Accounting for Uncertainty in Making Species Protection Decisions

Abstract:  Uncertainty gives rise to two decision errors in implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act: listing species that are not in danger of extinction and delisting species that are in danger of extinction. I evaluated four methods (minimum standard, precautionary principle, minimax regret criterion, adaptive management) for deciding whether to list or delist a species when there is uncertainty about how those decisions are likely to influence survival of the species. A safe minimum standard criterion preserves some minimum amount or safe standard (population) of a species unless maintaining that amount generates unacceptable social cost. The precautionary principle favors not delisting a species when there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of state management plans for protecting them. A minimax regret criterion selects the delisting decision that minimizes the maximum loss likely to occur under alternative ecosystem states. When the cost of making a correct decision is less than the cost of making an incorrect decision, the minimax regret criteria indicates that delisting is the optimal decision. Active adaptive management employs statistically valid experiments to test hypotheses about the likely impacts of delisting decisions. Safe minimum standard and minimax regret criterion are not compatible with the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The precautionary principle comes closest to describing how federal agencies make delisting decisions. Active adaptive management is scientifically superior to the other methods but is costly and time consuming and may not be compatible with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act.     

Improving Peer Review of Listings and Recovery Plans under the Endangered Species Act

Abstract: We discuss several challenges encountered in peer review of Endangered Species Act listings and recovery plans, with particular attention to Meffe et al.'s (1998) statement on independent scientific review in natural resource management. First, Endangered Species Act listing documents and recovery plans pose a diverse array of scientific questions, and we suggest that overall effectiveness of peer review may be increased by segregating the critical issues and identifying specific reviewers for each issue. Some scientific reviewers may be unfamiliar with the decision standards prescribed by the Endangered Species Act and implementing policies. Unnecessary confusion could be prevented by providing reviewers with information about these standards and by requesting that reviewers clearly differentiate their assessment of decisions that must be based on available information from recommendations for future research. Short review periods constitute another constraint on careful review, but tight deadlines are fairly intractable in the context of the Endangered Species Act. We suggest that short time frames could be partially ameliorated by narrowing the scope of issues to be treated by each reviewer, and we discuss the issue of providing monetary compensation for efficient review. Finally, Endangered Species Act listing decisions and recovery planning may profit from more frequent peer review of intermediate analyses that precede publication of formal proposals or complete plans.     

Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act

Abstract: In a preliminary analysis of listing decisions under Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA), Mooers et al. (2007) demonstrated an apparent bias against marine and northern species. As a follow‐up, we expanded the set of potential explanatory variables, including information on jurisdictional and administrative elements of the listing process, and considered an additional 16 species recommended for listing by SARA's scientific advisory committee as of 15 August 2006. Logistic model selection based on Akaike differences suggested that species were less likely to be listed if they were harvested or had commercial or subsistence harvesting as an explicitly identified threat; had Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as a responsible authority (RA); were located in Canada's north generally, and especially in Nunavut; or were found mostly or entirely within Canada. Subsequent model validation with an independent set of 50 species for which a listing decision was handed down in December 2007 showed an overall misclassification rate of <0.10, indicating reasonable predictive power. In light of these results, we recommend that RAs under SARA adopt a two‐track listing approach to address problems of delays arising from extended consultations and the inconsistent use by the RAs of socioeconomic analysis; consider revising SARA so that socioeconomic analysis occurs during decisions about protecting species and their habitats rather than at the listing stage; and maintain an integrated database with information on species’ biology, threats, and agency actions to enable future evaluation of SARA's impact.     

Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work—And What to Do About It

Abstract: Law plays an important role in shaping land management decisions. The success of efforts to conserve biodiversity thus depends to a large degree on how well scientific knowledge is translated into public policy. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act, the United States's strongest legal tool for conserving bidodiversity, contains serious biological flaws. The statute itself, as well us agency regulations and policies that implement the law include provisions that fail to account accurately for important biological concepts such us ecosystem conservation, patch dynamics, and the probabilistic nature of stochastic threats to a species' persistence. Moreover, the procedures of federal agencies charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act in some cases make it difficult for interested outside reviewers to evaluate the agencies' scientific findings and methodology. However, the Endangered Species Act also gives interested individuals and groups several opportunities to provide input into the process of managing threatened and endangered species. Conservation biologists should practice focused advocacy by taking advantage of such opportunities to steer law in a more biologically sound direction.     

