ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Currently 1677 species are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), yet only a small percentage have been delisted due to recovery. In the fall of 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting 23 species due to extinction. Tracking changes in species ‘recovery status over time is critical to understanding species’ statuses, informing adaptive management strategies, and assessing the performance of the ESA to prevent further species loss. In this paper, we describe four key obstacles in tracking species recovery status under the ESA. First, ESA 5‐year reviews lack a standardized format and clear documentation. Second, despite having been listed for decades, many species still suffer major data gaps in their biology and threats, rendering it difficult if not impossible to track progress towards recovery. Third, many species have continued declining after listing, yet given the above (1 & 2), understanding potential causes (proximate and/or ultimate) can be difficult. Fourth, many species currently have no path to clear recovery, which represents a potential failing of the process. We conclude with a discussion of potential policy responses that could be addressed to enhance the efficacy of the ESA.
PERSPECTIVE
Tracking species recovery status to improve
U.S. endangered species act decisions
Olivia N. Davis
1
| Brenda Molano-Flores
2
| Ya-Wei Li
3
|
Maximilian L. Allen
2
| Mark A. Davis
2
| Jean M. Mengelkoch
2
|
Joseph J. Parkos III
4
| Anthony Paul Porreca
4
| Auriel M. V. Fournier
5
|
Jeremy Tiemann
2
| Jason Bried
2
| Paul B. Marcum
2
|
Connie J. Carroll-Cunningham
2
| Eric D. Janssen
2
| Eric F. Ulaszek
2
|
Susan McIntyre
2
| Edward P. F. Price
2
| Julie Nieset
2
| Tara Beveroth
2
|
Alexander Di Giovanni
6
| Ryan J. Askren
6
| Luke J. Malanchuk
6
|
Jared F. Duquette
7
| Michael J. Dreslik
2
| Thomas C. McElrath
2
|
Kirk Stodola
2
| Jacob Malcom
8
| Andrew Carter
8,9
| Megan Evansen
9
|
Leah R. Gerber
1,10
1
Center for Biology and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
2
Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Urbana, Champaign, Illinois, USA
3
Environmental Policy Innovation Center, Washington, DC, USA
4
Kaskaskia Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, 2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Sullivan,
Illinois, USA
5
Forbes Biological StationBellrose Waterfowl Research Center, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Havana, Illinois, USA
6
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences and Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois, USA
7
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, Michigan, USA
8
Environmental Science and Policy Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
9
Center for Conservation Innovation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, USA
10
Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Correspondence
Olivia N. Davis, Center for Biology and
Society, Arizona State University, PO Box
873301, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
Email: ondavis1@asu.edu
Abstract
Currently 1677 species are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA),
yet only a small percentage have been delisted due to recovery. In the fall of
2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting 23 species due to
extinction. Tracking changes in species recovery status over time is critical to
understanding speciesstatuses, informing adaptive management strategies,
and assessing the performance of the ESA to prevent further species loss. In
this paper, we describe four key obstacles in tracking species recovery status
under the ESA. First, ESA 5-year reviews lack a standardized format and clear
Received: 31 August 2021 Revised: 1 May 2024 Accepted: 14 May 2024
DOI: 10.1111/csp2.13159
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Conservation Science and Practice. 2024;6:e13159. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csp2 1of7
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13159
documentation. Second, despite having been listed for decades, many species
still suffer major data gaps in their biology and threats, rendering it difficult if
not impossible to track progress towards recovery. Third, many species have
continued declining after listing, yet given the above (1 & 2), understanding
potential causes (proximate and/or ultimate) can be difficult. Fourth, many
species currently have no path to clear recovery, which represents a potential
failing of the process. We conclude with a discussion of potential policy
responses that could be addressed to enhance the efficacy of the ESA.
KEYWORDS
endangered species act, extinction, monitoring, recovery, species classification
1|INTRODUCTION
In the United States, the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) was enacted with the goal of recovering listed spe-
cies and their critical habitat, but this goal of recovery
has yet to become a reality for most species. There are
currently near 1700 listed species in the United States,
but only just over 70 species have been delisted because
they were recovered (USFWS, 2023). Before 2021, 11 spe-
cies were delisted due to extinction, with 23 more species
proposed for delisting for the same reason in 2021, of
which 21 were actually delisted in 2023 (including the lit-
tle Mariana fruit bat and several species of freshwater
mussels). To effectively conserve imperiled species and
prevent further biodiversity loss due to extinction, critical
data and accurate information related to species' conser-
vation statuses must be readily available to inform and
prioritize adaptive management actions and conservation
interventions (Bayraktarov et al., 2021; IUCN Standards
and Petitions Committee, 2019). Under the ESA, no con-
cise, standardized metrics exist for assessing changes in
species recovery status (Malcom et al., 2016). Instead, the
changes are often evident only when a species' ESA legal
classification changes (i.e., uplisted, downlisted, or
delisted). However, reclassifications are very rare (at best)
or nonexistent (at worst) for most ESA-listed species, ren-
dering it impossible for them to capture subtle but impor-
tant changes in recovery progress (USFWS, 2018). During
the recovery period, the species may be progressing
toward recovery, but with insufficient change required to
trigger a reclassification. Progress, however incremental,
is critical to adjusting adaptive management strategies
and conservation interventions.
The ESA mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS; hereafter the Services) to review the status of
every listed species with a recovery plan (about 82% of
U.S. listed species) at least once every 5 years to provide
updates (the 18% (291/1677) of species that do not yet
have recovery plans were excluded from this assessment)
(USFWS, 2023). In theory, this approach provides a sys-
tematic framework for assessing progress toward recov-
ery. Further, the updates are then used to determine
whether a specific status change is warranted. Addition-
ally, updated reviews can identify information warrant-
ing the Services to adjust their conservation strategy. In
the status reviews, USFWS often uses a framework that
focuses on resiliency, redundancy, and representation,
known as the 3Rs framework (Table 1), initially devel-
oped by Shaffer and Stein (2000), to track changes in spe-
cies biological status. These reviews can also identify
information that could warrant the Services to adjust
their conservation strategy. However, in practice, the
contents of the reviews are rarely standardized, compli-
cating attempts to track status changes objectively or to
compare the status of multiple species. For example, no
standardized guidelines exist for assessing population
reductions or changes in species extinction risk, as seen
TABLE 1 Principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation as used by USFWS (USFWS, 2016).
Principle Definition Focus
Resiliency The ability of a
species to withstand
stochastic
disturbance.
Population-level
Redundancy The ability of a
species to adapt to
changing
environmental
conditions over
time.
Species-level
Representation The ability of a
species to withstand
stochastic events
Species-level, but
with multiple
populations across
the species' range
2of7 DAVIS ET AL.
in other conservation assessments such as the IUCN Red
List (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2019). A
standard framework for comparison would be a compo-
nent of streamlining decisions about how to prioritize the
recovery efforts for listed species. Moreover, these reviews
will have cascading benefits from the Services by allow-
ing tribal, state, and nongovernmental organizations to
coordinate recovery planning efforts to maximize the
effectiveness of actions completed and optimize return on
investment, or cost efficiency.
A metric that reflects changes in species recovery in a
concise, standardized manner represents an important
path forward. Such an approach would allow agencies to
facilitate more rapid and consistent tracking of changes
while affording the opportunity to compare changes
across hundreds of species, similar to how a stock index
allows for rapid comparison across hundreds of compa-
nies. When this species status information is combined
with data on funding allocations (to species conserva-
tion), habitat and threat assessments, local and regional
administrative variation, and conservation interventions,
a fuller picture emerges with greater resolution of the fac-
tors impacting species improvement or decline. This met-
ric can help prioritize species that are most in need
(declining) and prioritize research attention to those spe-
cies for which major knowledge gaps obscure a reliable
assessment of recovery.
To examine the feasibility of a standardized
approach, we worked with the USFWS to develop and
test such a metric (Li, 2020). These metrics are
designed to concisely reflect the most important infor-
mation in a five-year review about how a species' sta-
tus has changed since the previous review. We tested
our metric with 75 biologists from five organizations
representing government, academia, and NGOs for
50 ESA-listed species chosen for taxonomic and geo-
graphic diversity, as well as for the recentness of a
5-year review, to ensure testing covered a variety of
species and used updated information. Our effort rep-
resents the largest number of scientists to have pro-
vided a standardized evaluation of the recovery status
of a group of ESA-listed species. The USFWS is cur-
rently considering whether and how to adopt these
metrics.
Based on our metric assessment, we raise broader
concerns, identify substantial challenges to recovery
revealed during testing, and offer recommendations to
address them. These challenges and recommendations
are based on 50 test species across a wide range of
taxa and our combined experience, and apply broadly
to ESA species. We urge federal agencies to consider
these recommendations as part of their efforts to
conserve species and restore the role of science in
the ESA's recovery process (Executive Order No.
13990, 2021).
2|THE RECOVERY METRICS
At the outset of our assessment, the USFWS identified
three criteria for evaluating the success of the metrics:
(1) metrics must capture the critical components of track-
ing species recovery progress; (2) metrics must generate
consistent results irrespective of the person applying
them; and (3) USFWS biologists could apply the metrics
easily and without a significant time commitment. Thus,
the metrics must strike a balance between comprehen-
siveness, reliability, and concision. Based on these cri-
teria, we developed six components to assess changes in
species recovery status:
1. Species' current levels of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (3Rs) (Shaffer & Stein, 2000;
Table 1).
2. Changes in the species' 3Rs since its prior ESA status
review.
3. Anticipated future changes in the species' 3Rs.
4. Changes in threats to the species since its prior ESA
status review.
5. Extent to which conservation measures for the species
have been implemented.
6. Progress of the species' recovery planning efforts,
including the number of downlisting/delisting criteria
that have been achieved.
The six components are complementary, as each
assesses a unique aspect of species recovery status. For
many species, far more is known about threats than
about the 3Rs, but the lack of information also provides
future research avenues with direct conservation applica-
tions. In those cases, information on changes in threats
may offer better insights for conservation intervention
than information on changes in the 3Rs.
Second, the metrics generated consistent results when
applied to species with an adequate five-year species
review, and the experts perceived these metrics to be gen-
erally reliable. The main cause of variance was the
amount and quality of the information present in a five-
year review. Reviews with limited information or ambig-
uous language are subject to multiple interpretations,
thus leading to higher variance, underscoring the need
for standardization as well as areas where further
research may be needed for certain species.
Third, most reviewers did not believe the metrics
were too complicated or time-consuming to apply.
Among the USFWS reviewers who tracked the duration
DAVIS ET AL.3of7
of this assignment, the majority finished scoring a species
in 60 minutes or less. The metrics performed well enough
that the USFWS could rapidly implement them as part of
5-year reviews.
The metrics could also be adapted to ESA candidate
species, as components 15 of the metrics are not specific
to the ESA. In particular, the 3Rs apply as much to non-
listed species as to federally listed species. States, tribes,
and NGOs could apply these factors to species of conser-
vation concern (though not federally listed) within their
jurisdiction to document, in a standardized manner, the
degree to which management and conservation actions
have (or have not) been successful. This, in turn, can bet-
ter inform ESA decisions on whether to consider listing
those species as they are petitioned.
3|CHALLENGES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
When we applied the metrics to the 50 test species, we
identified several key challenges that we have also
observed with many other ESA species reviews.
3.1 |Lack of standardized format and
clear documentation of 5-year reviews
creates difficulty in comparing progress
among species and risks the loss of
institutional knowledge
Our experts felt that the reviews varied more than an
acceptable amount and varied greatly in detail and sub-
stance, with some lacking a comprehensive discussion of
the species biology, threats, and effectiveness of conserva-
tion measures. A possible explanation is that no checklist
or questionnaire exists to remind authors compiling the
5-year reviews to provide all of this information.
Information-deficient reviews can impede the public's
ability to understand the reviews and subvert the capabil-
ity for scoring the metric and, hence, assessing recovery
progress, management effectiveness, and priority for
response. Further, information not documented in
reviews can contribute to the loss of institutional knowl-
edge from the turnover of USFWS staff who have unique
and extensive knowledge of species.
The USFWS should adopt data management systems
that facilitate the efficient inputting, organization, and
updating of this knowledge, as well as identify knowledge
gaps while increasing accessibility to partners. This rec-
ommendation will provide many long-term benefits,
including higher-quality 5-year reviews as well as stream-
lining the process for writing future reviews, recovery
plans, and other ESA documents. For example, if the
USFWS were to adopt an online database, allowing its
biologists and external partners to easily submit species
updates in a structured manner, drafting five-year
reviews could be more efficient (Malcom, 2020). This can
also allow for future reviews to focus on changes in con-
servation measure implementation and threats. Further,
this type of database could be used to track the evalua-
tion of what measures have been implemented and if
they have been effective.
3.2 |Despite decades of listed statuses,
many species still lack basic information
about their biology, response to threats,
and effectiveness of conservation measures
One barrier to effective conservation is inadequate
information about how best to conserve a species.
Among the 50 species reviewed here, many lacked
adequate information about their distributions and
habitat occupancy, life history traits, population genet-
ics/genomics, responses to threats, and/or effectiveness
of conservation measures. The lack of knowledge con-
tributed to a high rate of low confidenceor
unknownscores. The Winkler cactus (Pediocactus
winkleri) presents a particularly stark example. A total
of 9 participants assessed the cactus, generating
72 scores for past and future changes in the 3Rs. Of
those 72 scores, 58% were unknown,which aligns
with statements in the species' 5-year review about
the lack of knowledge about long-term population
trends and recruitment rates,despite the species hav-
ing been listed since 1998 (USFWS, 2019a). Data defi-
ciencies can also arise when data are collected but
never published, further exacerbating this fundamental
problem.
Major investments in applied research and dissemina-
tion of the results are crucial to addressing these data
deficiencies. Because the USFWS no longer has a biologi-
cal research arm, there is a strong need for research part-
nerships among the Services, state wildlife agencies,
academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the pub-
lic. For example, in plant conservation, scientists have
already proposed strategies for multi-institution research
partnerships (Havens et al., 2014; Heywood, 2017). The
time is overdue for a robust dialogue on how the Services
can encourage external partners to engage with the list-
ing and evaluation process by contributing to timely, rele-
vant, and impactful applied research. One approach is for
the agencies to set standards for the type of data they
seek from partners. A related approach is to collaborate
on multispecies monitoring strategies to help address
4of7 DAVIS ET AL.
basic data deficiencies for many individual species
(DeWan & Zipkin, 2010). Further, in reports to Congress,
scientists could flag data-deficient species, which has the
potential to aid funding allocation decisions made by
the legislative branch.
