Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Cost-benefit analysis

A cost-benefit analysis. (McGraw-Hill Inc. Reproduced by permission.)

of animal

species

, and the impact of background contamina-

tion complicate these efforts. Under these conditions, simple

cause and effect statements are out of the question.

The most that can be said in health

risk assessment

is that exposure to a particular pollutant is likely to cause a

particular disease. Risk has to be stated in terms of probabili-

ties, not certainties, and has to be distinguished from safety,

which is a societal judgment about how much risk society

is willing to bear. When assessing the feasibility of techno-

logical systems, different types of risks—from mining, radia-

tion, industrial accidents, or

climate

impacts, for example—

have to be compared. This type of comparison further com-

plicates the judgments that have to be made.

Reducing risk involves asking to what extent the pro-

posed methods of reduction are likely to be effective, and

how much these proposed methods will cost. In theory,

decision making could be left to the individual. Society could

provide people with information and each person could then

decide whether to purchase a product or service, depending

upon the environmental and resource consequences. How-

ever, relying upon individual judgments in the market may

not adequately reflect society’s preference for an amenity

327

such as

air quality

, if that amenity is a public good with

no owner and no price attached to it. Thus, social and

political judgments are needed.

However much science reduces uncertainty, gaps in

knowledge remain. Scientific limitations open the door for

political and bureaucratic biases that may not be rational.

In some instances, politicians have framed legislation in ways

that seriously hinder if not entirely prohibit the consideration

of costs (as in the

Delaney Clause

and the

Clean Air Act

In other instances, of which the President’s

Regulatory

Review

Council is a good example, they have explicitly

required a consideration of cost factors.

There are different ways that cost factors can be con-

sidered. Analysts can carry out cost effectiveness analyses,

in which they attempt to figure out how to achieve a given

goal with limited resources, or they can carry out more formal

risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses in which they have to

quantify both the benefits of risk reduction and the costs.

Economists admit that formal, quantitative ap-

proaches to balancing costs and benefits do not eliminate

the need for qualitative judgments. Cost-benefit analysis

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Douglas M. Costle

initially was developed for water projects where the issues,

while complicated, were not of the same kind as society now

faces. For example, how does one assess the value of a

magnificent vista obscured by

air pollution

? What is the

loss to society if a given genetic strain of grass or animal

species becomes extinct? How does one assess the lost oppor-

tunity costs of spending vast amounts of money on air pollu-

tion that could have been spent on productivity enhancement

and global competitiveness?

The most recalcitrant question concerns the value of

human life. Cost-benefit analysis requires quantifying the

value of a human life in dollars, so that specific health risks

can be entered into the calculations against the cost of reduc-

ingsuch risks. Many different methodsof arriving at an appro-

priate figure have been undertaken, all with predictably absurd

results. Estimates range from $70,000 to several million dol-

lars a head. Although the question does not admit of a sensible

answer, society must nevertheless decide how much it is will-

ing to pay to save a given number of lives (or how much specific

polluters should pay for endangering them).

Equity issues (both interpersonal and intergenera-

tional) cannot be ignored when carrying out cost-benefit

analysis. The costs of air pollution reduction may have to

be borne disproportionately by the poor in the form of higher

gasoline

and

automobile

prices. The costs of

water pollu-

tion

reduction, on the other hand, may be borne to a greater

extent by the rich because these costs are financed through

public spending. Regions dependent on dirty

coal

may find

it in their interests to unite with environmentalists in seeking

pollution control

technology. The pollution control tech-

nology saves coal mining jobs in West Virginia and the

Midwest, where the coal is dirty, but draws away resources

from the coal mining industry in the West where large

quantities of clean-burning coal are located.

Intergenerational equity also plays a role.

Future gen-

erations

have no current representatives in the market sys-

tem or political process. How their interests are to be taken

into account ultimately amounts to a philosophical discus-

sion about altruism: to what extent should current genera-

tions hold back on their own consumption for the sake

of posterity? Should Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ideal of

“achieving the greatest good for the greatest number” be

modified to read “achieving sufficient per capita product

for the greatest number over time?” See also Environmental

economics; Intergenerational justice; Pollution control costs

and benefits; Risk analysis

[Alfred A. Marcus]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Buchholz, R., A. Marcus, and J. Post. Managing Environmental Issues.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.

328

Mann, D., and H. Ingram. “Policy Issues in the Natural Environment.”

In Public Policy and the Natural Environment, edited by H. Ingram and R.

K. Goodwin. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985.

Douglas M. Costle (1939 – )

American former director of Environmental Protection

Agency

An educator and an administrator, Douglas M. Costle

helped design the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) under Richard Nixon and was appointed to the head

of that agency by Jimmy Carter. Costle was born in Long

Beach California on July 27, 1939, and spent most of his

teenage years in Seattle. He received his B.A. from Harvard

in 1961 and his law degree from the University of Chicago

in 1964. His career as a trial attorney in the civil rights

division of the Justice Department began in Washington in

1965. Later he became a staff attorney for the Economic

Development Administration at the Department of Com-

merce.

In 1969, Costle was appointed to the position of senior

staff associate of the President’s Advisory Council on Execu-

tive Organization, and in this post was instrumental in the

formation of the EPA. Although Costle lobbied to be ap-

pointed as assistant administrator of the new agency, his

strong affiliations with the Democratic party seem to have

hindered his bid. Instead he continued as a consultant to

the agency for two years and an adviser to the President’s

Council on Environmental Quality

The road that led Costle back to the EPA took him

to Connecticut in 1972, where he became first deputy com-

missioner and then commissioner of the Department of

Environmental Protection in that state. He proved himself

an able and efficient administrator there, admired by many

for his ability to work with industry on behalf of the

environ-

ment

. His most important accomplishment was the develop-

ment of a structure often called the “Connecticut Plan,”

where fines for industrial

pollution

were calculated on the

basis of the costs that business would have incurred if it had

complied with environmental regulations.

Carter appointed Costle head of EPA in 1977 as a

compromise candidate during a period of bitter feuding over

the direction of the agency (then at the center of a debate

over the economic effects of regulation). But many environ-

mentalists believed Costle’s record proved he compromised

too willingly with business, and they openly questioned

whether he had the political strength to support environment

protection in the face of fierce political and industrial oppo-

sition.

By May of his first year in office he was able to

secure funding for 600 additional staff positions in the

EPA, and under him much was done to provide a rationale

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Council on Environmental Quality

for the regulations he had inherited and base them wherever

possible on scientific data. Among other decisions Costle

made while head of the EPA, he recommended a delay

on the imposition of new auto emissions standards, allowed

the construction of the nuclear plant in Seabrook, New

Hampshire to continue despite protests, and oversaw the

formation of an agreement with U.S. Steel on the reduction

of air and

water pollution

Throughout his tenure Costle remained a strong pro-

ponent of the view that the federal government’s responsibil-

ity to the environment was not incompatible with the obliga-

tions it had to the economy. He often argued that

environmental regulation actually assisted economic devel-

opment. Although conflicts with lobbying groups and hostile

litigation, as well as increased controversy over the inflation-

ary effects of environmental regulation, complicated his

stewardship of the EPA, Costle continued to believe in what

he called a gradual and “quiet victory” for environmental

protection.

Costle went on to become chairman of the U.S. Fed-

eral Regulatory Council until 1981. He is now a retired dean

of Vermont Law School in South Royalton.

[Douglas Smith]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Langway, L., and J. Bishop Jr. “The EPA’s New Man.” Newsweek 89 (21

February 1977): 80–82.

Council on Environmental Quality

Until it was abolished by the Clinton Administration in

1993, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) was the White House Office that advised the Presi-

dent and coordinated executive branch policy on the

envi-

ronment

. CEQ was established by the

National Environ-

mental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 to “formulate and

recommend national policies” to promote the improvement

of the quality of the natural environment.

CEQ had three basic responsibilities: to serve as advi-

sor to the President on

environmental policy

matters; to

coordinate the positions of the various departments and

agencies of government on environmental issues; and to

carry out the provisions of NEPA. The latter responsibility

included working with federal agencies on complying with

the law and issuing the required regulations for assessing

the environmental impacts of federal actions. (NEPA re-

quires that all agencies of the federal government issue “a

detailed statement” on “the environmental impact” of “pro-

329

posals for legislation and other major federal actions signifi-

cantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” This

seemingly innocuous provision has been used often by envi-

ronmental groups to legally challenge federal projects that

might damage the environment, on the grounds that the

required

Environmental Impact Statement

was inadequate

or had not been issued.)

CEQ also prepared and issued the annual Environ-

mental Quality Report; administered the President’s Com-

mission on Environmental Quality, an advisory panel in-

volved in voluntary initiatives to protect the environment;

and supervised the President’s Environment and

Conserva-

tion

Challenge Awards, which honored individuals and or-

ganizations who achieved significant environmental accom-

plishments. Under the Nixon and Carter administrations,

CEQ had a significant impact on the formulation and imple-

mentation of environmental policy. But its role was greatly

diminished under the Reagan and Bush administrations,

which paid much less attention to environmental considera-

tions.

Perhaps CEQ’s best-known and most influential ac-

complishment was its landmark work, The Global 2000 Re-

port to the President, prepared with the U.S. Department of

State and other federal agencies, and released in July 1980.

This pioneering study was the first report by the U.S. govern-

ment—or any other—projecting long term environmental,

population, and resource trends in an integrated way.

