**Endangered Species**

**Information Needs**

## USGS Central Region

## FY 2001

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.4993055555555554in"
height="0.5895833333333333in"}

**Endangered Species Information
Needs**![](media/image2.png){width="2.2888888888888888in"
height="1.475in"}

**USGS Central Region**

**FY 2001**

**Written by:** Fritz L. Knopf, Senior Scientist

Midcontinent Ecological Science Center

**Edited by:** Jan Coffelt, Technical Writer

Biological Resources Discipline

Central Region

**Background:**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the
Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in the
Department of Commerce (DOC), share responsibility for administration of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Generally, the NMFS deals with those
species occurring in marine environments and anadromous fish, while the
FWS is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory
birds. Biological research within FWS historically addressed issues of
species biology including investigations of: (1) disease outbreaks, (2)
contaminants issues relative to species survival and ecological health
of habitats, (3) basic and applied investigations of habitat
conservation and management, (4) population metrics relative to harvest,
and (5) population viability of species threatened with extinction.

The ESA has been the source of controversy since its initial passage in
1966. Interpretation of the Act has resulted in more than twenty years
of litigation and legislation. In response to political confrontations
stemming from enforcement of the ESA in the early 1990s, the Secretary
of the Interior separated FWS research science and regulatory activities
by creating the National Biological Survey (NBS). The Director of NBS,
Ron Pulliam, was asked to focus research to ensure ecosystem health and
sustainability, and to avoid environmental train wrecks from ecosystem
degradation or biological/economic losses resulting from listing of
species under the ESA. While continuing current research efforts on
selected endangered species, NBS refocused research efforts on species
at-risk(SAR), defined as those that are thought to be declining to the
point that they may soon need enhanced protection under provisions of
the ESA.

**The Problem:** Under ideal circumstance, in which unlimited funding is
provided for research on imperiled or declining species, focusing
research on SAR would have enabled NBS (now U.S. Geological Service,
Biological Resources Division \[BRD\]) to provide timely scientific
information to support protection of species. Unfortunately, the current
approach is reactive and economically costly and often politically
confrontational, resulting in crisis-oriented research. If adequate
information were made available upon which to base pro-active management
plans, no new species would be listed under the ESA. Funding for
research, monitoring, and information transfer, however, has been
limited and static during the past decade. Typical decisions on
allocation of the limited funding available for SAR have operated under
the paradigm of using the available dollars on short-term efforts to
address as many issues as possible, especially those that are
politically sensitive. Thus, numerous, less expensive projects are
typically funded at the expense of fewer, more costly efforts that could
provide robust, scientifically valid information for effective recovery
and management. In the case of species like the Mountain Plover,
therefore, adequate funding has not been available to address
conservation information needs within the SAR program. Now that the
species is being recommended for listing under ESA, proposals of
research efforts addressing management needs of this species are left in
the administrative never-land of neither being eligible for funding
consideration as a species already listed prior to the NBS/BRD split
from FWS, nor eligible to compete for SAR dollars. There currently is no
program within BRD identified to address critical research issues that
have arisen since 1992 relative to species listed under ESA. When this
scenario was pointed out during an interagency meeting in late 1999, one
FWS Regional Director commented But thats what we do. Thats where our
information needs are. It seemed prudent for BRD to address this issue
of how to fund research on species currently being listed under the
auspices of ESA.

**Objective:** Given the frustration of FWS with a deficiency of
critical information to address recovery of threatened and endangered
species, the Central Regional Biologist of BRD requested that I host a
workshop with partners to identify topical issues for consideration in
research re-programming within the region. Early discussions indicated
that most information needs within the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Reclamation, and the National Park Service would be the conduct of
presence/absence inventories or clearances for development activities.
The surveys and clearances are generally met through contracts of
project funds within those agencies. In contrast, basic biological
information needs to define causal mechanisms of continental declines or
recovery of populations are primarily (if not exclusively) within the
FWS. Thus, I solicited critical information needs on species that have
assumed an official status (petition to list, publication of a proposed
rule, listing) under the auspices of the ESA since 1992, plus species
that (although listed before 1992) have never had research funding. **It
should be emphasized that the objective was not to identify all
biological information needs for all listed threatened and endangered
species, but just those information needs for species deemed most
critical by the FWS regions at the time of the survey.**

**Approach:** I visited with the Chiefs of Endangered Species and their
staffs in FWS Regions 2, 3, and 6 between the middle of December 1999
and early January 2000. Individuals contacted included Steve Chambers
(R2), T.J. Miller (R3), and Jill Parker (R6). I also contacted Cindy
Dohner (R4) for inputs relative to the inclusion of Arkansas and
Louisiana from her region in BRDs Central Region. Generally, their
regional budgets are entirely expended by the personnel costs of
preparing new listing packages and responding to legal petitions. I
explained that we were looking to identify new information needs for
guidance in allocating BRD funds as the opportunity presented itself.
The Endangered Species Chiefs were receptive and each wanted to solicit
input from field personnel. They requested the opportunity to provide
statements of needs and FWS contacts for species that had been listed
prior to 1992 but had never been the subject of research inquiry. I
requested a short description for each species to include its status,
the problem, the critical information need, and the FWS contact. Those
statements were all received in March, 2000, and updated in January,
2001, and are attached. We discussed the pros and cons of prioritizing
these species both within and across FWS regions and generally decided
that each information need was critical and all are priority. A few
contributions were edited slightly to ensure that each information need
was presented on a single page.

**Results:**

Region 2 submitted information needs for twenty-six species, region 3
submitted nine, region 4 submitted one, and region 6 submitted
twenty-nine. Table 1 summarizes the actual number of species discussed
in the forty-two Regional Information Needs sheets by taxa.

***Table 1:** Taxonomic distribution of species submitted by FWS Region*

  -------- -------- --------------- ------------ -------- ------- --------- -------
  Region   Plants   Invertebrates   Amphibians   Fish     Birds   Mammals   Total

  2        12       5               2            6        1                 26

  3                 6                            2                1         9

  4                                              1                          1

  6        16       2               1            5        2       3         29

                                                                            

  Total    28       13              3            12\*     3       4         63\*
  -------- -------- --------------- ------------ -------- ------- --------- -------

\* corrected for double listing of 2 species of fish by Regions 3 and 6.

Over half of the 63 species identified by FWS regions have been listed
as endangered (table 2). The table includes a breakdown of species among
candidate, threatened, and endangered species.

***Table 2:** Current legal status of species by taxonomic group*

  ------------ -------- --------------- ------------ ------- ------- --------- --------
  Status       Plants   Invertebrates   Amphibians   Fish    Birds   Mammals   Total

  Candidate    7        6               1            2       1                 17

  Threatened   7        1                            3       1       2         14

  Endangered   14       6               2            7       1       2         32

  Total        12       7               3            13\*    3       4         63
  ------------ -------- --------------- ------------ ------- ------- --------- --------

These 63 species represents almost 12% of the total number of species
listed by taxa within these regions (table 3). If Region 4 is not
included, however, the number of listed species included in the research
priority list, is 30% of the total listed in the subject regions.

***Table 3:** Total number of species currently listed as threatened or
endangered by FWS regions*

  -------- -------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ------ ------- --------- -------
  Region   Plants   Invertebrates   Amphibians   Reptiles   Fish   Birds   Mammals   Total

  2        54       14              2            6          24     10      11        120

  3        16       10              \-           2          2      4       3         37

  4        150      84              5            21         29     19      17        324

  6        29       3               1            \-         12     \-      6         50

                                                                                     

  Total    249      111             11           26         67     33      37        531
  -------- -------- --------------- ------------ ---------- ------ ------- --------- -------

The following statements contain the species information needs submitted
from the four FWS regions, with minor editorial changes for consistency
of the presentation.

Two of the submissions (gammarid amphipods and pearl darter) did not
meet the requested legal criteria, but are appended herein as topical
issues for SAR consideration.

