Improving the Recovery Process

1
Improving the Recovery Process

• Derricksons ideas
• Carroll et al.s ideas
• Novel approaches from Clark et al.s book
• is the theory applicable to reality?

2
Recovery Teams and Plans Derricksons Advice

• Build consensus
• Recovery plan only deals with BIOLOGY
• View the plan as a working document
• annual reports and long-term team involvement
• Focus on key issues
• KISS
• Must have science to back up all key issue
  recommendations
• The team should assign task priorities

• Use PVA AFTER 10 years of demographic data
• targets can be more harmful than helpful
• Document history of species
• Address all limiting factors

3
Science and Recovery Planning (Carroll et al.
1996)

• Setting Goals for Recovery
• Establish multiple populations with possibility
  for migration among them
• removes effect of single catastrophe
• Move to stop known threats
• stop decline and possible extinction of species
• Plan to achieve annual population growth rates
  above 0
• requires habitat analysis and knowledge of
  spatial distribution of species (metapopulation
  structure)

4
Setting Recovery Targets

• Should they be detailed?
• Need well parameterized PVA
• They will be used for down-listing targets
• Make sure you have DATA to support need to reach
  target
• Should they be rigid?
• Populations dont remain stable through time
  (Carroll et al. 1996)
• Give range of acceptable fluctuation
• Should they be revised?
• As data become available

5
Dealing With Uncertainty

• At time of recovery planning we rarely know what
  is needed to effectively recover a species
• Interim Recovery Goals (Carroll et al. 1996)
  provide a bridge between initiating recovery and
  finalizing a recovery strategy
• determine and state data needs for full PVA
• give a biologically attainable target for first
  few years
• reduce or stabilize decline
• start active management/husbandry
• get population to size x
• assess possible limiting factors

6
Admit Uncertainty (Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan)

• Objectives
• gather necessary information to develop
  scientific delisting criteria
• reasonable, attainable, and adequate to maintain
  the species over period of reduced habitat
  availability over next 50 years (then expect
  habitat to have regrown)
• Interim Delisting Criteria
• trend in population size, density, and
  productivity are stable or increasing in 4/6
  zones over 10 years (including an El Nino)
• Management commitments and monitoring are in
  place in all zones
• ID critical habitat, have habitat protection
  plans in place

7
Address Habitat Concerns (Carroll et al. 1996)

• Determine extent of currently suitable habitat
• Assess quality of formerly occupied, but
  currently unoccupied habitat
• Establish priority habitat areas for restoration
• how should restoration be done?

8
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Wondolleck et al.
1994)

• How you make a decision affects the staying power
  of the decision
• Full stakeholder participation
• builds acceptance and ownership of decision
• Collaboration, honesty, and respect for all views
• Get the appropriate players
• those who can speak for their organization and
  know the details of the issue
• May need a professional facilitator

9
People Skills Make or Break the Team (Westrum
1994)

• Wildlife managers are not trained in people
  management skills
• create networks, study top performers
• Effective organizations have similarities
• actively seek information
• train messengers
• share responsibility
• reward bridging
• learn from failures
• welcome new ideas

10
The Key Skill is Communication Ability (Clark and
Reading 1994)

• Recognize that people have different backgrounds
  and training
• greatly affects their approach to problem
  solving, data evaluation, etc.
• makes interdisciplinary communication a chore
• Science typically tells us to specialize and
  conform to one disciplines expectations
• this may be exactly counter to needs of
  interdisciplinary team productivity

11
Dont Forget Other Human Dimensions (Kellert 1994)

• Human values
• urban versus rural values (the bubba effect)
• Socioeconomics
• property rights
• limiting economic returns by conservation
  regulations
• using money as an incentive
• Organization structure and dynamics
• whos driving this train and what do they want?

12
How are Species Prioritized for Listing?

• Recall the stated listing criteria used by USFWS
• As we discussed, species are not listed in order
  of priority.
• Service gets sued, tries to complete final
  listing rules before considering new proposals,
  etc.
• Conservation groups (PEER, Fund for Animals, etc)
  have been concerned about a more fundamental
  problem--DELAY AND LACK of listing
• 33 are listed on time, 18 are gt1year late

13
Listing Delays (GAO 1993)

• Congress
• Public law 104-6 (FY 1996 budget act)
• rescinded listing budget thereby imposing a
  moratorium on listing
• removed with Clintons budget act in April 1996
• created a backlog of 243 species needing listing
• Reduced listing budget
• 5 million for 1998
• PEER claims its self-imposed to give the Service
  a way out of lawsuits seeking listing
• USFWS counters that it is all they could expect
  to get
• move downlisting to recovery budget

14
More Reasons for Delays

• Insufficient data
• spotted frog (3 year delay and then got
  Warranted, but Precluded by higher priorities)
• Economic impacts of listing
• spotted frog, Louisiana black bear, Jemez
  Mountains salamander, Bruneau Hot Springs Snail
• Complete conservation agreements rather than list
• Jemez Mountains salamander, Bruneau Hot Springs
  Snail, ?Puget Sound Salmon

15
Effect of Delays

• Lawsuits
• Fund for Animals sued for listing of 85 Species
  in 1992
• court ordered service get in gear and process
  listing petitions
• subverts priority system
• only 41 of 85 species were priority 1,2, or 3
• delays ability (uses available funds) to list
  others not in the settlement agreement

16
Major Effect of Not Following Priority System

• Arbitrary and Capricious Conservation
• Sidle (1998)
• Lynx

17
Literature Cited

• USFWS. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened
  Marbled Murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and
  California. Portland, OR. 203pp.
• GAO. 1993. Factors associated with delayed
  listing decisions. GAO/RCED-93-152.
• Sidle, JG. 1998. Arbitrary and capricious species
  conservation. Conservation Biology 12248-249.
• Clark, T. W., Reading, R. P., and Clark, A. L.
  (eds.) 1994. Endangered species recovery finding
  the lessons, improving the process. Island Press