Environmental Management

, 44:1163 | Cite as

A Framework for Developing Management Goals for Species at Risk with Examples from Military Installations in the United States

  • Rebecca Efroymson
  • Henriette Jager
  • Virginia Dale
  • James Westervelt


A decision framework for setting management goals for species at risk is presented. Species at risk are those whose potential future rarity is of concern. Listing these species as threatened or endangered could potentially result in significant restrictions to activities in resource management areas in order to maintain those species. The decision framework, designed to foster proactive management, has nine steps: identify species at risk on and near the management area, describe available information and potential information gaps for each species, determine the potential distribution of species and their habitat, select metrics for describing species status, assess the status of local population or metapopulation, conduct threat assessment, set and prioritize management goals, develop species management plans, and develop criteria for ending special species management where possible. This framework will aid resource managers in setting management goals that minimally impact human activities while reducing the likelihood that species at risk will become rare in the near future. The management areas in many of the examples are United States (US) military installations, which are concerned about potential restrictions to military training capacity if species at risk become regulated under the US Endangered Species Act. The benefits of the proactive management set forth in this formal decision framework are that it is impartial, provides a clear procedure, calls for identification of causal relationships that may not be obvious, provides a way to target the most urgent needs, reduces costs, enhances public confidence, and, most importantly, decreases the chance of species becoming more rare.


Endangered species Military installations Species at risk Causal analysis Threats Rare species Trend analysis Threatened species Recovery Recovery goals 



We thank the US Army Corps’ Engineer Research and Development Center for funding this work through the program on Habitat-centric Species at Risk (SAR) Research to Avoid Future Training Restrictions and the US Army Species at Risk Program. Dr. Tiomothy Hayden was the program manager. The project was conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Some of the information cited herein was provided by NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/) and its natural heritage member programs, a leading source of information about rare and endangered species, and threatened ecosystems.


