UPDATEEndangeredincluding a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWSBulletin May/June 1997 School of Natural Resources and Environment Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

In this Issue

3 Legislative Mandates of the Endangered SpeciesAct and a Plea for Consistent Use of Technical Terms Jay O'Laughlin

Public Opinion on Species and Endangered Species Conservation Brian Czech and Paul R. Krausman

11 Oregon Embarks on Bold Recovery Plan for Pacific Salmon: Should it be Used as an Alternative to an ESA Listing? Glen Spain

17 Conservation Spotlight: Desert Fish Mike Demlong

19 News From Zoos

Insert: MayIJune U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Bulletin Species LT?CFITE A forum for information exchange on Letter to the Editor endangered species issues MayIJune 1997 Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6

M. Elsbeth McPhee ...... Editor Katherine Irvine ...... Associate Editor 1 wanted to express my concern with Kimberley Walley's David Bidwell ...... Editorial Assistant article in the Opinion section of the Oct Nov issue which was Gideon Lachman ...... Web Page Coordinator / ,,, subscription Coordinator critical of Habitat Conservation Plans being developed in con- Terv Root ...... Faculty Advisor cert with the Administration's "No Surprised" policy for private Adviso~~~~~d landowners. In an effort to illustrate her concerns, she used RichrdBlock Plum Creek's recently completed Cascades HCP in Washington ,,,,Indianapolis Zoo as an example of "inadequate protection" for affected species. National Biological Service, Ms. Walley inaccurately described the protection offered in Oregon State University the HCP as limited to harvest deferrals on 4,300 acres of the International Consultant in 170,000 acre area covered under the plan. In reality, 38 separate Environment and Development mitigation measures are described in the plan to address the Chevron Ecological Services Hal Salwasser biological needs of 285 species included in the HCP approved by U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Boone and Crockett club Service. These include harvest restrictions to retain nesting and forA,,rJ,. ,Ehge, dispersal habitat in specific areas totaling 5,600 acres which are species up~~TEwelcomadcles, editorial comments, and announcements related to currently used by resident spotted owls and retention of a swesp,,on, ForfunhervJarmation minimum of 8% of Plum Creek ownership in nesting, roosting conkttheeditor. and foraging habitat for spotted owls. Moreover, riparian s~sc~ptio,,lnfomtion,. neEndangrred buffers on fish-bearing streams are 8 times the width required species ~PDATEispubli~hedsixaper year, plus occasional special issues, by the under current state forest practices rules. The HCP establishes school ofNamalResources and Environment requirements for marbled murrelet surveys, goshawk nest site at TheUivenityofMichigan. Annuairmare $23 for regular subscriptions, and $18 for protection, road and habitat management for grizzly bears and smdents md ,,,,, (dd, forposhge wolves, and watershed analysis to address fish and forest hy- outsidetheus). Sendcheckormoney order (payable to The University of Michigan) to: drology concerns. The plan also specifies targets to maintain a Endangered Species UPDATE diversity of forest vertebrate species. A significant element of school of Natural Resources and Environment the plan is a research and monitoring program which will The University of Michigan provide both compliance and biological data necessary to evalu- Ann Arbor. MI 48109-1 115 (313) 763-3243 ate the plan's success and modify it in the future if necessary. E-mail: [email protected] Ms. Walley is entitled to her opinions about the content and http://~~~,~mi~h.ed~~-esupdate quality of habitat conservation plans being prepared by private of Pacific landowners in cooperation with the Departments of Interior and salmon. ~~nstitutefor ~isheries~esources. Commerce. It seems reasonable to expect that she would at least ,views in fhe read and accurately describe the plans she chooses to criticize. species UPDATE~~Ynot necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or The University of Michigan. Lorin Hicks, Ph.D. Production of this issue was made possible in Director, Fish and Wildlife Resources part by sumfrom the Boone and Crocked Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P. club, Chevron ~o~poration,U.S. FWS Division of Endangered Species Region 3, and Walt Seattle, Washington hneyWorld Company.

printed on recycled paper

2 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Legislative Mandates of the Endangered Species Act and a Plea for Consistent Use of Technical Terms Jay O'Laughlin Introduction not describing a legislative man- agency responsibilities. I use ESA- The Endangered Species Act date. "Diversity" is a term absent defined technical terms (see (ESA) is a public policy for pro- from the ESA, however, "destruc- Sidebar), and separate legislative tecting, and improving the status tion" is used in section 7 in refer- mandates from agency viewpoints, of, plants and animals whose con- ence to critical habitat. The ESA's administrative regulations, judicial tinued existence is imperiled. ESA imperfect blend of biological sci- interpretations, and court rulings. policy consists of a legislative stat- ence and law (Rohlf 1991) makes ute, administrative regulations and understanding its mandates any- Section 7 protection guidelines, and judicial rulings. thing but clear. The statute mandates that The ESA statute includes hortatory The ESA's mandates can be federal agencies neither jeopar- declarations such as the purpose explained by analyzing the three -dize listed species nor adversely of the Act (ESA 8 2), definitions key parts of the statutory design- modify their critical habitat. In (ESA 8 3), and mandates for ex- identification, protection, and re- her brief discussion of section 7, ecutive agencies. These mandates covery (O'Laughlin and Cook Clark (1996) failed to mention include interagency cooperation 1995). First, Clark (1996) clearly the two protection provisions of (ESA 8 7) and substantive out- explained identification, which is the ESA's "Interagency Coop- comes, such as a list of protected the section 4 process for listing eration": jeopardy protection and species and their recovery plans threatened or endangered species. habitat protection. (ESA 8 4) and protection against Second, she described protection (ESA 9). (See Sidebar for as the "primary objective" of the Jeopardy protection definitions of underlined terms.) ESA program (Clark 1996). How- Clarkstated that the Interior Sec- Understanding the goals of the ever, she inexplicably omitted sec- retary, acting through the FWS, ESA statute and the Act's imple- tion 7 jeopardy and critical habitat "overseesthe protection and conser- mentation mechanisms can en- protections, while section 9 &&g vation of fish, wildlife, and plants hance species conservation pro- protection was adequately ex- found to be in serious jeopardyf' grams by improving communica- plained. Third, although Clarkcon- (Clark 1996). This use of jeopardy tion among interested parties. siders recovery to be the "ultimate adds confusion and vagueness by Describing ESA ends and means purpose" of the Act (Clark 1996), inconsistentlyusing a technical term. with consistent and precise use of she substituted some interpreta- "Seriously imperiled" would have ESA-defined terms facilitates dis- tions for mandates. For example, been a more appropriate phrase, es- cussion of and improvements to Clark said the FWS oversees re- pecially when Clark used "imper- implementation issues. covery activities, but failed to men- iled" in a similar context in her con- An Endangered Species UP- tion that section 4(f) mandates the cluding paragraph. Absent from the DATE article by a U.S. Fish and FWS to develop and implement ESA statute or regulations, "imper- Wildlife Service (FWS) official recovery plans. Finally, although iled" is convenient for avoiding re- (Clark 1996) reviewing the ESA's they are not mandates, Clark (1996) petitive use of "threatened and en- . legislative mandates did only a also described how responsibili- dangered." partial job, in my opinion. Per- ties for marine animals are split Jeovardy is a vague standard sonal or agency viewpoints some- between agencies-these assign- used for protecting listed species. times obscured the underlying ments have far-reaching implica- Section 7 provides statutory pro- statutory requirements and sev- tions deserving more discussion tection by mandating that any ac- eral terms were misused. For ex- than was provided. tion by a federal agency may not ample, by stating that the ESA is a This article complements jeovardize the continued existence "clear public policy.. .to prevent Clark's article on southern sea ot- of a listed species. Through the the destruction of nature's diver- ter (Enhydra lutris nereis) conser- consultation process defined in sec- sity," Clark (1996) was offering vation by focusing on section 7 tion 7, the FWS or the NMFS must an interpretation of ESA policy, protection, recovery mandates, and provide a written statement, called

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Endangeredspecies UPDA 7E 3 a biological opinion, if a federal action may ~eopardizea species. Sidebar -- Essential Endangered Species Act Definitions " Jeo~ardize"is not defined in the ESA statute, but is in FWS regula- Section 3 of the ESA provides definitions of the terms used tions (see Sidebar). There are no in the Act. Some of the important statutory definitions essential degrees of jeopardy in the ESA. to understanding the ESA are as follows (verbatim from the statute, with added underlining): Habitat protection Discussion herein separates The term "s~ecies"includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife ESA statutory requirements for or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species protecting habitat for imperiled of vertebrate fish or wildlife which breeds when mature. species from implementation of The term "endanaered species" means any species which is the Act by the FWS. This analy - in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of sis should not be construed as an its range other than [certified insect pests]. attempt to diminish the crucial The term "threatened species" means any s~ecieswhich is importance of habitat protection likely to become an endanaered s~ecieswithin the foreseeable in many svecies conservation future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. programs. The terms "conserve", "conservinq", and "conservation" mean According to Clark (1996) to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are "the ESA is habitat-oriented. It necessary to bring any endanaered species to the point at seeks to conserve 'the ecosystems which such measures are no longer necessary. Such methods upon which endangered species and procedures include... all activitiesassociated with scientific and threatened species depend."' resources management such as research, census, law This interpretation is inconsistent enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, with mandates and statutory de- propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the sign. One of the purposes of the extraordinary case.. .regulated taking. ESA is to "provide a means The term "MImeans to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, whereby the ecosystems upon wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in which endangered svecies and any such conduct. [Note: regulations define "harm" to include threatened species depend may be significant habitat modification (see below).] conserved" (ESA 4 2(b)). The The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or endanaered means to this end is the listing of s~eciesmeans-the specific areas ...essential to the individual species (NRC 1995). conservation of the species and which may require special The ESA statute is species- management considerations or protection. oriented. To say otherwise, one would have to argue that protec- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has defined some ESA tion of critical habitat is the same terms in its implementing regulations. Some essential regulatory as ecosystem conservation. The definitions are as follows: critical habitat approach can ef- fectively protect ecosystems only "Harm" is defined to include an act which actually kills or injures if it is pursued rigorously (NRC wildlife [including] significant habitat modification where it 1995). The FWS does not do so; actually killsor injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential less than 15% of the listed species behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering have designated critical habitat. (50 C.F.R. § 17.3). Furthermore, the ESA defini- "Jeopardv" is defined as follows: "jeopardize the continued tion of conserve (see Sidebar) ap- existence of" [as in ESA § 7(a)(2)] means to engage in an plies to species, not their habitat, action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, and conservation involves actions to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and to promote species recovery. Such recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the actions may or may not include reproduction, number, or distribution of that species (50 C.F.R. habitat protection, depending on the 5 402.02). role of habitat as one of five factors

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 4 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA 7E consideredin listing determinations. tion under section 7 except when it mandate is a more compelling di- The other factors considered are is imprudent or undeterminable (50 rective than "overseeing recovery overutilization, disease or predation, C.F.R. !$ 424,12(a)). In addition, activities." regulatory inadequacy, and other im- critical habitat designation is a leg- Clark (1996) mentioned the pacts on continued existence (ESA 5 islative mandate enforceable southern sea otter translocation law 4(a)). Actions benefiting a listed through judicial review, as in (Publ. Law 99-625) as requiring species would generally benefit an Northern Suotted Owl v. Lujan the FWS to develop and imple- ecosystem in which the species is a (758 F. Supp. 621, W.D. Wash. ment a recovery plan, but neglected component, however, other parts of 1991). Critical habitat issues have to say that section 4(fj mandates the same ecosystem may be ad- been analyzed elsewhere (see that a recovery plan provide "ob- versely affected by managing for Tobin 1990, Murphy and Noon jective, measurable criteria.. .that listed species. For example, south- 1991, Houck 1993, O'Laughlin and the species be removed from the ern sea otter conservation efforts Cook 1995). list," as well as "estimates of the negatively affect fisheries and aba- time required and the cost to carry lone (Wendell 1996) and sea urchin Recovery out those measures needed to populations, with largely unknown Recovery is the "ultimate pur- achieve the plan's goal." The agen- ecological effects on kelp forests pose" of the ESA program (Clark cies implementing the ESA are thus and associated coastal organisms 1996). By identifying the respon- mandated to plan and implement (VanBlaricom 1996). sibilities of the regulatory agen- activities that will result in the re- Congress intended that the ESA cies as "overseeing recovery ac- covery and subsequent de-listing would protect habitat through the tivities for listed species," Clark of the species. critical habitat feature, however, the (1996) may have understated their FWS prefers to use its discretionary role, depending on what "oversee- Agency responsibilities authority to protect habitat in a way ing" might mean. Section 4(f) man- Almost all ESA implementa- not envisioned by Congress (Houck dates that the ".. .Secretary shall tion tasks are assigned to the Secre- 1993). Using the harm definition, develop and implement [recovery] taries of the Interior and Commerce the FWS protects habitat for listed plans for the conservation and sur- Departments (ESA 4 3(15)). Never- species regardless of whether or not vival of [listed] species." This theless, all federal agencies have an it is critical; i.e., essential for conser- vation (see Sidebar). The regulatory definition of -a component of the statutory definition of (see Sidebar)-renders critical habitat meaningless (Bean 1983). In 1995, the controversial definition of harm was upheld by the Supreme Court (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 115 S.Ct. 2407,1995). Critical habitat has not been designated for the southern sea ot- ter, as is the case with more than I 85% of listed species. By ignoring the term "critical habitat" and stat- ing that federal agencies must pro- tect "important habitat," Clark (1996) avoided the contentious is- sues associated with critical habi- -tat. For example, the FWS is re- quired to designate critical habitat The bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) has benefited from the under section 4 and protect it from power of ESA legislation. Photo by Mike Greer Q Chicago Zoological destruction or adverse modifica- Society.

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE 5 affirmative duty to conserve species Conclusion the Endangered Species Act: critical (ESA 8 7). The ESA raises fascinating habitat as an example. Endangered Agency assignments for marine economic, institutional, andpoliti- Species UPDATE 8(12):6. animals do not follow any prescribed cal issues that will not soon fade National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Science and the Endangered protocol. Interior, through the FWS, (Tobin 1990). Because of the con- Species Act. National Academy is responsible for manatees, wal- troversies associated with these Press, Washington, D.C. ruses, sea otters, and polar bears; issues, we should use language to O'Laughlin, J. and P. S. Cook. 1995. whereas Commerce, through the Na- precisely and clearly separate facts Endangered Species Act at the tional Marine Fisheries Service from values. Legislative mandates crossroads: new directions from Idaho (NMFS), is responsible for seals, are matters of fact and deserve to case studies. Idaho Forest, Wildlife whales, dolphins, porpoises, and sea be presented as such. Even though and Range Policy Analysis Group lions. These assignments were made the statute is only one part of ESA Report 13, University of Idaho, following the creation of the NMFS policy, it is a good starting point Moscow. (Executive summary in 1970 and had nothing to do with for understanding policy imple- available separately.) Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons protecting endangered species; in- mentation. Vague definitions why the Endangered Species Act stead they reflect the agencies' inter- aside, the ESA is a clear statement doesn't work-and what to do about it. ests, abilities, preferences and a spirit of a national commitment to pro- Conservation Biology 5(3):273-282. of compromise (Tobin 1990). tect imperiled plants and animals Tobin, R. J. 1990. The expendable The FWS generally argues that and improve their situation. Per- future: U.S. politics and the protection the agency should have some re- sonal values and agency interpre- of biological diversity. Duke sponsibility for all species at risk of tations masquerading as fact University Press, Durham, NC. extinction. For example, following muddy up, rather than clarify, our VanBlaricom, G. R. 1996. Saving the the ESA's enactment in 1973, the understanding of implementation sea otter population in California: FWS and NMFS resolved a jurisdic- issues and inhibit debate about so- contemporary problems and future pitfalls. Endangered Species tional dispute over sea turtles: the cially acceptable means to attain UPDATE 13(12):85-91. NMFS has jurisdiction when turtles the ESA goal. Wendell, F. 1996. The State of are at sea, the FWS when turtles California's role in the conservation come on land to lay their eggs. Acknowledgments of sea otters and other aquatic Either the FWS did not vie for J. Michael Scott and Philip S. resources. Endangered Species responsibility or the agency's efforts Cook provided helpful comments UPDATE 13(12):82-84. carried little weight when the first on the draft manuscript. This is population of anadromous fish, the Contribution no. 837 of the Uni- winter-run Sacramento River versity of Idaho's Forest, Wildlife chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus and Range Experiment Station. tshawytscha), was listed in 1990. Soon after, three salmon populations Literature cited native to Idaho's Snake River and its Bean, M. J. 1983. The evolution of tributaries were also listed. The national wildlife law. Praeger, New NMFS has jurisdiction for salmon Y ork. Clark, J. R. 1996. Overview of the throughout their life cycle, includ- legislative mandates and the agencies ing when the fish move from the responsible for implementation of ocean into fresh water to spawn in southern sea otter protection under their natal streams and rivers. This the Endangered Species Act. brings the NMFS into Idaho, hun- Endangered Species UPDATE dreds of miles from the marine envi- 13(12):28-30. Jay O'Laughlin is Director, Idaho Forest, Wildlife ronment, where the agency is re- Houck, 0. A. 1993. The Endangered and Range Policy Analysis Group (PAG), and sponsible for recommending Species Act and its implementation Professor, Department of Forest Resources, by the U.S. Departments of Interior University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. The PAG was changes in activities on or near fed- created by the Idaho legislature in 1989 as a and Commerce. University of eral land that may affect freshwater research unit of the University of Idaho's College Colorado Law Review 64(2):277-370. ecosystems, including grazing, log- of Forestq, Wildlife and Range Sciences, with a Murphy, D. D. and B. R. Noon. 1991. legislative mandate to provide objective data and ging, mining, and recreation. Opinion-exorcising ambiguity from analysis of natural resource issues of interest to the citizens of Idaho.

