1. Is the Current ESA Working?
Recovery Plans have been required since 1978
Plan’s goals are to restore the listed species to a point where they are viable, self-sustaining components of their ecosystems
Tear et al. (1993) reviewed 54 plans on T & E species filed up to that time

2. Are Recovery Plans Adequate? (Tear et al. 1993)
28% had recovery goals calling for populations of smaller size than current
37% called for fewer populations than present
60% had goals below that used by IUCN (red list) to define endangered
So, we seem to be managing species to extinction, not recovery

3. Alternative Ways to Score ESA Effectiveness (Noecker 1998, USFWS web page)
Are species recovered to level where protection is no longer required?
NO, as of 2015 only 62 have been delisted
33 due to recovery
Brown Pelican, Palau fantail flycatcher, Palau ground-dove, Palau owl, Tinian Monarch, American alligator, Gray whale, Arctic and American peregrines, Aleutian Canada Goose, Robbins’ Cinquefoil, Douglas Co population of Columbia White-tailed Deer, 3 species of kangaroos, Bald Eagle, Gray Wolf, etc…
reasons for endangerment (DDT, WWII, overharvest)
10 went extinct and 19 were delisted due to new or improved data (mostly taxonomic revision)

4. Alternative Ways to Score ESA Effectiveness (Noecker 1998)
Have populations of listed species become more stable since listing?
Maybe (estimate 41% of 1676 species have improved or stabilized)
18 currently proposed for downlisting

5. Alternative Ways to Score ESA Effectiveness (Noecker 1998, USFWS)
Has listing prevented extinction?
YES, only 10 of the >2300 listed species have gone extinct
Guam Broadbill, Longjaw Cisco, Amistad Gambusia, Mariana Mallard, Sampson’s Pearlymussel, Blue Pike, Pecopa Pupfish, Santa Barbara Song Sparrow, Dusky Seaside Sparrow
some of these were actually extinct at time of listing!
Condor, Red Wolf, Whooping Crane would likely be extinct without the Act

6. What Makes the ESA Work? Taylor et al. 2005 Miller et al. 2002 Listing
Critical Habitat
Single Species Recovery Plans
Miller et al. 2002
Money

7. Recent Evaluations of Recovery Plans (Boersma et al. 2001)
Effective recovery plans (those associated with increasing population trends) are those with:
Non-federal participation, especially on the Recovery Team
Recovery goals clearly linked to species biology
Focus on single, rather than multiple, species
Planning can be improved by:
Increasing speed of prep
Monitoring management actions
Using adaptive management
But the measurement of success (species status trend) is influenced by myriad factors of which the recovery plan is but one. Therefore, while suggestive, the results are far from definitive.

8. Does the ESA protect Ecosystems? (NRC 1995)
Difficult to tell--most emphasis is on single species
Of 411 recovery plans, 25% include multiple species
some cover full communities (Ash Meadows, Maui-Molokai birds, Channel Islands)
Even single species plans can protect ecosystems
spotted owl, marbled murrelet

9. Could the ESA be Strengthened? (Carroll et al. 1996)
Yes, by basing many of the decisions and priorities on sound conservation science
listing
do it faster
extend population level protection to plants (including fungi)
use ESU concept to define “species”
adjust priority scheme to include
Inclusive benefits (umbrella species like Florida Scrub Jay)
Ecological role (keystone species)

10. Use More Science in the Recovery Planning Arena Also
Use PVA and Sink-Source models to define critical habitat size and spatial arrangement
Take a more holistic approach
still focus on species (not ecosystems), but more likely to protect HABITAT not just species
Provide tangible standards of jeopardy for particular federal actions
Set recovery and de-listing goals that will result in viable populations
need to be flexible as populations are rarely naturally stable

11. Science and Recovery Planning (Carroll et al. 1996)
Setting Goals for Recovery
Establish multiple populations with possibility for migration among them
removes effect of single catastrophe
Move to stop known threats
stop decline and possible extinction of species
Plan to achieve annual population growth rates above 0
requires habitat analysis and knowledge of spatial distribution of species (metapopulation structure)

12. Setting Recovery Targets
Should they be detailed?
Need well parameterized PVA
They will be used for down-listing targets
Make sure you have DATA to support need to reach target
Should they be rigid?
Populations don’t remain stable through time (Carroll et al. 1996)
Give range of acceptable fluctuation
Should they be revised?
As data become available

