The Performance of the Endangered Species Act

Abstract

Arguably the most notable success of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is that listed species improve in status through time. More species are downlisted than the converse; more species transition from stable to improving status than the converse. Although some listed species have gone extinct, this number is smaller than expected. Given modest recovery funding, the fraction of listed species responding positively is remarkable. Several factors have been linked to improving species status including recovery expenditures, critical habitat listing, and time spent under protection. The inability of government to fully empower the agencies to implement the law has been the most notable failure of the ESA. Listing of species has not matched need, recovery expenditures do not match need or agency-set priorities, and critical habitat determinations have lagged. Alternative protection strategies to listing may be having a positive effect, but are difficult to assess because of sparse data. 279Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008.39:279-299. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Duke University on 10/08/12. For personal use only.

Data contradict common perceptions about a controversial provision of the US Endangered Species Act

“…After considering court-ordered revisions of one consultation, Note that our data do not address potential projects that were never proposed or were withdrawn because FWS had proposed a jeopardy finding (15). There are at least three likely reasons for the observed change in jeopardy or adverse modification outcomes.…”

“…Some agencies are proposing projects with reduced impacts because they are coordinating more closely with FWS to shape the projects well before consultations begin. A second and undesirable reason for the drop in jeopardy findings is that FWS-in the face of persistent budget cuts, increasing workload, and mounting political pressure to minimize the economic impacts of endangered species conservation-is approving more projects that should have been altered to comply with the conservation standards under the Act (15). One method of achieving this outcome is by reinterpreting the jeopardy and destruction/adverse modification prohibitions such that they are more difficult to trigger.…”

“…What neither of the Services have made readily accessible, however, are the monitoring reports required by many biological opinions. Without these documents, it is often impossible to know whether RPMs and other conservation commitments have been performed, much less if they are effective for species (15). Although these important questions cannot be answered with the TAILS data, determining the answers is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of the Act.…”

Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand

“…Finally, there may be ecological, social or political 414 considerations that can influence weighting of species in either quantitative or informal prioritization 415 processes. For example, there may be strong impetus for preserving keystone species (Soulé et al, 2005), 416 iconic species (Schwartz, 2008), or those that are economically important or part of cultural traditions 417 (Rodríguez et al, 2004). 418…”

Commercial trade of federally listed threatened and endangered plants in the United States

“…Because our survey is limited to Internet availability of listed species, we are likely underestimating the species available commercially, since sales would likely be augmented by local and international sales from collectors, botanic gardens, and nurseries (Robbins 2003). In addition, we have not surveyed over 2,000 critically imperiled (G1) or imperiled (G2) rare plant taxa in the United States that are potentially more vulnerable to the risks of commercial trade (McMahan 1980) because they are not legally protected under the ESA (Schwartz 2008). We have also not surveyed the number of actual sales of listed plants, the number of individual plants or seeds involved in sales, or whether the sales of listed plants are having a detrimental impact on the status and conservation of wild populations of the species involved.…”