Specifically, the report projected that the world of the

future would not be a pleasant place to live for much of

humanity, predicting that “if present trends continue, the

world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less

stable ecologically and more vulnerable to disruption than the

world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population,

resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead....the

world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are

today.” CEQ’s Eleventh Annual Report, Environmental Qual-

ity—1980, further warned that “we can no longer assume,

as we could in the past, that the earth will heal and renew

itself indefinitely. Human numbers and human works are

catching up with the earth’s ability to recover...The quality

of human existence in the future will rest on careful steward-

ship and husbandry of the earth’s resources.”

In the following dozen years, CEQ was much more

reluctant to speak out about the ecological crisis. Early in

his presidency, Bill Clinton abolished CEQ and created the

White House Office on Environmental Policy to coordinate

the environmental policy and actions of his administration.

Clinton said this new body will “have broader influence and

a more effective and focused mandate to coordinate policy”

than CEQ had.

[Lewis G. Regenstein]

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Jacques-Yves Cousteau

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

“White House Environmentalists.” Buzzworm 5 (May-June 1993): 72.

THER

Environmental Quality: The Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on Envi-

ronmental Quality. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Qual-

ity, 1980.

The Global 2000 Report to the President. Washington, DC: Council on

Environmental Quality, 1980.

RGANIZATIONS

Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson Place, NW, Washington,

D.C. USA 20503 Fax: (202) 395-5750, Toll Free: (202) 456-6546, ,

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq>

Jacques-Yves Cousteau (1910 – 1997)

French oceanographer, inventor, photographer, explorer,

and environmentalist

When most people think of marine biology, the person

that immediately comes to mind is Jacques-Yves Cousteau.

Whether through invention, research,

conservation

,ored-

ucation, Cousteau has brought the ocean world closer to

scientists and the public, and it is the interest, awareness,

and appreciation fostered through Cousteau’s work that may

ultimately save the marine

environment

from impending

destruction.

Born in France in 1910, Cousteau’s childhood was full

of illnesses that left him anemic. His sickness, however, did

not stop him from being an independent thinker, a trait that

led to his strong commitment to oceanographic research.

He attended the E

cole Navale in Brest, France, the national

naval academy, where his interest in marine research was

sparked by a cruise around the world on the school ship

Jeanne D’Arc. Cousteau brought his camera and filmed a

rough documentary of the voyage. His fascination with pearl

and fish divers, and his ability to use a camera, would revolu-

tionize undersea exploration.

During World War II, Cousteau, his wife, and two

friends made masks and snorkels from inner tubes and gar-

den hose. Through experimentation, they discovered that

the worst enemy of a diver was the cold, and Cousteau

proceeded to work on an effective diving suit. In 1943,

Cousteau and Emile Paul Gagnon patented the Aqua Lung,

the first self-contained underwater breathing apparatus

(SCUBA). It was this invention that led to Cousteau being

known as the “father of modern diving.” SCUBA has opened

a new world to scientific research as it is used extensively

not only in marine biology, but also in marine geology,

archaeology, and chemical oceanography.

Cousteau’s innovations did not end with the Aqua

Lung. He combined his interests in diving and photography

330

to develop the first underwater camera housing. While sta-

tioned with the Navy in Marseilles, Cousteau continued

to develop underwater photographic equipment, including

battery packs and lights. In 1943, Cousteau and several

friends filmed “Wrecks,” a documentary of a sunken ship

in the

Mediterranean Sea

. The French navy recognized

Cousteau’s talent and thought that this technology could be

useful in recovering German mines and retrieving lost cargo.

He was promoted to commandant and was put in charge

of the Undersea Research Group, where he continued to

develop diving and photographic techniques.

In 1950, Cousteau realized that the vessel donated to

the Undersea Research Group was inadequate and asked the

navy to furnish them with another ship. When the French

navy refused, Cousteau formed a non-profit organization,

Campagnes Oceanographique Franc

aises, and was able to

raise enough money to purchase and refit an old British

minesweeper. This would become the most famous and

recognized scientific research vessel in the world: Calypso.

Cousteau first gained notoriety in the United States in

the early 1950s when Life Magazine and National Geographic

introduced Americans to the undersea endeavors of Cous-

teau and his Undersea Research Group. In 1953 Cousteau

was persuaded to translate his journals into English and

published them as The Silent World. It sold five million

copies and was translated into twenty-two languages. It was

filmed as a documentary in 1955 and won an Academy

Award and the Gold Medal at the Cannes Film Festival

that year. Following the commercial success of his film,

Cousteau was appointed director of the world’s oldest and

largest marine research center, the Oceanographic Institute

of Monaco. He rebuilt the deteriorating institute, adding

aquariums and many live specimens collected during his

travels.

While trying unsuccessfully to house

dolphins

in the

facility, Cousteau developed a respect for the intelligence of

these animals. This prompted him to campaign for stopping

the slaughter of dolphins for use in pet foods. This was to

be the first of many environmental campaigns for Cousteau,

during which he discovered that the public, once educated

about the environment, would be willing to try to preserve

it. This theme of education has guided

the Cousteau Soci-

ety

, and many other environmental organizations, ever since.

Exploring depths deeper than possible with SCUBA

intrigued Cousteau and, in 1960, he tested the DS-2 diving

saucer, in which he dove to over 984 ft (300 m) in the Bay

of Ajaccio, near Corsica. After hundreds of successful dives,

Cousteau started Continental Shelf Station Number One

(Conshelf I) in the Mediterranean. This experiment not

only investigated deep undersea habitats, but also determined

how divers would respond to life underwater for long periods

of time while conducting laboratory experiments. The work

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Cousteau Society, The

Jacques Cousteau. (Corbis-Bettmann. Reproduced by

permission.)

performed by Cousteau and his research group not only laid

the groundwork for all subsequent submersible engineering

and exploration, but also was one of the first thorough inves-

tigations of hyperbaric physiology.

In 1966, Cousteau began that for which he is best

known: television documentaries. With the airing of “The

World of Jacques Cousteau,” millions were introduced to

the wonders of the sea. That same year, Cousteau signed a

contract and began to film “The Undersea World of Jacques

Cousteau,” which ran for nearly nine years, giving Americans

a glimpse of marine environments and the behaviors of the

organisms that live there. The series, now in syndication,

continues to fascinate generations of Americans and spawn

interest in marine science and conservation.

In the early 1970s, Cousteau became frustrated with

increasing

marine pollution

and produced a series of docu-

mentaries focusing on the destruction of marine systems.

He also expanded his explorations to riverine systems, lakes,

rain forest

destruction and the conflicts between human

culture and the environment. The scope of his films demon-

strates Cousteau’s devotion to preserving all natural systems.

Cousteau’s accomplishments are numerous. He had

published more than 18 books and contributed many articles

to professional and popular journals. His documentary films

have won three Academy Awards and his series, “The Un-

331

dersea World of Jacques Cousteau,” has won numerous

Emmy Awards. Many organizations have recognized Cous-

teau for his work in technical fields as well as in conservation.

These awards include Gold Medals from the National Geo-

graphic Society and the Royal Geographical Society, and

the United Nations international environmental award. He

has received honorary degrees from the University of Califor-

nia at Berkeley, Brandeis University, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, Harvard University, the University of Ghent, and

the University of Guadalajara. He was named to the U.S.

National Academy of Sciences

in 1968.

Cousteau’s devotion to the natural world has not been

with out its costs. His son Philippe was killed in a diving

accident and numerous financial difficulties, especially early

in his career, set back his work. Whether it is in oceano-

graphic research, marine engineering, the development and

manufacture of diving equipment, the production of films

and television specials, or

environmental education

, Cous-

teau continued to inspire and fascinate, motivating scientists

and the public alike to work to preserve the ocean world

until his death Paris on July 25, 1997.

[William G. Ambrose Jr. and Paul E. Renaud]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Cousteau, J-Y. The Cousteau Almanac: An Inventory of Life on Our Water

Planet. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Munson, R. Cousteau: The Captain and His World. New York: Morrow,

1989.

Cousteau Society, The

The Cousteau Society is a non-profit organization dedicated

to marine research, especially underwater exploration and

filmmaking. Created in 1973 by

Jacques-Yves Cousteau

and his son, Jean-Michel Cousteau, the Society provides

educational materials, and sponsors or cosponsors scientific,

technological and environmental research studies to gauge

the health of the world’s marine environments.

The Society’s educational projects include award-win-

ning television specials that inspire interest in the marine

world. Special reports filmed and broadcast have included

those on the

Exxon Valdez

oil spills and the natural history

of the great white shark (Carcharodon charcharias). Cous-

teau films are broadcast in more than 100 countries and to

schools around the world. Books and filmstrips on marine

and environmental issues are produced for colleges, schools,

and the public. The Society produces two periodicals that

explain scientific and environmental issues, the Calypso Log

for adults and the Dolphin Log for youngsters.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Coyote

The Society’s Project Ocean Search offers field study

programs under the supervision of Society educators and

scientists. Presently, the Society is developing Cousteau

Center sites that will provide visitors with ocean experiences

through the use of film and illusion technology. The Society

also sponsors research to help the scientific community better

understand the nature of a region or phenomenon, as well

as studies designed to provide local policy makers with guide-

lines to protect their

environment

Two Cousteau Society research vessels, Calypso and

Alcyone, are circumnavigating the globe to take a fresh look

at the planet. Four hours of television documentaries are

filmed each year about those expeditions. Scientific teams

aboard the two research vessels are measuring the productiv-

ity of the oceans, studying the contributions of rivers to

ocean vitality, assessing the health of marine and freshwater

habitats, and exploring the global connections between major

components of the

biosphere

such as tropical forests, rivers,

the

atmosphere

, seas, oceans, and humankind.