**Region 2/ Comal Springs Riffle Beetles (*Heterelmis Comalensis)***

**Status:** The endangered Comal Springs riffle beetle *Heterelmis
comalensis* occurs principally in the spring-runs of the Comal River,
Comal County, Texas (a single beetle was collected in the San Marcos
River, Hays County, Texas, in 1993). Little is known about its life
history, habitat requirements, or population dynamics.

**Problem:** The beetle apparently depends upon adequate flows from the
Edwards Aquifer to maintain suitable habitat. Increasing water demands
on the aquifer and pollution of recharge water increase the risk of
eliminating the beetles habitat. The possible dependence upon a
refugium for the continued existence of *H. comalensis* was recognized
in the 1996 San Marcos/Comal/Edwards Aquifer Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Species Contingency Plan (the beetle was listed as endangered
in December 1997).

**Critical Information Needs:** Preliminary cooperative work on habitat
characterization and phenology has been completed by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Culture
techniques, population estimates, dynamics, and habitat requirements
remain to be detailed. Additionally, a functional refugium needs to be
operational in the event of drought.

**FWS Contact:** Joe N. Fries, San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and
Technology Center, 500 East McCarty Lane, San Marcos, Texas, 78666;
(512) 353-0011; e-mail: joe_fries@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Houston Toad (*Bufo Houstonensis*)**

**Status:** Listed as endangered in 1970; critical habitat designated in
1978.

**Problem:** Habitat for the Houston toad is disappearing at an
unprecedented rate from urban expansion and certain agricultural
practices. The toad has been extirpated from 3 counties. The remaining
small, isolated populations are scattered across 9 counties.

**Critical information Needs:** The Houston Toad Recovery Team has
identified the following research needs and has drafted a scope of work
for each (available upon request):

> 1\. *Biology, Demography, Demographic Sampling Biases, and Toad
> Movements*. Additional information is needed to better model and
> predict population viability, including (1) number of eggs produced as
> a function of body size and/or age (stage), (2) sex ratios, (3)
> age-/stage-dependent survivorship of females, (4) movements of adult
> toads, (5) dispersal distances of juvenile toads. These data will be
> used in designing and configuring preserve systems to promote
> population viability.
>
> 2\. *Genetic Population Structure of the Houston Toad*. Understanding
> the genetic population structure of the Houston toad is critically
> important to effective conservation planning to determine the extent
> to which different subpopulations may be connected; understand
> source-sink population dynamics; calculate effective population size
> and effective number of breeding adults; and detect recent population
> bottlenecks or expansion.
>
> 3\. *Inventory and Multi-Scaled Habitat Characterization for Houston
> Toad Populations within the Geographic Range of the Species*.
> Understanding the past and current distribution of the Houston toad is
> essential to implementing conservation programs. Once the known
> distribution is better understood, a GIS assessment is needed to
> determine which habitat conditions are either most conducive to
> healthy populations of Houston toads or increase risk of to
> extirpation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently acquiring
> GIS information needed to conducted these analyses.
>
> 4\. *Experimental Habitat Manipulation*. Information is needed to
> identify management practices that promote the toads survival and
> recovery. Experiments should assess how different land use and
> management practices affect the toad and its habitat. Land uses
> include prescribed burning, forestry practices, and certain
> agricultural practices, while smaller scale management includes the
> creation and maintenance of artificial breeding ponds and brush
> control.

**FWS Contact:** Lisa ODonnell, Austin Fish and Wildlife Service
Office, (512) 490-0057, e-mail: Lisa_ODonnell@fws.gov.

**Region 2/** **Razorback Suckers (*Xyrauchen Texanus*)**

**Status:** The razorback sucker is endemic to the Colorado River basin.
The Colorado River supports an endemic mainstream fish community that is
classified as the \"Big River\" fishes. The razorback sucker was listed
as endangered in 1991 and its critical habitat in 1994. Razorback sucker
populations have declined precipitously in the last 50 years. Most
razorback populations are old fish nearing their maximum life
expectancy.

**Problem:** The razorback sucker is experiencing extremely low (and
often no) recruitment.

**Critical Habitat Needs:** Lack of recruitment of this species has been
documented to be caused by several reasons, to include predation, poor
spawning success in colder water, and other interactions with
non-indigenous species. This is particularly true in the lower basin
where the largest population persists in Lake Mojave Arizona-Nevada with
most riverine populations being either absent or present in low numbers.
In the mid-1970s, 750 adult flannelmouth suckers were introduced below
Davis dam, at the headwaters of Lake Havasu. At this time that
population is established as shown by the presence of flannelmouths of
various size, while the razorback suckers in the area are represented by
old, senescent individuals. Recruitment has occurred in the flannelmouth
population and not with the razorbacks. The research question is why?
Why has the flannelmouth established and the razorback continues to
fail. Answering this question could have ramifications for razorback
populations in the Colorado River basin and also provide information on
the flannelmouth to assist in its future protection.

**FWS Contact:** Dr. C.O. Minckley, AZFRO-Parker River, (520) 667-4785,
e-mail: chuck_minckley@fws.gov.

**Region 2/ Navasota Ladies\'-tresses** ***(Spiranthes Parksii)***

**Status:** The Navasota ladies\'-tresses was listed as an endangered
species in 1982. The seepage-bogs, upland sand terraces, riparian
corridors, and longleaf-pine savannahs of the Catahoula Barrens of east
Texas also supports the only population of the ladies\'-tresses found on
Federal land, in the Angelina National Forest. All other sites are on
private land and currently unprotected.

**Problem:** Areas supporting these species are experiencing severe
habitat loss and encroachment due to fire suppression, timber
activities, and increased recreational use.

**Critical Information Needs:** Surveys for additional populations and
the identification of management needs is of high need. The affects of
fire on restoration efforts is critical. An area which historically
supported the ladies-tresses, but currently no longer supports the
plants, is scheduled for a prescribed burn in an attempt to restore
former habitat. The results of this burn need to be monitored and
analyzed to determine effectiveness of the restoration effort. If the
effort is successful, many additional adjacent sites could be treated to
restore habitat and locate other potential populations. The result could
be the re-establishment and protection of significant populations of
these plants and their habitat. Potential partners include the U.S.
Forest Service, several State agencies, and several timber industry
representatives. This project could support the establishment and
implementation of management agreements with the U.S. Forest Service
dealing with recovery of the ladies\'-tresses.

**FWS Contact:** Carlos Mendoza, Project Leader, Clear Lake Ecological
Services Office, (281) 286-8282, e-mail: Carlos_Mendoza@fws.gov.

**Region 2/ Chiricahua Leopard Frog *(Rana Chiricahuensis*)**

**Status:** Chiricahua leopard frog is a candidate; a proposed rule is
expected to be published soon. The species occurs in central and
southeastern Arizona, west-central to southwestern New Mexico, and
portions of northwestern Sonora, Chihuahua, and perhaps Durango.

**Problem:** The distribution in Mexico needs to be clarified. The
distribution of the species in Mexico is known from only 12 specimens.
We suspect the species occurs or occurred at many more locales. For
instance, only one locality is known for Sonora; however, the species is
known from many locales in Arizona just north of the Sonora border. Some
authors believe specimens reported from southern Chihuahua and Durango
may not be *chiricahuensis*. In addition, the role of chytridiomycosis
in population dynamics needs to be investigated. Chytrid fungus has been
found in Chiricahua leopard frogs as well as other leopard frog species
in Arizona. Die-offs of anurans in Panama and Australia have recently
been attributed to chytrids; however their role in the population
dynamics of North American anurans is as yet unclear. Rapid death of
recently metamorphosed frogs (post-metamorphic death syndrome), noted at
stock tank populations in New Mexico by Norm Scott and others, is
characteristic of chytrid infections, but specimens collected during the
New Mexico mortality events have not been examined for chytridiomycosis.
Winter die-offs of Chiricahua leopard frogs are also not uncommon, and
could be caused by chytrid fungal infections. Both information needs can
be addressed by examining museum specimens.

**Critical Information Needs:** The following are the research needs for
the Chiricahua leopard frog:

> *1. Examine Museum Records.* Examine museum locality records and
> contact herpetologists to compile additional records for Mexico. BRD
> should contact individuals that have worked in Sonora, Chihuahua, and
> Durango for information about specimens and sight records for
> Chiricahua leopard frogs in Mexico. An extensive search of museums
> should be made for specimens. Visits may be needed to certain museums
> to confirm the identity of specimens. In some cases (i.e. specimens
> from southern Chihuahua and Durango) identity to species may not be
> possible; however, deviation from *chiricahuensis* morphology should
> be described.
>
> *2. Examine specimens for chytridiomycosis*. Specimens, particularly
> those collected during mortality events, should be inspected
> histologically for chytridiomycosis. A wide geographic and temporal
> range of specimens should be examined to frame the extent (if any) of
> the problem.

**FWS Contact:** Jim Rorabaugh, Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, Phone:
602/640-2720 x238, Fax: 602/640-2730, e-mail: Jim_Rorabaugh@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Devils River Minnow *(Dionda Diaboli)***

**Status:** Devils River minnow was listed as a threatened species in
October 1999. This fish is currently known only from two locations in
Texas (San Felipe Creek in Del Rio and two small tributaries in the
Devils River) and one location in Chihuahua, Mexico.

**Problem:** The Devils River Minnow Conservation Agreement was signed
in 1998 by the Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the
City of Del Rio. The agreement focused on specific conservation actions
to improve the status of the species. However, a paucity of information
exists on this fish species and thus, recovery actions will be extremely
limited.

**Critical Information Needs:** The following have been identified as
research needs for the Devils River minnow:

> 1\. Describe reproductive strategies and early life history
> characteristics and development;
>
> 2\. describe fundamental ecological requirements such as microhabitat
> utilization and feeding habitats;
>
> 3\. Quantify the potential affects of introduced fishes, such as
> predation of smallmouth bass, on natural populations;
>
> 4\. Conduct genetic analysis of geographically distinct populations in
> the U.S. and Mexico to identify the importance of specific populations
> in species conservation; and
>
> 5\. assess the impacts on individuals and populations from water
> quality deterioration due to pollution from an urban environment, such
> as in San Felipe Creek, Del Rio, Texas.

**FWS Contact:** Nathan Allan, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
(512) 490-0057, e-mail: Nathan_Allan@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Pecos Gambusia (*Gambusia Nobilis*), Pecos Pupfish
(*Cyprinodon Pecosensis*) Roswell Springsnail (*Pyrgulopsis
Roswellensis*), Kosters Springsnail (*Tryonia Kosteri*), and Pecos
Assiminea Snail (*Assiminea Pecos*).**

**Status:** Pecos gambusia (*Gambusia nobilis*) (Endangered), Pecos
pupfish (*Cyprinodon pecosensis*) (Proposed Endangered), Roswell
springsnail (*Pyrgulopsis roswellensis*) (Candidate), Kosters
springsnail (*Tryonia kosteri*) (Candidate), and Pecos assiminea snail
(*Assiminea pecos*) (Candidate).

**Problem:** On Bitter Lake NWR, Pecos gambusia, Pecos pupfish, Roswell
springsnail, Kosters springsnail, Pecos assiminea snail, and Noels
amphipod inhabit isolated freshwater springs surrounded by sacaton
grasslands with scattered saltcedar (*Tamarix* sp.). The one-mile long
Bitter Creek and 100 yards-long Sago Spring are critical habitat for
Pecos gambusia, all of the snails and the amphipod on the refuge. Noels
amphipod may occur at one other site on the refuge (in the freshwater
ditch west of Unit 6), and in the entire world. The Roswell springsnail
and Kosters tryonia occur at one site adjacent to the refuge on private
land. Brian Lang, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish biologist,
conducted baseline research on the snails from 1995-98. Pecos gambusia
occur at only a few other small, isolated sites in New Mexico and Texas.
Refuge sites occupied by these species are critically important to their
continued survival.

Virtually all habitats of these species on the refuge historically
experienced some degree of natural fire. Currently all habitats are
excluded from prescribed fire as per the Pecos Complex Fire Management
Plan, and accompanying Biological Assessment. The risk of burning in
these habitats was considered unacceptable given the lack of information
on possible fire affects to the species assemblage. Noels amphipod is
especially sensitive to contaminants and may be negatively affected by
siltation, ash deposition, and salinities that occur when precipitation
follows a fire. Pecos assiminea is the only snail of the three that is a
lung-breather, inhabiting the moist litter just above the water. Besides
a fire seriously altering its habitat, it could suffer direct fire
mortality. However, as we have discovered in other habitats and other
ecosystems, if fire is a natural process, then it probably contributes
to the long-term integrity of the vegetative and animal community where
it occurs. Excluding prescribed fire may increase the risk of a more
damaging wildfire; and/or it may hasten the ultimate demise of these
species that may be dependent upon fires in ways that we do not know.

**Critical Information Needs:** A study of the effect of prescribed fire
on the Bitter Creek/Sago Springs assemblage at Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge is required. What are the short- and long-term effects
of controlled fire in surrounding uplands and sites immediately adjacent
to habitats of these species? Can we anticipate increased siltation,
salinities, ash deposition, or changes in water chemistry? How will it
affect these species in the short term? How may periodic fires
contribute to the long-term integrity of this system?

**FWS Contact:** Gordon Warrick Bitter Lake NWR, Roswell, NM
(505-622-6755). E-mail: Gordon_Warrick@fws.gov. Also: Brian Lang, New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish (505-827-3181),

**Region 2/ Bunched Cory Cactus (*Coryphantha Ramillosa*), Davis Green
Pitaya Cactus (*Echinocereus Viridiflorus Davisii*), Lloyds Mariposa
Cactus (*Echinomastus Mariposensis*), Nellie Cory Cactus (*Coryphanatha
Minima*), Pecos (= Puzzle) Sunflower (*Helianthus Paradoxus*), Shinners
Tickle Tongue (*Zanthoxylum Parvum*), Tall Paintbrush (*Castilleja
Elongata*), and Terlingua Creek Cats Eye (*Cryptantha Crassipes*)**

**Status:** All are Federal and State listed as endangered.

**Problem:** Identification of effective pollinator(s) is needed to
support recovery planning and section 7 consultations on project impacts
and pesticides. Most of these species are cacti which are usually
out-crossing species and knowledge of pollinators is essential to
conservation. The breeding system is relatively unknown for other
species.

**Critical Information Needs:** Information is needed to define the
pollination system, identify effective pollinators, estimate pollinator
foraging distances, possibly estimate the influence of population size
on pollination success, and note observations of any populations that
appear pollinator limited. Sites have been identified by the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office.

**FWS Contact:** Kathryn Kennedy, endangered species botanist (512)
490‑0057, Kathryn_Kennedy@fws.gov

**Region 2/ White Bladderpod (*Lesquerella Pallida)*** **and Texas
Golden Gladecress (*Leavenworthia Texana)***

**Status:** The endangered white bladderpod and Texas golden gladecress,
a candidate species, are restricted to a unique, but important, wetland
type found within a small section of eastern Texas. White bladderpod has
been found on nine sites, all on private land. The gladecress
(historically reported from eight locations), is now restricted to only
four known sites with declining populations. Immediate action may be
necessary to avoid extinction of this species.

**Problem:** These species have been impacted by urban and highway
construction, conversion to pasture and cropland, widespread use of
herbicides, and glauconite mining activity. All sites are on private
land and remain vulnerable to mining, conversion to pasture, and mowing
and herbicide use during the bladderpod\'s growing season. Concentrated
chicken production operations are also a concern. However, the greatest
threat is currently the invasion of Weches communities by non-native
shrubs and vines, converting these wet, herbaceous glades to dense
shrub-thickets. Three of the existing gladecress sites have suffered
shrub encroachment and require management treatment.

