Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans

Ecological Applications

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 713-718

  Lundquist, Carolyn J ^a,c   Diehl, Jennifer M ^a   Harvey, Erik ^b   Botsford, Louis W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Endangered Species Act; Multi species vs. single species; Recovery plans; Task implementation

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; RECOVERY PLAN;

UNITED STATES;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0036628156     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0713:FAIORP]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Angermeier, P. L., and J. E. Williams. 1994. Conservation of imperiled species and reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Fisheries 19:26-29.
2. Boersma, P. D., P. Kareiva, W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark, and J. M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51:643-649.
3. Carroll, R., C. Augspurger, A. Dobson, J. Franklin, G. Orians, W. Reid, R. Tracey, D. Wilcove, and J. Wilson. 1996. Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: an assessment by the Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications 6:1-11.
4. Clark, J. A., and E. Harvey. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655-662.
5. Conover, W. J. 1999. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley, New York, New York, USA.
6. Foin, T. C., S. P. D. Riley, A. L. Pawley, D. R. Ayres, T. M. Carlsen, P. J. Hodum, and P. V. Switzer. 1998. Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. BioScience 48:177-184.
7. Harvey, E., J. M. Hoekstra, R. J. O'Connor, and W. F. Fagan. 2002. Recovery plan revisions: progress or due process? Ecological Applications 12:682-689.
8. Hoekstra, J. M., J. A. Clark, W. F. Fagan, and P. D. Boersma. 2002. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:630-640.
9. Hughes, R. M., and R. F. Noss. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: current concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17:11-19.
10. Manly, B. F. J. 1997. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA.
11. Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the endangered species act doesn't work - and what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5:273-282.
12. Sidle, J. G. 1987. Critical habitat designation: is it prudent? Environmental Management 11:429-437.
13. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman, New York, New York, USA.
14. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.
15. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith, 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9:182-195.
16. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Policy and Guidelines for Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species. May 1990.
17. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Report to Congress, Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Government Printing Office, Washington; D.C., USA.
18. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Report to Congress, Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA.