United States recovery plans contain biological information for a species listed under the Endangered Species Act and specify recovery criteria to provide basis for species recovery. The objective of our study was to evaluate whether recovery plans provide uncertainty (e.g., variance) with estimates of population size. We reviewed all finalized recovery plans for listed terrestrial vertebrate species to record the following data: (1) if a current population size was given, (2) if a measure of uncertainty or variance was associated with current estimates of population size and (3) if population size was stipulated for recovery. We found that 59% of completed recovery plans specified a current population size, 14.5% specified a variance for the current population size estimate and 43% specified population size as a recovery criterion. More recent recovery plans reported more estimates of current population size, uncertainty and population size as a recovery criterion. Also, bird and mammal recovery plans reported more estimates of population size and uncertainty compared to reptiles and amphibians. We suggest the use of calculating minimum detectable differences to improve confidence when delisting endangered animals and we identified incentives for individuals to get involved in recovery planning to improve access to quantitative data.
References
[1]
ESA (Endangered Species Act); NOAA Fisheries Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 1973.
[2]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Policy and Guidelines for planning and coordinating recovery of endangered and threatened species. United States Department of the Interior Government Report. 1990. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/Recovery/90guide.pdf (assessed on 1 October 2012).
[3]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Threatened and Endangered Species System [TESS]. 2013. Available online: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ (assessed on 28 May 2013).
[4]
Gerber, L.R.; Hatch, L.T. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. Ecol. App. 2002, 12, 668–673, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0668:AWRAEO]2.0.CO;2.
[5]
Sanderson, E.W. How many animals do we want to save? The many ways of setting population target levels for conservation. BioScience 2006, 56, 911–922, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[911:HMADWW]2.0.CO;2.
[6]
Tear, T.H.; Kareiva, P.; Angermeier, P.L.; Comer, P.; Czech, B.; Kautz, R.; Landon, L.; Mehlman, D.; Murphy, K.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Scott, J.M; Wilhere, G. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 2005, 55, 835–949, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0835:HMIETR]2.0.CO;2.
[7]
Tear, T.H.; Scott, J.M.; Hayward, P.H.; Griffith, B. Status and Prospects for Success of the Endangered Species Act: A Look at the Recovery Plans. Science 1993, 262, 976–977.
[8]
Tear, T.H.; Scott, J.M.; Hayward, P.H.; Griffith, B. Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data? Conserv. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 182–194.
[9]
Scott, J.M.; Tear, T.H.; Mills, L.S. Socioeconomics and the recovery of endangered species: Biological assessment in a political world. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 214–216.
[10]
Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 430, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5.
[11]
Minitab 16 Statistical Software; Minitab, Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2010.
[12]
Crouse, D.T.; Mehrhoff, L.A.; Parkin, M.J; Elam, D.R.; Chen, L.Y. Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. fish and wildlife service perspective. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 719–723, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0719:ESRATS]2.0.CO;2.
[13]
Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Portland, OR, USA, 1997.
[14]
Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1984.
[15]
Canadian Wildlife Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane; 2007.
[16]
Clark, A.J.; Hoekstra, J.M.; Boersma, P.D.; Kareiva, P. Improving U.S. Endangered species recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 1510–1519, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01376.x.
[17]
Boersma, P.D.; Kareiva, P.; Fagan, W.F.; Clark, J.A.; Hoekstra, J.M. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 2001, 51, 643–649, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0643:HGAESR]2.0.CO;2.
[18]
Morris, M.F.; Bloch, P.L.; Hudgens, B.R.; Moyle, L.C.; Stinchcombre, J.R. Population viability analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 708–712, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0708:PVAIES]2.0.CO;2.
[19]
Ebert-May, D; Brewer, B; Allred, S. Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. BioScience 1997, 47, 601–607, doi:10.2307/1313166.
[20]
Yaffee, S.L. Renewing the Conservation Promise. In The Endangered Species Act at Thirty; Goble, D.D., Scott, J.M., Davis, F.W., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 1. Chapter 17.
[21]
Doremus, H.; Pagel, J.E. Why listing may be forever: Perspectives on delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 1258–1268, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00178.x.
[22]
Doremus, H. Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: Why better science is not always better policy. Wash. Univer. Law Quart. 1997, 75, 1029–1153.
[23]
Neel, M.C.; Leidner, A.K.; Haines, A.; Goble, D.D.; Scott, J.M. By the numbers: How is recovery defined by the US endangered species act? Bioscience 2012, 62, 646–657, doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.7.