**Critical Information Needs:** A study of habitat manipulations of the
white bladderpod (*Lesquerella pallida)* and Texas golden gladecress
(*Leavenworthia texana)* in needed. Control measures (brush-clearing)
carried out in 1995 resulted in dramatic population increases of the
bladderpod, from 22 to 600 at one site, and over 2000 at a second. The
gladecress reappeared at one site after a 10-year absence, and was
discovered for the first time at another. However, non-natives have
again become dominant in these areas. Recovery work must focus on
long-term control of these invasive species. Development of a long-term
protocol for controlling non-natives, possibly involving a combination
of prescribed burning, selective pesticide use, and grazing modification
is needed. If a safe and effective protocol for eliminating these
invaders can be developed, private landowners would be more willing to
enter into recovery agreements for the bladderpod and gladecress.
Besides work on private land, a number of sites administered by county
or city agencies could serve as demonstration areas for restoration and
reintroduction efforts. The excavation of a 16th-century Spanish mission
in the area may provide another opportunity; plans for the complex
include wildflower gardens. Moreover, the Texas Department of
Transportation and the Deep East Texas Electric Cooperative are
interested in establishing bladderpod and gladecress within their
rights-of-way. In expectation of reintroduction efforts, the Mercer
Arboretum and Botanical Gardens in Houston have developed a captive
population of the bladderpod, and seeds have been collected in recent
years to produce a diverse genetic mix.

**FWS Contact:** Carlos Mendoza, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (281) 286-8282, e-mail: Carlos Mendoza@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Navasota Ladies-tresses (*Spiranthes Parksii)***

**Status:** The Navasota ladies-tresses (*Spiranthes parksii)* is
Federally and State listed as endangered.

**Problem:** Inadequate outcrossing/gene flow information to support
preserve design and section 7 consultation needs.

**Critical Information Needs:** A study of pollination systems of the
navasota ladies-tresses is needed. While most orchids of this group
have been considered selfing, this species has been observed to have a
fragrance and is thus visited by bumble bees. Further, it is frequently
found to hybridize with a sympatric species (*Spiranthes cernua)*.
Information is needed concerning the pollination system, level of
outcrossing, and relative flight distance of pollen vectors (if any).
The Service is about to undertake a preserve design exercise for Brazos
County and thus, these data are critical to support decision making
about size, configuration and distance between preserve sites within a
proposed greenbelt system.

In addition, information will be needed on habitat management needs for
preserves to conserve the species. The species appears to be a patchy
species within thin areas of post oak woodlands, that may require
management to keep canopy conditions favorable.

Partners are available that are interested in participating in the study
if any contract funding is available.

**FWS Contact**: Kathryn Kennedy, endangered species botanist (512)
490-0057, Kathryn_Kennedy@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Bonytail Chub *(Gila Elegans)***

**Status:** The bonytail chub is Federally listed as endangered.

**Problem:** Wild populations are almost extinct. No research is
currently conducted on repatriated fish.

**Critical Information Needs:** The bonytail chub is the most endangered
cyprinid in the American Southwest. A study of the habitat needs of the
bonytail chub is needed. Once abundant in the Colorado River basin wild
populations are now nearing extinction throughout the basin. The largest
population in the lower basin currently persists in Lake Mojave AZ-NV
where it is estimated 20% of the larger fish in the lake still represent
the wild genome. Unfortunately, there are so few fish that a population
estimate cannot be made. The Service has been supplementing this
population for several years and to date has repatriated \~230,000 fish.
However, many of these were fingerlings or smaller and are presumed to
have been eaten. More recently, larger fish (\>10 inches) have been
stocked but no large scale research program is addressing that effort. A
similar effort is also underway on Lake Havasu downstream of Lake
Mojave.

In order to preserve this species it is crucial that more is learned
about this fish. Telemetry studies have been done but were preliminary
and did not provide detailed enough information to address the biology
of this fish. Spawning areas and requirements, habitat preferences of
all life stages, food habits, predators of large and small individuals
need to be determined. Additionally, the current broodstock was
established using three individuals. It is imperative to get more wild
fish into the broodstock before the wild fish disappear. In summary
information needs include:

1.  More in depth telemetry studies on Lake Mojave and Lake Havasu;

> 2\. location and description of spawning areas;
>
> 3\. collect basic life history information as to spawning success,
> recruitment or lack there of;
>
> 4\. collect more wild individuals to enhance the genetic diversity of
> the broodstock; and
>
> 5\. study interactions of the various life history stages of bonytail
> and nonindigenous fish species.

**FWS Contact:** Dr. C.O. Minckley, AZFRO-Parker River, (520) 667-4785,
Chuck_Minckley@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Northern Aplomado Falcons (*Falco Femoralis
Septentrionalis)***

**Status:** The Northern Aplomado Falcon (*Falco femoralis
septentrionalis)* was listed as endangered in 1986. The species decline
was mostly attributed to adverse habitat modifications, and evidence of
pesticide contamination may have prevented re-establishment. The
Aplomado Falcon formerly nested in South Texas, West Texas, southern New
Mexico, and southeastern Arizona. A successful reintroduction effort is
currently underway only in South Texas. However, within the remaining
U.S. range (desert grasslands), comparatively little is known of the
species\' dynamics. Two remnant populations of the falcons were
\"discovered\" in the desert grasslands in proximity to the U.S. border
in New Mexico, Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico.

**Problem:** Reproductive success of 61 nests monitored from 1996-1999
showed very low to declining reproduction trends. This poses serious
implications for successful natural recolonization and recovery efforts.
Virtually all reproductive losses are occurring before the hatching
stage. It is unclear what specific factors and to what extent they are
responsible for the observed low reproduction. Funding is needed to
continue monitoring at a level necessary to identify these apparent
limiting factors. Continued banding young-of-year to track dispersing
individuals is recommended.

**Critical Information Needs:** A study of nesting success and movements
of northern aplomado falcons in desert grasslands is required, including
indentifying factors associated with low reproductive success of the
only known remaining populations of the species in the desert grasslands
near their former range. Band young-of-year to establish dispersal
patterns.

**FWS Contact:** Chris Perez, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, (505) 346-2525, ext.119, e-mail: Chris_Perez@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (*Hybognathus Amarus*)**

**Status:** The Rio Grande silvery minnow (silvery minnow), an
endangered species, is limited to five percent of its historic range
with a continued downward trend in population size and distribution.

**Problem:** Many activities occurring in the Middle Rio Grande in New
Mexico could be impacting this species. Suspended sediments, cadmium,
diazinon, and wastewater effluent in the Rio Grande at Albuquerque, New
Mexico, caused by human activities may be contributing to mortality.
Also, changes in water temperature may be limiting the distribution of
this species.

**Critical Information Needs:** A study of acute toxicity of pulsed and
sustained sediment, cadium, diazinon and wastewater and thermal
tolerance of Rio Grande silvery minnow is needed. The relative tolerance
of different life stages of the silvery minnow to constant high
suspended sediment is unknown, as are the toxicities of cadmium,
diazinon and urban wastewater. The physiological response of the silvery
minnow to different temperature regimes needs to be determined. The
following are critical information needs for this fish species:

1.  Design and build an exposure system to prepare and maintain constant
    suspended sediment concentrations in exposure vessels during the
    desired test periods.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Conduct acute toxicity tests with different life stages of the
    silvery minnow

> exposed to constant high suspended sediment concentrations.

3.  Conduct acute toxicity tests with different life stages of the
    silvery minnow exposed to pulses of high suspended sediment
    concentration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Expose larvae fish to various concentrations of heavy metals and
    record the impacts.

5.  Determine growth, reproduction and survival of various life stages
    at various temperatures, determine minimum and maximum temperature
    tolerances.

**FWS Contact:** Joel Lusk, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,
(505)-346-2525, e-mail: Joel_Lusk@fws.gov

**Region 2/ Texas Wild-rice (*Zizania Texana)***

**Status:** Texas wild-rice (*Zizania texana)* is federally and State
Listed as endangered.

**Problems:** Failure of the plant to reproduce sexually in the wild in
recent years, although known to have done so in the past. Incomplete
understanding of the relative degree of genetic variability in the
species, which reproduces both clonally and sexually.

**Critical Information Needs:** There is a lack of complete genetic
information on the heterogeneity within and between stands to support
permit evaluations, section 7 consultations, and recovery objectives. A
need exists for evaluation of the occurrence of inbreeding depression in
some stands in the population and possible role of genetic issues in
failure of the species to reproduce sexually in the wild. In addition,
information on seed phenology and viability is needed. Further, an
evaluation of impacts of wetting/inundation from recreation in the river
on reproductive success is needed.

This is a project appropriate for contract funding as academic
investigators have initiated, but not completed work on these issues.
Colorado State University and the USDA National Seed Storage Lab in Fort
Collins, Colorado, have been working for a year to evaluate genetic
variability within and between stands and has a post-doc working on the
problem. However, funding is inadequate to complete their current work.
They are interested and able to do the work investigating possible
inbreeding depression and seed issues as well, but lack funding to
initiate these studies. They can provide in-kind match, and possible
cost-share in part.

**FWS Contact:** Kathryn Kennedy, Austin Field Office (512) 490-0057,
e-mail: Kathryn_Kennedy@fws.gov

**Region 3/** **Hines Emerald Dragonfly**

**Status**: Endangered (1/26/95).

**Problem:** Lack of surveys throughout southern portion of species
historical range.

**Critical Information Needs:** Extensive survey work is needed to
investigate the hundreds of fens in Missouri. The species was discovered
in MO the summer of 1999. Due to the large number of fens in the state,
it is highly likely that the species will be discovered at additional
locations. Because this can be a hard-to-identify species, only species
experts should conduct the surveys (e.g., Tim Cashett & Tim Vogt in
IL,Wayne Stepphens in MI, and Bill Smith in WI. Linden Trial with MDC is
the local expert entomologist who is on the recovery team.

**FWS Contact:** Paul McKenzie, Columbia, MO, (573-876-1911 x107),
e-mail: Paul_McKenzie@fws.gov; or Karla Kramer, Barrington, IL
(847-381-2253 x230)

**Regions 3 and 6/ Topeka Shiner**

**Status:** The Topeka shiner was listed as endangered in December 1998.
Currently it is found in all six states within its historical
distribution; however, in much reduced numbers and locations. Since the
time of listing, the species has declined further in MO, although
several additional localities have been found in SD. The species has
also been found to use off-channel habitat in both Minnesota and Iowa,
which had previously not been documented. It is questionable whether
viable populations exist in Nebraska.

**Problem:** Limited information on the species ecology and life history
is available in order to help guide and support conservation and
recovery of the species.

**Critical Information Needs:** Information is needed on the basic
ecology and life history requirements of the species. Although Topeka
shiner habitat is generally recognizable in the field, little research
has been done to quantify habitat requirements. Of particular interest
is information on spawning requirements and habits, recruitment, and
dispersal. Some research is currently being conducted on food habits and
genetics, but there may be additional information needed beyond that
being currently collected. In addition, research is needed on the
impacts of predators, especially largemouth bass in the southern portion
of the range; and on developing methods to restore off-channel habitats
for this species.

Additional information needs include studies of the impacts of changes
in hydrology on the species; reproductive strategies/success, especially
in streams that are heavily silted; review of possible importance of
off-channel habitats to the species historically, especially in the
southern portion of the fishs range where such habitat no longer
exists; impacts of point and non-point source pollution; impacts of pond
development on TS populations; additional information on movements and
microhabitat needs; causative agent for incident of scoliosis in TS in
MO Bon Femme Creek watershed; impacts of gravel mining; additional
survey work in off-channel and mainstem/tributary habitats.

**FWS Contacts:**

Region 3: Paul McKenzie, Columbia, MO, (573-876-1911 x107)

e-mail: Paul_McKenzie@fws.gov

Region 6: Vernon Tabor, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office,
785-539-3474, ext. 110,

e-mail: Vernon_Tabor@fws.gov

**Region 3/** **All FWS Region 3 species of freshwater mussels**

**Status:** All listed as endangered (prior to 1992) except
**Scaleshell** (proposed 8/13/99).

**Problem:** Need to perfect propagation methods for the development of
juvenile mussels and holding environments for adults. Threatened by
spreading zebra mussel populations.

**Critical Information Needs:** (1) Recent research investigations have
resulted in the discovery of the host fish for most critically imperiled
species; however, we have yet to discover the type of culture mediums
that will ensure growth for certain species of developing juvenile
mussels to the point that they can be successfully reintroduced to the
wild. Also need data on the best environments to hold adult freshwater
mussels in captivity after being removed from the wild due to the
continued spread of zebra mussels. Coordinate work with numerous
researchers who have already made significant advances, such as Mark
Hove, Chris Barnhart, Diane Waller, Dick Neves, etc. (2) Methods to
control zebra mussel spread and/or density in areas already inhabited by
endangered mussels. Coordinate work with FWS and Corps of Engineers who
soon expect to participate in an emergency effort to relocate or
reestablish native mussel populations in waters uninfested with zebra
mussels.

**FWS Contacts:**

Paul McKenzie, Columbia, MO (573-876-1911 x107), e-mail:
Paul_McKenzie@fws.gov

Russ Peterson, Bloomington, MN. (612-725-3548 x201), e-mail:
Russ_Peterson@fws.gov

**Regions 3 and 6/** **Pallid Sturgeon**

**Status:** Endangered (10/09/90)

**Problem:** Many aspects of life history requirements and habits of
pallid sturgeon are unknown, particularly for young of the year and
juvenile fish. This lack of information greatly hinders conservation and
recovery efforts.

**Critical Information Needs:** Numerous research needs have already
been submitted to BRD during other related exercises (e.g., Species at
Risk, Quick Response Funds). Itemized information needs include
investigations of (1) age distribution, growth and growth rates; (2)
food habits and feeding behavior, movements and behavior; (3)
macrohabitat needs; (4) microhabitat needs for spawning, feeding,
staging and rearing areas; (5) population viability to determine
appropriate recovery numbers; and (6) methods to improve spawning,
culturing and rearing of pallid sturgeons. Additionally, we need
information to understand the impacts of the current operation and
maintenance of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers on pallid sturgeon
reproduction (including hybridization with shovel-nosed sturgeon) and
movements. To date all reported impacts have been mostly speculative;
solid data are needed. The recent discovery of pallid sturgeon
reproduction in the lower Missouri River by the Columbia, MO, Fisheries
Resources Office, further elucidates the importance of this river to
pallid sturgeon, and the urgent need for additional studies there while
reproduction is occurring.

**FWS Contacts:**

Region 3: Paul McKenzie, Columbia, MO, (573-876-1911 x107)**,** e-mail:
Paul_McKenzie@fws.gov

Region 6: Steve Krentz, Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Management
Assistance Office, (701) 250-4419, e-mail: Steve_Krentz@fws.gov

**Region 3**/ **Indiana Bat**

**Status:** Endangered and continuing to decline at an alarming rate.

**Problem:** Lack of research that investigates the potential impact of
various timber

management activities on the species; additional research needs related
to changes in the species cave microclimate during hibernation.

**Critical Information Needs:** Because the species uses dead or dying
trees for roosting during the summer and migration, and also uses
various types of forests for foraging, many believe that the main reason
for the species decline is timber management that removes any trees
that could be used by the species (regardless of how much habitat is
still available to the species adjacent to areas manipulated or
harvested). However, we have little data from rigorous studies that: 1)
conducted pre-treatment surveys for the species in areas scheduled for
harvest or management, 2) subjected the forest to different types of
even-aged and uneven-aged management, and 3) conducted post-treatment
surveys to evaluate how changes in forest canopy and structure impacts
habitat use, movement, and reproduction by the species. Such studies are
needed at several locations across the species range.

