierra  Madre  Occidental  of 
western  Mexico  from  northwestern  Chihuahua 
(Colonia  Pacheco  and  Colonia  Garcia,  Thayer 
1906)  south  to  southern  Durango  (Canyon  Rio 
San  Juan,  Bent  1940),  from  4,000  to  10,000  ft 
(1,219  -  3,048  m)  (Bergtold  1906).  Within  the  area 
reported  from  Sierra  Huachinera  (Marshall  1957), 
Cumbre  on  Barranca  Cobre,  SW  Chihuahua  (Stager 
1954),  Mt.  Mohinora,  southwest  of  Verjel  (Fried- 
mann  et  al.  1950),  mountains  west  of  Parral  (Berg- 
told 1906),  Guadalupe  y  Calvo  (Bent  1940),  all  in 
Chihuahua,  and  the  mountains  near  Ciudad  Dur- 
ango (Bent  1940)  in  Durango.  They  formerly  wan- 
dered extensively,  chiefly  in  winter,  or  when  pine 
cone  crops  failed,  to  mountains  of  southeastern 
Arizona  and  southwestern  New  Mexico,  and,  cen- 
turies ago,  even  to  central  and  northern  Arizona 
(Verde  Valley  and  San  Francisco  Mountain).  The 
chief  areas  visited  included  the  Chiricahua  Moun- 
tains, and  occasionally  nearly  all  the  higher  moun- 
tains east  and  south  of  the  Santa  Cruz  and  Gila 


Rivers,  Arizona,  and  also  in  Animas  Mts.,  New 
Mexico  (Phillips  et  al.  1964;Wetmore  1935;  Bent 
1940;  Smith  1907;  Vorhies  1934;  Bailey  1928). 
The  most  recent  U.S.  record  in  Animas  Mts.  New 
Mexico  was  in  the  fall  of  1964  (Charles  Hanson, 
pers.  comm.  1977).  They  also  wandered  eastward 
from  the  breeding  area  to  Ciudad  Chihuahua 
(Bent  1940),  and  possibly  to  San  Antonio  de  las 
Alazanas,  Coahuila  (Ely  1962).  Long  movements 
from  the  breeding  area  southward  and  southeast- 
ward to  Volcanesde  Colima,  Jalisco  (Schnell  et  al. 
1974),  Cerro  de  Tancitaro,  Michoacan  (Blake  and 
Hanson  1942),  Mt.  Popocatapetl,  State  of  Mexico 
(Bent  1940),  and  Perote  and  Jalapa,  Vera  Cruz 
(Bent  1940).  At  present,  the  entire  range  is  evi- 
dently much  restricted. 

R.  p.  terrisi  is  assumed  to  have  bred  formerly 
in  high  coniferous  forests  of  the  Sierra  Madre 
Oriental,  from  southeastern  Coahuila  north  to 
west  of  Saltillo  (Irby  Davis,  pers.  comm.).  It  now 
breeds  east  of  San  Antonio  de  las  Alazanas  south 
of  Saltillo  (Ely  1962),  and  from  Sierra  Zapaliname 
in  the  Guadalupe  Range  (Burleigh  and  Lowery 
1942)  through  southern  Nuevo  Leon  and  Cerro 
Potosi  (Moore  1947) ;  south  to  Sierra  de  Guatemala 
in  the  Gomez  Farias  region,  Tamaulipas  (Ridgley 
WWF  Report);  and  La  Joya  de  Salas,  65  mi.  (105 
km)  south  southwest  of  Victoria,  Tamaulipas 
(Robins  and  Heed  1951).  Altitudes  of  observation 
ranged  from  1,829  to  3,658  m  (Moore  1947;  Ely 
1962;  Lanning  &  Lawson  pers.  comm.).  There  is 
no  evidence  of  terrisi  wandering  extensively,  as 
R.  p.  pachyrhyncha  did. 

RANGE  MAP 

Shown  on  next  page. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Arizona:  Cochise,     Graham,     Pima,    Pinal, 

Santa  Cruz,  Yavapai. 

New  Mexico:     Hidalgo. 

HABITAT 

Mature  pine-oak,  pine,  and  fir  forests  are  pre- 
ferred habitat,  in  that  order  with  increasing  alti- 
tude, 1,219  to  3,658  m  in  mountains.  The  species 
is  found  in  locations  varying  from  plateau-like 
tops  of  mountains  with  open  pine  or  pine-oak 
woodland  and  large  trees  and  grass  below  (Mon- 
son  1965;  Marshall  1957),  to  pine  and  fir  forests 
below  high  cliffs  or  rimrock  outcrops  that  are 


used  by  the  parrots  for  roosting  and  nesting.  They 
are  assumed  to  require  either  large  dead  tree 
stumps  or  high  cliffs  with  holes  for  nesting. 

They  have  been  observed  most  frequently 
in  stands  of  mature  pine  at  median  altitudes. 
Chihuahua  Pine  {Pinus  chihuahuana)  appears 
to  be  the  most  common  species  in  occupied 
habitats  although  a  number  of  pine  and  oak 
species  are  utilized. 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING 

Pine  seeds  are  by  far  the  most  important  food. 
Seeds  of  both  large  forest  pines  and  the  smaller 
lower  altitude  pinons  are  eaten,  along  with  some 
acorns  (Ridgley  WWF  Report;  Lanning  &  Lawson, 
pers.  comm.;  Ely  1962,  Lusk  1900,  Wetmore 
1935;  Leopold  1937).  Other  foods  eaten  occa- 
sionally are  terminal  buds  of  Chihuahua  and  Lum- 
holtz  Pines,  at  8,200  ft  (2,499  m)  in  Barranca  de 
Cobre,  Chihuahua,  13  to  21  May  (Stager  1954); 
fruit  of  a  cherry  (Prunus  copuli)  and  seeds  of  an 
unidentified  legume  at  Cerro  de  Tancitaro, Michoa- 
can (Blake  and  Hanson  1942);  and  juice  or  nectar 
of  agave  flowers  in  southeastern  Coahuila  (Ely 
1962,  Lanning  &  Lawson  pers.  comm.).  Captive 
birds  at  the  Arizona-Sonora  Desert  Museum  re- 
mained healthy  on  standard  zoo  parrot  food,  but 
did  not  breed  unless  fed  pinon  seeds  (Charles 
Hanson  pers.  comm.  1977). 

The  method  of  feeding  on  pine  seeds  was  to 
snip  off  a  cone  with  the  bill  and  support  it  with 
a  foot  while  extracting  individual  seeds  with  the 
bill  (Ridgley  WWF  Report),  or  to  pull  bracts  from 
the  cone  and  extract  seeds  while  the  cone  was  still 
on  the  tree  (Lanning  &  Lawson  pers.  comm.). 
Seeds  were  even  extracted  from  immature  green 
cones.  Bills  and  breast  feathers  were  found  smeared 
with  pitch  (Wetmore  1935,  Lusk  1900).  Acorns 
were  used  in  the  Chiricahua Mts.,  Arizona,  through 
fall  and  winter  after  the  pine  seed  crop  was  ex- 
hausted (Wetmore  1935,  Leopold  1937).  Parrots 
go  to  rivers  or  waterfalls  to  drink  toward  evening 
before  going  to  roost  (Wetmore  1935,  Marshall 
1957).  They  have  been  seen  "eating"  snow  and 
ice  on  Cerro  Potosi  in  1977  (P.  T.  Moore  to  Lan- 
ning and  Lawson  pers.  comm.). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENT 

Cavities  high  up  either  in  dead  trees  or  in 
cliffs  are  used  for  roosting  and  nesting  (Thayer 
1906,  Bergtold  1906,  Stager  1954,  Lanning  and 


BREEDING  RANGE  C 
R.p.  terrisi 


Breeding  range  of  the  thick-billed  parrot. 


Lawson  pers.  comm.,  Leopold  1937). 

NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

The  only  occupied  nests  reported  were  in  cav- 
ities high  up  in  large  dead  pines  in  the  Sierra  Madre 
Occidental  of  Chihuahua,  at  least  some  of  which 
were  abandoned  imperial  woodpecker  nests 
(Thayer  1906,  Bergtold  1906).  According  to  resi- 
dents in  southeast  Coahuila,  they  used  cliffs  and 
possibly  trees  for  nesting.  There  are  few  suitable 
trees,  but  many  cliffholes  in  the  region  (Lanning 
and  Lawson,  pers.  comm.,  Burleigh  and  Lowery 
1942);  they  slept  in  higher  cliffs  of  high  barranca 
at  Palmito,  Sinaloa,  during  May  1964  (R.  Crossin 
pers.  comm.  to  W.  King  1977).  In  the  morning, 
flocks  leave  the  roost  in  the  rimrocks  in  Sierra 
Madre  of  Chihuahua  (Leopold  1937).  Eggs  were 
found  (10  records)  10  May  to  25  Aug.  1905  and 
(7  recoids)  11  to  25  Aug.  (Thayer  1906,  Bergtold 
1906,  Bent  1940).  They  are  not  dependent  on 
holes  made  by  the  nearly  extinct  imperial  wood- 
pecker for  nesting.  Parrots  are  capable  of  re- 
modeling a  natural  cavity  or  hole  (Ridgley  WWF 
Report ,  Charles  Hanson  pers.  comm.  1977). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

The  courtship  display,  raising  the  wings  to 
expose  under  surfaces,  may  effect  reproductive 
isolation  of  pachyrhyncha  and  terrisi,  because  of 
the  marked  difference  in  color  of  under  primary 
coverts.  This  display  is  accompanied  by  distinc- 
tive vocalizations  (Charles  Hanson  pers.  comm. 
1977).  The  habit  of  soaring  in  circles  high  in  the 
air  like  a  hawk  has  been  noted  in  both  R.  p. 
pachyrhyncha  and  R.  p.  terrisi  (Marshall  1957, 
Ridgley  WWF  Report); in  terrisi,  the  purpose  is  to 
gain  altitude  for  long  flights  (Lanning  &  Lawson 
pers.  comm.).  When  flying  in  flocks  grouped  by 
pairs,  two  birds  fly  very  close  together,  occasion- 
ally with  a  third  behind.  Several  feet  separate  pairs; 
sometimes  flocks  fly  in  V-formation.  They  are 
very  noisy  and  their  cries  carry  great  distances, 
probably  facilitating  communication  between 
wide-ranging  individuals  (Marshall  1957). 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

None   known  other  than  those  given  under 
food,  nesting  and  bedding,  and  habitat. 


POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

R.  p. pachyrhyncha.  -  Apparently  is  much  re- 
duced from  Its  former  population;  it  is  seen  less 
frequently  and  in  smaller  numbers  in  the  heart  of 
its  range  in  the  Sierra  Madre  Occidental  and  no 
flights  have  been  observed  in  the  southwestern 
U.S.  since  the  early  1900's.  Pubhshed  estimates 
include  100  at  Palmito,  Sinaloa,  7  May  1964;  200, 
same  place,  10  May  (R.  Crossin  pers.  comm.), 
flocks  of  60  and  1 5 ,  at  Volcanes  de  Colima,  Jalisco, 
6  Jan.  1973  (Schnell  et  al.  1974);  about  300  in 
the  Chiricahua  Mts.,  Ariz.,  1  Sept.  1917;  100- 
1500,  same  place,  early  fall,  1917;  150,  same 
place,  middle  of  May  through  summer  and  early 
faU  1917  (Wetmore  1935);  35,  Cumbre,  Barranca 
deCobre,  Chihuahua,  13  May  1950  (Stager  1954); 
Flocks  of  50,  60  and  8  in  the  Sierra  Huachinera, 
Chihuahua,  1951  and  1952;  populations  shift 
from  year  to  year  (Marshcdl  1957).  During  an  ex- 
tensive survey  of  northern  Mexico  11  Oct.  to  31 
Dec.  1971  and  2  Mar.  to  June  1972,  with  consid- 
erable time  spent  in  thick-billed  parrot  habitats, 
only  a  few  were  seen  high  overhead  (R.  Crossin 
pers.  comm.  to  W.  King). 

R.  p.  terrisi.  -  There  is  not  much  evidence  of  a 
total  decline  in  numbers  of  this  subspecies,  since 
its  existence  has  been  known  only  since  1947  and 
recent  estimates  seem  as  high  as  earlier  ones.  How- 
ever, because  of  its  restricted  range,  it  probably 
never  had  a  large  population  and  a  continually  de- 
creasing habitat  would  certainly  result  in  a  popu- 
lation decline.  Population  estimates  include  91  at 
La  Mesa  de  las  Tables,  Coahuila;  15  and  60  at 
Cerro  Potosi,  Nuevo  Leon  (Ridgley  WWF  Report); 
400  to  500,  near  Saltillo,  Coahuila,  1977;  esti- 
mate on  the  order  of  1500  in  entire  Saltillo,  Coa- 
huila area  (Dirk  Lanning  pers.  comm.  to  W.  King); 
count  of  800  to  1000  in  Southeast  Coahuila,  4 
April  1977,  (Lanning  &  Lawson  pers.  comm.). 

REPRODUCTION 

Following  are  records  of  nests  with  eggs  or 
young  of  R.  p.  pachyrhyncha :  Collected  by  W.  W. 
Brown  at  Colonia  Pacheco  and  Colonia  Garcia, 
Chihuahua:  9  nests,  all  in  holes  in  dead  pines, 
heights  above  ground  50-80  ft  (15  to  24  m)  av.  71 
ft  (22  m);  depth  of  nest  cavity  18  to  28  in  (46  to 
71  cm)  av.  24  in  (70  cm);  width  of  cavity  6-10  in 
(15  to  25  cm)  av.  8  in  (20  cm);  diameter  of  en- 


trance  (3  nests  all)  6  in  (15  cm);  number  of  eggs 
or  young  1  to  3  (av.  2  eggs  or  young  per  nest). 
Eggs  glossy  white,  shell  very  thick  for  size  of  eggs, 
which  averaged  1.53  x  1.19  in  (3.88  x  3.02  cm) 
(Thayer  1906). 

A  single  egg  hatched  in  captivity  after 
28  days  of  incubation  (Lint  1966  in  Forshaw 
1973).  Captive  young  were  brooded  by  the  fe- 
male for  the  first  11  days  after  hatching;  young 
left  nest  59  days  after  hatching  (Dyson  1969  in 
Forshaw  1973).  At  the  Arizona-Sonora  Desert 
Museum,  2  pairs  have  bred  successfully,  1  pair  in 
2  successive  years.  They  began  nesting  in  July, 
but  may  start  later.  A  clutch  is  usually  2  eggs 
(Charles  Hanson  pers.  comm.  1977). 

No  nests  with  eggs  or  young  of  R.  p.  terrisi 
have  been  reported.  At  La  Mesa  de  las  Tablas, 
Coahuilain  a  flight  of  91  parrots,  pairs  were  always 
in  evidence,  but  many  of  the  pairs  seemed  to  be 
accompanied  by  offspring,  most  often  2,  some- 
times only  1  and  once  3.  The  groups  of  3,  4,  and 
5  birds  were  about  as  frequent  as  unaccompanied 
pairs,  indicating  that  breeding  success  was  good 
(Ridgley  WWF  Report). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Ideas  that  have  been  presented  are:  To  set 
aside  and  protect  adequate  areas  of  mature  ever- 
green mountain  forest  in  both  the  Sierra  Madre 
Occidental  and  Sierra  Madre  Oriental  (Vincent 
1966).  Preservation  of  the  rapidly  disappearing 
mature  high  mountain  forests  is  the  only  obvious 
method  to  preserve  the  species  (Ridgley  WWF 
Report;King  1977). 

The  species  is  Hsted  in  Appendix  1  of  1973 
Convention  on  International  Trade  of  Endangered 
Species  of  Wild  Fauna  and  Flora.  It  is  protected 
by  law  in  Mexico,  but  the  law  is  unenforceable  in 
practice  because  of  the  remoteness  of  the  areas 
where  birds  still  occur.  In  1976,  76  Thick-billed 
Parrots  {R.  p.  pachyrhyncha)  were  in  captivity  in 
24  collections;  of  these,  10  (13%)  were  bred  in 
captivity  (Olney  1976  in  King  1977  ms.).  Captive 
rearing  might  be  a  means  of  aiding  the  survival  of 
the  species  until  adequate  wild  populations  are 
assured. 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

It  would  appear  that  both  subspecies  of  the 
thick-billed  parrot  are  endangered  because  of  the 


steady  eUmination  of  the  high  mountain  conifer- 
ous forests  of  northern  Mexico,  on  which  the 
birds  are  completely  dependent  because  of  their 
specialized  feeding  and  nesting  requirements: 
large  trees  for  nesting  and  pine  seeds  for  nutrition 
adequate  for  reproduction.  There  would  seem  to 
be  no  remedy  for  this  except  the  prompt  setting 
aside  of  a  number  of  very  large  tracts  of  such 
habitat  where  the  parrots  still  occur,  and  exclud- 
ing lumbering  in  those  tracts.  It  is  essential  to 
have  a  number  of  different  areas  because  of  the 
periodic  failure  of  pine  cone  crops  in  a  particular 
area.  Much  further  investigation  of  nesting  behav- 
ior is  needed,  particularly  to  determine  the  im- 
portance of  cliff  nest  sites  as  compared  with  holes 
in  dead  trees. 

AUTHORITIES 

Robert  S.  Ridgley 
Department  of  Zoology 
Duke  University 
Durham,  North  Carolina  27706 

John  W.  Hardy 
Florida  State  Museum 
University  of  Florida 
Gainesville,  Florida  32611 

Robert  W.  Dickerman 
Department  of  Microbiology 
Cornell  University  Medical  College 
1300  York  Avenue 
New  York,  New  York   10021 

L.  Irby  Davis 
2502  Keating  Lane 
Austin,  Texas  78703 

Warren  B.  King 

871  Dolly  Madison  Blvd. 

McLean,  Virginia  22101 

Charles  A.  Ely 
Department  of  Zoology 
Fort  Hayes  Kansas  State  College 
Hayes,  Kansas  67602 

Joe  T.  Marshall 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
National  Museum  of  Natural  History 
Washington,  D.C.   20560 

Charles  L.  Hanson 
Arizona-Sonora  Desert  Museum 
Tucson,  Arizona 


Richard  S.  Crossin 
1719N.  Huachuca 
Tucson,  Arizona  85705 

Dirk  Lanning  and  Peter  Lawson 
Chihuahuan  Desert  Research  Institute 
Box  1334 
Alpine,  Texas   79830 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Bailey,  F.  M.  1928.  Birds  of  New  Mexico.  N.  Mex. 
Dept.  of  Game  and  Fish,  and  U.S.  Biol.  Surv. 

Bent,  A.  C.  1940.  Life  histories  of  North  Ameri- 
can cuckoos,  goatsuckers,  hummingbirds  and 
their  aUies.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  Bull.  176:(Thick- 
billed  Parrot  14-18). 

Bergtold,  W.  H.  1906.  Concerning  the  Thick-billed 
Parrot.  Auk  23:425-428. 

Blake,  E.  R.  1953.  Birds  of  Mexico.  Univ.  Chicago 
Press.  644  pp. 

Blake,  E.  R.,  and  H.  C.  Hanson.  1942.  Notes  on  a 
collection  of  birds  from  Michoacan,  Mexico. 
Publ.  Field  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Zool.  Ser.  22:513- 
551. 

Burleigh,  T.  D.,  and  G.  H.  Lowery.  1942.  Notes 
on  the  birds  of  southeastern  Coahuila,  Occ. 
Pap.Mus.  Zool.  La.  State  U.  12:185-212. 

Clapp,  R.  B.  1975.  Birds  imported  into  the  United 
States  in  1972.  Spec.  Sci.  Rep.  Wildlife  193. 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 

Dyson,  R.  F.  1969.  Captive  hatching  and  develop- 
ment of  a  Thick-billed  Parrot  at  Arizona- 
Sonora  Desert  Mus.  Int.  Zoo  Yearbook  No. 
9:127-129  (in  Forshaw  1973). 

Ely,  C.  A.  1962.  The  birds  of  southeastern  Coa- 
huila, Mexico.  Condor  64:34-39. 

Flemming,  R.  L.,  and  R.  H.  Baker.  1963.  Notes 
on  the  birds  of  Durango,  Mexico.  Pubis.  Mich. 
St.  Univ.  Mus.  Biol.  Ser.  2:275-303  (in  For- 
shaw 1973). 

Forshaw,  J.  M.  1973.  Parrots  of  the  world.  Garden 
City:  Doubleday  and  Co.  [Rhynchopsitta  p. 
411). 

Friedmann,  H.,  L.  Griscom,  and  R.  J.  Moore. 
1950.  Distributional  check-list  of  the  birds  of 
Mexico,  Part  1.  Pacific  Coast  Avifauna  29,  p. 
127. 


Hardy,  J.  W.  1967.  Rhynchopsitta  terrisi  is  prob- 
ably a  valid  species:  a  reassessment.  Condor 
69:527-528. 

Hardy,  J.  W.,  and  R.  W.  Dickerman.  1955.  Tax- 
onomic  status  of  the  Maroon-fronted  Parrot. 
Condor  57:305-306. 

King,  W.  1977  (Revised)  Red  data  book.  Survival 
Service,  International  Union  for  the  Conserv- 
ation of  Nature  and  Natural  Resources, 
Morges. 

Leopold,  A.  1937.  The  Thick-billed  Parrot  in 
Chihuahua.  Condor  39:9-10. 

Lint,  K.  C.  1966.  Thick-billed  Parrots  breed  in 
captivity.  Zoonooz  39(2) :3-6  (in  Forshaw 
1973). 

Lusk,  R.  D.  1900.  Parrots  in  the  United  States. 
Condor  2:129. 

Marshall,  J.  T.  1957.  Birds  of  the  pine-oak  wood- 
land in  southern  Arizona  and  adjacent  Mexico. 
Pac.  Coast  Avifauna  32:1-125. 

Monson,  G.  1965.  A  pessimistic  view— the  Thick- 
billed  Parrot.  Audubon  Field  Notes  19(3): 
389. 

Moore,  R.  T.  1947.  New  species  of  parrot  and 
race  of  quail  from  Mexico.  Proc.  Biol.  Soc. 
Wash.  60:27-28. 

Olney,  P.  J.  S.  (ed.).  1976.  Census  of  rare  animals 
in  captivity  1975.  Inter.  Zoo  Yearbook  16: 
411-446  (in  King  1977  ms.). 

Phillips,  A.,  J.  Marshall,  and  G.  Monson.  1964. 
The  birds  of  Arizona.  Univ.  of  Arizona  Press, 
Tucson. 

Ridgley,  R.  Unpubl.  interim  report  for  1976. 
Macaw  status  survey.  World  Wildlife  Fund, 
U.S.  App.Proj.61. 

Robbins,  C.  R.,  and  W.  B.  Heed.  1951.  Bird  notes 
from  La  Joya  de  Salas,  Tamaulipas.  Wilson 
BuU.  63:263-270. 

SchneU,  G.  D.,  J.  S.  Weske,  and  J.  J.  HaUack. 
1974.  Recent  observations  of  Thick-billed 
Parrots  in  Jalisco.  Wilson  Bull.  86:464-465. 

Smith,  A.  P.  1907.  The  Thick-bUled  Parrot  in 
Arizona.  Condor  9:104. 

Stager,  K.  E.  1954.  Birds  of  Barranca  de  Cobre 
region  of  southwestern  Chihuahua,  Mexico. 
Condor  56:21-32. 


Thayer,  J.  E.  1906.  Eggs  and  nests  of  the  Thick- 
biUed  Parrot.  Auk  23:223-225. 

Urban,  E.  1959.  Birds  from  Coahuila,  Mexico.  U. 
of  Kansas  Pubis.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  11:443-516. 

Vincent,  J.  1967.  Red  Data  Book.  Vol.  2.  Survival 
Services  Commission  lUCN  Morges,  Switzer- 
land. 

Vorhies,  C.  T.  1934.  Arizona  records  of  the  Thick- 
billed  Parrot.  Condor  36:180-181. 

Wetmore,  A.  1935.  The  Thick-billed  Parrot  in 
southern  Arizona.  Condor  37:18-21. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.55 
MARCH  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

SAN  CLEMENTE  SAGE  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  Endangered  Species  Act  of  1973,  as  dmendcd). 

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  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  704.58 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.55 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
SAN  CLEMENTE  SAGE  SPARROW 


A  Cooperative  Effort 

by  the 

National  Fish  and  WildUfe  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-j; 


>H-    .:- 


UV 


I 


fc:' 


y 


1 1< 


PHOTO  OF  CLOSELY  RELATED  SUBSPECIES 


1ERBERT  CLARKE 


SAN  CLEMENTE  SAGE  SPARROW 

Amphispiza  belli  clementeae  Ridgway  (1898) 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Passeriformes 

FAMILY Fringillidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Bell  Finch;  Bell  Sparrow; 

San  Clemente  Sparrow 

DATE 

Entered  into  system To  be  determined 

Updates To  be  determined 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:  "Threatened."  Fed.  Reg.  Vol.  42,  No. 
155,  11  August  1977,  p.  40685.  Pro- 
tected by  Migratory   Bird  Treaty  Act. 

States :       Protected  by  California  state  law. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Stewart    and   Clow    (1974)    state    that    since 
1934,   sheep   and   goats,   formerly    fenced,  have 


roamed  the  island  uncontrolled,  practically  elim- 
inating reproduction  of  native  shrubs.  Goats  eat 
seedlings  and  young  plants  and  strip  the  leaves 
and  bark  from  the  lower  portions  of  trees  and 
bushes.  No  seedling  or  young  bushes  were  found 
at  any  place  visited.  Reduction  of  ground  cover 
has  led  to  erosion  of  topsoil  necessary  for  seedlings 
to  develop.  Feral  swine  have  furthered  erosion  by 
rooting  beneath  what  topsoil  is  left.  The  reduc- 
tion in  plant  cover  may  have  facilitated  predation 
on  sage  sparrows  and  their  nests  and  eggs  by  the 
island  fox  and  feral  house  cats.  It  would  also  have 
greatly  reduced  the  dense  bush  habitat  the  sage 
sparrows  require  for  nesting  and  feeding. 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

None  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

A.  b.  clementeae  is  a  small  gray  bird  with 
black  streaks  on  sides  and  single  black  spot  on 
chest,  dark  cheeks  and  "moustache"  streaks  on 
sides  of  throat,  white  line  over  eye,  and  white 
corners  on  tail. 

This  is  a  weakly  differentiated  race.  Some  of 
the  alleged  characteristics  are  not  present  in  series. 


A  longer  bill  and  lighter  ju venal  plum^e  seem  to 
be  the  only  characteristics  that  are  reasonably 
constant  in  separating  it  from  the  mainland  race, 
A.  b.  belli  (van  Rossem  1932, Grinnell  and  Miller 
1944). 

RANGE 

These  birds  are  permanent  residents  on  and 
confined  to  San  Clemente  Island  about  80  km  off 
southwestern  California  (American  Ornithologists' 
Union  1957,  Miller  1968).  San  Clemente  is  ap- 
proximately 34  km  long,  2.4  to  6.4  km  wide,  and 
34  km  from  the  nearest  island,  Santa  Catalina,  to 
the  north.  A.  b.  clementae  was  thought  to  prob- 
ably occur  also  on  San  Nicholas  and  Santa  Rosa 
Islands,  although  specimens  from  those  islands 
were  never  critically  determined  (Grinnell  and 
Miller  1944). 

RANGE  MAP 

See  map  on  following  page. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

California:     Los  Angeles. 

HABITAT 

The  San  Clemente  sage  sparrow  habitat  con- 
sists of  xeric  species  of  scrubby  brush  on  mesas 
(Howell  1917)  and  thorny  brush  growing  in 
clumps  and  patches  interspersed  with  cactus 
(Grinnell  1897).  Frost  is  unknovm  and  conse- 
quently vegetation  was  rank  most  of  the  year, 
jdthough  there  was  no  fresh  water  on  the  island 
(Breninger  1904). 

Topography  is  dominated  by  a  plateau  with 
steeply  sloping  east  side  and  gently  sloping  west 
side,  now  covered  with  introduced  grasses  except 
where  it  has  been  completely  denuded  by  goats. 
At  present,  trees  and  shrubs  grow  only  on  the 
bottoms  and  sides  of  canyons.  On  the  east  side, 
ironwood  (Lynothamus),  island  oak  (Quercus 
tomentella),  and  lemonade  bush  {Rhus  inter- 
grifolia)  are  the  most  abundant  species.  West  side 
canyons  are  mostly  denuded  by  livestock,  but 
have  some  growth  of  toyon  (Heteromeles),  lemon- 
ade bush,  and  island  cherry  {Prunus  ilicifolia  lyonii) 
(Stewart  and  Clow  1974). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

These  birds  forage  on  the  ground  or  low  in 


bushes,  presumably  for  ^mall  s.--ds  and  insects. 
Miller  (1968)  saw  a  female  of  ^.  b.  belli  on  the 
coast  of  California  c  u.  /ing  four  green  caterpillars 
obviously  intended  for  young  birds.  Since  fresh- 
water is  very  scarce  or  absent  on  San  Clemente 
(Breninger  1904),  sage  spa..jws  must  dej.  end  pri- 
marily on  dew  or  fog  for  drinking. 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Low  scrubby  brush  is  presumed  to  be  the  re- 
quired shelter  for /i.  b.  clementeae,  by  analogy  to 
the  California  coast  subsf.  jcies,  A  b.  belli,  v  "ch 
prefers  dense  and  continuous  brush  within  which 
it  finds  all  of  its  requirements  (M.ller  1968). 

NESTING  AND  BEDDING 

These  birds  feed  and  nest  among  the  bushes 
of  the  hillsides,  along  with  song  sparrows  (Brenin- 
ger 1904).  Nests  are  situated  in  scrubby  brush  a 
few  inches  above  the  ground  (Howell  1917).  A 
nest  of  A.  b.  belli  was  found  on  the  mainland  in 
the  fork  of  a  heavy  bush  at  practically  ground 
level.  It  was  well  made  of  weed  stalks  and  lined 
with  fine  weed  stems  and  soft  weed  fibers  (Miller 
1968). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

The  sage  sparrow  presumably  maintains  and 
defends  breeding  territory,  proclaimed  by  the  song 
of  the  male,  as  in  other  related  species  of  sparrows. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

None  are  known  other  than  those  noted  else- 
where. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Grinnell  (1897)  wrote  that  these  sparrows 
were  quite  common  on  hillsides  and  the  lower 
mesa  where  there  was  low  thorny  bush  growing  in 
clumps  and  patches  interspersed  with  cactus. 

Howell  (1917)  considered  it  "common"  on 
mesa  lands  back  from  the  shore. 

It  is  now  mostly  confined  to  the  lower  west 
terrace.  On  3  May  1974,  a  total  adult  population 
of  between  20  and  30  individuals  was  estimated 
in  that  area.  No  goats  were  seen  in  the  area  of  ob- 
servation, but  feral  swine  were  seen  in  two  dif- 
ferent localities  (Stewart  and  Clow  1974). 


SAN  CLEMENTE  SAGE  SPARROW 


SAN  FRANCISCO 


CALIFORNIA 


'0^=^* 


LOS  ANGELES 


^ 


/ 


SAN  CLEMENTE  ISLAND 

TOTAL  RANGE  OF 

Amphispiza  belli  clementeae 


REPRODUCTION 

Nests  with  pipped  eggs  and  young  were  found 
in  the  latter  part  of  March  1915  (Howell  1917). 
If  similar  to  the  coastal  race  (belli),  nests  with 
(usually)  4  eggs  would  be  found  chiefly  in  April 
and  May,  and  pairs  would  be  spaced  an  average  of 
about  50  yards  (46  m)  apart  (Miller  1968). 

MANAGEMENT 

The  obvious  procedure  in  management  of  the 
Sam  Clemente  Sage  Sparrow  would  be  to  remove 
all  goats  and  swine  from  the  island,  or  at  least  to 
fence  them  away  from  large  enough  sections  of 
the  plateau  to  permit  regrowth  of  the  dense  low 
scrub  necessary  for  the  existence  of  this  species  of 
sparrow. 

AUTHORITIES 

Robert  M.  Stewart  and  William  C.  Clow 

Point  Reyes  Bird  Observatory 

Box  321 

Bolinas,  California  94924 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

1  agree  with  Stewart's  and  Clow's  appraisal  in 
their  1974  report  that  the  feral  goats  are  a  men- 
ace, not  only  to  the  San  Clemente  Sage  Sparrovv, 
but  all  of  the  brush-inhabiting  birds  of  the  island, 
and  that  the  only  way  to  prevent  the  extinction 
of  several  species  is  to  remove  or  drastically  con- 
fine the  goats  and  give  the  vegetation  a  chance  to 
come  back.  The  U.S.  Navy  that  controls  the  is- 
land should  be  encouraged  to  take  all  steps  pos- 
sible to  achieve  such  goat  control. 


LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

American  Ornithologists'  Union.  1957.  Check-list 
of  North  American  Birds,  5th  Ed.  Baltimore, 
Md.  Amer.  Ornith.  Union.  591  pp. 

Breninger,  G.  F.  1904.  San  Clemente  Island  and 
itsbirds.  Auk  21:218-223. 

Grinnell,  J.  1897.  Report  on  the  birds  recorded 
during  a  visit  to  the  islands  of  Santa  Barbara, 
San  Nicholas,  and  San  Clemente,  in  the  spring 
of  1897.  Pasadena  Acad.  Sci.  Publ.  1. 

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. 12:79. 

Miller,  A.  H.  in  Bent,  A.  C.  1968.  Life  histories 
of  North  American  cardinals,  grosbecks,  bunt- 
ings, towhees,  finches,  sparrows  and  allies, 
part  2.  U.  S.  Nat.  Mus.  Bull.  237:1015-1020. 

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.  Rep.  to  Endangered  Species 
Off.  U.  S.  Fish  and  Wildl.  Ser.  by  Point  Reyes 
Bird  Observatory. 

van  Rossem,  A.  J.  1932.  On  the  validity  of  the 
San  Clemente  Island  BeU's  Sparrow.  Auk  49: 
490-491. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.56 
March  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

CALIFORNIA  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 
pubUc  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  aincndcd). 

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  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  Team 
U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
NASA-Slidell  Computer  Complex 
1010  Cause  Blvd. 
Slidell,  Louisiana  704''>8 


u 


FWS/OBS-80/01.56 
March  1980 


SELECTLD  VLR lEBRA  1  K  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
CALIFORNIA  CLAPPER  RAIL 


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  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;  JACK  WHITE.  CALIF.   FISH   AND  GAME  COMM. 


CALIFORNIA  CLAPPER  RAIL 

Rallus  longirostris  obsoletus  Ridgway 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Gruiformes 

FAMILY Rallidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES California  King  Rail, 

Red-breasted  Rail,   Marsh  Hen  (Grin- 

nell  and  Miller  1944). 

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  3 
July  1918  (40  Stat.  755;  16  U.S.C. 
703-711)  as  amended  3  Dec.  1969. 
Public  Law  91-135. 


State:  Endangered:  California. 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

Originally  abundant  locally  within  its  limited 
range,  California  clapper  rail  numbers  and  the 
extent  of  its  territory  were  much  reduced  before 
market  hunting  was  outlawed.  Under  legal  pro- 
tection, its  population  increased,  and  by  1944, 
much  of  the  former  territory  had  been  regained. 
Exceptions  were  extensive  areas  of  San  Francisco 
Bay  marsh  that  had  been  converted  to  human  use 
(Bryant  1915,  De  Groot  1927,  Grinnell  and  Miller 
1944,  Wilbur  and  Tomlinson  1976). 

This  rail  is  vulnerable  because  the  population 
is  divided  into  small,  isolated  colonies  occupying 
islands  of  suitable  habitat  that  are  separated  by 
long  stretches  of  uninhabitable  rocky  or  sandy 
coast  (Van  Rossem  1929).  There  has  been  no  in- 
dication of  change  in  status  recently,  except  for 
continuous  attrition  of  the  most  productive  habi- 
tat in  south  San  Francisco  Bay  by  conversion  of 
marshes  for  other  uses  (Wilbur  and  Tomlinson 
1976).  The  coastal  marsh  south  of  San  Francisco 


1 


Bay  at  Pescadero  Creek  was  made  unsuitable  for 
habitat  by  the  closing  of  its  connection  to  the 
sea  by  a  sand  bar;  at  Watsonville  Slough,  habitat 
was  destroyed  by  a  housing  development  with 
associated  pollution.  Some  uninhabited  marshes 
in  north  San  Francisco  Bay  are  contaminated 
with  oil  scum  (Gould  1973). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

16 

DESCRIPTION 

R.  I.  obsoletus  is  a  chicken-sized  bird;  grayish 
brown  above  with  light  ocraceous  buff  or  tawney 
breast,  flanks  of  grayish  brown  barred  with  white, 
and  a  white  patch  under  the  short,  upcocked  tail. 
Two  color  phases  occur,  one  more  brownish,  the 
other  more  olivaceous.  The  iris  is  reddish  orange; 
the  bUl  is  orange  yellow  at  the  base  with  the  rest 
brown;  the  legs  and  feet  are  brownish  gray.  Downy 
young  are  jet  black  with  greenish  olive  above.  The 
legs  are  long  (57  mm);  toes  51  mm;  bill  59  mm.  It 
is  a  strong  runner,  but  a  weak  flyer  (Ridgway  and 
Friedmann  1941,  Ripley  1977).  It  differs  from  R. 
I.  levipes  principally  in  the  more  grayish  (less 
brownish)  edgings  and  blacker  centers  of  back 
feathers  and  less  reddish  underparts  (Van  Rossem 
1929).  Adults  weigh  about  330  g  (Linsdale  1936). 

RANGE 

The  California  clapper  rail  was  formerly  found 
in  coastal  marshes  at  Humboldt  Bay  (Brooks 
1940),  Tomales  Bay,  and  Bolinas  Lagoon  in  Marin 
County  (Gill  1972),  Monterey  Bay  at  Watsonville 
and  Elkhom  Sloughs  (Silliman  1915,  Gill  1972, 
Gould  1973),  and  probably  Morro  Bay  (Brooks 
1940).  In  the  San  Francisco  Bay  area,  major  popu- 
lations centered  in  salt  marshes  bordering  the 
southern  arm  in  Alameda,  Santa  Clara,  and  San 
Mateo  Counties  and  smaller  populations  occurred 
in  the  northern  part  of  the  bay  and  San  Pablo  Bay 
in  Marin,  Sonoma,  Napa,  Contra  Costa,  and  ex- 
treme western  Solano  Counties  (Grinnell  et  dl. 
1918,  Bent  1926,  Grinnell  and  Wythe  1927, 
DeGroot  1927, Grinnell  and  Miller  1944). 

At  present,  the  largest  populations  continue 
to  be  in  southern  San  Francisco  Bay,  with  smaller 
numbers  in  the  northern  San  Francisco  and  San 
Pablo  Bay  marshes,  at  Corte  Madera  Marsh  near 
the   mouth  of  Gallinas  Creek,  Petaluma  Marsh, 


marsh  south  of  San  Pablo  Creek;  marsh  north  of 
toll  plaza  of  the  San  Francisco  -  Oakland  Bay 
Bridge,  and  at  Tubbs  Island.  They  are  apparently 
gone  from  all  coastal  marshes  on  Monterey  Bay 
except  Elkhom  Slough  (GUI  1972,  Gould  1973, 
Varoujean  1972,  Wilbur  and  Tomlinson  1976). 
Although  apparently  nonmigratory  (Wilbur 
and  Tomlinson  1976),  the  rails  are  known  to 
wander  away  from  salt  marshes  in  autumn  (Lins- 
dale 1936;  Orr  1939)  even  to  Farallon  Islands 
(Bryant  1888). 

RANGE  MAP 

The  range  map  on  the  following  page  shows 
both  past  and  present  distribution. 

STATES/COUNTIES 

California:  Alameda,  Santa  Clara,  San  Mateo, 
Marin,  Sonoma,  Napa,  Contra  Costa, 
Solano,  Humboldt,  Monterey,  San 
Luis  Obispo. 

HABITAT 

R.  I.  obsoletus  inhabits  saltwater  marshes 
traversed  by  tidal  sloughs,  usually  associated  with 
abundant  growths  of  pickleweed  (Salicornia) 
(Grinnell  and  Miller  1944).  GiU  (1972)  classified 
marsh  habitat  in  southern  San  Francisco  Bay  into 
primary  habitat  or  pure  stands  of  cord  grass 
{Spartina  foliosa)  with  0.84  to  1.08  rails  per  ha, 
and  secondary  habitat  of  pure  stands  of  pickle- 
weed or  mixtures  of  cordgrass,  pickleweed,  and 
other  marsh  vegetation  with  0.13  to  0.17  rails 
per  ha.  In  southern  San  Francisco  Bay,  Zucca 
(1954)  found  69  of  87  nests  (79%)  in  pure  stands 
of  cordgrass,  10  in  bases  of  gumplant  {Grindelia) 
bushes,  6  in  pickleweed  and  2  in  mixed  cord  grass 
and  pickleweed.  Wilbur  and  Tomlinson  (1976) 
note  that  early  writers  usually  described  nests  as 
occurring  in  pickleweed  or  at  the  base  of  gum- 
weed  plants,  but  later  studies  showed  regular  use 
of  cordgrass  as  a  nest  site.  Zucca  (1954)  found 
that  time  of  nesting  and  tidal  conditions  deter- 
mine, in  part,  the  type  of  vegetation  used  for  nest- 
ing, with  early  nests  placed  in  gumweed  before 
cordgrass  growth  occurs  and  nests  placed  in  pickle- 
weed, which  grows  at  slightly  higher  elevations 
than  gumweed  or  cordgrass,  when  nesting  is  inter- 
rupted by  tidal  flooding. 

Moffitt    (1941)    points    out    that    rails    are 


CALIFORNIA  CLAPPER  RAIL 
Past  and  Present  Distribution 


umboldt  Bay  / 


To  males  Bayf 


Farallon  Islands    • 
San  Francisco  Bay 


Monterey  Bay 


Morro  Bay 


Bolinas  Lagoon 

Golden  Gate  Park 
SAN  FRANCISCO 


Watsonvllle  Slough 
—  Elkhorn  Slough 


Morro  Bay  Slough 


Pescadero  Creek    ^ 


CALIFORNIA  COAST 


SAN  FRANCISCO  BAY  REGION 


Past  and  present  distribution  of  the  California  clapper  rail 


abundant  in  south  San  Francisco  Bay,  while  being 
less  numerous  in  similar  marshes  in  northern  San 
Francisco  Bay  and  the  south  end  of  Tomales  Bay 
and  apparently  absent  from  Suisun  Bay,  where 
extensive  pickleweed  marshes  exist.  He  noted  that 
the  latter  area  has  lower  salinity,  which  may  pre- 
vent occurrence  of  organisms  on  which  rails  de- 
pend for  food.  Wilbur  (pers.  coram.)  adds  that 
habitat  in  northern  San  Francisco  Bay  is  almost 
pure  pickleweed  while  in  the  southern  part,  where 
rails  are  more  numerous,  it  is  mixed  pickleweed- 
cordgrass  with  cordgrass  predominating. 

Fall  wanderers  from  the  salt  marshes  have 
been  observed  feeding  in  a  city  park,  on  the  edges 
of  lawns  next  to  shrubbery  into  which  they  re- 
treated (Orr  1939). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Food  consists  almost  entirely  of  animal  mat- 
ter, such  as  worms  and  crustaceans  available  in 
salt  marshes.  Several  stomachs  taken  in  Alameda 
county  contained  only  parts  of  crabs  (Grinnell, 
et  al.  1918).  Rails  may  feed  on  molluscs  obtained 
by  probing  in  mud-bottomed  sloughs  (Williams 
1929,  Moffitt  1941,  Test  and  Test  1942).  Fall 
wanderers  away  from  salt  marshes  have  been  noted 
feeding  on  earthworms  in  a  city  park.  One  was 
seen  to  swallow  5  worms  in  5  minutes  (Orr  1939). 
Most  feeding  done  in  marshes  is  at  low  tide  when 
the  most  food  is  available.  Volumetric  content  of 
stomachs  of  18  rails  taken  near  Palo  Alto,  Calif. 
4  February  1939  averaged  85%  animal  matter  and 
14.5%  vegetable  matter,  all  of  which  consisted  of 
Spartina  seeds.  No  gravel  was  found  in  any  stom- 
ach. Plaited  horse-mussel  {Modiolus  demissus) 
amounted  to  66%  of  the  animal  food.  Spiders  of 
the  family  Lycosidae,  common  inhabitants  of 
marshes,  made  up  17.5%  of  animal  matter  (Moffitt 
1944).  Williams  (1929)  found  the  little  macoma 
clam  {Macoma  baltica)  to  be  a  principal  item  of 
food  near  Palo  Alto.  Grinnell,  et  al.  (1918)  found 
parts  of  the  yellow  shore-crab  or  mud  crab  {Hemi- 
grapts  oregonensis)  were  almost  the  only  food  in 
clapper  rails  in  Alameda  County.  Emerson 
(1885)  found  that  worms  and  insects  made  up 
most  of  the  food.  Moffitt  (1944)  comments  that 
the  relative  amounts  of  plant  and  animal  matter 
in  the  rail's  diet  varies  with  the  time  of  year,  stage 
of  tide,  and  geographic  locality. 

Rails  often  wash  their  food  before  swallowing 
it.  They  swallow  small  clams  whole  and  peck  larger 


ones  open  with  their  bills  and  eat  only  the  con- 
tents. Crabs  are  dismembered  and  pecked  open 
before  being  eaten  (Cohen  1895,  Grinnell  et  al. 
1918,  Tomlinson  and  Wilbur  1976). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Dense  marsh  vegetation  for  concealment  and 
nesting. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Rails  nest  on  or  near  ground,  usually  on  a 
slight  rise  near  a  tidal  slough;  many  well  defined 
trails  lead  from  them  to  the  water  (Bryant  1880; 
Taylor  1894,  Cohen  1895,  DeGroot  1927).  Nest 
sites  are  in  dense  patches  of  pickleweed  {Sali- 
cornia)  or  cordgrass  {Spartina),  or  at  the  base  of 
gumweed  {Grindelia)  plants  (Grinnell  et  al.  1918, 
Zucca  1954,  Gill  1972,  Bent  1926,  Wilbur  and 
Tomlinson  1976). 

The  nest  is  a  platform  or  heap  of  material  of 
cordgrass  and  dead  plants  buUt  up  8  to  15  cm 
above  ground,  sometimes  deeply  cupped  and 
securely  woven  to  surrounding  vegetation  (Bryant 
1880,  Cohen  1895,  DeGroot  1927,  Emerson 
1885,  Taylor  1894).  Rails  frequently  build  several 
nests  but  use  only  one  (Adams  1900,  Gill  1972, 
Grinnell  et  al.,  Bent  1926,  Tomlinson  and  Wilbur 
1976). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Rails  exhibit  intraspecific  hostility  indicating 
territoriality  (Williams  1929). 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

An  unobstructed  tidal  flow  of  clean  saltwater, 
saltmarsh  vegetation,  and  mudbanks  for  suitable 
food  organisms  are  environmental  requirements 
of/?.  /.  obsolete. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

No  estimate  of  the  total  California  clapper  rail 
population  has  been  made  (Wilbur  and  Tomlinson 
1976).  At  least  100  were  noted  in  an  area  of  less 
than  2.5  km^  of  salt  marsh  near  Palo  Alto  on 
Feb.  1939  (Moffitt  1941).  Gill  (1972),  by  dragging 
a  rope,  found  densities  ranging  from  0.34  to  0.43 
rails  per  ha  in  primary  habitat  (pure  cordgrass)  to 
0.13  to  0.17  per  ha  in  secondary  habitat  (mixed 
cordgrass,  pickleweed  and  other  marsh  vegetation) 


in  south  San  Francisco  Bay.  By  census  from  a 
boat  in  flooded  marsh,  he  found  0.57  rails  per  ha 
in  a  14  ha  section  of  marsh.  Zucca  (1954),  also 
using  the  boat  count  method  in  flooded  marsh, 
found  0.49  rails  per  ha.  Based  on  these  data  Gill 
(1972)  estimated  that  the  number  of  rails  in  south 
San  Francisco  Bay  ranges  from  2,420  to  2,880 
(average  2,750).  Probably  50%  or  more  of  all 
California  clapper  rails  are  in  that  area,  where, 
until  recently,  they  appeared  to  be  maintaining 
their  numbers.  However,  loss  of  their  already 
restricted  habitat  continues  and  total  numbers  are 
probably  being  reduced.  Some  evidence  indicates 
that  nesting  success  may  also  be  declining  (R.  Gill 
pers.  comm.  to  Wilbur  and  TomHnson  1976). 

REPRODUCTION 

Nesting  season  begins  in  mid-March  and  ex- 
tends into  July  (DeGroot  1927).  Data  for  128 
museum  egg  sets  indicate  even  distribution  of 
nesting  from  1  April  through  10  May,  with  only 
six  later  records,  but  concentration  of  collecting 
activity  during  periods  when  eggs  are  most  likely 
to  be  found  may  bias  data  (Wilbur  and  Tomlinson 
1976).  DeGroot  (1927)  recorded  a  peak  in  nest- 
ing activity  between  10  and  25  April,  almost  com- 
plete cessation  of  nesting  from  15  May  to  15  June, 
then  renewed  activity  during  late  June  and  early 
July.  Applegarth  (1938)  and  Gill  (1972)  recorded 
a  similar  pattern  but  peak  of  activity  was  in  May 
rather  than  April.  DeGroot  (1927)  estimated  that 
perhaps  50%  of  the  birds  raise  two  broods  per 
year.  Zucca  (1954)  and  Gill  (1972)  suggested 
that  late  nestings  were  undertaken  when  first 
clutches  were  destroyed  by  high  tides  in  May  and 
June.  Wilbur  and  Tomlinson  (1976)  suggest  that 
late  nesting  by  California  clapper  rails  may  in- 
clude both  renesting  attempts  and  second  broods. 

Apparently  complete  clutches  are  reported  to 
contain  from  5  to  14  eggs,  most  commonly  6  to 
10  eggs  (Bryant  1880,  Cohen  1895,  DeGroot 
1927,  Applegarth  1938,  Zucca  1954,  Gill  1972). 

Both  sexes  incubate  the  eggs,  which  hatch  in 
23  to  29  days  (Applegarth  1938;  Zucca  1954; 
Johnston  1956).  Hatching  requires  approximately 
48  hours  after  pipping  Qohnston  1956).  Incuba- 
tion probably  begins  with  laying  of  the  last  egg 
and  ceases  when  first  egg  hatches  (Zucca  1954). 

There  is  no  specific  information  on  nesting 
success  (Wilbur  and  Tomlinson  1976).  Norway 
rats    {Rattus    norvegicus)    are    known    to    have 


destroyed  rail  eggs  but  authorities  disagree  as  to 
the  magnitude  of  this  loss  (Cohen  1895,  Bryant 
1880,  DeGroot  1927,  Zucca  1954).  Other  nest 
losses  are  attributed  to  unknown  mammals 
(Bryant  1915)  and  nest  inundation  by  high  tides 
(Zucca  1954). 

MANAGEMENT 

The  California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 
considered  reintroduction  of  clapper  rails  at 
Monro  Bay  in  1972,  using  stock  from  San  Fran- 
cisco Bay,  but  decided  against  it  because  of  un- 
certainty of  the  racial  identity  of  the  original 
population  and  also  the  lack  of  information  on 
whether  any  of  that  population  still  existed  there 
(Sanford  Wilbur  pers.  comm.). 

Establishment  of  south  San  Francisco  Bay 
National  Wildlife  Refuge  and  acquisition  of  Tubbs 
Island  and  Elkhorn  Slough  by  the  Nature  Conserv- 
ancy are  beginnings  toward  habitat  preservation. 
Proposed  management  includes  acquisition  and/or 
agreements  with  property  owners  to  retain  suit- 
able marsh  habitat  for  this  and  other  water-assoc- 
iated birds  and  further  improvement  in  control- 
ling water  quality  in  problem  areas  (Fish  and 
Wildlife  Service  1973). 

AUTHORITIES 

Sanford  R.  Wilbur 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 
1190  East  Ojai  Ave. 
Ojai,  CaHfornia  93023 

Robert  D.  Ohmart 
Randall  W.  Smith 
Dept.  of  Zoology 
Arizona  State  University 
Tempe,  Arizona  85281 

Robert  Gill 

Gordon  Gould 

Howard  Leach 

California  Depart,  of  Fish  and  Game 

1416  Ninth  Street 

Sacramento,  California  95814 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

Although  the  total  population  of  this  sub- 
species of  clapper  rail  is  still  fairly  substantial 
(about  2,800  individuals),  its  very  strict  require- 
ments for  relatively  unpolluted  tidal  salt  marsh 


habitat,  which  is  rapidly  disappearing  within  its 
present  range,  and  the  disappearance  of  the  bird 
itself  from  much  of  its  former  range  are  adequate 
causes  for  considering  it  in  danger  of  extinction. 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Adams,  E.  1900.  Notes  on  the  California  Clapper 
RaU.  Condor  2:31-32. 

American  Ornithologists'  Union.  1957.  Check -list 
of  North  American  birds.  Baltimore,  MD. 
A.O.U. 

Applegarth,  J.  H.  1938.  The  ecology  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Clapper  Rail  on  the  south  arm  of  San 
Francisco  Bay.  MA  Thesis,  Stanford  Univ. 

Bent,  A.  C.  1926.  Life  histories  of  North  Ameri- 
can Marsh  birds.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  Bull.  135:267. 

Brooks,  A.  1940.  The  Clapper  Rail  of  Monro  Bay. 
Condor  42:126-127. 

Bryant,  H.  C.  1915.  California  Clapper  Rail  breed- 
ing in  Alameda  salt  marsh.  Calif.  Fish  and 
Game  1:192. 

Bryant,  W.  E.  1880.  Notes  on  the  habits  oi  Rallus 
obsoletus,  with  a  description  of  its  eggs.  Bull. 
Nuttall.  Omith.  Club  5 : 1 24-1 25 . 

Bryant,  W.  E.  1888.  Birds  and  eggs  from  the 
Farallon  Islands.  Proc.  Calif.  Acad.  Sci.  Ser.  2, 
1:42. 

Cohen,  D.  A.  1899.  California  Clapper  Rail  in 
Alameda  County.  Condor  1:31. 

DeGroot,  D.  S.  1972.  The  California  Clapper  Rail, 
its  nesting  habits,  enemies,  and  habitat.  Con- 
dor 29:259-270. 

Emerson,  W.  O.  1885.  California  Clapper  Rail. 
Omith.  and  Oologist  10:142-143. 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  1973.  Threatened  WUd- 
Ufe  of  the  United  States.  U.S.  Department  of 
the  Interior,  U.S.  Govt.  Printing  Office. 

Gill,  R.,  Jr.  1972.  South  San  Francisco  Bay  breed- 
ing bird  survey  Wildl.  Mgmt.  Branch  Adm. 
Rep.  No.  72-6  (June  1972),  Fed.  Aid  W.  L. 
Restor.  Proj.  W-54-R,  Spec.  W.  L.  Invest. 

.  1979.  Status  and  distribution  of  Cali- 
fornia Clapper  Rail  (Rallus  longirostris  obso- 
letus). Calif.  Fish  Game  65(l):36-49. 

Gould,  G.  1973.  California  Rail  survey,  1973.  Cal- 


ifornia Dept.  Fish  and  Game,  Spec.  Wildlife 
Invest.  Job  11-10,  Clapper  Rail  Survey,  1  July 
1972 -30  June  1973. 

Grinnell,  J.  and  Miller,  A.  H.  1944.  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  birds  of  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avi- 
fauna 27:126. 

Grinnell,  J.  and  M.  W.  Wythe.  1927.  Directory  to 
the  bird-life  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  region. 
Pac.  Coast  Avifauna  18:62-63. 

Grinnell,  J.,  H.  C.  Bryant  and  T.  I.  Storer  1918. 
The  game  birds  of  California,  p.  283. 

Johnston,  R.  H.  1956.  The  incubation  period  of 
the  Clapper  Rail.  Condor  58:166. 

Linsdale,  J.  M.  1936.  Occurrence  of  the  California 
Clapper  Rail  away  from  marshes.  Condor  38: 
216. 

Moffitt,  J.  1941.  Notes  on  the  food  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Clapper  Rail.  Condor  43:270-273. 

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  Rail  (Rallus  longirostris)  litera- 
ture survey  wdth  special  consideration  being 
given  to  the  past  and  current  status  of 
yumanensis.  Report  in  fulfillment  of  Bureau 
of  Reclamation  Contract  No.  14-06-300-2409. 

Orr,  R.  T.  1939.  Fall  wanderings  of  Clapper  Rails. 
Condor  41:151-152. 

Ridgway,  R.  and  H.  Friedmann.  The  birds  of 
North  and  Middle  America,  Part  9.  U.S.  Nat. 
Mus.  Bull.  50:73. 

Ripley,  S.  D.  1977.  Rails  of  the  world.  Boston, 
David  R.  Godine.  p.  129. 

Storer,  T.  I.  1915.  Additional  records  of  Cahfomia 
Rail  and  Red  Phadarope  in  California.  Condor 
17:98. 

Taylor,  H.  R.  1894.  Among  the  Cahfomia  Clap- 
per Rail.  Nidologist  1:153-155. 

Test,  F.  H.  and  A.  R.  Test.  1942.  Food  of  the 
Cahfomia  Clapper  Rail.  Condor  44:228. 

van  Rossem,A.J.  1929. The  status  of  some  Pacific 
Coast  Clapper  Rails .  Condor  3 1 : 2 1 3-2 1 5 . 

Varoujean,  D.  E.  1972.  A  study  of  the  California 
Clapper  Rail  in  Elkhorn  Slough.  Calif.  Dept. 


Fish  and  Game.  Spec.  Wildlife  Invest.,  Fed. 
Aid  Report  W-54-R. 

Wilbur,  S.  R.  and  R.  E.  Tomlinson.  1976.  The 
literature  of  the  western  Clapper  Rails.  U.S. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,  Spec.  Sci.  Rept.  - 
Wildlife  No.  194. 

Willett,  G.  1906.  The  Southern  Clapper  Rail 
breeding  on  fresh  water.  Condor  8:151. 

Willet,  G.  1933.  A  revised  list  of  the  birds  of 
southwestern  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avifauna 
21:52. 

Williams,  L.  1929.  Notes  on  the  feeding  habits 
and  behavior  of  the  California  Clapper  Rail. 
Condor  31:52-56. 

Williman,  O.  P.  1915.  Range  of  the  California 
Clapper  Rail.  Condor  17:201. 

Zucca,  J.  H.  1954.  A  study  of  the  Cahfornia  Clap- 
per RaU.  WasmannJ.  Biol.  12:135-153. 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.57 
March  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States 

AMERICAN  PEREGRINE  FALCON 


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  %'ertebratc 
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  Kngineers  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  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,  Louisiana  70458 


11 


FWS/OBS-80/01.57 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE   ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE   SEACOAST  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES 


AMERICAN  PEREGRINE  FALCON 


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 


CREDIT;     KENNETH   FINK 


AMERICAN  PEREGRINE  FALCON 

Falco  peregrinus  anatum  Bonaparte 

KINGDOM Aninialia 

CLASS Aves 

ORDER Falconiformes 

FAMILY Falconidae 

OTHER  COMMON 

NAMES Duck  Hawk  (AOU  1931);  Great- 
footed  Hawk  (Bent  1938);  Rock 
Peregrine. 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates To  be  determined 


LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal:       Endangered:   (42  FR  36425,  14  July 
1977). 

Protected:  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. 


States:  Endangered:   Alaska,  South  Carolina, 

Georgia,    Florida,   Mississippi,   Texas, 
Alabama,    Nebraska,   Wyoming,   Cali- 
fornia, New  Mexico. 
Protected:  Colorado. 


REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

The  peregrine  falcon  population  decline  almost 
certainly  resulted  from  a  complex  of  environ- 
mental factors,  differing  slightly  from  one  area  to 
another  (Hagar  1969;  Herbert  and  Herbert  1969; 
Hickey  erf  1969).  The  population  decline  coincided 
with  the  introduction  and  wide  use  of  organo- 
chlorine  insecticides  by  1967.  The  initial  effect 
was  reproductive  failure  that  wiped  out  the  reserve 
of  nonbreeding  individuals. 

The  second  stage  was  the  steady  numerical  de- 
cline in  the  1950's  of  breeding  adults  in  many  re- 
gions. DDE  (a  derivative  of  DDT)  seems  to  have 
been  the  chief  chemical  involved  in  the  United 
States  (Hickey  and  Roelle  1969). 

The  present  total  peregrine  population  in  Utah 
is  believed  to  be  only  10%  of  what  it  had  been  in 
historic  times;  pesticide  contamination  and  cli- 
matic changes  may  have  been  major  reasons  for 
the  decline  (Porter  and  White  1973). 

At  least  as  early  as  1948,  DDE  was  present  in 
peregrine  eggs  in  sufficient  concentration  to  ac- 
count for  eggshell  thinning,  and  is  now  considered 
a  major  factor  in  their  decline,  with  DDE  levels  of 
15  parts  per  million  in  eggs  that  failed  to  hatch 
(Peakall  1974,  1976).  Contamination  of  birds  and 
eggs  by  persistent  pesticides  and  the  killing  and 
capture  of  birds  on  breeding  grounds,  in  passage, 
and  on  wintering  grounds  have  been  the  main 
causes  of  decline  (King  in  press). 

Peregrines  have  continued  to  decrease  since 
1970  in  most  of  their  North  American  range,  and 
nowhere  have  they  started  to  recover  since  reduc- 
tion of  DDT  usage  (Fyfe  et  al.  1976;  Peakall 
1976). 

PRIORITY  INDEX 

10 

DESCRIPTION 

Peregrines  are  medium-sized  hawk-like  birds 
with  long,  pointed  wings  and  long  tail.  Wing-beats 
are  rapid  and  shallow.  Adults  are  slate  gray  above, 
with  wing  and  tail  feathers  and  flanks  barred  with 
black,  and  black  moustache  marks  on  side  of  face. 
The  throat  is  white.  Below  is  white  and  reddish 
buffy,  extensively  spotted  and  barred  with  black. 
Legs  and  feed  are  yellow.  Immature  birds  are 
brown  above,  streaked  below.  There  are  larger, 
darker  and  black  markings  on  face,  more  extensive 


than  on  the  Arctic  Peregrine  falcon  (F.  p.  tund- 
rius);  they  are  paler  and  more  reddish,  less  grayish 
below  than  F.  p.  pealei  (White  1968;  Fish  and 
Wildhfe  Service  1973). 

Compared  with  tundrius,  anatum  is  larger  and 
darker,  bars  on  dorsal  feathers  more  contrasting 
with  ground  color;  ventral  surface  more  extensively 
marked  and  washed  with  darker  pinkish  or  rufous; 
white  auricular  area  less  extensive  in  proportion 
to  black  malar  stripe  (White  1968). 

Ground-color  of  the  eggs  varies  from  creamy 
white  to  pale  pink,  almost  always  nearly  or  wholly 
concealed  by  small  blotches,  spots  or  fine  dots  of 
rich  brown  or  reds  sometimes  concentrated  at  one 
end.  Measurements  of  61  eggs,  range  57  x  43, 
56.5  X  43.5,  48.5  x  38.5  (average  52  x  41  mm) 
(Bent  1938). 

RANGE 

This  falcon  formerly  bred  in  all  ecogeographic 
regions  of  North  America  south  of  the  Arctic 
tundra,  which  is  occupied  by  Falco  peregrinus 
tundrius,  to  northern  Mexico;  but  excluding  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  northwest  Pacific  coast, 
which  is  occupied  by  Falco  peregrinus  pealei,  the 
southeastern  and  Gulf  of  Mexico  coastal  plains, 
and  most  of  the  Great  Plains  from  Saskatchewan 
and  Manitoba  south  to  Texas.  It  does  not  now 
breed  anywhere  in  the  United  States  east  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  or  in  southeastern  Canada 
(Fyfe  et  al.  1976;  Porter  and  White  1973;  Cle- 
ment ed  1974). 

RANGE  MAP 

The  breeding  range  shown  (on  the  following 
page)  is  taken  from  Fyfe  et  al.  1976). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

Colorado:  El    Paso,    Boulder,   Jefferson, 

Freemont,  Montrose,  Larimer 
Archuleta,  La  Plata,  Monte- 
zuma, Moffat,  Park,  Mesa, 
Garfield,  Conejos,  Douglas, 
Pueblo  (Bailey  and  Niedrach 
1965;Enderson  1965). 

Wyoming:  Teton,  Yellowstone  Park. 

Montana:  Gallatin,    Park,    Sweet    Grass, 

Stillwater,  Cascade,  Chouteau, 
Fergus,  Blain,  Custer,  Dawson, 


i 


*5^. 


Former  breeding  range  of  the  American  peregrine  falcon. 


Georgia: 
New  Mexico: 


Illinois: 

Indiana: 

Iowa: 

Kansas: 

Kentucky: 

Louisiana: 

Maine: 

New  Hampshire: 
Massachusetts: 

Connecticut: 
Michigan: 

Missouri: 

New  Jersey: 

North  Dakota: 

Oregon: 
Pennsylvania: 

Arizona: 

South  Carolina: 


Prairie  (Rocky  Mountain/ 
Southwest     Peregrine     Falcon 
Recovery  Team  1977;  Ender- 
son  1965). 

Dade  (Burleigh  1958). 

Rio  Arriba,  Los  Alamos, 
Sandoval,  San  Miguel,  Berna- 
lillo, Sierra,  Eddy,  Catron, 
Grant,  San  Juan  (Bailey  1928; 
Hubbard  1970). 

Wabash  (Ridgway  1889). 

Knox,  Gibson  (Butler  1897). 

Linn  (Dumont  1917). 

Woodson  Qohnston  1960). 

Laurel  (Mengel  1965). 

Madison  (Lowery  1955). 

Penobscott,  Hancock,  Sumer- 
set,  Washington,  Oxford  (For- 
bush  1927;  Palmer  1949). 

Grafton,  Carroll  (Forbush 
1927). 

Berkshire,  Franklin,  Hamp- 
shire, Hampden  (Forbush 
1927). 

New  Haven  (Forbush  1927). 

Leelanau,  Mackinac,  Alger, 
Marquette  (Wood  1951). 

Atchinson,  St.  Louis,  Mont- 
gomery (Widmann  1907). 

Bergen  (Stone  1908;  Bull 
1974). 

Dunn,  Stark,  Oakdale,  Billings 
(Stewart   1975;  Rocky  Moun- 
tain/Southwest Recovery 
Team  1977). 

Harney,  Lake  (Gabrielson  and 
Jewett  1940). 

Clinton,  Huntington,  West- 
moreland, York,  Allegheny 
(Todd  1940;  Warren  1890). 

Cochise,  Coconino,  Gila,  Gra- 
ham, Greenlee  (USES  &  FWS 
1979). 

Greenville,  Pickens  (Sprunt 
and  Chamberlain  1949). 


Texas: 

Virginia: 

Washington: 
Alabama: 

New  York : 


California: 


Maryland: 
Nebraska: 

Arkansas: 
Termessee: 

Utah: 


South  Dakota: 


Kerr,  Brewster,  Jeff  Davis, 
Culberson  (Oberholser  1974). 

Rock  Bridge,  Pulaski  (Murray 
1952). 

Asotin  (Jewett  et  al.  1953). 

De  Kalb,  Marshall,  Lauderdale, 
Limestone  (Imhoff  1962). 

Washington,  Clinton,  Franklin, 
Jefferson,  Lewis,  Hamilton, 
Essex,  Warren,  Montgomery, 
Albany,  Greene,  Columbia, 
Dutchess,  Putnam,  Ulster, 
Orange,  Sullivan,  Rockland, 
Tompkins,  Schuyler,  Clinton, 
New  York  (Bull  1974). 

Marin,  San  Mateo,  Santa  Cruz, 
Monterey,  Santa  Barbara,  San 
Diego,  San  Benito,  Siskiyou, 
Kern,  Mendocino,  Napa  & 
Sonoma  (Bond  1946;  Grinnell 
and  Miller  1944). 

Washington  (Stewart  and 
Robbins  1958). 

Dawes  (Lock  1977;  Rocky 
Mountain/Southwest  Peregrine 
Falcon  Recovery  Team  1977). 

Cleburne  (Baerg  1931). 

Knox,  Hamilton,  Obion 
(HoweU    and    Monroe    1957; 
Spofford  1942). 

Boxelder,  Cache,  Rich,  Weber, 
Morgan,  Davis,  Salt  Lake, 
Uinta,  Utah,  Tooele,  Millard, 
Sanpete,  Sevier,  Emery,  Dag- 
gett, Carbon,  Grand,  San  Juan, 
Iron,  Garfield,  Washington, 
Cane  (Twomey  1942;  Porter 
and  White  1973). 

Harding,  Lawrence  (Rocky 
Mountain/Southwest  Peregrine 
Falcon  Recovery  Team  1977). 


HABITAT 

This  species  is  adapted  to  a  wide  variety  of 
environments,  ranging  from  the  treeline  south  of 
the  Arctic  tundra  southward  into  the  northern 
Mexican  mountains  and  the  southern  tip  of  Baja 


California's  tropical  scrub  (Porter  and  White 
1973)  up  to  3,048  m  in  the  California  moun- 
tains (Bond  1946)  and  3,658  m  in  the  Colorado 
Rockies  (T.  D.  Ray  in  Porter  and  White  1973). 

Most  eyries  in  Utah  are  located  near  marshes 
or  streams  which  supply  waterfowl  or  passerine 
birds  for  food.  Most  eyries  all  on  east-and-north 
facing  cliffs  suggesting  orientation  away  from 
exposure  to  overheating  by  afternoon  sun  (Porter 
and  White  1973).  Combination  of  marshes  ad- 
jacent to  suitable  cliffs  for  nesting  may  be  con- 
sidered  an  "ecological  magnet"   (Hickey    1942). 

In  Alaska,  habitat  is  in  river  valleys  in  boreal 
forest  area  up  to  800  m  elevation.  Western  Can- 
ada habitat  varies  from  boreal  forest  to  open 
deciduous  forest  to  arid  types.  In  the  lower  48 
states,  it  varies  from  closed  or  semi-closed  decidu- 
ous forest  in  the  east  to  semi-alpine  and  arid  desert 
in  the  west,  usually  overlooking  water  areas.  In 
Mexico,  it  is  mainly  along  main  cordilleran  sys- 
tems (King  in  press). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Its  diet  is  mostly  birds.  Peregrine  nestlings  in 
Alaska  prefer  birds  to  mice  (Dixon  1908).  Birds 
eaten  range  in  size  from  mallard  ducks  down  to 
warblers  and  nuthatches.  Pigeons,  flickers,  jays, 
meadowlarks,  and  other  birds  of  medium  size 
probably  constitute  the  bulk  of  food  in  inland  loc- 
alities; on  the  seacoast  and  islands,  it  feeds  almost 
entirely  on  the  smaller  seabirds.  Mammals  form  an 
insignificant  part  of  their  food.  Remains  of  hares, 
rabbits,  woodchucks,  squirrels  and  field  mice  have 
been  found  near  peregrine  nests.  They  prefer  to 
capture  prey  on  the  wing  after  diving  from  above 
at  great  speed.  The  highest  speed  attained  by  diving 
is  estimated  at  between  240  and  320  km  per  hour 
(Bent  1938).  Small  prey  is  seized  in  its  claws  and 
carried  away;  larger  birds  are  stuck  with  the  feet 
with  such  force  as  to  kill  them.  Then  peregrines 
descend  to  the  ground  to  eat  them.  They  pluck 
birds,  at  least  partially  before  eating.  The  male 
feeds  the  female  during  the  nesting  season  by  drop- 
ping food  for  her  to  catch  in  the  air  (Bent  1938). 