3.3 |Although many ESA species have
made meaningful conservation progress,
many others have continued to decline
after listing and face a dismal outlook
unless they receive far more resources and
attention
Many conservationists assume that ESA listing automati-
cally initiates a suite of conservation measures targeted
toward rapidly moving species closer to recovery and that
delisting means a species is now conserved,no longer
requiring active management (Scott et al., 2005). This
assumption is entirely disconnected from the reality of
the ESA in terms of funding, regulatory protections, polit-
ical support, and other factors needed for recovery.
Among the 50 test species, the mean score for current sta-
tus of the 3Rs was negative, indicative of declines in each
of the 3Rs, and consistent with findings that 52% of ESA-
listed species are in long-term decline (Evans et al., 2016;
Davis et al., 2024). For example, among 54 non-plant
ESA-listed species in Florida over which the USFWS has
primary jurisdiction, 28 exhibited declines in demo-
graphics and threats (Malcom et al., 2016). Thus,
although the ESA had some high-profile successes
(e.g. bald eagle, gray wolf), it also had to deal with many
listed species that continued to decline and the likelihood
that the number of new listings would vastly outpace the
number of recoveries. Furthermore, this is just for
the species in our sample and does not include the 18%
(299/1677) of other species without recovery plans that
may be exhibiting further declines. With a system in
place that allows for periodic reviews under the Endan-
gered Species Act, which some countries do not even
have, there is a real opportunity to use these five-year
reviews to check on the resources a species is receiving
(Woinarski et al., 2023).
Critically, improving conservation outcomes requires
sufficient funding and resource allocation, and these
results can positively influence this. For many declining
species, years of inadequate ESA funding have led to
missed opportunities to stabilize and improve species sta-
tus (Gerber, 2016). Currently, approximately 80% of fed-
eral and state funding goes to 5% of ESA-listed species
(Evans et al., 2016). Plants are one of several groups that
are particularly underfunded relative to other ESA-listed
taxa (Negron-Ortiz, 2014), even though they represent
56% of US-listed species. In the five-year reviews we
assessed, noncharismatic species received reduced con-
servation effort, ostensibly due to short shrift of funding,
than charismatic species. A more strategic method,
informed by a standardization and data-driven review
process, of allocating limited conservation dollars would
result in more effective conservation and likely more spe-
cies recovered from the ESA (Gerber et al., 2018). The
recovery metrics can track species response to funding
and provide justification for funding levels based on that
response.
3.4 |Prioritizing extinction prevention
or stabilization instead of recovery for
certain species
Overall, the data and information included in a standard-
ized, rigorous 5-year review framework (as above) could
flag species for prioritization based on extinction preven-
tion and stabilization. We found that approximately 38%
of species reviewed appeared to have no current path to
full recovery and delisting under the ESA, meaning the
species are declining and there is no information avail-
able to indicate how they should be managed to reverse
that decline. The result corroborates a larger assessment,
which found delisting is not considered possible for
approximately 26% of the 1173 species with recovery
plans (Neel et al., 2012). In fact, many of the Hawaiian
plants and invertebrates in the study have struggled to
meet extinction prevention goals, much less downlisting
goals. For example, the St. John Kaala (Phyllostegia kaa-
laensis) is a Hawaiian flowering plant that is now extinct
in the wild and for which all outplanted specimens have
died (USFWS, 2019b). For these and other species we
evaluated, threats such as climate change, disease, inva-
sive species, urbanization, and large-scale water with-
drawal may have already foreclosed all known paths to
recovery. As a result, these species may require indefinite
listing (Doremus & Pagel, 2001), yet such conservation
dependence does not mean that listing is futile. Prior
studies indicate that hundreds of species may have gone
extinct if they had not been listed (Taylor et al., 2005).
The inability to delist certain species, however, does
suggest at least three policy responses that could be
addressed by implementing a standardized metric such
as the one we tested in this case study. One response is to
identify conservation milestones using more achievable
goals, such as extinction prevention or stabilization
(HPPRCC, 2011). The metrics we tested could help fill
the gap by tracking how the 3Rs change across five-year
reviews, irrespective of whether the changes are signifi-
cant enough to warrant downlisting or delisting, and
DAVIS ET AL.5of7
could help with decisions to divert funds and resources
accordingly. A second response is preventing highly
imperiled species from further declining and conserving
at-risk species before they decline to the point where
recovery becomes extremely difficult, improbable, or
impossible. A similar process in Australia has been suc-
cessfully used to identify those listed species for which
imminent extinction is most likely and hence should be
priorities for urgent conservation resource allocation
(Geyle et al., 2018). In the past, the USFWS allocated
some of its recovery funds to projects designed specifi-
cally to prevent extinction, but the agency has not been
funded adequately enough in recent years to resurrect
this program. If adopted, our recovery metrics would help
measure the conservation benefits of the program. A
third response is developing new regulatory mechanisms
under the ESA that reward landowners and businesses
for helping populations reach their conservation goals,
even if an entire species still has no path to delisting. For
example, for threatened species, the USFWS can issue
special rules to relax the ESA's regulatory prohibitions
only for specific populations improving or meeting their
recovery targets (USFWS, 2006). The recovery metrics
can help identify these populations by flagging those
improving and declining.
4|CLOSING
If adopted, the recovery metrics outlined herein will
expand the foundational knowledge needed to under-
stand changes in species status and to make better
ESA decisions. The metrics require adequate and
organized information under a standardized five-year
review framework to perform effectively. Our testing
revealed opportunities for the USFWS to improve the
quality and consistency of those reviews and under-
scored other related challenges to species recovery.
Overall, this metric represents an important step for-
wardinimprovingthequalityofrecoveryplanning
for endangered species in the U.S. context and offers
promising future directions for monitoring endan-
gered species globally. However, the metric itself is
not necessarily an adequate substitute for a compre-
hensive program of monitoring for all listed species,
and such a monitoring program (which encompasses
evaluation of the effectiveness of management
actions) should still be recognized as the desired
standard.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank K. Surrey,
´
A. Tuñas Corz
on,
A. Aeschliman, K. Lewis-Quan, G. Percy, and H. Skafi
from ASU, who assisted in testing the metric. Also,
E.M. Schauber, S. Jog, A.P. Stodola, J.B. Taft, and
C.A. Taylor for INHS institutional support and testing
the metric, respectively.
ORCID
Olivia N. Davis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4707-6198
Ya-Wei Li https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5254-6238
Maximilian L. Allen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8976-
889X
Joseph J. Parkos III https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0729-
6380
Auriel M. V. Fournier https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8530-
9968
Jason Bried https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-9848
Leah R. Gerber https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6763-6842
REFERENCES
Bayraktarov, E., Ehmke, G., Tulloch, A. I. T., Chauvenet, A. L.,
Avery-Gomm, S., McRae, L., Wintle, B. A., O'Connor, J.,
Driessen, J., Watmuff, J., Nguyen, H. A., Garnett, S. T.,
Woinarski, J., Barnes, M., Morgain, R., Guru, S., &
Possingham, H. P. (2021). A threatened species index for
Australian birds. Conservation Science and Practice,3(2), e322.
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.322
Davis, O. N., Molano-Flores, B., Li, Y.-W., Allen, M. L.,
Davis, M. A., Parkos, J. J., McIntyre, S., Di Giovanni, A. J.,
McElrath, T. C., Carter, A., Evansen, M., Sheehan, C., &
Gerber, L. R. (2024). A new metric for conducting 5-year
reviews to evaluate recovery progress under the Endangered
Species Act. Conservation Science and Practice,6.
DeWan, A. A., & Zipkin, E. F. (2010). An integrated sampling and
analysis approach for improved biodiversity monitoring. Envi-
ronmental Management,45, 12231230. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00267-010-9457-7
Doremus, H., & Pagel, J. E. (2001). Why listing may be forever: Per-
spectives on delisting under the U.S. endangered species act.
Conservation Biology,15(5), 12581268. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1523-1739.2001.00178.x
Evans, D. M., Che-Castaldo, J. P., Crouse, D., Davis, F. W.,
Epanchin-Niell, R., Flather, C. H., Frohlich, R. K., Goble, D. D.,
Li, Y.-W., Male, T. D., Master, L. L., Moskwik, M. P.,
Neel, M. C., Noon, B. R., Parmesan, C., Schwartz, M. W.,
Scott, J. M., & Williams, B. K. (2016). Species recovery in the
United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the endangered
species act. Issues in Ecology,20,128. https://www.esa.org/
esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Issue20.pdf
Exec. Order No. 13990. (2021). 86 C.F.R. 7037.
Gerber, L. R. (2016). Conservation triage or injurious neglect in
endangered species recovery. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences,113(13), 35633566. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1525085113
Gerber, L. R., Runge, M. C., Maloney, R. F., Iacona, G. D.,
Drew, C. A., Avery-Gomm, S., Brazill-Boast, J., Crouse, D.,
Epanchin-Niell, R. S., Hall, S. B., Maguire, L. A., Male, T.,
Morgan, D., Newman, J., Possingham, H. P., Rumpff, L.,
Wess, K. C. B., Wilson, R. S., & Zablan, M. A. (2018).
6of7 DAVIS ET AL.
Endangered species recovery: A resource allocation problem.
Science,362, 284286. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8434
Geyle, H. M., Woinarski, J. C., Baker, G. B., Dickman, C. R.,
Dutson, G., Fisher, D. O., Ford, H., Holdsworth, M.,
Jones, M. E., Kutt, A., Legge, S., Leiper, I., Loyn, R.,
Murphy, B. P., Menkhorst, P., Reside, A. E., Ritchie, E. G.,
Roberts, F. E., Tinley, R., Garnett, S. T. (2018). Quantifying
extinction risk and forecasting the number of impending
Australian bird and mammal extinctions. Pacific Conservation
Biology,24(2), 157167. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18006
Havens, K., Kramer, A. T., & Guerrant, E. O. (2014). Getting plant
conservation right (or not): The case of the United States. Inter-
national Journal of Plant Sciences,175,310. https://doi.org/10.
1086/674103
Hawai'i and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee
[HPPRCC]. (2011). Revised recovery objective guidelines.
Unpublished. 8.
Heywood, V. H. (2017). Plant conservation in the
Anthropocene Challenges and future prospects. Plant Diver-
sity,39, 314330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.004
IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. (2019). Guidelines for
using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 14.
Prepared by the IUCN SSC Standards and Petitions
Committee. http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedList
Guidelines.pdf
Li, Y.-W. (2020). Tracking changes in endangered species recovery
status using concise, standardized metrics. Environmental Policy
Innovation Center.
Malcom, J. W. (2020). Online recovery plans for threatened and
endangered species. Report to Department of Defense Legacy
Resource Management Program.
Malcom, J. W., Webber, W. M., & Li, Y.-W. (2016). A simple, suffi-
cient, and consistent method to score the status of threats and
demography of imperiled species. PeerJ,4, e2230. https://doi.
org/10.7717/peerj.2230
Neel, M. C., Leidner, A. K., Haines, A., Goble, D. D., & Scott, J. M.
(2012). By the numbers: How is recovery defined by the US
endangered species act? Bioscience,62(7), 646657. https://doi.
org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.7
Negron-Ortiz, V. (2014). Pattern of expenditures for plant con-
servation under the endangered species act. Biological Con-
servation,171,3643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.
01.018
Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., Wiens, J. A., Wilcove, D. S., Bean, M., &
Male, T. (2005). Recovery of imperiled species under the endan-
gered species act: The need for a new approach. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment,3(7), 383389. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3868588
Shaffer, M. L., & Stein, M. A. (2000). Safeguarding our precious her-
itage. In B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, & J. S. Adams (Eds.), Precious
heritage: The status of biodiversity in the United States (pp. 301
321). Oxford University Press.
Taylor, M. F., Suckling, K. F., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). The effec-
tiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis.
Bioscience,55(4), 360367. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568
(2005)055[0360:TEOTES]2.0.CO;2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2006). Reclassification of
the Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) From Endangered to
Threatened; Special Rule for Gila Trout in New Mexico and
Arizona, 71 Fed. Reg. 40,657 (July 18, 2006).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2019a). 5-Year Review for
Winkler Cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) and San Rafael Cactus
(Pediocactus despainii).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2019b). 5-Year Review for
Phyllostegia kaalaensis (no common name).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2016). USFWS Species
Status Assessment Framework: an integrated analytical frame-
work for conservation. Version 3.4 dated August 2016. https://
www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/pdf/SSA%
20Framework%20v3.4-8_10_2016.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2018). Report to Congress
on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal
Years 20152016. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/
pdf/Recovery-Report-FY2015-2016.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. (2023). Environmental
conservation online system. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/
Woinarski, J. C., Garnett, S. T., Gillespie, G., Legge, S. M.,
Lintermans, M., & Rumpff, L. (2023). Lights at the end of the tun-
nel: The incidence and characteristics of recovery for Australian
threatened animals. Biological Conservation,279, 109946.
How to cite this article: Davis, O. N.,
Molano-Flores, B., Li, Y.-W., Allen, M. L., Davis,
M. A., Mengelkoch, J. M., Parkos, J. J. III, Porreca,
A. P., Fournier, A. M. V., Tiemann, J., Bried, J.,
Marcum, P. B., Carroll-Cunningham, C. J.,
Janssen, E. D., Ulaszek, E. F., McIntyre, S., Price,
E. P. F., Nieset, J., Beveroth, T., Gerber, L. R.
(2024). Tracking species recovery status to improve
U.S. endangered species act decisions. Conservation
Science and Practice,6(8), e13159. https://doi.org/
10.1111/csp2.13159
DAVIS ET AL.7of7
... As data deficiency has historically been a problem in recovering endangered species, all recovery planning-whether generated from this specific metric or not-relies on clear and concise information provided by USFWS, highlighting the need for accurate and detailed 5-year reviews (Bland et al., 2015;Fitzgerald et al., 2021;Kindsvater et al., 2018;Kuhnert et al. 2010). Alternative, low confidence or "unknown" scores could be due to some underlying inconsistencies with the 5-year reviews themselves (Davis et al., 2024). This interpretation was supported validated in the comments section where many scorers indicated it was difficult to read the 5-year reviews on account of the writing style and/or data insufficiency. ...
