CHAPTER 2
WORKING TOWARD SPECIES CONSERVATION

Endangered species have different needs and require different conservation measures. Some fish are endangered only because of a history of overfishing. Halting or reducing fishing is sufficient for population recovery. In most cases, however, more active forms of intervention are necessary. The single most important conservation measure for many threatened and endangered species is habitat conservation or restoration. For some species, captive breeding followed by reintroduction into the wild may help increase numbers. In all cases, knowledge of the natural history of endangered species is essential to acquiring a better understanding of species' needs, as well as to the development of measures that will aid in conservation.

HISTORY OF SPECIES PROTECTION

Conservation has a long history. One of the oldest examples dates from 242 b.c.e. ("before the common era"), when the Indian emperor Asoka created nature reserves in Asia. Marco Polo reported that the Asian ruler Kublai Khan (a.d. 1215–1294) helped conserve bird and mammal species valued for hunting by banning hunting during their reproductive periods. He also helped to increase their numbers by planting food and providing protected cover areas. In South America, during the reign of the Inca kings, many species of seabirds were protected.

By the mid-nineteenth century many governments had developed an interest in wildlife conservation and an awareness of the need to protect natural habitats. In 1861 painters of the Barbizon school established the first French nature reserve, which covered nearly 3,458 acres of forest at Fontainebleau. Three years later the American government set aside the Yosemite Valley in California as a National Reserve. This became Yosemite National Park in 1890. Wyoming's Yellowstone Park was created in 1872 and became the first U.S. National Park.

Organizations and laws dedicated to the protection of species soon followed. In 1895 the first international meeting for the protection of birds was held in Paris, and resulted in new laws protecting species in several countries. The first international conference for the protection of nature was held in 1913. The International Whaling Commission was established in 1946, and two years later, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) was founded as the International Union for the Protection of Nature. (In 1956 that organization became the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, or IUCN. In 1990 the name was shortened to IUCN-The World Conservation Union.) In 1961 a private conservation organization, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), was founded. The Chinese giant panda was selected as the WWF symbol, not only because of the animal's great popularity, but also to reaffirm the international character of nature conservation, and to emphasize the independence of wildlife conservation from political differences. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), an international treaty established to regulate commerce in wildlife, was first ratified in 1975 in an attempt to block both the import and export of endangered species and to regulate international trade in threatened species.

In the U.S., Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, and the first species were listed in 1967. (See Table 2.1.) This established a process for listing species as endangered and provided some measure of protection. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provided protection to species facing worldwide extinction, prohibiting their import and sale within the U.S.

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973—A LANDMARK PROTECTION

The Endangered Species Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973. It is generally considered one of the most far-reaching laws ever enacted by any nation for the preservation of wildlife. The passage of the Endangered Species Act resulted from alarm at the decline of numerous species

worldwide, as well as from a recognition of the importance of preserving species diversity. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to identify species that are either endangered—at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range—or threatened—likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. With the exception of pest species, all animals and plants are eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Listed species are protected without regard to either commercial or sport value.

The Endangered Species Act is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Department of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, is responsible for marine species.

The Endangered Species List

After passage of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service was inundated with petitions for the listing of species—approximately 24,000 petitions were received in the first two years after passage. As of February 2004, there are 985 U.S. species (388 animals and 597 plants) and 517 foreign species (516 animals and 1 plant) listed as endangered, and 275 U.S. (128 animals and 147 plants) and 41 foreign species (39 animals and 2 plants) listed as threatened. Thousands of other species are being studied to see if they need to be added to the list.

The Listing Process

The process for listing a new species as endangered or threatened begins with a formal petition from a person or organization. (Figure 2.1 diagrams the petition process.) This petition is submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service for terrestrial and freshwater species and to the National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species. All petitions must be backed by published scientific data supporting the need for listing. Within 90 days, the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service determines whether there is "substantial information" to suggest that a species requires being listed under the Endangered Species Act. Approximately 65 percent of petitions for species are found to have substantial information to warrant further study, whereas 35 percent do not.

