Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 193
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 193
10
Beyond the Endangered Species Act
This chapter explores the ability of the Endangered Species Act to fulfill its purpose and how it might be
complemented by other activities. In its drafting of the act, Congress clearly recognized the importance of
habitats and ecosystems, because species—endangered and otherwise—cannot survive without them. To protect
those habitats and ecosystems will require more than the ESA alone can provide, and that is also a topic of this
chapter. The act's protections have helped listed species in many cases, although some species continue to
become extinct. Ecosystem-level planning and management offer promise for addressing the conservation needs
of a wider array of species than the traditional species-oriented approach and should be viewed as valuable
complements to the ESA.
IS THE ESA WORKING?
Is the Endangered Species Act working? Critics of the act and its defenders debate this question as
reauthorization looms. Not surprisingly, the answers differ depending on how the poser is affected by the act's
provisions. To answer the question, we need to return to the objectives of the ESA as they are described in the
act. Section 2(b) of the ESA states that the purposes of the act are "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 194
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 194
achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section." The essential
questions are
• Do the ESA's protections reduce the likelihood of species extinction?
• Has the ESA successfully promoted species recovery?
• Are the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend being conserved?
REDUCING EXTINCTION
The difficulty with conclusively establishing extinction is manifest in several ways. First is the inherent
problem of proving negative facts. No matter how many times species searches find nothing, there is always a
chance that the object might appear. The black-footed ferret is a prime example. Hundreds of surveys were
conducted throughout its historic range before it reappeared in Meeteetse, Wyoming, several years after the last
known field population in South Dakota faded from view.
Second, information on an organism's status might be scanty because little effort has been taken to find and
study it. In addition, finding rare species often requires specialized survey techniques that are not systematically
applied, or the methods used might simply be inappropriate if little is known about the species. Finally, we might
not have long enough time-series data or be looking in the right places (Taylor, 1993)—witness the proliferation
of several threatened or endangered annual plants following heavy rains that broke the recent several-year
drought in California's San Joaquin Valley. Hoover's woolly-star (Eriastrum hooveri) has been found in so many
locations where it was formerly unknown or thought to be extirpated that resource agencies might soon submit a
delisting petition (L. Saslaw, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, pers. commun.).
Although not conclusive, the comparison of rates of extinction between listed and candidate species,
especially when remedial actions are clearly identifiable and feasible, indicates that the ESA helps to retard
extinctions. Recovery actions encouraged by the ESA and supported by agency funding have helped to rescue
several species from precarious status. A recent fact-sheet furnished by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Office of Endangered Species provides 30 ESA success stories. Several of them appear on the list of top 20 U.S.
threatened and endangered animal species and top 20 plant species in order of federal and state expenditures for
recovery in 1989 (CEQ, 1990), including several high-visibility symbols of the ESA's appeal, such as the bald
eagle, grizzly bear, American peregrine falcon, whooping crane, southern sea otter, black-footed ferret, and
California condor. Although FWS does not yet consider those species to be recovered, their
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 195
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 195
chances for long-term survival have improved greatly. Others on the list that received substantial funding, such
as the Puerto Rican parrot, would have fared much worse if not for strong intervention (Snyder et al., 1987), the
recent damage caused by hurricane Andrew notwithstanding. Also, a recent GAO report (GAO, 1994) concludes
that the National Wildlife Refuge system is contributing to the recovery of endangered species.
Combined with the mandates for federal agencies to avoid jeopardy and the ban on taking listed species, the
affirmative steps provided in the ESA are helping to ease the risk to other species too. The status of the Utah
prairie dog, piping plover, Oregon silver-spot butterfly, Aleutian Canada goose, Gila trout, greenback cutthroat
trout, least Bell's vireo, California least tern, Virginia big-eared bat, red wolf, small whorled pagonia, and several
others have improved greatly from the time of listing (FWS, 1990), although they are not out of danger. Others,
such as the Florida panther, are still struggling despite intensive efforts to stabilize the remaining population.
Without the protections and recovery actions required by the ESA, there is a strong, but hard-to-prove,
possibility that most, if not all, of these and many other species would be closer to extinction than they are today.
It is not possible to evaluate from available information whether any candidate species have improved without
actions compelled by the act.
RECOVERY SUCCESS
In December 1990, the FWS published its first report to Congress on the endangered and threatened species
recovery program. That report was prepared to meet a requirement in the 1988 amendments to the ESA, which
were intended to improve recovery programs. Several provisions were enacted in response to public perceptions
that the recovery planning and implementation process was not working very well (Fitzgerald and Meese, 1986;
Clark and Harvey, 1988; GAO, 1988; Culbert and Blair, 1989).
