Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project

Conservation Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 1510-1519

  Clark, J Alan ^a   Hoekstra, Jonathan M ^a,b   Boersma, P Dee ^a   Kareiva, Peter ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b ALASKA FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^c THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; NATURE CONSERVATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036898563     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01376.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Baker, B. 1999. Spending on the Endangered Species Act: Too much or not enough? BioScience 49:2126-2128.
2. Boersma, P. D. 1999. SCB to conduct national review of recovery plans. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 6:12.
3. Boersma, P. D., and S. DeWeerdt. 2001. Tapping the ivory tower: How academic-agency partnerships can advance conservation. Conservation Biology in Practice 2:28-32.
4. 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.
5. Brigham, C. A., A. G. Power, and A. Hunter. 2002. Evaluating the internal consistency of recovery plans for federally endangered species: A tool for assessing the efficacy of endangered species planning. Ecological Applications 12:648-654.
6. Campbell, S. P., J. A. Clark, L. Crampton, A. D. Guerry, L. R. Hatch, P. R. Hosseini, J. J. Lawler, and R. J. O'Connor. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:674-681.
7. Clark, J. A. 1994. The Endangered Species Act: Its history, provisions, and effectiveness. Pages 19-43 in T. M. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, editors. Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
8. Clark, J. A., and E. Harvey. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications. 12:655-662.
9. Clark, J. A., and R. May. 2002. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191-192.
10. Clark, T. M., R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke. 1994. Synthesis. Pages 417-431 in T. M. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, editors. Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
11. Culbert, R., and R. Blair. 1989. Recovery planning and endangered species. Endangered Species UPDATE 6:2-8.
12. Dixon, P. M., and R. E. Cook. 1989. Science, planning, and the recovery of endangered plants. Endangered Species UPDATE 6:9-14.
13. Floyd, T. 2001. Complexity simplified (but who's paying attention?). Ecology 82:904-905.
14. 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.
15. Gerber, L. R., and L. T. Hatch. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:668-673.
16. Gerber, L. R., and C. B. Schultz. 2001. Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15:1308-1314.
17. Harding, E. K., E. E. Crone, B. D. Elderd, J. M. Hoekstra, A. J. McKerrow, J. D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L. J. Rissler, A. G. Stanley, E. L. Waiters, and the Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. 2001. The scientific foundations of habitat conservation plans: A quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15:488-500.
18. 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.
19. Hatch, L., M. Uriate, D. Fink, L. Aldrich-Wolfe, R. G. Allen, C. Webb, K. Zamudio, and A. Power. 2002. Jurisdiction over endangered species' habitat: The impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecological Applications 12:690-700.
20. Hoekstra, J. M., J. A. Clark, W. F. Fagan, and P. D. Boersma. 2002a. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:630-640.
21. Hoekstra, J. M., W. F. Fagan, and J. E. Bradley. 2002b. A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet. Ecological Applications 12:701-707.
22. Kareiva, P., S. Andelman, D. Doak, B. Elderd, M. Groom, J. Hoekstra, L. Hood, F. James, J. Lamoreux, G. LeBuhn, C. McCulloch, J. Regetz, L. Savage, M. Ruckelshaus, D. Skelly, H. Wilbur, K. Zamudio and the Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). 1998. Using Science in Habitat Conservation plans. Report. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C., and the NCEAS, Santa Barbara, California. Available from http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/hcp (accessed April 2002).
23. Lawler, J. J., S. P. Campbell, A. D. Guerry, M. B. Kolozsvary, R. J. O'Connor, and L. C. N. Seward. 2002. The scope and treatment of threats in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:663-667.
24. Lundquist, C. J., J. M. Diehl, E. Harvey, and L. W. Botsford. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:713-718.
25. Miller, B., R. Reading, C. Conway, J. A. Jackson, M. Hutchins, N. Snyder, S. Forrest, J. Frazier, and S. Derrickson. 1994. A model for improving endangered species recovery programs. Environmental Management 18:637-645.
26. Miller, J. K., J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller, and L. P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense? BioScience 52:163-168.
27. Morris, W. F., P. L. Bloch, B. R. Hudgens, L. C. Moyle, and J. R. Stinchcombe. 2002. Population viability analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements. Ecological Applications 12:708-712.
28. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
29. Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15:1292-1299.
30. Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606.
31. Schultz, C. B., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecological Applications 12:641-647.
32. Schwartz, M. W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:83-108.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. U.S. Code. (U.S.C.). 2001a. 16 U.S.C., section 1531.
36. U.S. Code (U.S.C.). 2001b. 16 U.S.C., section 1533(f)(1).
37. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. 1999. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting and for other purposes. 106th Congress, 1st Session. H.R. 3160.
38. U.S. Congress, Senate. 1999. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting and for other purposes. 106th Congress, 1st Session. S. R. 1305.
39. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Report to Congress, Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery, Program, 1996. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
40. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Notice of interagency cooperative policy on recovery plan participation and implementation under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 59:34272.
41. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1988. Endangered Species: Management Improvements Could Enhance Recovery Program. GAO/ RCED-89-5. GAO, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C.
42. Watchman, L., M. Groom, and J. Perrine. 2001. Science and uncertainty in habitat conservation planning. American Scientist 89:351-360.
43. Wilcove, D. S., and L. Y. Chen. 1998. Management costs for endangered and threatened species. Conservation Biology 12:1405-1407.