The Society also provides assistance to the Marine

Mammal Stranding Program, a network of scientists and

others who study strandings of

whales

and

dolphins

. With

the Smithsonian Institution, the Society sponsors the Marine

Mammal Events Program, which gathers information on

beach stranding reports from the United States and other

parts of the world to create a centralized data base. The

compilation is expected to lead to a better understanding of

the phenomenon of beaching.

Currently, the Society is developing educational com-

puter programs for young people that explore the conse-

quences of various actions on the environment; and it is

preparing environmental cartoon books for students in devel-

oping countries. It also supports the development of new

technologies that will help provide solutions to environmen-

tal challenges.

[Linda Rehkopf]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

The Cousteau Society, 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 402, Chesapeake,

VA USA 23320 (800) 441-4395, Email: cousteau@cousteausociety.org,

<http://www.cousteausociety.org>

Coyote

The name coyote comes from the Aztec name Coyoti. The

Latin name for the coyote is Canis latrans which means

barking dog. A member of the family Canidae, the coyote

is also called God’s Dog, brush wolf,

prairie

wolf, and the

Songdog.

332

Coyotes are especially important to biologists and

others studying

wildlife

and the

environment

both because

of their ability to control their own population and because

of their effect upon other wildlife populations, especially

that of the white-tailed deer.

The coyote is roughly the size of a small German

Shepherd, weighing from 20–35 lb (9–14 kg) and 4–5 ft

(1.2–1.5 m) long, although some can grow as large as 50

lb (23 kg) in the northern and northeastern part of their

range. The coat of a coyote can be gray or brownish gray,

depending on the season and

habitat

, with a bushy tail

that is tipped with black. Coyote fur is long and soft and

grows heavier in the winter to protect it from the cold.

Its fur also grows lighter in color in the winter and darker

in the summer to help it blend in with its natural

surroundings.

The early European settlers originally found the coyote

only in Central and western North America. However, de-

spite many attempts by humans to get rid of them, coyotes

today range from Panama to Northern Alaska, and from

California to Newfoundland. They have been seen in every

state in the continental United States, but since they are

predominately nocturnal, are too elusive to count accurately.

Coyotes have even been found in isolated regions such as

Cape Cod, as well as in various urban areas such as Chicago,

Los Angeles, and New York City.

This ongoing expansion of the coyote’s range began

in the late 1800s, soon after the United States government

began programs of killing them in order to protect domestic

livestock, especially the sheep that were

grazing on public

lands

. However, unlike the

overhunting

of other

species

such as the passenger pigeons, grizzly bears,

wolves

, and

whales

, the best efforts to kill off the coyotes have all failed,

and coyotes have continued to thrive. Biologists now believe

that the coyote population has more than doubled since

1850.

Several factors account for this expansion. Farming

and the clearing of the unbroken forests that once covered

much of North America have created new and more

suitable habitats. The eradication of the wolf in much of

North America has removed one of the coyote’s major

predators and has led to less

competition

for many prey

animals. Unlike the wolf, the coyote has more easily

adapted to changing habitats, and has adjusted to living

close to human populations. In addition, the introduction

of sheep and other domestic animals has given the coyote

new food sources.

Coyotes are opportunistic carnivores with a variable

diet depending on the season or habitat. Although they

prefer rodents, rabbits, and hares, they are definitely not

picky. They will emulate the larger wolf and hunt deer, elk,

and sheep in packs. They will also eat carrion and have been

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Coyote

known to eat grasshoppers, beetles, snakes, lizards,

frogs

rats, domestic cats, porcupines, turtles, and even watermel-

ons and wild blueberries.

Coyotes are one of the most vocal animals of the

wild. Through a series of howls, yelps and barks, coyotes

communicate to other coyotes in the area, with others in

their pack, and with their young.

Studies of the coyote’s breeding patterns have shown

that they are able to control their own population. To do

this the coyote relies upon various breeding strategies. If

there are too many coyotes for the food supply, they will

continue to mate and have young, but only enough pups

will be born and will survive to replace those that have died.

However, if they are not being overhunted and if there is

plenty of food, there will be more pups born in each litter

and the number that will survive into adulthood will increase.

Because of this innate ability to vary their own popula-

tions, coyotes have thrived and play a central role in main-

taining the overall ecological balance. Extensive studies of

the coyote have shown the crucial interaction between them

and many other species, both predator and prey. When the

jackrabbit population decreases, as it does periodically in the

Curlew Valley of Idaho and Utah for example, the coyote

population decreases also, usually within the following year.

Then, when the jackrabbit population increases again, coy-

otes become more numerous also.

Coyotes mate for life and the adults breed between

January and March. The female maintains the den that she

selects from an old badger or woodchuck hole, or a natural

cavity in the ground. The female carries her young for over

two months, giving birth in April or May. A litter may have

from two to 12 pups.

Both parents play an active role in raising the pups.

At three weeks old the pups are allowed to leave the den to

play and by 12 weeks old they are taught to hunt. The family

stays together through the summer but by fall the pups will

leave to find their own territories. The survival rate for these

pups is low. Between 50 and 70% die before they reach

adulthood. Eighty percent of those deaths are due to man.

Coyotes limit the populations of various smaller preda-

tors, by preying upon them directly or by competing with

them for prey. This in turn indirectly affects various prey

communities, especially those of birds. When there are no

coyotes to keep them in check, the smaller predators expand

and are able to kill off a larger segment of the various bird

populations.

The coyote and the deer populations interact in an

important way as well. Whenever the coyote population

decreases, the deer population, particularly that of the white-

tailed deer, increases, leading to unhealthy herds and, ac-

cording to some biologists, to an increase in Lyme disease-

bearing ticks in some regions. Coyotes are thus a major

333

A coyote. (© U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Reproduced

by permission.)

factor in maintaining healthy deer populations and in pre-

venting the spread of a disease that is dangerous and poten-

tially fatal to humans.

Coyotes affect humans more directly as well, especially

through their impact upon domestic animals. Since Europe-

ans first came to North America, coyotes have preyed upon

sheep and other livestock, costing sheep growers, farmers,

and ranchers untold millions of dollars. In some areas, live-

stock may make up 14% of a coyote’s diet. This has prompted

extensive

hunting

to control the number of coyotes that

ranchers and farmers view as pests. Some ranchers keep

guard dogs to protect their livestock. New technology, using

inaudible ultrasonic sound, also allows ranchers to detect or

repel coyotes.

Although there are no documented cases of humans

dying from coyote attacks, coyotes will fiercely defend them-

selves if cornered. However, they are much less dangerous

than wild domestic dogs, which have killed more than 300

people in the decade since 1990. Coyotes can coexist with

humans. But can people learn to live with them? Humans

cause 90% of all adult coyote deaths by hunting,

trapping

poisoning

, and

automobile

accidents. Wolves, black bears,

mountain lions, and eagles, as well as various

parasites

and

diseases, account for the rest.

[Douglas Dupler]

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Criteria pollutant

ESOURCES

OOKS

Dobie, J. Frank. The Voice of the Coyote. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1949.

Leydet, Francois. The Coyote: Defiant Songdog of the West. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.

ERIODICALS

Finkel, Mike. “Ultimate Survivor.” Aubudon, May-June 2002.

Foderaro, Lisa W. “Letting Golf Courses Go a Little Wild; Clubs Spray

Less and Make Way For Native Plants and Coyotes.” New York Times,1

May 2002.

Gompper, Matthew E. “Top Carnivores in the Suburbs? Ecological and

Conservation Issues Raised by Colonization of North-Eastern North

America by Coyotes.” BioScience, February 2002, 185–191.

Gregory, Ted. “Hot on the Trail of Nomadic Urban Coyotes.” Chicago

Tribune, 12 May 2002, 1.

Grinder, Martha I. and Paul R. Krausman. “Home Range, Habitat Use,

and Nocturnal Activity of Coyotes in an Urban Environment.” Journal of

Wildlife Management, 65, no. 4 (2001): 887–99.

THER

Desert Usa. The Coyote, Canis latrans. [2002]. <http://www.desertusa.com>.

Senecal, D. “Coyote, Hinterland Who’s Who.” Canadian Wildlife Service.

[2002]. <http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca>.

Crane (bird)

see

Whooping crane

Creutzfeldt jacob disease

see

Mad cow disease

Criteria pollutant

Criteria pollutants are air pollutants which, at certain levels of

exposure, do not threaten human health and meet National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. There are two types of

standards for such pollutants. National primary ambient

air

quality

standards are levels of air quality with a margin of

safety adequate to protect public health. National secondary

ambient air quality standards are levels of air quality which

are necessary to protect the public welfare from any known

or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. See also Air

Quality Control Region; Air quality criteria; Primary stan-

dards; Secondary standards

Critical habitat

As institutionalized in the U. S.

Endangered Species Act

of 1973, critical

habitat

is considered the area necessary to

the survival of a

species

, and, in the case of endangered and

threatened species, essential to their recovery. An animal’s

habitat includes not only the area where it lives, but also its

334

breeding and feeding grounds, seasonal ranges, and

migra-

tion

routes. Critical habitat usually refers to the area that is

essential for a minimal viable population to survive and

reproduce. The

Endangered Species

Act is intended to

conserve “the ecosystems upon which endangered species

and threatened species depend.” Thus, the Secretary of the

Interior is required to identify and designate critical habitats

for species that are listed as endangered or threatened under

this law. In some cases, areas may be excluded from such

designations if the economic, social, or other costs exceed

the

conservation

benefits.

The listing of imperiled species and the designation

of their critical habitats have become politically sensitive,

since these actions can profoundly affect the development

and exploitation of areas so designated, and can, under some

circumstances, limit such activities as gas and

oil drilling

timber cutting, dam building, mineral exploration and min-

ing. For this and other reasons, the Department of the

Interior often has been reluctant to list certain species, and

has excluded species from the protected lists in order not to

inconvenience certain commercial interests.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all

federal agencies and departments to ensure that the activities

they carry out, fund, or authorize do not jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or adversely modify

or destroy their critical habitat. This provision has proven

especially significant, since federal agencies such as the

For-

est Service

Bureau of Land Management

, and

Fish and

Wildlife Service

control vast areas of land that constitute

habitat for many listed species and on which a variety of

commercial activities, such as

logging

or mining, are under-

taken with federal permits.

However, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

has been implemented in such a way as to generally not

affect economic development. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (and, in the case of marine species, the National

Marine Fisheries Service) is directed to consult with other

federal agencies and review the effects of their actions on

listed species. According to a study by the

National Wildlife

Federation

, over 99% of the more than 120,000 reviews or

consultations conducted between 1979 and 1991 found that

no jeopardy to a listed species was involved. In some cases,

“economic and technologically feasible” alternatives and

modifications, in the words of the act, were suggested that

allowed the federal activities to proceed. In only 34 cases

were projects cancelled because of threats to listed species.

In rare situations, where the conflict between a project and

the Endangered Species Act are absolutely irreconcilable, an

agency can apply for an exemption from a seven-member

Endangered Species Committee.

The earliest major conflict over critical habitat under

the Act was the famous 1979 fight over construction of the

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Crocodiles

$116 million

Tellico Dam

in Tennessee, which would have

flooded and destroyed several hundred family farms as well

as what was then the only known habitat of a species of

minnow, the

snail darter

(Percina tanasi). (Since then, snail

darters have been found in other areas.) Congress exempted

this project from the provisions of the Endangered Species

Act, and the dam was built as planned, although many

consider it a political boondoggle and a huge waste of taxpay-

ers’ money.

More recently, efforts by environmentalists to save the

remnants of

old-growth forest

in the Pacific Northwest

to preserve habitat for the

northern spotted owl

(Strix

occidentalis caurina) created tremendous controversy. Thou-

sands of acres of federally-owned forests in Oregon, Wash-

ington, and California were placed off-limits to logging,

costing jobs in the timber industry in those states. However,

conservationists pointed out, if the federal government al-

lowed the last of the ancient forests to be logged, timber jobs

would disappear anyway, along with these unique ecosystems

and several species dependent upon them. In mid-1993,

Interior Secretary announced a compromise decision that

allows logging of some ancient forests to continue, but also

greatly decreases the areas open to this activity. As natural

areas and wildlife habitat continue to be destroyed and de-

graded, conflicts and controversy over saving critical habitats

for listed endangered and threatened species can be expected

to continue.

[Lewis G. Regenstein]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Bean, M. J., et al. Reconciling Conflicts Under the Endangered Species Act:

The Habitat Conservation Planning Experience. Washington, DC: World

Wildlife Fund, 1991.

Kohm, K., ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species

Act and Lessons for the Future. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1990.

Crocodiles

The largest of the living reptiles, crocodiles inhabit shallow

coastal bodies of water in tropical areas throughout the world,

and they are often seen floating log-like in the water with

only their eyes and nostrils showing. Crocodiles have long

been hunted for their hides, and almost all

species

of croco-

dilians are now considered to be in danger of

extinction

Members of the crocodile family, called crocodilians (Croco-

dylidae), are similar in appearance and include crocodiles,

alligators, caimans, and gavials. A crocodile can usually be

distinguished from an alligator by its pointed snout (an

alligator’s is rounded), and by the visible fourth tooth on

either side of its snout that protrudes when the jaw is shut.

335

Crocodiles prey on fish, turtles, birds, crabs, small

mammals, and any other animals they can catch, including

dogs and occasional humans. They hide at the shore of rivers

and water holes and grab an animal as it comes to drink,

seizing a leg or muzzle, dragging the prey underwater, and

holding it there until it drowns. When seizing larger animals,

a crocodile will thrash and spin rapidly in the water and tear

its prey to pieces. After eating its fill, a crocodile may crawl

ashore to warm itself and digest its food, basking in the sun

in its classic “grinning” pose, with its jaws wide open, often

allowing a sandpiper or plover to pick and clean its teeth by

scavenging meat and

parasites

from between them.

The important role that crocodiles play in the

balance

of nature

is not fully known or appreciated, but, like all

major predators, their place in the ecological chain is a crucial

one. They eat many poisonous water snakes, and during

times of

drought

, they dig water holes, thus providing water,

food, and

habitat

for fish, birds, and other creatures. When

crocodiles were eliminated from lakes and rivers in parts of

Africa and

Australia

, many of the food fish also declined

or disappeared. It is thought that this may have occurred

because crocodiles feed on predatory and scavenging species

of fish that are not eaten by local people, and when left

unchecked, these fish multiplied out of control and crowded

out or consumed many of the food fish.

