Editorial
04 August 2023
DOI 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1257662
TYPE
PUBLISHED
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED AND REVIEWED BY
Carlos R Ruiz-Miranda,
State University of Northern Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
*CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Haines
aaron.haines@millersville.edu
12 July 2023
14 July 2023
PUBLISHED 04 August 2023
RECEIVED
ACCEPTED
CITATION
Haines A, Carter A, Leu M, Molano-Flores B
and Davis O (2023) Editorial: Imperiled
species recovery under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act.
Front. Conserv. Sci. 4:1257662.
doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1257662
Editorial: Imperiled species
recovery under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act
Aaron Haines 1*, Andrew Carter 2,3, Matthias Leu 4,
Brenda Molano-Flores 5 and Olivia Davis 6
1
Department of Biology, Millersville University, Millersville, PA, United States, 2 Center for Conservation
Innovation, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, United States, 3 Department of Environmental
Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States, 4 Department of Biology,
William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, United States, 5 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Natural History Survey, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States, 6 Department of Biology and Society,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
KEYWORDS
conservation governance, endangered species, recovery, U.S. Endangered Species Act,
wildlife conservation
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Haines, Carter, Leu, Molano-Flores
and Davis. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Conservation Science
Editorial on the Research Topic
Imperiled species recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
In the United States (U.S.), managing imperiled species protection in the face of
competing national priorities has proven more difficult than the U.S. Congress expected
when it passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. The ESA has been incredibly
successful in staving off extinction, with more than 95% of species listed under the Act still
with us (Evans et al., 2016). The explicit purpose of the ESA is to “to provide a program for
the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species,” with “conservation”
under the ESA being defined as recovering species to the point where they no longer need
the protections of the Act. Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the Act clarify that conserving
imperiled species is the responsibility of all federal agencies.
Although the rate or recovery has improved (Haines et al., 2021), recovery overall has
lagged behind the ambitious goals set when the ESA was passed. This has been due to a variety
of political, economic, ecological, and legal factors (Neel et al., 2012; Evans et al., 2016; Malcom
and Li, 2018). For example, when species are eventually listed under the ESA, they suffer from
complex and large-scale threats likely due to the prolonged listing process (Leu et al., 2019). In
addition, many species do not obtain critical habitat designations and most only receive a
fraction of the funding required for their recovery (Wilcove et al., 1993; Scott et al., 2005;
Negró n‐Ortiz, 2014; Gerber, 2016). Given these factors and the fact that species tend to have
historically low abundance at the time of listing, many species require long periods of time to
become delisted (Wilcove et al., 1993; Neel et al., 2012; Evans et al., 2016; Valdivia et al., 2019).
As the U.S. celebrates the 50th anniversary of the passage of the ESA, it is a particularly
opportune time to take stock of the status of recovery goals and explore what goes right – and
wrong – for species recovery efforts.
“Recovery” under the ESA means a given listed species has recovered to the point where
it no longer needs the law’s protections– the species is neither at risk of extinction nor likely
to be at risk of extinction in the “foreseeable future”. Under the ESA, the Services (i.e.,
01
frontiersin.org
Haines et al.
10.3389/fcosc.2023.1257662
have a vested interest in the place and the direct impacts any
conservation will have on it.
Johnson and Molano-Flores offered a valuable perspective on
the lessons we can learn from rare species, such as plants, and how
important it is to acknowledge data gaps and attempt to fill them
while still making progress towards recovery for extremely
imperiled organisms. The lack of data on populations outside of
protected areas highlights the need for more collaboration with
private landowners to identify other potential areas of habitat.
Greenwald evaluated the complex history of litigation
surrounding the grizzly bear showing the often-overlooked
importance of the legal system and how it impacts imperiled
species conservation and management. While litigation is often
seen as a hurdle to conservation management, it also serves to ignite
conversation between the government and interested parties to
better implement the ESA, and can enforce usage of best available
science against potential politicization of conservation decisions.
In summary, managing endangered species recovery is a
complex issue, involving the synergy and collaboration of experts
across different fields, from science, to policy, to even businesses.
This Research Topic highlights several important recent findings in
the ESA recovery planning field overall.