... The most recent 5-year review guidelines were written in July 2006 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 2006), and, given the changes in the recovery planning process by the USFWS since then through the revised Recovery Planning Implementation process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019a), aligning 5-year review guidelines in accordance with these changes (especially with the emphasis on the 3Rs) would be helpful. An accompanying perspectives paper (Davis et al., 2024) elaborates on the lessons we learned about 5-year reviews themselves, and how USFWS could enhance the clarity of the 5-year reviews so that this information could be used more readily by practitioners. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides legal protection to imperiled populations and their associated habitats. As a part of this process, listed species must undergo a general status review (also called 5‐Year Review) to assess the progress toward recovery every 5 years. However, almost all 5‐year reviews result in a status of “no change,” prompting scientists to question if the review process is robust enough to detect changes in recovery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was therefore interested in developing a standardized metric for monitoring more nuanced recovery progress as part of the status review. In collaboration with the USFWS, over 75 biologists from five different organizations developed and tested a set of novel metrics to summarize recovery progress of listed species by considering current and future conditions, threats, and conservation measures. We found that, although the majority of species had reviews with a recommendation of no change, scorers were able to use the metrics to interpret more nuanced changes in the 3Rs (resiliency, redundancy, and representation), threats, and conservation measures than in the status review. Our results suggest that these metrics could illuminate more nuanced areas of recovery and decline in species' conditions, but consistency among scorers and status reports should be a focus of future development. Our approach offers a rigorous set of metrics to systematically track the recovery progress of all ESA species.
Article
Full-text available
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides legal protection to imperiled populations and their associated habitats. As a part of this process, listed species must undergo a general status review (also called 5‐Year Review) to assess the progress toward recovery every 5 years. However, almost all 5‐year reviews result in a status of “no change,” prompting scientists to question if the review process is robust enough to detect changes in recovery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was therefore interested in developing a standardized metric for monitoring more nuanced recovery progress as part of the status review. In collaboration with the USFWS, over 75 biologists from five different organizations developed and tested a set of novel metrics to summarize recovery progress of listed species by considering current and future conditions, threats, and conservation measures. We found that, although the majority of species had reviews with a recommendation of no change, scorers were able to use the metrics to interpret more nuanced changes in the 3Rs (resiliency, redundancy, and representation), threats, and conservation measures than in the status review. Our results suggest that these metrics could illuminate more nuanced areas of recovery and decline in species' conditions, but consistency among scorers and status reports should be a focus of future development. Our approach offers a rigorous set of metrics to systematically track the recovery progress of all ESA species.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Quantifying species population trends is crucial for monitoring progress towards global conservation targets, justifying investments, planning targeted responses and raising awareness about threatened species. Many global indicators are slow in response and report on common species, not on those at greatest risk of extinction. Here we develop a Threatened Species Index as a dynamic tool for tracking annual changes in Australia's imperiled birds. Based on the Living Planet Index method and containing more than 17,000 time series for 65 bird taxa surveyed systematically, the index at its second iteration shows an average reduction of 59% between 1985 and 2016, and 44% between 2000 and 2016. Decreases seem most severe for shorebirds and terrestrial birds and least severe for seabirds. The index provides a potential means for measuring performance against the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 12, enabling governments, agencies and the public to observe changes in threatened species.
Article
Full-text available
We discuss here the merits of an explicit resource allocation framework and introduce a prototype decision tool that we developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to facilitate transparent and efficient recover allocation decisions.
Article
Full-text available
A critical step towards reducing the incidence of extinction is to identify and rank the species at highest risk, while implementing protective measures to reduce the risk of extinction to such species. Existing global processes provide a graded categorisation of extinction risk. Here we seek to extend and complement those processes to focus more narrowly on the likelihood of extinction of the most imperilled Australian birds and mammals. We considered an extension of existing IUCN and NatureServe criteria, and used expert elicitation to rank the extinction risk to the most imperilled species, assuming current management. On the basis of these assessments, and using two additional approaches, we estimated the number of extinctions likely to occur in the next 20 years. The estimates of extinction risk derived from our tighter IUCN categorisations, NatureServe assessments and expert elicitation were poorly correlated, with little agreement among methods for which species were most in danger – highlighting the importance of integrating multiple approaches when considering extinction risk. Mapped distributions of the 20 most imperilled birds reveal that most are endemic to islands or occur in southern Australia. The 20 most imperilled mammals occur mostly in northern and central Australia. While there were some differences in the forecasted number of extinctions in the next 20 years among methods, all three approaches predict further species loss. Overall, we estimate that another seven Australian mammals and 10 Australian birds will be extinct by 2038 unless management improves.
Article
Full-text available
Managers of large, complex wildlife conservation programs need information on the conservation status of each of many species to help strategically allocate limited resources. Oversimplifying status data, however, runs the risk of missing information essential to strategic allocation. Conservation status consists of two components, the status of threats a species faces and the species’ demographic status. Neither component alone is sufficient to characterize conservation status. Here we present a simple key for scoring threat and demographic changes for species using detailed information provided in free-form textual descriptions of conservation status. This key is easy to use ( simple ), captures the two components of conservation status without the cost of more detailed measures ( sufficient ), and can be applied by different personnel to any taxon ( consistent ). To evaluate the key’s utility, we performed two analyses. First, we scored the threat and demographic status of 37 species recently recommended for reclassification under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 15 control species, then compared our scores to two metrics used for decision-making and reports to Congress. Second, we scored the threat and demographic status of all non-plant ESA-listed species from Florida (54 spp.), and evaluated scoring repeatability for a subset of those. While the metrics reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are often consistent with our scores in the first analysis, the results highlight two problems with the oversimplified metrics. First, we show that both metrics can mask underlying demographic declines or threat increases; for example, ∼40% of species not recommended for reclassification had changes in threats or demography. Second, we show that neither metric is consistent with either threats or demography alone, but conflates the two. The second analysis illustrates how the scoring key can be applied to a substantial set of species to understand overall patterns of ESA implementation. The scoring repeatability analysis shows promise, but indicates thorough training will be needed to ensure consistency. We propose that large conservation programs adopt our simple scoring system for threats and demography. By doing so, program administrators will have better information to monitor program effectiveness and guide their decisions.
Article
We have designed and synthesized a new type of distorted nanographene by Diels-Alder and Scholl reactions that contains one dibenzobistetracene (DBT, 1) core and two end-capping corannulene units. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction analyses demonstrate that nanographene 1 contains two [5] helicene subunits with a dihedral angle of 62°, consequently leading to the distorted DBT core. In addition, the photophysical properties and (non)aromaticity of 1 were investigated by the absorption and emission spectra in combination with theoretical calculations.
Chapter
Nestled amid the Appalachian Mountains of southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee lies the Clinch Valley, the nation’s leading hot spot for imperiled aquatic organisms. The Clinch River is the only undimmed headwater of the Tennessee River basin, which in turn is the nation’s most biologically diverse drainage system. The surface waters of the Clinch run rich indeed: They are home to at least 29 rare mussels and 19 rare fish. Underground, the region’s limestone bedrock is honeycombed by more than a thousand caves and uncounted underground springs and streams. This little-known world is filled with a menagerie of rare beetles, isopods, and other subterranean insects. These underground realms have yielded more than 30 species new to science in just the past few years. The Clinch Valley is largely rural and sparsely populated. Most residents make their living directly from the land, either mining coal, harvesting timber, grazing cattle, or planting crops. These rural lifestyles have maintained much of the region in a relatively natural state, and more than two-thirds of the Clinch Valley remains forested. The forested hills mask a history of ecologically unsound land use practices, however, that have degraded the legendary quality of the region’s waterways. Virtually anything released in the valley flows downhill into the streams and rivers. Among the greatest threats to the valley’s extraordinary aquatic life are heavy metals leaching from abandoned coal mines, sediment eroding from cutover slopes, and nutrients released by streamside-grazing cattle. These and other threats have already taken a toll on the region’s extraordinary biological richness. Where once there were 60 kinds of freshwater mussels, only about 40 remain. Coastal southern California, in contrast, is one of the most densely populated regions in the nation. It, too, is a hot spot for imperiled species. Its dry Mediterranean climate and varied topography have favored the evolution of a host of unique plants and animals. Altogether, some 86 imperiled species are found along the coast and in the mountains of this nationally significant center of biodiversity. Certain areas stand out even by California standards as having a truly extraordinary diversity of rare species.
Article
Despite the massive efforts that have been made to conserve plant diversity across the world during the past few decades, it is becoming increasingly evident that our current strategies are not sufficiently effective to prevent the continuing decline in biodiversity. As a recent report by the CBD indicates, current progress and commitments are insufficient to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020. Threatened species lists continue to grow while the world’s governments fail to meet biodiversity conservation goals. Clearly, we are failing in our attempts to conserve biodiversity on a sufficient scale. The reasons for this situation are complex, including scientific, technical, sociological, economic and political factors. The conservation community is divided about how to respond. Some believe that saving all existing biodiversity is still an achievable goal. On the other hand, there are those who believe that we need to accept that biodiversity will inevitably continue to be lost, despite all our conservation actions and that we must focus on what to save, why and where. It has also been suggested that we need a new approach to conservation in the face of the challenges posed by the Anthropocene biosphere which we now inhabit. Whatever view one holds on the above issues, it is clear that we need to review the effectiveness of our current conservation strategies, identify the limiting factors that are preventing the Aichi goals being met and at the same time take whatever steps are necessary to make our conservation protocols more explicit, operational and efficient so as to achieve the maximum conservation effect. This paper addresses the key issues that underlie our failure to meet agreed targets and discusses the necessary changes to our conservation approaches. While we can justifiably be proud of our many achievements and successes in plant conservation in the past 30 years, which have helped slow the rate of loss, unless we devise a more coherent, consistent and integrated global strategy in which both the effectiveness and limitations of our current policies, action plans and procedures are recognized, and reflect this in national strategies, and then embark on a much bolder and ambitious set of actions, progress will be limited and plant diversity will continue to decline.
Article
Significance Although government funding available for species protection and recovery is one of the best predictors of successful recovery, government spending is both insufficient and highly disproportionate among groups of species. Here I demonstrate that expenditures for recovery in excess of the recommended recovery budget would not necessarily translate into better conservation outcomes. More importantly, elimination of the budget surplus for “costly yet futile” recovery plans can provide sufficient funding to offset funding deficits for more than 180 species. Using a return on investment analysis, I show that triage by budget compression provides better funding for a larger sample of species, and that a larger sample of adequately funded recovery plans should produce better outcomes even if by chance.