For petitions that present biological data suggesting that listing may be necessary, the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service then performs a status review to determine whether listing is warranted. This process must be completed within 12 months. In the past, over half the petitions warrant action. Once it has been determined that action on a species is warranted, that species becomes a candidate species. Candidate species may immediately join the list of proposed species. However, in some cases, it may be decided that other candidate species have higher priority. If this is the case, the species is designated as "warranted but precluded," that is, immediate action is precluded by more urgent listing activity. Species that are listed as "warranted but precluded" are re-evaluated annually to confirm that listing continues to be warranted. These species continue to be re-evaluated until they either join the list of proposed species or until their status has improved sufficiently that they are no longer warranted for listing.

A species is officially proposed for listing through the publication of this action in the Federal Register. At this point, the Fish and Wildlife Service asks three independent biological experts to verify that the petitioned species requires listing under either threatened or endangered status. After that, input from the public, from other federal and state agencies, and from the scientific community is welcomed. This period of public comment lasts 60 days. Following the sixty-day period, the final rule regarding listing of the species is published in the Federal Register, and listing is effective thirty days after publication.

Figure 2.2 shows the number of species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act by state as of February 19, 2004, and these species are listed in Table 2.2. There were thirty-six U.S. proposed species in February 2004. (Three of these were proposed as threatened rather than endangered.) The Fish and Wildlife Service also keeps a list of candidate species (those for which there is scientific evidence warranting their proposal for listing, but which have yet to become proposed species). The Fish and Wildlife Service works with state wildlife agencies and other groups to help preserve and improve the status of candidate species, with the hope that populations may recover enough that species will not require listing. In February 2004 there were 256 U.S. candidate species recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Figure 2.3 shows the number of candidate species per state.

After a species is listed, its condition and situation are reviewed at least every five years to decide whether it still requires government protection. Once the species is able to survive without government protection, it may be removed from the list.

Conserving Listed Species

Conservation efforts for protected species begin with the preparation of a recovery plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service that details how the species will be protected and helped to thrive. This report also includes the estimated timeline for and cost of recovery. In many cases, recovery efforts include the designation of critical habitat—that is, areas of land, water, and air space that are used by threatened and endangered species for breeding, resting, and feeding. Critical habitat designation does not set up a refuge, and has no regulatory impact on private landowners unless they wish to take actions on their land that involve federal funding or permits. Species which have had critical habitat designated are listed in Table 2.3. For a small number of species, primarily mammals, birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, recovery efforts include the introduction of individuals into new areas. Species with so-called "experimental populations" are listed in Table 2.4.

The Endangered Species Act gives the government and its agencies the power to do whatever is necessary to protect a threatened or endangered species. However, budgetary constraints severely limit the action that can be taken. In 2004 the Fish and Wildlife Service had at its disposal $9.8 million for the conservation of candidate species, $12.1 million for listing activity, $47.1 million for consultations with federal and private agencies to resolve potential issues, and $67.9 million for the recovery of listed species. How best to use these funds is contentious. In fact, in 2000, 50 percent of recovery expenditures were used to conserve only seven species (0.6 percent of listed species), and 90 percent of recovery expenditures were used to conserve 91 listed species (7.4 percent of all listed species). This means that very little effort goes towards the conservation of the large majority of endangered and threatened species. The ten species with the highest reported expenditure for 1998–2000 are shown in Table 2.5.

The number of species being added to the federal threatened and endangered species list is likely to continue to grow. Although vertebrate species dominated the list during the first years of the act, plants and invertebrate animals now make up a much greater proportion of listed species. (See Table 1.2 in Chapter 1.) These species are

politically more difficult to defend than either mammals or birds, which are more inherently appealing to most Americans because of the "warm and fuzzy" factor. These circumstances raise questions about the continued feasibility of a species-by-species preservation strategy, and the Fish and Wildlife Service struggles under intense legal and political pressures to decide which species to protect first.

For its supporters, the Endangered Species Act has proved to be one of the most effective conservation laws ever enacted. Many Americans believe that the Endangered Species Act has saved many species from extinction. An estimated 40 percent of species on the list are either stable in population size or increasing in number. A few species have improved sufficiently to have their listing status changed. In Table 2.6, species whose status has been changed since listing under the Endangered Species Act are detailed. Many endangered species (E) have been reclassified as threatened (T), indicating that their status has improved since protection under the Endangered Species Act. Other species have declined in population, however, and have shifted from threatened to endangered.

Extinct, Recovered, and Down-Listed Species

Species may be removed from the Endangered Species List for three reasons:

1. The species has become extinct.
2. The species has recovered to such an extent that it is no longer threatened or endangered.
3. The original information warranting listing has been shown to be incorrect, or new information suggests that the species is not actually endangered or threatened.