Food  of  Yukon  River,  Alaska  Peregrines  in 
1966  included  49  species  of  birds  and  4  species 
of  mammals.  Waterfowl  constituted  50%  oi  the 
diet  composed  by  weight,  and  shorebirds  10%  to 
12%;  small  land  birds  composed  20%  and  small 
mammals  2%  to  3%.  Analysis  of  peregrine  tissue 
showed    that  the   food  chain  was   contaminated 


with  significant  measurable  quantities  of  chlorin- 
ated hydrocarbon  pesticides  in  1966  (Cade  et  al. 
1968).  In  Utah  eyries  79%  of  food  identified  con- 
sisted of:  American  avocet  (most  frequent), 
mourning  dove,  wUlet,  western  meadowlark,  red- 
shafted  flicker,  Wilson's  phalarope,  rock  dove 
(common  pigeon),  red-winged  blackbird  and 
Brewer's  blackbird  (Porter  and  White  1973). 

Food  of  peregrines  of  Chihuahuan  Desert  and 
adjoining  mountains  included  24  species  of  birds, 
5  species  of  mammals  (3  bats  and  2  squirrels)  and 
1  species  of  lizard.  Particularly  frequent  food 
items  were  dowitcher  (sp.),  white-winged  dove, 
band-tailed  pigeon,  mourning  dove,  common 
nighthawk,  white-throated  swift,  common 
flicker,  Steller's  jay,  mockingbird,  and  thrush 
(sp.)  (Hunt  1976;Johnson  1976). 

In  certain  areas  bats  compose  a  greater  part  of 
the  diet  than  in  others  (Stager  1941). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Cliff  ledges  for  nesting  and  for  night  roosting 
of  young  after  they  have  fledged  (Hickey  cc?  1969). 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Nest  site  chosen  by  female,  who  makes  a 
smooth  well-rounded  scrape  in  the  accumulated 
soil  and  rubbish  on  the  cliff  ledge,  2  or  3  cm 
deep  on  the  cliff  ledge,  to  receive  the  eggs  Q.  A. 
Hager  in  Bent  1938).  Occasionally  nests  in  broken 
tops  of  tall  trees  (Ridgway  1889;  Goss  1878; 
Spofford  1942). 

Cliffs  are  by  far  the  favorite  nesting  sites,  but 
cut  banks,  ledges  of  tall  buildings,  hollows  in  trees, 
and  tree  nests  of  other  large  birds  such  as  ospreys, 
are  also  utilized  occasionally  (Hickey  and  Ander- 
son in  Hickey  ed  1969;  Porter  and  White  1973). 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Aerial  courtship  display  centered  about  the 
home  cliff  in  March,  consisted  of  the  male  flying 
excitedly  from  shelf  to  shelf,  with  much  vocaliza- 
tion, in  presence  of  female,  bringing  of  food  by 
male  to  female  and  then  intricate  aerial  flight  by 
male  with  vertical  loops,  rolls  and  plunges  from 
great  heights.  After  some  time,  both  male  and  fe- 
male engage  in  scratching  about  on  ledges  accom- 
panied by  vocalization  until  finally  eggs  are  laid 
in  one  of  the  ledge  sites  Qoseph  Hagar  in  Bent 
1938). 


OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Freedom  from  human  interference  at  nest 
sites  and  lack  of  contamination  of  prey  with 
pesticide  poisons  (Hickey  ed  1969;  Herbert  and 
Herbert  1965;  Clement  ec?  1974). 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

In  the  eastern  U.S.,  before  that  population 
started  to  decline,  three  Hudson  River,  New  York, 
peregrines  attained  minimal  ages  of  17,  18  and  20 
years  (Herbert  and  Herbert  1965).  Data  indicated 
a  low  mortality  rate,  a  strong  tradition  to  reoc- 
cupy  stable  nesting  sites,  a  tenacity  to  remain  in 
face  of  human  proximity  if  not  molested,  and  a 
nonbreeding  segment  that  was  generally  capable 
of  supplying  replacements  (Hickey  and  Anderson 
in  Hickey  ed  1969).  Hickey  (1942)  estimated  19 
pairs  in  about  25,900  sq  km  around  New  York 
City.  By  1952  R.  A.  Herbert  and  K.  G.  SkeUon 
reported  virtually  100%  of  pairs  in  Hudson  Valley 
had  unsuccessful  reproduction  (Cade  1960).  In 
1947  that  population  had  9  breeding  pairs  (  a 
peak  number  for  the  century)  and  productivity 
averaged  1.1  to  1.2  young  per  nest  in  1931-40, 
and  0.75  in  1941-50.  No  young  were  reared  in 
1950.  and  production  ceased  in  1951.  Breeding 
pairs  dropped  to  7  in  1950,  to  5  in  1952,  to  4 
in  1956  and  none  in  1961.  Human  disturbance, 
including  highway  construction,  taking  of  young 
by  falconers,  shooting  of  adults,  and  unfavorable 
weather  contributed  to  extirpation  of  the  popula- 
tion (Herbert  and  Herbert  1969). 

In  Massachusetts,  reproduction  seemed  above 
normal  in  1946  but  well  below  average  in  1947 
when  broken  eggs  were  observed  for  the  first  time. 

By  1951,  occupation  of  eyries  was  spotty  and  by 
1955-57  only  an  occasional  single  bird  was  left 
(Hagar  1969).  Complete  failure  of  14  pairs  in 
Massachusetts  was  attributed  by  Hagar  {in  Hickey 
ed  1969,  p.  32)  to  raccoon  predation. 

In  Pennsylvania,  despite  losses  to  hunters,  fal- 
coners and  predators  in  1946,  there  were  still  17 
active  eyries  which  produced  1.25  young  per  nest 
annually  in  the  study  area.  From  1947  to  1952, 
the  number  of  active  nests  declined  to  6  and  pro- 
ductivity per  pair  declined  sharply.  From  1953  to 
1959  only  0.4  young  were  reared  per  pair  per 
year.  The  3  pairs  remaining  in  1958  and  one  in 
1959  reared  no  young  despite  lack  of  known  dis- 


turbance (Rice  1969). 

On  the  upper  Mississippi  River  in  1954  and 
1955,  the  population  was  estimated  at  1  pair  to 
30  km  along  one  side  of  the  river.  These  are  now 
gone.  The  last  bird  was  seen  in  March  1964.  Hu- 
man disturbance  did  not  seem  to  account  for  this 
disappearance.  The  decrease  seemed  to  progress 
from  south  to  north  (Berger  and  Mueller  1969). 

By  1962,  it  was  rumored  that  no  young  pere- 
grines had  been  reared  that  spring  in  the  north- 
eastern states,  and  this  situation  was  confirmed  in 
1964  when  a  survey  team  found  no  birds  nesting 
in  133  formerly  used  eyries  in  the  eastern  U.S. 
The  peregrine  falcon  now  appears  to  be  extinct  as 
a  breeding  bird  in  the  eastern  U.S.  and  south- 
eastern Canada  from  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  the 
Atlantic  Coast  and  from  Alabama  north  at  least 
to  Nova  Scotia,  a  region  that  previously  contained 
about  300  occupied  nesting  sites.  However,  cap- 
tive-reared birds  are  being  released  there  (Cade  et 
al.  1968,Fyfeet  al.  1976). 

In  the  extreme  northern  part  of  the  subspe- 
cies' range  within  the  boreal  forest  region  of 
Alaska,  200  to  250  pairs  may  have  bred  prior  to 
1950;  less  than  100  may  remain  (as  of  1976).  Per- 
haps 400  to  500  pairs  bred  in  the  1940  to  1950 
period  (Fyfe  et  al.  1976).  Seventeen  pairs  were 
found  along  277  km  of  the  upper  Yukon  River, 
Alaska,  in  1966,  with  an  average  linear  distance 
between  occupied  cliffs  of  17  km  (range  49  to  3 
km).  In  1951,  average  distance  between  19  oc- 
cupied cHffs  was  15  km  (range  50  to  3.5  km).  On 
the  same  stretch  of  river,  L.  B.  Bishop  (in  Osgood 
1900)  estimated  about  1  pair  every  16  km,  show- 
ing quite  similar  density  in  the  two  periods  and 
demonstrating  the  usual  static  nature  of  peregrine 
populations,  each  pair  associated  with  a  long-used 
eyrie.  It  also  showed  that  the  population  there 
had  not  decreased  as  of  1966,  even  though  levels 
of  chlorinated  hydrocarbon  chemicals  were  found 
to  be  rather  high  in  their  eggs  and  tissues  at  that 
time  (Cade  et  al.  1968).  As  of  1969  White  and 
Cade  (1977)  found  that  populations  along  the 
upper  Yukon  were  still  holding  up  rather  well 
with  about  106  parts  per  milhon  DDE  in  tissues, 
while  populations  along  the  parallel  Tanana  River 
to  the  south  of  it  in  Alaska  with  334  ppm  DDT  in 
1969  and  302  ppm  in  1973  were  pracrically  gone. 
Egg  shells  of  Tanana  River  birds  had  thinned 
about  17%  by  1969  and  19.5%  by  1973.  Along 
the  Mackenzie  River  in  northeast  Canada  (south 
of  the  tree  line),  18  known  eyries  were  occupied 


by  17  pairs  (94%)  in  1966  but  by  no  more  than  3 
pairs  and  a  single  bird  in  1973  (22%  occupancy). 
In  northern  Alberta,  12  eyries  were  occupied  by  6 
pairs  in  1971,  but  in  1973,  by  only  4  pairs  and  2 
single  birds.  In  an  overall  1973  Canadian  survey 
of  83  eyries  rechecked,  49  occupied  by  44  pairs 
(Fyfe  in  Clement  ed  1974). 

In  western  North  America,  there  were  formerly 
densities  of  slightly  more  than  1  pair  per  5,180 
km^  in  areas  where  the  bird  was  considered 
"common;"  in  mountains  and  arid  regions,  where 
it  was  considered  "rare,"  density  was  estimated  as 

1  pair  per  51,800  km^  (Bond  1946).  In  the 
Rocky  Mountain  region,  of  28  or  29  peregrine 
eyries  active  in  1938,  not  more  than  4  to  6  were 
found  occupied  later.  An  estimated  80%  to  90% 
of  older  sites  in  Utah,  Idaho,  Oregon,  western 
Wyoming  and  western  Montana  have  been  deserted 
and  the  population  shifted  north  or  to  higher 
elevations  to  compensate  for  drought  conditions 
in  recent  times  (Nelson  1969).  In  1964,  only 
slightly  more  than  33%  of  known  peregrine  nest 
sites  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  region  of  New 
Mexico  and  Colorado  were  being  used.  Many  sites 
were  not  used  after  1950.  An  estimated  25  pairs 
currently  nest  in  Colorado  and  Wyoming,  approx- 
imately 25  pairs  in  Arizona,  New  Mexico  and 
Texas,  nearly  25  pairs  in  Montana  and  possibly  60 
pairs  in  Alberta  (Enderson  1969a).  Enderson 
(1977)  found  that  the  population  in  the  Rocky 
Mountains  region  had  changed  little  over  the  last 

2  years.  Egg  production  was  typical  for  the  species 
but  only  half  of  the  eggs  were  deemed  hatchable. 
About  40  eyries  in  Utah  are  active  at  one  time  or 
another.  Based  on  their  density,  if  all  eyries  were 
active  at  once  there  would  be  about  5,499  km^ 
per  eyrie.  If  11  suspected  but  unverified  eyries 
were  excluded,  density  would  be  1  eyrie  for  every 

7.6  km^. 

Peregrines    are   much   more   common  around 

the  Great  Salt  Lake  than  in  other  parts  of  Utah. 
Density  appears  to  be  directly  related  to  avail- 
ability of  food  and  suitable  nesting  cliffs.  Average 
distance  between  13  eyries  along  209  km  of  the 
west  face  of  the  Wasatch  Mountains  is  16.1  km. 
The  closest  spacing  was  about  3.2  km  apart  (Por- 
ter and  White  1973). 

In  the  Rocky  Mountains  region  in  general, 
data  indicate  a  50%  population  decHne  (Enderson 
in  Clement  ed  1974).  Annual  natural  mortality 
there  ranges  from  20%  to  25%  for  aduhs  and  50% 
to  55%  for  juveniles  (Rocky  Mountain/Southwest 


Peregrine  Falcon  Recovery  Team  1977).  Approxi- 
mately 100  pairs  were  reproducing  successfully  in 
California  in  1946;  the  decline  began  in  the  early 
1950's.  In  1970,  10  birds  were  present  at  4  sites. 
The  California  population  is  probably  reduced  at 
least  50%  from  25  years  ago.  Evidence  indicates 
that  the  total  number  of  successful  pairs  in  Cali- 
fornia in  1970  did  not  exceed  5  (Herman  1971; 
Herman  etal.  1970). 

Banks  (1969)  found  evidence  of  a  decline  in 
Baja  Cahfornia  and  the  Gulf  of  California,  with 
indication  of  lowered  productivity  in  the  latter 
area  in  the  1960's.  Anderson  (1976)  found  no 
peregrines  on  the  west  coast  of  Baja,  California 
between  1971  and  1975.  He  estimated  35  to  50 
active  nests  in  30  to  35  local  areas  along  the  Gulf 
of  California  and  75%  of  them  occupied  over  a  5- 
year  period.  Of  6  known  successful  nestings, 
there  were  2.2  young  per  nest.  Thus  it  was  as- 
sumed that  pesticide  pollution  was  not  too  acute 
at  that  time.  Porter  and  Jenkins  (1977)  also 
found  no  nests  occupied  on  the  west  coast  of 
Baja,  California,  and  the  population  along  the 
Gulf  of  Cahfornia  much  the  same  as  former  years. 

Farther  east  in  the  northern  Mexican  high 
country,  three  eyries  on  the  western  slope  of  a 
single  3,000  m  ridge  of  the  Sierra  Madre  Occiden- 
tal were  separated  by  distances  of  5  and  21  km. 
In  the  Sierra  Madre  Oriental  6  pairs  were  found  in 
an  18.2-km  circle,  with  the  average  distances 
separating  6  eyries  5.2  km.  Of  19  pairs  present  in 
the  Chihuahuan  Desert  region  of  northern  Mexico 
in  1976,  13  (68%)  produced  young,  indicating  a 
moderately  healthy  population  (Hunt  1976).  To- 
day, the  mainland  population  in  Mexico  may  ex- 
ceed 100  pairs,  while  in  Baja,  California  there 
may  be  an  additional  50  pairs,  although  only 
about  20  to  30  are  currently  known  (R.  D.  Porter, 
W.  G.  Hunt  in  King  in  press). 

REPRODUCTION 

In  Massachusetts,  peregrines  occupied  breed- 
ing stations  before  the  end  of  February,  and  laid 
the  first  eggs  by  25  March.  The  female  chose  and 
prepared  the  nest  hollow  on  a  cliff  ledge.  At  least 
one  day  elapsed  between  the  first,  second,  and 
third  eggs,  and  sometimes  2  days  between  the 
third  and  fourth  egg  (Joseph  Hagar  in  Bent  1938). 
A  clutch  ordinarily  included  3  or  4  eggs,  oc- 
casionally 5,  and  very  rarely  6  or  7.  Regional 
gradients  in  clutch  size  were  reported  by  Hickey 
(1942)  and  Bond  (1946). 


Incubation  requires  33  to  35  days.  The  two 
sexes  changed  places  on  the  nest  frequently  from 
the  time  the  first  egg  was  laid  until  incubation  be- 
gan if  the  weather  was  cold  or  stormy.  Incubation 
for  the  first  2  weeks  was  by  the  female;  last  half 
was  mostly  by  male  (Hager  m  Bent  1938;  Herbert 
and  Herbert  1965;  Porter  and  White  1973).  There 
was  one  brood  per  season  unless  the  eggs  were 
taken;  then  a  second  or  even  a  third  clutch  was 
laid  (Bent  1938).  Sometimes  the  young  fell  from 
the  nesting  shelf  and  were  killed  (Eaton  1910). 
From  3  nests,  the  first  young  flew  on  the  33rd, 
35th,  and  33rd  days  (Hagar  in  Bent  1938). 

Some  peregrines,  when  disturbed,  may  desert 
their  eggs  and  roost  as  much  as  8.8  km  away.  Re- 
nesting  may  or  may  not  occur  if  the  first  attempt 
is  unsuccessful  (Herbert  and  Herbert  1965;Hickey 
1942). 

Northern  peregrines  (Yukon  River,  Alaska) 
lay  about  3  eggs;  the  number  of  chicks  ranges 
around  2.3  to  2.7  per  eyrie  (Cade  1960).  Produc- 
tion of  "fledglings"  per  occupied  eyrie  on  the  up- 
per Yukon  River  dropped  from  1.80  at  15  sites  in 
1966  to  1.40  at  10  sites  in  1967  to  0.93  at  15 
sites  in  1968.  This  decline  was  associated  with  re- 
duced eggshell  thickness  there  in  the  1960's  com- 
pared with  those  prior  to  1947  Qoseph  Hickey  in 
lit  23  Dec.  1969). 

In  Utah,  egg  laying  began  between  12  and  29 
April  (1943-1952).  An  average  of  3.8  eggs  (range 
3-5)  was  laid  per  year  during  a  5-year  period,  and 
2.4  (range  0-4)  hatched  (Porter  and  White  1973). 
Natural  mortality  of  first  year  peregrines  is  high. 
Band  returns  indicate  that  70%  of  fledglings  die 
in  their  first  year  (Enderson  1969). 

Predation  on  nestlings  is  by  raccoons  in  Mas- 
sachusetts (Hagar  1969),  great  horned  owls  in 
New  York  (Cade  ed  1975),  and  ring-tails  in  the 
southwestern  United  States  (White  and  Lloyd 
1962). 

Reproductive  success  in  Chihuahuan  Desert 
eyries  of  west  Texas,  despite  significant  egg  shell 
thinning  of  17.9%,  was  40%  in  5  eyries  in  1975 
and  66.7%  in  6  eyries  in  1976.  Reproductive  suc- 
cess was  much  better  in  mountain  cliffs  than  in 
river  canyons  (Johnson  1976). 

Of  a  northern  Mexico  high-country  popula- 
tion in  the  Sierra  Madre  Oriental  of  6  pairs,  2 
failed  to  nest  successfully  in  1976.  The  average 
fledgling  ratio  was  2.0  per  successful  pair.  Egg 
shell  thinning  was  17.8%  (Hitchcock  1976). 


In  the  Chihuahuan  Desert  region  of  northern 
Mexico  in  1976,  13  broods  ranging  in  size  from  1 
to  4  young  averaged  2.15  young  per  nest,  compar- 
ing favorably  with  pre-DDT  eyries  elsewhere. 
Eyries  on  mountain  cliffs  were  78%)  successful 
and  those  in  river  canyons,  9%  successful,  indicat- 
ing probable  higher  concentrations  of  pesticides 
in  river  than  in  mountain  environments.  No  dif- 
ference was  found  in  productivity  of  eyries  of  the 
U.S.  and  Mexican  sections  of  the  Chihuahuan 
Desert  region.  The  rate  of  eggshell  thinning  was 
greater  in  the  northern  and  eastern  sections  than 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  Chihuahuan  Desert 
region  (Hunt  1976). 

A  few  peregrines  produce  young  at  1  year  of 
age,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  all  are  breeding  at 
age  2  (Hickey  and  Anderson  in  Hickey  ed  1969). 
If  they  do  not  normally  breed  until  at  least  2  years 
of  age,  the  average  fledging  rate,  which  is  less  than 
one  per  pair  per  year,  is  insufficient  to  replace 
normal  adult  losses  (Rocky  Mountain/South- 
western Peregrine  Falcon  Recovery  Team  1977). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

This  species  is  listed  in  Appendix  I,  Conserva- 
tion for  International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species 
of  Wild  Fauna  and  Flora  (Federal  Register,  Vol. 
42,  no.  35,  22  February  1977,  p.  10476). 

Critical  Habitat  has  been  designated  in  five 
areas  in  Sonoma,  Lake,  and  Napa  Counties  Cali- 
fornia (Federal  Register,  Vol.  42  no.  184,  22 
September  1977,  p.  47842). 

Four  Peregrine  Falcon  Recovery  Teams  have 
now  been  appointed  by  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe 
Service.  The  plan  of  action  for  saving  the  pere- 
grine includes:  (1)  increased  legal  protection;  (2) 
preservation  of  natural  habitat,  especially  nesting 
sites,  and  evaluation  of  pesticide  contamination; 
(3)  management  of  wild  populations;  (4)  captive 
propagation  for  "domestication"  and  for  stocking 
of  vacated  range;  (5)  educational  and  information 
program  to  gain  pubHc  support;  and  (6)  develop- 
ing national  and  international  cooperation  and 
coordination.  Direct  killing  or  molestation  by 
man  is  the  least  important  threat,  although  it  can 
play  a  part  and  must  be  guarded  against.  There 
are  adequate  laws,  but  law  enforcement  and  the 
public's  attitude  toward  birds  of  prey  should  be 
improved.  Preservation  of  essential  habitat,  partic- 
ularly irreplaceable  historic  falcon  eyries,  is  the 
most  essential  action  (Cade  1974).  It  should  be 


8 


possible  to  increase  productivity  by  "double- 
clutching,"  which  means  taking  the  first  clutch 
to  induce  laying  of  a  second.  Removed  eggs  can 
be  artificially  incubated  or  fostered  to  other  wild 
parents  such  as  prairie  falcons.  Incubator-hatched 
and  captive  reared  peregrines  may  be  held  in  cap- 
tivity during  the  first  critical  year  or  two,  then 
released  to  the  wild  as  adults.  Artificial  propaga- 
tion and  conditioning  to  survive  in  the  wild  could 
be  achieved  by  modification  of  falconry  techni- 
ques. Liberated  falcons  should  be  paired  and  psy- 
chologically conditioned  to  accept  suitable  nesting 
ledges  or  artificial  structures  in  habitat  where 
food  is  adequate  (Cade  1974). 

In  1970,  the  Laboratory  of  Ornithology  and 
Division  of  Biological  Sciences  at  Cornell  Univer- 
sity began  a  propagation  and  restocking  program 
with  $100,000  allocated  by  the  University.  At  the 
same  time,  Robert  B.  Berry  began  collaboration 
with  a  breeding  project  in  Pennsylvania.  In  1973, 
20  young  peregrines  were  reared  at  Cornell,  using 
artificial  insemination.  Eggs  were  hatched  in  an 
incubator.  Multiple  clutches  were  obtained  by  re- 
moving eggs  as  laid.  One  pair  produced  14  young 
in  2  years.  Two  other  pairs  laid  3  clutches  each, 
totaling  24  eggs,  and  only  1  pair  failed  in  fertiliza- 
tion. Only  birds  taken  from  the  wild  as  nestlings 
breed  easily  in  confinement.  Reproductive  cap- 
ability is  attained  by  captive  birds  at  3  years  of 
age  (Cade  1973).  In  1974,  three  mature  pairs  at 
Cornell  produced  21  young.  A  total  of  23  young 
from  all  pairs  was  reared  that  season.  Two  young 
reared  at  Cornell  were  fostered  to  a  pair  of  wild 
Colorado  peregrines  that  had  lost  their  second 
clutch  through  thin-shelled  egg  breakage  due  to 
DDE.  The  fostered  young  fledged.  Experiments 
were  begun  on  returning  captive  reared  birds  to 
the  wild  by  "hacking,"  which  involved  feeding 
nestlings  in  two  locations  suitable  for  future 
nesting  sites  until  they  fledged  and  flew  away 
(Cade  ed  1974).  From  1973  through  1975,  68 
young  from  captive  parents  were  raised.  Eleven 
pairs  were  laying  eggs  in  1975  at  Cornell,  and 
that  year  a  new  breeding  facility  was  started  at 
Fort  Collins,  Colorado,  stocked  with  birds  from 
Cornell.  At  a  facility  in  Alberta,  the  Canadian 
Wildhfe  Service  raised  18  peregrines  in  1975. 
Others  were  reared  by  private  breedings  in  Can- 
ada and  the  United  States  (Cade  ed  1975).  Over 
150  young  were  produced  in  captivity  in  all 
facilities  in  1977,  half  of  which  were  from  western 


North  American  anatum  stock  (Rocky  Mountain/ 
Southwestern  Peregrine  Falcon  Recovery  Team 
1977). 

The  first  major  restocking  with  captive-reared 
birds  was  in  1975,  when  16  were  introduced  to 
the  wild  by  hacking  at  5  release  sites.  Two  placed 
on  cliffs  where  peregrines  formerly  nested  were 
killed  by  great  homed  owls,  showing  need  for 
special  protection  against  predators  at  natural 
nesting  sites.  The  remaining  three  sites  were  man- 
made  structures:  one  in  a  former  gunnery  tower 
at  Edgewood  Arsenal  on  Chesapeake  Bay  in  Mary- 
land; another  at  Moose  Hill  Sanctuary  of  Mas- 
sachusetts Audubon  Society;  and  a  third  in  a 
specially  built  tower  on  an  island  near  extensive 
salt  marshes  in  New  Jersey.  Other  captive-bred 
and  raised  individuals  are  being  released  in  Canada 
{Cdideed  1975 ;  Cade  and  Dayne  ed^  1976). 

If  reestablishment  of  a  peregrine  population 
in  the  East  is  successful,  it  must  be  with  stock 
genetically  different  from  the  former  typical  ana- 
tum of  the  Eastern  Deciduous  forest  areas  as  none 
of  that  population  remains  (King  in  press;  Drury 
in  Clement  ed  1974).  The  problem  of  artificial 
rearing  and  restocking  was  reviewed  at  a  National 
Audubon  Society  sponsored  conference  in  1974 
(Clement  ed  1974).  Choosing  ecologically  adapted 
stock  to  replace  the  extince  "rock  peregrine" 
population  was  debated.  Stock  from  European 
populations  was  suggested  as  possibly  better 
adapted  to  the  eastern  deciduous  forest  area  than 
other  North  American  stocks  (White  and  Cade  in 
Clement  ed  1974).  Stocks  of  various  racial  origins 
were  suggested  as  best  to  achieve  greater  genetic 
diversity  for  natural  selection  to  work  with 
(Hickey  in  Clement  ed  1974).  Special  protection 
of  nesting  peregrines  from  human  disturbance  at 
traditional  sties  is  considered  particularly  im- 
portant in  preservation  and  reestablishment  of 
populations  (Hickey  in  Clement  ed  1974). 

In  summary,  essential  elements  of  a  manage- 
ment program  are  cooperation  between  govern- 
ment and  private  agencies  in  the  United  States, 
Canada,  and  Mexico  in  conducting  population 
surveys;  rearing,  fostering  and  introducing  captive 
reared  birds  to  the  wild;  monitoring  construction; 
oil,  gas,  and  mineral  exploration;  and  recreational 
activities  that  might  interfere  with  peregrines, 
with  restrictions  when  necessary;  and  extending 
and  enforcing  pesticide  bans  (Snow  1972; King  in 
press;  Rocky  Mountain/Southwest  Recovery 
Team  1977). 


AUTHORITIES 

Thomal  J.  Cade 
Laboratory  of  Ornithology 
Cornell  University 
Ithaca,  New  York    14850 

Joseph  J.  Hickey 
226  Russell  Laboratories 
University  of  Wisconsin 
Madison,  Wisconsin   53706 

Clayton  M.  White 
Department  of  Zoology 
575  Widtsoe  Building 
Brigham  Young  University 
Provo,  Utah  84601 

James  H.  Enderson 

Department  of  Biology 

Colorado  College 

Colorado  Springs,  Colorado  80903 

D.  D.  Berger 
1328  N.Jefferson 
Apartment  311 
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin  53202 

Walter  R.  Spofford  II 
"Aguila-Rancho" 
Portal,  Arizona  85632 

Joseph  A.  Hagar 
Marshfield  Hills 
Massachusetts  02051 

R.  Wayne  Nelson 
Department  of  Biology 
University  of  Calgary 
Calgary  Alta. 
Canada  T2N  1N4 

Richard  Fyfe 
Room  1110 
10025  Jasper  Avenue 
Edmonton,  Alta. 
Canada  T5J  136 

Steven  Herman 
Department  of  Zoology 
University  of  California 
Davis,  California  95616 

Morlan  Nelson 
732  East  Way 
Boise,  Idaho  83702 

W.  Grainger  Hunt 

Chihuahuan  Desert  Research  Institute 


P.O.  Box  1334 
Alpine,  Texas  79830 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

The  sudden  complete  loss  of  the  eastern  pop- 
ulations of  the  American  peregrine  and  continu- 
ing decline  of  most  other  populations  throughout 
the  remainder  of  its  extensive  range,  attest  to  its 
susceptibility  to  reproductive  failure  resulting 
from  chlorinated  hydrocarbon  pesticide  pollution 
of  its  food  chain.  Since  the  subspecies  is  practically 
nonmigratory  and  since  most  of  its  range  is  within 
the  United  States  and  Canada,  correction  of  the 
chemical  poisoning  problem  by  reducing  use  of 
the  most  hazardous  pesticides  should  be  relatively 
easy  compared  with  the  Arctic  Peregrine,  which 
migrates  to  Latin  American  countries  where 
pesticide  use  is  generally  excessive. 

The  American  peregrine  management  program 
is  fortunate  in  having  an  unusual  amount  of  will- 
ing, expert  private  citizen  volunteer  help,  particu- 
larly among  active  or  former  falconers.  It  gives 
those  persons  with  keen  interest  and  expertise  in 
handling  falcons  a  chance  to  work  with  their 
favorite  species  as  they  would  otherwise  be  un- 
able to  do  under  present  regulations  governing  fal- 
conry. The  unusually  large  number  of  authorities 
and  pertinent  literature  references,  and  the  fact 
that  there  are  now  four  Recovery  Teams  devoted 
to  the  American  peregrine  (more  than  for  any 
other  endangered  species)  shows  the  relatively 
great  interest  in  it  and  bodes  well  for  its  recovery 
if  the  all  important  problem  of  chemical  pollution 
can  be  solved  in  time.— John  A.  Aldrich 

LITERATURE  CITED/SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

A.  O.  U.  1931.  Check-list  of  North  American 
birds,  4th  ed.  Lancaster,  PA.,  American 
Ornithologists  Union. 

AUen,  A.  A.  and  H.  K.  Knight.  1913.  The  Duck 
Hawks  of  the  Taughannock  Gorge.  Bird  Lore 
15:1-8. 

American  Ornithologists'  Union  Committee  on 
Conservation.  1977.  Report  of  the  committee 
on  Conservation  1976-77.  Auk  94  (Suppl.): 
3DD-19DD. 

Anderson,  D.  W.  1976.  The  Gulf  of  California,  m 
Fyfe,  R.  W.,  S.  A.  Temple,  and  T.  J.  Cade. 


10 


1976.  The  North  American  Peregrine  Falcon 
Survey.  Can.  Field-Nat.  90:228-273. 

Baerg,  W.  J.  1931.  Birds  of  Arkansas.  Univ. 
Arkansas.  Univ.  Arkansas  Agric.  Exp.  Sta. 
BuU.  258. 

Bailey,  A.  M.  and  R.  J.  Niedrach.  1965.  Birds  of 
Colorado,  Col.  1.  Denver  Mus.  Nat.  Hist. 

Bailey,  F.  M.  1928.  Birds  of  New  Mexico.  New 
Mexico  Dept.  Game  &:  Fish  and  U.S.  Bur. 
Biol.  Surv. 

Banks,  R.  C.  1969.  The  Peregrine  Falcon  in  Baja, 
California  and  the  Gulf  of  California.  Chapt.  6 
in  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations, 
their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin 
Press,  Madison. 

Bellrose,  F.,  Jr.  1938.  Duck  Hawks  nesting  in 
western  Tennessee.  Wilson  Bull.  50:  139. 

Bent,  A.  C.  1938.  Life  histories  of  North  Ameri- 
can birds  of  prey.  Part  2.  U.S.  Nat.  Mus.  Bull. 
170,  pp.  43-67. 

Berger,  D.  D.  and  H.  C.  Mueller.  1969.  Nesting 
Peregrine  Falcons  in  Wisconsin  and  adjacent 
areas.  Chapt.  9  in  Hickey,  J.  J.  ed  Peregrine 
Falcon  populations,  their  biology  and  decline. 
Madison,  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press. 

Berger,  D.  C,  C.  R.  Sindlar,  Jr.,  K.  E.  Gamble. 
1969.  The  status  of  breeding  Peregrines  in  the 
eastern  United  States.  Chapt.  13  in  Hickey, 
J.  J.  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations,  their 
biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press, 
Madison. 

Bond,  R.  M.  1936.  Observations  on  the  food  of 
the  Duck  Hawk.  Condor  38:217-218. 

Bond,  R.  M.  1946.  The  Peregrine  population  of 
western  North  America.  Condor  48:101-116. 

Brown,  L.  and  D.  Amadon.  1968.  Falcoperegrinus. 
Peregrine  Falcon  in  Eagles,  hawks  and  falcons 
of  the  world.  Vol.  2.  McGraw  Hill,  New  York. 

Bull,  J.  1974.  Birds  of  New  York  State.  Double- 
day/Natural  History  Press,  Garden  City,  NJ. 

Burleigh,  T.  D.  1958.  Georgia  Birds.  Univ.  Okla- 
homa Press,  Norman. 

Butler,  A.  W.  1897.  Birds  of  Indiana.  Ind.  Dept. 
Geol.  and  Nat.  Resources,  22  Ann.  Rep. 

Cade,  T.  J.  1960.  Ecology  of  the  Peregrine  and 
Gyrfalcon  populations  in  Alaska.  Univ.  Calif. 
Publ.  Zool.  63:151-290. 


Cade,  T.  J.  1974.  Current  status  of  the  Peregrine 
in  North  America.  Raptor  Research  Report 
No.  3. 

Cade,  T.  J.  1974.  Plans  for  managing  the  survival 
of  the  Peregrine  Falcon.  Proc.  Conf.  Raptor 
Conserv.  Techniques,  Fort  Collins,  Colo.  22- 
24,  March  1973  pt.  4.  Raptor  Res.  Rept.  2: 
89-104. 

Cade,  T.  J.  ed.  1973.  Captive  breeding  -  the  1973 
season.  The  Peregrine  Fund,  Cornell  Univ. 
Lab.  of  Omith.  Newsletter  No.  1. 

Cade,  T.  J.  ed.  1974.  Captive  breeding  -  1974  sea- 
son. Introduction  to  wild  begins.  The  Pere- 
grine Fund.  Cornell  Univ.  Lab.  of  Omith. 
Newsletter  No.  2. 

Cade,  T.  J.  ed.  1975.  Captive  breeding  -  1975  sea- 
son. Restoring  Peregrines  to  Nature.  The  Pere- 
grine Fund,  Cornell  Univ.  Lab.  of  Omith. 
Newsletter  No.  3. 

Cade,  T.  J.  and  P.  R.  Dayne  eds.  1976.  The  Pere- 
grine Fund  Newsletter  No.  4,  Cornell  Univ. 
Lab.  of  Ornithology. 

Cade,  T.  J.  and  R.  Fyfe.  1970.  The  North  Ameri- 
can Peregrine  survey,  1970.  Canadian  Field- 
Nat.  84:231-245. 

Cade,  T.  J.,  C.  M.  White  and  J.  R.  Haugh.  1968. 
Peregrines  and  pesticides  in  Alaska.  Condor  2: 
179-178. 

Clement,  R.  C.  ed.  1974.  Proceedings  of  a  confer- 
ence on  Peregrine  Falcon  recovery.  Ann.  Con- 
serv. Repts.  4. 

Dixon,  J.  1908.  A  family  of  young  Duck  Hawks. 
Condor  10:198-200. 

Dumont,  P.  A.  1917.  A  revised  list  of  the  birds  of 
Iowa.  Univ.  Iowa  Studies  15(5):1-171. 

Eaton,  E.  H.  1910.  Birds  of  New  York.  New  York 
State  Mus.  Mem.  12.  Vol.  2. 

Enderson,  J.  H.  1965.  A  breeding  and  migration 
survey  of  the  Peregrine  Falcon.  Wilson  Bull. 
77:327-329. 

Enderson,  J.  H.  1969.  Peregrine  and  Prairie  Fal- 
con life  tables  based  on  band  recovery  data, 
pp.  505-509  in  Peregrine  Falcon  populations 
their  biology'  and  decline,  J.  J.  Hickey  ed. 
Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Enderson,  J.  H.  1969a.  Population  trends  among 
Peregrine    Falcons    in    the    Rocky   Mountain 


11 


region.  Chap.  5.  in  Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  Fal- 
con populations  their  biology  eind  decline. 
Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Enderson,  J.  H.  1977.  Status  of  the  Peregrine  Fal- 
con in  the  Rocky  Mountain  Region  -  1977. 
Project  Report,  World  Wildhfe  Fund  Proj.  US- 
18.  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  Contract 
14-16-0008-2055. 

Enderson,  J.  and  D.  Berger.  1968.  Chlorinated  hy- 
drocarbon residues  in  Peregrines  and  their 
prey  species  from  northern  Canada.  Condor 
70:149-153. 

Enderson,  J.  H.  and  J.  Craig.  1974.  Status  of  the 
Peregrine  Falcon  in  the  Rocky  Mountains  in 
1973.  Auk  91:727-736. 

Fish  and  Wildlife  Service.  1973.  Threatened  Wild- 
hfe of  the  United  States,  1973  Edition.  U.S. 
Dept.  of  the  Interior,  Resource  Pub.  114. 
GPO,  Washington,  D.C. 

Forbush,  W.  H.  1927.  Birds  of  Massachusetts  and 
other  New  England  states.  Part  II.  Mass.  Dept. 

Agric. 

Fyfe,  R.  W.,  S.  A.  Temple  and  T.  J.  Cade  eds. 
1976.  The  1975  North  American  Peregrine 
Falcon  survey.  Canad.  Field-Nat.  90:228-273. 

Fyfe,  R.  1976.  Rationale  and  success  of  the  Can- 
adian Wildlife  Service  Peregrine  Breeding 
Project.  Canad.  Field-Nat.  90:308-319. 

Gabrielson,  1.  N.  and  S.  G.  Jewett.  1940.  Birds  of 
Oregon.  Oregon  State  College,  Corvalis. 

Goss,  N.  S.  1878.  Breeding  of  the  Duck  Haw^k  in 
trees.  Bull.  Nuttall  Ornith.  Club  3:32-34. 

Grinnell,  J.  and  A.  H.  Miller,  1944.  The  distribu- 
tion of  the  birds  of  California.  Pac.  Coast  Avi- 
fauna 27. 

Groskin,  H.  1947.  Observations  of  Duck  Hawks 
nesting  on  man-made  structure.  Auk  69:246- 
253. 

Hagar,  J.  A.  1969.  History  of  the  Massachusetts 
Peregrine  Falcon  population  1935-57,  Chapt. 
10  in  Hickey,  J.  J.  ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  pop- 
ulations, their  biology  and  decline.  Univ. 
Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Herbert,  R.  A.  and  K.  G.  S.  Herbert.  1965.  Be- 
havior of  Peregrine  Falcons  in  the  New  York 
City  Region.  Auk  82:62-94. 

Herbert,  R.  A.  and  K.  G.  S.  Herbert.  1969.  The 


extirpation  of  the  Hudson  River  Peregrine 
Falcon  population  Chapt.  11  m  J.  J.  Hickey 
ed.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations  their  biology 
and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Herman,  S.  G.  1971.  The  Peregrine  decline  in  Cal- 
ifornia, II,  Breeding  status  in  1970.  Amer. 
Birds  25:818-820. 

Herman,  S.  G.,  M.  N.  Kirven  and  R.  W.  Risebrough. 

1970.  The  Peregrine  Falcon  in  California  1.  A 

preliminary  review.  Aud.  Field  Notes  24:609- 

613. 
Hickey,  J.  J.    1942.  Eastern  population  of  the 

Duck  Hawk.  Auk  59:176-204. 

Hickey,  J.  J.  ed.  1969.  Peregrine  Falcon  popula- 
tions, their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wiscon- 
sin Press,  Madison. 

Hickey,  J.  J.  and  D.  W.  Anderson.  1960.  The 
Peregrine  Falcon:  life  history  and  population 
literature.  Chapt.  1  in  Hickey,  J.  J.  ed.  Pere- 
grine Falcon  populations,  their  biology  and 
decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Hickey,  J.  J.  and  J.  E.  Roelle.  1969.  Conference 
summary  and  conclusions,  Chapt.  47  in 
Hickey,  J.J.  eo?.  Peregrine  Falcon  populations, 
their  biology  and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin 
Press,  Madison. 

Hitchcock,  M.  1976.  A  breeding  survey  of  Pere- 
grine Falcons  in  the  mountains  of  northern 
Mexico  1975-76.  Report  of  Chihuahuan  Desert 
Research  Institute,  Alpine  Tex.  for  U.S.  Fish 
and  Wildlife  Service  and  Nat.  Audubon  Soc. 

Howell,  J.  C.  and  M.  B.  Monroe.  1957.  Birds  of 
Knox  County.  Joum.  Tenn.  Acad.  Sci.  Univ. 
of  Tennessee  Press,  Knoxville. 

Hubbard,  J.  P.  1970.  Checkhst  of  The  Birds  of 
New  Mexico.  New  Mexico  Ornithological 
Society  Publication  No.  3.  103  pp. 

Hunt,  W.  G.  1976.  The  Peregrine  Falcon  popula- 
tion in  the  Chihuahuan  Desert  and  surround- 
ing mountain  ranges:  an  evaluation  through 
1976.  Report  of  Chihuahuan  Desert  Research 
Institute,  Alpine,  Tex. 

Imhof,  T.  A.  1962.  Alabama  Birds.  Alabama 
Dept.  Cons.,  Game  &  Fish  Div.  Univ.  Alabama 
Press. 

Jewett,  S.  G.,  W.  P.  Taylor,  W.  J.  Shaw,  J.  W. 
Aldrich,  1953.  Birds  of  Washington  State. 
Univ.  Wash.  Press,  Seattle. 


12 


Johnson,  B.  S.  1976.  Peregrine  Falcons  in  west 
Texas:  Results  of  the  1976  nesting  survey. 
Report  of  Chihuahuan  Desert  Research  In- 
stitute, Alpine  Tex,  for  Texas  Parks  and  Wild- 
life Dept. 

Johnston,  R.  F.  1960.  Directory  to  the  bird-life 
of  Kansas.  Univ.  Kansas  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  Misc. 
Pub.  23:1-69. 

King,  W.  in  press.  (Revised)  Red  data  book,  Aves. 
Survival  Service,  I.U.C.N.  Morges,  Switzerland. 

Lock,  R.  A.  1977.  Nebraska's  endangered  and 
threatened  wildlife.  Neb.  Game  and  Parks 
Comm. 

Lowery,   G.    H.,  Jr.    1955.   Louisiana  birds.  La. 

WildUfe  and  Fisheries  Comm.,  La.  State  Univ. 

Press. 
McCreary,  O.    1939.  Wyoming  bird  Ufe.  Burgess 

Pubhshing  Co.  Minneapolis. 

Mengel,  R.  M.  1965.  Birds  of  Kentucky.  Omith. 
Mon.  No.  3,  A.O.U. 

Murray,  J.  J.  1952.  A  check-list  of  the  birds  of 
Virginia.  Virginia  Soc.  Omith. 

Nelson,  M.  W.  1969.  The  status  of  the  Peregrine 
Falcon  in  the  northwest,  pp.  61-72,  in  J.  J. 
Hickey  ed..  Peregrine  populations  their  biology 
and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madison. 

Nelson,  R.  W.  1970.  Observations  on  the  decUne 
and  survival  of  the  Peregrine  Falcon.  Canadian 
Field-Nat.  34-313-319. 

Oberholser,  H.  C.  1974.  The  bird  life  of  Texas, 
Vol.  I.  Univ.  Tex.  Press,  Austin. 

Osgood,  W.  H.  1900.  Resuhs  of  a  biological  re- 
connaissance of  the  Yukon  River  region. 
North  Amer.  Fauna  No.  19. 

Palmer,  R.  S.  1949.  Maine  birds.  Bull.  Mus. 
Comp.  Zool.  102:1-656. 

Peakall,  B.  1974.  DDE:  its  presence  in  Peregrine 
eggs  in  1948.  Science  183:673-674. 

Peakall,  D.  B.  1976.  The  Peregrine  Falcon  {Falco 
peregrinus)  and  pesticides.  Canad.  Field-Nat. 
90:301-307. 

Porter,  R.  D.  and  A.Jenkins.  1977.  Peregrine  Fal- 
con studies  in  Baja,  California.  Report  to  Di- 
rection General  Fauna  Silvestre  of  Mexican 
government. 

Porter,  R.  D.  and  D.  B.  Marshall.  1977.  The  re- 
covery team   approach  to  restoration  of  en- 


dangered species.  ICBP  World  conference  on 
Birdsof  Prey.  Proc.:314-319. 

Porter,  R.  D.  and  C.  M.  White.  1973.  The  Peregrine 
Falcon  in  Utah,  emphasizing  ecology  and 
competition  with  Prairie  Falcon.  Brigham 
Young  Univ.  Sci.  Bull.  Brigham  Young  Univ. 
Sci.  Bull.  Biol.  Ser.  18(l):l-74. 

Rice,  J.  N.  1969.  The  decline  of  the  Peregrine 
population  in  Pennsylvania,  Chapt.  12  m  J.J. 
Hickey  ed.  Peregrine  populations,  their  bio- 
logy and  decline.  Univ.  Wisconsin  Press,  Madi- 
son. 

Ridgway,  R.  1895.  Nesting  of  the  Duck  Hawk  in 
trees.  Nidologist  3:42-44. 

Ridgway,  R.  1889.  The  Ornithology  of  Illinois 
Vol.  1,  H.  W.  Rokker,  Springfield. 

Rocky  Mountain/Southwest  Peregrine  Falcon  Re- 
covery Team.  1977.  Rocky  Mountain/South- 
west Peregrine  Recovery  Plan  (draft)  U.S. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 

Shor,  W.  1970.  Peregrine  Falcon  population  dy- 
namics deduced  from  band  recovery  data. 
Raptor  Research  News  4:49-59. 

Snow,  C.  1972.  American  Peregrine  Falcon,  Falco 
peregrinus  anatum  and  Arctic  Peregrine  Fal- 
con, Falco  peregrinus  tundrius.  Bur.  Land 
Mangt.  Technical  Note,  Habitat  Management 
for  Endangered  Species  Report  No.  1. 

Spofford,  W.  R.  1942.  Nesting  of  the  Peregrine 
Falcon  in  Tennessee.  Migrant  13:29-31. 

Sprunt,  A.,  Jr.  and  E.  B.  Chamberlain.  1949. 
South  Carolina  bird  life.  Univ.  S.  Carolina 
Press,  Columbia. 

Stager,  K.  E.  1941.  A  group  of  bat-eating  Duck 
Hawks.  Condor  43:137-139. 

Stewart,  R.  E.  1975.  Breeding  birds  of  North 
Dakota.  Tri-college  Center  for  Environmental 
Studies,  Fargo. 

Stewart,  R.  E.  and  C.  S.  Robbins.  1958.  Birds  of 
Maryland  and  the  District  of  Columbia.  North 
Amer.  Fauna  No.  62. 

Stone,  W.  1908.  The  birds  of  New  Jersey.  Ann. 
Rept.  New  Jersey  State  Mus.  Part  2. 

Todd,  W.  E.  C.  1940.  Birds  of  western  Pennsyl- 
vania. Univ.  Pittsburgh  Press. 

Twomey,  A.  C.  1942.  Birds  of  Uinta  Basin,  Utah. 
Ann.  Carnegie  Mus.  28:341-490. 


13 


Warren,  B.  H.  1890.  Report  on  the  birds  of  Pen- 
nsylvania. E.  K.  Meyers,  Harrisburg. 

White,  C.  M.  1968.  Diagnosis  and  relationships  of 
the  North  American  tundra  -  inhabiting  Pere- 
grine Falcon.  Auk  85:179-191. 

White,  C.  M.  1968a.  Biosystematics  of  North  Am- 
erican Peregrine  Falcons.  Ph.D.  dissertation, 
Univ.  Utah,  unpubl.  195  pp. 

White,  C.  M.  and  G.  D.  Lloyd.  1962.  Predation  on 
Peregrines  by  Ringtails.  Auk  79:277. 

White,  C.  M.  and  T.  J.  Cade.  1977.  Long-term 
trends  of  Peregrine  population  in  Alaska,  in 


Rep.  of  Proceedings  World  Conf.  on  Birds  of 
Prey,  Vienna,  1-3  Oct.  1975.  R.  D.  Chancellor 
ed.  l.C.B.P. 

Widmann,  O.  1907.  A  preliminary  catalogue  of 
the  birds  of  Missouri. 

Wilson  Ornithological  Society  Conservation  Com- 
mittee. 1977.  Falconry:  effects  on  raptor 
populations  and  management  in  North  Am- 
erica. Wilson  Bull.  89:360-369. 

Wood,  N.  A.  1951.  The  birds  of  Michigan.  Misc. 
Pubs.  Mus.  Zool.  Univ.  Mich.  No.  75.  Univ. 
Mich.  Press,  Ann  Arbor. 


14 


Biological  Services  Program 


FWS/OBS-80/01.58 
March  1980 


Selected  Vertebrate  Endangered  Species 
Of  the  Seacoast  of  the  United  States- 

SANTA  CRUZ  LONG  TOED  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 
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  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  scries  to  facilitate  additions  and  deletions  as  new 
accounts  are  prepared  or  as  the  status  of  species  is  changed. 

Suggestions  or  questions  regarding  SWIS  shoidd  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-80/01.58 
March  1980 


SELECTED  VERTEBRATE  ENDANGERED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  SEACOAST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
SANTA  CRUZ  LONG  TOED  SALAMANDER 


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-SlideU  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 


SANTA  CRUZ  LONG-TOED  SALAMANDER 

Ambystoma  macrodactylum  croceum 

KINGDOM Animalia 

CLASS Amphibia 

ORDER Urodela 

FAMILY Ambystomatidae 

OTHER  COMMON  NAMES None 

DATE 

Entered  into  SWIS To  be  determined 

Updates 15  November  1979 

LEGAL  STATUS 

Federal        Endangered   (32  FR  4001,  11  March 
1967) 

States  Endangered:  California  (21  May  1971) 

REASONS  FOR  CURRENT  STATUS 

This  salamander  was  first  discovered  in  1954 


(Russell  and  Anderson  1956).  It  is  now  known  to 
occur  in  only  six  localities  near  the  coast  in  the 
Monterey  Bay  region  of  central  California.  This 
area  is  undergoing  accelerated  residential  and 
commercial  development  that  once  destroyed  or 
threatened  to  disrupt  populations  of  this  salaman- 
der. The  type  locality  at  Valencia  Lagoon  was 
drastically  disturbed  by  freeway  construction  and 
related  storm  drainage  channels  between  1955 
and  1969,  and  acceleration  of  residential  con- 
struction nearby  threatens  the  upland  habitat  of 
the  species.  A  second  population,  about  6.4  km 
to  the  southeast,  occurs  in  and  near  an  ephemeral 
pond,  which  was  threatened  in  1971  with  being 
developed  as  a  trailer  park.  This  action  was  not 
taken.  These  were  the  only  known  populations  up 
to  1972.  Recently,  a  population  was  discovered  at 
Seascape,  between  Valencia  Lagoon  and  Ellicott, 
and  three  sites  with  a  few  individuals  were  located 
near  Elkhorn  Slough,  about  18  km  south  of 
Valencia  Lagoon.  The  four  later  sites  all  appear  to 
be  threatened  by  agricultural  or  subdivision  devel- 
opment. 


PRIORITY  INDEX 

Not  assigned. 

DESCRIPTION 

This  small  salamander  is  55  to  88  mm  in  snout- 
to-vent  length.  Adults  are  usually  less  than  125 
mm  in  total  length.  The  toes  are  relatively  long, 
the  dorsum  is  jet  black  with  irregular  mid-dorsal 
spots  or  blotches  of  metallic  yellow-gold  to 
orange  color,  undersides  are  sooty,  and  the  sides 
and  limbs  are  flecked  with  white. 

Larvae  are  small  and  usually  transform  at  a 
snout-to-vent  length  varying  from  36  to  48  mm.  If 
water  remains  in  breeding  ponds  through  the 
spring  or  early  summer,  larvae  transform  later,  at 
a  larger  body  size.  Metamorphosis  may  take  place 
from  early  May  to  mid-August. 

Illustrations  and  description  appear  in  Russell 
and  Anderson  (1956)  and  Stebbins  (1966). 

RANGE 

Six  localities  known  to  support  populations 
o{  A.  m.  croceum  are  (from  north  to  south):  Va- 
lencia Lagoon,  Seascape  Pond,  Ellicott  Station, 
McClusky  Slough,  Bennett  (Struve)  Slough,  and 
Moco  Cojo  Slough.  These  sites  are  all  near  the 
coast  of  Monterey  Bay.  The  populations  are  cen- 
tered in  and  adjacent  to  the  breeding  ponds. 

RANGE  MAP 

Localities  are  shown  on  the  accompanying 
map  (from  Santa  Cruz  Long-Toed  Salamander  Re- 
covery Team  1976  and  Reed  1978). 

STATES/COUNTIES 

California  Santa  Cruz,  Monterey. 

HABITAT 

This  salamander  occurs  in  rolling  hills  of 
mixed  grassland,  coastal  chaparral  and  oak  wood- 
land, and  along  coastal  seascapes.  Adults  and 
transformed  individuals  spend  most  of  their  lives 
on  land  in  underground  retreats  — in  mammal 
burrows,  beneath  logs  and  rocks,  and  along  the 
root  systems  of  plants  (Ruth  and  Tollestrup 
1973).  It  frequents  heavily  vegetated  areas,  typi- 
cally live  oak  woodland  [Quercus  agrifolia)  having 
a  few  madrones  [Arbutus  menziesii)  and  Douglas 


firs  {Pseudostsuga  menzusii).  The  understory 
may  include  hazelnut  [Corylus  rostrata),  coffee- 
berry  [Rhamnus  californica),  currant  [Ribes  san- 
guineum),  and  California  lilac  [Ceanothus  thyr- 
siflorus).  The  ground  cover  and  low  shrubs  often 
include  blackberry  [Rubus  sp.),  poison  oak  [Rhus 
diver siloba),  and  ferns  [Polystichum  munitum, 
Pteridium  aquilinum).  Willow  thickets  [Salix  sp.) 
are  used  as  refuges.  Adults  also  seek  shelter  in 
coastal  scrub  (Northern  Coastal  Scrub  and  Coastal 
Sage  Scrub),  which  includes  coyote  brush  [Bac- 
charis  pilularis),  coastal  sagebrushes  [Artemisia 
californica,  A.  suksdorfii),  lilac  [Ceanothus  sp.), 
lupine  [Lupinus  variicolor),  sage  [Salvia  sp.),  cow- 
parsnip  [Heracleum  lanatum),  and  varying  ele- 
ments of  understory  shrubs  and  ground  cover 
described  above  for  the  oak  woodland  commun- 
ity. 

Aquatic  plants  in  and  adjacent  to  breeding 
ponds  include  spike  rush  [Eleocharis  sp.),  knot- 
weed  [Polygonum  sp.),  and  pondweed  [Potamoge- 
ton  sp.).  Cattail  [Typha  sp.)  occurs  at  the  Valen- 
cia site;  the  adjacent  freeway  drainage  channel 
was  planted  with  kikyu  grass  [Pennisetum  clan- 
destinum).  Emergent  and  submergent  vegetation 
is  apparently  necessary  for  egg-laying  sites,  cover, 
and  food. 

This  salamander  breeds  principally  in  shallow, 
ephemeral  ponds  with  vegetation  present.  A  vital 
factor  to  transformed  salamanders  is  the  availa- 
bility of  relatively  dense  vegetative  cover  adjacent 
to  or  within  migrating  distance  (presumably  less 
than  0.5  km)  from  the  breeding  pond  (SCLTSRT 
1976). 

FOOD  AND  FORAGING  BEHAVIOR 

Arthropods  and  isopods  are  the  most  impor- 
tant prey  for  adults  throughout  the  year,  and  es- 
pecially in  the  drier  months  (Anderson  1968). 
In  wetter  seasons,  the  adults  take  more  beetles, 
centipedes,  earthworms,  and  spiders.  Small  larvae 
feed  mainly  on  planktonic  invertebrates  (clado- 
cerans  and  copepods);  larger  larvae  principally 
forage  on  small-sized  prey  such  as  cladocerans, 
copepods,  ostracods,  and  chironomid  larvae,  also 
occasionally  taking  larger  aquatic  insects,  snails, 
earthworms,     and     tadpoles     (Anderson     1968). 

SHELTER  REQUIREMENTS 

Adults    apparently  depend  on  densely  vege- 


SANTA  CRUZ 


Range  of  the  Santa  Cmz  Long-Toed  Salamander. 


tated  areas  or  subterranean  retreats  for  cover 
while  on  land  (see  HABITAT.)  Breeding  ponds 
have  emergent  or  aquatic  plants  that  provide  cover 
for  both  adults  and  larvae.  Breeding  ponds  be- 
come choked  with  vegetation  soon  after  they  fill. 

NESTING  OR  BEDDING 

Eggs  are  deposited  singly,  about  2  to  3  cm 
apart,  on  aquatic  vegetation,  principally  spike  rush 
(Anderson  1968).  Ruth  and  ToUestrup  (1974) 
found  some  small  clusters  of  2  or  3  eggs  and  some 
unattached  eggs  floating  on  the  surface. 

RITUAL  REQUIREMENTS 

Courtship  behavior  consists  of  a  distinct  se- 
quence (Anderson  1961):  clasping,  rubbing,  and 
an  elaborate  walking  sequence,  followed  by 
spermatophore  deposition  by  the  male  and  subse- 
quent recovery  by  the  female. 

OTHER  CRITICAL  ENVIRONMENTAL 
REQUIREMENTS 

Adults  seem  to  have  well-developed  orienta- 
tion abilities  that  are  used  to  locate  the  breeding 
pond.  Transformed  juveniles  may  spend  3  or  4 
years  on  land  before  returning  to  the  'home'  pond. 

They  frequent  ephemeral  ponds  that  are  free 
of  predators,  especially  predatory  fish  and  the 
introduced  bullfrog  (Rana  catesbeiana),  both  of 
which  are  capable  of  seriously  reducing  salaman- 
der numbers.  Larval  salamanders  are  especially 
vulnerable  to  fish  predation. 

Low  winter  rainfall  occasionally  results  in 
small  ponds  or  early  drying  out  of  the  ponds,  so 
that  breeding  is  unsuccessful  or  the  larvae  die  of 
desiccation  (Ruth  and  ToUestrup  1973).  Some- 
times several  consecutive  years  of  low  rainfall 
occur,  and  considerable  reproductive  effort  may 
be  lost. 

Larval  transformation  usually  succeeds  when 
there  is  more  than  760  mm  of  rainfall  per  season, 
and  may  succeed  in  years  with  between  635  and 
760,  depending  on  the  timing  of  the  rainfall;  it  is 
usually  unsuccesful  when  there  is  less  than  635 
mm  of  rain  (Ruth  and  ToUestrup  1973).  Migra- 
tion to  the  breeding  site  occurs  only  on  rainy 
nights  in  winter. 

POPULATION  NUMBERS  AND  TRENDS 

Once  estimated   to  number  several  thousand 


just  at  Valencia  Lagoon  (Anderson  1960),  the 
salamander  population  has  decreased  because  of 
habitat  disruption.  In  1972,  field  census  studies 
estimated  that  about  500  adult  salamanders  were 
living  at  this  site  (Ruth  and  ToUestrup  1973),  and 
in  1973-74  about  1,000  salamanders  were  estab- 
lished here  (ToUestrup  1974).  In  1974,  Reed 
estimated  that  there  were  2,720  individuals  in 
the  breeding  area.  The  higher  number  may  be  due 
a  more  comprehensive  study  than  done  by  early 
workers. 

Several  thousand  salamanders  migrated  to 
Ellicott  Pond  in  the  winter  of  1971  (R.  Marlow, 
personal  communication).  About  4,000  were 
marked  during  this  period,  and  the  total  popula- 
tion probably  numbers  5,000  to  8,000  animals. 
The  other  breeding  sites  presumably  have  only 
small  populations. 

The  Valencia  population  now  uses  two  small 
artificial  ponds  for  breeding.  These  ponds  enable 
the  salamander  to  survive,  but  at  a  lower  and 
consequently  more  vulnerable  level  (SCLTSRT 
1976).  The  Ellicott  population  appears  to  be 
stable  following  habitat  protective  measures  (see 
MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION). 

REPRODUCTION 

Breeding  occurs  from  November  to  February 
and  largely  depends  on  mass  migrations  during 
heavy  rainstorms.  Adults  do  not  remain  long  in 
the  pond.  Each  female  lays  about  200  eggs,  which 
hatch  in  30  to  45  days,  and  larvae  transform  into 
juveniles  after  90  to  145  days  (Reed  1978). 

MANAGEMENT  AND  CONSERVATION 

Considerable  sustained  effort  by  many  indi- 
viduals and  agencies  has  provided  protection  for 
this  salamander  (Bury  1971,  1972;  Bury  and 
Ruth  1972;  Ruth  and  ToUestrup  1973;  Ruth 
1974;  ToUestrup  1974;  Cahfornia  Department  of 
Fish  and  Game  1975;  SCLTSRC  1976;  Reed 
1978). 

The  Valencia  site  was  partially  restored  by 
CALTRANS  (California  Division  of  Highways) 
following  disruption  due  to  construction  of  a 
freeway  and  a  drainage  canal.  A  "salamander 
pond"  was  dug  and  natural  vegetation  replanted 
in  1970.  This  artifical  pond  is  being  used  by  the 
adult  salamanders  as  a  breeding  site,  but  the 
population  appears  to  be  smaller  than  in  times 
past.  The  reduction  in  numbers  is  thought  to  be 


due  to  the  decreased  size  of  the  aquatic  area 
available  for  breeding  and  larval  development. 
CALTRANS  and  the  California  Department  of 
Fish  and  Game  are  now  making  the  Valencia 
site  into  essential  habitat  for  the  salamander, 
including  restoration  of  the  original  vegetation 
and  manipulation  of  the  water  level  to  increase 
the  area  of  standing  water. 

Santa  Cruz  County  has  adopted  several 
residential  regulations  designed  to  minimize  the 
impact  of  housing  near  Valencia  Lagoon.  The 
California  Coastal  Commission,  in  coordination 
with  the  state  Department  of  Fish  and  Game 
(DFG)  has  established  guidelines  for  development 
near  Valencia  Lagoon.  A  DFG  habitat  acquisition 
program  is  underway  at  Valencia  and  the  Nature 
Conservancy  is  helping  with  the  effort. 

Areas  at  Ellicott  (12  ha)  and  Valencia  (1.1 
ha)  were  purchased  in  1973  and  are  now  Ecolog- 
ical Reserves  administrated  by  the  California  De- 
partment of  Fish  and  Game.  At  Ellicott,  the  U.S. 
Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  purchased  47  ha  of 
habitat  in  1975-76,  principjilly  terrestrial  areas 
used  by  the  adults  for  retreats  during  most  of  the 
year.  The  upland  habitat  had  been  severely  dis- 
rupted by  off -road  vehicle  use,  which  removed 
hillside  vegetation  and  resulted  in  erosion.  Vehi- 
cular travel  has  been  significantly  reduced  in  the 
terrestrial  habitat  by  patrols,  and  posting  no- 
trespassing  signs.  Erosion-control  techniques  are 
being  employed  to  restore  the  vegetation.  The 
reserve  area  was  fenced  in  1975-76. 

There  are  continuing  efforts  to  protect  the 
salamander.  In  1978,  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildhfe 
Service  proposed  Critical  Habitat  designations  for 
the  areas  used  by  the  salamander  at  Ellicott  and 
Valencia.  Needed  biological  studies  on  the  sala- 
mander are  being  conducted  through  the  coopera- 
tive efforts  of  the  California  Department  of  Fish 
and  Game  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service. 
From  1973  to  1978,  four  additional  localities 
where  some  salamanders  live  were  discovered,  but 
the  status  of  these  populations  is  not  well  known. 

Potential  threats  to  the  recently  discovered 
populations  at  Seascape  and  near  Elkhorn  Slough 
are  being  evaluated  and,  if  proven  serious,  may 
warrant  protective  measures. 

AUTHORITIES 

Elden  H.  Vestal 

California  Dept.  of  Fish  and  Game 


P.O.  Box  47 

Yountville,  California  94599 

John  M.  Erode,  Acting  Leader 
Santa  Cruz  Long-Toed  Salamander 

Recovery  Team 
California  Dept.  of  Fish  and  Game 
1701  Nimbus  Road 
Rancho  Cordova,  California  95670 

Kristine  Tollestrup 
Museum  of  Vertebrate  Zoology 
University  of  California 
Berkeley,  California  94720 

Richard  Sage 

Museum  of  Vertebrate  Zoology 
University  of  California 
Berkeley,  California  94720 

PREPARER'S  COMMENTS 

There  have  been  significant  efforts  to  save  the 
Santa  Cruz  long-toed  salamander  from  extinction. 
It  was  one  of  the  first  animals  to  be  included  on 
the  Endangered  Species  List  (1967).  Thousands 
of  hours  of  volunteer  and  professional  help  pre- 
vented the  possible  extinction  of  this  life  form. 
Present  interagency  cooperation  is  assisting  in  the 
recovery  of  this  salamander  and  its  associated 
habitat. 

Further  biological  studies  are  needed  to  assess 
population  trends  at  the  Ellicott  localities,  and  to 
determine  the  status  of  recently  discovered  popu- 
lations near  Elkhorn  Slough. 

LITERATURE  CITED/ SELECTED 
REFERENCES 

Anderson,  J.  D.  1960.  A  comparative  study  of 
coastal  and  montane  populations  of  Amby- 
stoma  macrodactylum.  Ph.D.  thesis,  Univ  of 
Calif.,  Berkeley. 

.  1961.  The  courtship  behavior  oi  Amby- 

stoma  macrodactylum  croceum.  Copeia  1961 
(2):  132-139. 

.  1967.  A  comparison  of  the  life  histories 

of  coastal  and  montane  populations  oi  Amby- 
stoma  macrodactylum  in  California.  Am. 
Midi.  Nat.  77(2):323-355. 

.  1968.  A  comparison  of  the  food  habits 


of  Ambystoma  macrodactylum  sigillatum, 
Amby  stoma  macrodactylum  croceum,  and 
Ambystoma  tigrinum  calif orniense .  Herpeto- 
logica24(4):273-284. 

Bury,  R.  B.  1971.  Endangered  and  rare  reptiles 
and  amphibians  of  California.  Biol.  Library 
Univ.  Calif.,  Berkeley.  Unpubl.  Rep.  60  pp. 

1972.    Status    report    on    California's 


threatened  amphibians  and  reptiles.  Cahf. 
Dept.  Fish  Game,  Inland  Fisheries  Admin. 
Rep. 72-2.  31  pp. 

Bury,  R.  B.  and  S.  B.  Ruth.  1972.  Santa  Cruz 
long-toed  salamander:  survival  in  doubt. 
Herpetol.  Rev.  4(l):20-22. 

California  Department  of  Fish  and  Game.  1975. 
Fish  and  wildlife  management  plan  for  the 
Santa  Cruz  long-toed  salamander  ecolog- 
ical reserve,  Santa  Cruz  County,  California. 
Unpubl.  Rep.   12  pp. 

1978.  At   the   crossroads:    a  report  on 


California's    endangered    and    rare    fish    and 
wildlife.  Biannual  Report.  103  pp. 

Ferguson,  D.  E.  1961 .  The  geographic  variation  of 
Ambystoma  macrodactylum  Baird,  with  the 
description  of  two  new  subspecies.  Am.  Midi. 
Nat.  65(2):311-338. 

Reed  R.  J.  1978.  Population  study  of  the  Santa 
Cruz  long-toed  salamander  {Ambystoma 
macrodactylum  croceum)  at  Valencia  Lagoon 
1977-78  with  notes  and  occurrence  in  Santa 
Cruz  and  Monterey  Counties.  CaHf.  Dept. 
Fish  and  Game,  Contract  No.  S-1 180.  1 15  pp. 


Russell,  R.  W.  and  J.  E.  Anderson.  1956.  A  dis- 
junct population  of  the  long-nosed  (sic) 
salamander  from  the  coast  of  California. 
Herpetologica  12(2):  137 -140. 

Ruth,  S.  B.  1974.  The  current  status  of  the  Santa 
Cruz  long-toed  salamander  —  an  endangered 
animal.  Herp.  Rev.  5(l):27-29. 

Ruth,  S.  B.  and  K.  Tollestrup.  1973.  Aspects  of 
the  life  history  and  current  status  of  the  Santa 
Cruz  long-toed  salamander  {Ambystoma 
macrodactylum  croceum)  at  Valencia  Lagoon, 
Santa  Cruz  County,  California.  Mus.  Vert. 
Zool.,  Univ.  Calif.,  Berkeley.  Unpubl.  Rep. 
54   pp. 

Santa  Cruz  Long-Toed  Salamander  Recovery 
Tean.  1976.  Santa  Cruz  long-toed  salamander 
recovery  plan.  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Serv.  50 
pp. 

Stebbins,  R.  C.  1966.  A  field  guide  to  western 
reptiles  and  amphibians.  Houghton  Mifflin 
Co.,  Boston.  279  pp. 

Tollestrup,  K.  1974.  Study  of  the  terrestrial  habits 
and  migratory  movements  of  the  Santa  Cruz 
long-toed  salamander  {Ambystoma  macro- 
dactylum croceum)  in  the  Valencia  Lagoon 
area  near  Aptos,  Santa  Cruz  County,  Califor- 
nia.   U.S.    Bur.    Sport    Fish.    Wildl.    27    pp. 

PREPARED/UPDATED  BY 

National  Fish  and  Wildlife  Laboratory 
1300  Blue  Spruce  Drive 
Fort  Collins,  Colorado  80524 


©-® 


_A_.    Headquarters  -  Office  of  Biological 
>4     Services,  Washington,  D.C. 

National  Coastal  Ecosystems  Team, 

Slidell.  La. 
6)    Regional  Offices 

Area  Office 


U.S.  FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  SERVICE 
REGIONAL  OFFICES 


REGION  1 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

Lloyd  Five  Hundred  Building,  Suite  1692 

500  N.E.  Multnomah  Street 

Portland,  Oregon  97232 

REGION  2 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  WUdlife  Service 

P.O.Box  1306 

Albuquerque,  New  Mexico  87103 

REGION  3 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

Federal  Building,  Fort  Snelling 

Twin  Cities,  Minnesota  55111 


REGION  4 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

Richard  B.  Russell  Building 

75  Spring  Street,  S.W. 

Atlanta,  Georgia  30303 

REGION  5 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service 

One  Gateway  Center 

Newton  Corner,  Massachusetts  02158 

REGION  6 

Regional  Director 

U.S.  Fish  and  WUdlife  Service 

P.O.  Box  25486 

Denver  Federal  Center 

Denver,  Colorado  80225 


ALASKA  AREA 
Regional  Director 
U.S.  Fish  and  WUdUfe  Service 
1011  E.Tudor  Road 
Anchorage,  Alaska  99503 


^-^^"^^"^z.. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR 

U.S.  FISH  AND  WILDLIFE  SERVICE 


As  the  Nation's  principal  conservation  agency,  the  Department  of  the  Interior  has  respon- 
sibility for  most  of  our  nationally  owned  public  lands  and  natural  resources.  This  includes 
fostering  the  wisest  use  of  our  land  and  water  resources,  protecting  our  fish  and  wildlife, 
preserving  the« environmental  and  cultural  values  of  our  national  parks  and  historical  places, 
and  providing  for  the  enjoyment  of  life  through  outdoor  recreation.  The  Department  as- 
sesses our  energy  and  mineral  resources  and  works  to  assure  that  their  development  is  in 
the  best  interests  of  all  our  people.  The  Department  also  has  a  major  responsibility  for 
American  Indian  reservation  communities  and  for  people  who  live  in  island  territories  under 
U.S.  administration.