Recovery Plan Revisions: Progress or Due Process?

Abstract

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.

Assessing Multi-Species Recovery Plans under the Endangered Species Act

“…These preliminary plans could consist largely of research protocols to investigate threat factors. Plans would then be given priority for revision when new information becomes available (see also Harvey et al 2002). Implementation of multi-species recovery plans will only be simpler and more cost effective if species are grouped into plans, or management units within larger plans, to efficiently mitigate or eliminate common threats.…”

Mesohabitat associations of the threatened San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana) across its geographic range

“…Funding for recovery plans is limited, but it is imperative to determine the factors that lead to recovery of listed populations and to maximize efforts to remove species from the list (Lawler et al, 2002). Data on species-habitat interactions as habitat associations, spatial variation in habitat quality, and dietary requirements should be included in recovery plans to augment more efficient recovery (Harvey et al, 2002;Moore and Gillingham, 2006).…”

Missing, delayed, and old: The status of ESA recovery plans

“…But our knowledge of species and threats-consider the emergence of our understanding of climate change in the past decades-can change rapidly. A previous analysis found that revisions did not improve recovery criteria (Harvey, Hoekstra, O'Connor, & Fagan, 2002), but we anticipate that recovery will be more successful if plans contain up-to-date information beyond original recovery criteria.…”