U PDATEIncludingEndangered a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWS Bulletin

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN October 1988 Vol .5 No. 12 School of Natural Resources

In this Issue: What Place For The Listing Protection Grizzly? Proposed For Seven Species

Sea Turtle Conserva- Recovery Plans Dis- tion in the Southeast- cussed for Three ern Continental U.S. Species What Place for the Grizzly?

by Stan Tixier

The grizzly bear needs a lot of land. national parks -Glacier, Grand Teton, tors hoping to see a grizzly bear. For Key to survival of this federally listed, North Cascades, and Yellow stone others, a lifestyle dependent upon the threatened species is maintaining and and 19 national forests-Beaverhead, land and its resources- logging, ranch- enhancing the habitat that remains for Bridger-Teton, Custer, Flathead, Ga- ing, mining, real estate development- the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. latin, Idaho Panhandle, Shoshone, may be hampered by efforts to resuict Because many interests have a stake in Targhee, Lewis and Clark, Helena, developments in grizzly bear habitat. what happens to this land, coordination Lolo, Kootenai, Colville, Bittemt, Governors, congressmen, and other and cooperation are key to successful Nez Pierce, Clearwater, Okanogan, elected representatives in the four states recovery of the bear and its habitat. For Wenatchee, and Mt. Baker- with grizzly bear populations are sensi- the past four years, an assortment of Snoqualamie. Some grizzly habitat is tive to the needs of their local constitu- state and federal agencies has worked also under the jurisdiction of the Bureau ents and often intercede when local in- quietly to cooperate in and coordinate of Land Management, all aspects of grizzly bear habitat and Indian tribes, state population management. This venture, agencies, counties, done under the auspices of the Inter- and private landown- agency Grizzly Bear Committee, could ers. The Fish and set a new precedent in cooperative natu- Wildlife Service is re- ral resource management. sponsible for aiding The grizzly bear, which once the recovery of threat- roamed the western United States from ened and endangered Canada to Mexico, now lives on about species. State wildlife 20,000 square miles in six areas of four agencies in Montana, states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Idaho, Wyoming and Washington. Grizzly bear populations Washington admini- exist in the greater Yellowstone area of ster wildlife popula- Wyoming, Montana and Idaho; along tions, including griz- the Continental Divide in northern zly bears. Montana; in the Cabinet/Yaak area in Each agency has northwestern Montana and northeast- its own agenda and em Idaho; in the Selkirk mountains of operating procedures. northern Idaho, and in the North Cas- For instance, the Na- cades of northwestern Washington. tional Park Service preserves land for terests are threatened by federal or state How to manage these lands to help griz- public enjoyment. It administers na- bureaucracies. zly bear populations recover has been tional parks as natural areas, based on In the greater Yellowstone area, the subject of increasing controversy. the policy of noninterference with park home to about 200 grizzly bears, nearly A complex array of agencies and life forms and their natural environ- 30 different political entities govern the individuals have jurisdiction over land ment. The Forest Service administers land. That includes 2 national parks, 6 used by the bears. Critics call this com- national forest land for multiple uses, national forests reporting to 3 different plexity a threat to survival. Natural re- including wildlife, watersheds, recrea- regional offices, 2 national wildlife ref- source professionals see this diversity tion, timber, grazing, minerals, and wil- uges, 3 states, 13 counties, and the Bu- as an opportunity to provide many derness--depending on the unique reau of Land Managment. benefits to the public, including healthy character of each area. And the wide-ranging grizzly is no populations of grizzly bears. In addition, long-time residents of respecter of political boundaries. The the towns and ranches in and around bear's home range is among the largest A Crowded Picture grizzly bear country have a stake in of any mammal; 100 to 400 square what happens to the land. Owners of miles is average, with some males rang- The land management picture is resorts and small-town businesses may ing 1,100 square miles or more. The crowded. Most grizzly habitat is in four welcome the tourist revenue from visi- bears of Yellowstone National Park

Vol. 5 No. 12 Endangered Species UPDATE 1 spend a good deal of time on adjacent agency Grizzly Bear Committee was national forest land and some time on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Steering private land. Although private land is Committee, established in 1973 to coor- only 1 percent of the grizzly's habitat in dinate grizzly bear investigations in the the Yellowstone area, about 60 percent Yellowstone area. of the human-bear conflicts occur there. When the grizzly bear was listed as a Endangered Species Close coordination is needed for bear threatened species in 1975 under the UPDATE Endangered Species Act, agency offi- habitat management among the varying A forum for information exchange on entities. cials saw the need for integrated bear endangered species issues and bear habitat management beyond the greater Yellowstone area. Listing October 1988 Interagency Cooperation occurred because of concerns about a Vol. 5 No. 12 possible population decline, continuous Rob Blair ...... Editor For several years a unique blend of resource demands on shrinking bear Michael Soul6 ...... Faculty Advisor state and federal agencies has been habitat, and deficient information on bear tackling this problem. The Interagency grizzly biology. The Endangered Species UPDATE Grizzly Bear Committee was created in After the Fish and Wildlife Service welcunes articles related to species 1983 to get top-level agency action on developed its final recovery plan for the protection in a wide range of areas in- grizzly bear management problems and grizzly bear in 1982, officials devel- cluding but not limited to: research and management activities for endan- to coordinate grizzly bear research, oped the Interagency Grizzly Bear gered species, theoretical approaches management and funding in the lower Committee to coordinate management to species conservation, and habitat 48 states. The committee was estab- and research for all grizzly bear habitat protection and preserve design. Book lished by a memorandum of under- areas. the copmittee and its sub reviews, editorial comments, and an- nouncements of current events and standing among the secretaries of inte- committees cover all entities of the six publications are also welcome. rior and agriculture and the governors known grizzly bear ecosystems: Yel- of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and lowstone, Northern Continental Divide, Readers include a broad range of pro- Washington. Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, Bitterroot, and fessionals in both scientific and policy fields. Articles should be written in Every agency that has a stake in griz- North Cascades. Other subcommittees an easily understandable style for a zly bear recovery is represented on the coordinate research and public informa- knowledgeable audience. committee- those that administer the tion and education efforts. Manuscripts should be 7-10 double land and those that manage the animal The committee's goal is to help the spaced typed pages. For further information please mntact Rob Blair itself. Committee members include the grizzly bear populations recover at the number listed below. regional directors of the Forest Service, through coordinated policy, planning, Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife research, management, and funding in Service; fish and game directors from the lower 48 states. There is also a need Subscription Information: the four states; a BLM state director; for coordination along the United and Canadian representatives. Sub- States-Canadian border because, again, The Endangered Species UPDATE is committee members include the offi- grizzly bears in the Selkirk, Cabinet- published approximately ten times per year by the School of Natural cers from these agencies as well as In- Yaak, North Cascade, and Northern Resources at ?he University of dian tribal representatives. Different Continental Divide ecosystems do not Michigan. Annual subscriptions are agency heads serve a two-year term as recognize political subdivisions. Wild- $15 each ($18 outside the U.S.). Send committee chairman. life officials from British Columbia check or money order (made payable The need for a coordinated approach recently became associate committee to ?he University of Michigan) to: to managing grizzlies and their habitat members. Endangered Species UPDATE was recognized long before 1983. Griz- The committee emphasizes pro- School of Natural Resources zly bear problems were among many grams in three major areas: grizzly bear The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1 115 natural resource issues approached population and habitat management, (3 13)763-3243 jointly through the Greater Yellowstone law enforcement, and public education. Coordinating Committee established in It is coordinating research to assess and the early 1%0's and comprised of the minimize impacts of human develop- Cover: Forest Services Northern, Rocky ment on vitally needed grizzly bear Grizzly Bear Mountain, and Intermountain regional habitat. It has also helped to devise pol- (Ursrcs arctos) foresters; the Park Service's Rocky icy restricting or mitigating develop- Mountain regional director; and af- ment that would reduce the land avail- Photo by Gene Colling fected park superintendents and forest able to the bear, both in quantity and supervisors. A forerunner to the Inter- quality of habitat. c Vol. 5 No. 12 Endangered Species UPDA TE 2 Cumulative Effects lines," adopted by land managers with conference call with the Fish and Wild- public counsel, coordinate different life Service, Animal and Plant Health A key research effort is to provide land uses with the needs of the grizzly Inspection Service, and appropriate managers with a tool to assess the com- bear. Grizzly bear habitat on park and land agencies. If capture is necessary, bined or cumulative effects of several forest land is managed in terms of zones state game officials trap the problem activities on a given area of grizzly bear or situations, with the highest restric- bear with help from the Fish and Wild- habitat. Managers realize that cumula- tions on development activities in areas life Service and the land management tive impacts may be greater than the key to grizzly survival. In those habitat agency involved. If the bear is trans- effects of individual activities. To as- areas zoned "Management Situation 1," ferred from a national forest to a park, sess this situation, the committee devel- grizzly bears are the priority resource, helicopter costs for bear relocation are oped a computerized process to analyze and conflicts are resolved in favor of the shared by the state, Fish and Wildlife cumulative effects of any combination bear. For, instance, a livestock operator Service, originating forest, and park. of activities - called "cumulative ef- may have a permit to graze sheep in a Agencies have teamed up in writing fects analysis." The model shows what Situation 1 area on national forest land. and enforcing rules, providing supplies, impacts a given combination of activi- However, if a grizzly bear begins fol- and working with communities to better ties will have on grizzly bear food and lowing the herd and attacking sheep, the manage the land used by grizzly bears. cover, habitat diversity, and seasonal sheep will be moved off the national In the Yellowstone area, interagency range. Managers can use this tool to forest area if necessary. If the bear per- cooperative management is forcing the minimize adverse development im- sistently returns to the area occupied by bears to rely more on natural food pacts and spot management opportuni- sheep, forest managers might resolve sources rather than human garbage, ties that may benefit the bear and its the problem by moving the sheep to an- thus reducing opportunity for bear- habitat. For instance, the model might other permitted grazing area. Leases for human interactions and problems. show that the combination of road con- oil and gas drilling in Situation 1 areas It works this way: Yellowstone and struction, human activity, and reduc- would be issued only with restrictive Teton National Parks enforce rules re- tion in cover required to implement a stipulations to protect the bear, such as quiring visitors to use sanitary camping proposed timber sale may have detri- temporary roads and limited visits by practices for storing garbage and fresh mental impacts on the bear. In this case, drillers during certain seasons. foodout of bears' reach and smell. Each a manager might be able to mitigate the On land considered less important year, regional foresters from the three impacts by requiring temporary roads grizzly habitat, other uses become more Forest Service regions encompassing and only limited access to the area dur- important in this zoning scheme. Situ- the Yellowstone area issue a joint spe- ing certain seasons to accomplish the ation 3 areas, for example, include cial order for national forests in that sale. On another site, partial clearing of campgrounds and other areas where area. That order covers similar sanitary a site and replanting with huckleberries grizzly bears may be infrequently pres- practices for campers, backpackers, and might increase bear habitat. ent and where intensive human use hunters. National forests also have writ- In the greater Yellowstone area, na- makes the bears' presence undesirable. ten similar requirements into permits tional forest and national park manag- The priority in these areas is to mini- issued to backcountry outfitters and ers have developed a joint aggregation mize human-bear conflict; bear reloca- guides. The forests also provide bear- of management plans. This aggregation tion is a common strategy when prob- proof storage containers and meat hang- summarizes existing management pro- lems persist. ing poles for Yellowstone backcountry visions of the Park Service and Forest Problem bear relocation itself is a users. The Fish and Wildlife Service Service to provide a picture of the area major exercise in interagency coordina- and state fish and game agencies work as plans are applied over the next dec- tion. State game departments manage with the Park Service and Forest Serv- ade. It shows impacts of the plans on all wildlife; the Fish and Wildlife Service ice to enforce these regulations, patrol- natural resources in the area, including is responsible for grizzly bear recovery; ling the backcountry to identify, warn, bears and their habitat. and bears are often relocated to or from or prosecute offenders. In addition, the Other habitat-related research in- national park and national forest land. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee's cludes monitoring bear population All these entities must be involved. Yellowstone Subcommittee members trends to see where and how human Idaho state law also requires coordina- are working with so-called "gateway activities have impacts on the grizzly, tion with the agriculture department's communitiesm- towns that border the use of satellite imagery and terrain animal damage control division, which Yellowstone area - to help them bear- models of plant communities to map handles predator control. proof holding containers and reduce grizzly bear habitat, and studies on the Agency officials have developed a visits to town by "garbage bears." impacts of roading and oil and gas de- grizzly relocation procedure flow chart In the town of West Yellowstone, velopment on bear habitat. to outline protocol for handling bear garbage containers are being bear- Cooperative management also has problems. Reports on a nuisance bear proofed in and around town through a helped maintain or enhance grizzly outside a national park go to the state cooperativeeffort by the committee, the bear habitat. "Grizzly Bear Guide- game agency, which, in turn, initiates a city of West Yellowstone, Gallatin