As of February 2004, thirty-seven species that were once on the Endangered Species List had been removed from the list, or delisted. These species are shown in Table 2.7, along with the reason for being delisted. Of the species delisted, seven were removed from the list because they went extinct (two more were believed extinct), fifteen species were delisted because they were considered recovered, and fifteen species were delisted either because the original data was in error, because new information had been discovered, or because of taxonomic revision. Reclassification has been proposed for another twelve species, shown in Table 2.8. This includes the proposed delisting of species such as the bald eagle due to recovery.

Habitat Conservation Plans

Endangered and threatened species live and roam wherever they find suitable habitat, without regard to whether the land is federal or non-federal, or public or private. Many landowners fear being denied free use of their land because of laws protecting the endangered species that inhabit it. Recognizing this concern, Congress amended the Endangered Species Act in 1982 to allow for the creation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) governing land use or development. HCPs are generally partnerships drawn up by people at the local level, working with Fish and Wildlife Service officials. They frequently represent compromises between developers and environmentalists.

HCPs typically allow some individuals of a threatened or endangered species to be "taken" (harmed or killed) under a special authority called an incidental take permit. Included in the agreement is a "no surprise" provision that assures landowners or developers that the overall cost of species protection measures will be limited to what has been agreed to under the HCP. In return, landowners make a long-term commitment to conservation as negotiated in the HCP. Many HCPs include the preservation of significant areas of habitat for endangered species. In 2003 a lawsuit brought by Spirit of the Sage Council challenged the "no surprise" policy, arguing that it allowed for too much damage to endangered species. The "no surprise" policy is now being reconsidered in the courts.

Although the HCP program was implemented in 1982, it was little used before 1992, with only fourteen permits issued in that time period. However, by 2002, there were 380 plans in place. HCPs now affect over 200 listed plant and animal species on over 20 million acres of land. The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of approved Habitat Conservation Plans with the locations of the sites as well as data on the listed and unlisted species involved. HCPs have become an necessary tool in the negotiation of endangered species conservation.

A Habitat Conservation Plan for San Diego County

In 1997, after more than a decade of debate and negotiation, environmentalists and developers settled upon an HCP—the "Multispecies Conservation Plan"—for San Diego County. It is regarded by some experts as a possible national model. Under the HCP, certain undeveloped sections of land were permanently set aside as protected natural habitat, while other areas were opened to unrestricted development. Setting aside a connected (rather than fragmented) area of protected natural habitat is a crucial aspect of this HCP. The plan affects some eighty-five species of vulnerable plants and animals. The "Multispecies Conservation Plan" pleased environmentalists because of the creation of a large, permanent preserve for species protection. Developers were pleased that unrestricted development could proceed without costly legal challenges by environmentalists in defined areas.

Desert Tortoises and the Washington County HCP

In Washington County, Utah, an HCP was developed in 1996 to bridge differences between developers and conservationists

concerned about the threatened desert tortoise. In 2001 an update on this HCP was published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service reported that a total of 1,500 acres of habitat were developed in Washington County after being cleared of tortoises—161 tortoises were legally "taken." The biological benefits of the HCP included the acquisition of a continuous area of habitat for desert tortoises administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This reserve was created through the exchange and purchase of land by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, tortoises will be protected from other threats on the reserve. For example, grazing permits for reserve land have been retired, so cattle will no longer trample habitat and compete with tortoises for food. In addition, new restrictions were placed on the operation of off-road vehicles in the reserve, which damage habitats and sometimes hit tortoises. The development of a nature education center is in the works. There are still a number of contentious issues. For example, some members of the public have demanded that more recreational opportunities be made available on the reserve. Also, the Bureau of Land Management needs to purchase more land to complete the reserve, difficult on its limited budget.

Opposition to the Endangered Species Act

Opponents of the Endangered Species Act believe the law violates private property rights and stifles economic growth by curbing development. They also charge that environmental protection often results in the loss of jobs and business profits.

One vocal critic of the Endangered Species Act is Thomas Lambert. In The Endangered Species Act: A

Train Wreck Ahead (St. Louis, MO: Center for the Study of American Business, 1995), Lambert argues that private property will become increasingly restricted under the act. This is because more species are continually being added to the threatened and endangered list, while few are removed from it. Lambert believes the best way to ensure that landowners are treated fairly is to require the federal government to compensate those whose property is devalued through Endangered Species Act land-use restrictions. That way, he says, regulators will be forced to weigh the costs and benefits of recovering a species much more thoroughly and sensibly than they do now.

Is the Endangered Species Act Enough?

Other critics argue, on the other hand, that the Endangered Species Act is not enough. These critics charge that species are often listed for protection so late in the slide to extinction that their populations have already become perilously small. In addition, the listing process can be extremely slow. A number of species have become extinct while federal authorities deliberated about listing action. Even some supporters of the Endangered Species Act believe that implementation of the act has been poor. In part, budget cuts are to blame. For example, in November 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it would be unable to list any new species in 2001 because its budget would be entirely used up complying with court orders requiring designation of critical habitat for listed species. This continues to be a problem.

Other critics charge that the Endangered Species Act has failed in its central mission to preserve biodiversity. They argue that more must be done both to enforce the law and to supplement it. The Wilderness Society, an environmental advocacy organization, believes that the Endangered Species Act, even strengthened and fully funded, will not be sufficient to maintain biological diversity. It argues that conservation efforts must be ecosystem-based, and that the Endangered Species Act must be complemented with a biodiversity program which deals with units larger than single species.

FEDERAL LANDS AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION

The History of U.S. Land Management

In the United States' first century as a nation, the federal government owned about 80 percent of the nation's land. Beginning in 1785 the government began to survey and sell its land holdings to states, settlers, and railroad companies. By the end of the nineteenth century, the government had transferred most of its lands to private ownership. It also allowed private use of remaining federal lands. After several decades of rapid development and unrestricted use, much of the nation's lands and natural resources were significantly degraded. Responding to growing concerns, Congress slowly redefined the federal

government's role in land management from temporary to permanent retention as well as active stewardship.

Half a century later, in the 1960s, increasing scientific and public concern about the declining condition of the country's natural resources led Congress to enact a number of laws to conserve both federal and nonfederal lands. These laws cover air, water, soil, plants, and animals. With increasing environmental legislation, the land management framework evolved into a complex collection of agencies, land units, and laws. Different agencies have different priorities, which are reflected in how they manage the resources under their care. The effects of these different missions are particularly evident in places where two agencies hold adjacent lands. For example, the National Park Service (Department of the Interior) oversees Yellowstone National Park, where timber harvesting is prohibited, whereas the U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) allows large areas to be clear-cut in the adjacent Targhee National Forest in Idaho.

The National Park System

The National Park System began with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. By 2004

there were 384 national parks, monuments, preserves, memorials, historic sites, recreational areas, seashores, and other units that cover a total of more than 83 million acres. The National Park System has units in all U.S. states and territories with the exception of Delaware and the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In addition to preserving habitats that range from arctic tundra to tropical rain forest, the system protects representatives of more than half of North America's plant species and a large proportion of animal species. The map in Figure 2.4 shows the location and ranges of National Parks in the United States. The National Park Service is also responsible for encouraging public enjoyment of its natural areas. Balancing these objectives shapes the debate over how best to manage the National Parks. There were over 413 million visitations to National Parks in 2003, of which 266 million were recreational.

Working closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service plays an important role in protecting and restoring threatened and endangered species. Three measures that the NPS takes to protect wildlife include:

1. Education of park visitors about species loss and the value of biodiversity.
2. Enforcement of laws related to protecting species under the Endangered Species Act.
3. Provision of a protected and undisturbed habitat for animals.

The National Parks have played a significant role in the return of several species, including red wolves and peregrine falcons. National Parks also contain designated critical habitat for numerous listed species. However, not all these are disclosed, in order to protect rare species from collectors, vandals, or curiosity seekers. In 2002 the Fish and Wildlife Service reported that 398 federally listed endangered species were found in National Parks. This represents nearly a third of all threatened and endangered U.S. species. Table 2.9 lists some of the types of endangered,

threatened, proposed, and candidate species that are found within the National Park System. Parks that provide important habitat for disproportionately large numbers of endangered species are listed in Table 2.10. Several are in Hawaii and California, states that have a disproportionate number of listed threatened and endangered species.

The National Forests

The National Forests encompass more land than the National Park Service, including nearly 200 million acres in 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. (See Table 2.11.) A map of the locations of U.S. National Forests is shown in Figure 2.5. In addition to forest and grassland areas, National Forest lands also include numerous lakes and ponds. National Forest land is, in general, not conserved to the same degree as National Park lands. For example, much logging occurs within these forests.

Within the Forest Service, the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Program focuses on wildlife conservation. A total of 420, or 33 percent of, listed endangered or threatened species are found on National Forest lands. In addition 35 proposed species and 257 candidate species also make use of National Forest or Grassland habitats. The Forest Service has also designated over 2,900 species as sensitive, and has developed protective measures to help keep these species from becoming endangered.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of federal lands and waters managed principally for the protection of fish and wildlife. In 1999, the total acreage in the system was well over 93 million. (See Table 2.12.) This includes 547 Wildlife Refuges; 38 Wetland Management Districts, which administer over 26,000 Waterfowl Protection Areas; and 50 Coordination Areas, which are jointly administered with a state wildlife agency. Figure 2.6 shows the distribution of units within the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The first unit of what would later become the refuge system was the Pelican Island Bird Reservation in Florida, established in 1903 to protect the dwindling populations of wading birds in Florida. Today the sixteen wildlife refuges in Alaska account for 83 percent of land in the refuge system. Yukon Delta, the largest of the Alaskan refuges, comprises 20 million acres. Approximately one-third of the total refuge acreage is wetland habitat, reflecting the importance of wetlands for wildlife survival.

Of the many species listed under the Endangered Species Act, a quarter have habitat on National Wildlife Refuges. Many other listed species use refuge lands on a temporary basis for breeding or migratory rest stops. A list of wildlife refuges established explicitly for endangered species appears, by state, along with the species of concern and the number of protected acres in Table 2.13. Lists of endangered animals and plants found within the National Wildlife Refuge System appear in Table 2.14 and Table 2.15 respectively. Virtually every species of bird in North America has been recorded in the refuge system. The wide variety of wildlife found on refuges also

includes over 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 200 fish species.

Funding limitations constrain efforts to manage wildlife refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service reports that the refuge system's current annual funding is less than half the amount needed to meet established objectives. The 2004 budget for the system included $291.6 million for refuge operations and $99.9 million for refuge maintenance.

America's Wild Lands under Attack

Since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, 630 areas have been designated wilderness. These cover a total of more than 103 million acres. Much of the designated land is located within the National Wildlife Refuge System under the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 2.16 shows the acreage of wilderness areas within the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries Systems. Unlike National Parks, which are intended for use by large numbers of visitors, wilderness areas are intended to be pristine, with limited access and no amenities. True wilderness remains, for most humans, a place to visit only rarely. Nonetheless, the number of people using wilderness areas has increased steadily. Many visitors, as well as park managers, have wearied particularly of the intrusions of civilization—in the form of cell phones, snowmobiles, and aircraft—into wilderness areas.

Many national parks and monuments are suffering as well, in part because of the high volume of visitors. More than five million people visit the Grand Canyon each year. On a busy day, 6,500 vehicles compete for 2,000 parking spaces. By 2001, Grand Canyon, Zion, and Yosemite National Parks required visitors to use mass transit.

In 1997 the Wilderness Society listed "America's 10 Most Endangered Wild Lands." These were identified based on their natural resources, national significance, and the immediate threats to their integrity. Most are wildlife reserves. Among the ten were the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska), Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (Oregon/California), Snoqualmie Pass (Washington), Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Minnesota), and the Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monument (Utah). Also included were Owyhee Canyonlands (Idaho), Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (Georgia/Florida), Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (Arizona), the Whitney Estate in New York, and California's Mojave Desert.

OIL DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE?

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the largest National Wildlife Refuge in the United States. It harbors the greatest number of plant and animal species of any park or refuge in the arctic, including a multitude of unique species such as caribou, musk oxen, polar bears, Arctic foxes, and snow geese. Because of the harsh climate, Arctic habitats are generally characterized by short food chains and extreme vulnerability to habitat disturbance. The majority of Arctic species already live "on the edge." Consequently, the decline of even a single species is likely to have dramatic effects on the entire community.

