Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective

Ecological Applications

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 719-723

  Crouse, Deborah T ^a   Mehrhoff, Loyal A ^b   Parkin, Mary J ^c   Elam, Diane R ^a   Chen, Linus Y ^a  

^a U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL PARK SERVICE   (United States)

^c US Fish & Wildlife Service Massachusetts   (United States)

Author keywords

Action plans; Endangered species; Endangered Species Act; Recovery plans; Society for Conservation Biology; Threatened species; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; RECOVERY PLAN;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0242417126     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0719:ESRATS]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Boersma, P D., P. Karieva, W. F. Fagan, and J. M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51:643-649.
2. Brigham, C. A., A. G. Power, and A. Hunter. 2002. Evaluating the internal consistency of recovery plans for federally endangered species. Ecological Applications 12:648-654.
3. Campbell, S. P., J. A. Clark, L. H. Crampton, A. D. Guerry, L. T. Hatch, P. R. Hosseini, J. J. Lawler, and Raymond J. O'Connor. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:674-681.
4. Clark, J. A., and E. Harvey. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655-662.
5. Gerber, L. R., and C. B. Schultz. 2001. Does who matter? Authorship and the use of science in Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15:1308-1314.
6. 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.
7. Hatch, L., M. Uriarte, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Lundquist, C. J., J. M. Diehl, E. Harvey, and L. W. Botsford. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecològical Applications 12:713-718.
12. National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
13. Schultz, C. B., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecological Applications 12:641-647.
14. Schwartz, M. W. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:83-108.
15. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Policy and guidelines for planning and coordinating recovery of endangered and threatened species. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
16. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1994. Joint policy on participation in recovery planning and implementation. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
17. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Endangered species recovery planning notebook. USFWS-National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, USA.
18. USGAO (U.S. Government Accounting Office). 1995. Endangered Species Act: information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO/RCED-95-16. U.S. Government Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., USA.