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, Ͼ55% 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.

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 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.

This chapter presents a practical case study of managing the process of 'greening' the Live Earth (LE) concert at Wembley Stadium and highlights the key issues around 'greening up' a major UK event with many different stakeholders. It uses the experience of LE to offer practical guidance to other events organizers on improving the environmental profile of their events.

Revisions allow the recovery planning process for threatened and endangered species to be flexible and responsive to new information or changes in the status of a species. However, the Endangered Species Act defines neither firm criteria that trigger revision of recovery plans nor clear guidelines about how plans should be revised. Consequently, the effect of revisions in the recovery planning process is unknown. We examined how species and recovery plan attributes influenced the likelihood that a plan would be revised and how the content of plans changed with revision. Vertebrate species with designated critical habitat were nearly four times more likely to have their recovery plans revised than were invertebrates or plants without designated critical habitat. Nonetheless, recovery priorities assigned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) did not influence the likelihood of plan revision. Paired comparisons between original and revised versions suggested that knowledge of species biology and status had improved, and that recognition of threats had increased since the original plans were written. However, these improvements did not lead to recovery criteria or monitoring actions that were more clearly justified. We recommend that recovery plan authors strive to maximize benefits from improved biological information by defining management actions and goals that are more biologically justified. We also urge the USFWS to establish a consistent priority system for recovery plan revisions that affords consideration to listed species of all taxa and emphasizes revisions for those species most likely to benefit.