Species threatened with extinction are the focus of mounting conservation concerns throughout the world. Thirty-seven years after passage of the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1973, we conclude that the Act's underlying assumption-that once the recovery goals for a species are met it will no longer require continuing management-is false. Even when management actions succeed in achieving biological recovery goals, maintenance of viable populations of many species will require continuing, species-specific intervention. Such species are "conservation reliant." To assess the scope of this problem, we reviewed all recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. Our analysis indicates that 84% of the species listed under the Act are conservation reliant. These species will require continuing, long-term management investments. If these listed species are representative of the larger number of species thought to be imperiled in the United States and elsewhere, the challenge facing conservation managers will be logistically, economically, and politically overwhelming. Conservation policies will need to be adapted to include ways of prioritizing actions, implementing innovative management approaches, and involving a broader spectrum of society.

No abstract

The recovery (delisting) of a threatened or endangered species is often accompanied by the expectation that conservation management of the species will no longer be necessary. However, the magnitude and pace of human impacts on the environment make it unlikely that substantial progress will be made in delisting many species unless the definition of “recovery” includes some form of active management. Preventing delisted species from again being at risk of extinction may require continuing, species‐specific management actions. We characterize such species as “conservation‐reliant”, and suggest that viewing “recovery” as a continuum of states rather than as a simple “recovered/not recovered” dichotomy may enhance our ability to manage such species within the framework of the Endangered Species Act. With ongoing loss of habitat, disruption of natural disturbance regimes, and the increasing impacts of non‐native invasive species, it is probable that the number of conservation‐reliant species will increase. We propose the development of “recovery management agreements”, with legally and biologically defensible contracts that would provide for continuing conservation management following delisting. The use of such formalized agreements will facilitate shared management responsibilities between federal wildlife agencies and other federal agencies, and with state, local, and tribal governments, as well as with private entities that have demonstrated the capability to meet the needs of conservation‐reliant species.

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oA crucial gap exists between the static nature of the United States' existing protected areas and the dynamic impacts of 21st century stressors, such as habitat loss and fragmentation and climate change. Connectivity is a valuable element for bridging that gap and building the ecological resilience of existing protected areas. However, creating terrestrial connectivity by designing individual migration corridors across fragmented landscapes is arguably untenable at a national scale. We explore the potential for use of riverine corridors in a Riparian Connectivity Network (RCN) as a potential contributor to a more resilient network of protected areas. There is ample scientific support for the conservation value of riparian areas, including their habitat, their potential to connect environments, and their ecosystem services. Our spatial analysis suggests that they could connect protected areas and have a higher rate of conservation management than terrestrial lands. Our results illustrate that the spatial backbone for an RCN is already in place, and existing policies favor riparian area protection. Furthermore, existing legal and regulatory goals may be better served if governance requirements and incentives are aligned with conservation efforts focused on riparian connectivity, as part of a larger landscape connectivity strategy. While much research on the effectiveness of riparian corridors remains to be done, the RCN concept provides a way to improve connectivity among currently protected areas. With focused attention, increased institutional collaboration, and improved incentives, these pieces could coalesce into a network of areas for biological conservation.