1. Improving the Recovery Process 4 Derrickson’s ideas 4 Carroll et al.’s ideas 4 Novel approaches from Clark et al.’s book –is the theory applicable to reality?

2. Recovery Teams and Plans: Derrickson’s Advice –Build consensus –Recovery plan only deals with BIOLOGY –View the plan as a working document annual reports and long- term team involvement –Focus on key issues KISS Must have science to back up all key issue recommendations –The team should assign task priorities –Use PVA AFTER 10+ years of demographic data targets can be more harmful than helpful –Document history of species –Address all limiting factors

3. Science and Recovery Planning (Carroll et al. 1996) 4 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)

4. Setting Recovery Targets 4 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 4 Should they be rigid? –Populations don’t remain stable through time (Carroll et al. 1996) –Give range of acceptable fluctuation 4 Should they be revised? –As data become available

5. Dealing With Uncertainty 4 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

6. 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

7. Address Habitat Concerns (Carroll et al. 1996) 4 Determine extent of currently suitable habitat 4 Assess quality of formerly occupied, but currently unoccupied habitat 4 Establish priority habitat areas for restoration –how should restoration be done?

8. Alternative Dispute Resolution (Wondolleck et al. 1994) 4 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

9. People Skills Make or Break the Team (Westrum 1994) 4 Wildlife managers are not trained in people management skills –create networks, study top performers 4 Effective organizations have similarities –actively seek information –train messengers –share responsibility –reward bridging –learn from failures –welcome new ideas

10. The Key Skill is Communication Ability (Clark and Reading 1994) 4 Recognize that people have different backgrounds and training –greatly affects their approach to problem solving, data evaluation, etc. –makes interdisciplinary communication a chore 4 Science typically tells us to specialize and conform to one discipline’s expectations –this may be exactly counter to needs of interdisciplinary team productivity

11. Don’t Forget Other Human Dimensions (Kellert 1994) 4 Human values –urban versus rural values (the bubba effect) 4 Socioeconomics –property rights –limiting economic returns by conservation regulations –using money as an incentive 4 Organization structure and dynamics –who’s driving this train and what do they want?

12. How are Species Prioritized for Listing? 4 Recall the stated listing criteria used by USFWS 4 As we discussed, species are not listed in order of priority. –Service gets sued, tries to complete final listing rules before considering new proposals, etc. 4 Conservation groups (PEER, Fund for Animals, etc) have been concerned about a more fundamental problem-- DELAY AND LACK of listing –33% are listed on time, 18% are >1year late

13. Listing Delays (GAO 1993) 4 Congress –Public law 104-6 (FY 1996 budget act) rescinded listing budget thereby imposing a moratorium on listing –removed with Clinton’s budget act in April 1996 created a backlog of 243 species needing listing –Reduced listing budget 5 million for 1998 –PEER claims its self-imposed to give the Service a way out of lawsuits seeking listing –USFWS counters that it is all they could expect to get »move downlisting to recovery budget

14. More Reasons for Delays 4 Insufficient data –spotted frog (3 year delay and then got “Warranted, but Precluded” by higher priorities) 4 Economic impacts of listing –spotted frog, Louisiana black bear, Jemez Mountains salamander, Bruneau Hot Springs Snail 4 Complete conservation agreements rather than list –Jemez Mountains salamander, Bruneau Hot Springs Snail, ?Puget Sound Salmon

15. Effect of Delays 4 Lawsuits –Fund for Animals sued for listing of 85 Species in 1992 court ordered service get in gear and process listing petitions subverts priority system –only 41 of 85 species were priority 1,2, or 3 delays ability (uses available funds) to list others not in the settlement agreement

16. Major Effect of Not Following Priority System 4 Arbitrary and Capricious Conservation –Sidle (1998) Lynx

17. Literature Cited 4 USFWS. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR. 203pp. 4 GAO. 1993. Factors associated with delayed listing decisions. GAO/RCED-93-152. 4 Sidle, JG. 1998. Arbitrary and capricious species conservation. Conservation Biology 12:248-249. 4 Clark, T. W., Reading, R. P., and Clark, A. L. (eds.) 1994. Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press