Endangered Species U P D A T E

School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentTHE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

January/February 2002Vol. 19 No. 1pages 1-20

5 Legislative UPDATE: Klamath River BasinAshley McMurray

10 Children's Book ReviewJennifer Jacobus MacKay

19 News from Zoos

3 Technical NoteFederally Endangered Winged Mapleleaf Mussels Culturedand Placed in the St. Croix River, MinnesotaMark C. Hove, Jill R. Medland, Daniel J. Hornbach, et al.

7 In Tennessee Critical Habitat Suit, Failure to Designate Critical Habitat forEndangered Species is a "Continuing Violation" of the ESAMarty Bergoffen and Joe McCaleb

11 Special Series — Part IAn Evaluation of the ESA and Private Landowner AssurancesCorinne Conners and Nancy Mathews

15 Marine MattersCoral Disease and Monitoring in the Florida KeysCraig Quirolo

Endangered Species

U P D A T E

Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 19 No. 1 20022

A forum for information exchange onendangered species issuesJanuary/February 2002 Vol. 19 No. 1

Beth Hahn..........................Managing EditorJennifer Jacobus MacKay.....Publication EditorGregory P. Cleary............... Editorial AssistantSean Maher......................Editorial AssistantChristine L. Biela......Subscription CoordinatorSaul Alarcon............Web Page CoordinatorAshley McMurray...........Legislative ResearchSteve Brechin........................Faculty AdvisorBobbi Low.............................Faculty AdvisorEmily Silverman....................Faculty Advisor

Advisory BoardRichard Block

Santa Barbara Zoological GardensSusan Haig

Forest and Rangeland EcosystemScience Center, USGSOregon State University

Patrick O'BrienChevron Ecological Services

Hal SalwasserU.S. Forest Service,Boone and Crockett Club

Subscription Information: The EndangeredSpecies UPDATE is published bimonthly by theSchool of Natural Resources & Environment at TheUniversity of Michigan. Annual rates are $78institutional, $33 regular, $25 student/senior, and$20 electronic. Add $5 for addresses outside theUS, and send check or money order (payable toThe University of Michigan) to:

Endangered Species UPDATESchool of Natural Resources and Environment

The University of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109-1115

(734) 763-3243; fax (734) 936-2195E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate

Cover: The endangered crested honeycreeper,or 'Akohekohe, (Palmeria dolei) is endemic toHawaii and is shown feeding on the blossomnectar of the 'ohi'a tree. ©2000 RochelleMason, Rochelle Mason Fine Arts, (808) 985-7311, www.rmasonfinearts.com

The views expressed in the Endangered SpeciesUPDATE may not necessarily reflect those ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or TheUniversity of Michigan.

The Endangered Species UPDATE was madepossible in part by the David and Lucile PackardFoundation, Turner Foundation. Boone andCrockett Club, Chevron Corporation, and the U.S.FWS Division of Endangered Species Region 3.

FOCUS ON NATURE TM by Rochelle Mason

The HIGGINS EYE (PEARLYMUSSEL) (Lampsilishigginsii) is a 3-3 1/2 inch freshwater bivalve. Its valves(shells) are yellowish-brown with dark growth ridges andgreenish rays. As a mussel, it differs from a clam in that amussel needs a host species to complete its life cycle. Theglochidia (mussel larvae) of the Higgins Eye attach to thegills of two specific fish species for one to four weeks astheir shells begin to form. Maturation and a lengthy lifespanrequire a clean gravel/mud riverbed without silt in the upperMississippi River and its tributaries. Swift currents of thedeep water provide dietary microorganisms. Because bivalvesare filter-feeders, they are an important "barometer" of waterhealth thus helping us to improve our water quality. Reloca-tion efforts to rivers unaltered by dams, dredging or pollut-ants are attempting to help save this endangered mollusk. ©2001 by endangered species artist, Rochelle Mason.www.rmasonfinearts.com. (808) 985-7311

Letter from the Editors

This issue marks a new beginning for the Endangered Species UPDATE,now under the advisement of Professors Bobbi Low, Steve Brechin, and EmilySilverman at the School of Natural Resources & Environment. However, theUPDATE staff also would like to acknowledge the guidance, tenacity, andtireless enthusiasm of Dr. Terry Root. Dr. Root was instrumental in estab-lishing and sustaining the UPDATE for the last decade, steering it from re-prints of the USFWS Endangered Species Bulletin to the expanded journalformat of today. Thank you Terry!

The UPDATE continues to evolve. We currently are working to perfect ourelectronic subscriptions and offer internet access to all of our readers. A com-plete archive of UPDATE articles should be available by the end of the summer.

And special thanks to you, our dedicated membership. We continue towelcome any and all comments, suggestions, Letters to the Editor, manu-scripts, and other contributions.

Sincerely,Beth Hahn & Jennifer MacKay

Vol. 19 No. 1 2002 Endangered Species UPDATE 3

Technical NoteFederally Endangered Winged Mapleleaf Mussels Culturedand Placed in the St. Croix River, MinnesotaMark C. HoveUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN55108 [email protected]

Jill R. MedlandNational Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, P.O. Box 708, St. Croix Falls, WI 54024 [email protected]

Daniel J. HornbachMacalester College, Biology Department, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 [email protected]

Michael P. CliffUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN55108 USA

Matthew G. HaasUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN55108 USA

Anne R. KapuscinskiUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN55108 USA

Robert K. WhaleyNational Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, P.O. Box 708, St. Croix Falls, WI 54024 USA

Byron N. KarnsNational Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, P.O. Box 708, St. Croix Falls, WI 54024 USA

Dan C. AllenMacalester College, Biology Department, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 USA

Russel S. DerhakMacalester College, Biology Department, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 USA

Kristin M. SwensonMacalester College, Biology Department, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 USA

Jana E. ThomasMacalester College, Biology Department, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 USA

The winged mapleleaf mussel(Quadrula fragosa) is a federally-listed endangered species that onceinhabited at least 34 river systemsin 12 Midwestern states. Presently,the only known reproducing popu-lation exists along a 10-kilometerstretch of the St. Croix River, Min-nesota (Hornbach et al. 1996). Thesmall isolated population is at riskfrom several factors, most notablya potential zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) infestation and the ef-fects of variable water releasesfrom a hydropower dam just up-stream (USFWS 1997).

The life cycle of most NorthAmerican freshwater mussels isclosely linked with fishes. The lar-vae (glochidia) attach to the gills orfins of host fish and transform intojuvenile mussels able to survive ontheir own. Glochidia may attach toseveral different species of fish butdie if they are not attached to thehost species. If the host fish spe-cies are absent, adult mussels live,but the glochidia will perish andmussel beds eventually die off.

Over the last three years wehave conducted laboratory trials toidentify the fish species that serve

as hosts for winged mapleleafglochidia. Winged mapleleafglochidia are released in ribbon-like packets (Figure 1). We haveexposed over 60 fish species tothese glochidia but only selectmembers of the catfish family(Ictaluridae) support extendedglochidial attachment. Glochidiaremain attached to yellow and blackbullheads (Ameiurus natalis and A.melas), slender madtom (Noturusexilis), and flathead and channelcatfish (Pylodictis olivaris andIctalurus punctatus) for an extendedperiod of time.


Winged mapleleaf glochidia aresomewhat unusual in that they arevery small and grow while attachedto fishes. Glochidia doubled ortripled in size while attached to yel-low and black bullheads, slendermadtom, and flathead catfish. Juve-nile mussels excysted from channelcatfish and grew several times theiroriginal diameter (Figure 2).

This spring we collected 35 ju-venile winged mapleleaf from 20channel catfish. The juvenile musselswere returned to the downstream-mostedge of the species' range in the St.Croix River, Wisconsin.

This research project will beexpanded next year. Likely hostfish species that are naturally in-fested with glochidia will be col-lected from the St. Croix River toverify laboratory results. We willwork with other organizations toexpand the effort to identify suit-able glochidial hosts. Roger Gor-don and biologists at the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS)Genoa National Fish Hatchery,Wisconsin, and Pam Thiel and bi-ologists at the USFWS Fishery Re-sources Office, at Onalaska, Wis-consin, will be working with our re-search team to expose flathead cat-f ish, blue catf ish (Ictalurusfurcatus), and channel catfish,among other species, to determineif they will facilitate glochidialtransformation in the laboratory.

For additional information onwinged mapleleaf visit our webpages at: http://www.fw.umn.edu/Personnel/staff/Hove/Outreach/2000/winged.mapleleaf.report andh t t p : / / w w w. m a c a l e s t e r. e d u /~hornbach/Qfragosa.html.

AcknowledgementsLynn Lee and his colleagues at theUpper Midwest Environmental Sci-ence Center contributed channelcatfish that supported glochidial

metamorphosis. Financial supportwas provided by the NRPP-Threat-ened and Endangered Species Fund.

Literature citedU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1997. Winged mapleleaf mussel(Quadrula fragosa) recovery plan. FortSnelling, Minnesota. 69 pp.

Hornbach, D.J., J.G. March, T. Deneka,N.H. Troelstrup, and J.A. Perry. 1996.

Figure 1. Winged mapleleaf glochidia are released from the female in ribbon-like packets.

Figure 2. Winged mapleleaf glochidia grow while attached to channelcatfish. Note the glochidial shell at the top of the valves. The length ofthe white dotted line is 200 microns.

Factors influencing the distribution andabundance of the endangered wingedmapleleaf Quadrula fragosa in the St.Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin.American Midland Naturalist 136(2):278-286.


Legislative UPDATEKlamath River Basin

Recent severe drought in the Kla-math River Basin has caused prob-lems for farmers, endangered spe-cies, and the U.S. government. Theprimary factor is that there simplyis not enough water to go around.The farmers need it, the fish needit, the birds need it, the plants needit — and the government does notknow where to get it.

Background informationIn 1906 the U.S. Bureau of Recla-mation established the KlamathProject in order to make use of bar-ren land in the Klamath River Ba-sin. The Project provided irrigationfor about 204,000 acres in the Ba-sin via the diversion of water flowfrom three lakes and two rivers(Quinn 1999).

Environmental concerns wereexpressed by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service as early as 1912.It observed a decline of birds at thelower Klamath National WildlifeRefuge, and by 1930 conditions hadalso deteriorated at Tule Lake's ref-uge (Quinn 1999).

The Bureau of Reclamation,however, ignored these early warn-ings and proceeded to give the fer-tilized land to war veterans. It guar-anteed water to the veteran farmersfor the production of agriculture,which now includes alfalfa, wheat,potatoes, barley, sugar beets, andonions. The number of farmers inthe Basin increased to approxi-mately 1,500, and the Basin becameso prosperous that, until recently,it provided about $250 million inagriculture, a significant contribu-tion to the region's economy(Herger 2001).

However, the Klamath Basin is

also home to several endangeredand threatened species. These in-clude the endangered shortnosesuckerfish (Chasmistes brevirostris),lost river suckerfish (Deltistes luxatus),and Coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch), as well as the threatened baldeagle (Haliaeetus leucephalus). TheEndangered Species Act (ESA)specifies certain requirements forthese species; the suckerfish requirelake water levels to be between 4,137and 4,143 feet, and the salmon needriver flow rates of at least 1,300 cubicfeet per second (Kepple 2001). Baldeagles feed on waterfowl in the ba-sin, and these prey species also havehigh water requirements.

The recent drought, though, hasdrastically reduced water levels andflow rates below these requiredminimums. Therefore, on April 6,2001 — in a decision that has cometo be known as the "zero water" de-cision — the Bureau terminated ir-rigation to the farmers, redirectingit to the lakes and rivers to satisfythe species' habitat requirements(Herger 2001).

Thus a resolution and/or com-promise between the farmers' needsand the ESA's requirements is nec-essary. The arguments for each sideare outlined below.

The farmers' argumentsFirst, and most apparent, the farm-ers claim that the government hasno right to revoke the guarantee ofwater they were given decades ago.According to farmer advocates, thefarmers lawfully own the land andwater. In taking it away, the gov-ernment is violating the farmers'Fifth Amendment rights, whichspecify that the government cannot

take private property without faircompensation.

Second, some feel that endan-gered species should not take pre-cedence over human health, safety,and economic well-being. In otherwords, the ESA should not place theneeds of endangered species abovethe vital needs of humans. Fromthe farmers' perspective, the fish arebeing given priority while the farm-ers are suffering immensely, hav-ing produced effectively no cropsthis season due to the lack of wa-ter. This equates to a total eco-nomic damage of approximately$220 million (Herger 2001).

Arguments for endangeredspeciesThe ESA requires that the Bureauof Reclamation place the needs ofendangered species first. Wildlifeshould not suffer at the hands of hu-mans each time there is a drought;this leaves some species in a veryfragile state, constantly in dangerof extirpation (Quinn 1999). More-over, the government initiated thisirrigation system in 1906 and main-tained it despite warnings that thesystem was not sustainable. Thecurrent predicament of these endan-gered fish species is the result of ahuman-induced problem.

It should also be noted that theKlamath Basin is home to six na-tional wildlife refuges: a total of192,322 acres of protected land andwildlife. These refuges are homenot only to the aforementionedsuckerfish, salmon, and bald eagles,but to many other species as well,including mule deer, golden eagle,peregrine falcon, numerous speciesof migratory birds, and one of only


two populations of white pelicansin California. A water shortage willaffect all of these species; thus theyneed to be protected.

Plans for resolutionThe initial concern in seeking to re-solve this problem is governmentcompensation for the farmers. TheKlamath Basin Relief Act of 2001is being proposed to compensatethe farmers for their employment,crop, livestock, and land-valuelosses connected with the lack ofirrigation. In addition, Oregon andCalifornia senators and representa-tives are seeking $148 million forthe Klamath crisis: $110 million toprovide immediate relief to thefarmers and the other $38 millionto contribute to research for a solu-tion to the water shortage and for res-toration of wetlands (Burke 2001).

Also, some advocates believethat the ESA should be revised inorder to assure that the protectionof endangered species does not in-

volve harm to humans.

ConclusionA long-term solution must be foundfor the water shortage in the Basin.This is not the first drought to oc-cur (although it is the most severe),and it will not be the last. A com-promise must be reached betweenthe ESA and the farmers, and re-search must be done to investigatesolutions. Thus far, possible solu-tions include: increasing water sup-plies and storage, supporting envi-ronmentally-sustainable sage farm-ing through federal funding, re-vamping the Klamath Project to in-clude the needs of fishes, and creat-ing more farm-free acreage in theBasin's wildlife refuges (Quinn 1999).A solution must be decided upon soon,as the entire Klamath Basin is in a des-perate struggle for survival.

Literature citedBurke, Anita. "Senators Seek Funds for Ba-

sin." Herald and News, October 3, 2001.

http://www.heraldandnews.comHerger, Hon. Wally. "Klamath Basin Gov-

ernment-Caused Disaster CompensationAct." Extensions on Remarks, House ofRepresentatives, June 29, 2001. http://thomas.loc.gov/

Kepple, Todd. "Officials Report BarelyEnough Basin Water for Fish." Herald andNews, October 10, 2001. http://www.heraldandnews.com

Quinn, Beth. "A Fight For Water and a Fu-ture." Oregon Live, October 17, 1999.www.oregonlive.com/new

Additional informationEconomic Disaster in Klamath Basin. House

of Representatives, May 2, 2001. http://thomas.loc.gov/

Lee Juillerat. "The Lower Klamath Na-tional Wildlife Refuge." Herald andNews, September 5, 2001. http://www.heraldandnews.com

Klamath Basin Adjudication. http://www.wrd.state.or.us/programs/klamath/summary/01.shtml

Klamath Basin Economic Relief Act of 2001.http://thomas.loc.gov/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NationalWildlife Refuges Complex. http://www.klamathnwr.org/

Information for Legislative UPDATE is provided by Ashley McMurray, an undergraduate student of public policyand the environment at the University of Michigan.


Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project v. Fish andWildlife Service: In Tennessee Critical Habitat Suit, Failureto Designate Critical Habitat for Endangered Species is a"Continuing Violation" of the Endangered Species ActMarty Bergoffen, Esq.Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, P.O. Box 3141, Asheville NC 28802; (828) [email protected], www.sabp.net

Joe McCaleb, Esq.(615) 826-7245; [email protected]

AbstractOn Nov. 8, 2001, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis Inman (Eastern District, Tennessee) ordered theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to propose critical habitat for 16 Tennessee species. The case issignificant because for the first time a court has found that the Service has an ongoing duty todesignate critical habitat that is not subject to the six-year statute of limitations found at 28 USC2401. Thus, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot hide behind repeated or archaic "indetermin-able" findings to avoid their duties to protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species.

Critical habitat backgroundAs readers of the Endangered Spe-cies UPDATE well know, habitat de-struction is the most serious threat tospecies' survival. This fact was notedby Congress when it debated passageof the Endangered Species Act (ESA)in 1973: "The loss of habitat is uni-versally cited as the major cause for theextinction of species worldwide."1

For this reason, Congress imple-mented several overlapping and in-cremental mechanisms to protect thehabitat of threatened and endangeredspecies. These include the formaldesignation of critical habitat;2 pro-hibition of "take" of species throughhabitat modification;3 habitat acqui-sition;4 the requirement for advanceconsultation with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS) before fed-eral agencies destroy or adverselymodify critical habitat;5 and the man-dated development and implementa-tion of recovery plans for endangeredand threatened species.6

Because the designation of criti-cal habitat is supposed to occur whena species is listed,7 it is designed to

protect species' habitat immediatelyby preventing federal agencies fromtaking any action that would destroyor adversely modify the critical habi-tat.8 This is often essential becausemany newly-listed species face aplethora of development projects thatcould affect their survival. Criticalhabitat also provides for future colo-nization of areas not occupied at thetime of listing, thus encouraging thespecies' recovery.9

Critical habitat designation:process and substanceBecause critical habitat is supposedto be designated when a species islisted, the appropriate process forFWS to follow would involve con-sideration of the habitat needs of thespecies while it is evaluating the spe-cies' current condition. Unfortu-nately, this has rarely been the case,and FWS has made a bad habit of in-voking the two statutory exemptionsto critical habitat designation. Theseare that critical habitat is either 1)imprudent or 2) indeterminable. If adetermination of imprudence is

made, FWS basically is saying thatestablishing critical habitat wouldharm the species by providing loca-tion information which would allowunscrupulous members of the publicto collect or hunt the species. No fur-ther determinations are required, butimprudence can be challenged incourt. An "indeterminable" findingmeans that FWS has insufficient in-formation to make a decision, andthis situation must be resolved withinone year of the listing of the species.10

Background on SABP's criticalhabitat litigationIn the Southeast, the FWS has repeat-edly failed in its duties to designatecritical habitat. In North Carolina,FWS has not designated critical habi-tat for any of the 25 species listed asthreatened or endangered since 1988,and in Tennessee the same is true forthe 53 species listed since 1986.

Southern AppalachianBiodiversity Project (SABP) beganto address this situation in 1999,when we sued FWS for its failure todesignate critical habitat for four spe-


cies in North Carolina.11 This casewas settled with a court-enforcedschedule to withdraw the four "im-prudence" determinations and recon-sider the benefits of critical habitat.

The successful North Carolinaaction was followed by the currentcase involving 16 Tennessee spe-cies,12 including 14 freshwater mus-sels and two plants. The prolifera-tion of endangered freshwater mus-sels in this region is no mystery; thearea has been confirmed as a"hotspot" of biological diversity forendemic freshwater mussels.13

One of the plants, Eggert's sun-flower (Figure 1), also occurs in Ken-tucky. One of the largest Kentuckypopulations, found along U.S. 70 inMammoth Cave National Park, wassubject to forced relocation to allowfor highway widening in the fall of2001. While the success of this relo-cation is still unknown, it is impor-tant to note that if the site of the popu-lation had been designated as criti-cal habitat, the forced relocationwould not have occurred, as the roadwidening project is certainly "ad-verse modification" of the habitat.

The 16 Tennessee species weredivided between seven "imprudent"determinations made between 1995and 1997 and nine "indeterminable"findings in 1993, all nine of whichinvolved mussel species.14 We real-ized at the outset that these nine spe-cies were listed more than six yearsago and could be subject to the Stat-ute of Limitations, 28 U.S.C. §2401.Our intent was to extend the bound-aries of Critical Habitat designationsby forcing FWS to follow up on sup-posedly "stale" determinations.

For the seven "imprudent" spe-cies, FWS admitted that its originaldeterminations warranted reconsid-eration and asked for a voluntary re-mand from the Court. Our positionwas that in light of past refusal todesignate critical habitat, FWS couldnot be trusted to undertake any "vol-

untary" actions, and a court orderwith a time schedule for designatingcritical habitat was necessary.

The heart of the case: the nine"indeterminable" speciesThe nine "indeterminable" musselspecies were listed as endangered onMarch 17, 1993,15 and in the samedocument, FWS determined that"[c]ritical habitat may be prudent butis not now determinable" (emphasisadded).16 The Secretary then invokedthe one-year extension and stated fur-ther on the same page, "The Service[FWS] will make a decision on des-ignation of critical habitat and assesswhether designation of critical habi-tat is prudent."17

We argued to the Court that suchlanguage was clearly prospective,

and at the filing of the action on Oc-tober 12, 2000, no determination ordecision had been made. Moreover,the FWS admitted in its response toour 60 day notice that it was still con-sidering critical habitat for the inde-terminable species and anticipatedpublishing a proposal early the fol-lowing year.18 Implicitly, the FWSadmitted its ongoing duty andclaimed to be taking action, yet nofinal action has been taken.

Our position was that the six-yearstatute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. Sec-tion 2401(a) had not yet commencedto run because the FWS's continuingfailure to designate critical habitat

was a "non-action" which did nottrigger the statute; or, alternatively,the statute had been tolled by con-gressional action.

First, we asserted that the con-gressional moratorium from April 10,1995, to April 26, 1996,19 tolled thesix-year statute of limitations for fil-ing a civil action against the UnitedStates of America for failure to des-ignate critical habitat. This morato-rium expressly rescinded funds avail-able for making threatened and en-dangered species determinations andfor critical habitat determinations.The Ninth Circuit found that althoughthe Rider did not repeal the Secretary'sduty to make final determinations, it dideffectively restrict his ability to com-ply with his statutory obligation by de-nying him funding.20

The FWS argued that eventhough the congressional moratoriumprevented it from acting and comply-ing with its mandatory duties due tolack of funding, such a moratoriumcertainly would not prevent a citizensuit from being filed. Thegovernment's argument ignored theexpressed language of the morato-rium, which clearly prevented anyCourt from granting any reliefagainst the United States for fail-ure to act. The statute of limitationswas, in effect, tolled.

Alternatively, we argued that theFWS's continuing failure to designatecritical habitat for the species at is-sue equates to a continuing violationof an obligatory, mandatory duty, andthat failure tolls the statute of limita-tions because the statute never com-mences to run. The ESA at 16 U.S.C.Section 4(a)(3)(A) and 4(b)(6)(C)creates that mandatory, obligatoryduty. The Secretary's continued vio-lation of those sections by neitherdesignating critical habitat nor mak-ing a decision not to designate criti-cal habitat is not a decision or an ac-tion which would commence the stat-ute of limitations to run.

Figure 1. Eggert's sunflower(Helianthus eggertii ). Photo by ReneeSlaughter.


The FWS argued that there wasa "discreet event" the day after theexpiration of the one-year extension,when the statute of limitations beganto run, and that it would be improper"to construe that discreet event as acontinuing violation that would holdthe statute of limitations in abeyancefor time in memorial and leave thefederal government forever vulner-able to stale claims..."21

The Court did not accept that ar-gument. The Court ruled that 16U.S.C. Section 1533(b)(6)(C) un-equivocally directs the FWS to des-ignate critical habitat within one yearof listing a species as endangered,and there was no statutory exceptionto that directive. "The Service's[FWS] non-action logically can onlybe construed as a continuing viola-tion of 16 U.S.C. Section1533(b)(6)(C). The statute of limi-tations commences to run aneweach and every day that the Servicedoes not fulfill the affirmative dutyrequired of it. In short, the statuteof l imitations has never com-menced to run."22 Other DistrictCourts have ruled similarly againstthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in Clean Water Actdecisions when the EPA fails to per-form a non-discretionary duty man-dated by Congress.23

RemedyIn our briefs, SABP offered severalcases in which the court orderedcritical habitat designations to oc-cur anywhere from a few days toseveral months. Because most ofthese cases involved one or a fewspecies, and ours involved 16, weasked the Court to order FWS tocomplete the designations withinone year. The FWS, in turn, arguedthat monetary and staffing limita-tions precluded them from begin-ning the process until 2003, andoffered a schedule with its requestfor a voluntary remand.

ConclusionsIn resolving the question of the ap-propriate remedy, it seems that theCourt was acting cautiously andadopted the delayed schedule of FWSfor beginning and completing thenew designations. However, theCourt did incorporate SABP's requestfor an enforceable schedule for thesixteen species. For the "imprudent"species, FWS will retract and recon-sider their "imprudent" findings be-ginning in May 2003, while the nine"indeterminable" species will havefinal designations by March 2003.24

Notwithstanding this schedule,what is most important about this caseis that FWS will not in the future beable to hide behind repeated or old "in-determinable" findings. Habitat pro-tection was afforded by Congress for areason, and in the 21st Century, it isessential that biodiversity activists en-force this protection to the maximumextent possible.

AcknowledgementsMarty Bergoffen is Campaign Co-ordinator and Staff Attorney forSouthern Appalachian BiodiversityProject (SABP). Mr. Bergoffen'slast article for the UPDATE (June1996) concerned the application ofNEPA to critical habitat designa-tions. Joe McCaleb is an environ-mental lawyer in central Tennessee.

Endnotes1 S. Rep. No. 307 at 1-2, 93d Cong., 1st Sess.

(1973), reprinted in 1973 U.S.C.C.A.N.2989.

2 See 16 U.S.C. §1533(a).3 "Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act

means an act which actually kills or in-jures wildlife. Such act may include sig-nificant habitat modification or degrada-tion where it actually kills or injures wild-life by significantly impairing essentialbehavioral patterns, including breeding,feeding or sheltering." 50 C.F.R. §17.3.See also Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapterof Communities for a Greater Oregon, 515U.S. 687, 708, 115 S.Ct. 2407, 2418, 132L.Ed.2d 597 (1995).

4 See ESA Section 5, 16 U.S.C. §1534.

5 "Each Federal agency shall, in consulta-tion with and with the assistance of theSecretary, insure that any action autho-rized, funded, or carried out by suchagency . . . is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of any endangeredspecies or threatened species or result inthe destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat of such species which is deter-mined by the Secretary . . . to be critical .. ." 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).

6 See 16 U.S.C. §1533(f).7 16 U.S.C. §1533(a)(3)(A).8 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).9 The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, af-

firmed the recovery aspects of criticalhabitat. The court held that FWS interpre-tation of the "adverse modification" stan-dard improperly restricted Section 7 con-sultation to projects affecting the only thesurvival of a species by critical habitat de-struction, while ignoring impacts to recov-ery of the species. The court therefore or-dered FWS to reconsider their criticalhabitat designation for the Gulf sturgeonto include areas not currently occupied, butavailable for recovery. Sierra Club v. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434(5th Cir. 2001).

10 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(6)(C)(ii).11 SABP v. USFWS, Case No. 1:99CV01777

(JR) (District of Columbia, Feb. 29, 2000)12 The full list of sixteen species includes:

Braun's rock cress (Arabis perstellata),Eggert's sunflower (Helianthus eggertii),the Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidontaatropurpurea), Cumberlandian combshell(Epioblasma brevidens), Oyster mussel(Epioblasma capsaeformis), Purple bean(Villosa perpurpurea), Rough rabbitsfoot(Quadrula cylindrica strigillata), Uplandcombshell (Epioblasma metastriata),Southern acornshell (Epioblasmaothcaloogensis), Coosa moccasinshell(Medionidus parvulus), Southern clubshell(Pleurobema decisum), Southern pigtoe(Pleurobema georgianum), Ovateclubshell (Pleurobema perovatum), Tri-angular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchusgreeni), Fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilisaltilis ), and Alabama moccasinshell(Medionidus acutissimus).

13 See Of Sneezeweeds and Hot-spots, byKerry Goldstein, found at http://www.urich.edu/~journalm/outlook/goldstein2.html; Wildlands Recovery in aHuman-dominated Landscape: Founda-tions of a Central Appalachian Restora-tion Strategy by Nathaniel P. Hitt and Tho-mas P. Rooney, http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/hittx97a.htm.

14 See 60 F.R.56 (1995), 62 F.R. 27973(1997), 62 F.R. 1647 (1997), and 58 F.R.


14330 (1993).15 58 F.R. 14330.16 58 F.R. 1433817 Id.18 Letter to Marty Bergoffen, dated August

29, 2000, p.2, from Sam D. Hamilton, Re-gional Director, on file with authors.

19 ESA Appropriations Rider, PL 104-

6(1995), in pertinent part.20 Environmental Defense Center v. Babbitt,

73 F.3d 867, 871-872 (9th Cir. 1995)21 The FWS's Supplemental Brief, p. 2,

Document 29, on file with authors.22 Memorandum of Opinion, Case No. 2:00-

CV-361, filed November 8, 2001, pp. 6-7.23 See Sierra Club v. USEPA, 2001 US Dis-

trict Lexis 14582; Kingman Park Civic As-sociation v. USEPA, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (DCDC 1999); Natural Resources DefenseCouncil v. Fox, 909 F.Supp. 153, 159 (SDNY 1995).

24 See the Court's Judgment and Order, at-tached to the Memorandum of Opinion.

Book ReviewDiscovering Endangered SpeciesBy Nancy Field and Sally Machlis. 1990.Dog-eared Publications, Middletown WI, 40+ pp. Illustrated.

Jennifer Jacobus MacKaySchool of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, 430 E. University Avenue, Ann Arbor MI [email protected]

Our children are our future – and a sus-tainable future increasingly dependsupon a citizenry of ecological stewards.Thus, it is important to educate chil-dren about all aspects of conservationbiology. Discovering Endangered Spe-cies is a comprehensive yet simple in-troduction to the concept of endangeredspecies and habitat conservation.Geared for children aged 7 to 10, thisbook is in workbook format and con-tains a new topic on each page. Thetopics are presented through exercises,which encourage interaction by pro-voking thoughts and discussion aboutspecies, ecosystems, and the role of hu-man beings in the natural environment.Illustrations are all black and white andare mostly line drawings, which allowfor coloring by younger readers.

Discovering Endangered Speciesis an excellent supplement for environ-mental education curricula at the pri-mary level. Some of the terminologycovered includes biological diversity,endangered versus threatened versusextinct species, captive breeding, mi-gration, and reintroduction.

Specific endangered species (e.g.,black footed ferret, Hawaiian goose,blue whale, African elephant, Arizonaagave) are highlighted throughout thebook, and including details such asphysical characteristics, habitat require-ments, and reasons for endangerment.

These reasons for endangered speciesare also highlighted individually andexplained conceptually, such as ex-

otic species introductions, poaching,pollution, and habitat loss. Wetlandsare given special attention with aboard game called "WanderingThrough Wetlands."

The book ends with a large illus-tration entitled, "What Can We Do,"which has specific action items for en-gaging and empowering young people,such as volunteer at a zoo, plant trees,and visit a wildlife refuge. The last pagecontains blank lines for students to mapout their personal plans for helping en-dangered species.

Discovering Endangered Speciesis also part of the Discovering NatureLibrary, which includes other titles,such as Discovering Wolves, Discov-ering Salmon, and LeapfroggingThrough Wetlands. Discounts for largeorders are available for schools, giftsets, fundraising, or other events. Formore information contact Dog-EaredPublications at: http://www.dog-eared.com, [email protected], orcall (888) DOG-EARS.


Special Series Part I — Education in ActionAn Evaluation of the Endangered Species Act and PrivateLandowner AssurancesCorinne ConnerUniversity of Wisconsin, Department of Wildlife Ecology, 215 Russell Laboratory, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706

Nancy E. MathewsUniversity of Wisconsin, Department of Wildlife Ecology, 215 Russell Laboratory, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI [email protected]

Editor's NoteThe UPDATE presents a three-part series of educational essays from Nancy Mathews' WildlifeEcology class at the University of Wisconsin. We are presenting a selection of position papersregarding Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. This educational exercise is an example of howthe next generation of conservation biologists is being trained. In particular, the essay set reflects anemphasis on remaining sensitive to the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Perhaps some novel ideasare embedded in these essays as well, as fresh eyes often bring new insights to old controversies.

Wildlife Ecology students were given sample Habitat Conservation Plans and were in-structed to assume the identity of the associated landowner, who also happened to be a trainedwildlife biologist. The role-playing assignment was then given as follows:

Please write a position paper to be presented at a Senate sub-committee hearing on reau-thorization of the Endangered Species Act. Support or refute the intent of the Section 10 administra-tive policies that attempt to make conservation planning more palatable to private property owners.Give a brief overview of the policies and present the pros and cons of the private landowner assur-ances. Support your position using what you have learned in class, the Endangered Species Act,and the assigned Habitat Conservation Plan.

IntroductionGood afternoon. My name is CorinneConner. I am a Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice biologist in Austin, Texas. I amalso a joint owner and manager of BeeCave Oaks Development, Inc., a de-velopment company that operates outof Austin. Except for my four yearsin college, I have been a lifelong resi-dent of Austin. I grew up on the southside of town; my father worked forthe city until I was six, when hebought a small ranch about six mileseast of Austin. We lived on that ranchmy entire life; it was his sweat andblood. I now own that ranch and livethere with my husband and two chil-dren. Since my father's passing, myhusband and I have acquired the landadjacent to my family's ranch as well.This area is known as the Seven Oaks

Ranch. With Austin expanding rapidlyin our direction, Seven Oaks' northern-most boundary now almost lies withinthe city limit.

Today I am here to discuss re-authorization of the Endangered Spe-cies Act (ESA). You may wonderwhy a small town rancher would careabout the Endangered Species Act atall. There are two reasons. First, Ireceived a bachelor's degree in wild-life ecology from the University ofWisconsin at Madison. While a stu-dent, I studied endangered speciesand habitat conservation. In fact, myfinal project as a senior was to de-velop a habitat conservation plan foran endangered bird. I currently workas a biologist in the Ecological Ser-vices department of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service ("the Service").

Secondly, the Endangered Spe-cies Act directly affects how I am al-lowed to manage and develop myland. Bee Cave Oaks Development,Inc., has intended to develop SevenOaks Ranch for several years, untilthe discovery of breeding pairs ofgolden-cheeked warblers (Dendroicachrysoparia) on the property. Thewarbler has been listed as endangeredsince 1990. As a biologist, I wasthrilled to discover at least six morebreeding pairs of these rare birds. Asa landowner and developer, I wasdevastated. I was the author of theEnvironmental Assessment and Habi-tat Conservation Plan for the Inciden-tal Take of an endangered species onmy own property. Today, I am hop-ing to use my experiences and knowl-edge to convince the Senate that


changes should be made to the ESAbefore re-authorization. In particular,I will address private landownertools, and argue that the administra-tive policies associated with Section10(A)(1)(a) should be maintained in theESA, while those associated with Sec-tion 10(A)(1)(b) should be removed.

The ESA has been in poor favorwith private landowners since its cre-ation in 1973. A good proportion ofthe United States' endangered, threat-ened, and declining species are foundon private lands and rely on soundmanagement and conservation ofthese lands for restoration. Whilemany private landowners are coop-erative in managing their lands tobenefit natural resources, increasedfinancial commitments and regula-tions on use of their land has madeother landowners reluctant to imple-ment conservation measures. Forexample, if the landowner's conser-vation measures are a success, thespecies may increase in number orother endangered species may inhabittheir land. This could cause increasedrestrictions on their private land — landwhich many westerners (in particularthe Wise Use movement) already viewas overly regulated and restricted.

Because private lands constitutesuch a great proportion of endangeredspecies habitat, it is important for theService to compromise and cooper-ate with private landowners for thebenefit of species. In addition, pri-vate landowners need to feel that theirprivate rights will be maintained andthat they have freedom of action ontheir own land. It was for these rea-sons that Enhancement of SurvivalPermits and Habitat ConservationPlans were created.

Essentially, there are three op-tions provided to private landownersin the ESA and through the new poli-cies associated with Section 10. Allthree have been developed, under theClinton Administration, as amend-ments to Section 10 of the ESA.

Enhancement of survivalEnhancement of Survival Permitswith Candidate Conservation Agree-ments are preventative measures thatwent into effect on July 19, 1999,under Section 10(A)(1)(a) of theESA. The goal is to offer incentivesfor non-Federal property owners toutilize conservation measures for spe-cies that are candidates for listing asendangered or threatened, as well asspecies that are likely to become can-didates for listing in the near future.Basically, if a landowner signs anAgreement to enhance his or herproperty to prevent listing of a pro-posed species, then the landowner isoffered an assurance that land, water,or resources won't be further re-stricted should the species later be-come listed under the ESA. Conser-vation measures utilized by the land-owner vary depending on the type,amount, and condition of existinghabitat on the property and other bio-logical characteristics of the listedspecies. This allows property ownersto maintain land use and developmentflexibility while increasing the chancethat simple and relatively inexpensiveconservation options will still be fea-sible and successful.

Enhancement of Survival Permitswith Safe Harbor Agreements areanother option available to privatelandowners, also under Section10(A)(1)(a) of the ESA. The SafeHarbor policy relies upon landown-ers entering into voluntary agree-ments with the Service. The land-owner agrees to enhance habitat forlisted species in exchange for a prom-ise that no additional future regula-tory restrictions will be imposed uponthe landowner or their land. The land-owner is guaranteed no additionalrestrictions, even if more species arelisted or discovered on the land, aslong as the population of the initialspecies does not fall below a prede-termined baseline number. This as-sumes that habitat enhancement for one

species will benefit others on the land.The necessity of the Enhance-

ment of Survival Permits stems fromthe fears of private landowners; theybelieve that if listed species eithercolonize their land or increase theirnumbers, development will be in-creasingly restricted. Therefore,many landowners avoid land manage-ment practices that could enhance, oreven maintain, their land. The ob-jective of Enhancement of SurvivalPermits is to provide a motive for en-hancing habitat and maintaining spe-cies occupancy on private land.

In dire situations, such as whencontinuing the permitted activitycould jeopardize a species covered bypermit in a Candidate ConservationAgreement with assurances, the Ser-vice may revoke the landowner's per-mit. This allows the Service an ex-treme means to enforce its mandateof species protection.

However, Section 10(A)(1)(a) itsassociated policies are often criticizedfor a number of reasons. Because theyare direct agreements between non-Federal landowners and the Fish andWildlife Service, there is no oppor-tunity for public review and commenton the situation. The landowner isgenerally unable to terminate theagreement. The agreement does nothave to address other species of plantsand animals on the property, only thelisted species. In the case of SafeHarbor Agreements, it can be verydifficult for the Service to determinea baseline population. There is alsoconcern that entering into an Agree-ment may preclude adaptive manage-ment that may become necessary forspecies management.

In addition, many individualsbelieve that these policies are incon-sistent with Section 7 of the ESA,which requires Federal agencies tosue their authorities to conserve en-dangered and threatened species.They feel that assuring landownersagainst new restrictions may limit


management capability later, even ifconservation needs appear to be ad-equately addressed in the Agreement.

Habitat Conservation PlansThe third option available to privatelandowners is a Habitat ConservationPlan with a No Surprise clause. Thisis the only option available to a land-owner, like myself, who wishes toconduct activities on his or her landthat might result in an incidental takeof a listed species. The landownermust first obtain an incidental takepermit from the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service. After obtaining a per-mit, the applicant must develop aHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP) —a detailed report stating all environ-mental consequences of the proposedactivity and its alternatives. The HCPis designed to offset harmful effectsthat the activity might have on thelisted species. The No Surpriseclause provides regulatory assurancesto the landowner, under Section10(A)(1)(b) of the ESA. It states thatin the case of "unforeseen circum-stances," private landowners will notbe required to commit additional re-sources to comply with additionalrestrictions other than those agreed toin the HCP. As long as the landownercomplies with the conditions of theHCP, the government will honorthese assurances.

Like Enhancement of SurvivalPermits, HCPs benefit threatened andendangered species by providing in-centives for private landowners toemploy long-term conservation mea-sures, while also enabling landown-ers to proceed with development. Byincreasing understanding and partner-ships with private landowners, theService also has been able to ease itsfriction with private landowners. Apoorly crafted HCP will not pass; pro-posed HCPs must meet specific cri-teria found in Section 10(A)(2)(b) ofthe ESA. The Service considerswhether the habitat of the species and

the long-term conservation of the spe-cies will be improved or enhanced bythe process.

HCPs with No Surprise clausesare also similar to Enhancement ofSurvival Permits in that they havebeen highly criticized. They havebeen charged with putting econom-ics above species preservation by al-lowing species habitat to be devel-oped. HCPs negate the use of adap-tive management and don't accountfor social changes. Often the gov-ernment is incapable of financingmitigation or monitoring that is in-volved in the development and imple-mentation of HCPs. Because theplans involve private land and lackspecific means for monitoring, biolo-gists often have no control or way tomonitor the impacts associated withthe permitted development.

Because the purpose of an HCPis to allow development to proceed,inevitably habitat is lost. The HCPprocess also has been charged withfocusing on the species and not thehabitat. Therefore, claims that HCPsprovide a broad-based, landscape-levelplanning tool are said to be inadequate.

Weighing the issueCertainly, these three tools make theESA more palatable to some privatelandowners. Speaking as both a de-veloper and a biologist, I believe myinvolvement and personal experi-ences should serve to validate myexpertise in this field. The Endan-gered Species Act should be reautho-rized without a provision for HabitatConservation Plans. These plans ini-tially seem ideal; like the one I pre-pared for Seven Oaks Ranch, theyallow the landowners to proceed withdevelopment. I spent a tremendousamount of time, energy, and finan-cial resources planning for the devel-opment of a residential communityon this land. Now I am able to pro-ceed with development, with mini-mal, possibly no, impact to warbler

populations. Restriction from devel-opment would have caused additionalcosts in land purchasing, planning,infrastructure costs, tax burdens, timedelays, and legal costs. The projectwould have been unfeasible. As alandowner, I would have been ex-tremely frustrated.

HCPs are detailed plans, describ-ing every aspect of the proposed ac-tivity and its potential impacts. Theseplans can be hundreds of pages long.They often require assistance fromphysical and biological scientists,land use specialists, population mod-elers, and economic advisors. HCPpreparation is very burdensome andtakes a high degree of commitmentfrom the Applicant. On the otherhand, I have seen HCPs that havebeen written sparsely. The applicantsare not always thorough, resulting inpoorly constructed plans with littleor no ecological justification for whydevelopment should be allowed toproceed. This is a reflection of con-tinuing resentment on the part of pri-vate landowners, who dislike the bur-dens associated with developing ontheir own land.

Further, HCPs exempt privatelandowners from additional financialexpenses associated with endangeredspecies conservation. Although per-mit holders are not required to list allunforeseen circumstances, even inthese cases the Federal governmentpledges compensation. However, theability of the Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice to guarantee funding for addi-tional conservation measures is ques-tioned. Instead, the Service mustwork with property owners to createmutually acceptable modifications toagreed-upon HCPs.

Finally, monitoring is a key com-ponent of any successful conserva-tion program. Candidate Conserva-tion Agreements usually include adesignated monitoring plan. There isno mandate for monitoring built intoHCPs. The HCP that I authored for


Seven Oaks Ranch does not containany mention of the words "monitor"or "evaluate." Often the sites are notvisited or inspected, and impacts goundocumented. If there are stochas-tic changes that affect the population,biologists are unable to modify man-agement practices for the benefit ofthe species. Without habitat enhance-ment efforts, or a mechanism forpopulation monitoring, there is noway to assure that HCPs achieve theirgoal in species conservation.

Speaking as a biologist, I believethat the most important element ofendangered species conservation ishabitat conservation. While En-hancement of Survival permits aremeant to enhance habitat, HCPs em-phasize the development of habitat,sometimes offering exchange of landparcels or conservation practices asan easement to the habitat loss. Forexample, in my HCP, I address limi-tations on pesticide and herbicide ap-plications and landscaping practicesfor the proposed development. I alsopropose to cooperate with Davenport,Ltd., another Austin developer, to ex-change 128 acres of an area knownas the Vaughan Tract to develop

Seven Oaks Ranch. The VaughanTract will be managed as a golden-cheeked warbler habitat preserve. Inthis case, habitat of equal qualitywould be exchanged. In some cases,however, habitat is offered that is notof equal value to the species. In manycases, no proactive measures aretaken, and the agreement thereby failsto meet the requirements of the En-dangered Species Act and demon-strates an inconsistency with Section7. Thus, Section 10(A)(1)(b) under-mines the authority and mission of theESA. Section 2(A)(1) of the ESAstates that "various species of fish,wildlife, and plants in the UnitedStates have been rendered extinct asa consequence of economic growthand development untempered by ad-equate concern and conservation."HCPs only allow such economicgrowth and development to continueon species habitat.

Speaking as a developer, I real-ize the shortcomings of the HCP pro-cess. Because it is time consumingand burdensome to produce, manylandowners will inevitably fail to pur-sue an extensive examination of thepotential impacts of development to

species conservation. Many land-owners resent the time and resourcesthat must be committed to such anundertaking. HCPs offer no minimi-zation of development; they only al-low it to continue. Without monitor-ing or inspection, it is difficult to de-termine if the conservation plan isbeing followed effectively or at all.The development of an HCP appearsonly to be more beaurocratic red tapethat must be passed through, even onmy own private lands.

For these reasons, I believe thatthe Endangered Species Act shouldbe reauthorized to include Section10(A)(1)(b) and the policies (Candi-date Conservation Agreements andSafe Harbor Permits) enacted by theClinton Administration, which arevoluntary agreements for habitat en-hancement between landowners andthe Federal government. Section10(A)(1)(a) with the No Surpriseclause should be excluded, due to itseconomic bias and lack of biologicalassurances.

Thank you for your time. Havea good afternoon.


Marine MattersCoral Disease and Monitoring in the Florida Keys

IntroductionIn 1943, Emile Gagnan and JacquesCousteau invented the "aqua lung,"which for the first time gave diversfreedom of movement beneath thesea. It is astonishing to realize thatthe first generation to SCUBA diveand interact with the world beneaththe sea may be the last to experiencecoral reefs unaffected by moderncivilization's pollution. A study oncoral reefs released in 2001 by theUnited Nations EnvironmentProgram's World Conservation Moni-toring Center reported that theworld’s coral reefs cover a muchsmaller area than once thought andthat coral reefs around the world aredisappearing at alarming rates. Glo-bally, coral reefs cover 113,720square miles, less than one tenth ofone percent of the oceans, yet arehome to 25% of all of marine life thathas been identified by man.

Threats to coralsThe world's oceans are affected by2.3 trillion gallons of sewage efflu-ent that is dumped into coastal wa-ters every year and 2.8 billion gal-lons of industrial wastes that are dis-charged into the oceans every day(Boesch et al. 2001). Both of theabove-mentioned sources of pollu-tion are point sources of pollutionbecause of the way they reach thewater, through pipes and/or channels.

Nonpoint sources of pollutionreach the ocean as surface runoff, at-mospheric deposition, and throughground water. It is misleading tothink that point source pollution is theonly pollution affecting the marine

environment. In 1993, it was reportedthat 77% of the total nutrients reach-ing Chesapeake Bay were fromnonpoint sources (Olivieri 1997).Nonpoint sources of pollution aremost likely responsible for escalatingthe incidence of coral disease on re-mote reefs through out the world. Theincredible amount of atmosphericpollution generated from Mexico Cityalone was estimated at 12,000 tonsper day in 1997. A 1998 report re-leased by the World Health Organi-zation indicated that, in China, 21million tons of sulfur dioxide, 14 mil-lion tons of smoke-filled dust, and 13million tons of suspended particulatematter were released into the atmo-sphere in a one-year period (EIA2001). An ongoing study by Dr. Eu-gene A. Shinn of the US GeologicalSurvey has been observing the con-nection between African dust andcoral disease in the Caribbean (Shinn2000). Hundreds of millions of tonsof this dust, laden with mercury, pes-ticides and bacteria are atmospheri-cally transported across the AtlanticOcean every year, potentially creat-ing one of the largest nonpointsources of pollution affecting Carib-bean coral reefs.

Corals are stationary animals andcan only be as healthy as the waterthat passes over them. The oceanwater passing over the coral reefs inthe Florida Keys contains a potpourriof point source pollutants from as faraway as South and Central Americathat are carried to the reefs via thelargest moving body of water in theworld, the Gulf Stream. Closer toFlorida's reefs, polluted storm water

from South Florida's massive urbandevelopment combine with agricul-tural runoff from Florida's farm landsand is channeled into Florida Bay viaan elaborate system of canals origi-nally designed to "drain the swamp."This water ultimately passes over thecoral reefs of the Florida Keys. Ad-jacent to the reefs, over-developmentand inadequately treated sewage inthe Florida Keys contributes to theelevated levels of nutrients found onthe reef (Sutherland 1999). There isno single source of pollution or "sil-ver bullet" that can be blamed for thedecline of coral except for man's in-ability to deal with the pollution thatwe create. The excellent web paperby Reef Education Network, EnergyCycles: What Goes Around ComesAround, makes a very good pointabout lessons we can learn from thecoral reef environment by summariz-ing that good management of limitedresources has been the key to success-ful tropical coral reef development(REN 2002).

Coral MonitoringIn 1996, 168 coral reef monitoringstations were established throughoutthe Florida Keys as part of the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency's CoralReef Monitoring Project. Dr. JamesPorter was one of the 24 scientists onthe monitoring team. In the first as-sessment in 1997 (AMNH 2002), Dr.Porter was quoted as saying "Noth-ing within any of our experiences pre-pared us for the increase we’ve seenin coral illness. We saw a 300% in-crease in the number of stations af-flicted by disease."

Craig QuiroloDirector of Marine Projects, Reef Relief, P.O. Box 430, 201 William Street, Key West FL 33041; (304) [email protected], www.reefelief.org


Corals are the barometers of theocean, similar to canaries in coalmines. They are indicators of thehealth of our oceans. When corals be-come stressed, they frequently changetheir appearance, signaling to us thatsomething is wrong (Nicolls 2002).

In 1993, I launched the Reef Re-lief Photo Monitoring Survey Pro-gram in the Florida Keys. The goalwas to document with photographsand video specific coral formationsover time. It was anticipated that itwould take several years to observeany changes that might occur becauseof the slow pace at which coral reefsgrow. However, within four years,by late 1997, coral diseases had es-calated to epidemic proportions andwere exacerbated by the worst coralbleaching event ever recorded in theFlorida Keys. Reef Relief's archiveof images taken between 1993 and1999 depict a coral reef in the throwsof extinction. During the survey, yel-low band coral disease was discov-ered, white pox coral disease was dis-covered, and white plague type II wasfirst observed in the Lower Keys.

Coral disease is a relatively newfield of study for scientists and thereis a tremendous amount of debatesurrounding the issues related to theglobal decline of coral. It appears thatbefore scientists discover the exactcauses of coral disease, the world willlose a majority of its coral.

The corals are telling us some-thing, and I think it is something like,"you're next."

Literature citedAmerican Museum of Natural History

(AMNH). 2002. Florida's Fragile Reefs:What's Happening to This UnderwaterWorld? AMNH BioBulletin. (http://sciencebulletins.amnh.org/biobulletin/biobulletin/story773.html)

Boesch, D.F., R.H. Burroughs, J.E. Baker, R.P.Mason, C.L. Rowe, and R.L. Siefert. 2001.Marine Pollution in the United States. PewOceans Commission, Arlington VA. (http://www.pewoceans.org/inquiry/marine/)

Nicolls, M. 2002. Canaries in Coal Mines:

Corals on Reefs. CRC Reef Research Cen-ter, Queensland, Australia. (http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/explore/feat26.shtml)

Olivieri, R.A. 1997. Eutrophication of CoralReefs. STAR Program, National Center forEnvironmental Research, Office of Re-search and Development, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency. (http://es.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/fellow/aaas/olivieri.html)

Reef Education Network (REN). 2002. En-ergy Cycles: What Goes Around ComesAround. The University of Queensland,Australia. (http://www.reef.edu.au/asp_pages/secc.asp?formno=7)

Shinn, E.A. 2000. African Dust Causes Wide-spread Environmental Distress. USGS In-formation Sheet, Center for Coastal Ecol-ogy, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior. (http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/african_dust/)

Figure 2. Sand Key Reef, 6 miles south of Key West, Florida, October 1997: Theworst coral bleaching ever recorded in the Florida Keys was in full swing. Notethat the spread of yellow band disease on this colony was not halted by thisevent. Photo credit: Reef Relief.

Figure 1. Sand Key Reef, 6 miles south of Key West, Florida, August 1993: Thefirst documented outbreak of yellow band coral disease discovered by CraigQuirolo during a Photo Monitoring Survey dive. Photo credit: Reef Relief.


Sutherland, D. May 19, 1999. Florida KeysNational Marine Sanctuary Smothered bySewage. Environment News Service.(http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may99/1999L-05-19-01.html)

U.S. Energy Information Adminiatration(EIA). 2001. Country Analysis Briefs:

China: Environmental Issues. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html)

Additional informationThe Coral Disease Page: http://ourworld.

compuserve.com/homepages/mccarty_and_peters/coraldis.htm

Figure 3. Left: With few exceptions, on a healthy coral colonythe polyps are uniform in color, size, and shape. Right: Variations in the color, shape, and size of coral polyps is a sign

Porter, J.W. 2001. The Ecology and Etiologyof Newly Emergi ng Marine Diseases.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Porter, J.W. and K.G. Porter, eds. 2002. TheEverglades, Florida Bay and Coral Reefs ofthe Florida Keys. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Figure 4. Coral diseases. Top left: coral bleach-ing. Bottom left: red band (on close inspectionthe band has a red tint). Right: white pox. Photocredit: Reef Relief.


Figure 5. Left, October 1997: Coral diseases infect manydifferent species of coral. In this picture, the sea fan looksshredded and exhibits dark purple spots that are associ-ated with a fungus that attacks gargonians called, Aspergil-lus sydowii . The Montastrea cavernosa in front of the seafan (foreground) exhibits unusual color patterns. TheMontastrea cavernosa colony behind the sea fan (back-ground) appears to be unaffected by coral disease. Below,January 1999: Fifteen months later there is only a smallarea of living tissue remaining on the Montastrea cavernosato the left of the sea fan. The sea fan has died as well. Photocredit: Reef Relief.


News from Zoos

Information for News from Zoos is provided by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association

Joint conservation project in FloridaThe Florida Aquarium and the Tampa Port Authority, with the assistance of the Florida Department of Environmen-tal Protection, are working to rehabilitate and enhance a small island in upper Hillsborough Bay. A man-madeoffshoot of two other islands, the exhibit island will be incorporated into the Aquarium's local eco-tour programs forthe purpose of educating the public and school groups about the abundant wildlife that thrives in these habitatswhen properly managed as natural systems.

The project began in June 2000 with an examination of existing plant communities and physical characteristicsof the island. After the island's natural composition was determined, staff began removal of the exotic, invasiveplant species that covered approximately 80% of the island. Replacing exotic plants with native species such asmangroves, buttonwoods and various native grasses will allow for the creation and installation of microhabitatsrepresentative of the types that naturally make up the bay system (mangrove forest, salt marsh, etc.). The finalconstruction phase includes adding boardwalks, trails, and interpretive signage to accompany eco-tours and educa-tion programs that highlight the island. The site will also provide an opportunity for collaborative efforts with localenvironmental groups, colleges and universities to develop monitoring projects on the island's restoration. [Source:Communique]

Turtle Survival Alliance rescues 7,500 turtlesOn December 10, 2001, nearly 7,500 critically endangered turtles were confiscated in Hong Kong. Without thequick-paced conservation efforts of The Fort Worth Zoo and the Turtle Survival Alliance (TSA), the animals facedcertain death.

Destined for the illegal food trade, the shipment of turtles, valued at $3.2 million, was en route to China whenintercepted by Hong Kong customs. The shipment, the largest seizure of live turtles in Hong Kong, was transportedto Kadoorie Farms Botanic Gardens, Hong Kong, for identification and initial triage.

"Currently, seized turtles are simply destroyed because there is no place for them, and they are already sick orinjured," said Rick Hudson, TSA co-chair and Conservation Biologist at the Fort Worth Zoo. "In need of intensiveveterinary treatment, the turtles can't be released back into the wild."

"Before the creation of the TSA, confiscated turtles were disposed of in an effort to curb illegal harvesting. TheTSA provides an ideal option, which channels these turtles into captive programs where they can be rehabilitatedand managed long-term. It's a win-win situation for all involved, especially the turtles."

Shortly after being seized in Hong Kong, the 7,500 confiscated turtles were sent to Miami, Florida, where amultidisciplinary team, spearheaded by the TSA's co-chairs Rick Hudson (Fort Worth Zoo) and Kurt Buhlmann(Conservation International), developed "Assurance Colonies" for the endangered turtles. Located throughout theUnited States, these colonies will maintain these species for their eventual recovery.

Representatives from the Fort Worth Zoo arrived in Miami on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 to assist withrehabilitating the animals, maintaining a centralized database on all individuals and finding appropriate homes forthe turtles. This is not an easy task once you consider everything that must be done for each turtle — stabilizing,assessing medical needs, weighing, measuring, drawing blood, sexing and marking all 7,500 specimens. In addi-tion, TSA's partners had to convince other zoos, universities and private breeders to make room for new turtles andcarefully ship each to its future home.

Six Asian Mountain Tortoises found among the shipment will be returning with Fort Worth Zoo representatives.The Fort Worth Zoo is one of the vital TSA partners providing a safe haven in which these turtles will eventuallybreed, thereby helping save a dozen species from the brink of extinction. [Source: Fort Worth Zoo / ENN]


Announcements for the Bulletin Board arewelcomed. Some items have been providedby the Smithsonian Institution's BiologicalConservation Newsletter.

News & EventsBook Release: CA FloraThe California Native Plant Society haspublished the 6th edition of the Inven-tory of Rare and Endangered Plants ofCalifornia, which lists 2,073 plants asrare, endangered, or uncommon, repre-senting about 33% of the state's nativeplants. To purchase, contact CNPS at(916) 447-2677 or [email protected].

Petition to Uplist LoggerheadTurtles to EndangeredTwo organizations, the Turtle IslandRestoration Network and the Centerfor Biological Diversity, have submit-ted a formal petition to the NationalMarine Fisheries Service and the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service to uplist twopopulations of the loggerhead seaturtle from Threatened to Endangered.Turtles face many threats from hu-mans, including incidental bycatch ofcommercial fishing operations, ma-

Canadian Endangered SpeciesThe Committee on the Status of En-dangered Wildlife in Canada(COSEWIC) met in November 2001to review 37 species at risk. New spe-cies added to the list of endangeredspecies include the southern residentpopulation of killer whales and thesouthern population of tiger sala-mander. Eleven species, reevaluatedusing new IUCN criteria, were up-graded from Special Concern toThreatened (e.g. least bittern, Ross'sgull, rosyface shiner). The number ofspecies at risk now totals 387: 29 Ex-tirpated; 118 Endangered; 94 Threat-ened; 146 Special Concern. For moreinformation: Canadian Nature Federa-tion, http://www.cnf.ca.

rine pollution, and coastal develop-ment on critical nesting beaches.Turtles, like salmon, return to natalbirth sites to nest. An electronic ver-sion of the petition is available byemailing Todd Steiner [email protected]. For more informa-tion: http://www.seaturtles.org.

Silent Spring 40th AnniversaryIn celebration of the 40th Anniver-sary of Rachel Carson's influentialand inspirational book, Silent Spring,The Andy Warhol Museum inPittsburg will exhibit for the firsttime Warhol's 1983 print portfolio,"Endangered Species," and his "Van-ishing Animals" from a 1986 bookpublished in collaboration with theSan Diego Zoo. For more informa-tion, contact: The Andy Warhol Mu-seum, (412) 237-8300, http://www.warhol.org.

Documents

Endangered Species U P D A T E