**FWS Contact:** Paul McKenzie, Columbia, MO, (573-876-1911 x107),
e-amil: Paul_McKenzie@fws.gov; or Scott Pruitt, Bloomington, IN
(812-334-4261 x217), Scott_Pruitt@fws.gov

**Region 3**/ **Winged Mapleleaf Mussel**

**Status:** Endangered (7/22/91); single remaining population exists in
St. Croix River, between Minnesota and Wisconsin.

**Problem:** Much basic life history information is lacking. Exotic
Zebra mussels have significantly expanded toward the only remaining
population.

**Critical Information Needs:** Identification and distribution of host
fish species (coordinate with Mark Hove); factors influencing
reproductive success; distribution of the species in and above Pool 3 of
the Mississippi River (also surveying for Higgins eye pearly mussel in
same area, coordinated with FWS, DNRs and Corp of Engineers); assessment
of threats from zebra mussel, including identifying occurrence and
expansion of zebra mussel populations. Identify streams within the
species historice range that may now be suitable for reintroduction.

**FWS Contact:** Phil Delphey, Bloomington, MN (612-725-3548 x206),
Phil_Delphey@fws.gov

**Region 6/ June Sucker**

**Status:** Endangered, listed in March 1986. The June sucker is endemic
to Utah Lake and currently is known to spawn only in the Provo River. At
the time of listing, the June sucker population was  1,000 individuals,
and has continued to decline. The current population in Utah Lake is
estimated to be approximately 400 aging, senescent adults.

**Problem:** Threats to the continued existence of the species, as well
as threats responsible for its decline within Utah Lake and the Provo
River include habitat alteration from channelization, water diversion
and development, commercial and residential development, altered natural
flow regime, reduced annual lake level stability, blocked migration
corridors, changes in water quality, and competition and predation from
non-native species. Lack of successful spawning and recruitment is also
contributing to the species decline.

Only minimal recruitment of June suckers has been documented in the last
decade. Every year the number of adults coming into the Provo River to
spawn is decreasing, consistent with a senescent population composed of
old, mature individuals with very little recruitment. Hatchery fish are
being released into Utah Lake and the Provo River. However, because
young are hatched and reared in captivity, stocked June sucker may not
develop the biological affinity for appropriate stream or stream
reaches.

**Critical Information Needs:**

> 1\) Current June sucker culturing methods have not been successful.
> Research is urgently needed regarding the development of culture
> methods, particularly requirements for feed type, density,
> temperature, ammonia, and water re-circulation information.
>
> 2\) Negative interactions with non-native fish species is a primary
> threat to June sucker in the Provo River and Utah Lake. Investigation
> of measures and alternatives necessary to protect June suckers from
> non-natives (including the feasibility of the removal and/or control
> of non-native fish predators) are urgently needed.
>
> 3\) The Provo River is the primary spawning habitat for June sucker.
> Studies are needed to examine past and present habitats of the Provo
> River, including its delta, particularly as it relates to spawning and
> successful recruitment. Investigation of potential impacts of
> fluctuating water levels on aquatic vegetation and relationships
> between water level, riverine flows, aquatic vegetation, and habitat
> use of the June sucker both in the lower Provo River and delta area in
> Utah Lake are needed. Alternatives for increasing habitat complexity
> and structural refugia in the Provo River and delta area of Utah Lake
> are also needed.
>
> 4\) Currently there is very poor recruitment of June sucker from
> larval into adult life stages. Investigations of habitat use and
> requirements for early life stages of June sucker in the Provo River
> and Utah Lake is a high priority.

**FWS Contact:** Jessica Gourley, Utah Ecological Services Field Office,
801-524-5001, ext. 133, e-mail: Jess_Gourley@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Neosho Madtom**

**Status:** The Neosho madtom was listed as threatened in May 1990.
Recent population data indicates the species is currently stable.

**Problem:** Limited information on the species ecology and life history
is available in order to help guide and support conservation and
recovery of the species.

**Critical Information Needs:** Information is needed on the basic
ecology and life history requirements of the species. Of particular
interest is information on spawning requirements and habits,
recruitment, dispersal, and impacts to the species resulting from
altered flow regimes (dam releases). Some research is currently being
conducted on food habits, genetics, and effects of small dam removals,
but there may be additional information needed beyond that being
currently collected.

**FWS Contact:** Vernon Tabor, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office,
785-539-3474, ext. 110, e-mail: Vernon_Tabor@fws.gov

**Region 6/ American Burying Beetle**

**Status:** This beetle was listed as endangered in July 1989. The
American burying beetle was historically found in 32 states and two
Canadian provinces. Currently, populations can be found in South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and two islands off the east
coast.

**Problem:** In Nebraska, there are two main populations, one in the
north-central region and the other in the central region, with a few
scattered reports in between. We do not know the importance of these
populations to each other and therefore do not know if an interchange
between these population is important for recovery.

**Critical Information Needs:** Develop and initiate a monitoring
program for extant populations in Nebraska and determine if the
populations are isolated or if an interchange of individuals may occur
between populations.

**FWS Contact:** Wally Jobman, Nebraska Ecological Service Field Office,
308-382-6468, ext. 16 , e-mail: Wally_Jobman@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Shivwits Milk-vetch, Holmgrens Milk-vetch, Dwarf Bear-poppy
(E),**

**Clay Phacelia (E), Siler Pincushion Cactus (T), Autumn Buttercup (E)**

**Status:** Holmgrens milk-vetch and Shivwits milk-vetch will be
proposed for listing in the near future. Dwarf bear-poppy was listed as
endangered in November 1979; Clay phacelia was listed as endangered in
September 1978, Autumn buttercup was listed as endangered in July 1989,
and Siler pincushion cactus was listed as threatened in December 1993.
The milk-vetches, bear-poppy, and cactus all occur in the same general
habitat and location. The clay phacelia and autumn buttercup occur in
different locations within the state but have similar research needs.

**Problem:** The majority of the Services limited funds for recovery of
listed species are used to support recovery of animals, only minimal
amounts are available on an infrequent basis for recovery of plants.
Limited information on the species ecology and life history has been
obtained. Therefore, threats that may modify physical or biological
components of their habitat that may preclude or limit recovery options
are unknown.

**Critical Information Needs:** All of these plant species need basic
ecology and life history research in order to guide and support recovery
and to identify threats and conservation measures. Of particular
interest are the effects of off-road vehicle use, loss of pollinators,
introduced invasive species, and species/pollinator interactions, in
addition to the need for background information on the species life
history/ecology.

**FWS Contact:** Larry England, Utah Ecological Services Field Office,
801-524-5001, ext 138, e-mail: Larry_England@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Barneby Reed-mustard, Clay Reed-mustard, Shrubby
Reed-mustard**

**Status:** All three species are found in the same general habitat and
location. The Shrubby reed-mustard was listed as endangered prior to
1992; the Barneby reed-mustard and clay reed-mustard were listed in
January 1992 as endangered and threatened, respectively. The shrubby
reed-mustard is believed to be declining, while the other two species
appear to be stable.

**Problem:** The majority of the Services limited funds for recovery of
listed species are used to support recovery of animals, only minimal
amounts are available on an infrequent basis for recovery of plants.
Limited information on the species ecology and life history has been
obtained. Therefore, threats that may modify physical or biological
components of their habitat that may preclude or limit recovery options
are unknown.

**Critical Information Needs:** All of these plants need basic ecology
and life history research in order to guide and support recovery and
identify continuing threats and needed conservation measures. Of
particular interest are introduced invasive species.

**FWS Contact:** Larry England, Botanist, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office, (801) 524- 5001, ext. 144, e-mail: Larry_England@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Winkler Cactus (T), San Rafael Cactus (E), Last Chance
Townsendia (T), Wright Fishhook Cactus (E)**

**Status:** All four species are found in the same general habitat and
location. Except for the winkler cactus, all species were listed prior
to 1992.

**Problem:** The majority of the Services limited funds for recovery of
listed species are used to support recovery of animals, only minimal
amounts are available on an infrequent basis for recovery of plants.
Limited information on the species ecology and life history has been
obtained. Therefore, threats that may modify physical or biological
components of their habitat that may preclude or limit recovery options
are unknown.

**Critical Information Needs:** All of these plants need basic ecology
and life history research in order to guide and support recovery and
identify continuing threats and needed conservation measures. Of
particular interest are off-road vehicle damage and introduced invasive
species.

**FWS Contact:** Larry England, Botanist, Utah Ecological Services
Field, (801) 524- 5001, ext. 144, e-mail: Larry_England@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Blowout Penstemon**

**Status:** The blowout penstemon was listed as endangered in September
1987. This plant is found only in Nebraska and Wyoming. Since the
listing of this species, its status has remained relatively stable
(possibly increasing in Nebraska) because of several reintroduction
efforts. Recently a new population was discovered in Wyoming.

**Problem:** Not enough information is known about the habitat
requirements of the species or management of newly established or
naturally occurring populations.

**Critical Information Needs:** Research is needed on population
parameters, habitat requirements, and management criteria for naturally
occurring and newly established populations of the species. This
information could then be used to develop management plans.

**FWS Contact**: Wally Jobman, Nebraska Ecological Service Field Office,
308-382-6468, ext. 16, e-mail: Wally_Jobman@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Bull Trout** (St. Mary-Belly River Population)

**Status:** Threatened

**Problem:** The major adverse action limiting recovery of the St.
Marys River DPS is a Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project. The
Service is working with the Bureau to resolve this issue but needs
additional information

**Critical Information Needs:** FSW needs to define (1) specific fish
passage screening criteria for irrigation diversions and fish passage
design criteria for culverts for all life history stages of bull trout;
(2) habitat needs, food habits, distribution and movements of juvenile
and subadult bull trout in tributary streams, large rivers and lakes and
the effects of land management activities on these aspects of bull trout
life history; (3) minimum flow requirements for resident and adfluvial
bull trout in regulated streams and rivers; and (4) lake trout and bull
trout interactions and the role of brook trout hybridization with bull
trout.

**FWS Contact:** Tim Bodurtha, Montana Ecological Services Field Office:
(406) 758-6882, e-mail: Tim_Bodurtha@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Canada Lynx**

**Status:** Proposed Threatened, Final determination due January 8, 2000

**Problem:** Because the Canada lynx is such a wide-ranging and
secretive animal, we are lacking information on basic presence and
absence of the species and habitat availability and suitability in the
southern margins of its range. Furthermore, we lack information on
reactions of lynx individuals and populations to ongoing and proposed
activities and potential threats and impacts these activities pose to
lynx.

**Critical Information Needs:** (1) Presence/absence surveys in Utah;
(2) habitat availability/suitability evaluations (including prey base),
particularly in areas such as Utah which are considered the margins of
lynx range; (3) potential impacts to lynx, their habitats, prey and
competitors from ongoing and proposed activities, such as winter
recreational activities and related structures and development, snow
compactions and alteration of snow conditions by packing trails, plowing
roads; and (4) evaluation and validation of hair snagging sampling
methodology and its application to lower density populations and more
fragmented habitats.

**FWS Contact:** Lori Nordstrom, Montana Ecological Services Field
Office: (406) 449-5225, ext. 208, e-mail: Lori_Nordstrom@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Desert Yellowhead**

**Status:** Proposed Threatened, final determination due December 22,
1999

**Problem:** Very little is known about this species. It was discovered
in 1990 and represents a new plant genus. Only one small population is
known to exist on BLM lands.

**Critical Information Needs:** Because only one population of this
species is known to exist, the species faces numerous threats to its
continued existence. However, we lack critical information on the
plants reactions to disturbance, such as cattle grazing. Furthermore,
basic information is needed on this plants life history and
identification and status of pollinators. Developing propagation and
transplant techniques will be critical to protecting and conserving this
species.

**FWS Contact:** Mary Jennings, Wyoming Ecological Services Field
Office: (307) 772-2374 ext. 32, e-mail: Mary_Jennings@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse**

**Status:** Threatened

**Problem:** The range of the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse includes
portions of Colorado and Wyoming. However, in Wyoming, this range
overlaps with that of *Zapus princeps*, a non-listed species. Current
science does not allow for visual or habitat differentiation between the
two species which has resulted in numerous conflicts in determining both
the range and presence of the listed entity. This makes section 7
consultations extremely difficult and contentious. Along these same
lines, hydrological studies of the impacts of water diversions and
ditches on known and potential prebles habitat are sorely needed to
determine both impacts for section 7 purposes and their importance to
the conservation and recovery of the species.

**Critical Information Needs:** (1) Study the interactions between
*Zapus princeps* and the Prebles Meadow jumping mouse in areas of range
overlap to determine habitat partitioning and hybridization between the
two species; (2) clarify morphological/genetic differentiation between
*Zapus princeps*, the Prebles Meadow jumping mouse, and other
subspecies; (3) conduct hydrological studies of water diversions and
impacts on known and potential prebles habitat; and (4) develop a
population viability analysis for the species.

**FWS Contact**: Mary Jennings, WY Ecological Services Field Office:
(307) 772-2374 ext. 32, e-mail: Mary_Jennings@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Piping Plover (Northern Great Plains Population)**

**Status:** Threatened

**Problem:** The large range, both breeding and wintering, of the piping
plover and the distinctness of the three populations (Atlantic coast,
Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains), make it extremely difficult to
determine what the limiting factors are in plover survival and
conservation.

**Critical Information Needs:** FWS needs research to (1) determine
limiting factors affecting piping plovers on their breeding grounds and
overwinter survival; (2) understand adult annual survival rates,
particularly outside of the North Dakota coteou region; (3) define the
geographical, temporal, and successional variability in quality of
foraging habitat on the Missouri River and North Dakota coteou wetlands.

**FWS Contact:** Nell McPhillips, Pierre, MT Ecological Services Field
Office; (605) 224-9974, e-mail: Nell_McPhillips@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Black-footed Ferret**

**Status:** The black-footed ferret is one of the most endangered
mammals in North America. Substantial progress towards recovery of this
species has occurred through captive propagation over the past decade.
However, there are still significant threats to the species survival and
persistence at reintroduction sites due to the presence of an introduced
disease (plague).

No animals are known to occur in the wild, other than at the 6
reintroduction sites where captive bred ferrets have been released.

**Problem:** The species is very highly susceptible to plague. Neither
ferrets nor prairie dogs (their prey) are immune, and mortality from the
disease is locally 100%. It is essential for this species recovery and
long-term survival in the wild to have some method of controlling
plague.

**Critical Information Needs:** Need to identify ways to control plague
at ferret reintroduction sites. Some evidence to indicate that plague
management by dusting for fleas is a primary need for sustaining ferret
populations at reintroduction sites. But additional research is needed
to verify this opportunity and to identify control methodologies.

Also needed are long term studies of plague dynamics to identify methods
for interrupting or controlling plague cycles to provide additional
methods of longer-term control of the disease.

Additional research on telemetry is also needed at ferret reintroduction
sites. Telemetry is a primary tool for relocating ferrets and measuring
success of reintroductions. Research into improved attachment
techniques, design of transmitter packages, longevity of transmitters,
and enhanced reception is needed.

**FWS Contact:** Mike Lockhart, Black-footed Ferret Coordinator,
Laramie, WY (307) 721-8805, e-mail: Mike_Lockhart@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Mountain Plover**

**Status:** Proposed as Threatened, 2/99; Final Rule signed by Director
Clark 01/18/01; listing decision pending

**Problem:** A wide-ranging, low population species subject to multiple
threats as changes in predator populations, grazing practices, oil and
gas exploration and production, and changing agricultural practices.

**Critical Information Needs:** Assess changes in predator or predation
levels from changes in ecosystems (loss of free-ranging bison, increased
cottonwoods in riparian areas, increased human populations), and the
impact of such changes on plover production and habitat use. Determine
impacts of oil and gas development on plover production, types of
agriculture that are compatible and not compatible with successful
reproduction, and grazing systems that favor plover nesting. Develop
techniques to accurately estimate breeding populations.

**FWS Contact:** Bob Leachman, Colorado Ecological Services Office (970)
243-2778, e-mail: Bob_Leachman@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Pawnee Montane Skipper (*Hesperia Leonardus Montana)***

**Status:** Unknown. The subspecies of butterfly was listed as
threatened in 1987 and no information regarding status and trends of the
species has been gathered since then.

**Problem:** A distribution survey was conducted in 1985 due to the
threat of a dam proposed by the Denver Water Board. Population surveys
were conducted in 1985, 1986 and 1987. No research has been conducted on
this species since then. Most populations occur on public lands (State
or federal) in the South Platte River drainage system in four counties
in Colorado, however no guidance has been developed on how to manage
habitat for the species and no evaluation has been done of how lands are
currently being managed. Existing land management varies between
agencies. It is unknown whether (or to what degree) management regimes
may benefit or impact the species.

**Critical Information Needs:** Research is needed to guide land
management of the public land on which the species occurs, specifically
research into fire management, population trends, introduced invasive
species, and grazing regime (or lack of grazing) to determine how best
to maintain optimum habitat for the species.

**FWS Contact:** Bettina Proctor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver
Federal Center, P.O. Box 25486, Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236-8145 x606;
e-mail: bettina_proctor@fws.gov.

**Region 6/ Western Prairie Fringed Orchid**

**Status:** Threatened

**Problem:** Frequent natural fires and migratory grazing herds
historically impact prairie habitats in variable patterns. Most of the
species habitat has been converted to agriculture and all remaining
native prairies exist in small, isolated remnants. These small patches
are subject to fire suppression and regular patterns of grazing that
have significantly altered the natural disturbance patterns. Land
managers are attempting to use fire and grazing to simulate natural
disturbance in order to manage and maintain prairie habitat.

**Critical Information Needs:** Research on prairie
management/maintenance activities to simulate natural fire/grazing
patterns. Prairie species respond differently to both fire and grazing
pressure, some being favored and others being inhibited and responses
also vary with timing, season, and drought cycles. Research on the
effects of various fire and grazing regimes on the western prairie
fringed orchid is critical to understanding how best to use these tools
to sustain/ enhance existing populations and to achieve recovery and
long-term persistence of the species.

**FWS Contact:** Karen Kreil, Bismarck, ND Ecological Services Field
Office, e-mail: Karen_Kreil@fws.gov

**Region 6/ Wyoming Toad**

**Status:** Endangered

**Problem:** While this species has declined drastically, we have very
little information as to what has caused these declines and what are the
current factors limiting survival and conservation of the species.

**Critical Information Needs:** Determination of (1) how significant a
role disease has and may continue to play in the decline of the species;
(2) whether hibernation is a limiting factor in recruitment and annual
survival of toads; (3) the microhabitat needs of toads is essential to
reintroduction efforts; and (4) why toads are not surviving to
reproductive age.

**FWS Contact:** Mary Jennings, Wyoming Ecological Services Field
Office: (307) 772-2374 ext. 32, e-mail: Mary Jennings@fws.gov

**Appendix I**

**Region 2/ Genetics of the Gammarid Amphipods of the *Gammarus
Pecos*-Complex in New Mexico and Texas**

**Status:** Three aquatic snail species (*Assiminea pecos*, *Pyrgulopsis
roswellensis*, and *Tryonia kosteri*) are considered candidate species
and currently possess a federal Listing Priority Number of 2, based on
imminent threats posed by contamination of refuge ground and surface
water quality from off-refuge land use practices. These demes are
characterized by narrowly restricted endemic species of what Cole (1985)
termed the *Gammarus-Pecos* complex. Although listed by the State of
New Mexico as endangered, Noels amphipod (*Gammarus desperatus* Cole,
1981) has no Federal protection and is considered a species of concern.

**Problem:** Based on similarity of structural features, gammarid
amphipods from the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (BLNWR), Chaves
County, New Mexico, are considered conspecific with known populations of
*G. depseratus* that have been extirpated in New Mexico (NMDGF 1988,
1998, 1999). Members of the *Gammarus-Pecos* Complex in western Texas
occupying isolated spring systems are threatened by ongoing drought
conditions that are exacerbated by regional/local groundwater mining
practices.

**Needs:** Considering the number of unique populations within this
geographically disparate species complex that remain undescribed, or in
question, it would behoove conservation agencies to support a genetic
and morphological analysis of the *Gammarus-pecos* complex. Recent
genetic studies of peracarida crustaceans, namely hyalellid amphipods
(Guttman 1994, Duan et al. 1997, Thomas et al. 1997, Hogg 1998, McPeek
and Wellborn 1998), indicates that lack of phylogentic studies has
impeded studies of *Hyalella* comparative biology, biogeography, and
evolution (Duan et al. 2000).

Allozymic analysis of known species of the *Gammarus-Pecos* complex is
recommended for comparison with undescribed, and putative taxa of
questionable taxonomic validity. Morphological analysis of specimens
from extant populations and collections of type specimens housed at the
National Museum of Natural History-Washington, DC will compliment
proposed genetic studies. Ecological and habitat data recorded at
collection localities and published in the literature will supplement
our assessment of the genetic affinities of gammarid amphipods of the
*Gammarus-Pecos* complex of New Mexico and Texas. Estimated funding
needed is \$18,000. Literature citations available upon request.

**USFWS Contact:** Gordon Warrick BLNWR, Roswell, NM (505-622-6755),
e-mail: Gordon_Warrick@fws.gov. Additional contacts include: (1) Brian
Lang, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (505-827-4628); and (2) Dr.
Sheldon Guttman, Crustacean Geneticist, Miami University, Ohio
(513-529-3181).

**Appendix II**

**Region 4/ Pearl Darter, *Percina aurora***

**Status**: Candidate Species

**Problem:** The Pearl darter (Suttkus and Thompson, 1994) is vulnerable
to non-point source pollution, changes in river and stream geomorphology
and other human-induced threats to its environment, because of its
restriction to the Pascagoula River drainage and localization to
site-specific habitats.

Collection data suggests that the Pearl darter is very rare in the
Pascagoula River system. The rarity of the Pearl darter within the
Pascagoula drainage was estimated from 379 collections (81,514 fish
specimens) since 1973 and found only one Pearl darter collected for
every 4,795 specimens. Site records from museum fish collections
suggests that the Pearl darter inhabited the main channels of large
Pascagoula drainage tributaries from Jackson to Lauderdale Counties,
Mississippi, and had a historical noninclusive range of about 30 river
miles of the Pascagoula River, 24 river miles of Black Creek, 48 river
miles of the Leaf River, 24 river miles of Okatoma Creek, 102 river
miles of the Chickasawhay River, 24 river miles of the Bouie River and 8
river miles of Chunky Creek. Since 1983, Pearl darters have only been
found in scattered sites within approximately 88 miles of the Pascagoula
drainage, including the Pascagoula, Chickasawhay, Chunky, Leaf and Bouie
Rivers and Okatoma and Black Creeks resulting in a decrease of range of
approximately 66 percent.

Ancillary collections in 1996 and 1997 from the Pascagoula drainage
accounted for only 10 Pearl darters at four sites (the Leaf River at
Estabutchie; lower Leaf River at Merril; Bouie River downstream of I-59
crossing; and Okatoma Creek at Collins). Three specimens were collected
in the Leaf River at Estabutchie in the spring of 1998 while in December
1998, no Pearl darters were found in the upper reaches of the Leaf River
between Estabutchie and north Hattiesburg. No Pearl darters were found
in selected sites of the Chunky River in 1995 and 1997.

**Critical Information Needs**: Some additional survey work is needed
within Okatoma Creek, and the Bouie, Leaf, and Chunky rivers.

**FWS Contact**: Daniel J. Drennen, 601-965-4900 Ext. 127, e-mail:
Daniel_Drennen@fws.gov