A framework for developing objective and measurable recovery criteria for threatened and endangered species

Conservation Biology

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 33-43

  Himes Boor, Gina K ^a  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Endangered Species Act; Environmental laws; Environmental policy; Extinction risk assessment; Population modeling; Population viability analysis; Recovery plans; Threatened species

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FISH; LEGAL SYSTEM; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; POPULATION MODELING; POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

UNITED STATES;

ACTA DE ESPECIES EN PELIGRO; ANÁLISIS DE VIABILIDAD POBLACIONAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESPECIES AMENAZADAS; ESTUDIO DE RIESGO DE EXTINCIÓN; EXTINCTION RISK ASSESSMENT; LEYES AMBIENTALES; METHODOLOGY; MODELACIÓN DE POBLACIONES; PLANES DE RECUPERACIÓN; POLÍTICAS AMBIENTALES; POPULATION MODELING; POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS; RECOVERY PLANS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES EXTINCTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ACTA DE ESPECIES EN PELIGRO; ANÁLISIS DE VIABILIDAD POBLACIONAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ESPECIES AMENAZADAS; ESTUDIO DE RIESGO DE EXTINCIÓN; EXTINCTION RISK ASSESSMENT; LEYES AMBIENTALES; MODELACIÓN DE POBLACIONES; PLANES DE RECUPERACIÓN; POLÍTICAS AMBIENTALES; POPULATION MODELING; POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS; RECOVERY PLANS; THREATENED SPECIES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXTINCTION, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84893641890     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12155     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Angliss, R. P., G. K. Silber, and R. Merrick. 2002. Report of a workshop on developing recovery criteria for large whale species. Technical memorandum NMFSF/OPR-21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
2. APA (Administrative Procedure Act). 1946. U.S. code. Volume 5. Sections 551-706.
3. Bakker, V. J., and D. F. Doak. 2009. Population viability management: ecological standards to guide adaptive management for rare species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:158-165.
4. Bakker, V. J., D. F. Doak, G. W. Roemer, D. K. Garcelon, T. J. Coonan, S. A. Morrison, C. Lynch, K. Ralls, and R. Shaw. 2009. Incorporating ecological drivers and uncertainty into a demographic population viability analysis for the island fox. Ecological Monographs 79:77-108.
5. Beissinger, S. R., and D. R. McCullough, editors. 2002. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
6. Beissinger, S. R., J. R. Walters, D. G. Catanzaro, K. G. Smith, J. B. Dunning Jr., S. M. Haig, B. R. Noon, and B. M. Stith. 2006. Modeling approaches in avian conservation and the role of field biologists. Ornithological Monographs 59:1-56.
7. Brook, B. W., M. A. Burgman, H. R. Akcakaya, J. J. O'Grady, and R. Frankham. 2002. Critiques of PVA ask the wrong questions: throwing the heuristic baby out with the numerical bath water. Conservation Biology 16:262-263.
8. Burgman, M. 2006. The logic of good decisions: learning from population viability analysis. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 3:17-18.
9. Carroll, R., C. Augspurger, A. Dobson, J. Franklin, G. Orians, W. Reid, R. Tracy, 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.
10. Carroll, C., J. A. Vucetich, M. P. Nelson, D. J. Rohlf, and M. K. Phillips. 2010. Geography and recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24:395-403.
11. Coulson, T., G. M. Mace, E. Hudson, and H. Possingham. 2001. The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:219-221.
12. DeMaster, D., R. Angliss, J. Cochrane, P. Mace, R. Merrick, M. Miller, S. Rumsey, B. Taylor, G. Thompson, and R. Waples. 2004. Recommendations to NOAA Fisheries: ESA listing criteria by the quantitative working group. Technical memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-67. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
13. Dennis, B., P. L. Munholland, and J. M. Scott. 1991. Estimation of growth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecological Monographs 61:115-143.
14. Easter-Pilcher, A. 1996. Implementing the Endangered Species Act. BioScience 46:355-363.
15. Ellison, A. M. 1996. An introduction to Bayesian inference for ecological research and environmental decision-making. Ecological Applications 6:1046-1046.
16. 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.
17. Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. Pages 11-34 in M. E. Soule, editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
18. Goodman, D. 2002a. Predictive Bayesian population viability analysis: a logic for listing criteria, delisting criteria, and recovery plans. Pages 447-469 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCollough, editors. Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
19. Goodman, D. 2002b. Uncertainty, risk, and decision: the PVA example. American Fisheries Society Symposium 24:171-196.
20. Goodman, D. 2009. The future of fisheries science: merging stock assessment with risk assessment, for better fisheries management. Pages 537-566 in R. J. Beamish and B. J. Rothschild, editors. The future of fisheries science in North America. Springer Science + Business Media, New York.
21. Holmes, E. E. 2001. Estimating risks in declining populations with poor data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98:5072-5077.
22. IQA (Information Quality Act). 2001. Public law 106-554. Section 515.
23. Legg, C. J. and L. Nagy. 2006. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management 78:194-199.
24. Lindenmayer, D. B., and G. E. Likens. 2010. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation 143:1317-1328.
25. Mangel, M., and C. Tier. 1994. Four facts every conservation biologist should know about persistence. Ecology 75:607-614.
26. Martin, J., W. M. Kitchens, and J. E. Hines. 2007. Importance of well-designed monitoring programs for the conservation of endangered species: case study of the snail kite. Conservation Biology 21:472-481.
27. Mattson, D. J., and J. J. Craighead. 1994. The Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery program: uncertain information, uncertain policy. Pages 101-129 in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, editors. Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
28. McGarvey, D. J. 2007. Merging precaution with sound science under the Endangered Species Act. BioScience 57:65-70.
29. Metzger, K. L., A. R. E. Sinclair, R. Hilborn, J. Grant, C. Hopcraft, and S. A. R. Mduma. 2010. Evaluationg the protection of wildlife in parks: the case of African buffalo in Serengeti. Biodiversity Conservation 19:3431-3444.
30. Mills, L. S. and M. S. Lindberg. 2002. Sensitivity analysis to evaluate the consequences of conservation actions. Pages 338-366 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
31. 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.
32. Morris, W. F. and D. F. Doak. 2002. Quantitative conservation biology: theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
33. Murphy, D. D. and P. S. Weiland. 2011. The route to best science in implementation of the Endangered Species Act's consultation mandate: the benefits of structured effects analysis. Environmental Management 47:161-172.
34. National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
35. Neel, M. C., A. K. Leidner, A. Haines, D. D. Goble, and J. M. Scott. 2012. By the numbers: How is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act? BioScience 62:646-657.
36. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Recovery plan for the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
37. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Interim endangered and threatened species recovery planning guidance. Version 1.3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/guidance.pdf (accessed June 28, 2013).
38. OED Online (Oxford English Dictionary Online). 2012. Oxford University Press, New York.
39. Peterman, R. M. 1977. A simple mechanism that causes collapsing stability regions in exploited salmonid populations. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1130-1142.
40. Ralls, K., S. R. Beissinger, and J. F. Cochrane. 2002. Guidelines for using population viability analysis in endangered-species management. Pages 521-550 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCollough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
41. Robbins, K. 2009. Strength in numbers: setting quantitative criteria for listing species under the Endangered Species Act. Journal of Environmental Law 27:1-37.
42. Runge, M. C., C. A. Sanders-Reed, C. A. Langtimm, and C. J. Fonnesbeck. 2007. A quantitative threats analysis for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Open-File Report 2007-1086. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
43. Sagoff, M. 1987. Where Ickes went right or reason and rationality in environmental law. Ecology Law Quarterly 14:265-323.
44. 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.
45. Schultz, C. B. and P. C. Hammond. 2003. Using population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of the Fender's blue butterfly. Conservation Biology 17:1372-1385.
46. Shelden, K. E. W., D. P. DeMaster, D. J. Rugh, and A. M. Olson. 2001. Developing classification criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: bowhead whales as a case study. Conservation Biology 15:1300-1307.
47. Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:46-53.
48. Taylor, B. L., P. R. Wade, U. Ramakrishnan, M. Gilpin, and H. R. Akçakaya. 2002. Incorporating uncertainty in population viability analyses for the purpose of classifying species by risk. Pages 239-252 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCollough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
49. Tear, T.H., et al. 2005. Recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55:835-849.
50. 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.
51. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Interagency policy on information standads under the ESA. Federal Register 59:34271.
52. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) recovery plan. 2nd revision. USFWS, Portland, Oregon.
53. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Southwest Alaska distinct population segment of the northern sea otter (Enhyra lutris kenyoni)-draft recovery plan. USFWS, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska.
54. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. 2008. The biological viability of the most endangered marine mammals and the cost-effectiveness of protection programs. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland.
55. Vucetich, J. A., M. P. Nelson, and M. K. Phillips. 2006. The normative dimension and legal meaning of endangered and recovery in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 20:1383-1390.
56. Wade, P. R. 2002. Bayesian population viability analysis. Pages 213-238 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCollough, editors. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.