u.s. fish & wildlife service report to congress on the recovery of … · 2010-04-09 ·...

Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible under theEndangered Species Act for conserving and recovering ournation’s rarest plant and animal species and their habitats,working in cooperation with other public and private partners.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceEndangered Species Programwww.fws.gov/endangeredDecember 2006

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Fiscal Years 2003-2004

This 2004 report provides an update on therecovery of threatened and endangered speciesfor the period between October 1, 2002, andSeptember 30, 2004, and chronicles the progressof efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service andthe many partners involved in recovery efforts.

During this time, recovery efforts enabled threespecies to be removed from the Endangered andThreatened Species List. The Tinian monarch, asmall forest bird found only in the NorthernMariana Islands, the Hoover’s woolly-star, a flow-ering plant in California, and the Oregon popula-tion of the Columbian white-tailed deer were alldelisted. Vital recovery efforts resulted in theconservation of viable habitat and caused popu-lations to thrive. In addition, three species wereproposed for delisting due to recovery: the

Johnston’s frankenia, Eggert’s sunflower, and Eastern population of the gray wolf.

Substantial progress towards recovery has been made by many other species. Forexample, the Missouri bladderpod, a member of the mustard family, was reclassifiedfrom endangered to threatened after making significant progress towards recovery.As is the case in many of these actions, the success can be credited to individuallandowners who voluntarily implemented best management practices on their lands.

This report also documents the percentage of recovery plans completed for listedspecies. Recovery plans outline the on-the-ground actions and tasks necessary forspecies to recover to the point they can be considered for delisting or reclassification.The Service has demonstrated a marked improvement in finalizing recovery plans forthreatened and endangered species. For example, in 1994 only 54% of listed specieshad finalized plans, while by the end of this reporting period 82% of species had finalrecovery plans.

While implementing recovery actions and finalizing recovery plans is extremelyimportant for recovery, we also recognize the challenges in addressing the needs ofdeclining species and species whose population status is unknown. Thus, in 2005, theService initiated 5-year reviews for listed species under the Act, with the goal to deter-mine whether a species’ current classification is still accurate in light of new informa-tion, as well as current research and monitoring programs.

In summary, this Recovery Report to Congress shows 413 species of the 1,251 listedare considered stable or improving, which means that recovery activities and conser-vation efforts have reduced the threats or reversed population declines in 33 percentof all listed species. It can take years, even decades, to reverse the declining trend ofa species considered to be on the brink of extinction and facing overwhelming threats.

As we look back nearly 35 years since the passage of the ESA—one of the world’slandmark environmental laws—we should be pleased with how far we’ve come, butrecognize how far we still have to go. We are continuing to make strides in improvingthe status of listed species by implementing on-the-ground recovery activities andincreasing partnerships in cooperative conservation efforts.

From the Director Endangered Species Program Contacts

Washington D.C. OfficeEndangered Species Program4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420Arlington, VA 22203http://www.fws.gov/endangered

Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification:Christine Nolin; 703/358 2105

Chief, Division of Consultation, HCPs,Recovery, and State Grants:Rick Sayers; 703/358 2106

Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach:Claire Cassel; 703/358 2390

Region One — PacificEastside Federal Complex911 N.E. 11th AvenuePortland, OR 97232-4181http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Patrick Sousa; 503/231 6158

Jurisdiction: Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon,Washington, American Samoa,Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands, Guam and the PacificTrust Territories

Region Two — SouthwestP.O. Box 1306, Rm 4012Albuquerque, NM 87102http://ifw2es.fws.gov/EndangeredSpecies

Acting Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Susan Jacobsen; 505/248 6641

Jurisdiction: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Region Three —Great Lakes, Big RiversBishop Henry Whipple Federal BuildingOne Federal DriveFt. Snelling, MN 55111-4056http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:T.J. Miller; 612/713 5334

Jurisdiction: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin

Region Four — Southeast1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200Atlanta, GA 30345http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/

Chief, Endangered Species:Gloria Bell; 404/679 7100

Jurisdiction: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, andthe U.S. Virgin Islands

Region Five — Northeast300 Westgate Center DriveHadley, MA 01035-9589http://www.fws.gov/northeast/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Marty Miller; 413/253 8615

Jurisdiction: Connecticut, Delaware,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

Region Six — Mountain-Prairie134 Union Boulevard, Suite 650Lakewood, CO 80228http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/endspp

Chief, Division of Ecological Services:Julie Lyke; 303/236 4213

Jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming

Region Seven — Alaska1011 E. Tudor RoadAnchorage, AK 99503-6199http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Michael Roy; 907/786 3925

Jurisdiction: Alaska

California/Nevada Operations Office2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606Sacramento, CA 95825http://www.fws.gov/pacific/cno.htm

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Mike Fris; 916/414 6464

Jurisdiction: California and Nevada

Hawaii andPacific Islands

Region 1

AlaskaRegion 7

Puerto Rico &U.S.Virgin Islands

Region 4

CNO

Do you want more information on a particular threatened or endangered speciesor recovery effort near you? Please contact the Regional Office that covers theState(s) you are interested in. If they cannot help you, they will gladly direct youto the nearest Service office.

… recovery activitiesand conservation

efforts have reducedthe threats or

reversed populationdeclines in 33 percentof all listed species.

Recovery Reportto CongressFiscal Years 2003-2004


Table of Contents

Cover photograph: A red wolf nibbles the ear of his six-week old pup that was born at the Museum of Life andSciences in Durham, North Carolina.Greg Koch, www.gkphotography.net

2 Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species

3 Recovery Overview

4 Status of Listed Species

6 Methods

7 Status of the Recovery Program: FY 2003-2004

15 Species Highlights

18 Results

32 Conclusion

34 Data

36 Appendix A

Scot

tSm

ith,M

aryl

and

Dep

t.of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Tim

Sutte

rfiel

d,U

.S.N

avy

BackgroundConservation of endangered and threat-ened species (listed species), and theecosystems upon which they depend, isthe primary purpose of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.] (Act). The ultimate goal of suchconservation efforts is the recovery ofthese species so that they no longerneed the protective measures of the Act.

The Act requires the Secretaries of theDepartment of the Interior (DOI) andthe Department of Commerce (DOC) todevelop and implement plans for the

conservation and survival of listedspecies (“recovery plans”). Recoveryplans are required under section 4(f)(1)of the Act for all listed species, unless the plans will not promote their conservation.

The Act also requires that the Secre-taries report to Congress every twoyears on the status of efforts to developand implement recovery plans, and thestatus of all species for which recoveryplans have been developed. This reportsatisfies these two requirements. Wechoose to report the status of all listed


John

Car

ring

ton,

Sava

nnah

Mor

ning

New

s

species regardless of whether or notthey have a final recovery plan.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser-vice), under the DOI, and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)(formerly National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice), under the DOC, have beendelegated the responsibility of adminis-tering the Act. In general, the Servicehas responsibility for freshwater andterrestrial species, while NOAA Fisheries has responsibility for mostmarine species and anadromous fish1.Currently, the Service and NOAA Fish-eries share the responsibility for thefollowing ten listed species: the Atlanticand Pacific populations of both thegreen and olive ridley sea turtles; thehawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback,and loggerhead sea turtles; the Atlanticsalmon; and the gulf sturgeon. Addition-al information on these joint speciesmay be found in the NOAA FisheriesOffice of Protected Resources’ “BiennialReport to Congress on the RecoveryProgram for Threatened and Endan-gered Species: October 1, 2002 –September 30, 2004.”

This report satisfies the Act’s reportingrequirement for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2004, (reporting period)for U.S. species solely under the Ser-vice’s jurisdiction, as well as thosemanaged jointly with NOAA Fisheries.

IntroductionUnder the Act, any species of fish,wildlife, or plants, except pest insects,can be added to the List (List) ofThreatened and Endangered Species(listed) if they are in danger of extinc-tion throughout all or a significantportion of their range (Endangered) orare likely to become an endangeredspecies within the foreseeable futurethroughout all or a significant portion oftheir range (Threatened). Species areplaced on the List due to one or more ofthe following five threat-based factors:(a) the present or threatened destruc-tion, modification, or curtailment of itshabitat or range; (b) overutilization forcommercial, recreational, scientific, oreducational purposes; (c) disease orpredation; (d) the inadequacy of exist-ing regulatory mechanisms; and (e)other natural or manmade factorsaffecting its continued existence.

Fish and Wildlife Service biologists Billy Brooks and Willie Booker band endan-gered wood stork chicks at Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge,Townsend, Georgia.These efforts continue a 15-year project with the Georgia Department of NaturalResources, University of Georgia, University of Florida, and Savannah River Ecology Laboratory to track the movement and survival of the birds. Partner-ships with Ducks Unlimited and Bass Pro to build water control structures andnesting platforms, manage feeding areas, and create cypress-studded islandshave provided prime nesting habitat for a range of wading bird species. Due torecovery activities, the wood stork has recently expanded its nesting range toNorth Carolina from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

2 www.fws.gov/endangered Recovery Report FY03-04

1 Anadromous fish: fish born in fresh water that migrate to the ocean to grow into adults, and then return to fresh water to spawn.

Recovery OverviewRecovery is the process by which listedspecies and their ecosystems arerestored to the point that they no longermeet the definitions of threatened orendangered in the Act (i.e., the threatsare reduced or removed). A variety ofactions may be necessary to achieve thegoal of recovery, such as creation ofnew, or restoration of existing, habitator reintroduction of the species intosuitable habitat. “Recovery plans” 2 arecentral to the recovery of listed species,but are not regulatory documents.Recovery plans (using the best scientificand commercial data available) serve asthe road map for the species’ recovery,laying out where we need to go, howbest to get there, and how long we thinkit will take. Only under certain circum-stances (i.e., a recovery plan will notpromote the species conservation) is aspecies exempt from the requirement todevelop a recovery plan.

A recovery outline—developed soonafter a species is listed—is the first stepin recovery planning and establishes the initial direction for conservation effortsand guides the development of a recov-ery plan. Draft and final recovery plansare then developed and implemented,using stakeholder involvement to thegreatest extent possible. The plansorganize, prioritize, and guide therecovery process, and establish objec-tive and measurable criteria by which todetermine when a species can beremoved from the List. The plans alsoidentify who the responsible parties andpartners are for implementing the on-the-ground recovery actions. Recoveryplans may be amended, revised, orupdated if and when new informationthat may impact the species’ recovery(change in magnitude or immediacy ofthreats or new biological information,etc.) becomes available.

Fish and Wildlife Service biologists Caroline Stahala and Pam Thibodeaux hold aGulf sturgeon before weighing and measuring it as part of a monitoring programfor the threatened species. “They are gentle, big beauties—interesting and pre-historic,”Thibodeaux said.The Service has collected sturgeon in the river forseveral years, although the numbers are quite low. Biologists have surgicallyimplanted ultrasonic transmitters to assess the population and determine marineand freshwater movement and habitat use.The range of the sturgeon includesAlabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The fish in this photo weighed 55pounds and was 65 inches long.

Fra

nkPa

rauk

a,U

SFW

S

Plicate rocksnails, hatchery-reared forrelease into the Locust Fork, JeffersonCounty, Alabama.These juvenile snailsresulted from a five-year collaborativeeffort between the Service, AlabamaDepartment of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the TennesseeAquarium Research Institute to developlife-history information and culturetechniques for this endangered aquatic species.

Dr. Paul Johnson of the Alabama Biodiversity Culture Center in Marionsearches for previously released plicate rocksnails. Other collaborativeefforts are underway to reestablishendangered mussels and snails intohistorically occupied river reaches.Partners include Alabama Power Company,The Nature Conservancy,World Wildlife Fund, and other non-government organizations.

2 Bolded terms in quotation marks correspond to items for which information is reported in Appendix A.

3www.fws.gov/endangered Recovery Report FY03-04

Paul

Har

tfie

ld,U

SFW

SPa

ulH

artf

ield

,USF

WS

Status of Listed SpeciesThe first priority for the recovery of anylisted species is to prevent its extinc-tion. Species with the highest degree ofthreat have the highest priority forpreparing and implementing recoveryplans. These critically endangeredspecies need immediate and often intensive intervention just to preventextinction. These are the species forwhich captive breeding is sometimes theonly measure enabling the species topersist until the threats in the wild arereduced or eliminated and the speciescan be reintroduced to formerly occu-pied habitat. We assign a “recoverypriority number” to species to helpguide the allocation of resources forrecovery planning and implementationamong all listed species. The recovery

priority number is based on the degreeof threat facing the species, along withthe species’ potential for recovery andtaxonomic distinctness. A “C” followingthe recovery priority number indicatesthat there is the potential for conflictsbetween needed recovery actions andeconomic activities.

Generally, species’ declines often occurover the course of decades or centuriesprior to their listing. Addressing threatsthat have occurred over long periods oftime typically requires substantial timeand resources. Recovery plans estimatethe time and costs associated withaddressing these threats. Some speciesalso may be faced with new threatsafter receiving protection under the Act

(e.g., West Nile virus in birds). There-fore, most species still have decliningpopulation numbers for a period of timeafter listing, since enough time may nothave passed to show a response to ourefforts to reduce or remove the threats.Threats are easily magnified simply bythe continued decline in species num-bers (for example, disease may have agreater chance of eliminating a smallerpopulation). Unfortunately somethreats, such as the threat posed byinvasive, non-native species, may con-tinue to increase for some timefollowing listing. Reaching recoveryobjectives, therefore, is likely to be farin the future, and the species status dur-ing this period is usually reported as“declining.”

Once a species is listed, development ofa recovery plan is started. However,being able to fully address a species’threat in the recovery plan requiresadditional information. For example,some species’ life history requirements(e.g., breeding is contingent upon rain-fall), make monitoring the effects of athreat difficult because it may take sev-eral years of monitoring or surveysbefore enough information, under theright conditions, can be gathered. Giventhat some species may need additionalsurvey work before a declining, improv-ing, or stable determination can bemade, these species are reported as“uncertain.”

To be successful, recovery activitiesmust reverse declines and reduce oreliminate threats. One indicator that areversal may be underway is when therate of decline slows or decline halts.Improvement may not be occurring ormay not yet be detectable. Where thespecies numbers and threats remainconstant, the species is reported as“stable.”

Over time, as species begin benefitingfrom management and protectionefforts aimed at reducing and/or elimi-nating their threats, and moreinformation becomes available from sur-veys and research, increasing numbersof listed species are expected. Althoughthe amount of time for response variesdepending upon the species, the reduc-tion and removal of threats shouldresult in an increase in population

On the Alaskan tundra near Barrow, biologists Nora Rojek of the Fish andWildlife Service and Bill O’Connell of the Alaska SeaLife Center band a Steller’seider, a threatened species. “There’s still a lot we don’t know.We know thatsome female eiders have come back to Barrow to nest. Banding will help usdetermine how many return,” Rojek said.

Jenn

ifer

Jenk

ins,

USF

WS


3 Some critically endangered species may not respond due to limiting factors such as small population size that has limited or suppressed reproduction.Herculean efforts may be needed before an increase in population numbers may be seen. It may even be that preventing extinction is the best that canbe done with the current scientific information, although the future may bring advances enabling the population to improve.

Over time, as species beginbenefiting from manage-ment and protection effortsaimed at reducing and/or eliminating their threats,and more informationbecomes available fromsurveys and research, increasing numbers of listed species are expected.

G.A

.Coo

per

@U

SDA

-NR

CS

PLA

NT

SD

atab

ase

numbers 3. It must be noted, however,that the length of time it takes to see aresponse in species numbers followingthe threat reduction or removal isdependent upon some factors (such asthe age at which the species starts tobreed) that are beyond the control ofthe Act and is often unrelated to theamount of financial resources expended. Species that do show a positive response, however, are reportedas “improving.”

As recovery progresses, it is often possi-ble to downlist the species (changelisting classification from endangered tothreatened). This determination meansthat the species is no longer in danger ofextinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Downlisting objectives and criteria for endangeredspecies are outlined in the species’recovery plan.

Delisting results in the removal of regu-latory restrictions. To delist a speciesdue to recovery, the Service must deter-mine, based on the best scientific andcommercial data available, that thespecies is not in danger of extinctionand is not likely to become so in theforeseeable future. The determination isbased on an assessment of the samefive threat factors that caused thespecies to be listed in the first place: A)the present or threatened destruction,modification, or curtailment of its habitator range; B) overutilization for commer-cial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; C) disease or pre-dation; D) the inadequacy of existingregulatory mechanisms; or E) other nat-ural or manmade factors affecting itscontinued existence. When a specieshas been recovered and subsequentlydelisted, the Act requires the Service, incooperation with the states, to monitor the species status for a minimum of fiveyears.

Despite all our best efforts, somespecies may have declined to the pointwhere they only occur now in “captivi-ty” and do not exist anywhere in thewild, or they may be believed to be“extinct,” but remain on the list untilextinction is confirmed after severalyears of intensive surveys and comple-tion of formal rulemaking to delist.

West Nile virus is a new threat for thenorthern spotted owl. A Pacific North-west species, the owl was listed asthreatened in 1990.The main threatwas the loss and adverse modificationof habitat following timber harvesting,exacerbated by catastrophic eventssuch as fire, volcanic eruption, andwind storms. Old growth forests arehome to most northern spotted owls,but the birds may also be found inyounger forests.

USFWS

Arizona hedgehog cactus, now a stable species.


Draining wetlands has limited habitatfor the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly,listed as endangered in Indiana,Michigan, and Ohio. Protectingwetlands and their watersources from drainage andcontamination conserves thisinsect and provides other ben-efits such as flood control.

USFWS

Methods

The Service’s Director has delegatedresponsibility for recovery of listedspecies to the Service’s seven RegionalDirectors and the California/Nevada Operations Office Manager. Each listedspecies is the responsibility of at leastone Region. When the distribution of aspecies crosses regional boundaries,the “lead Region” coordinates deci-sions regarding the species amongother Regions. Regional Directorsensure that recovery plans are devel-oped for those species that need plans,appoint recovery team members if ateam is appropriate, direct recoveryplan implementation, and coordinatethese efforts with our partners andstakeholders. (The boundaries of theService’s Regions and the location ofRegional Offices are illustrated on theinside back cover page—“EndangeredSpecies Program Contacts.”)

As required by the Act, our Field andRegional staff report on their efforts todevelop and implement recovery plansand the status of listed species. Tomake these determinations they use thebest available information from recov-ery planning and implementing efforts,our consultation process with otherFederal agencies under section 7 of theAct, our permitting program under sec-tion 10 of the Act, our petition processunder section 4 of the Act, our coordi-nation with states, and other activitiesrelated to listed species.

The results should be viewed only inlight of the Act’s recovery reportingrequirements. These results are notintended to provide status review


results such as are available after a 12-month petition finding or a 5-yearreview. They are intended only to sim-plistically represent the relativeprogress that is being made on listedspecies. Progress is not solely in thepurview of the Service, and thereforeshould not be used as the only measureof the effectiveness of the Recovery Program.

Regional Directors ensure that recovery plans aredeveloped for those species that need plans, appoint

recovery team members if a team is appropriate,direct recovery plan implementation, and coordinate

these efforts with our partners and stakeholders.

The U.S. Air Force and MarineCorps at the Barry M. GoldwaterRange, along with the Mexicangovernment, hunting clubs, zooveterinarians, and volunteers fromthe University of Arizona, joined apartnership with the Fish andWildlife Service and the ArizonaGame and Fish Department to pre-vent the extinction of the criticallyendangered Sonoran pronghorn.

Mas

ter

Sgt.

Mic

hael

Bur

ns,U

SAF

The two years spanning this reportingperiod brought several significantmilestones. The Endangered SpeciesAct turned 30, and the NationalWildlife Refuge System celebrated 100years of benefiting wildlife while pro-viding outdoor opportunities forpeople, to name a few. The RecoveryProgram also underwent a Govern-ment Accountability Office audit,worked on addressing the backlog of5-year reviews, and worked moreclosely with the states on key recoveryimplementation efforts.

The ESA at 30In December 2003, the EndangeredSpecies Act (Act) celebrated its 30thanniversary. To celebrate the passageand implementation of this seminalpiece of legislation, and to assesswhere there is room for improvement,the Donald Bren School of Environ-mental Science & Management at theUniversity of California in Santa Bar-bara hosted an “Endangered SpeciesAct at Thirty: Lessons and Prospects”conference. Then Governor DirkKempthorne and Craig Manson, Assis-tant Secretary for Fish and Wildlifeand Parks in the Department of theInterior, were keynote speakers.

The conference was attended by awide range of participants from feder-al and state governmental agencies,academia, environmental groups, andothers. The three focal questions ofthe conference were: 1) ESA successesand failures: what have we learned; 2)What are we protecting and why; and3) Where do we go from here? Partici-pants came to consensus (Norris 2004,Scott 20044) on a number of issues,including:n The Act’s goals are important;

n There is a valid federal regulatoryrole;

n The Act is still a young law that is evolving;

n There needs to be more realisticmeasures of success;

n There needs to be more funding oflisting and recovery efforts;

n There should be an expanded rolefor state and local governments;

n Incentive programs should be streamlined;

n A more pro-active approach should be promoted;

n Monitoring should be improved; and

n Better access to agency data should be provided.

The issues that the participants didnot agree on (Scott 2004) were:n The role of critical habitat;

n The role of litigation;

n The amount of flexibility needed inimplementation of the Act; and

n The willingness to take risks.

Based on the conference’s conclusions,seven “ESA at 30” workshops wereheld to further develop the ideas thatstemmed from the event. The sevenworkshop topics focused on: 1) speedysuccess stories; 2) conservation reliantspecies; 3) recovery managementagreements; 4) one-stop shopping forESA information; 5) state-based pro-grams; 6) streamlining conservationplans; and 7) landowner incentives.Workshop participant diversity mir-rored that of the conference. Theoutcome of each workshop was a con-sensus list of action items that couldbe forwarded to decision-makers in theDepartment of the Interior, if the rec-ommendation involved changes topolicies, or members of Congress inthe case of legislation recommenda-tions.

These recommendations are beingreviewed by appropriate parties toevaluate their implementation feasibility.

4 Norris, S. 2004. “Only 30: A Portrait of the Endangered Species Act as a Young Law.” BioScience April2004, vol. 54, No. 4; Scott, M. 2004. PowerPoint presentation to the USFWS Assistant Regional Directorsfor Ecological Services September 2004 meeting.

Status of the Recovery Program: FY 2003-2004


Fra

nkD

avis

,UC

-San

taB

arba

ra

University of Idaho professorMichael Scott visits with AssistantSecretary Craig Manson during theconference on the EndangeredSpecies Act at 30. Among the topics discussed was exploringways to maintain biodiversity onworking landscapes. Participatingorganizations included the Nation-al Cattlemen’s Beef Association,Plum Creek Timber Company, Envi-ronmental Defense, University ofIdaho, Columbia University, andUCLA School of Law.

Progress is not solely inthe purview of the

Service, and therefore,should not be used as the

only measure of the effectiveness of the Recovery Program.

Refuge CentennialMarch 14, 2003, marked the Centennialanniversary of the National WildlifeRefuge (NWR) System. In 1903, Presi-dent Theodore Roosevelt signed anExecutive Order declaring PelicanIsland off the coast of Florida aNational Bird Reservation for the pro-tection of brown pelicans. PresidentRoosevelt’s action established the firstunit of what was to become the Nation-al Wildlife Refuge System, which nowincludes more than 97 million acres in545 National Wildlife Refuges and 37Wetland Management Districts with atleast one refuge in every state.

As of the end of this Report’s reportingperiod, 58 refuges were establishedspecifically for the benefit of threatenedand endangered species. Listed mam-mals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish,invertebrates, and plants have all beenthe impetus for adding new units to theRefuge System. A list of all the refugesestablished specifically for listedspecies can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/habitats/endSpRefuges.html. As of September 30, 2004, 268 listed species (21%) occur on refugelands, and approximately 499 refugeunits (80%) have listed species.

One refuge, the San Joaquin RiverNWR (part of the San Luis NWR Com-plex) in California, has showntremendous conservation leadership in implementing recovery actions forthe endangered riparian brush rabbit(Sylvilagus bachmani riparius). Therabbit was listed as endangered onFebruary 23, 2000, based primarily onthreats from flooding, wildfire, clear-ing of riparian vegetation, disease,predation, rodenticide use, and loss ofgenetic variability from a very smallpopulation. The 1998 San JoaquinUpland Species Recovery Plan

included the riparian brush rabbit,which was at that time a candidatespecies.

In late 2001/early 2002, a controlled propagation program was established,as identified in the recovery plan, tohelp increase the rabbit’s populationand to reintroduce the animalsinto previously occupiedhabitat outside of the onlyknown current location inCaswell Memorial StatePark in San JoaquinCounty, California. Oneof the sites selected wasthe San Joaquin RiverNWR. Beginning in August2002, with plans to continuethe reintroductions on therefuge through at least2005, rabbits weretranslocated andreleased into suit-able habitat. As ofSeptember 30,2004, a total of298 rabbitswere trans-locatedfrom the


Left: Laurissa Hamilton holds acaptive-bred riparian brush rabbitprior to release into its historicrange. Riparian brush rabbits havesuffered from the loss of riparianforests in the San JoaquinValley of California. Because only about6% of its habitat remains, theService, Bureau of Reclamation,and other partners have

launched an energetic recovery program.

JimN

ickles,USF

WS

Waubay National Wildlife Refuge’sJarrod Lee took this photograph atthe refuge in Waubay, South Dakota,during the 2003 Klondike Derby.About 90 Boy Scouts and 20 adultstook part in survival classes and fes-tivities including snowshoe races,igloo-building, and ice-fishing. After-wards, they helped celebrate theRefuge System’s Centennial byspelling out “Happy BirthdayRefuges 100” with their bodies.

USF

WS

5 Lloyd, M. and P., Kelly. 2005. Riparian Brush Rabbit Propagation and Translocation Summary (1 Octo-ber 2001 through 30 September 2004). Endangered Species Recovery Program, Department of BiologicalSciences, California State University—Stanislaus, Turlock, CA.

As of the end of this Report’s reporting period, 58 refuges were established specifically for the benefit

of threatened and endangered species.

breeding site to soft release enclo-sures (1 acre pens containing suitablehabitat where the rabbits could accli-mate to the refuge and could bemonitored prior to release) on therefuge (Lloyd and Kelly 2005)5.

Although at this time it is not possibleto estimate the total number of ripari-an brush rabbits at the refuge, there isevidence that the translocated rabbitsare reproducing. As of the end of thereporting period, a total of 104 rabbitsknown to have been born on therefuge (Lloyd and Kelly 2005) havebeen captured and marked for furtherstudy. The recovery goal for the ripari-an brush rabbit is to establish threeviable populations outside of CaswellMemorial State Park. With the firstpopulation established on San JoaquinRiver NWR, there are two more to go.(See below for more information aboutcontrolled/captive propagation.) Inaddition to being home to the riparianbrush rabbit, the refuge also providesprotection and enhancement of almost100% of the wintering grounds for theAleutian Canada goose. This protec-tion substantially contributed to thegoose’s delisting due to recovery onMarch 20, 2001.

Highlighting Aquatic SpeciesThe Service’s Fisheries Program playsa crucial role in recovery planning andimplementation of recovery actions formany aquatic species. In FY 2004, theFisheries Program worked on final recovery plan actions for 59 species (42 fish species and 17 other speciesof mollusks, amphibians, and plants)and assessed the status and trends of listed fish. Some of the species high-lighted during this period included:bull trout, Topeka shiner, greenbackcutthroat trout, leopard darter,Arkansas River shiner, Gulf sturgeon,razorback sucker, shortnose sturgeon,and listed mussels in the eastern Gulfof Mexico, upper Mississippi, and LakeChamplain watersheds.

The Service’s Fish and Wildlife Man-agement Assistance Offices, NationalFish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Cen-ters, Fish Health Centers, and theAquatic Animal Drug Approval Part-nership Program also providescientific and technical leadership tosolve “on the ground” problems in sup-port of these recovery efforts. Theircontributions in genetic analyses,nutrition, population dynamics, cryop-reservation (freezing specimens at lowtemperatures), biometrics (calculationof life expectancy and other biologicalevents), culture technologies, diseasediagnostics, and new approved drugsimproves the quality and relevance ofhatchery production programs, as wellas broader fish management activities,for recovery.

On March 14, 2003, the Secretary ofthe Interior addressed guests and staffmembers at the official celebration ofthe 100th birthday of the NationalWildlife Refuge System at PelicanIsland, Florida.


Dep

artm

ento

fthe

Inte

rior

Top: Laurissa Hamilton, CaliforniaState University- Stanislaus, and Margaret Kolar of the Service’s California/Nevada Operations Officeencourage a rabbit to leave the carrying case to a new home in thewild while news-media photographerswait for the right moment.

JimN

ickles,USF

WS

The Fisheries offices also meet criticalscience needs for listed aquaticspecies. Examples include identifyingthe host fish required in the lifecycle ofthe winged mapleleaf mussel and iden-tifying habitat needs of pallid sturgeon.Other pallid sturgeon activities in FY2004 included the Bozeman, MontanaFish Health Center, in cooperation withthe State of Montana, developing a spe-cialized pallid sturgeon fish healthassessment protocol. Fishery person-nel throughout the country weretrained to histologically (studying thincross-sections of tissue under a micro-scope) evaluate pallid sturgeon tissuesand conduct viral screens, therebyimproving the health of captive popula-tions held for recovery. Monitoring thehealth of captive populations is essen-tial to prevent movement of diseases tonon-endemic areas.

Fisheries offices often take the lead forrecovery efforts for listed aquaticspecies. The New Mexico FisheryResources Office is the primary stationcharged with field recovery efforts forthe endangered Gila trout. During2003-2004, successful removal of non-native trout from the upper West ForkGila River provided protection to therelic Whiskey Creek population.Efforts were also successful in remov-ing non-native trout from a tributarystream that will serve as an introduc-tion site for the Whiskey Creekpopulation. Mora National Fish Hatch-ery and Technology Centers in NewMexico also played a vital role in therecovery of the endangered Gila troutby providing temporary refugia for fishjeopardized by fires, refining captivepropagation techniques, and producingcaptively-bred fish for reintroduction.Genetic analysis of remnant popula-tions provided crucial information thataided in the recovery of genetically

diverse popula-tions. Captivepropagation inconcert withhabitat restora-tion has beensuccessful inrestoring thisnative trout tohistoric habitat.

Fish TechnologyCenters alsohave developednew techniques

that will significantly improve monitor-ing efforts for listed fish species. The

Lamar Fish Technology Center inPennsylvania developed a new massmarking technique and detectiondevice using calcein, a substancewhich binds with bony tissues such asfin rays. Larval fish are marked inbatches and non-lethally detected byUV light using a hand-held detectorinvented at Lamar FTC, facilitating themonitoring and evaluation of hatcheryproduction programs for listed species.Abernathy Fish Technology Centerdeveloped an in-stream PIT (PassiveIntegrated Transponder) tag detectionsystem that instantaneously receivesand stores PIT tag data in a computer.This new technology allows continuoustracking and avoids handling, greatlyenhancing the ability of fisheries man-agers to monitor and evaluatepopulations of listed salmonids, trackseasonal movements, determine over-winter survival and migration timing,and identify micro-habitat use.

Working with StatesListed species occur in all 50 states and3 territories under the United States’jurisdiction. The Service cannot recoverlisted species alone, and therefore werely on the state resource agencies fortheir help. The states are activelyinvolved with both recovery planningand implementation. For example, inthe Service’s Southwest Region, thestate agencies in Arizona, New Mexico,Oklahoma, and Texas are signatorieson all approved recovery plans.

In addition, 43 states participate in thepost-delisting monitoring (PDM) planfor the American peregrine falcon. ThePDM plan monitors territory occupan-cy, nest success, and productivity.Some eggs and feathers are also col-lected for future contaminant analysis.All of the lower 48 states also partici-pate in population monitoring, basedon nest occupancy, for the bald eagle.This monitoring has taken place sincethe bald eagle was first listed. Thestates have collected the bald eagleinformation either by carrying out spe-cific monitoring programs or bycollating surveys of partner agenciesand individual observations. The Ser-vice uses this information to evaluatewhether the eagle has met its recoverycriteria.

Another way the states and territorieshelp with implementation of recoveryactions is through the Recovery LandAcquisition (RLA) grant program. Thisgrant program is authorized under

Hatchery-reared native Apache troutcaught on the White Mountain ApacheIndian Reservation, Arizona.

Yearling pallid sturgeons in a rearingtank at Neosho National Fish Hatch-ery, Missouri.

Ric

hard

Chr

istia

n,U

SFW

SU

SFW

SU

SFW

SU

SFW

S

At Genoa National Fish Hatchery inWisconsin, biologist Roger Gordonchecks for endangered mussel larvaeon the gills of a host largemouth bass.


Routine fish health inspection of endangered yearling pallid sturgeons atNeosho National Fish Hatchery, Missouri.

Scot

tSm

ith,M

aryl

and

Dep

artm

ento

fNat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Biologists from the Maryland Department ofNatural Resources and the Service conduct

surveys for the bog turtle as part of its recovery plan. Here, Lori Erb and John

Frederick of the Maryland DNR hold bog turtles onthe property of a private landowner participating in therecovery initiative. Since 95% of bog turtle habitat is pri-vately owned, the recovery of the species and thewetlands in which it lives depends on these landown-ers. At home in open-canopy, spring-fed wetlands, bogturtles face threats of changes in hydrology and habitat.

section 6 of the Act and fundedthrough the Cooperative EndangeredSpecies Conservation Fund. Grantsare awarded to states and territorieseach fiscal year through a competitiveranking process. Requests for landacquisition funding must support con-servation easements or fee simpleacquisition of habitat identified inapproved recovery plans for listedspecies. The grants have a 25% match-ing requirement, unless two or morestates or territories are implementinga joint project, and then the matchingrequirement drops to 10%. Thirty-twoRLA grants, totaling over $15 million,were awarded to 24 states in FY 2004.These grants supported habitat acquisition for the following listedspecies: 31 plants, 11 birds, 13 fish, 7 mammals, 10 clams or mussels, 6 other invertebrates, 1 reptile, and 1 amphibian.

One of the FY 2004 funded projectswas for the acquisition of 7,785 acres,including 47 miles of lakeshore and 13miles of stream frontage, in theMachias River watershed. The State ofMaine, International Paper, and 11other partners are involved in this proj-ect that benefits high quality spawningand rearing habitat of the Atlanticsalmon, multiple bald eagle nests, andnumerous other non-listed species,including the common loon. The Ser-vice’s contribution to this projectthrough the RLA program was$500,000, which was matched by $8.7million in funding from the State andother partners.

The FY 2004 Machias River projectwas actually Phase II of a larger

conservation vision. Phase I was funded in FY 2001, the very first yearof the RLA grant program, and com-pleted in FY 2004. Phase I acquired24,844 acres (through a combination offee simple acquisition and conserva-tion easements), including over 210river, stream, and lake-frontage milesin permanent protection. Combined,Phase I and Phase II (to be completedin 2006), will protect the entireMachias River system, one of the eightrivers identified in the Atlantic salmondistinct population segment listing, asan intact, functioning riparian unit.

Recovery Management Agreements One of the ideas that came from theESA at 30 conference (discussed

previously) was the concept of achiev-ing delisting more quickly byaddressing certain threats, such as theneed for ongoing management or theadequacy of existing regulatory mech-anisms, which might be expected torecur some time after delisting. Forexample, for a species whose primarythreat was human persecution (e.g.,gray wolf), the primary recovery mech-anism has been applying section 9 ofthe Act to stop the “take.”6 Thus, theRocky Mountain gray wolf recoveryplan requires development of long-term management plans to addressthis threat, among others, to be imple-mented by each state in which wolvesoccur, prior to and continuing afterdelisting, when section 9 of the Act will

Scot

tSm

ith,M

aryl

and

Dep

artm

ento

fNat

ural

Res

ourc

es


6 “Take” is defined in the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

These students are stocking Atlanticsalmon fry into the West Branch ofthe Union River, which drains intoBlue Hill Bay in eastern Maine.The

children raised the fishin their classroom.Tocomplement educa-tional programs,partners such asNative American Tribesof Maine, the MaineAtlantic Salmon Com-mission, the AtlanticSalmon Federation,and Project SHARE(Salmon Habitat andRiver Enhancement)are working toimprove river habitat,the key to the survivalof the species.

Edw

ard

Stee

nstr

a,U

SFW

S

no longer apply. This idea was furtherexpanded at the Recovery Manage-ment Agreement workshop hosted bythe National Cattlemen’s Beef Associa-tion in May 2004.

Recovery Management Agreements(RMAs) are agreements between theService and a local governmental enti-ty (a state, county, or municipality)with regulatory powers that are suffi-cient to implement the RMA. The RMAis intended to facilitate the recovery ofthe species and to provide assurancesof the species’ continuing status fol-lowing delisting. RMAs accomplishthese objectives by providing for thetransition of management authorityfrom the federal wildlife agency (Ser-vice or NOAA-Fisheries) to the localgovernmental entity. RMAs include thefollowing:n Biological goals keyed to the recov-

ery plan for the species. This willinclude a monitoring program that issufficient to track the population ofthe species. For example, the agree-ment might specify threeincreasingly restrictive levels ofmanagement based on the recoveryplan’s delisting population: for a pop-ulation greater than 50% above thedelisting population; for a populationbetween the delisting population anda population 50% greater than thatpopulation; and for a population lessthan the delisting population.

n Required management actions thatreflect the identified risks facing thespecies as identified in the listingpackage and the recovery plan.

n Adaptive management strategiesthat provide for revisiting and revis-ing the management agreement.

n The duration of the agreement.

n Assurances bythe parties oftheir ability toimplement theagreement.

n Signatures of theresponsible par-ties.

This concept ofpost-delisting management agreementsis not new. Agreements are often thetool through which post-delisting moni-toring, a requirement of the Act forspecies delisted due to recovery, isimplemented. However, the Act requirespost-delisting monitoring for a mini-mum of five years. But longer termmanagement agreements do occur aswell. For example, in 1994, the U.S. For-est Service entered into a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) with the Ser-vice to protect and manage the habitatfor Robbins’ cinquefoil, an endangeredflowering plant that occurs only in theWhite Mountain National Forest in NewHampshire. The Robbins’ cinquefoilMOU estimated that, if all went asanticipated, the species would be readyfor delisting in 2000, and indeed it was

delisted due to recovery in 2002. Thepost delisting monitoring plan for thisplant includes monitoring of populationtrends of both natural and transplantedpopulations through a continuing part-nership with the Appalachian MountainClub’s Research Department and theU.S. Forest Service. Thus, while theconcept of long-term managementagreements that would continue to beimplemented after delisting was notentirely new to the Service, the Recovery Management Agreementworkshop investigated this approachmore systematically.

Recovery Program AuditIn February 2004, the GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) initiatedan audit of the Service’s recovery pro-gram to assess how funds wereallocated among listed species duringFY 2000 through FY 2003. This auditwas conducted at the request of Con-gressman Pombo, Chairman of theHouse Resources Committee. GAOinterviewed staff at the WashingtonOffice (WO), each of the RegionalOffices (RO), and 10 field offices. WOstaff explained how funds were allo-cated to the ROs, and RO staffexplained how they allocated funds totheir respective field offices. WO fundsare allocated according to a workloadbased formula after initial items suchas Congressional earmarks, Depart-mental cross-cut initiatives, and asmall amount of “capability funding”are given to the respective regions.

Edw

ard

Stee

nstr

a,U

SFW

S

Atlantic salmon eggs(enlarged) and youngsalmon


ROs each have different meth-ods of allocating funds to thefield offices. WO staff alsoexplained the Service’s 1983(48 FR 43098) guidelines forissuing listed species recoverypriority numbers. GAO is ana-lyzing how the Serviceallocates recovery funds com-pared to the recovery priorityguidelines and looking at whatfactors influenced the Service’sallocation decisions the most.GAO’s final report is expectedto be available in FY 2005.

5-Year ReviewsDuring FY 2004, 5-year reviewswere completed for twospecies: marbled murrelet anddelta smelt. The Act requiresthe Service to review the sta-tus of all listed species at leastonce every five years to deter-mine whether any speciesshould be delisted or reclassified(section 4(c)(2)). To date, the Servicehas not regularly conducted 5-yearreviews because of other competingstatutory requirements. However,recent lawsuits and notices of intent tosue have highlighted the need toundertake 5-year reviews. In FY 2004,we began to address this need and ini-tiated 5-year reviews for an additional12 species. We also began planning toexpeditiously address the backlog of 5-year reviews. Future RecoveryReports to Congress will report on ourprogress and will indicate thosespecies for which 5-year reviews havebeen initiated and completed.

Although we have recognized the needto undertake 5-year reviews for all listed species, there are many chal-lenges to conducting and completingthese reviews. A 5-year review re-quires that all current information ona species be compiled, analyzed, andcompared to the species’ last statusreview to determine whether its listingclassification as threatened or endan-gered is accurate. The end result of a5-year review is a recommendation onwhether the listing classification(threatened or endangered) of thespecies should change (a 5-year reviewis not a rulemaking and does not byitself change the listing classificationof a species; a separate proposed rulewould be prepared if warranted). Formany species, the last status reviewwas the original listing determination.

The large volume of information gen-erated since listing can requireconsiderable time and resources toreview and analyze. Additionally, themore than 100 species that weretransferred onto the List from theEndangered Species Conservation Actof 1969 present special cases. These“grandfathered” specieshave no listing determi-nation packages per se,and most have had noother status reviews.Although our files,including recovery plansand recent biologicalopinions, will likely havesignificant informationon these species, analyz-ing large amounts ofinformation without astatus review or listingdetermination for com-parison will add to thechallenge. A number ofspecies also were listedas distinct populationsegments (DPSs) prior to1996 and will requireadded review for consis-tency with the Service’s1996 “Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Popu-lation Segments Underthe Endangered SpeciesAct” joint policy withNOAA Fisheries.

The two 5-year reviews completed in2004 have illustrated the challenges discussed above, and many additionalones. The delta smelt was listed in1990, and the marbled murrelet in1992, so both reviews required analy-ses of a considerable amount ofinformation generated since thespecies’ listings.

The initiation of the northern spottedowl 5-year review highlights a majoron-going challenge to species recovery:the emergence of new threats. So far,the review has shown that invasivecompetitors and diseases are threatsthat were not present at the time ofthe owl’s listing but will now likelyrequire intensive management into thefuture.

The delta smelt 5-year review demon-strated the need to update recoveryplans as we gain new information andas our understanding of the specieschanges. The 5-year review showedthat delta smelt had for a short periodmet distribution and abundance recov-ery criteria but could not demonstratethat the threats to the species hadbeen removed, as required to delist thespecies. Our understanding of thespecies had changed since the recov-ery plan was developed and the

Following the delisting of the Robbins’ cinquefoil dueto recovery, Service botanist Susi vonOettingenmonitors the survival of the species at planting siteson the Presidential Range in the White MountainNational Forest of New Hampshire.

Ken

Kim

ball,

App

alac

hian

Mou

ntai

nC

lub


Recovery initiatives included propagating theendangered Robbins’ cinquefoil in captivity,planting it in its historic range, and recon- figuring a hiking trail in New Hampshire, theonly State in which the species is known tooccur. Recovery partners include the U. S.Forest Service, New England Wild FlowerSociety, and the Appalachian Mountain Club.

Susi

vonO

ettin

gen,

USF

WS


Many delta smelt spend much of their life in the quiet waters of the Suisun Marsh. An important incubator for the tinyfish, the marsh is strategically located between the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay.

recovery criteria were no longer con-sidered appropriate. The delta smeltreview concluded that the speciesshould remain listed as threatened.The 5-year review also recommendedthat the recovery criteria be revised.

The marbled murrelet was listed as aDPS in California, Oregon, and Wash-ington prior to the 1996 DPS policy.The 5-year review for the marbledmurrelet also served to determinewhether the listing is consistent withthe 1996 DPS policy. The 5-year reviewconcluded that the marbled murreletDPS is not consistent with the DPSpolicy with regard to discreteness.However, the 5-year review also con-cluded that threats to the marbledmurrelet are continuing and that mur-relets have not yet shown a responseto ongoing management actions toreduce those threats. The 5-yearreview recommended that the marbledmurrelet remain listed as threateneduntil a range-wide status review forthe entire species is completed. Themarbled murrelet 5-year reviewdemonstrates the challenges asso-ciated with reviewing pre-1996 DPSlistings for consistency with the DPSpolicy. Review of the listed DPS may

precipitate the need to initiate addi-tional review to determine whether theentire species or other DPSs warrantlisting. The murrelet also serves as anexample of why recovery is a longprocess; there is often a long lag peri-od between implementing managementactions to reduce threats and improve-ment in a species status.

Recovery On-line Activity Reporting(ROAR)In FY 2004, the Service initiated devel-opment of a web-based system, theRecovery Online Activity Reporting(ROAR) system, to track implementa-tion of recovery actions from approvedand current recovery plans for endan-gered and threatened species. Arecovery plan serves as a road map forthe species’ recovery. Plans identify,organize, coordinate, and prioritize themultitude of recovery actions that willlikely lead to downlisting and delistingthe species. ROAR is intended to trackour progress in achieving the measur-able and objective recovery criteriaand site-specific management actionsthat are required by the Act and statedin each recovery plan. ROAR will facil-itate more frequent reviews ofrecovery plan goals, objectives, and

criteria to see if we have met theplan’s downlisting/delisting criteria, orif the criteria need to change.

The Office of Management and Budgethas strongly encouraged the develop-ment of this system to provide betterinformation to our partners and thepublic on the status of recovery forlisted species. The system is beingpilot tested, and we hope to have itavailable for the public to view in FY2007. We also intend to use the avail-able ROAR data to assist incalculating and validating all recoveryactions related to performance meas-ures for FY 2006.

Ang

elo

Gar

cia,

Jr.,

Cal

iforn

iaD

epar

tmen

tofW

ater

Res

ourc

es

Delta smelt B.M

oose

Pete

rson

Species Highlights

The following successstories of the Tinianmonarch, DouglasCounty DPS of theColumbian white-tailed deer, and theMissouri bladderpodhighlight not only thegood news thatspecies are beingdownlisted and delist-ed under the Act, butalso the challengesthey faced and theunique partnershipsthat developed to meetthose challenges andimplement recoveryefforts.

The Bureau of LandManagement, The

Nature Conservancy,and the Douglas Countygovernment all managedproperty to ensure securepopulations of the deer.

A Columbian white-tailed deer is air-lifted to a protected habitat.WashingtonState’s Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1972 to conserve the species.

Columbian white-tailed buck

Joel

Dav

id,U

SFW

S

Douglas County, Oregon, Distinct Population Segment of the Columbianwhite-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)On July 24, 2003, we published a finalrule that split the Columbian white-taileddeer into two distinct population seg-ments (DPS), and delisted the DouglasCounty, Oregon, DPS. The ColumbiaRiver DPS remained listed as endan-gered. A robust population growth to over6,000 animals, an increase in range ofthe species, and habitat acquisition andprotection led to delisting the Douglas

County DPS due to recovery. This recov-ery was primarily the result of habitatacquisition and management for thedeer, hunting restrictions, and the appli-cation of local ordinances designed toprotect the Douglas County DPS.

The Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW) provided instrumentaldata which helped the Service decidethat the Douglas County DPS was readyfor delisting. Starting in 1978, the ODFWconducted spring and fall surveys toestimate population size, recruitment,and sex ratios. They also actively coor-dinated with the Service and OregonState University to investigate deerhabitat use and movement of radio-collared individuals. The Bureau of LandManagement, The Nature Conservancy,and the Douglas County government allmanaged property to ensure securepopulations of the deer. The Service con-tinues to work closely with the state todevelop and implement an effectivepost-delisting monitoring plan for theDouglas County DPS of the Columbianwhite-tailed deer.

Yvon

neD

ettla

ff,U

SFW

S


As a result of its improved status, the Missouri bladderpod was downlisted from endangered tothreatened status.

Since the time the species was listed in 1987, the number of knownpopulations substantially increased and the threats to some of the

larger populations decreased because of land acquisition, landownercontact programs, and beneficial management initiatives.

Missouri bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis) On October 15, 2003, we reclassified theMissouri bladderpod, a member of themustard family, from endangered tothreatened status. The reclassificationwas based on the plant’s significantprogress towards recovery. Since thetime the species was listed in 1987, thenumber of known populations substan-tially increased and the threats to someof the larger populations decreasedbecause of land acquisition, landownercontact programs, and beneficial management initiatives.

At the time of listing, the bladderpodwas known to occur in only nine loca-tions within two counties in Missouri.As of October 2003, the plant had been

found in additional locations and wasknown to occur in 61 sites in 4 countiesin Missouri and in 2 sites in 2 countiesin Arkansas. Other sites might still bediscovered. The National Park Service,the Missouri Department of Conserva-tion, the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, and The NatureConservancy all manage lands that benefit the bladderpod. Managementactivities have included prescribed burnsto reduce threats from exotic invasiveweeds, working with landowners toemploy best management practices thatreduce herbicide use and heavy grazingduring the plant’s flowering and fruitingperiods, and mechanical cutting of invasive eastern red cedar trees toimprove habitat.

Before delisting the species can be considered, the final rule reclassifyingthe species recommended that the fol-lowing research and recovery actionsmay be needed: 1) investigating the pol-lination ecology of the species; 2) revising the recovery plan objectivesestablished in 1988 to reflect the currentknowledge of the species; 3) securingfunding to provide necessary informa-tion essential to complete recovery andto facilitate the removal of the speciesfrom the List of federally protectedspecies; 4) evaluating the efficacy of different management techniques; and 5) assuring that threats such asurban development and competitionfrom exotic plants, both of which result from rapid urbanization, do not increase.

USF

WS


Tinian, a South Pacific island,as seen from the air.

Tim

Sutt

erfie

ld,U

SN

avy

The Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the InteriorOffice of Insular Affairs, the U.S. Department of Defense—Navy, U.S.Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, the Government ofGuam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and theState of Hawaii are working together regionally to control browntreesnakes around transport centers.

Tinian monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae)The Tinian monarch is a small forestbird endemic to the island of Tinianin the Mariana Archipelago in thewestern Pacific Ocean. The Tinianmonarch was listed as endangeredon June 2, 1970, because its popula-tion was reported to be critically lowdue to the destruction of nativeforests by pre-World War II agricul-tural practices and by militaryactivities during the war. On Septem-ber 21, 2004, the Tinian was delisteddue to recovery based primarily oninformation from population surveysand demographic research whichindicated that the bird had increasedin number (>50,000 birds) and that

the primary listing factor, loss of habi-tat, had been ameliorated.

However, one lingering concern aboutlong-term stability of the Tinian monarchwas the potential threat of an accidentalintroduction of the brown treesnake(Boiga irregularis). While there havebeen reports of possible BTS on Tinian,BTS are not known to be established onTinian (should that happen, it would bedisastrous for many species, not just themonarch). Nevertheless, effective meth-ods for interdiction, monitoring, andcontrol of incipient populations of BTSmust be implemented on all the islandsin the Marianas, including Tinian. TheService, in cooperation with the U.S.Department of the Interior Office of

Insular Affairs, the U.S. Department ofDefense—Navy, U.S. Department ofAgriculture Wildlife Services, the Gov-ernment of Guam, the Commonwealth ofNorthern Mariana Islands, and theState of Hawaii are working togetherregionally to control BTS around trans-port centers.

On Tinian, the Navy inspects all cargooriginating on Guam (where the snakehas become established) prior to load-ing and again before it is off-loaded in Tinian. In addition, the Service fundedconstruction of a BTS barrier and quar-antine yard at the commercial port onTinian. This barrier facilitates inspec-tion of high-risk cargo and will enhanceBTS interdiction efforts. The final post-delisting monitoring plan for the Tinianmonarch discusses these ongoingefforts, as well as biological monitoringof the monarch populations to ensurethat the Tinian monarch will continue toremain delisted.Tinian monarch chicks

Tim

Sutt

erfie

ld,U

SN

avy


7 Only revisions to final plans are tracked and reported here.

ResultsTable 1. Total Number of Recovery Plans For All Listed Species

(data as of September 30, 2004)

Type of Plan # %

Exemptions from recovery plans 12 1

Plans in first stages of development 162 13

Draft plans 50 4

Final approved recovery plans 1,027 82

Total Species 1,251

Final plans under revision 75 7

Appendix A shows the following infor-mation for each of the 1,251 speciesunder the jurisdiction of the Fish andWildlife Service (including the 10species where we have joint jurisdictionwith NOAA Fisheries): lead region, list-ing date, date of first final recoveryplan, stage of the recovery plan (underdevelopment, draft, final, revision), dateof the current plan, listing classification(threatened or endangered, and if thereis critical habitat designated), recoverypriority number, population status atthe end of FY 2002 for comparison to thepopulation status at the end of FY 2004,species numbers and threats trends forthe FY 2004 population status, andrecovery achieved. Below under the“Results” section are summarized sta-

tistics (as of September30, 2004) for these

species, including“recovery plandevelopment

stage,” “population status,” and“extent of recovery objectivesachieved.”

Recovery Plans Recovery plans organize and prioritizethe actions necessary to bring about thespecies’ recovery and provide the crite-ria that will be used to measurewhether a species can be removed fromthe List. Recovery plans may be writtenfor just one species, multiple species, orwhole ecosystems. Recovery plans maybe written by the Service, contractedout to an individual species’ expert, ordeveloped by a recovery team. Finalplans are published after public com-ments have been incorporated. Plansare kept current through updates,amendments, and revisions7.

During October 1, 2002, through Sep-tember 30, 2004, the Service completed15 draft, 16 final, and 13 revised recov-ery plans, which together cover 113species. Table 1 shows the total numberof recovery plans under development, aswell as in draft, final, and revised formfor all listed species.

Despite the 10 species added to the listbetween October 1, 2002, and Septem-ber 30, 2004, the Service has maintaineda marked improvement in the propor-tion of species with final recovery plans.For example, in 1994 only 54% of the893 then listed species had final plans,while by the end of this reporting period82% of 1,251 listed species had finalplans. Seven percent of final recoveryplans are currently under revision, high-lighting the need to keep plans currentfor species that have been listed for anumber of years, and to reflect newinformation that would affectrecovery.

… recovery teams can beincredibly helpful in situations where thespecies occurs over a

wide geographic area,uses a diversity of

habitat types, there is significant controversywith the species’ listing

and/or managementneeds, or in instances

where the recovery plancovers multiple species

or an ecosystem.


Hin

e’s

emer

ald

drag

onfly

,USF

WS

Left: An endangered swamp pink,a species that has a priorityrecovery number of 1C.

Far left: Conserving the Hine’semerald dragonfly helps protectrare wetlands or fens in theChicago metro area. Fens arelow-lying marshy areas, oftendrained and cultivated because oftheir rich soils.

tends to take, and team managementtakes a considerable amount ofresources (financial and otherwise).

Five hundred (40%) of the 1,251 listedspecies have an official recovery team.Another 175 (14%) species have someother informal team or group workingwith the Service on its recovery. However, 577 (46%) species currently donot have an official or informal groupworking with the Service. This does notmean that recovery planning or on-the-ground action is not taking place forthese species. It is not necessary toestablish a recovery team for allspecies. For example, a species thatonly occurs in one small, isolated place,with limited known information, wouldprobably not need a recovery team. Inthis case, a species expert or the leadService biologist would be more appro-priate to write the recovery plan.Implementation of recovery actions forthis species might only involve a handfulof people and not an “informal” group ifan advocacy group of some type doesnot exist.

Recovery TeamsEstablishing official8 recovery teams towork on species’ recovery planningand/or implementation is not requiredby the Act, nor are they necessary forevery species. However, recovery teamscan be incredibly helpful in situationswhere the species occurs over a widegeographic area, uses a diversity ofhabitat types, there is significant contro-versy with the species’ listing and/ormanagement needs, or in instanceswhere the recovery plan covers multiplespecies or an ecosystem.

Some of the benefits to convening arecovery team include: increasing thedepth of biological and managementexpertise contributing to the recoveryplan development and/or implementa-tion; resolving controversial issues earlyin the planning process; providing amechanism for multiple agencies andstakeholders to interact; developingadvocates for the species’ recovery; andfacilitating the implementation of recov-ery actions. However, there are alsopotential disadvantages to utilizingrecovery teams, including the larger theteam, the longer the planning process

Gen

eN

iem

inen

,USF

WS


The haha plant (Cyanea shipmanii),an endangered species, was success-fully outplanted at Hakalau ForestNational Wildlife Refuge on the BigIsland of Hawaii.

Bar

rySt

iegl

itz,U

SFW

S

8 Official recovery teams are established by invitation from the Regional Director.

Recovery Priority The recovery priority number reflectsthe degree of threat faced by the species,along with the species’ potential forrecovery and genetic distinctness (i.e.,whether it is a monotypic genus versusa subspecies). A “C” following the num-ber identifies that there is the potentialfor conflicts between needed recoveryactions and economic activities. Rank-ing ranges from a high of 1C down to 18(as shown in Table 2). Recovery priori-ties do not change often. However,changes to the recovery priority numberdo sometimes occur because of increas-ing or decreasing threats and/orresolution of taxonomic questions (e.g., a species has been broken intotwo subspecies).

Status of Listed Species All taxonomic groups are vulnerable to threats that lead to their being

Table 2. Recovery Priority Number ChartDegree of threat Recovery potential Taxonomy Priority Conflict

High High Monotypic genus 1 1CHigh High Species 2 2CHigh High Subspecies 3 3CHigh Low Monotypic genus 4 4CHigh Low Species 5 5CHigh Low Subspecies 6 6C

Moderate High Monotypic genus 7 7CModerate High Species 8 8CModerate High Subspecies 9 9CModerate Low Monotypic genus 10 10CModerate Low Species 11 11CModerate Low Subspecies 12 12C

Low High Monotypic genus 13 13CLow High Species 14 14CLow High Subspecies 15 15CLow Low Monotypic genus 16 16CLow Low Species 17 17CLow Low Subspecies 18 18C

The recovery prioritynumber reflects the

degree of threat faced bythe species, along with

the species’ potential forrecovery and genetic

distinctness…

West Indian manatee The

Sire

nia

Proj

ect,

USG

S


Figure 1. Percentage of Listed Species Per Status Category*(data as of September 30, 2004)

Uncertain 42%

Stable 27%

Declining 22%

Improving 6%

Presumed Extinct 2%

Found Only in Captivity 1%


Species Status Often, actions are needed immediatelyafter listing just to prevent a speciesfrom becoming extinct. Recovery activ-ities must first halt, then reverse,declines. Addressing the long-termthreats that often have occurred overthe course of decades or centuries typ-ically requires substantial time andresources. In addition, the responsetime of a species to the implementa-tion of actions is highly variable,mostly due to their life history (time tomaturation, etc.). Therefore, we do notanticipate seeing stable or improvingstatus for a species in the early yearsfollowing its listing.

During the first few years after listing,most species populations have anuncertain or declining status. As men-tioned above, as of September 30,2004, the status of 42% of listedspecies is reported as uncertain.

The City of Austin operates a captivebreeding facility for the BartonSprings salamander.The captivebreeding facility serves as a refugiumfor the species; provides opportuni-ties for research on the salamander’sbiology, habitat requirements, andsensitivity to environmental distur-bance; and promotes increasedawareness of threats to this speciesand its habitat.

Dr.

C.R

iley

Nel

son,

Bri

gham

Youn

gU

nive

rsity

listed as threatened or endangered (see Table 3).

For the period October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004, 27% of listedspecies are reported as stable, 6% asimproving, and 22% as declining (see Figure 1). We are uncertain of the status of 42% of the species. Additionally, 1% of listed species areonly found in captivity, and 2% arebelieved to be extinct.

Table 3.Listed Species by Taxonomic Group(data as of September 30, 2004)

Taxonomic # of % of Group Species TotalMammals 69 14Birds 92 18Reptiles 37 7Amphibians 21 4Fish 108 21Invertebrates 179 35

Total Animals 506 100Flowering Plants 707 95Non-flowering Plants 38 5

Total Plants 745 100Total Species 1,251

*One species is presumed extirpated in the U.S. but extant outside the U.S. (0.1%)


Additional information on species pop-ulation numbers or threats is neededbefore their status can be determined.Table 4 shows that in 30% of species,information regarding populationnumbers is uncertain, and in another12.5% of species, information regard-ing both population numbers and

Table 4. Population Status Descriptors(data as of September 30, 2004)

# of Species % of Species

Population Increasing/Threats Continuing at the Same Rate 47 3.8Population Increasing/Threats Increasing 13 1.0Population Increasing/Threats Being Managed 28 2.2

Population Stable/Threats Continuing at the Same Rate 260 20.8Population Stable/Threats Increasing 15 1.2Population Stable/Threats Being Managed 65 5.2Population Stable/Threats Uncertain 1 0.1

Population Declining/Threats Continuing at the Same Rate 211 16.9Population Declining/Threats Increasing 30 2.4Population Declining/Threats Being Managed 3 0.2Population Declining/Threats Uncertain 7 0.6

Population Uncertain/Threats Continuing at the Same Rate 341 27.3Population Uncertain/Threats Increasing 12 1.0Population Uncertain/Threats Being Managed 21 1.7Population Uncertain/Threats Uncertain 156 12.5

Not applicable—population and threat information not calculated for species presumed extinct, extirpated in the U.S., or found only in captivity 41 3.3

Total 1251 100.0

threats are uncertain. Often the infor-mation analyzed and used for re-porting is generated as the result ofopportunities that arise from develop-ing Habitat Conservation Plans(HCPs), biological assessments forsection 7 consultations, and from theimplementation of recovery activities.

Jack

Jeffr

ey

Native trees like the ohia provideimportant habitat for endangeredHawaiian forest birds.


Figure 2. Summary of Delisting Actions(data as of September 30, 2004)

Recovery

New information,taxonomic revisions,or other administrative reasons

Extinct

40%

26%34%

Conducting controlled burns in longleaf pine forests like this one inDe Soto National Forest, Mississippi,removes undergrowth to create openareas for listed species such asgopher tortoises, red-cockadedwoodpeckers, and Mississippigopher frogs.

Jay

Boy

kin,

U.S

.For

estS

ervi

ce

These opportunities are not equal forall listed species, even those speciesthat have been listed for a number ofyears. Table 4 also quantitativelyshows the population and threatdescriptors that were included indetermining the population status forall species, as reported in Appendix A.

Downlisting and Delisting ActionsSuccessful implementation of recoveryactions over time leads to improvementin a species status and eventual down-listing (reclassification from endan-gered to threatened) and delisting.Recovery plan criteria are the measure-ments by which recovery progress isjudged. When an endangered specieshas successfully met its criteria, it isdownlisted. During the reporting periodOctober 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004,the Eastern and Western Distinct Popu-lation Segments (DPS) of the gray wolf,the Missouri bladderpod, and the California tiger salamander were down-listed from endangered to threatened.

The Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.11) specifies three situa-tions in which the protections of theAct may be completely removed(delisting) for a species: because ithas been recovered; and/or because ofnew information, taxonomic revisions,or other administrative reasons; orbecause it has gone extinct.

Twenty-eight of the 1,251 species (2%)in Appendix A are believed to beextinct. Reporting species as possibly

extinct does not necessarily reflect afailing of the Act as some of thesespecies may already have been extinctat the time of listing. Surveying forspecies that may be in such small popu-lations that they are believed extinct ishighly difficult. In the past, species mayhave been listed without confirmation ofpresence. Confirmation of extinction canbe equally problematic, and speciesmay remain reported as possiblyextinct for a number of years beforesufficient surveys are conducted to confirm extinction and rulemaking to

9 Some endangered species may only be recovered to the point of downlisting them to a threatened classifica-tion. Other species did not have enough information to sufficiently develop recovery criteria at the timethe first recovery plan was written. These plans will include downlisting and delisting criteria when theplans are revised to incorporate new information.

10 Ideally, the objectives and criteria should be threat-based, but older plans may not have threats explic-itly stated in their objectives and criteria. As plans are revised, criteria will be evaluated and revised asnecessary to include threats-based criteria.

Figure 3. Summary of Recovery Achieved(data as of September 30, 2004)

0 - 25%

26 - 50%

51 - 75%

76 - 100%

5% 2%

17%

76%

Percentage of Recovery Objectives Achieved

Johnston’s frankenia

Rob

ynC

obb,

USF

WS


In the Hakalau Forest NationalWildlife Refuge greenhouse, Fish andWildlife Service horticulturist BaronHoriuchi shows Lynn Scarlett, DeputySecretary of the Department of theInterior, controlled propagation initia-tives for the ohia (see page 22 for anenlarged photo of ohia blossom), atree whose year-round blossoms arefood for a range of endangered Hawai-ian bird species.

With 317 listed species, Hawaii leadsthe nation. Of those species, 273 areplants, endangered largely because ofhabitat destruction by feral pigs andcattle, competition from non-nativeplants, and predation by rats, slugs, andleafhoppers.

Ric

hard

Was

s,U

SFW

Sremove them from the List is completed.A species cannot be declared extinctuntil the rulemaking process (proposedrule—public comment—final rule) iscompleted. Two species, the Guambroadbill (Myiagra freycineti) andMariana mallard (Anas oustaleti),were delisted due to extinction duringthe reporting period. The final ruledelisting the Guam broadbill and Mari-ana mallard was published in theFederal Register on February 23, 2004(69 FR 8116).

Although downlistings and delistings due to recovery have been infrequent (see Figure 2), they do occur. As of September 30, 2004, 34% (12) of the total number of delistings (35) havebeen due to recovery, 40% (14) due tonew information, taxonomic revisions,or other administrative reasons, and26% (9) due to extinction (see Figure 2).

The number of delistings due to recov-ery may be on the rise, however. Forexample, during the reporting periodOctober 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004,three species, the Douglas County DPSof the Columbian white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus),Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrum

hooveri) and Tinian monarch (Monar-cha takatsukasae) were delisted due to recovery. The final rules announcing thedelisting of the Douglas County DPS ofthe Columbian white-tailed deer,Hoover’s woolly-star, and Tinianmonarch were published in the FederalRegister on July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43647);October 7, 2003 (68 FR 57829); and Sep-tember 21, 2004 (69 FR 56367),respectively.

In addition, three other species were proposed for delisting. The Johnston’sfrankenia (Frankenia johnstonii),Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus egger-tii), and the Eastern DPS of the graywolf (Canis lupus) were all proposedfor delisting due to recovery.

Recovery Achieved The goal of all but a few recovery plansis to delist the species9. We know whena species may be ready for downlistingor delisting by measuring its statusagainst the tangible objectives and cri-teria developed in its recovery plan. Forexample, the Atlantic coast pipingplover recovery plan has two objec-tives10, one of which is to increasebreeding pair numbers and productivityacross the Atlantic coast.

Table 5. Listed Species Under Controlled Propagation by Taxonomic Group(data as of September 30, 2004)

Taxonomic Group # Species under controlled prop

Mammals 13Birds 23Reptiles 3Amphibians 9Fish 49Invertebrates 46

Total Animals 143Flowering Plants 346Non-flowering Plants 9

Total Plants 355

Total Species 498

The piping plover has a “recoveryachieved” number of 2, indicating that 26 to 50% of the recovery objectives have been achieved.

Gen

eN

iem

inen

,USF

WS

11 Controlled propagation: production of individuals, generally within a controlled environment, for the pur-pose of supplementing or augmenting a wild population, or reintroduction to the wild to establish a newpopulation.


Dr.

Patr

icia

Tom

linso

n,B

erry

Col

lege

Imported from Asia to create naturalfences and to provide ornamentallandscaping, the multiflora rose hasbecome invasive, displacing nativevegetation. After the loss and degra-dation of habitat, the introduction ofexotic plants and animals that com-plete with or prey upon our nativespecies is the second major cause ofendangerment.

Achieving a five-year average productiv-ity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in eachof the four recovery units is one of thefive criteria by which attainment of theplover’s two objectives will be meas-ured. Specific recovery actions, such asfencing nest sites to reduce predationand nest disturbance, support the pro-ductivity objective. Both objectives mustbe met before the goal of recovery canbe considered achieved.

The “Recovery Achieved” number discussed in Figure 3 is reported indi-vidually in Appendix A for each species.This category estimates the extent towhich the recovery objectives have beenachieved for each species. This percent-age is not the proportion of the numberof discrete actions in the recovery planthat have been completed (e.g., 33actions out of 100), and it does notmean that one of four objectives havebeen met. Rather, it reflects the overallprogress towards the recovery goal ofdownlisting or delisting. For example,the first species in Appendix A (thegray bat) has a recovery achieved num-ber of three, meaning that it isapproaching the criteria set for recovery.As discussed above, ROAR will facilitatetracking and reporting a species “recov-ery achieved” status, once it becomesfully operational.

As summarized in Figure 3, most listedspecies (76%) only had 0 to 25% of theirrecovery objectives achieved and only 2% of the species had 76 to 100% oftheir recovery objectives achieved.

Controlled PropagationIn October 2000, we and NOAA Fish-eries (NMFS) published our joint Policy(Policy) Regarding Controlled Propaga-tion of Species Listed Under theEndangered Species Act (65 FR 56916).The controlled propagation of plantsand animals in certain situations is anessential tool for conservation andrecovery of listed species. However, theintent of the Act is “to provide a meanswhereby the ecosystems upon whichendangered species and threatenedspecies depend may be conserved.” ThePolicy provides guidance and establish-es consistency for use of controlledpropagation11 as a component of a listedspecies’ recovery strategy. Informationon implementation of the policy and oncontrolled propagation efforts as arecovery tool during the reporting period is reported below.

The Policy also addresses speciesmaintained in refugia or for researchpurposes. During the reporting period,498 species were maintained in refugia,research, pre-propagation research, orunder active propagation for releaseinto the wild. Of these, 438 (88%)species are listed as endangered and 60 (12%) are listed as threatened, con-sistent with the Policy’s emphasis thatevery effort should be made to recoverwild populations in their naturalhabitats before resorting to controlledpropagation. Species listed as

The Attwater’s prairie-chicken is acritically endangered grouse withabout 50 individuals in the wild.Thelast two surviving populations atAttwater Prairie Chicken NationalWildlife Refuge and Texas City PrairiePreserve are currently dependentupon release of captive-bred birdsinto the wild. Controlled propagationis critical to preventing extinction ofthe species while we work to identifythe factors contributing to poorbrood survival and improve therecruitment of wild chicks into thepopulation.

Joel

Sart

ore

Table 6. Purposes of Controlled Propagation

Purpose # species % of species* # species propagated for only one purpose

Refugium 331 66 158

Research 128 26 25

Reintroduction 238 48 40

Population augmentation 108 22 30

Other 23 5 9

* percentages do not add to 100 because many species are maintained in controlled propagation for multiple purposes.


endangered are much more likely torequire controlled propagation as ameans to prevent extinction.

Species in all taxonomic groups mayneed controlled propagation as a neces-sary component of their recoverystrategy (see Table 5).

However, because storage of geneticmaterials (i.e., seeds) is much moreeasily accomplished for plants than foranimals, plants make up the majority ofspecies (345 of the 498 species (69%))maintained in controlled propagation.For many of these plants, maintenanceof the species in controlled propagationconsists of long-term storage of seeds

as refugia (often referred to as seed-banking) in the event of extirpation in the wild or of locally adapted populations.

The purposes for maintaining speciesin controlled propagation vary amongspecies (see Table 6), and for mostspecies, it serves multiple purposes. Aspecies may be maintained in con-trolled propagation as a refugium incase populations become extirpated inthe wild through a catastrophic event(e.g., fire, hurricane, or disease). At thesame time, research can also be con-ducted, to further our understanding ofthe species’ biology and life history andassist in recovery, such that it may


Service biologist Paul Marinari releases a black-footed ferret into a preconditioning pen at the newcaptive breeding facility in Colorado.

Rya

nH

ager

ty,U

SFW

S

Table 7. Partners in Controlled Propagation of Listed Species

Partners # Species

Botanical Garden 312Zoo or Aquarium 63National Wildlife Refuge 29Fish Hatchery/Tech Center 43Other Federal Agency 106State/Territory Agency 85Local/Municipal Agency 15University 120Non-governmental Organization 50Private Individual/Landowner 7Other 8Tribal/Foreign Government Agency 5* numbers total greater than the number of species under controlledpropagation because most species havemultiple partners.

never be necessary to utilize the refu-gial population. The controlledpropagation program for the endan-gered Barton Springs salamander is agood example of this situation. In addi-tion, populations may be maintained asrefugia while individuals are simultane-ously introduced into the wild toaugment existing populations or toestablish new populations, like theblack-footed ferret. Some species arecurrently being maintained as refugialpopulations or for research purposeswhile techniques and plans for reintro-duction are developed or habitat isprotected or restored.

Considering the number and diversityof species currently being maintainedunder controlled propagation, our part-ners are equally numerous and diverse(see Table 7). The Policy envisionedthat our primary partners would bebotanical gardens, zoos, aquaria, nation-al fish hatcheries, and national wildliferefuges. While all these institutions aremajor partners in controlled propagationefforts, other groups and organizationsare playing much more prominent rolesthan we originally anticipated. Some ofthe other partners include other federalagencies (National Park Service,Department of Defense, Bureau of LandManagement, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.Geological Survey, and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation), state/territory governmentagencies, universities, and private non-governmental organizations. Local andmunicipal government agencies, privatelandowners, and individuals are part-ners for a number of species. Tribalagencies and government agencies ofMexico and Canada are also countedamong our partners. Over half thespecies (254) have more than one part-ner participating in controlled propa-gation efforts, and many species havemultiple partners. For example, the redwolf controlled propagation programinvolves 40 facilities around the UnitedStates. There are almost a thousandpartnerships with the Service’s Recov-ery Program represented by the FY2004 controlled propagation efforts.

In FY 2004, the Service’s controlledpropagation expenditures totaled$11,509,358. This averages about$23,000 per species under captivepropagation (median of $500). Howev-er, it is notable that 122 species had noService expenditures for controlledpropagation efforts. Service expendi-tures were $1,000 or less for anadditional 154 species. The greatestexpenditures for the Service were for

Finelined pocketbookmussel

Dic

kB

iggi

ns,U

SFW

S


Table 8. Examples of Controlled Propagation Expenditures by Service Partners(data as of September 30, 2004)

Species USFWS expenditures Partners expenditures

Whooping crane $1.8 million $1.7 million by USGS and zoos (does not include other partners’ contributions)

Attwater’s prairie-chicken $110,000 $110,000Red wolf $191,000 $400,000Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit $75,000 $225,000White sturgeon $0 $1.5 million (tribal hatchery

and private organization)Riparian brush rabbit $0 $585,700Bighorn sheep (CA peninsular ranges) $0 $300,000Oregon silverspot butterfly $17,500 $30,000 by Oregon Zoo (does not

include other partners’ contributions)

… the stable or improvingstatus of many species is directly attributable

to controlled propagation programs.

species propagated primarily byNational Fish Hatcheries or NationalWildlife Refuges. These figuresdemonstrate the enormous contribu-tion and commitment of our partnersto endangered species recovery.Expenditures of our partners are notavailable for all species, but we dohave some information. Table 8 illus-trates the invaluable contributions ofjust a few of our partners.

Recognizing our own and our partners’commitment to recovering listed

species, and the need to establish consistency in the use of controlledpropagation, the Policy outlines 14 criteria for the establishment andimplementation of controlled propaga-tion programs. Meeting all criteria isnot specifically required, but is stronglyencouraged. For instance, informationmay not be available for developingdetailed genetics conservation manage-ment, or acute conservation needs(such as imminent risk of extinction)may outweigh any delays that would beincurred to meet all of the criteria.

Table 9. Compliance with Controlled Propagation Policy CriteriaCriteria # of species for which

not met Brief description of criteria criterion has not been met

None All criteria met. 3693 Based on specific recommendations of recovery strategies identified in approved 4

recovery plans, whenever practical.5 Based on sound scientific principles to conserve genetic variation and species integrity 1

(Intercrossing may only be used if supported by a recovery plan, genetics management planor to compensate for loss of genetic viability; must be approved by FWS Director).

6 Preceded, when practical, by the development of a genetics management plan based on 11accepted scientific principles and procedures.

8 Conducted in a manner that will prevent the escape or accidental introduction 1of individuals outside their historic range.

9 Conducted, when feasible, at more than one location in order to reduce the potential 79for catastrophic loss at a single facility when a substantial fraction of a species or important population is brought into captivity.

12 With limited exceptions, implemented only after a commitment of funding is secure. 113 Release of propagated individuals should be preceded by development of a controlled 19

propagation and reintroduction plan (unless already contained in a recovery plan).Unknown Maintained for research or educational purposes, commercially cultivated, or carried 13

out by private individuals (plants).N/A Pre-propagation research with no propagation, maintained for research purposes with 6

no intent to reintroduce in the wild, propagation in refugia with no immediate intent to reintroduce in the wild.

all Private individual maintaining a population of imported snakes for zoological exhibition 1and educational purposes.

Total* 505* Total is greater than total number of species under controlled propagation because some species do not meet more than one criterion.


Oregon silverspot butter-fly on a thistle on HeboMountain.The OregonZoo is a partner in propa-gating this species.

Ann

eW

alke

r,U

SFW

S

During the reporting period, approxi-mately three-quarters of controlledpropagation programs for listed speciesmeet all 14 of the criteria (see Table 9).Of the 119 controlled propagation pro-grams that do not meet all 14 criteria,most are only lacking in meeting a single criterion.

For example, 79 controlled propaga-tion programs are not beingconducted at more than one locationto minimize potential for catastrophicloss of captive populations (i.e., due todisease, equipment failure, etc.). ThePolicy states that activities should becarried out in more than one location“when feasible,” in recognition thatmeeting this criterion may be difficultfor some species, such as when num-bers of individuals are too small tomaintain more than one population, orfacilities, equipment, and expertisenecessary for controlled propagationare very limited or specialized. Manyspecies do not yet have genetics man-agement plans (11), controlledpropagation and reintroduction plans(19), or controlled propagation identi-fied as a recovery strategy in anapproved recovery plan or recoveryplan revision (4). For a number ofthese species, their controlled


Excerpt From Florida Manatee Recovery Plan [Third Revision, October 30, 2001]

The Fish and Wildlife Service gratefully acknowledges the dedication of the followingpeople to the recovery of the Florida manatee. Without their assistance and the dynamicdiscussions at recovery team meetings, this revision would not have been possible.

David Arnold,* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionKipp Frohlich, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionJack Jackson,* Vero’s tackle and SportElmar Kurzbach,* U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDavid Laist*, Marine Mammal CommissionLynn Lefebvre,* U.S. Geological ServiceTom Linley,* Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionLiz Manners, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDave Murphy,* Lowry Park Zoological Park and GardensWinifred Perkins,* Florida Power and Light CompanyDuncan Powell,* U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyBuddy Powell,* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (now with the

Wildlife Trust)John Reynolds,* Eckerd College Marine Mammal Commission (now with Mote Marine

Laboratory)Pat Riley,* Southwest Florida Marine Industry Association and Centennial

Harbor MarinaPat Rose,* Save the Manatee ClubPatti Thompson, Save the Manatee ClubAndy VanOs,* Florida CitizenLeslie Ward, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionRandal Wells,* Chicago Zoological Society More Marine LaboratoryBarb Zoodsma,* Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Additional thanks go to the following for their technical assistanceand drafting initiatives: Bruce Ackerman, Karen Ausley, Cathy Beck,Heather Carolan, Lt. Bob Clarke, Karen Essock, Dean Eastou, DerekFagone, Cathy Lingtimm, Ron Mezich, Tom Pitchford, Sara Shapiro,and Kent Smith

And to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff: Gloria Bell, Pete Benjamin, Bill Brooks,*Cindy Dohner, Dave Flemming, Dave Hankla, Joyce Kleem, Jim Kraus,* Elizabeth Souheaver, Cam Shaw, Jay Slack, Linda Walker, Jim Valade, Noreen Walsh,Grant Webber,* and Dawn Zattau.

*Appointed Recovery Team members have an asterisk by their name

Native to the Nebraska Sandhills,blowout penstemon live in “blowouts,”depressions caused by wind erosion.Wind is always present in the Sand-hills, the largest sand dune area in theWestern Hemisphere.Virtually eliminat-ing fire enabled other plants to growand resulted in a decline in habitat forthis endangered species. Creating newpopulations of blowout penstemons isone aspect of the recovery program.

Table 10. Status in the Wild of Species in Controlled Propagation

Status # species

Captive 11

Declining 101

Improving 29

Stable 114

Unknown 243

propagation programs pre-date thePolicy. For these species, completingthe recommended planning documentsis a high priority.

The goal of using controlled propaga-tion programs as a recovery tool is toimprove the status of listed species inthe wild and, along with other recov-ery actions, to recover a species to thepoint that it can be delisted. The status in the wild of species undercontrolled propagation is reported inTable 10.

The proportions of species in each cat-egory roughly mirror those reportedfor all species in Figure 1 (see page21). This is not surprising given thatcontrolled propagation programs aregenerally long-term commitments thatrequire many years to see results.However, the stable or improving status of many species is directly

attributable to controlled propagationprograms. A number of well-knownlisted species such as the black-footedferret, California condor, Mexican graywolf, and red wolf (all reported asimproving) would no longer be foundin the wild were it not for the efforts ofcontrolled propagation programs.

Less well known species also have ben-efited from controlled propagationprograms:

Sire

nia

Proj

ect,

USG

S

West Indian manatee

Dr.

Jam

esSt

ubbe

ndie

ck,D

irec

tor,

Cen

ter

for

Gre

atPl

ains

Stud

ies,

Uni

vers

ityof

Neb

rask

a


Bru

ceR

osen

lund

,USF

WS

A greenback cutthroat trout with afly in its mouth at Odessa Lake,Rocky Mountain National Park.

greenback populations have con-tributed to improving the status ofboth historic and restored populations.As pure greenbacks are introducedinto habitats where non-native fishwere removed from 2002 to 2004, thisspecies could meet recovery goals inboth the South Platte and Arkansasdrainages by 2010.

n Populations of blowout penstemonshave increased from 12 to 17 since1993, primarily as a result of the rein-troduction program, and havebrought the species closer to itsdownlisting goals.

n The San Clemente loggerhead shrikepopulation is increasing as a result ofthe Navy’s recovery program, whichincludes a captive propagation pro-gram. Over 80% of wild shrikes wereraised in captivity or are descendedfrom captive birds that were released.

n Captive propagation efforts for the finelined pocketbook mussel haveresulted in augmentation of existingpopulations and reintroductions of thespecies within its historical range.The species now appears to be stablethroughout most of its range.

n The greenback cutthroat trout status is improving due to a combination ofrecovery actions, including reintro-ductions. Removal of non-native fishand installation of barriers that prevent the movement of whirling disease and non-native fish into

Conclusion

Paci

ficG

asan

dE

lect

ric

Com

pany

The Service’s Recovery Program is constantly evolving to address themany challenges and opportunitiesthat present themselves throughoutthe year. By looking at the data pre-sented for this reporting period andpaying attention to the events of FY2003 and FY 2004, our take home messages and “homework assign-ments” can be summarized:

Common sense and listed speciesrecovery—A July 2005 Google websearch of the terms “endangeredspecies” and “common sense”com-bined came up with well over 90,000hits for links to news articles, opinion-editorials from around the nations’newspapers, etc. Not all of those “hits”are articles about the EndangeredSpecies Act or our domestically listedspecies, but the message is clear.From the presentations at the ESA at30 conference to discussions aroundthe kitchen table, the Service hasheard the message that we need tocome up with more flexible solutionsto protect and recover listed species.

With responsibility for 1,251 listedspecies (a majority of which occur onprivate land), we rely on all of ourpartners to help us achieve recoveryand remove species from the List. Wecan’t do the job on our own, but with-out more flexible tools and an

understanding of how our recoveryplanning and implementation actionsimpact our partners, they won’t bewilling to help. We will continue toinvolve our stakeholders and partnersup front in the planning process sothat we end up with more commonsense, implementable recovery plans.

Strategic prioritization—The initia-tion of the Government AccountabilityOffice’s (GAO) audit of the Service’srecovery program to assess how fundswere allocated among listed species,gave us the opportunity to view ourprogram more objectively. While weare confident that we follow our own

recovery priority guidance to the max-imum extent possible, we also knowthat we must take advantage of oppor-tunities to implement actions for lowerpriority species as they arise. This isespecially true as our discretionarybudgets decrease and our resourcesare becoming more wrapped up in litigation-driven actions. For example,we have received a notice of intent tosue on our failure to conduct 5-yearreviews for almost 200 species. How-ever, we also know that we should doa better job at self-assessment and bemore strategic in developing recoveryopportunities with our partners for allof our species. We are currently


Top: A condor-safe power line—a yellow diverter coiled ontoan insulated wire.

Bottom: Sumner, the logger-head sea turtle, returns to theAtlantic Ocean after nesting ona North Carolina beach. Withtheir cameras or morning cof-fee, residents watch at arespectful distance.

Mat

thew

God

frey

,Nor

thC

arol

ina

Wild

life

Res

ourc

esC

omm

issi

on

USF

WS

Left: A Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany technician attaches aflight diverter to a new power lineto help deter California condorsand other birds from landing onhigh-voltage cables.The yellowdiverter increases the visibility ofthe line, while the protective treewire that surrounds the conduitinside serves as insulation toreduce the effect of any collision.

Bottom:Thanks to the efforts of ourrecovery partners, the status of theCalifornia condor is improving.

Paci

ficG

asan

dE

lect

ric

Com

pany

engaged in a number of landscape levelstrategic planning projects with other Service programs, the National WildlifeRefuge System, Migratory Birds, andFisheries, to name a few.

Streamline our business practices—Tohelp our staff more effectively managetheir increasing recovery workload andstill provide good customer service to ourinternal and external partners, we needto provide internal guidance on how tostreamline recovery planning and permit-ting processes. We have a team workingon identifying which areas can benefit themost from more efficient business prac-tices. We are also working on writingclearer policies and regulations. Forexample, in April 2004, we publishedrevised regulations for Candidate Conser-vation Agreements with Assurances(CCAA) and Safe Harbor Agreements(SHA). These regulation revisions provideclearer definitions of a non-Federallandowner, among others, and realignsome inconsistencies between the previ-ous CCAA/SHA regulations and policiespublished in 1999.



Data

12 Approved means the plan/revision has been signed by the Regional Director or Director, as appropriate.

A grassland species with a range limited to three southern California counties, theStephens’ kangaroo rat lives in burrows and feeds at night on seeds. More closelyrelated to a squirrel than a rat or mouse, the species was listed in 1988 as endan-gered, largely as a result of urban development. Agricultural disking and the useof rodenticides are also threats.The core range is western Riverside County, arelatively dry inland valley in the shadow of the Santa Ana Mountains.

B.M

oose

Pete

rson

Data are presented in Appendix A foreach U.S. listed species under thejurisdiction of the Service, organizedby major taxonomic groupings. Datainclude: n Species’ inverted common name;

n Lead Service Region;

n Date the species was listed;

n Date of the species’ first final recovery plan (if there is one);

n Stage of development of the recovery plan;

n Date of the species’ most currentrecovery plan;

n Species’ current listing classification;

n Species’ recovery priority number;

n Value for the percentage of recoveryobjective(s) that have been met;

n Species’ population status at the endof FY 2002 for comparison with thespecies’ population status at the endof FY 2004; and

n Species’ trends in numbers andthreats for the FY 2004 speciespopulation status.

Common NameSpecies are listed in the table byinverted common name within theirrespective taxonomic groups. Where aspecies has more than one commonlyaccepted common name, the alternatename is indicated in parentheses withan “equals” symbol followed by thealternate name. For plants, thescientific name is also given. Manyplants and some invertebrates have nocommon name and only the scientificname is given. In this case, [NCN]indicates the species has no commonname.

Lead RegionThis indicates which Service Region hasthe lead responsibility for the species(see Map on inside back cover). Anumber “8” in Appendix A indicatesspecies for which the California-NevadaOperations Office has lead respon-sibility. Some species are wide rangingand may be found in more than oneregion.

Date ListedThis indicates the date the species wasadded to the List of Endangered andThreatened Species.

Date of First Final PlanThis indicates the date by which thefirst, final recovery plan was approved(signed by the Regional Director orDirector). An N/A in this columnindicates that the species does not yethave a final recovery plan. “Exempt” inthis column indicates that this speciesis exempt from needing a recovery plan.Species are “Exempt” if we determinethat developing a recovery plan will notpromote the conservation of the species.For example, species that are presumedextinct are not likely to benefit fromrecovery planning.

Plan Stage The status of recovery plan develop-ment is reported as indicated below:

F = Final Plan that has been approved12

F1 = Final Plan with a draft revision F2 = Final Plan with an approved

revision(s)D = DraftU = Under DevelopmentExempt = Species is exempt from

needing a recovery plan

Date of Current PlanThis indicates the date of the species’most current recovery plan. An “N/A” inthis column indicates that a recoveryplan for the species is still underdevelopment. “Exempt” in this columnindicates that this species is exemptfrom needing a recovery plan. A date inthis column that is different from thedate in the “Date of First FinalRecovery Plan” column indicates thatthe plan has undergone a revision (or iscurrently undergoing a revision) or thatearlier drafts and final plans for someindividual species may have beenincorporated into later multi-species orecosystem plans.

Current Listing ClassificationThe species’ listing classification, as of September 30, 2004, is identified asthreatened (T) or endangered (E). Ifcritical habitat (CH) is designated, itis also listed in the table with thespecies’ status.

Recovery Priority NumberThe first step for the conservation ofany species is to prevent its extinction.Thus the species with the highestdegree of threat have the highestpriority for preparing and implementingrecovery plans. Additionally,appropriate use of the limited resourcesavailable to implement the Act must beconsidered. To this end, each species isassigned a recovery priority from 1 to 18according to the degree of threats,recovery potential, and taxonomicdistinctness. In addition, a species’ rank may be elevated by adding a “C”designation to its numerical rank to indicate that it is, or may be, in conflictwith construction or other developmentprojects, or other forms of economic activity. Species with a high priority


The population status of each species isdetermined by considering both trends in

species numbers and trends in threats.

rank (1, 1C, 2, 2C) are those that are themost threatened and have the highestpotential for recovery. Species with alow rank (16, 17, 18) are the leastthreatened and have low recoverypotentials. See Table 2 on page 13 of 48FR 43102 (Sept. 21, 1983) for additionalinformation on this prioritizationsystem.

Recovery AchievedThe percentage of species recoveryobjective(s) achieved is indicated with avalue of 1 to 4, as defined below:

1 = 0% to 25% achieved



4 = 76% to 100% achievedNote: This number does not necessarilycorrespond with the percentage of recovery tasksachieved. For example, stabilization of a formerlydeclining species through completion of two orthree of the most important tasks may beconsidered achievement of more than 25% of therecovery objective.

Population Status (FY 2002 and FY 2004)The population status of each speciesis identified as:

I = Improving: species whose population numbers have increasedand whose threats have either beenconstant or reduced since the last reporting period; or, a species whosenumbers have been constant and whose threats have been reduced since the last reporting period.

S = Stable: species whose population numbers and threats have been constant since the last reporting period. A designation as stable means that there has been no change for the species’ numbers and threats since the last reporting period. Stable, as used for this purpose, does not mean secure.

D = Declining: species known to be decreasing in population numbers and/or whose threats to their continued existence are increasing in the wild.

U = Uncertain: species for which the information available is not suffi-cient to determine their status since the last reporting period.

C = Captivity: species currentlyknown to only survive in captivity(e.g., zoos, botanical gardens, or inother controlled conditions); speciesnot currently known to exist in thewild.

E = Presumed Extinct: species thatare currently believed to be extinct. Species presumed extinct may be retained on the List for a number of years because of the potential that an unknown remnant popula-tion remains in the wild. This is particularly true for species occurring in areas that are difficult to survey thoroughly.

X = Presumed Extirpated in the U.S.and Extant outside the U.S.: species believed or confirmed to no longer exist in the U.S., but still occurs elsewhere within its range outside of the U.S.

We also have included the populationstatus as reported in 2002. A status ofN/A is indicated for those species listedafter the 2002 reporting period. In thepast, we sometimes reported separatelyon the status of different populations ofa listed species. In these cases, morethan one status may be reported for2002. We now report only on the statusof the entire species as it appears onthe List.

2004 Species number and threats informationThe population status of each species isdetermined by considering both trendsin species numbers and trends in threats.The “Species/Threats Info” columnidentifies the trends in numbers andtrends in threats that were used todetermine overall species populationstatus. Several combinations of speciesnumbers and threats may be possible

for each population status category. Theresulting species status may depend onthe magnitude of the trends in numbersand threats. Trends in species numbersand threats are not reported for speciesthat are presumed extinct or found onlyin captivity.

The trends in species populationnumbers are reported as:

I = Increasing: numbers of indi-viduals or populations increased orother demographic characteristicsindicate an increase.

S = Stable: numbers of individualsor populations remain stable orother demographic characteristics indicate populations remain stable.

D = Decreasing: numbers ofindividuals or populationsdecreased or other demographiccharacteristics indicate a decrease.

U = Unknown: numbers ofindividuals or populations isunknown, and no other informationis available to indicate trends.

The trends in threats are reported as:

I = Increasing: threats to thespecies have increased. Increasesin threats include: increase inthreat intensity, increase in rate atwhich the threat affects the species,or identification of a new threat.

C = Continuing: Threats continueat the same level or rate.

M = Managed or reduced: Some or all threats have been managed or reduced.

U = Unknown: Trends in threatsare unknown, and no information is available to indicate trends.

Appendix A—Data as of September 30, 2004


Appendix A - Data as of September 30, 2004

Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation

RecoveryPriorityNumber

RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info

Mammals

Bat, gray 3 1976 1982 F 1982 E, CH 8 3 I I I/CBat, Hawaiian hoary 1 1970 1998 F 1998 E 9 1 U U U/CBat, Indiana 3 1967 1983 F1 1999 E 8 2 D S S/CBat, lesser long-nosed 2 1988 1997 F 1997 E 8 1 I I I/CBat, little Mariana fruit 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E 5 1 E E N/ABat, Mariana fruit (=Mariana flying fox) 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E, CH 3 1 D D D/CBat, Mexican long-nosed 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U U U/UBat, Ozark big-eared 2 1979 1984 F2 1995 E 3 2 S S S/CBat, Virginia big-eared 5 1979 1984 F 1984 E, CH 9c 3 I I I/CBear, grizzly 6 1967 1982 F2 1993 T 3c 2 S S S/CBear, Louisiana black 4 1992 1995 F 1995 T 9 2 I S S/MCaribou, woodland 1 1983 1985 F2 1994 E 3c 1 D D D/CDeer, Columbian white-tailed Columbia River DPS) 1 1967 1976 F2 1983 E 9c 4 I I I/MDeer, key 4 1967 1980 F2 1999 E 6c 4 I S S/CFerret, black-footed 6 1967 1978 F2 1988 E 2 1 I I I/MFox, San Joaquin kit 8 1967 1983 F2 1998 E 3c 1 D D D/CFox, San Miguel Island 8 2004 N/A none N/A E 3 1 N/A C N/AFox, Santa Catalina Island 8 2004 N/A none N/A E 9 1 N/A I I/MFox, Santa Cruz Island 8 2004 N/A none N/A E 3 1 N/A S S/MFox, Santa Rosa Island 8 2004 N/A none N/A E 3 1 N/A S S/MJaguar 2 1972 1990 F 1990 E 6 1 U S U/MJaguarundi, Gulf Coast 2 1976 1990 F 1990 E 6 1 U U U/CJaguarundi, Sinaloan 2 1976 N/A none N/A E 6 1 N/A U U/UKangaroo rat, Fresno 8 1985 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3c 1 U U U/CKangaroo rat, giant 8 1987 1998 F 1998 E 2c 1 D D D/CKangaroo rat, Morro Bay 8 1970 1982 F1 2000 E, CH 6c 1 U U U/CKangaroo rat, San Bernardino Merriam's 8 1998 N/A none N/A E, CH 3c 1 D D D/C

GENERAL SPECIES INFORMATION RECOVERY PLAN STATUS SPECIES/RECOVERY STATUS

* Earlier drafts and final plans for some individual species mayhave become incorporated into later multi-species or ecosystem plans. 37 www.fws.gov/endangered


Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Kangaroo rat, Stephens' 8 1988 N/A D 1997 E 2c 1 D U U/CKangaroo rat, Tipton 8 1988 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 D D U/CLynx, Canada 6 2000 N/A none N/A T 15 2 U S S/CManatee, West Indian 4 1967 1980 F2 2001 E, CH 5c 1 U U U/CMountain beaver, Point Arena 8 1991 1998 F 1998 E 9c 1 U U U/CMouse, Alabama beach 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E, CH 3c 2 I U U/CMouse, Anastasia Island beach 4 1989 1993 F 1993 E 6c 2 S S S/MMouse, Choctawhatchee beach 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E, CH 3c 3 I U U/UMouse, Key Largo cotton 4 1983 1999 F 1999 E 3c 2 D U U/UMouse, Pacific pocket 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 D D D/IMouse, Perdido Key beach 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E, CH 3c 2 I U U/UMouse, Preble's meadow jumping 6 1998 N/A none N/A T, CH 9c 1 D D D/CMouse, salt marsh harvest 8 1970 1984 F 1984 E 2c 1 U I I/CMouse, southeastern beach 4 1989 1993 F 1993 T 9c 1 U U U/MMouse, St. Andrew beach 4 1998 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 S S S/COcelot 2 1972 1990 F 1990 E 5 1 D S S/COtter, southern sea 8 1977 1982 F2 2003 T 9c 3 S I I/CPanther, Florida 4 1967 1981 F 1995 E 6c 1 S D D/IPrairie dog, Utah 6 1973 1991 F 1991 T 8c 2 S S S/CPronghorn, Sonoran 2 1967 1982 F2 1998 E 3 1 D D D/CPuma (=cougar), eastern 5 1973 1982 F 1982 E 18 1 E E N/ARabbit, Lower Keys marsh 4 1990 1994 F2 1999 E 6c 2 S D D/CRabbit, pygmy 1 2001 N/A none N/A E 3 1 D D D/CRabbit, riparian brush 8 2000 1998 F 1998 E 6c 2 D U U/URice rat 4 1991 1999 F 1999 E, CH 3c 1 U S I/MSheep, bighorn (CA Pennisula Ranges pop.) 8 1998 2000 F 2000 E, CH 3c 1 I S S/CSheep, bighorn (Sierra Nevada pop.) 8 1999 N/A D 2003 E 3 2 I I I/CShrew, Buena Vista Lake ornate 8 2002 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3c 1 D U U/U



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Squirrel, Carolina northern flying 4 1985 1990 F 1990 E 6c 2 S S S/CSquirrel, Delmarva Peninsula fox 5 1967 1979 F2 1993 E 9c 3 S I I/CSquirrel, Mount Graham red 2 1987 1993 F 1993 E, CH 3c 1 D D D/ISquirrel, northern Idaho ground 1 2000 2003 F 2003 T 3c 1 S I I/CSquirrel, Virginia northern flying 5 1985 1990 F 1990 E 9c 3 S S S/CVole, Amargosa 8 1984 1997 F 1997 E, CH 6 1 U U U/UVole, Florida salt marsh 4 1991 1997 F 1997 E 6 1 U U U/CVole, Hualapai Mexican 2 1987 1991 F 1991 E 3 1 U U U/UWolf, gray (Eastern DPS) 3 1967 1978 F2 1992 T, CH 14c 4 I I I/MWolf, gray (Southwestern DPS) 2 1967 1982 F 1982 E 2c 2 I I I/MWolf, gray (Western DPS) 6 1967 1980 F2 1987 T 3c 4 I I I/MWolf, red 4 1967 1982 F2 1990 E 5c 3 I I I/MWoodrat, Key Largo 4 1983 1999 F 1999 E 3c 1 D D D/MWoodrat, riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) 8 2000 1998 F 1998 E 6c 1 D S S/C

Birds

Akepa, Hawaii (honeycreeper) 1 1970 1983 F1 2003 E 1 1 S S S/CAkepa, Maui (honeycreeper) 1 1970 1984 F1 2003 E 6 1 E E N/AAkialoa, Kauai (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1983 F1 2003 E 5 1 E E N/AAkiapola`au (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1983 F1 2003 E 2 2 S S S/CAlbatross, short-tailed 7 1970 N/A none N/A E 8 1 I I I/CBlackbird, yellow-shouldered 4 1976 1983 F2 1996 E, CH 2 2 I I I/CBobwhite, masked (quail) 2 1967 1978 F2 1995 E 6 2 S D D/CCaracara, Audubon's crested 4 1987 1989 F 1999 T 9c 1 S U U/UCahow 4 1970 N/A none N/A E 1 1 N/A U U/UCondor, California 8 1967 1975 F2 1996 E, CH 4c 2 I I I/CCoot, Hawaiian 1 1970 1978 F1 1999 E 14 3 S S S/CCrane, Mississippi sandhill 4 1973 1976 F2 1991 E, CH 6c 1 S S S/CCrane, whooping 2 1967 1980 F2 1994 E, CH 2c 1 S I I/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Creeper, Hawaii 1 1975 1983 F1 2003 E 8 2 S S S/CCreeper, Molokai 1 1970 1984 F1 2003 E 5 1 E E N/ACreeper, Oahu 1 1970 2003 F1 2003 E 5 1 E E N/ACrow, Hawaiian (='alala) 1 1967 1982 F1 2003 E 2c 1 D C N/ACrow, Mariana (=aga) 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E, CH 2c 1 D D D/CCrow, white-necked 4 1991 N/A none N/A E 11 1 N/A X U/UCurlew, Eskimo 7 1967 Exempt Exempt Exempt E 5 1 E E N/ADuck, Hawaiian (=koloa) 1 1967 1985 F1 1999 E 2 2 S S S/CDuck, Laysan 1 1967 1982 F 1982 E 2 1 S S S/CEagle, bald 3 1967 1982 F2 1989 T 14c 4 I I I/MEider, spectacled 7 1993 1996 F 1996 T, CH 5 2 S U U/CEider, Steller's 7 1997 2002 F 2002 T, CH 9 2 U U U/CElepaio, Oahu 1 2000 2003 F1 2003 E, CH 3 2 D D D/CFalcon, northern aplomado 2 1986 1990 F 1990 E 3 2 I U U/CFinch, Laysan (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1984 F 1984 E 8 1 S S S/CFinch, Nihoa (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1984 F 1984 E 8 1 U U U/CFlycatcher, southwestern willow 2 1995 2002 F 2002 E, CH 3c 1 U U U/CGnatcatcher, coastal California 8 1993 Exempt Exempt Exempt T, CH 3c 2 D D D/CGoose, Hawaiian 1 1967 1983 F1 2004 E 2 2 S I I/MHawk, Hawaiian (='io) 1 1967 1984 F 1984 E 14 4 S S S/CHawk, Puerto Rican broad-winged 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 6 1 U U U/UHawk, Puerto Rican sharp-shinned 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 3 1 U U U/UHoneycreeper, crested 1 1967 1984 F1 2003 E 7 2 S S S/CJay, Florida scrub 4 1987 1990 F 1990 T 2c 2 D D D/CKingfisher, Guam Micronesian 1 1984 1990 F1 2004 E, CH 3 1 C C N/AKite, Everglade snail 4 1967 1983 F 1999 E, CH 3c 2 S D D/IMegapode, Micronesian 1 1970 1998 F 1998 E 9 2 U U U/CMillerbird, Nihoa (old world warbler) 1 1967 1984 F 1984 E 8 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Moorhen, Hawaiian common 1 1967 1978 F1 1999 E 9 2 S S S/CMoorhen, Mariana common 1 1984 1991 F 1991 E 9c 1 S S S/CMurrelet, marbled 1 1992 1997 F 1997 T, CH 3 1 D D D/CNightjar, Puerto Rican 4 1973 1984 F 1984 E 5c 2 S S S/CNukupuù (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1983 F1 2003 E 5 1 D E N/AOò, Kauai (honeyeater) 1 1967 1983 F1 2003 E 4 1 E E N/AOù (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1983 F1 1983 E 4 1 E E N/AOwl, Mexican spotted 2 1993 1995 F 1995 T, CH 9c 2 U S S/COwl, northern spotted 1 1990 N/A D 1992 T, CH 3c 1 D D D/CPalila (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1978 F1 2003 E, CH 1 3 S S S/CParrot, Puerto Rican 4 1967 1982 F1 1999 E 2 1 D S S/CParrotbill, Maui (honeycreeper) 1 1967 1984 F1 2003 E 1 1 S S S/CPelican, brown 8 1970 1980 F 1980 E 9 3 S S S/CPetrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped 1 1967 1983 F 1983 E 2 1 U U U/CPigeon, Puerto Rican plain 4 1970 1982 F 1982 E 3c 3 D D S/IPlover, piping (Atlantic Coast pop.) 3 1985 1988 D 1996 E, CH 2c 2 S I I/CPlover, piping (Northern Plains pop.) 5 1985 1988 F 1988 T, CH 2c 2 D D D/IPlover, western snowy 8 1993 N/A D 2001 T, CH 3c 1 D I I/MPoòuli (honeycreeper) 1 1975 1984 F1 2003 E 4 1 D D D/CPrairie-chicken, Attwater's greater 2 1967 1983 F2 1993 E 3 1 D D I/IPygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous 2 1997 N/A D 2003 E, CH 3c 1 D D S/IRail, California clapper 8 1970 1984 F 1984 E 3c 1 U D D/CRail, Guam 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E 2 1 U U U/URail, light-footed clapper 8 1970 1979 F2 1985 E 6 2 S S I/IRail, Yuma clapper 2 1967 1983 F 1983 E 6 3 S S S/CShearwater, Newell's Townsend's 1 1975 1983 F 1983 T 3 1 D D D/CShrike, San Clemente loggerhead 8 1977 1984 F 1984 E 9 2 I I I/MSparrow, Cape Sable seaside 4 1967 1983 F 1999 E, CH 3c 2 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Sparrow, Florida grasshopper 4 1986 1999 F 1999 E 3c 2 S D D/CSparrow, San Clemente sage 8 1977 1984 F 1984 T 9 2 S S S/CStilt, Hawaiian 1 1970 1978 F1 1999 E 9 3 S S S/CStork, wood 4 1984 1986 F 1997 E 5c 3 I S S/CSwiftlet, Mariana gray 1 1984 1991 F 1991 E 8 1 S S S/CTern, California least 8 1970 1980 F2 1985 E 3c 3 D D D/CTern, least 3 1985 1990 F 1990 E 3c 1 U S S/CTern, roseate (Caribbean pop.) 5 1987 1993 F 1993 T 3 1 U S S/CTern, roseate (Northeast U.S./Canada pop.) 5 1987 1989 F2 1998 E 3 2 U D D/CThrush, large Kauai (=kamao) 1 1970 1983 F1 2003 E 5 1 E E N/AThrush, Molokai 1 1970 1984 F1 2003 E 5 1 E E N/AThrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi) 1 1967 1983 F1 2003 E 2 1 S S S/CTowhee, Inyo California 8 1987 1998 F 1998 T, CH 9c 1 U U U/UVireo, black-capped 2 1987 1991 F 1991 E 2c 1 D U U/UVireo, least Bell's 8 1986 N/A D 1998 E, CH 3c 3 I I I/CWarbler (=wood), Bachman's 4 1967 Exempt Exempt Exempt E 5 1 E E N/AWarbler (=wood), golden-cheeked 2 1990 1992 F 1992 E 2c 1 D D I/IWarbler (=wood), Kirtland's 3 1967 1978 F 1978 E 2c 3 S I I/MWarbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) 1 1970 1998 F 1998 E 8c 1 D D D/CWhite-eye, bridled 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E 6 1 E E N/AWhite-eye, Rota bridled 1 2004 N/A none N/A E 2 1 N/A D D/CWoodpecker, ivory-billed 4 1967 N/A none N/A E 17 1 E E N/AWoodpecker, red-cockaded 4 1970 1979 F2 2003 E 8c 1 I I I/M

Reptiles

Anole, Culebra Island giant 4 1977 1983 F 1983 E, CH 5 1 U E N/ABoa, Mona 4 1978 1984 F 1984 T, CH 3 1 I I I/CBoa, Puerto Rican 4 1970 1986 F 1986 E 11c 1 D D D/CBoa, Virgin Islands tree 4 1970 1986 F 1986 E 3c 3 I I I/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Cooter (=turtle), northern redbelly (=Plymouth) 5 1980 1981 F2 1994 E, CH 9 3 I S S/MCrocodile, American 4 1975 1979 F 1999 E, CH 2c 4 I I I/MGecko, Monito 4 1982 1986 F 1986 E, CH 5 2 U U U/MIguana, Mona ground 4 1978 1984 F 1984 T, CH 3 3 S S S/MLizard, blunt-nosed leopard 8 1967 1980 F 1998 E 2c 1 D D D/CLizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed 8 1980 1985 F 1985 T, CH 5c 2 D D D/CLizard, Island night 8 1977 1984 F 1984 T 8 2 U S S/CLizard, St. Croix ground 4 1977 1984 F 1984 E, CH 2c 1 U U U/MRattlesnake, New Mexican ridge-nosed 2 1978 1985 F 1985 T, CH 3 2 S U U/USea turtle, green (U.S. Atlantic populations andindividuals foraging in U.S. territorial waters/ U.S.East Pacific populations on the west coasts of theU.S., Central America and Mexico)

4 1978 1984 F2 1991 E 1c 1 I/D U U/U

Sea turtle, green (U.S. Pacific populations in Hawaii,Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoaand other unincorporated U.S. Pacific islands/atolls) 4 1978 1984 F2 1998 T, CH 1c 1 D U U/USea turtle, hawksbill 4 1970 1984 F 1984 E, CH 1c 3 D U U/USea turtle, Kemp's ridley 2 1970 1984 F2 1992 E 2c 1 I I I/MSea turtle, leatherback 4 1970 1984 F 1984 E, CH 1 1 D D D/CSea turtle, loggerhead 4 1978 1984 F 1984 T 7c 1 U U U/USea turtle, olive ridley (U.S. Pacific pops.) 4 1978 1984 F2 1998 E 8c 2 I I I/CSkink, bluetail mole 4 1987 1993 F 1999 T 3 1 U U U/USkink, sand 4 1987 1993 F 1999 T 1 1 U U U/USnake, Atlantic salt marsh 4 1977 1993 F 1993 T 12 1 U U U/CSnake, Concho water 2 1986 1993 F 1993 T, CH 9c 2 S U U/ISnake, copperbelly water 3 1997 N/A none N/A T 3c 1 D D D/CSnake, eastern indigo 4 1978 1982 F 1982 T 12c 1 U U U/USnake, giant garter 8 1993 N/A D 1999 T 2c 1 U D D/ISnake, Lake Erie water 3 1999 2003 F 2003 T 3c 1 D S S/CSnake, San Francisco garter 8 1967 1985 F 1985 E 3c 1 D S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Tortoise, desert 8 1980 1994 F 1994 T, CH 8c 1 U D D/CTortoise, gopher 4 1987 1990 F 1990 T 9 1 D D D/CTurtle, Alabama red-belly 4 1987 1990 F 1990 E 5 1 U U U/UTurtle, bog (=Muhlenberg) 5 1997 2001 F 2001 T 6c 1 D D I/ITurtle, flattened musk 4 1987 1990 F 1990 T 14 1 S S S/CTurtle, ringed map 4 1986 1988 F 1988 T 14 2 S S S/CTurtle, yellow-blotched map 4 1991 1993 F 1993 T 14 1 U U U/UWhipsnake (=striped racer), Alameda 8 1997 N/A D 2003 T, CH 9c 1 D S S/M

Amphibians

Coqui, golden 4 1977 1984 F 1984 T, CH 5c 1 U E N/AFrog, California red-legged 8 1996 2002 F 2002 T, CH 6c 1 D U U/CFrog, Chiricahua leopard 2 2002 N/A none N/A T 3 1 D D D/CFrog, Mississippi gopher 4 2001 N/A none N/A E 5 1 D D D/CFrog, mountain yellow-legged 8 2002 N/A none N/A E 6 1 D D D/CGuajon 4 1997 2004 F 2004 T 11 1 U U U/CSalamander, Barton Springs 2 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D S I/ISalamander, California tiger 8 2000 N/A none N/A T 8c 1 D D D/ISalamander, Cheat Mountain 5 1989 1991 F 1991 T 8c 3 S D S/ISalamander, desert slender 8 1973 1982 F 1982 E 8 1 S S S/CSalamander, flatwoods 4 1999 N/A none N/A T 8 1 D U U/CSalamander, Red Hills 4 1976 1983 F 1983 T 7 1 S S S/CSalamander, San Marcos 2 1980 1985 F2 1996 T, CH 2c 1 D S S/CSalamander, Santa Cruz long-toed 8 1967 1977 F1 1999 E 6c 1 D D D/CSalamander, Shenandoah 5 1989 1994 F 1994 E 8 1 U U U/USalamander, Sonora tiger 2 1997 2002 F 2002 E 3 1 U U D/USalamander, Texas blind 2 1967 1985 F2 1996 E 5 1 D U U/UToad, arroyo (=arroyo southwestern) 8 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 8 1 D D D/CToad, Houston 2 1970 1984 F 1984 E, CH 2c 1 D D D/I



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Toad, Puerto Rican crested 4 1987 1992 F 1992 T 2c 1 S D D/CToad, Wyoming 6 1984 1991 F 1991 E 2 1 D D D/C

Fish

Catfish, Yaqui 2 1984 1995 F 1995 T, CH 8 1 D D D/MCavefish, Alabama 4 1977 1982 F2 1990 E, CH 1 1 S S S/CCavefish, Ozark 4 1984 1986 F 1986 T 8 2 S S S/CChub, bonytail 6 1980 1984 F2 2002 E, CH 5c 1 U U U/MChub, Borax Lake 1 1980 1987 F 1987 E, CH 2 4 S S S/MChub, Chihuahua 2 1983 1986 F 1986 T 2 1 I S S/CChub, humpback 6 1967 1979 F2 2002 E, CH 2c 3 S D D/IChub, Hutton tui 1 1985 1998 F 1998 T 9 2 S S U/MChub, Mohave tui 8 1970 1984 F 1984 E 9 1 S D D/CChub, Oregon 1 1993 1998 F 1998 E 8 3 S S S/CChub, Owens tui 8 1985 1998 F 1998 E, CH 9 1 U D D/CChub, Pahranagat roundtail 8 1970 1986 F 1998 E 3c 1 D U U/CChub, slender 4 1977 1983 F 1983 T, CH 5 1 D D D/UChub, Sonora 2 1986 1992 F 1992 T, CH 2c 1 S S S/CChub, spotfin 4 1977 1983 F 1983 T, CH 11 1 U S S/CChub, Virgin River 6 1989 1995 F2 1995 E, CH 2c 1 S S S/CChub, Yaqui 2 1984 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 S S S/MCui-ui 8 1967 1978 F2 1992 E 14 4 I S S/MDace, Ash Meadows speckled 8 1982 1990 F 1990 E, CH 9 2 S U U/MDace, blackside 4 1987 1988 F 1988 T 11 2 S S S/CDace, Clover Valley speckled 8 1989 1998 F 1998 E 9c 1 U U U/CDace, desert 8 1967 1997 F 1997 T, CH 7c 2 U D D/CDace, Foskett speckled 1 1985 1998 F 1998 T 9 2 S S U/MDace, Independence Valley speckled 8 1989 1998 F 1998 E 6c 2 U U U/UDace, Kendall Warm Springs 6 1970 1982 F 1982 E 12 3 S U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Dace, Moapa 8 1967 1983 F2 1996 E 1 2 S U D/CDarter, amber 4 1985 1986 F 1986 E, CH 5 1 S U U/CDarter, bayou 4 1975 1983 F2 1990 T 8c 1 S S S/CDarter, bluemask (=jewel) 4 1993 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 S S S/CDarter, boulder 4 1988 1989 F 1989 E 5 1 S S S/MDarter, Cherokee 4 1994 2000 F 2000 T 2c 1 D D D/CDarter, duskytail 4 1993 1994 F 1994 E 2 1 I S S/CDarter, Etowah 4 1994 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 S U U/CDarter, fountain 2 1970 1985 F2 1996 E, CH 2c 1 D S S/CDarter, goldline 4 1992 2000 F 2000 T 8 1 S S S/CDarter, leopard 2 1978 1984 F1 1993 T, CH 11c 2 D D D/CDarter, Maryland 5 1967 1982 F 1982 E, CH 5 1 U U U/UDarter, Niangua 3 1985 1989 F 1989 T, CH 8 2 S S S/CDarter, Okaloosa 4 1973 1981 F2 1998 E 11 3 S S S/CDarter, relict 4 1993 N/A D 1994 E 5 1 S S S/MDarter, slackwater 4 1977 1984 F 1984 T, CH 8 1 D D D/IDarter, snail 4 1975 1983 F 1983 T 11 3 S S S/MDarter, vermilion 4 2001 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S D D/IDarter, watercress 4 1970 1980 F2 1993 E 2 1 I I I/CGambusia, Big Bend 2 1967 1984 F 1984 E 2 2 U S S/MGambusia, Clear Creek 2 1967 1982 F 1982 E 2 2 U S S/CGambusia, Pecos 2 1970 1985 F 1985 E 2 2 D S S/CGambusia, San Marcos 2 1980 1985 F2 1996 E, CH 2c 1 E E N/AGoby, tidewater 8 1994 N/A none N/A E, CH 7c 3 S S S/CLogperch, Conasauga 4 1985 1986 F 1986 E, CH 5 1 S U U/CLogperch, Roanoke 5 1989 1992 F 1992 E 5c 1 U U U/UMadtom, Neosho 6 1990 1991 F 1991 T 11c 1 D D D/CMadtom, pygmy 4 1993 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Madtom, Scioto 3 1975 Exempt Exempt Exempt E 5 1 E E N/AMadtom, smoky 4 1984 1985 F 1985 E, CH 5 2 I S S/CMadtom, yellowfin 4 1977 1983 F 1983 T, CH 11 1 S S S/CMinnow, Devils River 2 1999 N/A none N/A T 2 1 S D D/IMinnow, loach 2 1986 1991 F 1991 T, CH 4c 1 D D D/IMinnow, Rio Grande silvery 2 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 2c 1 D D D/CPikeminnow (=squawfish), Colorado 6 1967 1978 F2 2002 E, CH 8c 3 I D D/IPoolfish, Pahrump 8 1967 1980 F 1980 E 11 2 S S S/CPupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa 8 1982 1990 F 1990 E, CH 15 4 I S S/MPupfish, Comanche Springs 2 1967 1981 F 1981 E 2 1 D S S/MPupfish, desert 2 1986 1993 F 1993 E, CH 2c 1 S S S/MPupfish, Devils Hole 8 1967 1980 F 1990 E 11 2 D S S/CPupfish, Leon Springs 2 1980 1985 F 1985 E, CH 2 2 S S S/CPupfish, Owens 8 1967 1984 F 1998 E 2 1 S S S/CPupfish, Warm Springs 8 1970 1976 F2 1990 E 9 2 D U U/USalmon, Atlantic 5 2000 N/A D 2004 E 6c 1 D I I/MSculpin, pygmy 4 1989 1991 F 1991 T 8 1 S S S/CShiner, Arkansas River 2 1998 N/A none N/A T, CH 5c 1 D D D/CShiner, beautiful 2 1984 1995 F 1995 T, CH 2 1 U U U/UShiner, blue 4 1992 1995 F 1995 T 8 1 D D D/IShiner, Cahaba 4 1990 1992 F 1992 E 2 1 I S I/IShiner, Cape Fear 4 1987 1988 F 1988 E, CH 5 2 S S S/CShiner, palezone 4 1993 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 S S S/CShiner, Pecos bluntnose 2 1987 1992 F 1992 T, CH 3 2 U D D/CShiner, Topeka 6 1998 N/A none N/A E, CH 8c 2 D U U/USilverside, Waccamaw 4 1987 1993 F 1993 T, CH 8 1 S S S/CSmelt, delta 8 1993 1996 F 1996 T, CH 2c 2 U U U/CSpikedace 2 1986 1991 F 1991 T, CH 4c 1 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Spinedace, Big Spring 8 1985 1994 F 1994 T, CH 3 1 S D D/CSpinedace, Little Colorado 2 1967 1998 F 1998 T, CH 2 1 D D D/CSpinedace, White River 8 1985 1994 F 1994 E, CH 2c 2 S S S/CSpringfish, Hiko White River 8 1985 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3c 1 S S S/CSpringfish, Railroad Valley 8 1986 1997 F 1997 T, CH 2c 1 D S S/CSpringfish, White River 8 1985 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3c 1 U U U/UStickleback, unarmored threespine 8 1970 1977 F2 1985 E 3 1 D D D/ISturgeon, Alabama 4 2000 N/A none N/A E 5 1 U U U/USturgeon, gulf 4 1991 1995 F 1995 T, CH 12 2 S S S/CSturgeon, pallid 6 1990 1993 F 1993 E 2c 1 D D D/CSturgeon, white 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 3c 2 D D D/CSucker, June 6 1986 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5c 1 D D D/CSucker, Lost River 8 1988 1993 F 1993 E 4c 2 U U U/USucker, Modoc 8 1985 N/A N/A N/A E, CH 8 3 I I I/MSucker, razorback 6 1991 1998 F2 2002 E, CH 1c 1 U I I/MSucker, Santa Ana 8 2000 N/A none N/A T, CH 5 1 S S S/CSucker, shortnose 8 1988 1993 F 1993 E 8c 2 U U U/USucker, Warner 1 1985 1998 F 1998 T, CH 2c 1 U U U/UTopminnow, Gila (incl. Yaqui) (Gila/Yaqui) 2 1967 1984 F1 1999 E 3c 1 D/S S S/CTrout, Apache 2 1967 1979 F2 1983 T 8 3 I S S/CTrout, bull 1 1998 N/A D 2004 T, CH 9c 2 S S S/MTrout, Gila 2 1967 1979 F2 2003 E 2 3 S S S/MTrout, greenback cutthroat 6 1967 1977 F2 1998 T 15 3 D I I/MTrout, Lahontan cutthroat 8 1970 1995 F 1995 T 3c 1 D D S/ITrout, Little Kern golden 8 1978 Exempt Exempt Exempt T, CH 9 2 U U U/UTrout, Paiute cutthroat 8 1967 1985 F2 2004 T 9 2 S S S/MWoundfin 6 1970 1979 F2 1995 E, CH 1 1 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Clams

Acornshell, southern 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 E E N/ABankclimber, purple (mussel) 4 1998 2003 F 2003 T 11 1 U S S/CBean, Cumberland (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5c 1 D D D/UBean, purple 5 1997 2004 F 2004 E, CH 5 1 D D D/CBlossom, green (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 6 1 E E N/ABlossom, tubercled (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1985 F 1985 E 6 1 E E N/ABlossom, turgid (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1985 F 1985 E 5 1 E E N/ABlossom, yellow (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1985 F 1985 E 6 1 E E N/ACatspaw (=purple cat's paw pearlymussel) 3 1990 1992 F 1992 E 6 1 D D D/CCatspaw, white (pearlymussel) 3 1976 1990 F 1990 E 6c 1 D D N/AClubshell 5 1993 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U D D/CClubshell, black 4 1987 1989 F 1989 E 5c 1 E E N/AClubshell, ovate 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 S S S/CClubshell, southern 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 S S S/CCombshell, Cumberlandian 4 1997 2004 F 2004 E, CH 5 1 D D D/CCombshell, southern 4 1987 1989 F 1989 E 2c 1 S S S/CCombshell, upland 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 E E N/AElktoe, Appalachian 4 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 S S S/CElktoe, Cumberland 4 1997 2004 F 2004 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CFanshell 4 1990 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 D D D/CFatmucket, Arkansas 4 1990 1992 F 1992 T 8 2 U D D/CHeelsplitter, Alabama (=inflated) 4 1990 1993 F 1993 T 8c 1 S S S/CHeelsplitter, Carolina 4 1993 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5c 1 D D D/CHiggins eye (pearlymussel) 3 1976 1983 F2 2004 E 5c 2 D D D/IKidneyshell, triangular 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 S S S/MLampmussel, Alabama 4 1976 1985 F 1985 E 5 1 D U U/CLilliput, pale (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Mapleleaf, winged (mussel) 3 1991 1997 F 1997 E 2c 1 D D U/IMoccasinshell, Alabama 4 1993 2000 F 2000 T, CH 8 1 S D D/CMoccasinshell, Coosa 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 D D D/UMoccasinshell, Gulf 4 1998 2003 F 2003 E 5 1 U U U/CMoccasinshell, Ochlockonee 4 1998 2003 F 2003 E 5 1 U U U/CMonkeyface, Appalachian (pearlymussel) 5 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 D D D/CMonkeyface, Cumberland (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5c 1 D S S/CMucket, orangenacre 4 1993 2000 F 2000 T, CH 8 1 S D D/CMucket, pink (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1985 F 1985 E 5 1 U D D/CMussel, oyster 4 1997 2004 F 2004 E, CH 5 1 D D D/CMussel, scaleshell 3 2001 N/A D 2004 E 2 1 D D D/CPearlshell, Louisiana 4 1988 1990 F 1990 T 8 2 U U U/CPearlymussel, birdwing 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 4c 1 D S S/CPearlymussel, cracking 4 1989 1991 F 1991 E 4 1 D D D/CPearlymussel, Curtis 3 1976 1986 F 1986 E 6 1 D D D/CPearlymussel, dromedary 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 4c 1 D D D/CPearlymussel, littlewing 4 1988 1989 F 1989 E 4 1 D D D/CPigtoe, Cumberland 4 1991 1992 F 1992 E 5 1 S S S/CPigtoe, dark 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 S D D/CPigtoe, finerayed 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U D D/CPigtoe, flat 4 1987 1989 F 1989 E 5 1 E E N/APigtoe, heavy 4 1987 1989 F 1989 E 5c 1 S D D/CPigtoe, oval 4 1998 2003 F 2003 E 5 1 D D D/CPigtoe, rough 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U U U/UPigtoe, shiny 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U D D/CPigtoe, southern 4 1993 2000 F 2000 E, CH 5 1 S S S/CPimpleback, orangefoot (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U U U/UPocketbook, fat 4 1976 1985 F2 1989 E 8 2 I I I/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Pocketbook, finelined 4 1993 2000 F 2000 T, CH 8 1 S S S/CPocketbook, Ouachita rock 2 1991 2002 F 2002 E 4c 1 D D D/CPocketbook, shinyrayed 4 1998 2003 F 2003 E 5 1 U D D/CPocketbook, speckled 4 1989 1992 F 1992 E 5 2 S I I/CRabbitsfoot, rough 5 1997 2004 F 2004 E, CH 6 1 U U U/URiffleshell, northern 5 1993 1994 F 1994 E 6 1 D S S/CRiffleshell, tan 4 1977 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U D D/CRing pink (mussel) 4 1989 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 U U U/CSlabshell, Chipola 4 1998 2003 F 2003 T 11 1 U U U/USpinymussel, James 5 1988 1990 F 1990 E 5 1 U U U/USpinymussel, Tar River 4 1985 1987 F2 1992 E 5 2 U U U/UStirrupshell 4 1987 1989 F 1989 E 5 1 E E N/AThree-ridge, fat (mussel) 4 1998 2003 F 2003 E 5 1 U S S/CWartyback, white (pearlymussel) 4 1976 1984 F 1984 E 5 1 U U U/UWedgemussel, dwarf 5 1990 1993 F 1993 E 5 2 S U U/C

Snails

Ambersnail, Kanab 6 1991 1995 F 1995 E 6c 2 U S S/CCampeloma, slender 4 2000 N/A none N/A E 5 1 U U U/UCavesnail, Tumbling Creek 3 2002 2003 F 2003 E 4 1 D D D/CElimia, lacy (snail) 4 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 S S S/CLimpet, Banbury Springs 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E 8 1 S S S/CLioplax, cylindrical (snail) 4 1998 N/A none N/A E 8 1 S S S/CMarstonia, royal (snail) 4 1994 1995 F 1995 E 5 2 S S S/CPebblesnail, flat 4 1998 N/A none N/A E 5 1 S S S/CRiversnail, Anthony's 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 S S S/CRocksnail, painted 4 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 S S S/CRocksnail, plicate 4 1998 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 S S S/CRocksnail, round 4 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Shagreen, Magazine Mountain 4 1989 1994 F 1994 T 8 4 S S S/CSnail, armored 4 2000 N/A D 1994 E 5 1 U U U/USnail, Bliss Rapids 1 1992 1995 F 1995 T 7c 1 S S S/CSnail, Chittenango ovate amber 5 1978 1983 F1 2003 T 5 1 D I I/CSnail, flat-spired three-toothed 5 1978 1983 F 1983 T 8c 3 S D S/ISnail, Iowa Pleistocene 3 1978 1984 F 1984 E 14 3 S S S/MSnail, Morro shoulderband (=Banded dune) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8c 1 S S S/CSnail, Newcomb's 1 2000 N/A D 2004 T, CH 1 1 U U U/CSnail, noonday 4 1978 1984 F 1984 T 9 1 S S S/CSnail, painted snake coiled forest 4 1978 1982 F 1982 T 8 2 U S S/CSnail, Snake River physa 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5c 1 D U U/USnail, Stock Island tree 4 1978 1983 F 1999 T 3 1 U U U/USnail, tulotoma 4 1991 2000 F 2000 E 8 3 I I I/CSnail, Utah valvata 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5c 1 S S S/CSnail, Virginia fringed mountain 5 1978 1983 F 1983 E 4 1 S U U/USnails, Oahu tree 1 1981 1992 F 1992 E 2 1 U U U/ISpringsnail, Alamosa 2 1991 1994 F 1994 E 14 1 S S S/CSpringsnail, Bruneau Hot 1 1993 2002 F 2002 E 2c 1 D S S/CSpringsnail, Idaho 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5c 1 S S S/CSpringsnail, Socorro 2 1991 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U U U/I

Insects

Beetle, American burying 5 1989 1991 F 1991 E 5c 2 S S S/CBeetle, Coffin Cave mold 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/UBeetle, Comal Springs dryopid 2 1997 N/A none N/A E 1c 1 D U U/CBeetle, Comal Springs riffle 2 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 2 D I I/CBeetle, delta green ground 8 1980 1985 F 1985 T, CH 8 1 U U U/CBeetle, Helotes mold 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D U U/UBeetle, Hungerford's crawling water 3 1994 N/A D 2004 E 5 1 U S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave mold 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/UBeetle, Mount Hermon June 8 1997 1998 F 1998 E 8c 1 D D D/CBeetle, Tooth Cave ground 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/UBeetle, valley elderberry longhorn 8 1980 1984 F 1984 T, CH 9 1 U D D/CButterfly, bay checkerspot 8 1987 1998 F 1998 T, CH 3c 1 D D D/CButterfly, Behren's silverspot 8 1997 N/A D 2004 E 3c 1 U U U/CButterfly, callippe silverspot 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 9c 1 U U U/IButterfly, El Segundo blue 8 1976 1998 F 1998 E 12 2 S S S/CButterfly, Fender's blue 1 2000 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 D D D/CButterfly, Karner blue 3 1992 2003 F 2003 E 5 2 S S S/CButterfly, Lange's metalmark 8 1976 1980 F2 1984 E 9 3 D D D/CButterfly, lotis blue 8 1976 1985 F 1985 E 6c 1 U U U/UButterfly, mission blue 8 1976 1984 F 1984 E 9 2 U S S/CButterfly, Mitchell's satyr 3 1991 1998 F 1998 E 3 2 S S S/MButterfly, Myrtle's silverspot 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 9 1 U U U/UButterfly, Oregon silverspot 1 1980 1982 F2 2001 T, CH 3c 2 D D D/CButterfly, Palos Verdes blue 8 1980 1984 F 1984 E, CH 6 1 D S S/CButterfly, Quino checkerspot 8 1997 2003 F 2003 E, CH 3c 1 D D D/CButterfly, Saint Francis' satyr 4 1994 1996 F 1996 E 3 1 S S S/CButterfly, San Bruno elfin 8 1976 1984 F 1984 E 9 2 U U U/CButterfly, Schaus swallowtail 4 1976 1982 F 1999 E 3c 2 D S I/CButterfly, Smith's blue 8 1976 1984 F 1984 E 9 1 U U U/CButterfly, Uncompahgre fritillary 6 1991 1994 F 1994 E 8c 4 S S S/CDragonfly, Hine's emerald 3 1995 2001 F 2001 E 5c 1 D D D/IFly, Delhi Sands flower-loving 8 1993 1997 F 1997 E 6c 1 D U U/CGrasshopper, Zayante band-winged 8 1997 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 D D D/CMoth, Blackburn's sphinx 1 2000 N/A D 2003 E, CH 2c 1 U U U/CMoth, Kern primrose sphinx 8 1980 1984 F 1984 T 2 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Naucorid, Ash Meadows 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 8 2 S S S/CRhadine exilis [NCN] 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D U U/URhadine infernalis [NCN] 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D U U/USkipper, Carson wandering 8 2001 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 U U U/USkipper, Laguna Mountains 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 D U U/USkipper, Pawnee montane 6 1987 1998 F 1998 T 9c 1 D I I/CTiger beetle, northeastern beach 5 1990 1994 F 1994 T 6 1 S D D/CTiger beetle, Ohlone 8 2001 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D U U/UTiger beetle, Puritan 5 1990 1993 F 1993 T 5 1 S D D/C

Arachnids

Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/MHarvestman, Bone Cave 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D D D/CHarvestman, Cokendolpher Cave (Texellacokendolpheri) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D U/IMeshweaver, Braken Bat Cave (Cicurina venii) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D U/CMeshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave(Cicurina vespera) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D S S/MMeshweaver, Madla's Cave (Cicurina madla) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D U U/UMeshweaver, Robber Baron Cave (Cicurina baronia) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D U/IPseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/USpider, Government Canyon Bat Cave (Neoleptonetamicrops) 2 2000 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D S S/MSpider, Kauai cave wolf or pe'e pe'e maka 'ole 1 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 1c 1 S S S/CSpider, spruce-fir moss 4 1995 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/USpider, Tooth Cave 2 1988 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 D U U/U

Crustaceans

Amphipod, Hay's Spring 5 1982 Exempt Exempt Exempt E 5 3 S S S/CAmphipod, Illinois cave 3 1998 2002 F 2002 E 2 1 D D D/IAmphipod, Kauai cave 1 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 1c 1 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Amphipod, Peck's cave 2 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D S S/CCrayfish, cave (Cambarus aculabrum) 4 1993 1996 F 1996 E 5 1 S S S/MCrayfish, cave (Cambarus zophonastes) 4 1987 1988 F 1988 E 5 2 S S S/CCrayfish, Nashville 4 1986 1987 F2 1989 E 11c 1 S S S/CCrayfish, Shasta 8 1988 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 D D D/IFairy shrimp, Conservancy 8 1994 N/A none N/A E, CH 8 1 U D D/CFairy shrimp, longhorn 8 1994 N/A none N/A E, CH 8 1 U D D/CFairy shrimp, Riverside 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6c 1 S D D/CFairy shrimp, San Diego 8 1997 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2c 1 S D D/CFairy shrimp, vernal pool 8 1994 N/A none N/A T, CH 2c 1 D D D/CIsopod, Lee County cave 5 1992 1997 F 1997 E 8 1 U U U/CIsopod, Madison Cave 5 1982 1996 F 1996 T 4 2 S I I/CIsopod, Socorro 2 1978 1982 F 1982 E 2 4 S S S/CShrimp, Alabama cave 4 1988 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 S S S/CShrimp, California freshwater 8 1988 1998 F 1998 E 8c 1 U U U/UShrimp, Kentucky cave 4 1983 1988 F 1988 E, CH 5 1 U U U/UShrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave 4 1990 Exempt Exempt Exempt T 5c 1 U U U/UTadpole shrimp, vernal pool 8 1994 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D U/C

Flowering Plants

A`e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CA`e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAbutilon eremitopetalum [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAbutilon sandwicense [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAchyranthes mutica [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAgave, Arizona (Agave arizonica) 2 1984 N/A none N/A E 17 1 U U U/UAhinahina (Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.macrocephalum) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 T, CH 9 3 S S S/MAhinahina (Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp.sandwicense) 1 1986 1993 F 1993 E 6 2 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Aiakeakua, popolo (Solanum sandwicense) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAkoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 9 1 U U U/CAkoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 I U U/CAkoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAkoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAkoko (Chamaesyce rockii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAkoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAkoko, Ewa Plains (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var.kalaeloana) 1 1982 N/A D 1993 E 6 1 S D D/IAlani (Melicope adscendens) 1 1994 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope balloui) 1 1994 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 E U U/CAlani (Melicope haupuensis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope knudsenii) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope lydgatei) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CAlani (Melicope mucronulata) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope munroi) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope ovalis) 1 1994 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope pallida) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope quadrangularis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 E U U/CAlani (Melicope reflexa) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope saint-johnii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAlani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 S U U/CAllocarya, Calistoga (Plagiobothrys strictus) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 U D D/CAlopecurus, Sonoma (Alopecurus aequalis var.sonomensis) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 9 1 S U U/UAlsinidendron obovatum [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 C C N/AAlsinidendron trinerve [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Alsinidendron viscosum [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAmaranth, seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) 4 1993 1996 F 1996 T 8c 1 S S S/CAmaranthus brownii [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAmbrosia, San Diego (Ambrosia pumila) 8 2002 N/A none N/A E 5 1 D D D/CAmbrosia, south Texas (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia) 2 1994 N/A none N/A E 8 2 D S S/CAmole, purple (Chlorogalum purpureum) 8 2000 N/A none N/A T, CH 8 1 U U U/CAmphianthus, little (Amphianthus pusillus) 4 1988 1993 F 1993 T 13 1 S S S/CAnaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAnunu (Sicyos alba) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAristida chaseae [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5c 1 S S S/CArrowhead, bunched (Sagittaria fasciculata) 4 1979 1983 F 1983 E 2c 1 D D D/CAster, decurrent false (Boltonia decurrens) 3 1988 1990 F 1990 T 8 3 S S S/CAster, Florida golden (Chrysopsis floridana) 4 1986 1988 F 1988 E 5 1 I U U/CAster, Ruth's golden (Pityopsis ruthii) 4 1985 1992 F 1992 E 5c 2 S S S/CAuerodendron pauciflorum [NCN] 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 S S S/CAupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CAupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CAupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 T, CH 8 1 U U U/CAvens, spreading (Geum radiatum) 4 1990 1993 F 1993 E 2 1 S S S/MAwikiwiki (Canavalia molokaiensis) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAwiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) 1 1991 1995 F 1999 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CAwiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CAyenia, Texas (Ayenia limitaris) 2 1994 N/A none N/A E 5 1 S U U/CBaccharis, Encinitas (Baccharis vanessae) 8 1996 N/A none N/A T 5c 1 D D D/CBarberry, island (Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 D D D/CBarberry, Nevin's (Berberis nevinii) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S S S/CBariaco (Trichilia triacantha) 4 1988 1991 F 1991 E 11 1 S S S/CBeaked-rush, Knieskern's (Rhynchospora knieskernii) 5 1991 1993 F 1993 T 14 2 S U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Bear-poppy, dwarf (Arctomecon humilis) 6 1979 1985 F 1985 E 5c 1 D D D/IBeardtongue, Penland (Penstemon penlandii) 6 1989 1992 F 1992 E 14c 1 U S S/CBeargrass, Britton's (Nolina brittoniana) 4 1993 1996 F2 1996 E 8 2 S U U/MBeauty, Harper's (Harperocallis flava) 4 1979 1983 F 1983 E 7 2 I I I/MBedstraw, El Dorado (Galium californicum ssp.sierrae) 8 1996 2002 F 2002 E 6c 1 U U U/CBedstraw, island (Galium buxifolium) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 U D D/CBellflower, Brooksville (Campanula robinsiae) 4 1989 1994 F 1994 E 8 1 U U U/CBirch, Virginia round-leaf (Betula uber) 5 1978 1982 F2 1990 T 14 4 I S S/CBird's beak, palmate-bracted (Cordylanthus palmatus) 8 1986 1998 F 1998 E 2c 1 S S S/CBird's-beak, Pennell's (Cordylanthus tenuis ssp.capillaris) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 6 1 U D D/CBird's-beak, salt marsh (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.maritimus) 8 1978 1985 F 1985 E 6 2 S U U/CBird's-beak, soft (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) 8 1997 No data none N/A E 9c 1 S U U/CBirds-in-a-nest, white (Macbridea alba) 4 1992 1994 F 1994 T 8 2 U S S/MBittercress, small-anthered (Cardamine micranthera) 4 1989 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 U I I/CBladderpod, Dudley Bluffs (Lesquerella congesta) 6 1990 1993 F 1993 T 2c 2 S U U/CBladderpod, kodachrome (Lesquerella tumulosa) 6 1993 N/A none N/A E 11 2 S U U/CBladderpod, lyrate (Lesquerella lyrata) 4 1990 1996 F 1996 T 8 1 S S S/CBladderpod, Missouri (Lesquerella filiformis) 3 1987 1988 F 1988 T 8 3 I S S/MBladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains (Lesquerellakingii ssp. bernardina) 8 1994 N/A D 1997 E, CH 9 1 D D D/CBladderpod, Spring Creek (Lesquerella perforata) 4 1996 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S S S/CBladderpod, white (Lesquerella pallida) 2 1987 1992 F 1992 E 2 1 S S S/MBladderpod, Zapata (Lesquerella thamnophila) 2 1999 2004 F 2004 E, CH 5c 2 I S S/MBlazingstar, Ash Meadows (Mentzelia leucophylla) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 8 2 U U U/MBlazingstar, Heller's (Liatris helleri) 4 1987 1989 F2 2000 T 8 2 I S S/CBlazingstar, scrub (Liatris ohlingerae) 4 1989 1990 F 1999 E 2 2 S S S/MBlue-star, Kearney's (Amsonia kearneyana) 2 1989 1993 F 1993 E 2 1 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Bluecurls, Hidden Lake (Trichostemaaustromontanum ssp. compactum) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 9 1 S S S/CBluegrass, Hawaiian (Poa sandvicensis) 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CBluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CBluegrass, Napa (Poa napensis) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 U D D/CBluegrass, San Bernardino (Poa atropurpurea) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D D D/CBluet, Roan Mountain (Hedyotis purpurea var.montana) 4 1990 1996 F 1996 E 6 1 S S S/MBonamia, Florida (Bonamia grandiflora) 4 1987 1990 F2 1996 T 8 3 I U U/MBonamia menziesii [NCN] 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CBoxwood, Vahl's (Buxus vahlii) 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E 5 2 S S S/CBrodiaea, Chinese Camp (Brodiaea pallida) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 2c 1 U U U/UBrodiaea, thread-leaved (Brodiaea filifolia) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 2 1 D D D/CBroom, San Clemente Island (Lotus dendroideusssp.traskiae) 8 1977 1984 F 1984 E 9 2 I I I/CBuckwheat, cushenbury (Eriogonum ovalifolium var.vineum) 8 1994 N/A D 1997 E, CH 3 1 D D D/CBuckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) (Eriogonumapricum (incl. var. prostratum)) 8 1999 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 U S S/CBuckwheat, scrub (Eriogonum longifolium var.gnaphalifolium) 4 1993 1990 F2 1996 T 15 2 S U U/MBuckwheat, steamboat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var.williamsiae) 8 1986 1995 F 1995 E 6c 3 U D D/CBulrush, Northeastern (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) 5 1991 1993 F 1993 E 14 3 S S S/MBush-clover, prairie (Lespedeza leptostachya) 3 1987 1988 F 1988 T 8 4 S S I/IBush-mallow, San Clemente Island (Malacothamnusclementinus) 8 1977 1984 F 1984 E 8 2 S S S/CBush-mallow, Santa Cruz Island (Malacothamnusfasciculatus var. nesioticus) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 3 1 S S S/CButtercup, autumn (Ranunculus aestivalis(=acriformis)) 6 1989 1991 F 1991 E 5 2 D U U/M



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Butterfly plant, Colorado (Gaura neomexicana var.coloradensis) 6 2000 N/A none N/A T, CH 15 1 U D D/CButterweed, Layne's (Senecio layneae) 8 1996 2002 F 2002 T 5c 1 U U U/UButterwort, Godfrey's (Pinguicula ionantha) 4 1993 1994 F 1994 T 14 1 S U U/MButton, Mohr's Barbara (Marshallia mohrii) 4 1988 1991 F 1991 T 14 2 S I I/MButton-celery, San Diego (Eryngium aristulatum var.parishii) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 S S S/CCactus, Arizona hedgehog (Echinocereustriglochidiatus var. arizonicus) 2 1979 N/A D 1984 E 3 1 S S S/CCactus, Bakersfield (Opuntia treleasei) 8 1990 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 S S S/CCactus, black lace (Echinocereus reichenbachii var.albertii) 2 1979 1987 F 1987 E 3 1 U U U/MCactus, Brady pincushion (Pediocactus bradyi) 2 1979 1985 F 1985 E 2 1 U U U/CCactus, Chisos Mountain hedgehog (Echinocereuschisoensis var. chisoensis) 2 1988 1993 F 1993 T 9 1 U S S/MCactus, Cochise pincushion (Coryphantharobbinsorum) 2 1986 1993 F 1993 T 8 1 D D D/CCactus, Key tree (Pilosocereus robinii) 4 1984 1986 F2 1999 E 5c 2 S U U/UCactus, Knowlton (Pediocactus knowltonii) 2 1979 1985 F 1985 E 2 2 S S S/CCactus, Kuenzler hedgehog (Echinocereus fendlerivar. kuenzleri) 2 1979 1985 F 1985 E 3 2 S S S/CCactus, Lee pincushion (Coryphantha sneedii var.leei) 2 1979 1986 F 1986 T 3 2 S S S/CCactus, Lloyd's Mariposa (Echinomastusmariposensis) 2 1979 1990 F 1990 T 2 1 U D D/ICactus, Mesa Verde (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae) 2 1979 1984 F 1984 T 8c 1 U D D/CCactus, Nellie cory (Coryphantha minima) 2 1979 1984 F 1984 E 2 1 U U U/UCactus, Nichol's Turk's head (Echinocactushorizonthalonius var. nicholii) 2 1979 1986 F 1986 E 3 1 U U U/CCactus, Peebles Navajo (Pediocactus peeblesianuspeeblesianus) 2 1979 1984 F 1984 E 3 1 D S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Cactus, Pima pineapple (Coryphantha scheeri var.robustispina) 2 1993 N/A none N/A E 3 1 U U U/CCactus, San Rafael (Pediocactus despainii) 6 1987 N/A D 1995 E 11 1 S S S/CCactus, Siler pincushion (Pediocactus(=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri) 2 1979 1986 F 1986 T 8 1 U U U/CCactus, Sneed pincushion (Coryphantha sneedii var.sneedii) 2 1979 1986 F 1986 E 9 2 S S S/CCactus, star (Astrophytum asterias) 2 1993 2003 F 2003 E 2c 2 I S S/CCactus, Tobusch fishhook (Ancistrocactus tobuschii) 2 1979 1987 F 1987 E 2 1 D U U/UCactus, Uinta Basin hookless (Sclerocactus glaucus) 6 1979 1990 F 1990 T 14c 3 S U U/UCactus, Winkler (Pediocactus winkleri) 6 1998 N/A D 1995 T 11 1 D D D/UCactus, Wright fishhook (Sclerocactus wrightiae) 6 1979 1985 F 1985 E 17 2 S D D/CCalyptranthes thomasiana [NCN] 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 11 1 U U U/UCampion, fringed (Silene polypetala) 4 1991 N/A D 1996 E 8 1 S S S/MCapa rosa (Callicarpa ampla) 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 11 1 S S S/CCatesbaea melanocarpa [NCN] 4 1999 N/A D 2004 E 5 1 U U U/UCatchfly, Spalding's (Silene spaldingii) 1 2001 N/A none N/A T 8c 1 D U U/ICat's-eye, Terlingua Creek (Cryptantha crassipes) 2 1991 1994 F 1994 E 5c 1 D U U/CCeanothus, coyote (Ceanothus ferrisae) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 14 1 U U U/UCeanothus, Pine Hill (Ceanothus roderickii) 8 1996 2002 F 2002 E 5c 1 U D D/CCeanothus, Vail Lake (Ceanothus ophiochilus) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 2 1 U U U/CCentaury, spring-loving (Centaurium namophilum) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 14 4 S S S/MChaff-flower, round-leaved (Achyranthes splendensvar. rotundata) 1 1986 N/A D 1993 E 3 1 U U U/CChaffseed, American (Schwalbea americana) 5 1992 1995 F 1995 E 7 1 S U U/UChamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis [NCN] 4 1990 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 U U U/UChamaesyce halemanui [NCN] 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CChecker-mallow, Keck's (Sidalcea keckii) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 8 2 U D D/CChecker-mallow, Kenwood Marsh (Sidalcea oreganassp. valida) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 U D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Checker-mallow, Nelson's (Sidalcea nelsoniana) 1 1993 1998 F 1998 T 5 1 D U U/CChecker-mallow, pedate (Sidalcea pedata) 8 1984 1998 F 1998 E 5c 1 D D D/CCheckermallow, Wenatchee Mountains (Sidalceaoregana var. calva) 1 1999 2004 F 2004 E, CH 3 1 I I I/MChupacallos (Pleodendron macranthum) 4 1994 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 S S S/CClarkia, Pismo (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 U U S/CClarkia, Presidio (Clarkia franciscana) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 U U U/CClarkia, Springville (Clarkia springvillensis) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 U S I/CClarkia, Vine Hill (Clarkia imbricata) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 5 1 U D D/CCliff-rose, Arizona (Purshia (=Cowania) subintegra) 2 1984 1995 F 1995 E 2 1 U U U/CClover, Monterey (Trifolium trichocalyx) 8 1998 N/A D 2002 E 5c 1 U U U/CClover, running buffalo (Trifolium stoloniferum) 3 1987 1989 F 1989 E 2 3 I S S/CClover, showy Indian (Trifolium amoenum) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S S S/CCobana negra (Stahlia monosperma) 4 1990 1996 F 1996 T 5 2 S S S/CConeflower, smooth (Echinacea laevigata) 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U D D/CConeflower, Tennessee purple (Echinaceatennesseensis) 4 1979 1983 F2 1989 E 8 4 S S S/MCordia bellonis [NCN] 4 1997 1999 F 1999 E 5 1 S U U/UCory cactus, bunched (Coryphantha ramillosa) 2 1979 1990 F 1990 T 8 1 D U U/UCranichis ricartii [NCN] 4 1991 1996 F 1996 E 5 1 U U U/UCrownbeard, big-leaved (Verbesina dissita) 8 1996 N/A none N/A T 3c 1 D D D/CCrownscale, San Jacinto Valley (Atriplex coronatavar. notatior) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 3 1 D D D/CCyanea (=Rollandia) crispa [NCN] 1 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/UCycladenia, Jones (Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis)) 6 1986 N/A none N/A T 8 1 S U U/UDaisy, lakeside (Hymenoxys herbacea) 3 1988 1990 F 1990 T 8 3 S S S/CDaisy, Maguire (Erigeron maguirei) 6 1985 1995 F 1995 T 14 4 S I I/MDaisy, Parish's (Erigeron parishii) 8 1994 N/A D 1997 T, CH 8 1 D D D/CDaisy, Willamette (Erigeron decumbens var.decumbens) 1 2000 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Daphnopsis hellerana [NCN] 4 1988 1992 F 1992 E 5 1 U U U/UDawn-flower, Texas prairie (Hymenoxys texana) 2 1986 1990 F 1990 E 5c 1 S S S/CDelissea rhytidosperma [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CDelissea undulata [NCN] 1 1996 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CDesert-parsley, Bradshaw's (Lomatium bradshawii) 1 1988 1993 F 1993 E 2 2 S S S/MDogweed, ashy (Thymophylla tephroleuca) 2 1984 1988 F 1988 E 5 1 I S S/IDropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) 4 1986 1990 F 1990 E 5 2 D S S/CDudleya, Conejo (Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 T 3c 1 U U U/CDudleya, marcescent (Dudleya cymosa ssp.marcescens) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 T 9 1 U U U/CDudleya, Santa Clara Valley (Dudleya setchellii) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 2c 1 D U U/UDudleya, Santa Cruz Island (Dudleya nesiotica) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 T 8 1 S S S/CDudleya, Verity's (Dudleya verityi) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 T 2c 1 D U U/CDudleyea, Santa Monica Mountains (Dudleya cymosassp. ovatifolia) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 T 6 1 U U U/CDwarf-flax, Marin (Hesperolinon congestum) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 T 8c 1 U U U/CErubia (Solanum drymophilum) 4 1988 1992 F 1992 E 2c 2 S U U/CEugenia woodburyana [NCN] 4 1994 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/UEvening-primrose, Antioch Dunes (Oenotheradeltoides ssp. howellii) 8 1978 1980 F2 1984 E, CH 9 1 S D D/CEvening-primrose, Eureka Valley (Oenothera avitassp. eurekensis) 8 1978 1982 F 1982 E 9 2 S U U/CEvening-primrose, San Benito (Camissoniabenitensis) 8 1985 N/A D 1999 T 5 1 S U U/CFiddleneck, large-flowered (Amsinckia grandiflora) 8 1985 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 2 D D D/CFlannelbush, Mexican (Fremontodendronmexicanum) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S U U/CFlannelbush, Pine Hill (Fremontodendroncalifornicum ssp. decumbens) 8 1996 2002 F 2002 E 6c 1 U D D/CFleabane, Zuni (Erigeron rhizomatus) 2 1985 1988 F 1988 T 8 2 S I I/CFour-o'clock, MacFarlane's (Mirabilis macfarlanei) 1 1979 1985 F2 2000 T 2 2 S U U/I



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Frankenia, Johnston's (Frankenia johnstonii) 2 1984 1988 F 1988 E 5 4 I I I/MFringe-tree, pygmy (Chionanthus pygmaeus) 4 1987 1990 F 1999 E 2 2 U U U/UFringepod, Santa Cruz Island (Thysanocarpusconchuliferus) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 D D D/CFritillary, Gentner's (Fritillaria gentneri) 1 1999 2003 F 2003 E 2 1 D S S/CGahnia lanaiensis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/CGardenia (=Na`u), Hawaiian (Gardenia brighamii) 1 1985 1993 F 1993 E 2 1 U D D/CGeocarpon minimum [NCN] 4 1987 1993 F 1993 T 13 1 S I I/CGeranium, Hawaiian red-flowered (Geraniumarboreum) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CGerardia, sandplain (Agalinis acuta) 5 1988 1989 F 1989 E 5c 2 S S S/CGesneria pauciflora [NCN] 4 1995 1998 F 1998 T 11 1 U U U/UGilia, Hoffmann's slender-flowered (Gilia tenuiflorassp. hoffmannii) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 8 1 S S S/CGilia, Monterey (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 9 2 S I I/MGoetzea, beautiful (Goetzea elegans) 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E 5 2 S S S/CGoldenrod, Blue Ridge (Solidago spithamaea) 4 1985 1987 F 1987 T 8 1 S S S/MGoldenrod, Houghton's (Solidago houghtonii) 3 1988 1997 F 1997 T 8c 2 S S S/CGoldenrod, Short's (Solidago shortii) 4 1985 1988 F 1988 E 8 2 S S S/CGoldenrod, white-haired (Solidago albopilosa) 4 1988 1993 F 1993 T 8 2 S S S/CGoldfields, Burke's (Lasthenia burkei) 8 1991 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D D U/CGoldfields, Contra Costa (Lasthenia conjugens) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E, CH 5c 1 D D U/CGooseberry, Miccosukee (Ribes echinellum) 4 1985 Exempt Exempt Exempt T 14 1 S S S/MGouania hillebrandii [NCN] 1 1984 1990 F 1990 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CGouania meyenii [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CGouania vitifolia [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CGourd, Okeechobee (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp.okeechobeensis) 4 1993 1999 F 1999 E 3 1 S S S/CGrass, Colusa (Neostapfia colusana) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T 2c 1 D D D/CGrass, Eureka Dune (Swallenia alexandrae) 8 1978 1982 F 1982 E 7 1 S U U/M



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Grass, Solano (Tuctoria mucronata) 8 1978 1985 F 1985 E, CH 2 1 D D D/CGrass, Tennessee yellow-eyed (Xyris tennesseensis) 4 1991 1994 F 1994 E 8 1 S S S/MGround-plum, Guthrie's (=Pyne's) (Astragalusbibullatus) 4 1991 N/A none N/A E 2 2 S S S/MGroundsel, San Francisco Peaks (Seneciofranciscanus) 2 1983 1987 F 1987 T, CH 8 1 U U U/CGumplant, Ash Meadows (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 14 4 S S S/MHaìwale (Cyrtandra crenata) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E 5 1 E U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra dentata) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 T, CH 14 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra munroi) 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 I U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaìwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea acuminata) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea asarifolia) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E 6 1 E U U/CHaha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea dunbarii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea glabra) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) 1 1994 1995 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 6 1 D U U/CHaha (Cyanea humboldtiana) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea koolauensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Haha (Cyanea lobata) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea longiflora) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii) 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E 6 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea mannii) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea pinnatifida) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 C C N/AHaha (Cyanea platyphylla) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea procera) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea recta) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 T, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea remyi) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea shipmannii) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea st-johnii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea stictophylla) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHaha (Cyanea superba) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 S C N/AHaha (Cyanea truncata) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U I I/CHaha (Cyanea undulata) 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 11 1 U D D/CHala pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CHarebells, Avon Park (Crotalaria avonensis) 4 1993 1996 F2 1999 E 2c 1 U U U/CHarperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) 5 1988 1991 F 1991 E 8 2 D D D/IHau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 C C N/AHau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 C C N/AHau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 D D D/CHeartleaf, dwarf-flowered (Hexastylis naniflora) 4 1989 N/A none N/A T 14 4 I I I/CHeather, mountain golden (Hudsonia montana) 4 1980 1983 F 1983 T, CH 8 3 I I I/CHeau (Exocarpos luteolus) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHedyotis degeneri [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U S/CHedyotis, Na Pali beach (Hedyotis st.-johnii) 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 8 1 U D D/CHedyotis parvula [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Hesperomannia arborescens [NCN] 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CHesperomannia arbuscula [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CHesperomannia lydgatei [NCN] 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CHibiscus, Clay's (Hibiscus clayi) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CHigo, chumbo (Harrisia portoricensis) 4 1990 1996 F 1996 T 14 2 S S S/CHiguero de sierra (Crescentia portoricensis) 4 1987 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 S U U/CHolei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis0 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E 5 1 E U U/CHolly, Cook's (Ilex cookii) 4 1987 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 U U U/CHonohono (Haplostachys haplostachya) 1 1979 N/A D 1993 E 2 1 S U U/CHowellia, water (Howellia aquatilis) 6 1994 N/A D 1996 T 7 4 I S S/CHypericum, highlands scrub (Hypericum cumulicola) 4 1987 1990 F 1999 E 2 2 U S U/MIagu, Hayun (=(Guam), Tronkon guafi (Rota))(Serianthes nelsonii) 1 1987 1994 F 1994 E 2 1 U U U/CIlex sintenisii [NCN] 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 11 1 S S S/CIliau, dwarf (Wilkesia hobdyi) 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CIndian paintbrush, San Clemente Island (Castillejagrisea) 8 1977 1984 F 1984 E 8 1 S S S/CIpomopsis, Holy Ghost (Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus) 2 1994 2002 F 2002 E 5c 1 S S S/CIris, dwarf lake (Iris lacustris) 3 1988 N/A none N/A T 8c 2 S S S/CIrisette, white (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) 4 1991 1995 F 1995 E 8 1 U U U/CIschaemum, Hilo (Ischaemum byrone) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CIvesia, Ash Meadows (Ivesia kingii var. eremica) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 8 3 S S S/MJacquemontia, beach (Jacquemontia reclinata) 4 1993 1996 F 1999 E 2 3 S D D/UJewelflower, California (Caulanthus californicus) 8 1990 1998 F 1998 E 2 2 S D D/CJewelflower, Metcalf Canyon (Streptanthus albidusssp. albidus) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 3c 1 D U U/UJewelflower, Tiburon (Streptanthus niger) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 5c 1 U U U/UJoint-vetch, sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) 5 1992 1995 F 1995 T 2 1 U U U/CKamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CKamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E 6 1 U U U/CKamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CKamakahala (Labordia triflora) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E 5 1 U U U/CKamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CKauai hau kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) 1 1986 1996 F 1996 E 2 1 U U U/CKauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CKaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CKioèle (Hedyotis coriacea) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CKiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CKoòkoòlau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 9 1 U U U/CKoòkoòlau (Bidens wiebkei) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CKoòloaùla (Abutilon menziesii) 1 1986 1995 F 1995 E 2 1 U U U/CKohe malama malama o kanaloa (Kanaloakahoolawensis) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 1 1 S D D/CKokiò (Kokia drynarioides) 1 1984 1994 F 1994 E, CH 2 1 S U U/CKokiò (Kokia kauaiensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CKokiò, Cooke's (Kokia cookei) 1 1979 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 C C N/AKokiò keòkeò (Hibiscus arnottianus ssp.immaculatus) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 3 1 U U U/CKokiò keòkeò (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3 1 U U U/CKolea (Myrsine juddii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CKolea (Myrsine linearifolia) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 T, CH 2 1 U U U/CKopa (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E 6 1 D U U/CKuahiwi laukahi (Plantago hawaiensis) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CKuahiwi laukahi (Plantago princeps) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CKuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 I U U/CKula wahine noho (Isodendrion pyrifolium) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 S U U/CKuluì (Nototrichium humile) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U D S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Ladies'-tresses, Canelo Hills (Spiranthes delitescens) 2 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 S S S/CLadies'-tresses, Navasota (Spiranthes parksii) 2 1982 1984 F 1984 E 2 1 D D D/ILadies'-tresses, Ute (Spiranthes diluvialis) 6 1992 N/A D 1995 T 2c 1 U S S/CLarkspur, Baker's (Delphinium bakeri) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 5 1 D D D/CLarkspur, San Clemente Island (Delphiniumvariegatum ssp. kinkiense) 8 1977 1984 F 1984 E 8 2 S S S/CLarkspur, yellow (Delphinium luteum) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 8c 1 D D U/CLau `ehu (Panicum niihauense) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 2 1 U D D/CLaulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CLayia, beach (Layia carnosa) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 U U U/CLead-plant, Crenulate (Amorpha crenulata) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 E 5c 1 D S I/CLeather flower, Alabama (Clematis socialis) 4 1986 1989 F 1989 E 2 2 S S S/CLeather flower, Morefield's (Clematis morefieldii) 4 1992 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 S S S/CLepanthes eltoroensis [NCN] 4 1991 1996 F 1996 E 5 2 S S S/CLeptocereus grantianus [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5c 1 S S S/CLessingia, San Francisco (Lessingia germanorum(=L.g. var. germanorum)) 8 1997 2003 F 2003 E 2c 1 D S S/CLiliwai (Acaena exigua) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 E U U/CLily, Minnesota dwarf trout (Erythronium propullans) 3 1986 1987 F 1987 E 8c 4 S D D/ILily, Pitkin Marsh (Lilium pardalinum ssp.pitkinense) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 U D D/ILily, Western (Lilium occidentale) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 2 1 U D D/CLipochaeta venosa [NCN] 1 1979 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U U U/CLiveforever, Laguna Beach (Dudleya stolonifera) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 S S S/CLiveforever, Santa Barbara Island (Dudleya traskiae) 8 1978 1985 F 1985 E 8 2 S S S/CLobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CLobelia monostachya [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CLobelia niihauensis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CLobelia oahuensis [NCN] 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Locoweed, Fassett's (Oxytropis campestris var.chartacea) 3 1988 1991 F 1991 T 9 2 S S S/CLoosestrife, rough-leaved (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) 4 1987 1995 F 1995 E 8 1 S S S/CLoùlu (Pritchardia affinis) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E 5 1 C U U/CLoùlu (Pritchardia kaalae) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 U D D/CLoùlu (Pritchardia munroi) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CLoùlu (Pritchardia napaliensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 U U U/CLoùlu (Pritchardia remota) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CLoùlu (Pritchardia schattaueri) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/CLoùlu (Pritchardia viscosa) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 U D D/CLomatium, Cook's (Lomatium cookii) 1 2002 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 N/A S S/CLousewort, Furbish (Pedicularis furbishiae) 5 1978 1983 F2 1991 E 14 2 S I I/ILove grass, Fosberg's (Eragrostis fosbergii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 E U U/CLupine, clover (Lupinus tidestromii) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/CLupine, Kincaid's (Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus)ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii)) 1 2000 N/A none N/A T 3c 1 S D D/CLupine, Nipomo Mesa (Lupinus nipomensis) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E 5 1 U U U/CLupine, scrub (Lupinus aridorum) 4 1987 1990 F2 1996 E 2c 2 S U U/MLyonia truncata var. proctorii [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 6 2 S U U/ULysimachia filifolia [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CLysimachia lydgatei [NCN] 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CLysimachia maxima [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CMahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CMakou (Peucedanum sandwicense) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 T, CH 8 1 U U U/CMalacothrix, island (Malacothrix squalida) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 S U U/CMalacothrix, Santa Cruz Island (Malacothrixindecora) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 U D D/CMallow, Kern (Eremalche kernensis) 8 1990 1998 F 1998 E 2 2 U S S/CMallow, Peter's Mountain (Iliamna corei) 5 1986 1990 F 1990 E 5 2 S I I/M



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Manaca, palma de (Calyptronoma rivalis) 4 1990 1992 F 1992 T 8 2 S U U/CManioc, Walker's (Manihot walkerae) 2 1991 1993 F 1993 E 5 2 I U U/CManzanita, Del Mar (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.crassifolia) 8 1996 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 D D D/CManzanita, Ione (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia) 8 1999 N/A none N/A T 5c 1 D D D/CManzanita, Morro (Arctostaphylos morroensis) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 T 2c 1 U U U/CManzanita, pallid (Arctostaphylos pallida) 8 1998 N/A D 2003 T 11c 1 U S S/CManzanita, Presidio (Arctostaphylos hookeri var.ravenii) 8 1979 2003 F 2003 E 12 1 D U U/CManzanita, Santa Rosa Island (Arctostaphylosconfertiflora) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 S D D/CMaò hau hele, (=native yellow hibiscus) (Hibiscusbrackenridgei) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 2 1 U I I/CMaòliòli (Schiedea apokremnos) 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CMaòliòli (Schiedea kealiae) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CMapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CMariposa lily, Tiburon (Calochortus tiburonensis) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 T 17 1 U U U/UMariscus fauriei [NCN] 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 14 1 U U U/CMariscus pennatiformis [NCN] 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CMeadowfoam, Butte County (Limnanthes floccosassp. californica) 8 1992 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D D/CMeadowfoam, large-flowered wooly (Limnanthesfloccosa grandiflora) 1 2002 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 N/A S S/CMeadowfoam, Sebastopol (Limnanthes vinculans) 8 1991 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 D D D/CMeadowrue, Cooley's (Thalictrum cooleyi) 4 1989 1994 F 1994 E 2 2 S U U/CMehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CMesa-mint, Otay (Pogogyne nudiuscula) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 2c 1 D D U/CMesa-mint, San Diego (Pogogyne abramsii) 8 1978 1984 F 1998 E 5 1 S S S/CMilk-vetch, Applegate's (Astragalus applegatei) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 5 2 D U U/CMilk-vetch, Ash meadows (Astragalus phoenix) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 8 2 D U U/M



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Milk-vetch, Braunton's (Astragalus brauntonii) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 E 8 1 D D D/CMilk-vetch, Clara Hunt's (Astragalus clarianus) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 U D D/CMilk-vetch, Coachella Valley (Astragaluslentiginosus var. coachellae) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 6 1 D U U/CMilk-vetch, coastal dunes (Astragalus tener var. titi) 8 1998 N/A D 2002 E 6c 1 S U U/CMilk-vetch, Cushenbury (Astragalus albens) 8 1994 N/A D 1997 E, CH 2 1 D D D/CMilk-vetch, Deseret (Astragalus desereticus) 6 1999 N/A none N/A T 8 1 U U U/UMilk-vetch, Fish Slough (Astragalus lentiginosus var.piscinensis) 8 1998 1998 F 1998 T 9c 1 D U U/CMilk-vetch, heliotrope (Astragalus montii) 6 1987 N/A D 1995 T, CH 8 3 U S S/CMilk-vetch, Holmgren (Astragalus holmgreniorum) 6 2001 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 D D D/CMilk-vetch, Jesup's (Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi) 5 1987 1989 F 1989 E 6 1 S D D/CMilk-vetch, Lane Mountain (Astragalus jaegerianus) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 U U U/CMilk-vetch, Mancos (Astragalus humillimus) 2 1985 1989 F 1989 E 5c 2 S S S/CMilk-vetch, Osterhout (Astragalus osterhoutii) 6 1989 1992 F 1992 E 2 1 U D D/CMilk-vetch, Peirson's (Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T, CH 3 1 U U U/CMilk-vetch, Sentry (Astragalus cremnophylax var.cremnophylax) 2 1990 N/A D 2004 E 3 1 S D D/CMilk-vetch, Shivwitz (Astragalus ampullarioides) 6 2001 N/A none N/A E 5 1 D D D/CMilk-vetch, triple-ribbed (Astragalus tricarinatus) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D D D/CMilk-vetch, Ventura Marsh (Astragaluspycnostachyus var. lanosissimus) 8 2001 N/A none N/A E, CH 6c 1 D I I/CMilkpea, Small's (Galactia smallii) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 E 5c 1 U U U/UMilkweed, Mead's (Asclepias meadii) 3 1988 2003 F 2003 T 8 1 D U U/CMilkweed, Welsh's (Asclepias welshii) 6 1987 1992 F 1992 T, CH 11 2 S S S/CMint, Garrett's (Dicerandra christmanii) 4 1985 1999 F 1999 E 2c 1 U U U/CMint, Lakela's (Dicerandra immaculata) 4 1985 1999 F 1999 E 2c 2 S U U/CMint, longspurred (Dicerandra cornutissima) 4 1985 1987 F 1987 E 2c 1 U U U/CMint, scrub (Dicerandra frutescens) 4 1985 1999 F 1999 E 2 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Mitracarpus maxwelliae [NCN] 4 1994 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/UMitracarpus polycladus [NCN] 4 1994 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/UMonardella, willowy (Monardella linoides ssp.viminea) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 6 1 D U U/CMonkey-flower, Michigan (Mimulus glabratus var.michiganensis) 3 1990 1997 F 1997 E 9c 2 S S S/MMonkshood, northern wild (Aconitumnoveboracense) 3 1978 1983 F 1983 T 8 3 D S S/CMorning-glory, Stebbins' (Calystegia stebbinsii) 8 1996 2002 F 2002 E 5c 1 U D D/CMountain balm, Indian Knob (Eriodictyonaltissimum) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 8c 2 U U U/CMountain-mahogany, Catalina Island (Cercocarpustraskiae) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S S S/MMunroidendron racemosum [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CMustard, Carter's (Warea carteri) 4 1987 1990 F 1999 E 2 1 U U U/UMustard, Penland alpine fen (Eutrema penlandii) 6 1993 N/A none N/A T 11c 1 S S S/CMustard, slender-petaled (Thelypodiumstenopetalum) 8 1984 1998 F 1998 E 5c 1 D D D/CMyrcia paganii [NCN] 4 1994 1997 F 1997 E 8 1 U U U/UNaènaè (Dubautia herbstobatae) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CNaènaè (Dubautia latifolia) 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CNaènaè (Dubautia pauciflorula) 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CNaènaè (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 8 1 D U U/CNani waiàleàle (Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CNanu (Gardenia mannii) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CNaupaka, dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) 1 1986 1997 F 1997 E 2 1 U U U/CNavarretia, few-flowered (Navarretia leucocephalassp. pauciflora (=N. pauciflora)) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 3 1 U U U/UNavarretia, many-flowered (Navarretia leucocephalassp. plieantha) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 3 1 U D D/CNavarretia, spreading (Navarretia fossalis) 8 1998 1998 F 1998 T 2 1 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CNehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CNehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 3 1 U U U/CNehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CNehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U D D/CNehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U D D/CNeraudia angulata [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U I I/CNeraudia ovata [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CNeraudia sericea [NCN] 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CNioi (Eugenia koolauensis) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CNiterwort, Amargosa (Nitrophila mohavensis) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 E, CH 8 1 U S S/MNesogenes rotensis [NCN] 1 2004 N/A none N/A E 2 1 N/A D D/CNohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 8 1 U U U/COak, Hinckley (Quercus hinckleyi) 2 1988 1992 F 1992 T 8 1 U U U/UOha (Delissea rivularis) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/COha (Delissea subcordata) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/COhai (Sesbania tomentosa) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 8 1 U U U/COhe`ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) 1 1994 1996 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/COlulu (Brighamia insignis) 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 U U U/COnion, Munz's (Allium munzii) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D D D/COpuhe (Urera kaalae) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/COrchid, eastern prairie fringed (Platantheraleucophaea) 3 1989 1999 F 1999 T 8 1 S S S/COrchid, western prairie fringed (Platanthera praeclara) 3 1989 1996 F 1996 T 8c 2 S S S/COrcutt grass, California (Orcuttia californica) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 5c 1 D D D/COrcutt grass, hairy (Orcuttia pilosa) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D S/IOrcutt grass, Sacramento (Orcuttia viscida) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E, CH 5c 1 D U U/COrcutt grass, San Joaquin (Orcuttia inaequalis) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T, CH 8 1 D D S/IOrcutt grass, slender (Orcuttia tenuis) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T, CH 8 1 S D S/I



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Osmoxylon mariannense [NCN] 1 2004 N/A none N/A E 2 1 N/A D D/COwl's-clover, fleshy (Castilleja campestris ssp.succulenta) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T, CH 9 1 D D D/COxytheca, cushenbury (Oxytheca parishii var.goodmaniana) 8 1994 N/A D 1997 E, CH 3c 1 D D S/IPaintbrush, ash-grey (Castilleja cinerea) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 D D S/IPaintbrush, golden (Castilleja levisecta) 1 1997 2000 F 2000 T 2 1 D S S/MPaintbrush, soft-leaved (Castilleja mollis) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 S S S/MPaintbrush, Tiburon (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 9c 1 U U U/UPalo colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 11 1 S S S/CPalo de jazmin (Styrax portoricensis) 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 S S S/CPalo de nigua (Cornutia obovata) 4 1988 1992 F 1992 E 5 1 S U U/UPalo de ramon (Banara vanderbiltii) 4 1987 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 U U U/UPalo de rosa (Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon) 4 1990 1994 F 1994 E 8 2 S U U/UPamakani (Tetramolopium capillare) 1 1994 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CPamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana) 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 3 1 U D I/IPanicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var. carteri) 1 1983 1994 F 1994 E, CH 9 1 U U U/CPawpaw, beautiful (Deeringothamnus pulchellus) 4 1986 1999 F 1999 E 2 1 U U U/UPawpaw, four-petal (Asimina tetramera) 4 1986 1999 F 1999 E 11 2 S S S/CPawpaw, Rugel's (Deeringothamnus rugelii) 4 1986 1988 F 1988 E 2 1 U U U/UPelos del diablo (Aristida portoricensis) 4 1990 1994 F 1994 E 5c 1 U U U/IPenny-cress, Kneeland Prairie (Thlaspi californicum) 8 2000 2003 F 2003 E, CH 2c 1 S U U/UPennyroyal, Todsen's (Hedeoma todsenii) 2 1981 1985 F2 2001 E, CH 8 2 S S S/MPenstemon, blowout (Penstemon haydenii) 6 1987 1992 F 1992 E 11c 3 I I I/CPentachaeta, Lyon's (Pentachaeta lyonii) 8 1997 1999 F 1999 E 2c 1 D D D/CPentachaeta, white-rayed (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 U U U/UPeperomia, Wheeler's (Peperomia wheeleri) 4 1987 1990 F 1990 E 5 1 S U U/UPhacelia, clay (Phacelia argillacea) 6 1978 1982 F 1982 E 2 1 D D I/IPhacelia, island (Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 3 1 S D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Phacelia, North Park (Phacelia formosula) 6 1982 1986 F 1986 E 8 2 U S S/CPhlox, Texas trailing (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) 2 1991 1995 F 1995 E 3 1 S S S/MPhlox, Yreka (Phlox hirsuta) 8 2000 N/A D 2004 E 5c 1 U U U/UPhyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E 6 1 E U U/CPhyllostegia hirsuta [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia kaalaensis [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia knudsenii [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia mannii [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia mollis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia parviflora [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia velutina [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia waimeae [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 C I I/CPhyllostegia warshaueri [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPhyllostegia wawrana [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPigeon wings (Clitoria fragrans) 4 1993 1999 F 1999 T 14 1 U U U/UPilo (Hedyotis mannii) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPink, swamp (Helonias bullata) 5 1988 1991 F 1991 T 1c 1 S S S/CPinkroot, gentian (Spigelia gentianoides) 4 1990 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D D D/MPiperia, Yadon's (Piperia yadonii) 8 1998 N/A D 2002 E 2c 1 S D I/IPitaya, Davis' green (Echinocereus viridiflorus var.davisii) 2 1979 1984 F 1984 E 3 1 U D D/IPitcher-plant, Alabama canebrake (Sarracenia rubraalabamensis) 4 1989 1992 F 1992 E 6 2 S S S/MPitcher-plant, green (Sarracenia oreophila) 4 1979 1983 F2 1994 E 8 2 S S S/MPitcher-plant, mountain sweet (Sarracenia rubra ssp.jonesii) 4 1988 1990 F 1990 E 3 1 U U U/UPlatanthera holochila [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPlum, scrub (Prunus geniculata) 4 1987 1990 F2 1996 E 2 3 S U U/CPoa siphonoglossa [NCN] 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U I I/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Poè (Portulaca sclerocarpa) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CPogonia, small whorled (Isotria medeoloides) 5 1982 1985 F2 1992 T 14 3 I S S/CPolygala, Lewton's (Polygala lewtonii) 4 1993 1999 F 1999 E 8 1 U U U/UPolygala, tiny (Polygala smallii) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 E 5c 2 S U U/CPolygonum, Scotts Valley (Polygonum hickmanii) 8 2003 N/A none N/A E, CH 5 1 N/A U U/CPondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 4 1986 1993 F 1993 E 8 1 D D S/IPondweed, Little Aguja (=Creek) (Potamogetonclystocarpus) 2 1991 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 I U U/UPopcornflower, rough (Plagiobothrys hirtus) 1 2000 2003 F 2003 E 2c 2 S S S/CPopolo ku mai (Solanum incompletum) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPoppy, Sacramento prickly (Argemone pleiacanthassp. pinnatisecta) 2 1989 1994 F 1994 E 3 2 D D D/CPoppy-mallow, Texas (Callirhoe scabriuscula) 2 1981 1985 F 1985 E 5c 1 D I I/CPotato-bean, Price's (Apios priceana) 4 1990 1993 F 1993 T 8 2 I S S/MPotentilla, Hickman's (Potentilla hickmanii) 8 1998 N/A D 2002 E 5c 1 D D D/CPrairie-clover, leafy (Dalea foliosa) 4 1991 1996 F 1996 E 5 2 S D D/CPrickly-apple, fragrant (Cereus eriophorus var.fragrans) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 E 3 1 S S S/CPrickly-ash, St. Thomas (Zanthoxylum thomasianum) 4 1985 1988 F 1988 E 2c 1 S S S/CPrimrose, Maguire (Primula maguirei) 6 1985 1990 F 1990 T 5 3 S S S/CPua àla (Brighamia rockii) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CPuùkaà (Cyperus trachysanthos) 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U I I/CPussypaws, Mariposa (Calyptridium pulchellum) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 D D D/URattleweed, hairy (Baptisia arachnifera) 4 1978 1984 F 1984 E 8 1 S S S/CReed-mustard, Barneby (Schoenocrambe barnebyi) 6 1992 1994 F 1994 E 11 1 S U U/UReed-mustard, clay (Schoenocrambe argillacea) 6 1992 1994 F 1994 T 17 1 U U U/UReed-mustard, shrubby (Schoenocrambesuffrutescens) 6 1987 1994 F 1994 E 4c 1 D U U/URemya kauaiensis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CRemya, Maui (Remya mauiensis) 1 1991 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Remya montgomeryi [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CRhododendron, Chapman (Rhododendron chapmanii) 4 1979 1983 F 1983 E 8c 1 S S S/CRidge-cress, Barneby (Lepidium barnebyanum) 6 1990 1993 F 1993 E 5c 1 U U U/URock-cress, Braun's (Arabis perstellata) 4 1995 1997 F 1997 E, CH 5 1 S S S/CRock-cress, Hoffmann's (Arabis hoffmannii) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 E 2 1 S D D/CRock-cress, McDonald's (Arabis mcdonaldiana) 8 1978 1984 F 1984 E 14c 1 U U U/URockcress, Santa Cruz Island (Sibara filifolia) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S I I/CRock-cress, shale barren (Arabis serotina) 5 1989 1991 F 1991 E 11 2 S U U/URosemary, Apalachicola (Conradina glabra) 4 1993 1994 F 1994 E 8 2 S S S/MRosemary, Cumberland (Conradina verticillata) 4 1991 1996 F 1996 T 8 1 S S S/CRosemary, Etonia (Conradina etonia) 4 1993 1994 F 1994 E 2c 1 S S S/CRosemary, short-leaved (Conradina brevifolia) 4 1993 1999 F 1999 E 8c 1 U U U/URoseroot, Leedy's (Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi) 3 1992 1998 F 1998 T 9 1 S D D/CRush-pea, slender (Hoffmannseggia tenella) 2 1985 1988 F 1988 E 2 1 S D D/CRush-rose, island (Helianthemum greenei) 8 1997 2000 F 2000 T 8 1 S S I/ISandalwood, Lanai (=`iliahi) (Santalumfreycinetianum var. lanaiense) 1 1986 1995 F 1995 E 3 1 U U U/CSandlace (Polygonella myriophylla) 4 1993 1996 F2 1999 E 8 2 U U U/USand-verbena, large-fruited (Abronia macrocarpa) 2 1988 1992 F 1992 E 2 1 S S S/CSandwort, Bear Valley (Arenaria ursina) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 D D D/CSandwort, Cumberland (Arenaria cumberlandensis) 4 1988 1996 F 1996 E 8 2 I S S/CSandwort, Marsh (Arenaria paludicola) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S D D/CSanicula mariversa [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CSanicula purpurea [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CSchiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis) 1 1984 1994 F 1994 E 5 1 U D D/CSchiedea haleakalensis [NCN] 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CSchiedea helleri [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CSchiedea hookeri [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CSchiedea kaalae [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Schiedea kauaiensis [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CSchiedea lydgatei [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 8 1 UU U U/CSchiedea membranacea [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CSchiedea nuttallii [NCN] 1 1996 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CSchiedea sarmentosa [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CSchiedea spergulina var. leiopoda [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CSchiedea spergulina var. spergulina [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 T, CH 9 1 U U U/CSchiedea verticillata [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CSchoepfia arenaria [NCN] 4 1991 1992 F 1992 T 5c 1 U U U/CSeablite, California (Suaeda californica) 8 1994 N/A none N/A E 8 1 U U U/USedge, golden (Carex lutea) 4 2002 N/A none N/A E 5 1 U U U/USedge, Navajo (Carex specuicola) 2 1985 1987 F 1987 T, CH 8 1 D D D/ISedge, white (Carex albida) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 U D D/CSilene alexandri [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 C C N/ASilene hawaiiensis [NCN] 1 1994 1996 F 1996 T, CH 8 1 U U S/USilene lanceolata [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CSilene perlmanii [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 C C N/ASilversword, Mauna Loa (=Ka'u) (Argyroxiphiumkauense) 1 1993 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 2 I I I/CSkullcap, Florida (Scutellaria floridana) 4 1992 1994 F 1994 T 2 1 U U U/MSkullcap, large-flowered (Scutellaria montana) 4 1986 1996 F 1996 T 8 3 I S S/CSnakeroot (Eryngium cuneifolium) 4 1987 1990 F2 1999 E 2 2 S S S/MSneezeweed, Virginia (Helenium virginicum) 5 1998 N/A D 2000 T 2 2 S I I/CSnowbells, Texas (Styrax texanus) 2 1984 1987 F 1987 E 2 1 S S S/MSpermolepis hawaiiensis [NCN] 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CSpineflower, Ben Lomond (Chorizanthe pungens var.hartwegiana) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 9 1 U U U/USpineflower, Howell's (Chorizanthe howellii) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 U U U/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Spineflower, Monterey (Chorizanthe pungens var.pungens) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 T, CH 15 2 S S S/CSpineflower, Orcutt's (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) 8 1996 N/A none N/A E 2 1 D D D/CSpineflower, Robust (incl. Scotts Valley)(Chorizanthe robusta (incl. vars. robusta andhartwegii)) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 3 1 U S S/CSpineflower, slender-horned (Dodecahemaleptoceras) 8 1987 N/A none N/A E 1c 1 D D D/CSpineflower, Sonoma (Chorizanthe valida) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 5 1 S U U/USpiraea, Virginia (Spiraea virginiana) 5 1990 1992 F 1992 T 9 3 D D D/ISpurge, deltoid (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 E 6c 2 U U U/USpurge, Garber's (Chamaesyce garberi) 4 1985 1988 F 1999 T 8 1 U U U/USpurge, Hoover's (Chamaesyce hooveri) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T, CH 2c 1 U D D/CSpurge, telephus (Euphorbia telephioides) 4 1992 1994 F 1994 T 2 1 U I I/MStenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia [NCN] 1 1979 N/A D 1993 E 2 1 U U U/CStenogyne bifida [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CStenogyne campanulata [NCN] 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CStenogyne kanehoana [NCN] 1 1992 1995 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CStickseed, showy (Hackelia venusta) 1 2002 N/A none N/A E 5 1 S S S/CStonecrop, Lake County (Parvisedum leiocarpum) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2c 1 U D D/CSumac, Michaux's (Rhus michauxii) 4 1989 1993 F 1993 E 2 1 S S I/ISunburst, Hartweg's golden (Pseudobahia bahiifolia) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2 1 U U U/USunburst, San Joaquin adobe (Pseudobahia peirsonii) 8 1997 N/A none N/A T 2 1 U U U/USunflower, Eggert's (Helianthus eggertii) 4 1997 1999 F 1999 T 14 4 I S S/CSunflower, Pecos (=puzzle, =paradox) (Helianthusparadoxus) 2 1999 N/A D 2004 T 8 1 U S S/MSunflower, San Mateo woolly (Eriophyllumlatilobum) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 11 1 U U U/USunflower, Schweinitz's (Helianthus schweinitzii) 4 1991 1994 F 1994 E 5 2 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Sunray, Ash Meadows (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var.corrugata) 8 1985 1990 F 1990 T, CH 15 4 S S S/MSunshine, Sonoma (Blennosperma bakeri) 8 1991 N/A none N/A E 5c 1 D D D/CTaraxacum, California (Taraxacum californicum) 8 1998 N/A none N/A E 5 1 D D D/CTarplant, Gaviota (Hemizonia increscens ssp. villosa) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 3 1 U S S/CTarplant, Otay (Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens) 8 1998 N/A D 2003 T, CH 5 1 D D D/CTarplant, Santa Cruz (Holocarpha macradenia) 8 2000 N/A none N/A T, CH 8 1 D D D/CTernstroemia subsessilis [NCN] 4 1992 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 S S S/CTetramolopium arenarium [NCN] 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E 5 1 U U U/CTetramolopium filiforme [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 I D S/ITetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 3 1 I U U/CTetramolopium remyi [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E, CH 2 1 I U U/CTetramolopium rockii [NCN] 1 1992 1996 F 1996 T, CH 14 1 I U U/CThelypody, Howell's spectacular (Thelypodiumhowellii spectabilis) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 T 8 1 S U U/IThistle, Chorro Creek bog (Cirsium fontinale var.obispoense) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 9 2 S S S/MThistle, fountain (Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale) 8 1995 1998 F 1998 E 6 1 U U U/UThistle, La Graciosa (Cirsium loncholepis) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 2 1 I U U/UThistle, Loch Lomond coyote (Eryngium constancei) 8 1985 N/A none N/A E 14 2 D D D/CThistle, Pitcher's (Cirsium pitcheri) 3 1988 2002 F 2002 T 8c 1 S S S/CThistle, Sacramento Mountains (Cirsium vinaceum) 2 1987 1993 F 1993 T 2 2 S S S/CThistle, Suisun (Cirsium hydrophilum var.hydrophilum) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 3c 1 D U U/CThornmint, San Diego (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 2 1 S S S/CThornmint, San Mateo (Acanthomintha obovata ssp.duttonii) 8 1985 1998 F 1998 E 6c 1 D U U/UTrematolobelia singularis [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CTownsendia, Last Chance (Townsendia aprica) 6 1985 1993 F 1993 T 11c 2 S S S/CTrillium, persistent (Trillium persistens) 4 1978 1984 F 1984 E 8 2 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Trillium, relict (Trillium reliquum) 4 1988 1991 F 1991 E 8c 2 U U U/UTuctoria, Greene's (Tuctoria greenei) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E, CH 2c 1 D D S/ITwinpod, Dudley Bluffs (Physaria obcordata) 6 1990 1993 F 1993 T 2c 2 S U U/IUhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiense) 1 1986 1994 F 1994 E 2 1 U U U/CUvillo (Eugenia haematocarpa) 4 1994 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 S S S/CVernonia proctorii [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5c 2 S S S/CVigna o-wahuensis [NCN] 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CViola helenae [NCN] 1 1991 1994 F 1994 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CViola lanaiensis [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1995 E 2 1 U U U/CViola oahuensis [NCN] 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CVervain, Red Hills (Verbena californica) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 8 1 U U U/UVetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) 1 1978 1984 F 1984 E 2c 1 U U U/CWahane (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii) 1 1996 Exempt Exempt Exempt E 5 1 U U U/CWallflower, Ben Lomond (Erysimum teretifolium) 8 1994 1998 F 1998 E 8 1 U U U/UWallflower, Contra Costa (Erysimum capitatum var.angustatum) 8 1978 1980 F2 1984 E, CH 6 1 D D D/CWallflower, Menzies' (Erysimum menziesii) 8 1992 1998 F 1998 E 2c 1 S S S/MWalnut, West Indian or nogal (Juglans jamaicensis) 4 1997 1999 F 1999 E 5 1 U U U/UWarea, wide-leaf (Warea amplexifolia) 4 1987 1993 F 1993 E 2c 1 U U U/UWater-plantain, Kral's (Sagittaria secundifolia) 4 1990 1991 F 1991 T 5 2 S S S/CWater-umbel, Huachuca (Lilaeopsis schaffnerianavar. recurva) 2 1997 N/A none N/A E, CH 3c 1 S I I/CWater-willow, Cooley's (Justicia cooleyi) 4 1989 1994 F 1994 E 8 1 U U U/UWatercress, Gambel's (Rorippa gambellii) 8 1993 1998 F 1998 E 2 1 U U U/CWhitlow-wort, papery (Paronychia chartacea) 4 1987 1990 F 1999 T 8 4 I U U/UWild-buckwheat, clay-loving (Eriogonumpelinophilum) 6 1984 1988 F 1988 E, CH 8c 2 D S S/CWild-buckwheat, gypsum (Eriogonum gypsophilum) 2 1981 1984 F 1984 T, CH 8 2 S S S/CWild-buckwheat, southern mountain (Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum) 8 1998 N/A none N/A T 3 1 D D D/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Wild-rice, Texas (Zizania texana) 2 1978 1985 F2 1996 E, CH 2c 1 D S S/MWire-lettuce, Malheur (Stephanomeria malheurensis) 1 1982 1991 F 1991 E, CH 2 2 S D D/CWireweed (Polygonella basiramia) 4 1987 1990 F 1999 E 2 3 I U U/UWoodland-star, San Clemente Island (Lithophragmamaximum) 8 1997 N/A none N/A E 2 1 S S S/CWoolly-star, Santa Ana River (Eriastrum densifoliumssp. sanctorum) 8 1987 N/A none N/A E 6c 1 D D D/CWooly-threads, San Joaquin (Monolopia(=Lembertia) congdonii) 8 1990 1998 F 1998 E 1 1 S U U/UXylosma crenatum [NCN] 1 1992 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CYellowhead, desert (Yermo xanthocephalus) 6 2002 N/A none N/A T, CH 7 1 S S S/CYerba santa, Lompoc (Eriodictyon capitatum) 8 2000 N/A none N/A E, CH 11 1 S S S/CZiziphus, Florida (Ziziphus celata) 4 1989 1990 F 1999 E 5 2 S U U/U

Non-Flowering Plants

Adiantum vivesii [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 S S S/CAsplenium fragile var. insulare [NCN] 1 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 6 1 U U U/CCladonia, Florida perforate (Cladonia perforata) 4 1993 1999 F 1999 E 2 1 U U U/CCypress, Gowen (Cupressus goveniana ssp.goveniana) 8 1998 N/A D 2002 T 9c 1 S S S/CCypress, Santa Cruz (Cupressus abramsiana) 8 1987 1998 F 1998 E 14 2 S S S/MDiellia, asplenium-leaved (Diellia erecta) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CDiellia falcata [NCN] 1 1991 1995 F 1998 E, CH 8 1 U U U/CDiellia pallida [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1995 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CDiellia unisora [NCN] 1 1994 1995 F 1998 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CDiplazium molokaiense [NCN] 1 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CElaphoglossum serpens [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/UFern, Alabama streak-sorus (Thelypteris pilosa var.alabamensis) 4 1992 1996 F 1996 T 9 1 S S S/CFern, Aleutian shield (Polystichum aleuticum) 7 1988 1992 F 1992 E 8 2 S S S/C



Common NameLead

RegionDate

Listed

Date ofFirst Final

PlanPlan

Stage *

Date ofCurrent

Plan

CurrentListing

Classifi-cation


RecoveryAchieved

FY 2002RRC

PopulationStatus

FY 2004RRC

PopulationStatus

2004Species/Threats

Info


Fern, American hart's-tongue (Aspleniumscolopendrium var. americanum) 4 1989 1993 F 1993 T 9 2 S S S/IFern, Elfin tree (Cyathea dryopteroides) 4 1987 1991 F 1991 E 5 1 U U S/CFern, pendant kihi (Adenophorus periens) 1 1994 1999 F 1999 E, CH 11 1 U U U/CIhiìhi (Marsilea villosa) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 8 1 D D D/CLichen, rock gnome (Gymnoderma lineare) 4 1995 1997 F 1997 E 5 1 U S S/COha wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) 1 1996 1998 F 1998 E, CH 2 1 U U U/COha wai (Clermontia lindseyana) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/COha wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes) 1 1992 1996 F 1996 E, CH 6 1 U U U/COha wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 6 1 U U U/COha wai (Clermontia peleana) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 C C N/AOha wai (Clermontia pyrularia) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 2 1 U U U/COha wai (Clermontia samuelii) 1 1999 2002 F 2002 E, CH 5 1 D U U/CPauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) 1 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U U U/CPolystichum calderonense [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/UPteris lidgatei [NCN] 1 1994 1998 F 1998 E, CH 5 1 U D D/CQuillwort, black spored (Isoetes melanospora) 4 1988 1993 F 1993 E 5 1 S S S/CQuillwort, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) 4 1992 1996 F 1996 E 14 2 I S S/CQuillwort, mat-forming (Isoetes tegetiformans) 4 1988 1993 F 1993 E 8 1 S S S/CTectaria estremerana [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 8 1 S U U/UThelypteris inabonensis [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/UThelypteris verecunda [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/UThelypteris yaucoensis [NCN] 4 1993 1995 F 1995 E 5 1 U U U/UTorreya, Florida (Torreya taxifolia) 4 1984 1986 F 1986 E 5 1 D D D/CWawaeìole (Huperzia mannii) 1 1992 1997 F 1997 E, CH 2 1 U U U/CWawaeìole (Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutans) 1 1994 1996 F 1996 E, CH 5 1 U U U/C


This 2004 report provides an update on therecovery of threatened and endangered speciesfor the period between October 1, 2002, andSeptember 30, 2004, and chronicles the progressof efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service andthe many partners involved in recovery efforts.

During this time, recovery efforts enabled threespecies to be removed from the Endangered andThreatened Species List. The Tinian monarch, asmall forest bird found only in the NorthernMariana Islands, the Hoover’s woolly-star, a flow-ering plant in California, and the Oregon popula-tion of the Columbian white-tailed deer were alldelisted. Vital recovery efforts resulted in theconservation of viable habitat and caused popu-lations to thrive. In addition, three species wereproposed for delisting due to recovery: the

Johnston’s frankenia, Eggert’s sunflower, and Eastern population of the gray wolf.

Substantial progress towards recovery has been made by many other species. Forexample, the Missouri bladderpod, a member of the mustard family, was reclassifiedfrom endangered to threatened after making significant progress towards recovery.As is the case in many of these actions, the success can be credited to individuallandowners who voluntarily implemented best management practices on their lands.

This report also documents the percentage of recovery plans completed for listedspecies. Recovery plans outline the on-the-ground actions and tasks necessary forspecies to recover to the point they can be considered for delisting or reclassification.The Service has demonstrated a marked improvement in finalizing recovery plans forthreatened and endangered species. For example, in 1994 only 54% of listed specieshad finalized plans, while by the end of this reporting period 82% of species had finalrecovery plans.

While implementing recovery actions and finalizing recovery plans is extremelyimportant for recovery, we also recognize the challenges in addressing the needs ofdeclining species and species whose population status is unknown. Thus, in 2005, theService initiated 5-year reviews for listed species under the Act, with the goal to deter-mine whether a species’ current classification is still accurate in light of new informa-tion, as well as current research and monitoring programs.

In summary, this Recovery Report to Congress shows 413 species of the 1,251 listedare considered stable or improving, which means that recovery activities and conser-vation efforts have reduced the threats or reversed population declines in 33 percentof all listed species. It can take years, even decades, to reverse the declining trend ofa species considered to be on the brink of extinction and facing overwhelming threats.

As we look back nearly 35 years since the passage of the ESA—one of the world’slandmark environmental laws—we should be pleased with how far we’ve come, butrecognize how far we still have to go. We are continuing to make strides in improvingthe status of listed species by implementing on-the-ground recovery activities andincreasing partnerships in cooperative conservation efforts.

From the Director Endangered Species Program Contacts

Washington D.C. OfficeEndangered Species Program4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420Arlington, VA 22203http://www.fws.gov/endangered

Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification:Christine Nolin; 703/358 2105

Chief, Division of Consultation, HCPs,Recovery, and State Grants:Rick Sayers; 703/358 2106

Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach:Claire Cassel; 703/358 2390

Region One — PacificEastside Federal Complex911 N.E. 11th AvenuePortland, OR 97232-4181http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Patrick Sousa; 503/231 6158

Jurisdiction: Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon,Washington, American Samoa,Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands, Guam and the PacificTrust Territories

Region Two — SouthwestP.O. Box 1306, Rm 4012Albuquerque, NM 87102http://ifw2es.fws.gov/EndangeredSpecies

Acting Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Susan Jacobsen; 505/248 6641

Jurisdiction: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Region Three —Great Lakes, Big RiversBishop Henry Whipple Federal BuildingOne Federal DriveFt. Snelling, MN 55111-4056http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:T.J. Miller; 612/713 5334

Jurisdiction: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin

Region Four — Southeast1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200Atlanta, GA 30345http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/

Chief, Endangered Species:Gloria Bell; 404/679 7100

Jurisdiction: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, andthe U.S. Virgin Islands

Region Five — Northeast300 Westgate Center DriveHadley, MA 01035-9589http://www.fws.gov/northeast/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Marty Miller; 413/253 8615

Jurisdiction: Connecticut, Delaware,Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

Region Six — Mountain-Prairie134 Union Boulevard, Suite 650Lakewood, CO 80228http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/endspp

Chief, Division of Ecological Services:Julie Lyke; 303/236 4213

Jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming

Region Seven — Alaska1011 E. Tudor RoadAnchorage, AK 99503-6199http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Michael Roy; 907/786 3925

Jurisdiction: Alaska

California/Nevada Operations Office2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606Sacramento, CA 95825http://www.fws.gov/pacific/cno.htm

Chief, Division of Endangered Species:Mike Fris; 916/414 6464

Jurisdiction: California and Nevada

Hawaii andPacific Islands

Region 1

AlaskaRegion 7

Puerto Rico &U.S.Virgin Islands

Region 4

CNO

Do you want more information on a particular threatened or endangered speciesor recovery effort near you? Please contact the Regional Office that covers theState(s) you are interested in. If they cannot help you, they will gladly direct youto the nearest Service office.

… recovery activitiesand conservation

efforts have reducedthe threats or

reversed populationdeclines in 33 percentof all listed species.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible under theEndangered Species Act for conserving and recovering ournation’s rarest plant and animal species and their habitats,working in cooperation with other public and private partners.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceEndangered Species Programwww.fws.gov/endangeredDecember 2006


Fiscal Years 2003-2004

u.s. fish & wildlife service report to congress on the recovery of … · 2010-04-09 ·...

Documents