Quantitative tools for implementing the new definition of significant portion of the range in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service announced a new policy interpretation for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to the act, a species must be listed as threatened or endangered if it is determined to be threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range (SPR). The 2014 policy seeks to provide consistency by establishing that a portion of the range should be considered significant if the associated individuals’ “removal would cause the entire species to become endangered or threatened.” We reviewed 20 quantitative techniques used to assess whether a portion of a species’ range is significant according to the new guidance. Our assessments are based on the 3R criteria—redundancy (i.e., buffering from catastrophe), resiliency (i.e., ability to withstand stochasticity), and representation (i.e., ability to evolve)—that the FWS uses to determine if a species merits listing. We identified data needs for each quantitative technique and considered which methods could be implemented given the data limitations typical of rare species. We also identified proxies for the 3Rs that may be used with limited data. To assess potential data availability, we evaluated 7 example species by accessing data in their species status assessments, which document all the information used during a listing decision. In all species, an SPR could be evaluated with at least one metric for each of the 3Rs robustly or with substantial assumptions. Resiliency assessments appeared most constrained by limited data, and many species lacked information on connectivity between subpopulations, genetic variation, and spatial variability in vital rates. These data gaps will likely make SPR assessments for species with complex life histories or that cross national boundaries difficult. Although we reviewed techniques for the ESA, other countries require identification of significant areas and could benefit from this research.     

Taxonomic Considerations in Listing Subspecies Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract:  The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows listing of subspecies and other groupings below the rank of species. This provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service with a means to target the most critical unit in need of conservation. Although roughly one-quarter of listed taxa are subspecies, these management agencies are hindered by uncertainties about taxonomic standards during listing or delisting activities. In a review of taxonomic publications and societies, we found few subspecies lists and none that stated standardized criteria for determining subspecific taxa. Lack of criteria is attributed to a centuries-old debate over species and subspecies concepts. Nevertheless, the critical need to resolve this debate for ESA listings led us to propose that minimal biological criteria to define disjunct subspecies (legally or taxonomically) should include the discreteness and significance criteria of distinct population segments (as defined under the ESA). Our subspecies criteria are in stark contrast to that proposed by supporters of the phylogenetic species concept and provide a clear distinction between species and subspecies. Efforts to eliminate or reduce ambiguity associated with subspecies-level classifications will assist with ESA listing decisions. Thus, we urge professional taxonomic societies to publish and periodically update peer-reviewed species and subspecies lists. This effort must be paralleled throughout the world for efficient taxonomic conservation to take place.     

What Exactly Is an Endangered Species? An Analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985–1991

Critics of the Endangered Species Act have asserted that is protects an inordinate number of subspecies and populations, in addition to full species, and that the scientific rationale for listing decisions is absent or weak. We reviewed all U.S. plants and animals proposed for listing or added to the endangered species list from 1985 through 1991 to determine the relative proportion of species, subspecies, and populations, and their rarity at time of listing. Approximately 80% of the taxa added to the list were full species, 18% were subspecies, and 2% were distinct populations segments of more widespread vertebrate species. The proportion of subspecies and populations was considerably higher among birds and mammals than among other groups. The median populations size at time of listing for vertebrate animals was 1075 individuals; for invertebrate animals it was 999. The median population size of a plant at time of listing was less than 120 individuals. Earlier listing of declining species could significantly improve the likelihood of successful recovery, and it would provide land managers and private citizens with more options for protecting vanishing plants and animals at less social or economic cost.     

Critique of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit as a Definition for "Distinct Population Segments" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act grants protection to species, subspecies, and "distinct population segments" of vertebrate species. Historically, Congress included distinct population segments into endangered species legislation to enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a flexible and pragmatic approach in listing populations of vertebrate species. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have proposed a policy that would narrowly define distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units based on morphological and genetic distinctiveness between populations. Historically, the power to list species or populations as distinct population segments has been used to tailor management practices to unique circumstances; grant varied levels of protection in different parts of a species' range; protect species from extinction in significant portions of their ranges as well as to protect populations that are unique evolutionary entities. A strict redefinition of distinct population segments as evolutionarily significant units will compromise management efforts because the role of demographic and behavioral data will be reduced. Furthermore, strictly cultural, economic, or geographic justifications for listing populations as threatened or endangered will be greatly curtailed.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long‐lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts’ judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts’ judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts’ assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers’ assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts’ decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

Assessing the impact of the U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery planning guidelines on managing threats for listed species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning.     

Geography and Recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Abstract: The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as one “at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The prevailing interpretation of this phrase, which focuses exclusively on the overall viability of listed species without regard to their geographic distribution, has led to development of listing and recovery criteria with fundamental conceptual, legal, and practical shortcomings. The ESA's concept of endangerment is broader than the biological concept of extinction risk in that the “esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific” values provided by species are not necessarily furthered by a species mere existence, but rather by a species presence across much of its former range. The concept of “significant portion of range” thus implies an additional geographic component to recovery that may enhance viability, but also offers independent benefits that Congress intended the act to achieve. Although the ESA differs from other major endangered‐species protection laws because it acknowledges the distinct contribution of geography to recovery, it resembles the “representation, resiliency, and redundancy” conservation‐planning framework commonly referenced in recovery plans. To address representation, listing and recovery standards should consider not only what proportion of its former range a species inhabits, but the types of habitats a species occupies and the ecological role it plays there. Recovery planning for formerly widely distributed species (e.g., the gray wolf [Canis lupus]) exemplifies how the geographic component implicit in the ESA's definition of endangerment should be considered in determining recovery goals through identification of ecologically significant types or niche variation within the extent of listed species, subspecies, or “distinct population segments.” By linking listing and recovery standards to niche and ecosystem concepts, the concept of ecologically significant type offers a scientific framework that promotes more coherent dialogue concerning the societal decisions surrounding recovery of endangered species.     

Designatable Units for Status Assessment of Endangered Species

Abstract:  Species status assessment and the conservation of biological diversity may require defining units below the species level to portray probabilities of extinction accurately and to help set priorities for conservation efforts. What those units should be has been debated in the scientific literature largely in terms of evolutionarily significant units (ESUs), but this discourse has had little impact on government policy with regard to status assessment. As with species concepts, the variously proposed ESU concepts have not been resolvable into a single approach. The need for a practicable procedure to identify infraspecific entities for status assignment is the motivation behind employing designatable units (DUs). In aid of a policy to prevent elements of biodiversity from becoming extinct or extirpated, DUs are determined during the process of resolving a species' conservation status according to broadly applicable guidelines. The procedure asks whether putative DUs are distinguishable based on a reliably established taxonomy or a well-corroborated phylogeny, compelling evidence of genetic distinction, range disjunction, and/or biogeographic distinction as long as extinction probabilities also differ. The language of the DU approach avoids wording that implies value judgments concerning evolutionary importance or significance. Because species conservation status assessment is not science but, rather, the use of science to further policy, DUs contribute to a precautionary approach to listing whereby status may be assessed even though knowledge of systematic relationships below the species level may be lacking or unresolved. The pragmatic approach of using DUs has been adopted by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada for status assessment of species under the Canadian Species at Risk Act.     

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.     

Use of standardized methods to improve extinction-risk classification

Standardized classification methods based on quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. We used a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also combined such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis to attempt to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that had inherently been given the most weight. Federally listed herpetofauna in California scored significantly higher on the risk-metric spectrum than those not federally listed, whereas state-listed species did not score any higher than species that were not state listed. Based on classification trees, state endemism was the most important predictor of listing status at the state level and distribution trend (decline in a species’ range size) and population trend (decline in a species’ abundance at localized sites) were the most important predictors at the federal level. Our results emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that are based on quantitative criteria. Such methods allow decision makers to identify criteria inherently given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions, and produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process.     

Developing Classification Criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: Bowhead Whales as a Case Study

Abstract: Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a species is classified as endangered, threatened, or recovered based on the extent to which its survival is affected by one or more of five subjective factors. A key criticism of the act is that it makes no reference to quantitative or even qualitative parameters of what constitutes "danger of extinction." Without objective standards to guide decisionmakers, classification decisions fall prey to political and social influences. We recommend the development of species-specific, status-determining criteria as a means to rationalize and expedite the listing process and reclassification decisions, independent of the requirement for delisting criteria in recovery plans. Such criteria should (1) clearly define levels of vulnerability, (2) identify gaps in information on life-history parameters, and (3) address uncertainty in existing data. As a case study, we developed preliminary criteria for bowhead whales (    Balaena mysticetus ). Thresholds for endangered and threatened status were based on World Conservation Union ( IUCN) Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Our analysis indicates that particular attention must be focused on population structure within the species to appropriately classify the degree to which one or more components of a species are vulnerable to extinction. A similar approach could be used in the classification of other species. According to our application of the IUCN criteria and those developed for similar species by Gerber and DeMaster (1999) , the Bering Sea population of bowhead whales should be delisted, whereas the other four populations of bowheads should continue to be considered endangered.     

