Missing, delayed, and old: A status review of ESA recovery plans

Endangered Species Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.2882v1
Subject Areas
Biodiversity, Conservation Biology, Science Policy
Keywords
Endangered Species Act, recovery plan, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, threatened species, endangered species
Copyright
© 2017 Malcom et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Malcom J, Li Y. 2017. Missing, delayed, and old: A status review of ESA recovery plans. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2882v1

Abstract

Recovery planning is an essential part of implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), but conservationists and government agencies recognize many problems with the planning process. Common criticisms are that too many species lack recovery plans, plans take too long to write, and they are rarely updated to include new information. Using data from all U.S. domestic and transboundary ESA-listed species—most of which are required to have recovery plans—we quantify basic characteristics of ESA recovery planning over the past 40 years. We show that nearly 1/4 of eligible listed species (n = 1,503) lack recovery plans; the average recovery plan has taken >5 years to finalize after listing; half of recovery plans are 19 or more years old; and there is significant variation among regions and between agencies in plan completion rates and time-to-completion. These results are not unexpected given dwindling budgets and an increasing number of species to protect, but underscore the need for systematic improvements to recovery planning. We discuss solutions that may address some of the shortcomings we identify here, including a transition to dynamic, web-based recovery plans.

Author Comment

This is a submission to PeerJ for review.

Supplemental Information

Section 7 consultation with recovery units

A section 7 consultation document (biological opinion) that uses recovery units, which are defined in the species' recovery plan.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2882v1/supp-1

A PowerPoint presentation of the US Fish and WIldlife Service's Recovery Enhancement Vision

A PowerPoint presentation of the US Fish and WIldlife Service's Recovery Enhancement Vision.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2882v1/supp-2

An information sheet on of the US Fish and WIldlife Service's Recovery Planning and Implementation updates (formerly Recovery Enhancement Vision)

An information sheet on of the US Fish and WIldlife Service's Recovery Planning and Implementation updates (formerly Recovery Enhancement Vision).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2882v1/supp-3