The protected status of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been challenged by large oil companies and their political supporters. There has been interest in tapping the oil deposits in northern Alaska since the early 1900s. The area was first explored for oil and gas resources in the 1940s and 1950s. It was also in the 1950s, however, that people became aware of the ecological value of these lands, and a compromise was reached in which the northeastern part of the state was set aside as a wildlife range (later refuge), while drilling began—and continues—in the northwestern part of the state. Figure 2.7 shows the northern Alaskan refuge and oil drilling areas respectively. Production of oil and gas in the refuge area—the five percent of Alaska's North Slope not

already open to drilling—was also prohibited at this time unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Environmentalists argue that studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service suggest that oil drilling in the refuge will harm many Arctic species, by taking over habitat, damaging habitats through pollution, interfering with species activities directly, or increasing opportunities for invasive species such as gulls and ravens through the availability of garbage as a food source.

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, they passed legislation to allow for drilling in ANWR. President Clinton vetoed this bill, saying, "I want to protect this biologically rich wilderness permanently." The succeeding administration under George W. Bush has been much more supportive of drilling in the refuge. Attention is now focused particularly on the "1002 Area" within the refuge, which some environmentalists consider one of the most ecologically diverse and valuable. Among the species that would be affected if drilling is permitted are polar bears, whose preferred sites for building dens are in the 1002 Area (see Figure 2.8) and caribou, which use this area for calving—giving birth to young (see Figure 2.9).

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Republican politicians have tried to emphasize the national security aspects of ANWR. They argue that America cannot be truly secure until it reduces its dependence on foreign oil, much of which comes from unstable regions of the world such as the Mideast. One enthusiastic supporter of drilling in ANWR is Walter J. Hickel, former Secretary of the Interior and twice-governor of Alaska. In an article titled, "ANWR Oil" (The American Enterprise, June 2002), Hickel states, "Over-dependence on foreign oil exposes us to energy blackmail and compromises our

ability to protect our citizens and assist our friends in times of crisis. Our goal as Americans must be to produce as much energy as we can for ourselves." Hickel goes on to state his belief that "[t]he very small portion of the refuge with oil potential can be explored and drilled without damaging the environment."

In August 2001 the House of Representatives again passed a bill allowing for drilling within the refuge. However, the Senate rejected this proposal in April 2002 and the refuge continues to be protected. In 2004 the Bush administration pressed again for oil drilling in ANWR, and included a drilling plan in its proposed 2005 budget. Oil drilling within ANWR will remain a bone of contention among politicians and the American public.

ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION—AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

In the 1990s there was growing concern that traditional methods of species protection, using a species-by-species approach, were ineffective. Many alternatives were proposed. One of the most popular was a method variously termed the "habitat," "ecosystem," or "community" approach. The Fish and Wildlife Service defines an ecosystem as a "geographic area including all the living organisms (people, plants, animals, and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles that sustain them." Central to these approaches is a focus on conservation of large intact areas of habitat. It is hoped that by focusing on entire habitats, rather than individual species recovery, numerous species will be protected before they reach critically low population sizes.

The National Biological Service was created in 1993 by the Department of the Interior. This agency is responsible for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating biological information necessary for stewardship of the nation's resources. The National Biological Service conducted the first large-scale study of ecosystems in the United States and found that many U.S. ecosystems are imperiled. In 1996 the National Biological Service was integrated into the United States Geological Survey as the Biological Resources Division.

In 1993 the White House Office on Environmental Policy established the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force to implement an ecosystem approach to environmental management. The task force included representatives from each of the four primary federal land-management agencies. A total of $700 million was appropriated to facilitate the implementations. The ambitious proposals included four pilot projects addressing conservation of old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, habitats in the Everglades and Florida Bay, the urban watershed of the Anacostia River in Maryland and the District of Columbia, and Alaska's Prince William Sound. However, due to budget cuts enacted by Congress in 1994, efforts on the projects were sidelined.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, however, progress had been made on a number of key ecosystem fronts:

• In the late 1990s the Clinton administration secured $1.2 billion for Everglades restoration and added 70,000 acres to the Everglades National Park.
• A budget appropriation of $250 million was designated for the preservation of the Headwaters Forest in Northern California, where 2,000-year-old redwoods stand. Additionally, $220 million was appropriated for the restoration of the California Bay-Delta ecosystem, including $30 million in water management funds for the Bay-Delta.