6 EndangeredSpecies UPDA7E Val. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Public Opinion on Species and Endangered Species Conservation rian Czech and Paul R. Krausman Introduction and appropriationshistory (Campbell Congressional RecordIndexcontained Species endangerment has been a 1991). The ESA was originally au- 273 records, corresponding approxi- major concern in the United States for thorized for five years, and reauthori- mately to the number of hearings in over a century. A rich history of zation andlor authorization amend- which the ESA was a primary topic. legislation prior to 1973 (Table 1) ment has occurred in 1976, 1978, We foundreference to 1,341ESA provided the foundation upon which 1979,1982,and 1988, whentheESA articles published in natural science the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was again authorized appropriations journals, most of which are concerned (ESA) was built, but theESA arguably for a five-year period. A conven- with the biology and evolutionary ecol- provides more protection fiomextinc- tionalreauthorizationformulateddur- ogy of species, and with conservation tion than all prior laws combined. ing fiscal year 1992 would have au- strategies. We found 48 ESA articles Certainly, no prior law was as compre- thorized appropriations for the five- in social science journals, most of hensive, nor as controversial. year fiscal period of October 1,1992 which are accounts of the social and The purposes of the ESA (Section to September 31, 1997. However, political effects of the ESA and spe- 2(b))are to "provideameans whereby Congress has only authorized funds cies endangerment on landowners. the ecosystems upon which endan- in one-year increments since 1993, Most of the research conducted on gered species and threatened species and bills to weaken the ESA were publicopinion(summarizedbyKellert depend may be conserved, to provide introducedinbothhouses of the 104th 1996)has focused on attitudes toward a program for the conservation of such Congress (Cheever 1996). In fact, various taxa, and was conducted prior endangered species and threatened spe- the ESA was "at the top of the list of to 1990. Muchof it was conductedon cies, and to take such steps as may be environmental statutes targeted by regional populations. appropriate to achieve the purposes of the 104th Congress to be weakened In light of this, we decided to the [international conservation] trea- or outright eliminated" (Ehrlich and conduct a survey to ascertain public ties and conventions ..." The ESA Ehrlich 1996: 116). opinion on different types of species, provides those means through an ar- With controversial issues, pub- species conservation, the ESA, and ray of domestic and international tac- lic opinion is an important factor for related institutions, and to investigate tics (Table 2). Every federal agency is policy makers. Unfortunately, there relationships among demographicfac- affected, as are state and local agen- is little current data on national pub- tors and conservation attitudes. The cies that use federal money. Many lic opinion. To determine what data purpose of this preliminary article, private landowners are affected, too. did exist, we conducted literature da- however, is limited to providing the The regulatory power created by tabase searches with Quicksearcho, mean responses to our survey ques- the ESA is wielded by the Secretary of using "Endangered Species Act" as a tions and some preliminary interpre- Interior through the Fish and Wildlife key phrase. As of June 1996, the tations thereof. Service (FWS) and, to a lesser extent, by the Secretary of Commerce through The Yellowstone Park Protection Act of 1894 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The ESA has a history of Lacey Act of 1900 strict interpretation by the courts Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 191 8 (Coggins 1991), and two ESA issues Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 have become increasingly controver- Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 sial: 1) the types of species that are Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 listed(Wi1liams 1996,Bergman 1995, Whaling Convention Act of 1949 Dingell 1989), and, 2) the limitations Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 that the ES A imposes on development Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 projects, especially in the private sec- Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 tor (Dwyer et al. 1995, Heinen 1995). The accrual of political peril to the Table 1. Legislation pertaining to species conservation prior to the ESA is reflected in its reauthorization Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA7E 7 Section Content

2 lists findings and declarations of Congress 3 provides definitions 4 outlines listing procedures 5 authorizes land acquisition for habitat protection 6 provides for FWS cooperation with states in endangered species programs 7 requires federal agencies to pursue the preservation of species, and to consult with FWS before taking any action that could threaten the existence of a species or specimens thereof 8 calls for international cooperation in general 8A provides guidelines for the implementation of the Convention on International Trade of Exotic Species of Fauna and Flora 9 prohibits the taking of threatened and endangered species by any party, public or private 10 provides exceptions to Section 9 11 outlines enforcement mechanisms and specifies penalties 12 directs the Smithsonian Institution to review the status of endangered plants and to develop methods for plant species conservation 13 brings the act in conformance with other legislation 14 repeals portions of the prior endangered species acts usurped by ESA 15 authorizes appropriations in &year cycles 16 specifies the effective date (as the date of enactment) 17 prevents any interpretation of ESA that would weaken the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 18 requires the Secretary of Interior to submit an annual cost report on a species specific basis

Table 2. Contents of the Endangered Species Act. The act does not have a section 1.

Methods are therefore ratio, allowing for finer dangerment, the propriety of the We mailed questionnaires to a distinctions in difference and more ESA, and the acceptability of other random sample of 2,000 American precise statistical analyses than do or- types of policies important to spe- households, following the protocol of dinal data such as those obtained with cies conservation. The results are Salant and Dillman (1994). We de- Likert scales (Rubin 1983). proportions of people responding to fined eight types of species (birds. We also used visual analog scal- various choices, so are immediately mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish. ing to analyze public attitudes toward interpretable in terms of majorities plants, invertebrates, and microorgan- species conservation and related insti- and minorities. isms) and seven factors which might tutions. First, to address issues of influence the perceived importance of landowner rights, respondents rated Results and Discussion an animal's conservation: apparent three statements on a visual analog We obtained 643 questionnaire ecological importance,body size, cul- scale in which 0 represented total dis- responses. Accounting for delivery tural and historical traits, intelligence agreement, 100represented total agree- problems, the response rate was or behavioral complexity, monetary ment, and 50 represented neutrality. 40%. The geographic distribution value, physical attractiveness, andrar- Second. using a scale from "not im- of respondents closely resembled ity (herebyreferred to as prioritization portant" to "extremely important,"we that of the population at large, and factors). To determine respondents' explored the importance of maintain- the proportions of respondents be- valuation of species types and ing economic growth, ecosystem longing to the two major political prioritization factors, we used visual health, democracy, property rights, parties were nearly the same as with analog scaling, whereby the respon- conservation of species,and resources the voting public. Respondents were dent indicates relative value by mark- for future generations in American also similar to the voting public in ing a point along a spectrum ranging society. Finally, we used multiple terms of education and employment from 0 to 100 (i.e., no importance to choice questions to assess public levels. Respondents averaged about most importance). The data obtained opinion on the causes of species en- five years older (mean age = 5 1.6)

8 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA TE VoI. 14 Nos, 5816 1997 than United States voters (U. S. Bu- deemed much reau of the Census 1996). Despite less important. instructions intended to obviate a Onanagree- skewed sex ratio of respondents, 70% ment scale of 0- of respondents were male. This could 100 (where a be related to Kellert's (1987) finding score of 50 in- that males were more concerned about dicates neutral- conserving wildlife species and habi- ity), respon- tats than were females, who tended to dents support be more concerned about domestic (62) the state- animals and individual animal wel- ment, "Land- fare. owners should We found significant (a=0.05) not have the differences in respondents' valuation right to use of types of species. On a relative their property valuation scale of 0-100, respondents in ways that en- value plants (72), birds (71), andmam- danger a spe- mals (71) ~i~cantlyhigher than all cies." Simi- other types. Fish (68) constitute a larly, respon- second level of importance. Reptiles dents disagree .. .

(59)' (5919 with the !he hleXicanwolf is one of many species for public oplnio! brates (57) occupy a third level, and notion that, affects recovery policy. Photo by Mike Habermann 8 Minnesota microorganisms (52) are valued sig- " Endangered Zoo. nificantly less than all other types. species protec- Despite these taxonomic prefer- tion should not interfere with a strongly that landowners should be ences, respondents considered eco- landowner's right to develop prop- compensated for lost income. logical importance (77) and rarity erty." Respondents also believe (58) On a scale from 0-100, respon- (73) to be the most important factors that, "Landowners prevented from dents rated the importance of conserv- in judging the importance of species developing their property because ing species at 76.5, similar to the im- for conservation. Other important of endangered species laws should portance of property rights (76.3) and factors were cultural significance be paid for any lost income by re- economic growth (75.4). Eachof these (57) and intelligence (53). Mon- spondents." Agreement with the concepts are valued simcantly (a= etary value (32), physical attractive- latter is positively correlated with 0.05) less than ecosystemhealth (80.5) ness (29)' and body size (28) were age--older respondents feel more and democracy (82.5). However, the availability of resources for future gen- erations (85.8) is the concept consid- I I ered most important. Fifty-five percent of respondents realize that habitat loss due to natural resource extraction and economic de- velopment is the biggest cause of spe- cies endangerment in the United States today. lhrty-six percent feel endan- germent is due to toxic chemicals, while7% blame harvesting (e.g., hunt- ing). Only 2% believe that introduced species are the biggest cause. Five-percent of respondents would like the ESA revoked, 11% I Strengthened Retalned Weakened Revoked I would like it weakened, 35% want it I I retained as written, and 49% want the Figure 1. Percentage of respondents who would Ilke to see the ESA strengthened, retained as wrltten, weakened, or revoked. ESA strengthened (Figure 1). There

VoI. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredspeciesoPDn TE 9 was no significant difference in over- become associated with the concept of Dingell, J. D. 1989. Foreword. Pages 1- all species valuation between people environmentalism. Specifically, the 6 inD. J. Row, author. The endangered from the East (eastward of the Great Endangered Species Act seems to be species act. Stanford Environmental Plains) and people from the West, and highly valued for 2 reasons. First, the Law Society. Stanford, Calif. similarly low proportions from the public is generally concerned about Dwyer, L. E., D. D. Murphy, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1995. Property rights case East (14%) and West (19%) favor the extinction of species, and the ESA law and the challenge to the weakening orrevokingtheESA. How- is the only law that directly addresses Endangered Species Act. Conservation ever, among those preferring to main- that concern. Second, the public is Biology 9(4):725-741. tain the ESA as written or strengthen most concerned about posterity, and Echevema, J. D.: and R. B. Eby, eds. the ESA to protect more species, a has a basic understanding that the ESA 1995. Let the people judge: wise use higher proportion (53%) fromtheEast dissuades activities that liquidate de- and the private property rights want it strengthened. In the West, pleted resources and make them un- movement. IslandPress. Washington, 41 % want the ESA strengthened. available to future generations. In D.C. Respondents' awareness of habi- addition to the ESA, the public, on Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1996. tat loss is reflected in attitudes toward average, favors policies that would Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens remedial strategies. Sixty-eight per- eliminate subsidies to resource extrac- our future. Island Press. Washington, cent of respondents favor eliminating tors, promote population stabilization, D.C. subsidies for practices that degrade and temper the consumption of natu- Heinen, J. T. 1995. Thoughts and theory endangered species habitat (12% op- ral resources. on incentive-basedendangeredspecies pose that strategy, and 20% are unde- conservation in the Untied States. cided). Sixty-one percent favor poli- Acknowledgments Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3):338- cies that would promote a stable hu- Numerous professors of statistics, 345. man population rather than population political science, psychology, and biol- Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life. growth (22% opposed, 17% unde- ogy at The University of Arizona, stu- Island Press. Washington, D.C. cided). Forty-eight percent favor poli- dents, and citizens outside of academia Kellert, S. R. 1987.Attitudes,knowledge, reviewed the questionnairefor unconven- and behaviors toward wildlife as cies that would lower the consump- tional phraseology, vagueness, predispo- affected by gender. Wildlife Society tion of resources,especially by wealthy sition, and other questionnairedesign prob- Bulletin 15363-371. individuals (30% opposed, 21% un- lems. We are especially indebted to Terry Rubin, H. J. 1983. Applied social decided). Judging by the comments of Daniels, Bill Shaw, and Tom Brown for research. Charles E. Menill Publishing respondents, the clause "especially by their reviews of the questionnaire, and to Company. Columbus, Ohio. wealthy individuals" dissuaded many Pat Jones for statistical advice. We thank Salant, P., and D. A. Dillman. 1994. respondents that would otherwisehave the United States Forest Service, The Uni- How to conduct your own survey. favored consumption policies. It is versity of Arizona's School of Renewable John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. difficult to estimate, however, how Natural Resources, and The University of U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1996. Arizona's Agricultural Experiment Sta- Statisticalabstract ofthe Unitedstates: many respondents would have favored tion for fiscal suppor. 1996. National Technical Information such policies without an emphasis on Service. Springfield, Virginia. wealthy individuals. Only 6% favor a Literature cited Williams, T. 1996. Defense of the realm. ban on hunting, fishing, trapping, and Bergman, B. J. 1995. Leader of the pack. Sierra 81(1):34-39. wildlife harvesting of all sorts (87% Sierra 8(6):50-55. opposed, 7% undecided). Campbell, F. 1991. The appropriations Finally, respondents were asked history. Pages 134-146 in K. A. Kohm, to rate the statement, "I consider my- editor. Balancing on the brink of extinction:the Endangered Species Act self to be an environmentalist,"on a BrianCzech,Ph.D. is a wildlife biologist certified scale from 0- 100 (O=disagree. and lessons for the future. Island Press. by The Wildlife Society. Brian has spent 13 Washington, D.C. years working for federal, state, and tribal 100=agree).On average, respondents Coggins, G. C. 199 1. Snail darters and government. He conducted a policy design view themselves as environmentalists pork barrels revisited: reflections on analysis of the Endangered Species Act for his Ph.D. at The University of Arizona. Paul R. (59). endangered species and land use in Krausman, Ph.D. is acertified wildlife biologist, America. Pages 62-74 in K. A. Kohm, professor of Wildlife and Fisheries Science at Conclusion editor. Balancing on the brink of The University of Arizona, and past editor the Our results suggest that species extinction:the Endangered Species Act Journal of Wildlife Management and of the Desert Bighorn Council Transactions. He has conservation is of greater concern than and lessons for the future. Island Press. also edited several books and symposium other issues and attitudes that have Washington, D.C. proceedings.

10 Endangeredspecies UPDATE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Oregon Embarks on Bold Recovery Plan for Pacific Salmon: Should it be Used as an Alternative to an ESA Listing? Glen Spain Introduction sions applicableto the development leading cause of these declines. On April 25, 1997, with the ink of future recovery plans of this sort Geographic Information System still drying from last minute negotia- elsewhere. (GIs) mapping of the AFS findings tions, the National Marine Fisheries also produced some startling results Service (NMFS) announced that it Seriousness of the decline (Frissell 1993). Coho salmon are al- would not list the 'Northern Oregon The term "salmon," as used on ready extinct in 55% of their historic Evolutionarily Sigmficant Unit (ESU)' the west coast, means any of the range, endangered in 13%, threatened of coho salmon in deference to the seven major species of the genus in another 20%, of 'special concern' in State of Oregon's Coastal Salmon Oncorhynchus, which includes an additional 5% and could be classi- RestorationInitiative (nowknown sim- chinook or king salmon fied as 'not known to be declining' in ply as the "Oregon Plan"). This is (Oncorhynchus tshawtscha), coho only 7% of their historic range-and remarkable, for no other state has ever or silver salmon (Oncorhynchus some of those runs are classed in this attempted such a comprehensive re- kisutch), coastal searun cutthroat 7% due only to lack of data (Table 1). covery plan, nor been able to avoid a (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), steel- Armed with this information, federal listing in this fashion. head (Oncorhynchus mykiss salmon advocates, including the Pa- Given the wide mix of coho re- gairdneri), chum salmon cific Rivers Council, the Western covery strategies being tried in both (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon Division of the AFS, and 21 other California and Oregon (with two of (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and groups, filed a formal petition with three coho ESU's listed, the other not), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus the National Marine Fisheries Ser- the west coast is now a perfect labora- nerka). As a genus these species are vice (NMFS) to list coho tory for developing new kinds of state- often lumped together and called (Oncorhynchus kisutch) coastwide federal species protection parbnerships. "salmonids." on October 19, 1993. Unfortunately, the Oregon Plan is still Specifically, the plight of Pacific Unlike other species of Pacific being presentedin therhetoric as some- salmon has been recognized since at salmon, coho are very sensitive to how incompatible with ESA protec- least the 1880's. However, much of inland habitat problems because they tion, when just the opposite is true. the information was buried until the spend up to their first 18 months in Worse, the Oregon Plan is now being American Fisheries Society's (AFS) freshwater streams. Over decades,the trumpeted as a model state recovery publication of "Pacific Salmon at the impacts of logging, overgrazing, min- effort to be copied primarily to avoid Crossroads," their landmark coast- ing pollution and other human uses an ESA listing altogether. wide salmon population assessment have directly affected coho popula- As the Northwest Regional Di- (Nehlsenet al. 1991). The conclusion tions. Most Oregon streams now pro- rector of the Pacific Coast Federa- of this report was chilling: more than duce less than 20% of their historic tion of Fishermen's Associations 214 distinct stocks of salmon in the salmon populations, with many pro- (PCFFA), the largest organization Northwest and northern California ducing muchless. By 1994, wild coho of commercial fishermen on the west (the vast majority of those still re- populations in Oregon had declined coast, I have been personally in- maining) are at varying degrees of from 1 to 2 million, to less than 20,000 volved with the development of the risk of near term extinction, with at returning adulsa99% decline. Fish- Oregon Plan from its inception. In least 106 other stocks already extinct. ing closures largely kept pace with this article I will draw on that expe- Virtually every river system and these population declines. However, rience to describe the plan, explain coastal basin has one or more species in a final emergency conservation ef- how it works, discuss whether it is in of salmon that face extinction. The fort, the remaining coho ocean fisher- fact preferable to an ESA listing, report also clearly identified onshore ies were closed down coastwide in look at how both the ESA and the habitat loss-including the impacts 1994. Unfortunately, fishing closures Oregon Plan might work together, of logging, overgrazing, mining and alone can never bring back damaged and hopefully draw some conclu- hydropower development-as the habitat. If habitat continues to decline,

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE 1 1 Species Extinct Endangered Threatened Special Not Known to Concern be Declining

Coho 55 % 13% 20% 5% 7% Spring/Summer Chinook 63 % 8% 16% 7% 6% Fall Chinook 19 % 18 % 7% 36 % 20 % Chum salmon 37 % 16 % 14 % 11 % 22 % Sockeye 59 % 7% 3% 16% 15 % Pink Salmon 21 % 5% el % el% 73 % Sea-run Cutthroat 6% 4% 61 % 29 % 0% Winter Steelhead 29 % 22 % 7% 18% 24 % Summer Steelhead 45 % 5% 5% 27 % 18%

Table 1. Status of salmon species in the Pacific Northwest and distribution status as a percentage of historic habitat. eventually too few fish will come out The origins of the Oregon Plan conservative rural areas where suspi- of the river systems to ensure even In response to such serious popu- cion of outside government programs minimal replacement--even with no lation declines, then Oregon Gover- generally runs high. Critics note, how- fishery harvest at all. Even with total nor Barbara Roberts called a Salmon ever, that watershed councils are gen- fishing closures, there is no hope of Restoration Conference in December erally unable to curb local industrial saving these species unless inland 1992. Governor Roberts invited a land use practices which are contribut- habitat loss can be halted and eventu- broad cross section of interests, in- ing to salmonhabitatdestruction state- ally reversed (Lawson 1993). cluding the Pacific Coast Federation wide. In fact, councils are often domi- In July, 1995 (roughly 8 months of Fisherman's Associations, and ar- nated by the very industrial landown- past its statutory deadline), NMFS ranged working groups to draft resto- ers whose practices are in question. proposed the listing of three geneti- rationrecommendations. In work ses- Critics also note that projects which cally distinct Evolutionarily Signifi- sions, timber and agricultural inter- typically gain approval though local cant Units (ESU1s),with the north- ests deflected any effort to make regu- watershed councils are only those that ernmost unit, the "Oregon Coast latory changes in their practices, but are noncontroversial-not necessar- ESU," ranging from Cape Blanco in fully supported establishing a system ily those most beneficial to the salmon. southern Oregon to the Columbia of locally based "watershed councils" However, when Governor Kitzhaber River. Coho were clearly in trouble to work on local restoration efforts. replaced Governor Roberts in January all along the coast, and onshore habi- The 1993 Legislative Session soon of 1995, the watershed council struc- tat loss, particularly from logging and thereafter passed a bill giving these ture was already afait accompli with a agricultural impacts, was identified watershed councils formal legal rec- developing local constituency. It was in the listing proposal as a main cul- ognition and providing them with state a place to start. prit in these declines. Still stinging expertise and financial resources for When NMFS first proposed list- from timber harvest restrictions pre- staffing. There are now about 60 such ing coho in July of 1995, Oregon's viously required for spotted owls and councils in Oregon, covering almost Governor Kitzhaber faced a defining marbled murrelets, the prospect of every coastal and some inland water- moment. The Governor, himself an further restrictions due to coastwide sheds. avid fly fisherman and outdoorsman, salmon listings put the timber, cattle Recognizing past failures of state- immediately recognized the urgent and agricultural interests in a frenzy. driven salmon restoration efforts, need to restore the region's salmon Fearing the worst (and knowing that watershed councils were designed to resource, for both economic and cul- some of their common land use prac- create local 'buy-in' by involving lo- tural reasons. Economically, salmon tices were being called into ques- cals with the salmon restoration. are extremely valuable to northern tion), they pressed hard politically to Projects were intended to be 'ground California and the Pacific Northwest. avoid a similar closedown to protect up,' i.e., proposed by local watershed As recently as 1988, salmon fishing in fish. When their efforts to gut the council participants, with the state the Northwest (including both com- ESA in the 104th Congress failed, agencies providing support ratherthan mercial and recreational sectors) con- they turned to state governments to control. tributedmorethan 62,000 family wage avoid a listing. To a large degree, thls approach jobs and generated over $1.25 billion has been successful, particularly in for the regional economy. In 1988,

12 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Oregon's share of salmon dollars sup- ery state agency to quickly come up elimination of protected species" ported about 14,000 of these family with an initial plan for salmon re- (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus wage jobs (representing more than covery measures. He also met with (428 F. Supp. 167, 170 (D. D.C $275 milliordyear in annual personal the heads of each state agency every 1977))), but not necessarily to bring income) (Pacific Rivers Council, two weeks on this issue, giving them populations close to historic levels. 1992). Given the already depressed assignments and holding them ac- Conservation throughout the ESA salmon populations of 1988,these fig- countable for their portions of the has only been defined as avoiding ures for total value of the resource are plan. These bi-weekly staff meet- jeopardy rather than in terms of a quite conservative. They also exclude ings allowed Governor Kitzhaber to recovery standard, which wouldpre- all non-market and "quality of life" end traditional inter-agency bicker- sumably require restoration as well values, and are based only on hard ing and ramrod an ambitious resto- as maintenance. Furthermore, while dollars. ration plan through a conservative the ESA can be effective in control- With roughly two-thirds of coho Legislature just in time to meet the ling destructive land uses on federal habitat on nonfederal lands, Kitzhaber court imposed listing decision dead- lands, it is not that effective in chang- believed that the watershed council line of April 25, 1997. ing land uses on state owned and 'local controVvoluntary action' ap- private lands. Many of its provi- proach was more likely to get private What the Oregon Plan does sions (such as the Section 7 consul- landowners mobilized and coopera- The Oregon Plan is based on tation process) apply only to federal tive than a typical 'top-down' federal some fundamental principles: (1) no projects or projects with a federal program under the ESA. He also felt additional regulations or changes in nexus. that the ESA alone would not be able existing law (a politically expedient For politicalreasons,the Plan was to achieve actual restoration-it would compromise, given a hostile Legis- aggressively sold to industrial land- only restrict direct 'take,' particularly lature and regulation resistant in- owners and the Legislature as a way to on private lands. dustrial landowners); (2) increased avoid an ESA listing. This was just Unfortunately, there were a lot enforcement of existing laws, in- what they wanted to hear. However, of hidden agendas. The timber and cluding additional funding for cur- this was not the stated goal of the agricultural industries, which have rent enforcement programs; and (3) program itself, which reads: "It is the long dominated state politics, 'feared primary reliance on voluntary ef- mission of the Oregon Coastal Salmon federal restrictions and wanted a state forts from local landowners, orga- Restoration Initiative to restore our controlled recovery plan primarily nized through local watershed coun- coastal salmon populations to produc- in the hopes of avoiding an ESA cils and industry trade or landowner tive and sustainable levels based on listing (and thus federal control). associations. their natural, cultural and economic Fishing industry closures coastwide The Governor does have a strong values to the people of Oregon." Thus had devastated local economies so argument in favor of voluntary ac- there has been a schizophrenic tension both local political interests and the tion and against federal control alone. between these two views of the Plan. fishing industry itself were scream- Specifically, the ESA prohibits ac- Most conservation and some fishing ing for real recovery efforts, not just tual 'take,' but very little else. Even groups see the whole process as a ESA avoidance. The Governor recovery plans required under the cynical attempt by industrial timber wanted real recovery, but in the midst ESA do not require actual recovery and agricultural landowners to exempt of Oregon's worst budget crisis in (as that term is commonly under- themselvesfromresponsibility for past history selling any new program stood). They require only the main- and future habitat destruction. Others would be impossible without broad tenance of sufficient populations to see it as the best hope there is (in spite political support. Thus there was an avoid extinction or threat of extinc- of its flaws) for achieving actual re- unusual confluence of forces, each tion. Indeed, the term "recovery" covery over the long term. It may in operating out of self-interest, that has never been defined as amatter of fact be both. made progress politically possible. law under the ESA, and is therefore Though this fact has been lost in Shortly after the proposed list- confused throughout the statute and the debate, the Oregon Plan is in- ing decision, the Governor's office regulations with the requirement to tended to operate with or without an went into high gear. In an unusual "conserve" a species. Conservation ESA listing. It is also a stand alone move, the Governor announced his is a minimal requirement that has recovery should a listing later "Coastal Salmon Restoration Initia- been interpreted by courts to be only occur. Unlike a similar effort in Cali- tive" and personally instructed ev- "far more than to merely avoid the fornia which quickly dissolved,

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Oregon's program was always intended bility to develop its own recovery remaining areas, regardless of the to be scientifically credible as a recov- efforts and much preferred leaving it impact on spawning salmon. Under ery plan, not just as an excuse for not to the state. The Oregon Plan thus Oregon law there is also no regulatory listing. The same plan has thus served seems to be good for all the political restriction on streambed removal-fill multiple functions, garnering political interests involved. However, theques- activities of less than 50cubicyards- support fromdifferentforces for widely tion really should be whether the Plan a much weaker standard than under differing-and even incompatible- is good for the fish. the Clean Water Act. Beefing up reasons. enforcement of weak or counterpro- By happy fortune, the political The downside of the deal ductive laws is not going to result in conditions were ideal for the negotia- Unfortunately, there are some se- much additional protection. tions that led tothe Oregon Plan. From rious flaws in the Oregon Plan which As they stand, theexistingregu- the viewpoint of the industrial timber- cannot be readily overcome. These latory mechanisms cannot be relied land or agricultural land owner, the include: upon to adequately control, curtail Oregon Plan was an opportunity to (1) Reliance on Oregon's laws or reverse the widespread pattern of avoid a listing, i.e., to avoid federally when Oregon's laws are the problem. salmon habitat destruction. Even mandated reforms of land use prac- Oregon's natural resource protection though NMFS did negotiate a tices linked to salmon declines. From laws have proven seriously deficient "Memorandum of Agreement" call- the viewpoint of the Governor, pri- in controlling salmon habitat losses. ing for rule making improvements mary reliance on voluntary efforts Compared to either Washington or to some of these laws, there is a real made the package politically saleable California, many of Oregon's current question about how much wide- and fundable through a skittish and regulatory regimes are weak at best. spread land use practices can be anti-regulatory Legislature suffering In fact, some laws actually prohibit changed by internal agency rule- severe budget shortfalls. From protecting salmon spawning areas. For making alone. Many of the laws NMFS1s(and the WhiteHouse's)view- example, the Oregon Revised Stat- themselves need to be changed. Un- point, the Oregon Plan offered an ex- utes (ORS) Section 196.810 prevents fortunately, the chances of passage pedient way out of making a politi- more than 20% of any waterway from in a Legislature politically controlled cally charged listing decision. It was being designated "essentialindigenous by those very industries whose prac- also clear that NMFS had neither the anadromous salmonidhabitat. " Gravel tices would have to be curtailed are willingness nor the institutional capa- extraction is thus allowed in all the very dim.

Chinook salmon. Photo by Jim Larison O Oregon State University.

14 EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 (2) Some of the industrial sectors clearcut logging and landslides bear the long-term stability of the whole most affecting salmon spawning ar- this out. The preliminary results of an program is questionable. eas are contributing the least. As part ongoing study by the U.S. Forest Ser- of the Oregon Plan the timber indus- vice in Oregon, for instance, indicate Should a listing have been try, the fishing industry and other sec- that in recent heavy rains landslides deferred? tors have pledged a great deal of money were 2.6 times more frequent from Many groups involved in this and effort to protect salmon. Other slopes clearcut within the last 20years, process, including most of the origi- industrial sectors (such as agriculture) as compared to forested slopes. When nal listing petitioners, argued that it have offered relatively little under the combined with the effects of road- was unwise to jettison the ESA as a Plan. Furthermore, all recovery mea- related activities,the frequency rose to bottom line 'safety net' in favor of an sures to be taken by the inland indus- 5.7 times that of untouched areas. untried and unenforceable state plan. tries are voluntary, whereas the Plan (4) The standard of the Plan should Some of their concerns are surnma- calls for relatively severe and manda- be what is biologically necessary, not rized as follows: tory cutbacks in commercial fishing. what is politically most palatable. First, since the Oregon Plan is Even though curtailments in fishing Many elements of the Oregon Plan are based almost entirely on voluntary alone cannot offset declines caused by based on political and funding con- measures, these may or may not ma- decades of serious habitat losses on- straints, rather than biological needs terialize over time. While we hope shore, commercial fishing restrictions of the fish. There are still legitimate they do, history is rife with restora- under the Plan are in fact far more scientific doubts about whether the tion plans that sounded great on paper draconian than those required under Plan itself would lead to widespread but which ultimately failed in deliv- the ESA. Unequal contributions of recovery for the species even if fully ery. Atsulyriskaverse strategy would this sort create serious inequities and implemented. To provide some assur- also include a listing. In fact, federal undermine confidence that the Plan ances, an independent scientific re- courts have consistently ruled that will ever achieve its recovery goals. view panel and on-going monitoring promised future actions, however (3) Voluntary efforts avoiddeal- program were established to test and grandiose, cannot be the basis for ing with real causes. Watershed verify the Plan's operations and as- failure to list when it is biologically councils are required by law to be sumptions, as well as to correct any warranted (see Southwest Center for broad-based, including representa- problems later identified through an Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 939 tion from local landowners. adaptive management process. This F. Spp. 49 pist. of Columbia Circuit However, it is often these landown- will help, but may not be enough if the 1996),and SaveOur Springs. et. al. v. ers whose land use practices are part Plan itself is flawed. Babbitt (MO-96-CA- 169),U.S, Dis- of the problem. Critics charge that (5) Voluntaiy eforts are inher- trict Court, Western District of Texas the result is a 'dumbing down' of ently unreliable. There are already (Opinion issued April 15, 1997) for restoration efforts so that only those signs that some of the voluntary ef- two recent examples). However, if measures which are noncontrover- forts pledged by affected onshore in- the Oregon Plan becomes an ESA sial or do not inconvenience dustries may not be forthcoming. Some mandated 'recovery plan,' it would landowners can ever be achieved. have contingencies and preconditions have some teeth. This argues that Thus short term 'band aide' ap- that make them less fm. Unfortu- both should work together as part of proaches are pre-selected over nately, all voluntary restoration ef- the whole package. anything that would require local forts are inherently unenforceable, and Second, the Oregon Plan will not landowners to make more funda- therefore unreliable. sigmficantly improve Oregon's laws. mental changes. (6) The lack of stable finding. No new laws are contemplated in the This criticism is also leveled by The 1997 Oregon State Legislature Oregon Plan, and there are serious the American Fisheries Society-un- has only provided funding ($30 mil- limits to how much existing laws can less the major upstream land uses that lion) for the first two years of what is be improved purely through rule-mak- destroy fish habitat are first corrected, at least a 50 year recovery program. ing. Merely enforcing bad laws will all downstream recovery efforts may Future funding is tied to future Legis- never lead to recovery. A listing, become futile. For example, many lative approval, which means the whole however, at least protects against ad- upland land use practices result in program will be a political football in ditional 'take' in ways that Oregon's landslides drowning out lower spawn- every future state budget. Without weak laws cannot. ing areas with silt and debris. Many long-term dedicated funding that is A third concernis that without an studies of the relationship between insulated from the political process, ESA listing there would be abso-

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA TE 15 lutely no prohibition against actual tious and comprehensive state spon- particularly for a voluntary recovery 'take' of these fish in large numbers. sored species recovery plan to date. plan that is still incomplete, experi- At present, since there is no ESA PCFFA andother groups have strongly mental and unenforceable. protection, landowners within the supported the Oregon Plan as the basis Ultimately, however, the Oregon Oregon ESU can now destroy all the of a real recovery plan-though not as Plan is going in the right direction- fish or fish habitat on their property an excuse for not listing. During the but not because it is being used as an with total impunity. At present, coho years the Plan is getting underway and excuse not to list. If all goes well, are not a protected species in Oregon proving itself on its own merits, we Oregon's bold efforts will result in under either state or federal law. The may need the ESA 'safety net' so that delistings and nonlistings the way it ESA can at least provide an important the species will at least receive some should be done-through full recov- interim "safety net" to help prevent interim protection-and so crucialtime ery back to healthy populations, rather extinction while voluntary recovery will not be lost if the Plan fails. than politically expedient back room efforts are being organized and given It simply does not have to be one deals intended to avoid protection as a chance to work. or the other-either ESA listing or the long as possible. Denial never works Finally, a listing may be neces- Oregon Plan. The Oregon Plan and a in the end. It is time to try actual sary to assure that federal agencies listing under the ESA are fully com- recovery. do their share to protect these fish patible and should be melded together on federal lands-or at least that to assure maximum protection. Once Literature cited they take no actions inconsistent listed, NMFS would still have to de- Frissell, C. A. 1993. Topology of with state recovery efforts. The velop a recovery plan as required by extinction and endangerment of native Oregon Plan deals only with the theESA-and clearly the OregonPlan fishes in the Pacific Northwest and California. Conservation Biology would be the backbone of that recov- roughly two-thirds of salmon habi- 7(2):342-354. tat on state or privately owned lands. ery plan. In our own experience with Lawson, P. W. 1993. Cycles in ocean It provides no protection whatso- other listings, few landowners will productivity, trends in habitat quality, ever for these fish on federal lands, withdraw from the process once a and the restoration of salmon runs in which contain the remaining one- listing occurs. Sometimes it is only the Oregon. Fisheries 18(8):6,Aug. third of all remaining salmon habi- listing that breaks through the postur- Nehlsen, Willa, J. E. Williams and J. A. tat, including the most important ing and brings everyone to the table Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at refugia. Unfortunately, history pro- without preconditions. the crossroads: stocks at risk from vides many examples of failures by There is plenty of room in the California, Oregon, Idaho and federal agencies to adequately pro- ESA to allow states the freedom and Washington. Fisheries 16(2), March- April. flexibility to develop and implement tect salmon on public lands. Fed- Pacific Rivers Council. 1992. The eral timber sales, for instance, are their own recovery efforts, while still economic imperative of protecting still being managed in ways that using the listing to maintain minimal riverine habitat in the Pacific Northwest, may increase downstream sediment "take"restrictions under the ESA. What (Report 5 - January). loads and thus jeopardize lower has been ignored in the debate is that stream restoration projects funded we can in fact have the best of both under the Oregon Plan. There are worlds. efforts underway to curtail such ac- Unfortunately, by falling into du- tivities through ESA-based litiga- alistic eitherlor thinking and pitting tion for species already listed. How- ESA protection against state recov- ever, without an actual listing, there ery, both state and federal agencies are are no such legal remedies. Unless missing a golden opportunity to fash- federal projects are at least brought ion a partnership on salmon recovery Glen Spain is the Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's into consistency with the Oregon that could be of great benefit to both, as Associations (PCFFA), the largest organization of Plan, federal activities may work at well as serve as a model for ESA commercial fishermen on the west coast. as well as cross purposes with the Plan itself, recovery efforts elsewhere. Oregon's the Consemation Program Director of PCFFA's affiliate organization, the Institute for Fisheries thus reducing its effectiveness. own efforts should not be used as a Resources. He also sits on the Oregon Plan's The Oregon Plan is experimen- pretext to ignore other available tools. Monitoring Advisory Committee and has been tal, and results are certainly not guar- It makes no sense to jettison the ESA deeply involved in its development. He can be reached at PCFFA's Northwest Office, PO Box anteed. It is a hopeful effort, how- 'safety net' while so many coho popu- 11 170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 or by e-mail at ever, and certainly the most ambi- lations are so close to extinction- .

16 EndangeredspeciesUPDA TE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 Conservation Spotlight: Desert Fish Mike Demlong It is difficult to inspire people to care about ming to Mexico, throughout the Colorado River fish-unless they are in sticks, steaks or fillets. The and many of its tributaries. Today, bonytail are Phoenix Zoo, however, is doing just that with a seldom found in the upper Colorado River and are comprehensive conservation and education pro- instead restricted to two artificial lakes along the gram designed to help imperiled Arizona fish. Arizona/ California border. The temperature, Within the boundaries of The Phoenix Zoo is a physical and chemical composition of these lakes series of artificial lakes originally created as a bass are very different from those in which the fish hatchery for the Arizona Game and Fish Depart- evolved. For example, the Colorado, once a warm, ment. The hatchery closed in the early 1960's, but heavy silted, swift river, is now a cold, clear series the lakes and surrounding land were leased to the of artificial impoundments. new Phoenix Zoo. Since the damming of the Colorado River in In the fall of 1995, the living collections staff at 1954, there has been no recruitment in wild popu- the zoo proposed to convert this underutilized lations. The few bonytail recovered are geriatric area into a refugium for endangered native fish. adults of 40 years of age or more. Failure of this To ensure the success of this project, the zoo en- fish species to maintain a self-supporting popula- listed experts from Arizona State University (ASU), tion in the wild is attributed to habitat alteration U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Arizona from dams and the introduction of exotic fish Game and Fish Department, Dexter National Fish species for sport fishing. Consequently, the Hatchery, Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery, bonytail chub is the most endangered fish in the American Zoo and Aquarium Association Fresh- Colorado River Basin, perhaps in the entire United water Fish Advisory Group, Arizona Zoological States. Fortunately, between 1979 and 1981, 18 Society Conservation Committee, Salt River Project, adult bonytail were captured to establish a captive and City of Phoenix Parks, Recreation, and Library propagation population at the Dexter National Department. Our objectives were to create along- Fish Hatchery. Eleven of these fish became the term refugium for endangered native fish and genetic founders of the entire captive hatchery headstart juveniles for potential reintroduction population used for reintroduction efforts. projects. The decision to use the zoo-held fish for The second species of native fish released in either reintroduction, brood stock, or as a genetic the zoo refugium were razorback suckers. Like the refugium will be determined by the FWS. bonytail chub, they ranged throughout the Colo- The FWS's biological assessment determined rado River Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, the 15-acre lake to be suitable habitat and offered Arizona, and Mexico. In the early 19001s, the to introduce endangered bonytail chub (Gila species was so abundant that it supported a com- elegans) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) mercial fishery in central Arizona, providing hu- once non-native game fish were removed. These man food, animal food, and fertilizer. The largest native species were appropriate because both once population of razorback suckers (approximately thrived in the rivers that dissect Phoenix. How- 23,000) is restricted to Lake Mojave, however a ever, numerous species, including the bonytail smaller population of about 1,000 fish remains in chub and razorback sucker, have been pushed the middle Green River. Unfortunately, little toward extinction by dams, exotic fish, water di- or no recruitment has been documented in either version for residential and farming use, pollution population. from agricultural run-off, river channelization, loss Since non-native fish compete with native spe- of wetland nurseries, and dewatering. Approxi- cies for resources, zoo staff removed as many mately 40 species of North American freshwater adult gamefish from the zoo lake as possible. With fish have become extinct this century, and ap- the assistance of Arizona Game and Fish Depart- proximately 80% of fish in the arid Southwest ment, hundreds of largemouth bass (Micropterus states are imperiled. salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus), and Bonytail chub historically ranged from Wyo- green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) were translocated

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredSpecie8 UPDATE 1 7 using fishing poles, electroshock boats, drift nets, hiding the activities, they were publicized. The and various other traps over a two month period. arrival of the endangered fish was announced to Captured fish were relocated to other lakes on the the community via local television stations and zoo grounds or to city parks within the metropoli- major newspapers. To interpret the project to zoo tan Phoenix area. visitors, The Phoenix Zoo incorporated temporary Once the majority of non-native fish were script into guided tram tours and installed tempo- removed from the lake, the drainvalve was opened rary interpretive signs around the lake. Informal and within seven days the lake was empty. The surveys of zoo visitors revealed general support for lake bed was allowed to dry for the entire month of the project and associated inconveniences (e.g., no June to kill any remaining fish and embryos. Small monkeys on the lake islands, the strong offensive pools of water were treated with ichthyocide odor, dead fish). on three separate occasions to be sure no fish Eventually, temporary graphics were replaced survived. with permanent interpretive stations around the In early July, the lake was refilled with canal lake's perimeter. At each station, visitors were water from the mountain watersheds northeast of provided with information about the endangered Phoenix. Ironically, the water used to fill the fish fish project, the animals' natural history, and rea- refugium was from the same watersheds that once sons for their decline. Each interpretive station fed the rivers the fish historically inhabited. Since includes two life-size "touchable" cement sculp- canal water is also contaminated with game fish, it tures of an adult razorback and bonytail chub. The had to be filtered before entering the renovated three-dimensional sculptures attract visitors to the lake. Zoo staff members, biologists from ASU, and interpretive station and help them visualize an engineers from Salt River Project, collaborated to otherwise invisible animal. design a fish excluder where canal water entered Zoos and aquariums cannot provide what en- the grounds. The filter is a 12 foot long concrete dangered native fish need most to survive: clean trough partially filled with 3/ 16 inch crushed ag- water, unaltered habitat and absence of non-native gregate. All canal water flowing in the zoo lakes species. What we can provide are captive refugia falls on top of a raised gravel bed, impeding non- for imperiled species, and an opportunity to moti- native fish and ideally their larvae and eggs. Dead vate over 120 million people a year to minimize and live fish, crayfish, and inorganic and organic their impact on the aquatic natural world. The debris are removed daily from the gravel bed to Phoenix Zoo is providing low cost, low mainte- improve filtration. Daily cleaning takes about five nance refugia for three species of endangered na- minutes and approximately every two months the tive fish (the third is the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon gravel bed is replaced with new aggregate. Some maculavius)). Yearly maintenance of this project juvenile non-native fish have reappeared in the costs less than the monthly food bill for one tiger! lake. They either passed through the excluder Depending on the success of this project and FWS device or were missed in the initial treatments. needs, The Phoenix Zoo hopes to eventually con- Fortunately, the native fish have grown large vert three more artificial lakes on zoo grounds to enough to avoid predation by non-natives. endangered fish refugia. For more information on The lake took two weeks to refill and was aged this project contact Mike Demlong, The Phoenix for several more weeks to allow reestablishment of Zoo, 455 NorthGalvinParkway, Phoenix, AZ 85008, aquatic invertebrates and phytoplankton. In Au- phone (602) 273-1341, ext. 7624 or e-mail at gust 1997, approximately 200 bonytail chub were [email protected]. released, followed by 5,000 razorback suckers in November. The bonytail chub originated from a captive population maintained at the Dexter Na- tional Fish Hatchery in New Mexico. The razor- back suckers were wild caught as larvae at Lake Mojave, and head-started at Willow Beach Na- tional Fish Hatchery in Parker, Arizona before release in The Phoenix Zoo lake. Fishermen, boats, and a smelly lake bed are hard things to hide at a city zoo. So instead of

18 EndangeredSpecie8 UPDATE Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 NEWS FROM ZOOS

Three New Species of Tarantula Identified in Belize

Steve Reichling, Ph.D., Assistant Curator of Reptiles at the Mem- phis Zoo, has identified three new species of tarantulas since 1994. All three new species are found in Belize, Central America. One of the newly identified spiders (Acanthopelma annae) is fingernail- sized and the smallest tarantula known to exist. Even more exciting, was the identificationof a "thick-shinned" spider (known as the antelope spider to locals), co-discovered and described by Reichling and Canadian arachnologist Rick C. West. This spider is so unique it has been given its own genus (Crassicrus Iamanai). A third spider (Cypsidromus gutzkei), which has a red abdomen and metallic gold legs, is known by a single specimen. Photo by Steve Relchllng American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) Offers Accreditation to Five North American Facilities

Recently, the AZA Accreditation Commission granted accreditation to five North American zoological facilities, bringing the total number of accredited members to 180. The new members include Brevard, Zoo, Melbourne, FL; Chehaw Wild Animal Park, Albany, GA; Dallas World Aquarium, Dallas, TX; The Florida Aquarium, Tampa, FL; and the Rainforest at Moody Gardens, Galveston, TX. For a zoo or aquarium to become an AZA member, they must undergo an extensive peer review which includes an initial application and a two day on-site visit by a team of zoo and aquarium professionals. The visiting team observes all aspects of the facility operation including keeper training, safety procedures for both animals and humans, education programs, veterinary programs, and a financial review. The team prepares a report, which is reviewed by the Accreditation Commission. After top officials are interviewed by the Commission, a vote is taken and accreditation is either granted or denied. Any facility that is denied may re- apply at a later date after the concerns of the commission have been addressed.

Philippine Crocodiles Arrive at Fort Worth Zoo

Fort Worth Zoo recently received a pair of Philippine crocodiles (Crocodylus mindorensis) from the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas. Philippine crocodiles are the rarest and most endangered of all crocodilians. Once found on at least eight islands in the Philippine Archipelago, over-hunting and habitat loss has confined them to small isolated pockets with approximately 100 remaining in swampy sections of a few islands. This has lead the IUCN to rank their status in the wild as "critical." The AZA Crocodilian Advisory Group has designated the Philippine crocodile as their highest pri- ority and recommended a Species Survival Plan0 if new blood lines can be obtained. Currently, a working relationship between the IUCN / SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, the AZA Crocodilian Advisory Group, CFI personnel and the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources is being developed, and it is hoped that new croco- diles will soon be added to the breeding population in the United States.

Photo by Brad Doherty

Vol. 14 Nos. 5&6 1997 EndangeredspeciesUPDATE 19 Bulletin Board

Third International species in a variety of habitats. A wide or to register by phone with credit card, Conference on choice of no-cost projects and research please call the Education Registrar at Environmental Enrichment opportunities for students is also listed. (847) 835-8261. Sea World is hosting the Third The directory can be ordered for International Conference on Envi- $US 16, plus postage, through E-mail Human Conservation Behavior ronmental Enrichment which will at: [email protected]. The Biodiversity Support Program, be held October 12 - 16,1997 at the a U.S.A.1.D.-funded consortium of Clarion Plaza Hotel in Orlando, Plant Population Genetics World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Con- Florida. To obtain additional in- Symposium servancy, and World Resources Insti- formation, contact Thad Lacinak at The 1997 Janet Meakin Poor Re- tute, announces its new publication, Un- (407) 363-2651 or (407) 345-5397 search Symposium titled "Plant Popu- derstanding and Influencing Behaviors (fax). lation Genetics: Bridging the Gap Be- in Conservation and Natural Resources tween Research and Stewardship" will Management, by Dr. Bruce Byers. This USFWS Home Page be held October 30,1997 at the Chicago reports the findings and conclusions of The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Botanic Garden in Glencoe, IL. a four-year study on approaches and Service now has a new Interna- The symposium is intended to pro- methods for understanding and influ- tional Affairs Home Page where vide an overview of current research in encing human behavior in conservation you can find updated information the field of plant population genetics and natural resource management. on CITES, including CITES reso- including inbreeding and outbreeding For orders, or more information, lutions, information on permits, fact depression, relationship between repro- contact BSP Africa Program, World sheets, etc. It can be found at http:/ ductive biology and population genet- Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street, N.W., /www.fws.gov. ics, and techniques for measuring ge- Washington, DC 20037; Tel.: (202) 778- netic diversity. The symposium will 9795; Fax: (202) 861-8324; E-mail: Green Volunteers Guide also focus on the role of genetics in [email protected]. The 1997 edition of the Green restoration projects and rare plant re- VolunteersGuide has just been pub- covery as well as other connections lished. It includes more than 100 between research and stewardship in projects and organizations world- the field of population genetics. Announcements for the Bulletin Board are wide, where enthusiasts can volun- The fee to attend the conference is welcomed. Some items from the Bulletin Board have been provided by Jane Villa-Lobos. teer from one week to one year, to $69 for Garden members and $86 for Smithsonian Institution. study or care for a whole range of nonmembers. For further information

Non-Profit Organ~zation Endangered Species U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ann Arbor, MI UPDATE Permit No. 144 School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115