7775 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ENDANGERED SPECIES 359 means of keeping abreast of changes in the Act. The United States Code, last revised in 1983, contains general and permanent laws of the United States as amended, including the ESA as amended in 1982. A minor problem is presented by differences between Section numbers in the Code and the original Act; numbers in Box 15.1 will resolve this problem. Original Section numbers are used in Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulations and guidelines and in common parlance. Changes in the ESA and in lists and regulations are reported in the Federal Register and the Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. The Environ- mental Reporter of the Bureau of National Affairs is another source of up-to-date information on the ESA. 15.2.2 Implementing the ESA Recovery plans are the primary tools for restoring listed species to self- sustaining components oftheir ecosystems. In recovery planning, priority is given to species most likely to benefit from such plans; priorities are based on the degree ofthreat facing a species, its taxonomic uniqueness and recovery potential, and its likelihood to encounter conflicts with development. Plans are intended to guide various conservation programs of federal, state, and local agencies and other organizations. Regional directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible for preparing plans for species in their region, but they may assign the preparation to FWS personnel, a volunteer recovery team, a state or federal agency, a conservation organization, or knowledgeable individuals. Approved plans are reviewed periodically and revised as new information is compiled or the status of listed species changes. One of the most important things to remember about recovery plans is that they are only guides to conservation of listed species; they do not mandate action, and no one is legally obligated to carry out the conservation measures they contain. Kohm (1991) presented a good review of what has been learned since the ESA was passed and discussed how future efforts should be directed. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981) described the ESA, as originally written, as a powerful weapon on the environment's behalf and considered the modified version (prior to 1982) a potentially strong weapon in defense of species and environmental integrity. Enforcement of the ESA has prevented the extinction of some species and slowed the downward trends of others. Implementation of the ESA has, however, been widely criticized (Yaffee 1982). Rates and apportionments of species listings have been condemned by environmentalists and industry alike. During the first decade under the Act, the Office of Endangered Species favored listing of vertebrates over insects, mollusks, and plants. By 1984, nearly 60% of listed species were vertebrates, but plants and invertebrates outnumbered vertebrates nine to one on the list of organisms being considered for listing. By 1990,565 U.S. species were listed as endangered or threatened; 39% were plants, 13% were invertebrates, and 14% were fishes (USFWS 1990). By January 1990, 256 plans for 307 U.S. endangered and threatened species were completed and approved (USFWS 1990), yet few of these species are making progress toward recovery. Conservation measures spelled out in recovery plans are not mandated, and citizen action, in the form of a lawsuit, is often required to accomplish recovery of a species. In that sense, the ESA affords far less protection than most people assume. Nongovern-