  1. Allee WC (1938) The social life of animals. WW Norton & Co., New York, p 293Google Scholar
  2. Althoff DP, Rivers JW, Pontius JS, Gipson PS, Woodford PB (2004) A comprehensive approach to identifying monitoring priorities of small landbirds on military installations. Environmental Management 34:887–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? PNAS 97:5954–5959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anders AD, Dearborn DC (2004) Population trends of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler at Fort Hood, Texas, from 1992–2001. The Southwestern Naturalist 49:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen MC, Thompson B, Boykin K (2004) Spatial risk assessment across large landscapes with varied land use: lessons from a conservation assessment of military lands. Risk Analysis 24:1231–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andow DA, Baker RJ, Lane CP (eds) (1994) Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape, Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 84-1994Google Scholar
  7. Applied Biomathematics (2003) Ramas software. Copyright 1982–2007, Setauket, NY. http://www.ramas.com/. Accessed 19 August 2008
  8. Austin M (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 200:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakker VJ, Doak DF (2009) Population viability management: ecological standards to guide adaptive management for rare species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baskaran LM, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Birkhead W (2006) Habitat modeling within a regional context. An example using Gopher Tortoise. American Midland Naturalist 155:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beaty TA, Bivings AE, Reid T, Myers TL, Parris SD, Costa R, Hayden TJ, Ayers TE, Farley SM, Woodson WE (2003) Success of the Army’s 1996 red-cockaded woodpecker management guidelines. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal 14(1):43–53; SpringCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blaustein AR, Bancroft BA (2007) Amphibian population declines: evolutionary considerations. BioScience 57:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boulanger J, Martin K, Kaiser G, Derocher AE (2000) Evaluating uncertainty in estimating population trends for research and conservation of marbled murrelets. In: Biology and conservation of forest birds. Society of Canadian Ornithologists Special Publication No. 2, pp 53–63Google Scholar
  14. Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton LH, Guerry AD, Hatch LT, Hosseini PR, Lawler JJ, O’Connor RJ (2002) An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll R, Augspurger C, Dobson A, Franklin J, Orians G, Reid W, Tracy R, Wilcove D, Wilson J (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 6:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. CMP (2007) Open standards for the practice of conservation, version 2.0. http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Docs/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf. Conservation Measures Partnership.
  18. Coggins LG Jr, Pine WE, Walters CJ, Van Haverbeke DR, Ward D, Johnstone HC (2006) Abundance trends and status of the little Colorado River population of humpback chub. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Converse Y, Hawkins CP, Valdez RA (1998) Habitat relationships of subadult humpback chub in the Colorado River through Grand Canyon: spatial variability and implications of flow regulation. Regulated Rivers 14:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cormier SM, Norton SB, Suter GW II, Altfater D, Counts B (2002) Determining the causes of impairment in the Little Scioto River, Ohio: Part II. Characterization of causes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1125–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cormier SM, Norton SB, Suter GW II (2003) The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Stressor Identification Guidance: a process for determining the probable causes of biological impairments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 9:1431–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crouse DT, Crowder LB, Caswell H (1987) A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crouse DT, Mehrhoff LA, Parkin MJ, Elam DR, Chen LY (2002) Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. Ecological Applications 12:719–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dale VH, King AW, Mann LK, Washington-Allen RA, McCord RA (1998) Assessing land-use impacts on natural resources. Environmental Management 22:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dale VH, King AW, Mann LK, Ashwood TL (2000) Contributions of spatial information and models to management of rare and declining species. In: Hill MJ, Aspinall RJ (eds) Spatial Information for land management. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 159–172Google Scholar
  27. Dale VH, Beyeler SC, Jackson B (2002) Understory indicators of anthropogenic disturbance in longleaf pine forests at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators 1:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dale VH, Mulholland PJ, Olsen LM, Feminella JW, Maloney KO, White DC, Peacock A, Foster T (2004) Selecting a suite of ecological indicators for resource management. In: Kapustka L, Galbraith H, Luxon M, Biddinger GR (eds) Landscape ecology and wildlife habitat evaluation: critical information for ecological risk assessment, land-use management activities, and biodiversity enhancement practices, ASTM STP 1458. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Delaney DK, Pater LL, Hayden TJ, Swindell L, Beaty T, Carlile L, Spadgenske, E (2000) Assessment of training noise impacts on the red-cockaded woodpecker: 1999 results, ERDC/CERL TR-00-13. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  30. Demarais S, Tazik DJ, Guertin PJ, Jorgensen EE (1999) Disturbance associated with military exercises. In: Walker LR (ed) Ecosystems of disturbed ground. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 385–396Google Scholar
  31. Department of the Army (2006) Memorandum from JB Balocki, Director Environmental Programs. Army species at risk policy and implementing guidance. Washington, DC, September 15, 2006Google Scholar
  32. Doresky J, Morgan K, Ragsdale L, Townsend H (2001) Effects of military activity on reproductive success of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of Field Ornithology 72:305–311Google Scholar
  33. Dunning JB Jr, Stewart DJ, Danielson BJ, Noon BR, Root TL, Lamberson RH, Stevens EE (1995) Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecological Applications 5:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Baskaran LM, Chang M, Aldridge M, Berry M (2005) Planning transboundary ecological risk assessments at military installations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11:1193–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Efroymson RA, Morrill VA, Dale VH, Jenkins TF, Giffen NR (2009) Habitat disturbance at explosives-contaminated ranges. In: Sunahara G, Hawari J, Lotufo G, Kuperman R (eds) Ecotoxicology of explosives and unexploded ordnance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 253–276Google Scholar
  36. Fabricius KE, De’ath G (2004) Identifying ecological change and its causes: a case study on coral reefs. Ecological Applications 14:1448–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freilich JE, Camp RJ, Duda JJ, Karl AE (2005) Problems with sampling desert tortoises: a simulation analysis based on field data. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. GAO (Government Accountability Office) (June 2002) Military training: DoD lacks a comprehensive plan to manage encroachment on training ranges. Report to Congressional Requestors, GAO-02-614. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Garten C (2006) Predicted effects of prescribed burning and harvesting on forest recovery and sustainability in southwest Georgia, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 81:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerber LH, Hatch LT (2002) Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:668–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gerrodette T (1987) A power analysis for detecting trends. Ecology 68:1364–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gerrodette T (1991) Models for power of detecting trends—a reply to Link and Hatfield. Ecology 72:1889–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Good TP, Beechie TJ, McElhany P, McClure MM, Ruckelshaus MH (2007) Recovery planning for endangered species act, listed pacific salmon: using science to inform goals and strategies. Fisheries 32:426–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gregory CJ, Carthy RR, Pearlstine LG (2006) Survey and monitoring of species at risk at Camp Blanding Training Site, Northeastern Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 50:473–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  46. Groves CR (2003) Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy and Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Hamazaki T, Thompson BC, Locke BA, Boykin KG (2003) Analysis of ecological context for identifying vegetation and animal conservation planning foci: an example from the arid South-western USA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46:239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hargrove WW, Hoffman FM, Efroymson RA (2005) A practical map-analysis tool for detecting dispersal corridors. Landscape Ecology 20:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hatch SA (2003) Statistical power for detecting trends with applications to seabird monitoring. Biological Conservation 111:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hill AB (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58:295–300Google Scholar
  51. Hoekstra JM, Clark JA, Fagan WF, Boersma PD (2002) A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holmes RT (2007) Understanding population change in migratory songbirds: long-term and experimental studies of neotropical migrants in breeding and wintering areas. Ibis 149(Suppl 2):2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. IUCN (2001) IUCN red list categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Jager HI, Efroymson RA (2004) Spatial life history influences the risks associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. International Association. 19th annual symposium of the United States Regional Association of the International Association for Landscape Ecology. Transdisciplinary challenges in landscape ecology, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  55. Jager HI, Cardwell HE, Sale MJ, Bevelhimer MJ, Coutant CC, Van Winkle W (1997) Modelling the linkages between flow management and salmon recruitment in rivers. Ecological Modelling 103:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jager HI, Carr EA, Efroymson RA (2006) Simulated effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on a solitary, mustellid predator. Ecological Modelling 191:416–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. James FC, Hess CA, Kicklighter BC, Thum RA (2001) Ecosystem management and the niche gestalt of the red-cockaded woodpecker in longleaf pine forests. Ecological Applications 11:854–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jones KE, Purvis A, Gittleman JL (2003) Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats. American Naturalist 161:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Joseph LN, Mahoney RF, Possingham HP (2008) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kallemeyn L (1983) Status of the pallid sturgeon. Fisheries 8:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lawler JJ, Campbell SP, Guerry AD, Kolozsvary MB, O’Connor RJ, Seward LCN (2002) The scope and treatment of threats in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:663–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lessard RB, Martell SJD, Walters CJ, Essington TE, Kitchell JF (2005) Should ecosystem management involve active control of species abundances? Ecology and Society 10(2):1 [online]Google Scholar
  63. Mann LK, Parr PD, Pounds LR, Graham RL (1996) Protection of biota on nonpark public lands: examples from the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation. Environmental Management 20:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marcot BG (2006) Characterizing species at risk I: modeling rare species under the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecology and Society 11(2):10 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art10/
  65. Marsh PC, Douglas ME (1997) Predation by introduced fishes on endangered humpback chub and other native species in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maxwell D, Jennings S (2005) Power of monitoring programmes to detect decline and recovery of rare and vulnerable fish. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McElhany P, Ruckelshaus MH, Ford MJ, Wainwright TC, Bjorkstedt EP (2000) Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. US Department of Commerce, 156 ppGoogle Scholar
  68. Mehlman DW, Rosenberg KV, Wells JV, Robertson B (2004) A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking systems. Biological Conservation 120:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Menzel JM, Ford WM, Menzel MA, Carter TC, Gardner JE, Garner JD, Hoffman JE (2005) Summer habitat and home-range analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller J, Franklin J, Aspinall R (2007) Incorporating spatial dependence in predictive vegetation models. Ecological Modelling 202:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morris WF, Bloch PL, Hudgens BR, Moyle LC, Stinchcombe JR (2002) Population viability analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements. Ecological Applications 12:708–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. NatureServe (2004) Species at risk on Department of Defense installations. Prepared for Department of Defense, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  73. NRC (National Research Council) (1995) Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  74. Norton SB, Cormier SM, Suter GW II, Subramanian B, Lin E, Altfater D, Counts B (2002) Determining the causes of impairment in the Little Scioto River, Ohio: Part I. Listing candidate causes and analyzing evidence. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1112–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Önal H, Briers R (2006) Optimum selection of a connected reserve network. Operations Research 54:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Paukert CP, Petersen JH (2007) Comparative growth and consumption potential of rainbow trout and humpback chub in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona, under different temperature scenarios. Southwestern Naturalist 52:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pearson RG (2007) Species’ distribution modeling for conservation educators and practitioners. Synthesis. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Available at http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/files/SpeciesDistModelingSYN_1-16-08.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2008
  78. Poole KE, Downing JA (2004) Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:1947–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Quist MC, Fay PA, Guy CS, Knapp AK, Rubenstein BN (2003) Military training effects on terrestrial and aquatic communities on a grassland military installation. Ecological Applications 13:432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rabinowitz D (1981) Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H (ed) The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Wiley, New York, pp 205–217Google Scholar
  82. Rotstein AH (October 16, 2003) Military coexists with endangered pronghorn on bombing range, The Associated Press State and Local Wire. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031019-goldwater-range.htm. Accessed 19 August 2008
  83. Schultz CB, Gerber LR (2002) Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecological Applications 12:641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Scott JM, Goble DD, Wiens JA, Wilcove DS, Bean M, Male T (2005) Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 3:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith MA, Turner MG, Rusch DH (2002) The effect of military training activity on eastern lupine and the Karner blue butterfly at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Management 29:102–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sternberg JE, Hays J, Sanborn S, McFarland L, Loring H, Sietman B (1998) Fauna, flora, and sensitive habitat on Fort Leonard Wood, MO. USA/CERL Special Report 98/95. US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  87. Stevens VM, Baguette M (2008) Importance of habitat quality and landscape connectivity for the persistence of endangered Natterjack toads. Conservation Biology 22:1194–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stone DM, Van Haverbeke DR, Ward DL, Hunt TA (2007) Dispersal of nonnative fishes and parasites in the intermittent Little Colorado River, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 52:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Suter GW II, Norton SB, Cormier SM (2002) A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1101–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sutherland WJ (2006) Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of the methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:599–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tazik DJ, Martin CO (2002) Threatened and endangered species on US Department of Defense lands in the arid west, USA. Arid Land Research and Management 16:259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Telesco DJ, van Manen FT (2006) Do black bears respond to military weapons training? Journal of Wildlife Management 70:222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trimble AC, Ruesink JL, Dumbauld BR (2009) Factors preventing the recovery of a historically overexploited shellfish species, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864. Journal of Shellfish Research 28:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tuberville TD, Bodie JR, Jensen JB, LaClaire L, Gibbons JW (2000) Apparent decline of the southern hognose snake, Heterodon simus. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 116:19–40Google Scholar
  95. USAEC (U.S. Army Environmental Center) (2003) Private Lands Initiative (PLI). Fact sheet. Available at http://aec.army.mil/usaec/natural/pli-factsheet.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2008
  96. USEPA (2000) Stressor identification guidance document, EPA/822/B-00/25. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  97. USFWS (2004) Safe harbor agreements for private landowners. Fact sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/harborqa.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2008
  98. USFWS (2007a) Candidate species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/factsheets/candidate_species.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2008
  99. USFWS (2007b) In: Pruitt L, TeWinkel L (eds) Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) draft recovery plan. First Revision. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MNGoogle Scholar
  100. USGS (1998) Species at risk program. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, FR 63(189):52284–52285Google Scholar
  101. Van Lear DH, Carroll WD, Kapeluck PR, Johnson R (2005) History and restoration of the longleaf pine-grassland ecosystem: implications for species at risk. Forest Ecology and Management 211:150–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Velez-Espino LA, Fox MG, McLaughlin RL (2006) Characterization of elasticity patterns of North American freshwater fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:2050–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walters JR, Crowder LB, Priddy JA (2002) Population viability analysis for red-cockaded woodpeckers using an individual-based model. Ecological Applications 12:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Warren SD, Buttner R (2008) Relationship of endangered amphibians to landscape disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Warren SD, Holbrook SW, Dale DA, Whelan NL, Elyn M, Grimm W, Jentsch A (2007) Biodiversity and the heterogeneous disturbance regime on military training lands. Restoration Ecology 15:606–612Google Scholar
  106. Whitehead AL, Edge KA, Smart AF, Hill GS, Willans MJ (2008) Large scale predator control improves the productivity of a rare New Zealand riverine duck. Biological Conservation 141:2784–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Philips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Efroymson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henriette Jager
    • 2
  • Virginia Dale
    • 2
  • James Westervelt
    • 3
  1. 1.AshevilleUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Construction Engineering Research LaboratoryUS Army Engineer Research and Development CenterChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations