Assessing Multi-Species Recovery Plans Under the Endangered Species Act

Abstract

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is relying increasingly on a multi‐species, rather than the more traditional single‐species, approach to recovery planning under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Supporters of the multi‐species approach note potential efficiency gains in terms of biodiversity protection and agency resources. By the end of 1998, >55% of all ESA‐listed species with recovery plans were covered within multi‐species plans. A recent analysis found that species within multi‐species plans are significantly more likely to exhibit a declining status trend. Given this finding, we compared single‐ to multi‐species plans and found that multi‐species plans reflect a poorer understanding of species‐specific biology, are less likely to include adaptive management provisions, and are revised less frequently. USFWS guidelines recommend that species be combined into multi‐species plans primarily on the basis of threat similarity. We developed a threat similarity index to evaluate the USFWS's conformance with these guidelines. Nearly half of the multi‐species plans failed to display threat similarity greater than that for randomly selected groups of species. We advocate the explicit use of threat similarity analyses to identify appropriate groups of species for concurrent management, thereby maximizing benefits and minimizing potential drawbacks of a multi‐species approach. We conclude that, as currently employed by the USFWS, multi‐species recovery plans are less effective management tools than single‐species plans. Given the increasing number of species covered by multi‐species plans and the problems identified with these plans, we recommend that the USFWS reevaluate its use of the multi‐species approach to recovery planning.

The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis

“…Of plans developed since 2000, 73 percent were multispecies plans, compared with 55 percent of the plans developed in previous years. The reason for the lesser effectiveness of multispecies plans is unclear, but it has been attributed to a lack of management focus and consequent lack of sufficient attention to each species' needs (Clark and Harvey 2002).…”

Spatially explicit cost-effective actions for biodiversity threat abatement

“…This is an important finding given previous studies that have found no difference between overall outcomes of single-and multi-species management (Clark andHarvey 2002, Cullen et al 2005). Moreover, while the predominant focus of conservation planning is on singlethreat mitigation, such as reserve acquisition to stop habitat loss (e.g.…”

“…One explanation for previous lack of support for multi-species and multi-action threat management is the tendency to 'lump' species together based on their habitat use in the same or similar region (Dobson et al 1997), rather than grouping them according to vulnerability to specific threats. In this study, we explicitly grouped species based on their common threats as well as their co-location, and in doing so, focus management on eliminating or mitigating those threats as recommended for successful multi-species management (Clark and Harvey 2002).…”

Endangered species management and ecosystem restoration: finding the common ground

“…Fish and Wildlife Service 2013. However, criticisms have arisen suggesting that multispecies conservation planning efforts do not result in better outcomes for listed species (Clark and Harvey 2002). The increasing use of conservation approaches, such as habitat conservation plans and ecosystem management, that take into account whole assemblages of native flora and fauna, as well as abiotic, economic, and social factors, are therefore better suited to dealing with the complexity of conserving biological diversity (Pipkin 1996, Zipkin et al 2010.…”