8189

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8189
• Author: Johnson, J. E. and J. N. Rinne
• Title: The Endangered Species Act and Southwest Fishes
• USFW Year: 1982
• USFW - Doc Type: Fisheries
• Copyright Material: NO

on the mainstream Colorado River produce perpetually cold (10
°C) tailwater habitats and upstream lacustrine environments,
both better suited io more iiiai~ .~~ ~~«<~~~~~~ ~r--•-- =- ° -
than to the 30 + native species (Minckley 1973). The abnormally
cold waters of the river reaches between dams are perpetuated
by the constritted canyon walls that prevent solar warming (Cole
and Kubly 1976). The few remaining semipristine riverine hab-.
itats of the Colorado River, principally in canyons like Desolation,
Grand, and Westwater, still retain a few o f the native fish species.
However, even these remote habitats are jeopardized by the
cold water, large number of non-native fishes, proposed dams,
and the threat of dewatering. Similar impacts have occurred on
the other major river system in the Southwest, the Rio Grande.
Presently, the typical Southwestem desert stream is dammed,
diverted, pumped, and polluted to the extent that it either is dry
or flows only irrigation return water and sewage effluent during
much of the year.
Another rapidly disappearing Southwestem aquatic habitat
type is the desert spring. These springs vary in flow from mere
seeps to hundreds of cubic meters per minute. Endemic fish and
invertebrate species have evolved in many of these habitats in
response to isolation and stable environmental conditions (Dea-
con 1979). Dewatering of these "aquatic islands" via ground-
water pumping may result within the next 20 years in the greatest
faunal loss in North America. $eme (1975) describes .e p'ght
of Texas springs this way:
Texas originally had 281 major and historically significant springs,
other than saline springs. Of these, four were originally very large
springs (over 100-cubic-feet-per-second flow); however, only
two, Comal and San Marcos, remain in that class today. Sixty-
three springs, many with important historical backgrounds, have
completely failed.
The purpose of this paper is not to reiterate the contents of
numerous scientific articles that adequately discuss dwindling
water resources and the decline of native fishes (Miller 1961;
Minckley and Deacon 1968; Minckley 1973; Pfister 1974 and
1981; Deacon and Minckley 1974; Naiman and Soltz 1981).
Instead we proposed to delineateQresent actions being taken
to recover the disappeanng resource known as Southwestem
is es. and to su est directions t at future conservation efforts
may take. We believe that recovery of t ese species and their
habitats is closely associated with, and will be dictated by, the
federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Prior to
addressing recovery actions, a review of that legislation and its
implementation seems appropriate.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
In the early 1960's, the people of the United States began to
recognize that many of the native fish, wildlife, and plant species
had been so depleted in numbers that they were in danger of
or were threatened with extinction. This awareness resulted in
several legislative attempts to protect disappearing species
(Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969) and culminated in Congress's
enacting the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act-. In 1978
and again in 1979, the Act was amended, perhaps indicating a
change in the people (or at least in Congress), or a dissatisfaction
with the way the Act was being implemented. Reauthorization
in 1982 will either confirm or put to rest the theory that the
American public still retains a strong interest in the conservation
of endangered species.
The purpose of the Act is to conserve e~~dangered crr~ t4reat-
ened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Ail
federal agencies are required to conserve such species and to
utilue their authorities to further that purpose. Private citizens
are prohibited from taking listed species without a pem~it and
are subject to fines and/or imprisonment for violations. Citizens
are also given the right to commence a civil suit on their own
behalf to enjoin any person or agency, including the United
States, alleged to be in violation of the Act.
Implementation of the Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements the Act within
the coastal boundaries of the United States. Listing, protection,
and recovery are the three principal areas of emphasis in the
Service program.
Listing
The Act defines an endangered species as ":..any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range..: ," and a threatened species as " ...any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range...." In the United States, there are presently a total
vi izv verteb:=te Srer°== ):fit='~ `"° 2^.da^^ororj and 33 listed ds
threatened; of those, 32^and 12 respectively,-are fishes (USDI
1982). Listing a species as threatened or endangered involves
an extensive serves of steps, including status surveys, economic
and environmental assessments, public meetings, inquiries from
local, state, and federal entities, and two publications in the.
Federal Register. Habitats necessary to the survival of listed
species are protected from adverse federal alteration or destruc-
tion by the designation of critical habitat.
Protection
Protection comprises two major areas of emphasis: (1) Section
7 consultation reviews federal agency aciions that might affect
listed species and their critical habitats, and (2) special agents of
the Fish and Wildlife Service enforce the prohibition on taking
listed species by individual citizens. The most likely result of
consultation is the early identification of a potential conflict dur-
ing the planning phase of a federally sponsored project and the
provision of reasonable and prudent alternatives that minimize
or eliminate the potential adverse impact to the species and its
habitat. In the decade that the Act has been in operation, 1,632
consultations have been reviewed in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,
and Oklahoma. Only 13 of these consultations have determined
that the proposed federal project would jeopardize a listed spe-
cies, and in those cases, alternatives were suggested to alleviate
the impact. Law enforcement agents investigate domestic vio-
lations ofthe Act in order to prevent illegal taking of listed species.
Since survival of a listed species is more dependent. upon pre-
vention of an illegal action than upon arresting a perpetrator
after he has destroyed an irreplaceable individual or gene pool,
emphasis of the enforcement program is to deter taking of
endangered species rather than to arrest and convict violators.
Recovery
Listing and protection are activities that generally slow the
decline or maintain the status quo of tenuous species. By com-
parison, recovery actions are designed to actively reverse declin-
ingtrends. Recovery actions to date have ranged from appoint-
July -August 1982