Testing Decision Rules for Categorizing Species’ Extinction Risk to Help Develop Quantitative Listing Criteria for the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Lack of guidance for interpreting the definitions of endangered and threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has resulted in case‐by‐case decision making leaving the process vulnerable to being considered arbitrary or capricious. Adopting quantitative decision rules would remedy this but requires the agency to specify the relative urgency concerning extinction events over time, cutoff risk values corresponding to different levels of protection, and the importance given to different types of listing errors. We tested the performance of 3 sets of decision rules that use alternative functions for weighting the relative urgency of future extinction events: a threshold rule set, which uses a decision rule of x% probability of extinction over y years; a concave rule set, where the relative importance of future extinction events declines exponentially over time; and a shoulder rule set that uses a sigmoid shape function, where relative importance declines slowly at first and then more rapidly. We obtained decision cutoffs by interviewing several biologists and then emulated the listing process with simulations that covered a range of extinction risks typical of ESA listing decisions. We evaluated performance of the decision rules under different data quantities and qualities on the basis of the relative importance of misclassification errors. Although there was little difference between the performance of alternative decision rules for correct listings, the distribution of misclassifications differed depending on the function used. Misclassifications for the threshold and concave listing criteria resulted in more overprotection errors, particularly as uncertainty increased, whereas errors for the shoulder listing criteria were more symmetrical. We developed and tested the framework for quantitative decision rules for listing species under the U.S. ESA. If policy values can be agreed on, use of this framework would improve the implementation of the ESA by increasing transparency and consistency. Evaluando Reglas de Decisión para Categorizar el Riesgo de Extinción de Especies con el Fin de Desarrollar de Criterios Cuantitativos de Alistamiento en el Acta de Especies en Peligro de los EE. UU.     

Predicting Recovery Criteria for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species on the Basis of Past Abundances and Biological Traits

Recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are required to specify measurable criteria that can be used to determine when the species can be delisted. For the 642 listed endangered and threatened plant species that have recovery plans, we applied recursive partitioning methods to test whether the number of individuals or populations required for delisting can be predicted on the basis of distributional and biological traits, previous abundance at multiple time steps, or a combination of traits and previous abundances. We also tested listing status (threatened or endangered) and the year the recovery plan was written as predictors of recovery criteria. We analyzed separately recovery criteria that were stated as number of populations and as number of individuals (population‐based and individual‐based criteria, respectively). Previous abundances alone were relatively good predictors of population‐based recovery criteria. Fewer populations, but a greater proportion of historically known populations, were required to delist species that had few populations at listing compared with species that had more populations at listing. Previous abundances were also good predictors of individual‐based delisting criteria when models included both abundances and traits. The physiographic division in which the species occur was also a good predictor of individual‐based criteria. Our results suggest managers are relying on previous abundances and patterns of decline as guidelines for setting recovery criteria. This may be justifiable in that previous abundances inform managers of the effects of both intrinsic traits and extrinsic threats that interact and determine extinction risk. Predicción de Criterios de Recuperación para Especies de Plantas en Peligro y Amenazadas con Base en Abundancias Pasadas y Atributos Biológicos     

Authorship and the Use of Biological Information in Endangered Species Recovery Plans

Abstract: We examined the relationship between authorship and the use of biological information in recovery plans under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Approximately one-third of recovery plans were written solely by federal government employees, and one-third of plans included authors with university affiliations. The number of plans written strictly by federal staff increased significantly over time, whereas the percentage of plans that included authors with university affiliation remained unchanged. We tested three hypotheses posed by Clark et al. (1994) regarding authorship and endangered species recovery and found that (1) groups of authors from diverse affiliations are likely to strengthen the recovery planning process, (2) recovery plans lacking nonfederal participation suffer from inadequate attention to species biology, and (3) academic affiliation is strongly associated with the use of focal-species biology in recovery plans. Our results suggest that modifying the choice of participants in the recovery planning process may increase the use of biological information in recovery measures recommended in recovery plans and thus influence the eventual success of recovery efforts.