( Continued on UPDA TE page 4)

Vol. 5 No. 12 Endangered Species UPDATE 3 County, Montana Natural resources When there is a bear mortality, car- are developing copies of this exhibit for Department, the Gallatin National For- casses are sent to a crime lab for a public education efforts. est, and private organizations arranged necropsy similar to that conducted in a by the Audubon Society. The Forest homicide investigation. There is also a Well Worth the Effort Service bought 16 bear-proof sharing of equipment, manpower, dumpsters in 1985 and placed them in horses, patrol cabins, and intelligence, Interagency Grizzly Bear Commit- national forest campgrounds in the which creates more efficient use of each tee members hold meetings to hear from West Yellowstone area. After the camp agency's resources. In addition, the those who live near grizzly bears or who grounds closed in the fall, the dumpsters patrols have reduced the number of are interested in the bears. The commit- were moved into town to replace to dirty backcountry camps that attract tee meets twice a year, including a replace the most-used dumpsters that bears, solved several illegal bear killing spring field tour in one of the grizzly were not bear-proof. The Montana state cases, and served as a deterrent to bear bear ecosystems. During this tour, legislature has authorized additional killings by commercial poachers. members schedule public hearings in money on a matching fund basis for adjacent towns and try to meet infor- bear-proofing waste disposal contain- public Education mally with resort owners, ranchers, re- ers in the area. So far, $40,000 has been creationists, agency field people, and matched with contributions, including Humans are the main cause of griz- others who live or work with the bears. the Forest Service dumpster donation zly bear deaths. Bears have been shot, At these listening sessions, commit- and funds from Gallatin County, Burl- trapped, and poisoned for sport, protec- tee members have heard a variety of ington Northern Foundation, and the tion of human life, livestock predator conflicting ideas on dealing with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife control, and commercial hunting. Some grizzly bear. Some participants have and Parks. The Audubon Society and have been killed in attempts to rid the asked for bear protection at all costs, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, country of grizzly bears- a tradition with a moratorium on all activities that another private organization, are con- that started with early explorers who might have adverse impacts on grizzly tinuing to seek additional matching believed the animal was threat to hu- bears. Others have asked for the right to funds to buy all necessary dumpsters. mans. Habitat alteration and the en- protect themselves, their livestock, and croachment of civilization have con- their property from problem bears. Cooperative Law Enforcement tributed to the bear population decline. Some say the rules and regulations for Committee agencies have worked to outfitters and for bear country use are Cooperative law enforcement is an reduce human-bear conflictsby educat- too much bureaucratic interference, Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee ing those who visit or live in grizzly threatening their way of life. Oil and gas success story. Since the interagency bear country on how to get dong with companies, timber companies, and ski group developed, the Forest Service, the bear. Bears are opportunistic ani- resort developers are often frustrated by Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife mals and quick learners; they will return perceived delays and difficulties bear Service have initiated joint backcountry regularly to a food source. To prevent protection regulations mean for their horseback patrols in grizzly bear coun- this, communities and resorts in bear projects. try. These multipurpose patrols monitor habitat have been encouraged to clean There probably is no single answer grizzly bears, help sheep herders keep up and secure garbage at sites that at- to how people can "get along with the bears and sheep apart, investigate hu- tract bears. Agencies and private coop- bear," minimize encroachments on bear man-bear incidents, and sometimes erators have provided bear-proof stor- country, and still pursue their varied catch and prosecute grizzly bear poach- age containers and game meat hanging needs and interests. That's why the In- ers. They also visit hunter, outfitter, and poles in backcouny areas, along with teragency Grizzly Bear Committee will backpacker camps to educate clean-camp regulations for outfitters continue to direct many interests, mis- backcountry visitors on grizzly bear and the public. The agencies have sions, and methods toward a single protection laws and outline required jointly printed several pamphlets on goal: restoring viable grizzly bear popu- procedures for safe food storage and safe bear country visitation, including lations and habitat in the United States. camping in grizzly bear country. Each "Bear Us in Mind," and "Grizzly, Griz- The management task is complex, but federal agency also enforces special zly, Grizzly!" The interagency commit- the goal is simple and, in the minds of regulation for visitors to grizzly bear tee recently published and distributed many people, well worth the effort. habitat. Agency officials possess mul- its first annual report, "Bear Tracks," a tiple credentials so they have wider short, popularized summary of its ac- Stan Tixier is the former chairman of the Inter- authority to protect the bear. For in- tivities. The committee also has devel- agency Grizzly Bear Committee and a regional forester with the Intermountain Region, Forest stance, Forest Service, Park Service, oped a portable grizzly bear exhibit for Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 324 and fish and game department officials use at airports, chambers of commerce 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401. from Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana offices, agency offices, and other sites. hold USFWS credentials. The exhibit explains grizzly bear recov- ?his article was reprinted with permission from the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation All bear-related investigations are ery efforts and provides sources for 43(2):122-125. Q1988 by the Soil and Water made by a joint state-federal team. more information. Member agencies Conservation Society.

Vol. 5 No. 12 Endngered Species UPDATE 4 Book Review

Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management, and Conservation of an Endangered Species Edited by Ronald Tilson and Ulysses Seal

biology, captive management, and con- man-eating, carnivore in the wild, as- servation strategies. sess various conservation strategies for The first section of the book tackles management, and plot out a global tiger the systematics and taxonomy of the ge- conservation plan. nus Panthera ,suggests aphylogeny for This book is a valuable compilation the tiger, and considers the problem of of information on tigers and provides an conserving the genetic heterogeneity of example of the application of conserva- the various subspecies of tiger. tion biology to a large mammal popula- The next sections of the book assess tion that is widely dispersed and frag- the status of both the the wild and cap- mented. It should be of useful to anyone tive populations in the world. The au- interested in conservation strategies for thors flesh out habitat requirements of any large species. the tigers and include reports on the availability of these habitats. Tigers of the World is published by Noyes Publi- The central portion of the book cations Mill Road at Grand Ave., Park Ridge NJ should be particularly valuable to any- 07656 510 pp. $64 one managing cap- Advertisement I NOYES PUBLICATIONS I tive populations of the tiger. It addresses In the past 50 years, the world physiological man- population of tigers (Panthera tigris ) agement of individu- has plummeted from over 100,000 indi- als, including nutri- viduals in eight subspecies to around tional requirements, 5,000 individuals in five subspecies. and management of Three of these subspecies have gone tiger diseases. This extinct and a fourth is seriously endan- section also reports gered. The remaining tiger populations, on tiger reproductive with the possible exception of one biology, and the ge- population in Bangladesh, are both too netic and demo- fragmented and too small for long-term graphic management survival. of the captive popula- Tigers of the World: The Biology, tion as a whole. Biopolitics, Management, and Conser- The last section of vation of an Endangered Species ad- the book is particu- dresses the challenges of conserving larly strong. The au- and managing these populations. The thors tackle the po- book is a compilation of 46 papers pre- litical and social sented at an international symposium problems involved in held in Minneapolis during April 1986 the management of and sponsored by the Minneapolis Zoo- tigers, which are logical Garden and the IUCNISSC problems rarely ad- Captive Breeding and Cat Specialist dressed in books cov- Groups. ering the manage- This hefty book exhaustively covers ment of a single spe- all facets of tiger biology. Researchers cies. Papers in this from around the world report on such section delve into the topics as taxonomy of the great cats, politics of managing their population status, reproductive a large, some say

Vol. 5 No. 12 Endangered Species UPDATE 5 Technical NOtes Produced by me Center for Conservation B~OIO~Yat Stanford University

Taxonomy and Conservation: athy E. Freas and Dennis D. Murphy The Case of the Bakersfield Saltbush

