Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support

References

• Andelman SJ, Groves C, Regan HM (2004) A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of U.S. Forest Service viability assessments. Acta Oecologica 26(2):75–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Sci. 54(1):56–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Converse SJ (2020) Introduction to multi-criteria decision analysis. Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE, Smith DR, eds. Structured Decision Making: Case Studies in Natural Resource Management (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore), 51–61.Google Scholar
• ESA (1973) US Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884. Accessed August 29, 2023, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf.Google Scholar
• Federal Register (2016a) Methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on petitions for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 81 FR 144:49248–49255.Google Scholar
• Federal Register (2016b) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revisions to the regulations for petitions. 81 FR 187:66461–66486.Google Scholar
• Forest Guardians (2007) A petition to list all critically imperiled or imperiled species in the southwest United States as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Accessed August 29, 2023, https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/petition_protection-475-species_6-21-07.pdf.Google Scholar
• Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK)Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory RS, Keeney RL (2002) Making smarter environmental management decisions. J. Amer. Water Resource Assoc. 38(6):1601–1612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (2015) Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions (Harvard Business Review Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1988) Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Oper. Res. 36(3):396–405.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1992) Value-Focused Thinking—A Path to Creative Decision Making (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2013) Identifying, prioritizing, and using multiple objectives. EURO J. Decision Processes. 1(1–2):45–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper. Res. 53(1):1–11.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Renn O, von Winterfeldt D (1987) Structuring West Germany’s energy objectives. Energy Policy 15(4):352–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller RL, Simon J, Wang Y (2009) Multiple-objective decision analysis involving multiple stakeholders. Decision Technologies and Applications INFORMS TutORials in Operations Research. 2009(September):139–155.Link, Google Scholar
• Kirkwood CW (1997) Strategic Decision Making (Duxbury Press, London, England).Google Scholar
• McGowan CP (2013) A structured approach to incidental take decision making. Environ. Management. 51(1):241–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGowan CP, Allan NL, Smith DR (2023) The species status assessment: A framework for assessing species status and risk to support endangered species management decisions. Baier L, Organ J, eds. The Codex of the Endangered Species Act: The Next 50 Years, vol. 2 (Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
• McGowan CP, Lyons JE, Smith DR (2015) Developing objectives with multiple stakeholders: Adaptive management of horseshoe crabs and red knots in the Delaware Bay. Environ. Management. 55:972–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy DD, Weiland PS (2016) Guidance on the use of best available science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Environ. Management. 58:1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nicolson CR, Starfield AM, Kofinas GP, Kruse JA (2002) Ten heuristics for interdisciplinary modeling projects. Ecosystems 5:376–84.Google Scholar
• Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA (2005) Robust decision‐making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological Appl. 15(4):1471–1477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robinson OJ, McGowan CP, Apodaca JJ (2016) Decision analysis for habitat conservation of an endangered, range‐limited salamander. Animal Conservation. 19(6):561–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE (2011) Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation. 144(4):1214–1223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Runge MC, Rushing CS, Lyons JE, Rubenstein MA (2023) A simplified method for value of information using constructed scales. Decision Anal.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith DR (2020) Introduction to structuring decisions. Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE, Smith DR, eds. Structured Decision Making: Case Studies in Natural Resource Management (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD).Google Scholar
• Smith DR, Allan NL, McGowan CP, Szymanski JA, Oetker SR, Bell HM (2018) Development of a species status assessment process for decisions under the US Endangered Species Act. J. Fish Wildlife Management 9(1):302–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stantial ML, Lawson AJ, Fournier AM, Kappes PJ, Kross CS, Runge MC, Woodrey MS, Lyons JE (2023) Qualitative value of information provides a transparent and repeatable method for identifying critical uncertainty. Ecological Appl. 33(4):e2824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starfield AM (1997) A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. J Wildlife Manage 61(2):261–270.Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2016) Long-term listing transformation and five guiding principles of the Unified Listing Team. Director’s memorandum March 16, 2016, Washington, D.C. (see Supplemental Material).Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2021) Species status assessment report for the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), version 1.2. Accessed August 29, 2023, https://www.fws.gov/node/265070.Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2022a) National domestic listing workplan. Workplan FY23-27. Accessed August 29, 2023, https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/national-domestic-listing-workplan-fiscal-years-2023-2027.pdf.Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2022b) Species status assessment report for the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), version 0.4. Accessed August 29, 2023, https://www.fws.gov/node/4532946.Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2022c) Species status assessment for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower-48 states. Version 1.2, January 22, 2022. Accessed August 29, 2023, https://www.fws.gov/node/2756081.Google Scholar
• Williams BK (2012) Reducing uncertainty about objective functions in adaptive management. Ecological Model. 225:61–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and Management of Animal Populations (Academic Press, San Diego).Google Scholar