The amendments provided for public involvement in recovery planning through review and commenting
opportunities on draft recovery plans. Every 2 years, FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
are to report to Congress on the status of recovery planning and implementation efforts. The resource agencies
must set up systems for monitoring the status of recovered and delisted species. States are encouraged to use
Section 6 funds to monitor the status of candidate species, and recovery expenditures must be reported annually.
Congress tried to make recovery plans more useful by requiring them to identify site-specific management
actions to achieve recovery goals, to estimate the time needed for recovery assuming sufficient funds are
available for implementation, to estimate costs required for successful implementation, and to set measurable
recovery criteria that enable FWS and NMFS to evaluate recovery success.
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 196
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 196
According to FWS (1992), recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened
species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized. The goal of the process is to achieve
sufficient self-sustaining wild populations of listed species to ensure their survival in nature.
FWS aims to (1) identify ecosystems and organisms facing the greatest degree of threat, (2) determine steps
necessary to reduce or eliminate the threats, and (3) apply the resources available to the highest priority recovery
tasks. Restoration to the point where species can be delisted is the ultimate objective, although removal from the
list is not a reasonable measure of short-term success (FWS, 1992). FWS asserts that a more realistic metric of
recovery efforts is the number of species whose decline has been arrested and the population stabilized.
The recovery process starts with development of a recovery plan. The purpose is to develop species-specific
recovery goals; identify needed biological information, including the status of the species; and set forth
management tasks required to recover the species. FWS maintains that coordination among federal, state, and
local agencies; academic researchers; conservation organizations; private individuals; and major land users might
be the most essential ingredient for the development and implementation of an effective recovery program. The
agency further states that it emphasizes cooperation and teamwork among all involved parties.
As described in Chapter 4, the resource agencies had approved 411 recovery plans covering 513 species as
of March 1993—54% of the 956 U.S. species listed at that time. The percentage of species having approved
recovery plans has dropped somewhat from 1990, when 352 out of 581 listed species (61%) were covered (FWS,
1990). This is probably attributable to recent accelerated listing actions and agency preoccupation with several
manpower-intensive listing and recovery efforts (J. Bartell, FWS, pers. commun.). Chapter 4 also describes
FWS's recovery backlog, which is likely to expand in future years as the pace of listings increases in response to
the recent settlement over Category 1 candidates and "warranted but precluded" species.
Because most recovery plans were prepared before the 1988 amendments were passed, we only recently
began to see the effects of the new requirements. In April 1993, 80 species had revised plans that were intended
to comply with the 1988 amendments; another 63 species had draft first plans or draft revised plans.
FWS broke out the listed species covered in its 1990 (581 species) and 19921 (711 species) reports to
Congress into the following groups:
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
1The latest information available to the committee.
OCR for page 197
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 197
1990 1992
Improving 57 (9.8%) 69 (9.7%)
Stable 181 (31.2%) 201 (28.3%)
Declining 219 (37.7%) 232 (32.6%)
Extinct 11(1.9%) 14 (2.0%)
Unknown 113 (19.4%) 195 (27.4%)
These results are interpreted differently by various observers even within the environmental community.
Some are encouraged (Irvin, 1993) by the number of species stabilized or improving, and others lament the lack
of recovery plans for many species and the high numbers known to be declining or whose status is unknown.
Critics of the ESA point to the low numbers of delistings due to successful recovery and the high costs required
to get there for many others (Desiderio, 1993). Only six species have been delisted due to successful recovery:
the Palau dove, Palau owl, Palau flycatcher, the Rydberg milk-vetch, the Atlantic coast population of the brown
pelican, and the gray whale. Several recoveries (or improvements in status) happened because more individuals
were found after the species were listed. For example, the upgrading of the formerly endangered snail darter of
Tennessee (a fish, Percina tanasi) was largely due to the discovery of additional populations in different rivers
from where it was originally discovered (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). In other cases, progress toward recoveries
might have been due at least in part to actions unrelated to the ESA, such as the banning of DDT.
Expenditures for recovery have increased in recent years, although they are far less than needed to attain
recovery goals for the bulk of listed species (DOI, 1990; Jackson, 1992). FWS's budget for recovery programs
was $10.4 million in FY 1990 and $39.7 million in FY 1995, although additional funds were available from
other state and federal agencies. FWS estimates that approximately $177 million was spent for endangered-
species conservation programs in 1991 (FWS, 1992), but other funding approaches or even exceeds that figure:
for example, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) estimated that its 1994 expenditures on salmon
conservation (including some stocks listed as endangered under the ESA) in the Columbia River basin amounted
to about $350 million, of which about $300 million was due to lost power revenues (NRC, 1995). The
importance of these numbers is not easy to interpret: the BPA expenditure was 1% of its 1994 revenues. That
portion of the U.S. budget would be about $10 billion per year.
Another concern is that what FWS means by stable, improving, or declining is unclear. This lack of
precision mirrors reservations expressed by Rohlf (1991) about the absence of clearly stated thresholds to define
differences among threatened, endangered, and secure (recovered) species. Al
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 198
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 198
though these categories are qualitative designations, they are not very useful in comparing species trends,
because no measurable criteria are used to define them, as discussed in Chapter 8. For example, what percentage
change in population size over what period constitutes a decline or improvement? Within what range of variation
around a midpoint must a population remain to be considered stable? For how long? If the population size
remains constant for several years but it is above or below the numbers when it was listed, is this considered
stable or does it constitute a trend in either direction? It is not apparent that calling a species stable allows
someone to distinguish between species that are still at critically low levels and those that are more abundant and
less at risk. Chapter 8 offers guidance and encouragement to FWS to assign measurable criteria to these
groupings in future reports.
The committee concludes that although the ESA has undoubtedly protected some species from extinction,
the overall effectiveness of recovery plans cannot be quantified at this time. In part, this is because recovery
plans can take a long time to work or to fail, especially where long-lived species are concerned. In addition, as
mentioned elsewhere, many recovery plans are implemented only after long delays, and often not at all.
PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEMS
Although it is clear that the ESA has resulted in the protection of some ecosystems on which endangered
species depend, our ability to quantify the contribution FWS and NMFS regulatory programs make in protecting
them is limited. Lacking effective metrics, we are left to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of
species-by-species management so common in the listing and recovery programs with more regional ecosystem-
oriented efforts. Although the purpose of the act is in part to protect ecosystems on which threatened and
endangered species depend, public support and congressional appropriations are more clearly linked with the
need to protect individual species having broad social or cultural significance (Rohlf, 1991). Traditional
approaches sometimes have been necessitated by the urgent need to save certain species dangerously close to
extinction during the early years of the act's tenure.
The historic focus of FWS and NMFS regulatory programs on saving individual species is acknowledged
by the agencies (FWS, 1990). Listings have occurred mostly on a species-by-species schedule with some
exceptions, including plants from rare communities in Hawaii, Florida, and Puerto Rico. Recent litigation
settlement agreements committing FWS to act on several hundred candidate species provide that FWS will use a
multispecies, ecosystem-based approach for listing proposals and critical habitat designation when biologically
appropriate. Also, habitat conservation planning,
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 199
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 199
although seldom used in practice, has the potential to be effective in protecting ecosystems and has realized that
potential in a few cases (Chapter 4).
With recovery protocols for 513 species contained in 411 plans, about one quarter of approved plans
address multiple species. Without reviewing each plan, the committee could not tell how many of those prepared
for more than one species try to meet common ecosystem objectives. Examples of recovery plans that feature an
ecosystem perspective include Ash Meadows (five animals and seven plants), Maui-Molokai forest birds (seven
species), and California Channel Island species (FWS, 1990). Plan development is under way for six plants and
four animals in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where collaborators are trying to take a landscape view
covering several biological community types and a multitude of competing land uses. On February 23, 1994,
FWS released a draft recovery plan for aquatic species in the Snake River. The draft plan included 16 fish taxa
and 42 mollusks (including five listed snails).
Because listings and recovery plans concentrate on individual species does not mean that the ecosystems
where they play constituent roles are not being protected. Indeed, if it did not protect ecosystems, at least to some
degree, the ESA would be less controversial than it is, because that protection includes a prohibition of some
economic activities. Perhaps the best-known example is the limitations on forest harvest to protect the northern
spotted owl's ecosystem. Even where the ESA has led to incomplete or even no protection of an ecosystem, it has
focused attention on the nature and biological significance of many ecosystems.
Unless the populations are being artificially maintained, recovery success depends on proper consideration
of how the species interacts with surrounding biotic and physical environmental factors. Self-sustaining wild
populations require sufficient natural habitat, including food, water, shelter, movement corridors, and the many
other features essential for survival and reproduction (Morrison et al., 1992). As discussed above, about 4% of
listed species have already recovered or are close enough to downlisting or recovery thresholds for FWS to take
administrative action. By definition, if the species are recovered, enough ecosystem-level values must be present
to ensure long-term persistence. The question is whether a broader, more systematic look at the recovery needs
of multiple species would improve the performance of FWS's recovery program.
In addition to programs under the ESA, other federal agencies have land-management authorities and
responsibilities, and their activities—some under congressional mandates—include land acquisition, wildlife
management, management of parks and wilderness areas, protection of wetlands, and prevention of
environmental pollution. These activities also result in protection of ecosystems; the responsible agencies include
the National Park
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 200
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 200
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
THE FUTURE: BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The ESA and other existing programs will not by themselves prevent all future extinctions of species in the
United States. It appears to the committee that Congress intended the ESA to be a safety net to protect
endangered species, and the committee concludes that that is its proper role. However—and this is not entirely
the fault of the ESA—species often will be in serious trouble by the time they receive ESA protection. The
director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie Beattie, holds a similar view. She said (as quoted by the
Jackson Hole News, February 8, 1995): ''The Endangered Species Act is . . . a law that plays in when local
planning and zoning, state fish and wildlife efforts, the Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act haven't worked. It is
the emergency room of conservation policy." If species extinctions are to be prevented, a broader management
approach will be needed to complement the ESA's protections. A few thoughts on that broader approach—
ecosystem management—are appropriate here.
The goal of an ecosystem-based approach to managing natural resources is to maintain biological diversity
by recognizing the value of protecting an array of biological communities and habitat types within a larger
landscape context (Hunter, 1990). Ecosystem-focused programs are probably most useful when individual
elements of biological communities are not in so much trouble that they need narrowly targeted management
efforts.
Using an ecosystem perspective2 for endangered-species-conservation planning offers several advantages.
First, species needs are viewed in the context of surrounding land uses, rather than within the limits of their
currently occupied habitat. Because surrounding land uses and the distribution of habitat patches among them
can strongly influence species welfare (Hunter, 1990), resource managers can identify future opportunities and
constraints.
Second, the complexity of the problems facing managers who develop and implement strategies for
conservation of endangered species requires new concepts (LaRoe, 1993). The expected rapid pace of new
listings coupled with funding limitations places a premium on approaches that address the needs of different
species simultaneously. Recently developed tools, such as advances in remote sensing, population-viability-
analysis models, decision-analysis methods (see Chapter 8), and geographic information sys
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
2See discussion of ecosystem management in Chapter 9.
OCR for page 201
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 201
tems, increase our ability to analyze complex problems involving interactions among diverse influences and the
implications of various possible solutions. Gap analysis (Scott et al., 1987) can provide a process to identify
areas of high biological diversity or those containing several protected species with overlapping ranges. It can
also be used to develop a coarse overview of resource status and land uses across political boundaries. Additional
management approaches related to ecosystem management show promise. They include the following:
• Reconstruction or rehabilitation of ecosystems. Restoration ecology is a growing discipline. Many
ecosystem functions have been improved or restored by such activities, and reconstruction or
rehabilitation of ecosystem functioning holds much promise for the protection of endangered species. It
is not usually possible to return an ecosystem to some prior pristine condition, however. Many
ecosystems have been so altered that it is difficult to decide what prior condition we might want to
return to. The trajectory taken by the ecosystem to get to its current condition is not retraceable in the
way that a highway is, because many events occur in an ecosystem's history that are not precisely
reversible. Genetic variability is lost; evolution occurs; exotic species are introduced; human
populations in the region increase, and people develop dependence on a variety of modern technologies,
cultures, and economic systems; and other natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the
range of biophysical and socioeconomic possibilities for future states of the system. In brief, the past
provides opportunities for the future but also constrains it. Thus, attempts to rehabilitate ecosystem
functioning should keep these constraints in mind, so that inappropriately high expectations are not
generated.
• Mixed management plans. Often, resource managers manage areas either for protection of biota or for
human use. It is increasingly difficult to keep people and the effects of their activities separate from
wildlife sanctuaries. Although such sanctuaries (e.g., national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges,
marine sanctuaries) are indispensable for protecting endangered species, greater attention needs to be
paid to developing mixed-use areas. Those would be urban recreation areas or residential and
commercial developments adjacent to untrammeled areas designed to improve opportunities for wildlife
while maintaining opportunities for human activities. Although the value of this approach is becoming
increasingly recognized, its development is still in the early stages.
• Cooperative management. Various experiences with cooperative management—the sharing of planning
and decision making by various government and nongovernment groups—have had some success. To
some degree, habitat conservation plans represent an example of this approach, but it is likely that
cooperative management will be necessary in cases where
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 202
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 202
the strict requirements of the Endangered Species Act have not yet been applied. It is important to
include the major interested parties without having so many interests involved that consensus is difficult
to reach.
• Revised economic accounting. Too often, economic calculations underlying public and private decision
making are incomplete. Often, they cover too short a time span, and they often exclude nonmarket
values. A short-term loss might turn into a long-term gain: for example, losing an economic activity
today might provide opportunities for greater economic activities of different types at some time in the
future. Again, the validity of expanding economic accounting to cover longer periods and to include
nonmarket values is becoming more widely recognized, but it is still in the early stages of development.
SCIENCE, POLICY, AND THE ESA
This committee was asked to review the scientific aspects of the ESA, and it has done so. It has not
uncovered any major scientific issue that seriously hinders the implementation of the act, although its review has
suggested several scientific improvements. Many of the conflicts and disagreements about the ESA do not
appear to be based on scientific issues. Instead, they appear to result because the act—in the committee's opinion
designed as a safety net or act of last resort—is called into play when other policies and management strategies
or their failures, or human activities in general, have led to the endangerment of species and populations. In some
cases, policies and programs have been based on sound science, but other factors have prevented them from
working. The committee does not see any likelihood that those endangerments will soon cease to occur or that
the ESA can or should be expected to prevent them from occurring. It therefore concludes that any coherent,
successful program to prevent species endangerments and to protect the nation's biological diversity is going to
require more enlightened commitments on the part of all major parties to achieve success.
To conserve natural habitats, approaches must be developed that rely on cooperation and innovative
procedures; examples provided by the ESA are habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation
planning. But those are only a beginning. Many other approaches have been discussed in various forums. They
include cooperative management (sharing decision-making authority among several governmental and
nongovernmental groups), transfer of development credits, mitigation banks, tax incentives, and conservation
easements.
An analysis of these and other policy and management options is beyond this committee's charge, but sound
science alone will not lead to successful prevention of many species extinctions, conservation of biologi
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 203
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 203
cal diversity, and reduced economic and social uncertainty and disruption. But sound science is an essential
starting point. Combined with innovative and workable policies, it can help to solve these and related problems.
REFERENCES
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1990. Twenty-first Annual Report. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Clark, T.W., and A.H. Harvey. 1988. Implementing endangered species recovery policy: Learning as we go. Endangered Species Update
5:35-42.
Culbert, R., and R.B. Blair. 1989. Recovery planning and endangered species. Endangered Species Update 6:2-8.
Desiderio, M. 1993. The ESA: Facing hard truths and advocating responsible reform. Nat. Resour. Environ. 8:37, 41-42.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) Office of the Inspector General. 1990. Audit Report: The Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press.
Fitzgerald, J., and G.M. Meese. 1986. Saving Endangered Species, Amending and Implementing the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of
Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Report to Congress, Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Report to Congress, Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office.
GAO (General Accounting Office). 1988. Endangered Species Management Improvements Could Enhance Recovery Programs. U.S.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
GAO (General Accounting Office). 1994. National Wildlife Refuge System: Contributions Being Made to Endangered Species Recovery.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
Hunter, M.L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry, Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Regents/
Prentice Hall. 370 pp.
Irvin, W.R. 1993. The Endangered Species Act: Keeping Every Cog and Wheel. Nat. Resour. Environ. 8:36, 38-40, 76.
Jackson, T.C. 1992. All creatures great and small. Legal Times (Dec. 7):20-23.
LaRoe, E.T., III. 1993. Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Endangered Species Conservation. Endangered Species Update 10:3-6.
Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships, Concepts and Applications. Madison, Wisc.:
University of Wisconsin Press. 343 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
Rohlf, D.J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't work—and what to do about it. Conserv. Biol. 5:273-282.
Scott, J.M., B. Csuti, J.D. Jacobi, and J.E. Estes. 1987. Species richness. Bioscience 39:782-788.
Snyder, N.F.R., J.W. Wiley, and C.B. Kepler. 1987. The Parrots of Luquillo: Natural History and Conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot.
Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles, Calif. 384 pp.
Taylor, R.J. 1993. Biological Uncertainty in the Endangered Species Act. Nat. Resour. Environ. 8:6-9, 58-59.
Taylor, S. 1993. Practical ecosystem management for plants and animals. Endangered Species Update 10:26-29.
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
OCR for page 204
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
BEYOND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
204
