Factors Affecting Implementation of Recovery Plans

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Applications This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:01:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/termsAbstract. Recovery plans for endangered and threatened species will not benefit conservation efforts unless prescribed tasks are actually implemented. We analyzed data collected on task implementation in early 1999 and found that an average of 70.3% of recovery tasks were either partially or completely implemented, although they ranged from 0% to 100% implemented. Plans approved in 1990 or earlier had relatively uniform task implementation, whereas implementation of more recent plans varied with plan and species attributes. Among plans approved after 1990, multi-species plans had lower task implementation than single-species plans. Recovery plans for plants, terrestrial species, and insular species had a lower degree of task implemention than those for animals, aquatic species, and continental species, respectively. Analyses further indicated that species with:(1) critical habitat designation, (2) conflict designation, (3) revised recovery plans, (4) a recovery coordinator, and (5) a dedicated database had greater task implementation than species lacking these management features. These results suggest that multi-species plans are implemented more slowly than single-species plans, and that recovery plans for species with greater public or agency profiles (as evidenced by critical habitat designation, conflict designation, and plan revision) are implemented at a higher rate. The effect of administrative strategies on higher rates of task implementation indicate that recovery efforts should include a recovery coordinator and database whenever possible. When developing recovery plans, responsible agencies should explicitly consider attributes of species and plans that influence task implementation. Threatened 80.9 4.0 18 Endangered 60.8 3.0 94 USFWS recovery priority number 0.5089 0.7753 0.7808 High (1-6) 67.0 3.3 76 Medium (7-12) 68.1 5.9 20 Low (13-18) 58.8 13.9 5 USFWS conflict designation 549.5 0.0016 0.0014 Conflict 80.9 4.8 25 No conflict 62.2 3.3 76 USFWS trend status 17.22 0.0006 0.0004 Decreasing 7 LOgh 4.2 38 Stable 68.6gh 5.7 24 Improving 68.79 3.2 13 Unknown 47.04h 5.8 25 Note: Values in boldface indicate the significance of test statistics H and U at P 0.0038. t Different superscript letters (a-h) indicate significant differences between mean values at P 0.0038 for Bonferroni/ Dunn (nonparametric) post hoc comparison tests.

The Performance of the Endangered Species Act

“…Allocation toward the least funded species (e.g., the 38% of taxa receiving <$5000) is clearly inadequate for recovery management and task accomplishment. Supporting this contention, Lundquist et al (2002) report that most recovery tasks for most species remain unaccomplished. Allocation at the upper end of expenditures is more difficult to assess.…”

“…DeShazo & Freeman (2006) demonstrate a clear link between recovery funding and congressional representation on the relevant oversight committees. In a related study, Lundquist et al (2002) found that species listed by the FWS with a conflict designation have much more of their recovery plan tasks accomplished. This latter assessment suggests that despite politics, or maybe because of it, species in conflict get more recovery attention.…”

A review of on-ground recovery actions for threatened freshwater fish in Australia

“…Wider use of threatened-species recovery teams is one way that managers can coordinate and prioritise issues, projects and actions, and potentially alleviate some issues with the predominance of small-scale actions. The importance of building partnerships for improving recovery outcomes has been discussed earlier, and the benefits of having a recovery team or coordinator for improving cross-jurisdictional coordination and species-recovery trajectory have been identified elsewhere (Lundquist et al 2002;Lintermans 2013b). Since the early 2000s, there has been no national funding available for establishment or operation of national recovery teams (Lintermans 2013b).…”

Reducing threats to species: threat reversibility and links to industry

“…Recovery plans can be effective at reducing threats for individual species in particular locations, but they are not designed to reduce widespread threats from industries. Additionally, plans often take years to be developed and implemented, and these lengthy delays can result in continued species declines, leading to increased costs and decreased likelihood of successful recovery (Lundquist et al 2002). Proactive, broad-scale measures to reduce threats across multiple species outside of the recovery planning framework are therefore needed to lower financial costs and halt species declines (Bloomgarden 1995;Scott et al 2005).…”