Dale D. Goble

Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach

The recovery (delisting) of a threatened or endangered species is often accompanied by the expectation that conservation management of the species will no longer be necessary. However, the magnitude and pace of human impacts on the environment make it unlikely that substantial progress will be made in delisting many species unless the definition of “recovery” includes some form of active management. Preventing delisted species from again being at risk of extinction may require continuing, species-specific management actions. We characterize such species as “conservation-reliant”, and suggest that viewing “recovery” as a continuum of states rather than as a simple “recovered/not recovered” dichotomy may enhance our ability to manage such species within the framework of the Endangered Species Act. With ongoing loss of habitat, disruption of natural disturbance regimes, and the increasing impacts of non-native invasive species, it is probable that the number of conservation-reliant species will increase. We ...

By the Numbers: How is Recovery Defined by the US Endangered Species Act?

Nearly 40 years after passage of the US Endangered Species Act, the prospects for listed species remain dim because they are too severely imperiled by the time they receive the acts protection. Even if threats are abated, the low abundances required for recovery often preclude a high probability of persistence. The lack of sufficient data for setting recovery objectives also remains a barrier. Delisting is considered possible for only 74% of the 1173 species with recovery plans—92% of threatened and 69% of endangered species. The median number of populations required for delisting (8) was at or below the historical numbers for 64% and at or below the numbers at listing for 37% of the species. The median number of individuals required for recovery (2400) exceeded the abundances at listing for 93% of the species, but most were below the levels considered necessary for long-term persistence, especially in changing environments.

Beyond Reserves and Corridors: Policy Solutions to Facilitate the Movement of Plants and Animals in a Changing Climate

As the Earths climate changes, many species will have to move across human-dominated landscapes to track suitable climates and changing ecosystems. Given the magnitude of projected future climate change, expanding and connecting reserve networks—two of the most commonly recommended adaptation strategies for protecting biodiversity in a changing climate—will be necessary but insufficient for preventing climate-induced extinctions. In the present article, we explore additional policy options that could be implemented to facilitate species movements in a changing climate. We discuss both existing and new policies that have the potential to increase landscape permeability, protect species on the move, and physically move species to address climate change.

Conservation-Reliant Species

A species is conservation reliant when the threats that it faces cannot be eliminated, but only managed. There are two forms of conservation reliance: population- and threat-management reliance. We provide an overview of the concept and introduce a series of articles that examine it in the context of a range of taxa, threats, and habitats. If sufficient assurances can be provided that successful population and threat management will continue, conservation-reliant species may be either delisted or kept off the endangered species list. This may be advantageous because unlisted species provide more opportunities for a broader spectrum of federal, state, tribal, and private interests to participate in conservation. Even for currently listed species, the number of conservation-reliant species—84% of endangered and threatened species with recovery plans— and the magnitude of management actions needed to sustain the species at recovered levels raise questions about societys willingness to support necessary action.

Local and national protection of endangered species: an assessment

Abstract We searched the statutory codes of all 50 states to locate provisions applicable to endangered and threatened species. The state statutes were compared to 6 components of the US Endangered Species Act: (1) coverage; (2) listing procedures and requirements under section 4; (3) habitat designation and protection procedures and criteria under sections 4 and 7; (4) prohibitions on commerce and taking under section 9; (5) exceptions to the prohibitions on commerce and taking and (6) conservation planning under section 4. State endangered and threatened species legislation is far less comprehensive than the federal act. Only 15 states have statutes that cover all plants and animals. Similarly, only 11 states offer any protection for taxa below the subspecific level. 45 states have provisions for listing species independently of the federal act but only 8 authorize emergency listings. 43 states have no provisions authorizing the designation of critical habitat; 39 states offer no protection against habitat destruction on either private or publicly owned lands. Most states prohibit commercial transactions and taking of listed animal species; plant species receive less protection. Only 3 states include any requirements that the wildlife management agency engage in recovery planning processes. In the absence of a federal statute to protect endangered and threatened species, we question whether current state protection is either adequate or would be maintained. We briefly examined legislation on endangered species in two other countries with federal systems of government, Australia and Canada. Canada lacked a federal statute. Assessment of national, state and territorial legislation in Australia revealed several similarities and differences with the United States endangered species legislation. Differences suggested an alternative to the top down approach embodied in the United States Endangered Species Act.

A State-Based National Network for Effective Wildlife Conservation

State wildlife conservation programs provide a strong foundation for biodiversity conservation in the United States, building on state wildlife action plans. However, states may miss the species that are at the most risk at rangewide scales, and threats such as novel diseases and climate change increasingly act at regional and national levels. Regional collaborations among states and their partners have had impressive successes, and several federal programs now incorporate state priorities. However, regional collaborations are uneven across the country, and no national counterpart exists to support efforts at that scale. A national conservation-support program could fill this gap and could work across the conservation community to identify large-scale conservation needs and support efforts to meet them. By providing important information-sharing and capacity-building services, such a program would advance collaborative conservation among the states and their partners, thus increasing both the effectiveness and the efficiency of conservation in the United States.

Conflation of Values and Science: Response to Noss et al.

GEORGE F. WILHERE,∗ LYNN A. MAGUIRE,† J. MICHAEL SCOTT,‡ JANET L. RACHLOW,‡ DALE D. GOBLE,§ AND LEONA K. SVANCARA∗∗ ∗Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA 98501, U.S.A., email wilhegfw@dfw.wa.gov †Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708-0328, U.S.A. ‡Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136, U.S.A. §College of Law, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, U.S.A. ∗∗Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Moscow, ID 83844, U.S.A.

Climate Change and the Puget Sound: Building the Legal Framework for Adaptation

The scope of climate change impacts is expected to be extraordinary, touching every ecosystem on the planet and affecting human interactions with the natural and built environment. From increased surface and water temperatures to sea level rise and more frequent extreme weather events, climate change promises vast and profound alterations to our world. Indeed, scientists predict continued climate change impacts regardless of any present or future mitigation efforts due to the long-lived nature of greenhouse gases emitted over the last century. The need to adapt to this new future is crucial. Adaptation may take a variety of forms, from implementing certain natural resources management strategies to applying principles of water law to mimic the natural water cycle. The goal of adaptation efforts is to lessen the magnitude of these impacts on humans and the natural environment through proactive and planned actions. The longer we wait to adopt a framework and laws for adapting to climate change, the more costly and painful the process will become.This publication identifies both foundational principles and specific strategies for climate change adaptation across the Puget Sound Basin. The projected impacts themselves of climate change in the region were well studied in a landmark 2009 report by the state-commissioned Climate Impacts Group. This publication analyzes adaptation options within the existing legal and regulatory framework in Washington. Recognizing the economic and political realities may not lead to new legislation, the recommendations focus on how existing laws can be applied and made more robust to include climate change adaptation.

Uncertainty in Population Estimates for Endangered Animals and Improving the Recovery Process.

Simple Summary The objective of our study was to evaluate the mention of uncertainty (i.e., variance) associated with population size estimates within U.S. recovery plans for endangered animals. To do this we reviewed all finalized recovery plans for listed terrestrial vertebrate species. We found that more recent recovery plans reported more estimates of population size and uncertainty. Also, bird and mammal recovery plans reported more estimates of population size and uncertainty. We recommend that updated recovery plans combine uncertainty of population size estimates with a minimum detectable difference to aid in successful recovery. Abstract 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.

Salmon without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis

A rough trip through evolutionary time humans enter the Pacific Northwest the rise of the salmon-based economies the first salmon management conflicting economies birth and growth of the salmon canning industry Indian fishermen displaced controlling the harvest the fishery moves to the ocean hatcheries in the United States fish culture moves west acclimatization - playing God with ecosystems the political tool science and salmon management different roads to restoration the road to extinction building a new salmon culture.