Crocodiles reproduce by laying eggs and burying them

in the sand or hiding them in nests concealed in vegetation.

Recent studies of the Nile and American crocodiles show

that some of these reptiles can be attentive parents. Ac-

cording to these studies, the mother crocodile carefully

watches over the nest until it is time for the eggs to hatch.

Then she digs the eggs out and gently removes the young

from the shells. After gathering the newborns together, she

puts them in her mouth and carries them to the water and

releases them, watching over them for some time. American

crocodiles are very shy and reclusive, and disturbance during

this critical period can disrupt the reproductive process and

prevent successful hatchings.

In recent decades, crocodiles and other crocodilians

have been intensively hunted for their scaly hides, which

are used to make shoes, belts, handbags, wallets, and other

fashion products. As a result, they have disappeared or have

become rare in most of their former habitats. As of 2001,

12 crocodile species have been designated endangered. These

species are found in Africa, the Caribbean, Central and

South America, the Middle East, the Philippines, Australia,

some Pacific Islands, southeast Asia, the Malay Peninsula,

Sri Lanka, and Iran. They are endangered primarily due to

overexploitation and habitat loss.

The American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) occurs all

along the Caribbean coast, including the shores of Central

America, Colombia, Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Mexico,

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

William Cronon

An American crocodile. (Photograph by Tom and Pat

Leeson. Photo Researchers Inc. Reproduced by per-

mission.)

extreme south Florida, and on the Pacific coast, from Peru

north to southern Mexico. The United States population of

the American crocodile consists of some 500–1,2000 indi-

viduals. This species breeds only in the southern part of

Everglades National Park

, mainly Florida Bay, and per-

haps on nearby Key Largo, and at Florida Power and Light

Company’s Turkey Point plant, located south of Miami.

The population is thought to be extremely vulnerable and

declining, mainly due to human disturbance, habitat loss

(from urbanization, especially real estate development), and

direct killing such as on highways and in fishing nets. Preda-

tion of hatchlings in Florida Bay mainly by raccoons may

also be a factor in the species’ decline.

[Lewis G. Regenstein]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Crocodiles: Their Ecology, Management and Conservation. A Special Publication

of the Crocodile Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-The World

Conservation Union, 1989.

Ross, C. A., ed. Crocodiles and Alligators. New York: Facts on File, 1989.

Thorbjarnarson, J., comp. Crocodiles. An Action Plan for Their Conservation.

Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1992.

William Cronon (1954 – )

American Frederick Jackson Turner Professor of History,

Geography, and Environmental Studies, University of Wis-

consin

William Cronon is an environmental historian, and the au-

thor of several notable books on

wilderness

, American

landscape, and history. Cronon grew up in Madison, Wis-

336

consin and did his undergraduate work at the University of

Wisconsin. He won a Rhodes scholarship and spent two

years studying at Oxford University, earning a doctorate.

His first book, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and

the Ecology of New England, was published in 1983. This

book was cited by reviewer Jim Miller in Newsweek as an

“eloquent book” with “the rigor of first-rate history and the

power of a tragedy.” The book’s tragic power lies in its

subject-the destruction of the fertile

habitat

of pre-colonial

New England by the colonists’ farming methods and exploi-

tation of

natural resources

, and the virtual eradication of

the native American population by diseases brought from

Europe by the colonists. Cronon supports his explication of

this devastation with evidence gathered from such sources

as original Puritan documents and the literature of

ecology

and anthropology. His next book was Nature’s Metropolis:

Chicago and the Great West, published in 1991. This work

extended Cronon’s investigation of the way human beings

shape landscape, looking at relationships between nineteenth

century Chicago and the land around it.

Cronon left a tenured position at Yale in order to take

up a post at the University of Wisconsin in 1992, returning

to his home town. He put out several more books in the

1990s, including Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s

Western Past, and Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human

Place in Nature, and editing a book of John Muir’s

nature

writings. Cronon’s writings have challenged other environ-

mentalists’ conception of wilderness as a pristine place un-

touched by man. His work focuses on the inextricable rela-

tionship between human civilization and nature. Idealizing

wilderness as something apart from humankind for Cronon

stands in the way of clear thinking about how to preserve

the

environment

. For example Cronon wrote about the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

in 2001, when the incom-

ing Bush administration sparked renewed calls to drill for

oil in the nature preserve. Cronon argued that the word

wilderness conjured up for most people a “place remote from

human settlements, untouched by human hands.” The Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge

was in fact deeply tied to human

civilization as a holy place to Alaskan Indians, a breeding

ground for their caribou, and a migratory stop for birds found

in 49 out of 50 states in the U.S. The Alaskan wilderness was

neither as empty nor as distant as it seemed. Pointing out

the many complex relationships between human communi-

ties and the land surrounding them is the core of Cro-

non’s work.

[Angela Woodward]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

“An Environmentalist on a Different Path” New York Times (April 3, 1999):

B7, B9.