• Death Valley National Park, the largest National Park in the lower 48 states, was created.
• The Clinton administration successfully blocked congressional proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, located in Alaska, to oil drilling. A second attempt to open the refuge to drilling was defeated by the Senate in 2002.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management describes a conservation strategy that involves active, experimental manipulation of the environment in order to restore damaged ecosystems. It is being pursued in a variety of primarily aquatic habitats, including the Florida Everglades, San Francisco Bay, and the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

One of the oldest examples of adaptive management is an effort to restore Colorado River habitats by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River ecosystems were originally damaged by water control measures following the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam at the northern edge of the Grand Canyon in 1963. The dam was built to store water for portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as to provide hydroelectric power. Water flow management has caused severe ecological damage in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. This includes large-scale erosion, including the loss of sandy beaches, invasion by non-native species, and the extinction of four species of native fish. Another native fish species, the humpback chub, is currently in serious decline, partly because of the purposeful introduction of predatory rainbow trout. The

humpback chub has been listed as endangered since 1967 and has declined by 75 percent in the last 10 years alone.

As adaptive management is dependent on experimentation and manipulation, it can sometimes lead to unintended and unfortunate consequences. For example, an early effort at restoring Colorado River habitats involved sending huge amounts of water down the river. This was expected to lift sand from the river bottom and create sandy beaches, and did. However, the sand was quickly

lost again to fluctuating river flows. In 2003 attention turned to the Paria River, which supplies the Colorado River with sand. The Paria feeds into the Colorado downstream of the Glen Canyon Dam, and it is hoped that a large pulse of floodwater from the dam following natural monsoon storms will carry sand to new beaches along the Colorado. Another plan underway at the end of 2003 called for the running of high fluctuating flows of water

through the Grand Canyon for three months—this may kill rainbow trout eggs and reduce the numbers of this non-native species. Native fish species tend to inhabit side channels, and are less likely to be affected. There are also plans in place to warm water released from the dam, which the Fish and Wildlife Service believes would aid endangered native fish species.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established to address diverse environmental issues on an international level. Many of its conventions have been extremely valuable in protecting global biodiversity and natural resources. UNEP has also helped to regulate pollution and the use of toxic chemicals.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity was set up to conserve biodiversity and to promote the sustainable use of biodiversity. The Convention supports national efforts in the documentation and monitoring of biodiversity, the establishment of refuges and other protected areas, and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. It also supports goals related to the maintenance of traditional knowledge of sustainable resource use, the prevention of invasive species introductions, and the control of invasive species that are already present. Finally, it funds education programs promoting public awareness of the value of natural resources.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement administered under UNEP which regulates international trade in wildlife. CITES is perhaps the single most important international agreement relating to endangered species and has contributed critically to the protection of many threatened species. The international wildlife trade is estimated to involve hundreds of millions of specimens annually.

CITES was first drafted in 1963 at a meeting of the IUCN, and went into effect in 1975. As of 2004, CITES

safeguards approximately 5,000 animal species and 28,000 plant species worldwide. These are listed in three separate CITES appendices depending on degree of endangerment. Appendix I includes species that are in immediate danger of extinction. CITES generally prohibits international trade of these species. Appendix II lists species that are likely to become in danger of extinction without strict protection from international trade. Permits may be obtained

for the trade of Appendix II species only if trade will not harm the survival prospects of the species in the wild. Appendix III lists species whose trade is regulated in one or more nations. Any member nation can list a species in Appendix III to request international cooperation in order to prevent unsustainable levels of international trade. Nations agree to abide by CITES rules voluntarily. In 2004 there were 164 nations party to the agreement.

Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals

The Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as the CMS or Bonn Convention) recognizes that certain migratory species cross national boundaries and require protection throughout their range. This convention aims to "conserve terrestrial, marine, and avian migratory species throughout their range." CMS was originally signed in Bonn, Germany in 1979 and went into force in November 1983. As of February 2004, 85 nations in Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania were involved in the agreement. The United States and several other nations are not official parties to the agreement but nonetheless abide by its rules.

CMS provides two levels of protection to migratory species. Appendix I species are endangered and strictly protected. There are currently 107 species in this category, including the Siberian crane, white-tailed eagle, hawksbill turtle, Mediterranean monk seal, and Dama gazelle. Appendix II lists species that are less severely threatened but would nonetheless benefit from international cooperative agreements. Appendix II agreements have been drawn up for groups such as European bats, Mediterranean and Black Sea cetaceans, Baltic and North Sea cetaceans, Wadden Sea seals, African-Eurasian migratory water birds, and marine turtles. In February 2004 the CMS announced the latest agreement to come into force, the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. Because these birds are highly migratory, their conservation requires broad international agreements in addition to efforts by individual nations.

Protected Areas

The IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) is the leading international body dedicated to the selection, establishment, and management of national parks and protected areas. It has helped set up many natural areas around the world for the protection of plant and animal species, and also maintains a database of protected areas. Protected areas often consist of a core zone where wildlife cannot legally be disturbed by human beings, surrounded by "buffer zones," transitional spaces that act as shields for the core zone. On the periphery are areas for managed human living. In 1998 there were 30,000 protected areas worldwide, covering 13.2 million square kilometers of land, freshwater habitat, and ocean. The terrestrial portion of the network, which is by far the largest, accounted for 11.7 million square kilometers—nearly 8 percent of the world's land area. A protected area is defined as "an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means."

Conservation biology theory advocates that protected areas should be as large as possible in order to increase biological diversity and to buffer refuges from outside pressures. The world's largest protected areas are Greenland National Park (Greenland), Ar-Rub'al-khali Wildlife Management Area (Saudi Arabia), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Qiang Tang Nature Reserve (China), Cape Churchill Wildlife Management Area (Canada), and the Northern Wildlife Management Zone (Saudi Arabia).

ZOOS

Although some animal lovers object to caging wild species and keeping them in unnatural enclosures, zoos play one absolutely critical role—fostering interest in animal species, biodiversity, and conservation. In fact, the majority of zoo animals are not collected from the wild but bred in captivity. For example, among U.S. zoos, 90 percent of mammals and 74 percent of birds added to zoo collections since 1985 were born in captivity. Zoos have also contributed significantly to the survival of some highly endangered species through captive breeding efforts.

Captive Breeding

The majority of captive breeding efforts take place at zoos. Captive breeding has increased the number of many endangered species, and in several cases, saved them from certain extinction. Captive breeding has helped increase population sizes of species such as the California condor and the black-footed ferret. Both these species have thrived in captive breeding efforts, making reintroductions into wild habitat possible. Captive breeding offers the greatest hope for survival of additional species as well, including the highly endangered Florida panther. Although some species are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity, including the giant panda, many species have been bred in captivity, including over 3,000 species of vertebrates—some 19 percent of mammal species and 10 percent of bird species. A small selection of the many ongoing captive breeding efforts and the institutions leading the efforts include: the giant panda (San Diego Zoo) in California; Guam rail (Lincoln Park Zoological Gardens) in Chicago, Illinois; white rhinoceros (Fort Worth Zoological Park) in Texas; Mexican gray wolf (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) in Tucson, Arizona; wattled crane (Franklin Park Zoo) in Boston, Massachusetts; and the Chinese alligator (Bronx Zoo) in New York. Species Survival Plans for captive breeding programs are organized by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).

Captive breeding is not without its critics, however, who charge that it is costly, and that funds would be better used to conserve natural habitats. Critics also charge that captive breeding is able to focus only on a few charismatic species, and that it often gives the false impression that the battle against extinction is being won.

A New Role For Zoos

At one time, zoos kept animals tightly caged and in conditions that were unnatural and unhealthy. Today, however, many zoos have been redesigned to house animals in areas more similar to their natural habitats. For many people, a zoo is the only place to see wildlife, including endangered species. Many zoos have developed public education programs tying zoo exhibits to natural ecology. Some zoos have also evolved from being "menageries" for the pleasure of humans to living museums and ecological conservation centers for species.

Zoos and aquariums also constitute an extraordinary base of data for field conservation operations. The aim is to apply expertise on animal health, nutrition, handling, and reproduction to the needs of animals in the wild. The Bronx Zoo in New York is pioneering new efforts to extend its expertise into field study. With habitats for large animals becoming increasingly degraded, Bronx Zoo veterinarians are closely monitoring animal health in the field. Zoo resources are also being directed towards conservation. Bronx-based conservationists are working with national governments, local politicians, and international aid agencies to develop measures to preserve habitat and protect wildlife. One particular goal is to transfer technology and expertise to developing countries so that they can develop their own conservation efforts.