Ambiguous taxonomic status offers a research effort involving the Center turd practices within the former distri- fodder for conjecture and research to for Conservation Biology at Stanford bution of A. tularensis have resulted in a the academic systematist. For the con- University. Thirteen plants were dis- general reduction in the amount of soil servation biologist, however, unre- covered growing in very dry soil at the moisture that may have allowed A. solved taxonomic questions can affect preserve in June 1987. Five were suc- serenana, which is apparently better the direction of recovery efforts and cessfully transplanted to greenhouses at adapted to drier soils, to persist. Gene reduce the power of envuonmental leg- Stanford where they matured and pro- flow between A. tularensis and A. islation to protect rare and endangered duced thousands of fruits. These plants serenana, with the acquisition by A. species. An understanding of the taxo- also exhibited serrate leaf margins, as tularensis of characteristics of A. nomic status in question is important in well as a mixture of floral characters of serenana that confer ability to with- identifying appropriate conservation A. tularensis and A. serenana. The stand drier conditions, may result in efforts as well as identifying situations same condition was observed when hybrids with the ability to persist in that may not warrant this effort. another patch of the plant was discov- habitat patches drier than those in which Our recent attempts to recover the ered growing in a dry canal at the pre- A. tularensis thrived historically. Dis- annual plant Atriplex tularensis in the serve. However, one individual, iso- covery of apparent hybrids in the canal, southern San Joaquin Valley, Califor- lated from other annual Atriplex and which although dry was more moist nia illustrate the importance of taxon- fitting closely the description for A. than surrounding areas, suggests that omy in conservation. Historically, the tularensis was discovered at the pre- these hybrids may be able to exploit species was narrowly distributed, re- serve, growing in an areaof particularly these patches of intermediate soil mois- stricted to six populations in wet saline high soil moisture. This plant matured ture. On one hand, one might view the soils near Bakersfield. Rather than successfully and produced several current situation as a "contamination" occurring as a predictable part of the hundred fruits. At the end of the grow- of the A, tularensis with A. serenana summer-blooming flora of the alkali ing season, the plant was collected and genes. On the other hand, given the sink scrub community, A. tularensis seeds from it were germinated in the changes in the environment with sur- has been abundant only in years of ex- greenhouse. Five plants, each fitting rounding agricultural development, cessive rainfall. High rainfall combined the description of A. tularensis grew conditions in which A. tularensis is able with reliable groundwater maintains and produced seed. Germination of to survive may have been eliminated. high soil moisture through the summer. these seeds resulted in mature plants Hence, introgression may be viewed as Agricultural practices in the San about two-thirds of which fit the de- having allowed the genetic information Joaquin Valley have resulted in clearing scription of A, tularensis while the contained in the A. tularensis gene pool and draining of these wet soils. Until remaining third exhibited combined to survive, In either case, conservation 1983, when a population of about 100 characters of the two Atriplex species. efforts targeting A, tularensis under individuals was discovered at The Na- Under the assumption that Atriplex current conditions are unlikely to per- ture Conservancy's Kern Lake Pre- tularensis and Atriplex serenana are petuate the species. serve, the plant had not been reported distinct species, the occurrence of This study suggests that scrutiny of since 1934 and was presumed extinct. plants with phenotypic characters of the genetic status of threatened species Notable in its rediscovery was the ob- both species is evidence of a breakdown can direct the course of conservation servation that, floral morphology of of reproductive isolation, and suggests efforts. Because taxonomic questions these individuals matched that de- introgressive hybridization between the may not become apparent until a recov- scribed for A. tularensis, unlike speci- two species. Introgressive hybridiza- ery effort is underway, flexibility in re- mens collected earlier in the century, tion results from the exchange of ge- search objectives is critical when as- the plants at Kern Lake Preserve exhib- netic material across an incomplete in- sessing the status of an endangered ited serrate leaf margins, like those terspecific barrier, generally through a species. In most cases, given the limited found in Atriplex serenana (a common partially sterile F, hybrid. Introgression funding available for conservation and species that occurs on drier soils). occurs in areas of species overlap when the increasing number of species need- By 1986 the population of Atriplex new environmental conditions provide ing attention, taxa that are weakly dif- tularensis at the preserve was reduced an opportunity for the introgressive ferentiated genetically from widely dis- to fewer than 50 individuals, prompting types to become established. Agricul- tributed taxa must take lower priority.

Vol. 5 No. 6 Endangered Species UPDA TE 6 Note from the Editor

December 1988

Dear Subscriber:

As you may already know, the Endangered Species UPDATE includes a reprint of the Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, which is produced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The UPDATE'S printing schedule mirrors that of the Technical Bulletin and I publish the UPDATE within a week of receiving the Technical Bulletin.

Recently, publication of the Technical Bulletin by the USFWS has been delayed in Washington and the latest issue, in particular, was not published for several weeks. Consequently, this October issue of the UPDATE is coming to you in December. I held up printing of the October issue for six weeks in order to include the August issue of the Technical Bulletin, in the hope of printing it as quickly as possible.

I apologize for this delay. Future issues of the UPDATE and Technical Bulletin will be published on a revised schedule. The UPDATE will be published on the same schedule as the Endangered Species Technical Bulletin and, due to the Technical Bulletin's irregular publication schedule, the UPDATE will be published an average of 10 issues per calendar year but will be enumerated as a monthly publication to aid in its cataloging at libraries. This means that some issues this year will be listed as double issues, for example, NovemberDecember.

Thank you for your patience and for supporting the UPDATE and its effort to provide a forum on endangered species and conservation. If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions, I want to hear them.

Next month, the UPDATE will start publishing an opinion page. If you have an idea, thought, or mental meandering that you can pen down in two and a half double-spaced pages, call me or send it. I am planning out the next year's issues and would appreciate appropriate contributions.

Sincerely,

Rob Blair Editor

Non-Profit Organ~zation Endangered Species U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ann Arbor, MI UPDATE Permit No. 144 School of Natural Resources The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 481 09-1 115