United States Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS] and National
Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) are required to develop
recovery plans for species they list unless they find “such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the species.” Under the ESA,
recovery plans are required to set forth specific criteria as to when
the species at issue could be considered recovered. The USFWS
currently evaluates species’ biological status using their version of
the “3Rs” – resilience, redundancy, and representation of the species
at issue (FWS, 2016; Malcom and Carter, 2021). The NMFS
evaluates abundance, productivity, spatial distribution/structure,
and diversity (NMFS, 2020). Successful recovery according to
both the Services, therefore, includes a complex analysis of the
species’ biological status and how it interacts with threats now and
in the future.
The goal of this Research Topic is to gain a better understanding
of the recovery processes and programs under the ESA and explore
possible policy interventions that can improve those processes and
programs. The scope of the papers included in this Research Topic
encompasses work that investigates, analyzes, and evaluates species
recovery programs and projects carried out under the ESA by federal
agencies, academic institutions, state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, private landowners, and Indigenous or
First Nations. These papers explore the past, present, and future of
ESA recovery programs, identify barriers to effective recovery, and
explore possible policy interventions to improve, enhance, and
reform ESA recovery efforts.
In their Research Topic of publicly available data, Evans and
Malcom evaluated the use and potential of “recovery units” under
the ESA and unveiled the biases in designating recovery with
recovery units, with fish more likely to have designated recovery
units than plants. This can raise a flag to managers to pay more
attention to certain taxonomic groups when implementing a full
toolkit for recovery planning actions. Regarding, resource
allocation and funding for the ESA, Iacona et al. reminds us of
the important point that specific imagined “hurdles” based on
perceptions and values of involved partners can often prevent
action from occurring on behalf of endangered species, including
the use of decision support tools. However, through processes like
co-production, both decision makers and end users can work
together on articulating what their values are in the hope of
achieving the desired recovery outcome. Lombardi et al. showed
the importance of place and landscape in determining what
actions to take during the recovery planning process. Depending
on where a species is found, especially if it is on private lands, it is
important to work with landowners and interested parties who
Frontiers in Conservation Science
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual
contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
02
frontiersin.org
Haines et al.
10.3389/fcosc.2023.1257662
References
Evans, D. M., Che-Castaldo, J. P., Crouse, D., Davis, F. W., Epanchin-Niell, R.,
Flather, C. H., et al. (2016). Species recovery in the United States: increasing the
effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues Ecol. 20, 128.
Neel, M. C., Leidner, A. K., Haines, A., Goble, D. D., and Scott, J. M. (2012). By the
numbers: How is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act? BioScience 62
(7), 646657. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.7
FWS. (2016) USFWS species status assessment framework. Available at: https://www.
fws.gov/media/species-status-assessment-framework.
Negró n‐Ortiz, V. (2014). Pattern of expenditures for plant conservation under the
Endangered Species Act Biol. Conserv. 171, 3643doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.018
Gerber, L. R. (2016). Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species
recovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 3563–3566. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525085113
NMFS. (2020) Recovery planning handbook. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.
com/media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2020-10/NMFS%20Recovery%20Handbook_10-022020_final_v1.0_508.pdf.
Haines, A. M., Leu, M., Costante, D. M., Treakle, T. C., Parenti, C., Miller, J. R., et al.
(2021). Benchmark for the ESA: having a backbone is good for recovery. Front.
Conserv. Sci. 2. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.630490
Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., Wiens, J. A., Wilcove, D. S., Bean, M., and Male, T. (2005).
Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: The need for a new
approach. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 383–389doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0383:
ROISUT]2.0.CO;2
Leu, M., Haines, A. M., Check, E. C., Costante, D. M., Evans, J. C., Hollingsworth,
M. A., et al. (2019). Temporal analysis of threats causing species endangerment in the
United States. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e78. doi: 10.1111/csp2.78
Valdivia, A., Wolf, S., and Suckling, K. (2019). Marine mammals and sea turtles
listed under the US endangered species act are recovering. PloS One 14, e0210164.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210164
Malcom, J., and Carter, A. (2021). Better representation is needed in U.S.
Endangered Species Act implementation. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2. doi: 10.3389/
fcosc.2021.650543
Wilcove, D. S., McMillan, M., and Winston, K. C. (1993). What exactly is an
endangered species? An analysis of the US endangered species list: 1985–1991. Conserv.
Biol. 7 (1), 8793. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010087.x
Malcom, J. W., and Li, Y.-W. (2018). Missing, delayed, and old: The status of ESA
recovery plans. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12601. doi: 10.1111/conl.12601
Frontiers in Conservation Science
03
frontiersin.org