Prospectus for an analysis of recovery plans and delisting

Principal Investigators:

Dee Boersma, and Peter Kareiva

The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) are undertaking a national review of recovery plans for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the Act is to protect and restore populations of threatened and endangered plants and animals and ecosystems and habitats on which they depend. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for the administration of the Act and for developing and implementing... more

Participants and Meetings

Working Group Participants
ActivityDatesFurther Information
Meeting23rd—26th January 1999Participant List  
Working Group13th—15th May 1999Participant List  
Working Group17th—19th September 1999Participant List  

Participant Contact Information

James Regetzregetz@gmail.comUniversity of Washington
Sandy J. Andelmansandelman@conservation.orgUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Beanmb@edf.orgEnvironmental Defense Fund
Philip BlochDuke University
Dee Boersmaboersma@u.washington.eduUniversity of Washington
Jeff Bradleyjebrad@u.washington.eduUniversity of Washington
Christy BrighamUniversity of California, Davis
Steven P. Campbellsteve_campbell@umenfa.maine.eduUniversity of Maine
Alan Clarkalanc@u.washington.eduUniversity of Washington
Cali Cramptoncrampton@scs.unr.eduUniversity of Nevada
Debby CrouseUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Frank W. Davisfrank.davis@nceas.ucsb.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
William F. Faganbfagan@glue.umd.eduArizona State University
Leah R. Gerberleah.gerber@asu.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Erik HarveyArizona State University
Leila Hatchlth5@cornell.eduCornell University
Jonathan Hoekstrahoekstrj@u.washington.eduUniversity of Washington
Parviez R. Hosseinihosseini@princeton.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Alison HunterUniversity of Notre Dame
Peter Kareivapkareiva@ioes.ucla.eduUniversity of Washington
Carolyn LundquistUniversity of California, Davis
Scott MahadyIowa State University
Loyal MehrhoffUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Karen MillerUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Stephen E. Millerstephen_e_miller@fws.govUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
William F. Morriswfmorris@duke.eduDuke University
Owen T. NevinUtah State University
J. Cully NordbyUniversity of Washington
Raymond J. O'ConnorUniversity of Maine
Jane PackardTexas A and M University
Alison G. Poweragp4@cornell.eduCornell University
Cheryl B. Schultzschultzc@vancouver.wsu.eduUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Stanley Templesatemple@facstaff.wisc.eduUniversity of Wisconsin
C. Richard Tracydtracy@unr.eduUniversity of Nevada
Hanspeter WalterUniversity of Idaho
Colleen T. Webbctwebb@lamar.colostate.eduCornell University
Joan Wrightjwright@scs.unr.eduUniversity of Nevada
Richard A.
Jennifer JolivetteUniversity of Montana
Bryce A. MaxellUniversity of Montana
Julie MillerUniversity of Idaho
Mary Parkinmary_parkin@fws.govUS Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Elizabeth (Lily) Peacocklilypeacock@gmail.comUniversity of Nevada
Mark W. Schwartzmwschwartz@ucdavis.eduUniversity of California, Davis
Phil van MantgemUniversity of California, Davis

Products: Publications, Reports, Datasets, Presentations, Visualizations

TypeProducts of NCEAS Research
Presentations Boersma, Dee. 1999. Recovery plan review. Convention For Conservation Biology.
Journal Article Boersma, Dee; Kareiva, Peter; Fagan, William F.; Clark, James S.; Hoekstra, Jonathan. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans?. BioScience. Vol: 51. Pages 643-649. (Online version)
Journal Article Boersma, Dee; DeWeerdt, S. 2001. Tapping the ivory tower: How academic-agency partnerships can advance conservation. Conservation Biology in Practice. Vol: 2. Pages 28-32. (Online version)
Data Set Boersma, Dee; Kareiva, Peter; Fagan, William F.; Miller, Julie; Bradley, Jeff; Hoekstra, Jonathan; Regetz, James; Crouse, Debby; Orians, Gordon. 2004. The science of recovery plans database. (Online version)
Journal Article Brigham, Christy; Power, Alison G.; Hunter, Alison. 2002. Evaluating the internal consistency of recovery plans for federally endangered species. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 648-654. (Online version)
Journal Article Campbell, Steven P.; Clark, Alan; Crampton, L.; Guerry, Anne D.; Hatch, Leila; Hosseini, Parviez R.; Lawler, Joshua J.; O'Connor, Raymond J. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 674-681. (Online version)
Journal Article Clark, Alan; Hoekstra, Jonathan; Boersma, Dee; Kareiva, Peter. 2002. Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology. Vol: 16(6). Pages 1510-1519. (Online version)
Journal Article Clark, J. A.; Harvey, Erik. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 655-662. (Online version)
Journal Article Crouse, Debby; Mehrhoff, Loyal; Parkin, Mary; Elam, Diane R.; Chen, Linus Y. 2002. Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 719-723. (Online version)
Journal Article Gerber, Leah R.; Perry, S. L.; DeMaster, D. 2000. Measuring success in conservation. American Scientist. Vol: 88. Pages 316-324. (Online version)
Journal Article Gerber, Leah R.; Schultz, Cheryl B. 2001. Authorship and the use of biological information in Endangered Species Recovery Plans. Conservation Biology. Vol: 15. Pages 1308-1314. (Online version)
Journal Article Gerber, Leah R.; Hatch, Leila. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12(3). Pages 668-673. (Online version)
Journal Article Harvey, Erik; Hoekstra, Jonathan; O'Connor, Raymond J.; Fagan, William F. 2002. Recovery plan revisions: Progress or due process?. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 682-689. (Online version)
Journal Article Hatch, Leila; Uriarte, Maria; Fink, Daniel; Aldrich-Wolfe, Laura; Depue, Richard A.; Webb, Colleen T.; Zamudio, Kelly; Power, Alison G. 2002. Jurisdiction over endangered species' habitat: The impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 690-700. (Online version)
Journal Article Hoekstra, Jonathan; Clark, Alan; Fagan, William F.; Boersma, Dee. 2002. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 630-640.
Journal Article Hoekstra, Jonathan; Fagan, William F.; Bradley, Jeff. 2002. A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 701-707. (Online version)
Journal Article Kareiva, Peter. 2002. Applying ecological science to recovery planning. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 629. (Online version)
Journal Article Lawler, Joshua J.; Campbell, Steven P.; Guerry, Anne D.; Kolozsvary, Mary Beth; O'Connor, Raymond J.; Seward, Lindsay C.N. 2002. The scope and treatment of threats in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 663-667. (Online version)
Journal Article Lundquist, Carolyn; Diehl, Jennifer M.; Harvey, Erik; Botsford, Louis W. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 713-718. (Online version)
Journal Article Morris, William F.; Bloch, Philip; Hudgens, Brian; Moyle, Leonie C.; Stinchcombe, John R. 2002. Population Viability Analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12. Pages 708-712. (Online version)
Journal Article Schultz, Cheryl B.; Gerber, Leah R. 2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice?. Ecological Applications. Vol: 12(3). Pages 641-647. (Online version)
"Prospectus for an analysis of recovery plans and delisting" is project ID: 2179