U PDATE IncludingEndangered a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWS Bulletin

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ? School of Natural Resources i April 1990 Vo1 . 7 No. 6

In this issue: Mount Graham Red Austin Regional Squirrel Controversy Habitat conservation Plan Mercury Contamina- tion Threatens Florida Bald Eagle Status To Panther Be Reviewed Endangered Arizona Ecosystem Threatened by Telescope Development: The Mount Graham Red Squirrel Controversy by Paul Hirt

An endangexed species controversy an elevation of 10,700 feet, towering unique and rare biotic communities and has been raging in hnafor the past more than a vertical mile above the Gila associations of plants and animals five years pitting astronomers against River Valley of southeastern hna. which reach the limits of their northem biologists, and spawning a U.S. General It is part of the Coronado National For- or southern distributions on Mt. Gra- Accounting Office (GAO) investiga- est, which, as a whole, possibly hosts ham. The mountain also hosts at least 17 tion, congressional oversight hearings the greatest diversity of plant and ani- species that have protected status under (scheduled for June 26,1990), and a Si- mal species of any unit in the National state and federal endangered species erra Club Legal programs, Defense Fund with more (SCLDF) law- undergoing suit The con- 7 TELESOPE SITE study. Mt. troversy has Graham has alsoledtothe QUIRREL REFUGIUM been called a creation of an CRITICAL HABITAT "museum of environmental evolutionn protection coa- similar in lition of un- character to precedented %.* the Galapa- 3,- proportions. uu---* gos Islands. Superficially YT GRAHAM SIUDV AREA In addi- Anrocas 5kyltbndr- viewed as 7- tion to these "squirrels vs. ecological 'scopes" be- characteris- cause an endan- tics, the gered sub-spe- 1 Kn mountain has cies of red qualities at- squirrel has helped to block construc- Forest system.' The spruce-fir forest is tractive to astronomers: dark skies and a tion of a massive obsematory complex, a relict from the Pleistocene Era and is relatively arid climate. The Steward the controversy entered the national separated by a sea of desert from other Observatory at the University of spotlight recently when Secretary of similar forests found in the Rocky Arizona (UA) in Tucson has coveted Interior Manual Lujan remarked in ref- Mountains and high plateau areas of the Mt. Graham as a potential astrophysical erence to it, "Do we really have to save West. Many of the plants and mi- site since the early 1980s. The UA has every subspecies?" and "Nobody's told mals associated with this 700 acre Ca- telescopes on four other mountain me the difference between a red squir- nadian-type habitat have evolved in peaks surrounding Tucson, three on rel, a black one, or a brown one." What isolation from other related gene pools Coronado National Forest land already, is this issue that has spurred so much since the retreat of the last Ice Age yet they desire to develop Mt Graham national attention and contention? approximately 11,000 years ago. Three as an additional site. Since 1984, the The battle is over a small pocket of mammals are endemic to the mountain UA has been trying to clear the way for spruce-fir forest at the highest - including the now famous Mt. Gra- approval of an observatory composed elevations of a "sky-island" mountain ham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus of at least seven telescopes and support range in the desert Southwest Called hudsonicus grahamensis)- as well as a facilities. Approval was delayed and "Mount Graham," or the "Pinaleno dozen or more plants and invertebrates. limited, and now conslruction has been Mountains," this rugged range attains Besides endemic species, there are stalled, due to concerns raised by fed-

'A 1978 USFWS report identifled southeast Ariumr as having the greatest density of mammal species (species density not population density) in the United Staten. The report also identified eight "unique and nationally significant wildlife emsystems" in Arizona, and all but one of them occurred in the southeast pat of the state (Unique Wildlife EcarysIem of Arizona, Albuquerque: Region 2,1978). The Forest Senice says, "The diversity d plants and animals found on the Comnrdo is unique in the National Forest system." They have identifled 576 vertebrate species, including 321 birds, 1 13 mammals, 90 reptiles, 33 fishes, and 19 unphibirnr. As of 1986.61 of these species were classified as threatened or endangered by federal or state agenaes (Finol EIS, Cotonado Na~wnal For& Plan, Albuquerque: Swthwestern Region, 1986, pp. 5,54,68).

1 Endangered SpecrpecresUPDATE Vol. 7 No. 6 edand state wildlife agencies and a di- Graham red squirrel v. Clayton Yeut- verse coalition of opponents. The coali- ter, et tion includes most of the "Big Tenu Another aspect of the issue which Endan~redSpecks national environmental organizations has attracted attention is the fact that UPDATE (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Na- Congress passed a special authorization A form for ;Ifmion exchange a tional Wildlife Federation, etc.) as well for the observatory in October of 1988 urdongered spsciw iuvu as such odd bedfellows as animal rights - attached as a rider to the Arizona- A@ 1990 groups, rod and gun clubs, Earth First! Idaho Conservation Act (AICA) - Vd. 7 No. 6 and an international group of over six mandating that the first phase of the dozen Ph.D.s in the natural sciences project pmd. The authorization was Suzanne Jones...... Editor which call themselves "Scientists for designed to cut short the formal envi- Dr. Tvry Rod ...... Fdy Advisor the FVeservation of Mt. Graham." ronmental review process which had The issue has attained national and thus far denied approval of the observa- even international auention through tory proposal. Complaining that fur- Imtructhfor Auth: news stories in the Wall Street Journal, ther "&laysu would cause their col- New York Times, Sun Francisco Chron- laborators to seek out alternate sites, the The EadPngered Species UPDATE UA succeeded in convincing the welcomes uticler related to @ed icle, Denver Post, High Country News, ~oamawiderangeofwin- U.SA. Today, West Germany's news Arizona delegation to legislatively duding but not limited to: redand magazine Stern, other periodicals in preempt the federal agencies' authori- managanent activitier for mdanged Italy and Great Britain, and on National ties and allow immediate construction species. thddappmeches to of the first three telescopes. species mnrervatioa, and habii protec- Public Radio. Arizona reporters have tion and pruerve design. Book reviews, called this the most controversial and The rider, Title VI of the AICA, editorial canmcn~,and mouncanentr acrimonious environmental debate in "satisfied" National Environmental of current events and publications .re the state's history. At the present time, Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, even dw welcome. the SCLDF is suing the U.S. govern- though the Forest Service had yet to Rdersinclude a broad range of ment for violations of the Endangered write a Final Environmental Impact professionals in both scientific and Species Act (ESA), the Senate has Statement (EIS). It also eliminated or policy fields. Adcler Wdbe wri- called for a GAO investigation, and the delayed implementation of certain m an easily understandable style faa knowledgeable audience. House has scheduled oversight hear- USFWS required mitigation measures, Manuscrips should be 10-12 double ings. The main scandal involves allega- and have exempted the first phase spaced typed pager. For further tions that two key U.S. Fish and Wild- of the project from some of the provi- information please contact Suzanne life Service (USFWS) biologists were sions of the ES A. There are conflicting Jones at the number listed below. ordered to alter their findings in order to opinions about the degree to which the Subscription IIlformotion: justify a "predetermined intent" to ap- rider exempted the first three telescopes The Endangered Species UPDATE is prove observatory development within from further application of Section 7 of published approximately ten times per the critical habitat of the endangered the ES A dealing with biological consul- year by the School of Natural Resouma at The Univasity of Michigan. Annul Mt. Graham red squirrel. These allega- tation. That issue is being litigated now rates are $23 for regular cru-m, tions were made by the two federal bi- and will be a topic of discussion at the and $18 for studmu and senior atkm ologists last year in sworn depositions oversight hearings in June. (add $5 fapostage outside the U.S.). Graham Students please mclm advisu's submitted during the SCLDF lawsuit in This rider distinguishes Mt. signature on university letterhead; senior U.S. District Court in Tucson (Mount as another example of the recent grow- citizens enclose poof of age. Send check a money order (made payable to 'In a deposition dated Janua~yl l. 1990, USFWS Arizona field office head Sam Spiller wps questioned The University of Michigan) to: regarding his office's development of two drafts and a final Biological Opinion (BO) on the impact of the proposed observatory on the ML Graham red squirrel. On pages 93 and 94, Spiller was asked about Endangered Species UPDATE a "no jeopardy" decision m one of the earlier drafts regarding construction of four telescopes on ML School of Natural Resources Graham's "High Peak." Here is an excerpt of the interngation: Q: "Did he [the regional director] direct The University of Michigan you to produce an opinion that would put the scopes on High Peak? A: "Yes!' Q: "Before that decision AM Ahor, MI 48109-1115 was made, you had not caducted an adequate and onnplete evaluation of the adverse action on the (3 13)763-3243 squiml, is that correct?'' A: "Ycs, that's correct." Spiller was then asked, '[wlhat happened in May of 1988 that resulted in achangein the analysis between the two biological opinions, the draft and the final?" Cover: A: 'My regional director and the assistant regional direaw, Jim Young, ma with telescope ML Graham Red Squiml proponen tr..." Q: "And by telescope proponents, you mean representatives of the University of Ah, (7'amiarciurYp hudronicvr grahamenrir) is that correct?'' A: "Yes."... Q: "And it's your understanding that at this meeting the decision was ma& to switch the observatory site from High Peak to Emerald Peak, is that correct?" A: 'Yes ."... Q: "As a Photo by Bob Miles, biologist, is there my biologically sound justification for changing the pmjcct site from High Peak to Arizcna Game and Fish Department Emerald Peak?"... A: "I don't know of any" (pages 65-69). An excerpt from the first draft BO, page 38, says this about the Emerald Peak site: "Placement of a facility here would require clearing of spruce-fir The views expressed in the Endangered habitats... 'he destruction of habitat on Emerald Peak for siting an observatory would have greater det- Species UPDATE are those of the author rimental impacts than the proposed siting on High Peak. Furthermore, ~hmeimplcts on Emerald Peak and may not necessarily reflect beof could nd be reduced belowjeopardy with reaso~bleand prudenl alfernalives." (Emphasis added.) The the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or final BO was produced two months after the regional director's meeting with the University and it The University of Michigan. approved an observatory on Emerald Peak.

V01. 7 No. 6 Endangered Species UPDA TE 2 ing trend toward legislating species-by- posed Action (PA) called for a much critical habitat would have made it species exemptions to the ESA. In addi- more conservative development of fiye much more difficult to approve the tion, this issue is a paradigm of flawed to be built on only one peak, observatory because the telescopes are process. It exemplifies the abuse of "High Peak." Even though this seemed expected to cause the loss or adverse procedures, the loss of agency deci- like a major reduction in scope - so to modification of over 100 acres of prime sion-making autonomy, and the politi- speak - the PA did not actually fore- foraging habitat.) cization of science. The November 1, close opportunity for future expansion Because the squirrel became offi- 1988 issue of the LandLetrer, a national of facilities. It essentially approved the cially endangered in 1987, the law re- newsletter covering public lands issues firstphase of the astronomers' proposal quired consultation with the USFWS for resource professionals, featured a and provided all the necessary elements before an observatory could be ap story on the Mt. Graham rider. Its head- for an expanding observatory. proved. Thus, the USFWS was put on line characterized the rider as "the worst No one liked the Forest Service PA. the hot seat. In early 1987, researchers threat [to the ESA] since Tellico Dam," The UA wanted approval for more than from the UA, Forest Service, AGFD, quoting wildlife attorney Michael Bean five telescopes and more than one peak. and USFWS cooperated in the develop- of the Environmental Defense Fund. Conservationists, the AGFD, and the ment of a Biological Assessment (BA) With important cases like the spotted USFWS wanted no telescopes at all. to serve as the data base for the subse- owl coming down the pike, it is impor- The Coronado Forest received 1.35 1 in- quent Biological Opinion (BO) that tant to be cognizant of the tactics used dividual letters of comment on the Draft would determine the fate of the obser- by development supporters to circum- EIS - the largest response it had ever vatory proposal. The UA in the mean- vent the protections afforded by ESA, received on any issue -split about 501 time had scaled back to a ten telescope NEPA, and other environmental protec- 50 pro and con. The entire Arizona con- proposal, which the USFWS essentially tion laws. What follows below, then, is gressional delegation came on board at ignored as they assessed the impact of a brief history of the controversy from this point, and jointly sent a letter to the the Forest Service's five telescope PA. 1982 to the present, highlighting prob- Chief of the Forest Service supporting On August 3 1, 1987, the USFWS lems in the environmental assessment the observatory and urging him to ap- completed their BO and transmitted it to and decision-making process. prove a larger allocation than just the the Forest Service and the UA for re- Between 1982 and 1985, the five telescopes on High Peak. The Coa- view before releasing it to the public. Arizona Game and Fish Department lition to Preserve Mt. Graham, repre- They concluded that the Forest (AGFD) researched and prepared a re- senting 37 groups at that time, submit- Service's PA d jeopardize the sur- port under contract to the USFWS on ted a 100+ page comment on the Draft vival of the red squirrel over the long three endemic sub-species of mammals EIS documenting literally dozens of term (p. 5 & 29). By law, the USFWS living on Mt. Graham. One of them, the violations of law -- both procedural and must offer "reasonable and prudent al- Mt. Graham red squirrel, was recom- substantive. The AGFD accused the ternatives" to the PA if such a mended for listing as endangered. Also Coronado of "bias" and endorsed the "jeopardy" opinion is rendered. They in those same years, the UA developed a maximum protection alternative. The offered four, in descending order of proposal to build 18 telescopes with US Dept. of Interior, also opposing de- preference: (1) all telescopes would be support facilities, to be placed on sev- velopment, warned of a "resource con- placed on other existing, developed eral peaks in a 3,500 acre area at the flict of national signifi~ance."~ sites in southern Arizona; (2) & (3) the summit of Mt. Graham. Without the The designation of the Mt. Graham four telescopes would be placed on benefit of any environmcrl~alanalysis, red squirrel as an endangered species in various peaks and ridges on Mount the Coronado National Forest approved 1987 interrupted the Forest Service's Graham wideof high m-uirrel the entire observatory proposal in its preparation of a Final EIS. Like many habitat: and, least preferable, (4) four 1985 Coronado Forest Plan. other species recommended for listing telescopes would be placed on seven When the plan was released for in the 1980s, the red squirrel listing was acres on High Peak, similar to the Forest public comment, a great outcry ensued. inexplicably delayed in Washington, Service's Draft EIS recommendation. In response the Coronado forest super- D.C. for months. A letter-writing cam- The USFWS justified Alternative 4 visor agreed to prepare a separate EIS paign and threat of a lawsuit broke it by claiming that the jeopardy was mini- for the observatory. But this initial free in June of 1987. Critical habitat mal, and could be mitigated by tight endorsement set a significant precedent was proposed at the same time as the land use restrictions and the closing and and encouraged the UA to continue full- listing, but remained undesignated for reforesting of the jeep trail to the Emer- scale planning in anticipation of immi- several more years. The aforemen- ald Peak area -- an area which the UA nent approval. In October of 1986, the tioned Sierra Club lawsuit apparently dearly desired to develop. In sworn Coronado published their Draft Mt. dislodged the delay in 1990, nearly two testimony, however, the head of the Graham EIS. As a result of the environ- years beyond the deadline for designa- USFWSfwld ofice in Phoenix claimed mental impact analysis, the new Pro- tion as required by law. (Designation of that there was a "predetermined in-

'See Public Comments Md Forcrl Service Resporutc to the DEIS, Proposed MI.Graham Astrophysical Art ?a,Pinaleno Mountains, Coronado National Forest (Albuquerque: USFS Soulwestern Region, 1988) , pp. 619-20,245-421,670-71, & 710-12. ( Continued on UPDATE page 4)

3 Endangered Speuks UPDATE Vol. 7 No. 6 tent" by the Regional Director to pro- The Forest Service then directed the riod. The astronomers and their repre- vide an allocation on High Peak, even UA to submit a fum and final "mini- sentatives then met privately with the before any studies were completed. He mum viable observatory" proposal for regional and assistant USFWS directors said that he was "directed" to approve a analysis in an 'Zxpanded Biological at the Tucson airport in May of 1988, to High Peak observatory in the 1987 BO Assessment." The UA complied in drive home the fact that High Peak (see footnote #2). The Regional Direc- October 1987 (see Final EIS, Public alone was m.According to tor, Mike Spear, claims that there was Comments, pp. 544-Sl), with a pro- the court depositions, after that meeting simply a communications breakdown. posal for a seven telescope observatory Regional Director Mike Spear told his The GAO investigarion is supposed to to be built on both High and Emerald biologists in Phoenix to provide an clear this controversy up. Peaks (including space for two very Emerald Peak allocation, regardless of Regardless of any possible miscom- large instruments that had twice been their earlier conclusions (footnote #2). munications, Senator Dennis De- disallowed). This new proposal Again, this is explained as a failure to Concini and other members of the was the subject of another several communicate, and the GAO is expected Arizona delegation were pressuring months of environmental analysis, ac- to pass judgement on the circumstances both federal agencies to ''cooperate" celerated by the Forest Superviscx and motivations involved in this series with the UA and to "expedite" an ac- against the wishes of the consulting of events. The GAO report will be ceptable allocation. In fact, just six scientists, and in February of 1988 the presented at the oversight hearings the weeks after the USFWS released the Expanded BA was published. Two of morning of June 26, before rhe House BO for internal review, DeConcini was the four authors - the two not directly National Parks and Public Lands sub recorded on a radio talk show in Saf- employed by the Forest Service -dis- committee (Bruce Vento presiding). ford, Arizona, stating that he had "con- tanced themselves from the document The hearings are also co-sponsored by vinced the Forest Service just recently as soon as it was released. One co- Geny Studds' subcommittee in the to expand their environmental study to author, Dr. Peter Warshall, charged that House Merchant Marine and Fisheries include Emerald Peak." "Theywere not the Forest Service had unilaterally ed- Committee. going to do that," he added, "and we ited the findings, softening the assess- As a result of this private meeting asked them to do that under an expe- ment of the observatory's impact. He and the subsequent directive to change dited procedure, and I met with Sotero submitted a lengthy critique of the the Opinion, the field biologists rewrote Muniz, the director of the Forest Serv- document. AGFD biologist Barry their document so it would include an ice for this region, just last week ..." Spicer, author of the original study and allocation on Emerald Peak. The DeConcini went on to say he was opti- proposal to list the squirrel in 1984, agency formally released this reworked mistic that the project would go for- claimed the document "was so rushed, BO in July of 1988. It included three ward, and that he was "prepared to we have not been able to do a thor- "reasonable and prudent alternatives." fight" the opposition. "I'm committed oughly reliable job." Nevertheless, the The third and least preferable one of- to it, and I'll do anything I can, includ- BA still indicated that the UA's latest fered 3 telescopes on Emerald Peak ing trying to change the law to let it seven telescope proposal was unaccept- only, with a host of mitigation measures happen," he concluded. (By October of able. Starting in February, the second attached to it. The second alternative 1988 he had made good on his promise 90-day consultation began, based on repeated the offer of four telescopes on to legislatively intervene on behalf of this new BA. High Peak. The fmt, most preferred the UA.) On April 18, 1988, the Phoenix alternative, remained as no tel-. This USFWS approval of a High field office of the USFWS completed a Still, as of July, the UA had not Peak observatory turned out to be in- second draft BO. It reiterated the con- secured approval of their "minimum adequate for the UA's needs, however. clusions of the 1987 BO, i.e. seven tele- viable observatory." But Emerald Peak The astronomers insisted that the scopes would negatively impact too offered what they needed for a foot-in- agency include Emerald Peak in any many acres of habitat, foreclose too the-door. The Emerald Peak site by allocation. Their lawyers had mar- much opportunity to regenerate habitat itself was large enough to eventually shaled an argument that the BO was that had already been lost, and pose support all seven telescopes. With this illegal because it did not study the UA's unacceptable additional risk of preliminary, biologically unjustified version of a "viable observatory." extinction for the red squirrel. They approval, the UA went to Congress for Since the Forest Service PA was unac- offered four telescopes on High Peak relief. Claiming that the biologists were ceptable to the astronomers, the BA and again as a least preferable alternative, biased and that environmentalists in- BO based on it were moot, they argued. and required the closure of access to' tended to stonewall the project to death, Although this is a rather specious argu- Emerald Peak, judging that telescopes they asked the Arizona delegation to ment that probably would not have on Emerald ~ouldnot be effectively pass a law that would: (a) approve seven stood up in court, the Coronado Forest m. telescopes on Emerald Peak - three Supervisor, in September of 1987, This "draft" BO was never released now and four more lam (b) deem the chose to suspend the biological consul- to the public. Instead the document was requirements of applicable environ- tation, suppress the BO, and start all put on hold in response to a UA request mental laws "satisfied" so that oppo- over again. for an extension of the consultation pe- nents could not delay their project any

Vol. 7 No. 6 Endangered species UPDA TE 4 longer with appeals and litijption; and chant Marine and Fisheries Commit- nix Field Office recently indicated that (c) eliminate many of the mitigation tee, and Conmman Geny Studds they would like to mini* consultation. measures required in the BO that the @-MA),Chairman of the Subcommit- Unfortunately, the Washington office of UA saw as unnecessary. tee on Fisheries,W ildlife Conservation the USFWS, the Justice Department, and In August of 1988, legislation and the Environment, sent a letter to the Forest Service still cling to the view drafted by Patton, Boggs, and Blow (the Forest Service Chief Dale Robertson that the AICA rider exempted the fmt D.C. lobbying fm hired by the UA to and USFWS Director John Tuner, three telescopes from any finzher envi- lobby fat their project) and by Senator stating that they never intended the ronmental review under Section 7 of the DeConcini's 0fflce was leaked to the ESA to be circumvented and that bio- ESA. The oversight hearings may pro- press and the fight over the legislation logical consultation should be reiniti- vide the forum for resolution of this began. DeConcini's proposed language ated. Some statements in their letter stalemate. If not, final hearings in U.S. essentially met the criteria noted above, have important implications for other District Court in Tucson are scheduled although it was revised a number of instances where legislative exemptions for July 18. In the meantime, the UA has times in the process of traveling through to the ESA are contemplated, and so said it will begin clearing the forest for congressional committees until it was are reproduced here in some detail: the three telescope pads as soon as the deemed to be consistent with the (slcew- congressional hearings are completed. We ue writing to clarify the intent of Con- ered) BO. The legislation subsequently gress with respect to the ha-Idahoher- Thus, by the time a decision is ma& passed as a rider on the Arizona-Idaho vatioa Ad (Public Law 100696). . . During the about reconsultation, the whole issue Conservation Act in October of 1988. 100th Congress, we became aware of draft leg- may be moot. islative language under coasidention in the Even then, the congressional record Senate which would have waived the ESA and This experience validates the conten- shows that Senators DeConcini and NEPA as legal impediments to the amsmdoa tion that political considerations often McCain, and Congressman Jim Kolbe of the obrewatoty oa Mount Graham. Given exercise a controlling interest over bio- all promoted a slightly different view of our Canmiate's jurisdictional interest in mat- logical decisions. Neither the Forest the ten affeuing the ESA and NEPA Md ow gm- the intent of the legislation than their erd oppilhlo Mlandmrntr which amed or Service nor USFWS wanted to be other colleagues. waken those statutes, we expsed our objec- responsible for rejecting the observatory These members of the Arizona dele tion to the pmposed language [emphasis added]. proposal. They each approved small gation, along with the Bush As a result, lltcmative language was dnftcd, allocations, often against the better which we supported precisely because it was Administration's Justice Department consistent with the existing requirenents d judgement of their field biologists, and and lawyers for the UA now argue that Section 7 of the ESA . . . then tried to toss the ball into the other in this rider Congress mandated con- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) agency's court for final resolution. struction of the fmt three telescopes re- Section 7 consultation regulatims are direct and Eventually, a political solution overrode easy to undmtand . . . hguage referring to gardless of any changed conditions or the.se regulations is regularly included in Bio- both agencies' discretion. new information. In contrast, the Siena logical Opinions issued by the FWS, including Another lesson to be drawn is that Club plaintiffs, along with members of the July 14,1988 Opinion cn the Mount Gn- legislative intervention is likely to be the House Merchant Marine and Fisher- ham Obrewotoly. One of the mums we sup attempted when a powerful interest with podthe AICA was the foct thu his language ies Committee (which has jurisdiction pmviding for the reinitiation d msultatioa substantial financial endowments can over endangered species), argue that the war included in the Biological Opinion. Noh- gain the support of its state congressional rider did not exempt the project from the ing in Title VI of the AICA waiver, weakens or delegation. Fortunately, such intwven- in my way undermines the legal effect of this provisions of the ESA. language. tion is likely to run into resistance in the Since the October rider was passed, Merchant Marine and Fisheries the red squirrel population has suffered A month later, a similar letter was Committee if it involves significant ex- a devastating population decline due to issued by Congresswoman Claudine emptions to the ESA. Congress seems drought conditions affecting its food Schneider (R-RI) who sits on Gerry willing to "exmte" procedural "red sources. Its estimated numbers de- Studds' subcommittee. It was a bipar- tape," but not to weaken or amend the creased from an already critical low of tisan letter co-signed by over a dozen ESA. They also bristle at the thought of approximately 280 individuals in 1988, members of the two subcommittees federal agencies manipulating data to to about half that in the spring of 1990. sponsoring the hearings. The letter re- make controversial decisions appear The population is now below any rea- iterated the call for reinitiation of con- more palatable. Yet, the question re- sonable estimate of a "minimum vi- sultalion and further requested that no mains, will anything be done about all able" size. This population decrease, habitat disturbance occur until a new these Mount Graham improprieties after together with the allegations that the BO is written. The Forest Service had the hearings? Will the Mount Graham BO was improperly prepared, and the argued that even if reconsultation were red squirrel become North America's fact that critical habitat was just re- to take place, they had no authority to next extinct mammal? cently designated, provide just cause hold up the construction permit. Ms. HLt R.D. for the reopening of biological consul- Schneider and her colleagues dis- Paul is r candidate and instma of U.S. history pt the Univ. d Arizona @ept of His- tation and the preparation of a new BO. agreed. tory, Social Sciences 215, Univ. of AZ, Tucaon, On May 9,1990, Congressman Wal- Officials of the USFWS in the Al- AZ 85721). His dissertation topic is the history of ter Jones @-NC), Chairman of the Mer- buquerque Regional Office and Phoe- the National Forests from 1945 to the msent.

5 Endangered Species UPDA TE Vol. 7 No. 6 Book Review

The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide Edited by David W. Lowe, John R. Matthews, to Endangered Species of North America and Charles J. Moseley

As Russell E. Train, Chairman of the (67), reptiles (a),amphibians (111, The professional appearance and World Wildlife Fund, states in the for- fuhes (83), mussels (34, crustaceans appeal of this work is further enhanced ward, the fact that over 530 U.S. species (9), snails (9), and insects and arachnids by full color photos of 119 species. (b are listed for protection under the En- (21). cating sources of photographs for each , dangered Species Act may either be The standardized entry for each species was such a monumental task that viewed as a great achievement in envi- species contains a map, black and white the publishers also compiled a 73-page ronmental legislation or"a testament to photo, and physical description of the Endangered Species Photo Locator, our failure to wisely manage our pt which may be purchased along with the wealth of natdresources." This two- Guide.) volume encyclopedia marks a landmark Although the entries for each species in providing for the first time a compre- must obviously be limited in detail and hensive accounting of each of these length, the Guide provides a thorough federally listed species. Its stated pur- introduction to each species and its pose is to compile available information plight-in a form that will be useful to on U.S. listed species and present it in "a both high school students and resource language that is both readable and accu- managers alike. A starting point thus rate," in recognition of the need to get established, the extensive listing of con- this critical information to decision tacts and bibliographic sources point the makers, managers, and educators. way for those pursuing further reseatch. The work begins with a brief over- In addition, Ole compilation of informa- view of endangered species legislation tion on all listed species into one refer- in the United States by Michael J. Bean, ence allows the reader to summarize Chairman of the Environmental De data by state, habitat type, taxonomic fense Fund. Outlining the evolution and groupings, etc., as needed. ramifications of species legislation I commend the World Wildlife Fund since the passage of the Endangered on the fulfillment of its goal to provide a Species Act, Bean provides a useful medium by which conservationists, background for the rest of the work. species, along with an account of its managers, the media, Congress, and the This overview is followed by an edi- habitat, behavior, historic range, cur- public can easily and quickly locate in- tors' introduction discussing the vo- rent distribution, reasons for decline, formation on listed species. As the edi- lumes' contents, the methods used in and conservation and recovery efforts. tors state, "access to this information is obraining information for the book, For easy reference this information is vital, not only to raise the level of public and general somes where further infor- also summarized in a list at the begin- debate, but to evaluate the shortcomings mation on endangered species may be ning of each entry, along with the and successes of the nation's species found. Complementing this infonna- status, date of listing, taxonomic fam- protection and conservation programs." tion are several appendices containing ily, diet, and region of occurrence. In Unfortunately, the cost of the volumes addresses of U.S. and Canadian agency addition, readers are provided with ac- will be prohibitive to many who will offices involved with endangered spe- cess to further information by inclusion wish to obtain and use them. (To the cies protection. of a bibliography and the address of a publisher's credit, however, a special I The Guide covers all species occur- contact person for each species. discount is being offered to academic, ring within the United States and Wrto Numerous other efforts were made zoo, and museum libraries which pur- Rico that were listed as federally endan- to increase the Guide's usability--es- chase multiple copies.) Those who can gered or threatened as of August 1989. pecially for readers unfamiliar with the afford the luxury of this work, however, Shorter descriptions of 15 species listed subject matter. Each volume contains a will greatly benefit from use of this from September to November are con- glossary of ecological terms, an appen- landmark resource. tained in appendices. (Future editions dix of state by state species occurrence, 'he Gvidr k available fa $195, plus 5% shipping will include species added after No- and a quick index of common and sci- @.C. residents add 6% tax) from Bebdrun Pub vember 1, 1989.) Volume One is de- entific species names, as well as a more lishing, Inc., 2100"s" St, NW,Wurhingtoa, DC voted to plants (219) and mammals extensive index containing all "prob- 20008; (202) 234-0877. Review by Suzanne Jarerr, UPDATE Editor. (58), while Volume Two covers birds able permutations* of common names.

Vd. 7 No. 6 Endangered Species UPDATE 6 Bulletin Board

Snow Leopard Publications For copies, contact: International Snow tleship), Passerine Birds (Barry Noon), Leopard Trust, 4649 Sunnyside Ave, Large Carnivores (Maurice Hor- The International Snow Leopard North, Seattle, WA 98 103, nocker), Rapsors (Stan Temple), and Trust is a non-profit foundation dedi- Furbeams (Bill Clark). For more infor- cated to the conservation of the endan- Wildlife 2001 Conference mation, contact Dale McCullough gered snow leopard and its mountain (415) 642-8462, or Reg Barrett (415) habitat. Three Trust publications are The Bay Area Chapter of the Wild- 642-7261, Dept of Forestry and Re- currently available: life Society, the Western Section of the source Mgmt, 145 Mulford Hall, Univ. Proceedings of the Fjfrh International Wildlife Society, and the University of of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. Snow Leopard Symposium (1988), ed- California at Berkeley are sponsoring ited by H. Freeman (269 pp), contain- Wildlie 2001: Populations next year Politics of the Environment ing papers from the 1986 conference in in Oakland, California from July 29-3 1, Srinagar, India, which address three 1991. This international event is in- Ihe Congressional Quarterly, a themes: distribution, status and studies tended for research workers and agency weeldy publication reporting on the of wild populations; management of personnel interested in the science, con- federal legislative process, has back captive populations; and conservation servation and management of verte- issues available of their January 20, Pn'&TraJ"s- brate populations (excluding fish and 1990 Special Report, "Power of the A Review of the Status and Ecology of primates). The conference is a follow- Earth," dedicated to the politics of the the Snow Leopard (1989). by JL. Fox up of the highly successful Wildlife: environment. This 55 page document (40 pp), which summarizes information 2000 which emphasized habitat model- provides a historic overview of the on snow leopard ecology, behavior, ing; a companion volume will be pub environmental movement, details the distribution, and conservation in a very lished. Papers will assess the state of rise of environmentalism into the politi- readable form. the art and set the agenda for future cal mainseeam, and analyzes the poli- An Annotated Bibliography oflitera- applied wildlife population work. The tics, key players, and the likely out- ture on the Snow Leopard (1989), by following sessions, with chairs, will be comes and ramifications of environ- JL. Fox (69 pp), the most comprehen- held: Methods (Gary White), Modeling mental legislation in the lOlst Con- sive catalogue to date on the species, (Carl Waiters), 7lmaened Species gress. Cost of the report is $15 each, containing ova 500 annotated refer- (Kathy Ralls), Small Mammals (Lloyd plus $1.95 postage (add 6%sales tax for ences. Keith), Marine Mammals (Chuck D.C. residents). Orders of ten or more Proceedings is available for $19 Fowler), Waterfowl (Doug Johnson), are discounted. Contact: Aprile ($17 for ILST members), plus $2.50 Overabundant Populations (Fred Wag- Crawford, Congressional Quarterly, postage each ($5 overseas). Statw is ner), Herps (Norman Scott), Large Inc., Dept. LB, 1414 22nd Street, NW, $4, and Bibliography $4.50, plus $2.50 Herbivores (Fred Bunnell), Game Birds Washington, DC 20037 (1-800-432- postage for one or both ($5 overseas). (John Rosebeny), Seabirds (David Net- 2250, ext. 437).

Non-Profit Organization U.S. POSTAGE Endangered Species PAID Ann Arbor, MI UPDATE Permit No. 144

School of Natural Resources The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 481 09-111 5