13. Dealing With Uncertainty
At time of recovery planning we rarely know what is needed to effectively recover a species
Interim Recovery Goals (Carroll et al. 1996) provide a bridge between initiating recovery and finalizing a recovery strategy
determine and state data needs for full PVA
give a biologically attainable target for first few years
reduce or stabilize decline
start active management/husbandry
get population to size x
assess possible limiting factors

14. Admit Uncertainty (Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan)
Objectives
gather necessary information to develop scientific delisting criteria
reasonable, attainable, and adequate to maintain the species over period of reduced habitat availability over next 50 years (then expect habitat to have regrown)
Interim Delisting Criteria
trend in population size, density, and productivity are stable or increasing in 4/6 zones over 10 years (including an El Nino)
Management commitments and monitoring are in place in all zones
ID critical habitat, have habitat protection plans in place

15. Address Habitat Concerns (Carroll et al. 1996)
Determine extent of currently suitable habitat
Assess quality of formerly occupied, but currently unoccupied habitat
Establish priority habitat areas for restoration
how should restoration be done?

16. View Recovery as a Continuum
Conservation reliant species may require special agreements to guarantee future management after “recovery”
Scott et al. 2005

17. Consider the reading in your groups
Is/are your rare species conservation reliant?
Is the recovery continuum concept useful for considering what needs to be done to avert extinction of your species?
Would a recovery management agreement be useful for your species? With whom?

18. Has the Service Adjusted? (USFWS & NMFS 1997)
1994 Babbitt and Baker announced a series of policy changes (10-point plan)
Peer Review by Scientists
review listing decisions and recovery plans (Salmon proposed rules were reviewed)
Do not accept listing petitions that are not based on scientifically valid information
warranted findings must possess sufficient evidence of status and threats to support formal proposal

19. More of Babbitt and Baker’s 10 Points
Hybrids involving 1 endangered parent are not listed
they may be very important and occasionally protected
Florida panther--import genes from Texas (formerly contiguous population) to diversify the depressed gene pool--hybrid kittens protected
Be more proactive in listing
Candidate Conservation Agreements
voluntary agreements by public and private sectors to manage for candidates
But at same time USFWS has dropped C-2 status

20. More 10-pointers Engage the private landowner Assure “No Surprises”
HCPs (14 from , but 211 by 1997)
Assure “No Surprises”
Service will not require additional land or money for mitigation of species listed in HCP
Allow adaptive management in HCP
change course if results are not going as expected
Develop “No Take” MOUs
state up front what management actions in integrated plan would not constitute “take”
gives managers regulatory certainty

21. More Policy Adjustments for Private Landowners
Foster “Safe Harbor” agreements
if private landowners manage to enhance their property for endangered species they will not be subject to further regulation if the target species is attracted. At end of agreement landowner can RETURN habitat back to baseline condition
Red-cockaded Woodpecker tree cluster management—insights from Dave Wilcove

22. Private lands are important.
General Accounting Office (1995)
37% of our endangered species do not occur on any federal lands.
Precious Heritage (2001)
40% of our endangered species do not occur on any federal lands.

23. Source: GAO 1995

24. Safe Harbor Agreements
Voluntary.
Enable landowners to restore habitats of endangered species without the risk of new regulations.
Do not diminish protection for any endangered species already on the property (“baseline”).
Must provide a net benefit to the species.

25. Sandhills Safe Harbor Program
April, 1995 and continuing
126 landowners in NC alone in 2015
65,194 acres enrolled
woodlots, golf courses, horse farms, residential property
73 woodpecker social groups are protected in the program

26. International Paper’s Woodpecker Bank: Background
IP owns > 4 million acres of forest in the south.
1999: only 16 groups of woodpeckers on commercial timberland. Little chance they will survive
Some “groups” consist of single birds.
2 more groups on IP’s research forest in Bainbridge, GA.

27. IP’s Plan
Turn research forest into a woodpecker bank. “Southlands Forest”
1999: 1,500 acres of suitable habitat.
IP will increase habitat to > 5,000 acres.
Goal of woodpecker groups.
Translocate birds from Ft. Benning to Southlands

28. What IP Can Do:
For each new group it creates at the bank, IP can cut timber around an existing group on its commercial timberland.
1:1 mitigation.
No new birds in the bank, no cutting.

29. How Can IP Make Money?
IP has a baseline of 18 groups (2 at research forest/bank, 16 on commercial timberlands).
If it creates more than 18 groups at the bank, it can “sell” those additional groups to other parties in search of mitigation.

30. Who Benefits? International Paper Consolidation of responsibilities.
Potential economic gain from selling credits.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Larger population in better habitat.
Long-term management of that habitat.

31. The woodpecker population in the bank has already grown from 2 groups (3 non-breeders) to 15 breeding groups (50 birds and 13 potential breeding pairs) in the first 5 years of the program (2005).
In 2008, IP sold US holdings, Southlands bought by State of Georgia

32. Enhancing Participation in Recovery
Involve state agencies as more equal partners and stakeholders in endangered species management
Diversify recovery team membership
involve more of the relevant stakeholders

33. Alternative Dispute Resolution (Wondolleck et al. 1994)
How you make a decision affects the staying power of the decision
Full stakeholder participation
builds acceptance and ownership of decision
Collaboration, honesty, and respect for all views
Get the appropriate players
those who can speak for their organization and know the details of the issue
May need a professional facilitator

34. People Skills Make or Break the Team (Westrum 1994)
Wildlife managers are not trained in people management skills
create networks, study top performers
Effective organizations have similarities
actively seek information
train messengers
share responsibility
reward bridging
learn from failures
welcome new ideas

35. The Key Skill is Communication Ability (Clark and Reading 1994)
Recognize that people have different backgrounds and training
greatly affects their approach to problem solving, data evaluation, etc.
makes interdisciplinary communication a chore
Science typically tells us to specialize and conform to one discipline’s expectations
this may be exactly counter to needs of interdisciplinary team productivity

36. Don’t Forget Other Human Dimensions (Kellert 1994)
Human values
urban versus rural values (the bubba effect)
Socioeconomics
property rights
limiting economic returns by conservation regulations
using money as an incentive
Organization structure and dynamics
who’s driving this train and what do they want?

37. Evolving Condor Recovery

38. Establish USFWS Condor Recovery Office
Recommendations: Reorganize to better reflect current and future circumstances
Establish USFWS Condor Recovery Office
Condor Recovery Coordinator handles basic programmatic coordination
Condor Research and Monitoring Coordinator (USFWS or USGS staff scientist)
House in Sacramento regional office, report to Deputy or Assistant Regional Director
Establish Recovery Implementation Team
Comprised organizations raising, rearing, releasing, and monitoring condors
Modeled after field working group
Establish Science Advisory Team
Small, scientifically focused, advisory group composed largely of independent scientists outside of the condor program
Disband Recovery Team
Form a Policy Advisory Team
Comprised of leaders of partner organizations
Includes Coordinator.

39. Literature Cited
USFWS Recovery plan for the threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR. 203pp.
GAO Factors associated with delayed listing decisions. GAO/RCED
Sidle, JG Arbitrary and capricious species conservation. Conservation Biology 12:
Clark, T. W., Reading, R. P., and Clark, A. L. (eds.) Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press

40. References
Tear, TH et al Status and prospects for success of the endangered species act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:
Noecker, RJ (1998) Endangered species list revisions: a summary of delisting and downlisting. Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress. Washington DC.
General Accounting Office (GAO) Endanagered Species: Management improvements could enhance recovery program. GAO/RCED Washington DC.
General Accounting Office (GAO) Endangered Species Act: Information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO RCED Washington DC.
Stein, BA. Kutner, LS, and JS Adams Precious Heritage. Oxford University Press.

41. More References
Carroll, R. et al Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the endangered species act: an assessment by the ecological society of america. Ecological Applications 6:1-11.
USFWS and NMFS Making the esa work better. Washington DC.
Boersma, PD, P. Kareiva, WF Fagan, JA Clark, and JM Hoekstra How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51: (see also BioScience 52: for further discussion)

42. More References
Miller, J.K. et al The endangered species act: dollars and sense? BioScience 52:
Taylor, M. F. et al The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience 55:
Scott, J. M. et al Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: