Endangered Species Act Reference List
WEBSITES
The text
of the Act: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html
USFWS’s
Endangered Species Home Page: http://endangered.fws.gov/
Society
for Conservation Biology study of recovery plans: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/recovery/
Conference
on SARA to be held in March: http://www.speciesatrisk2004.ca/
BOOKS
Czech,
B., and P. R. Krausman.
2001. The Endangered Species Act: History,
Conservation Biology, and Public Policy.
National
Research Council. 1995. Science
and the Endangered Species Act.
Reinke, D. C., and L. L. Swartz.
(eds.). 2001. Endangered
Species: Legal requirements and policy guidance. Battelle
Press.
Shogren, J. F., and J. Tschirhart.
2001. Protecting Endangered Species in
the
Stanford
Environmental Law Society. 2001. The
Endangered Species Act; A Stanford Environmental Law
Society Handbook.
Meeting
1. Legislative history and overview
Primary:
Chapters
2 & 3 in Czech, B., and P. R. Krausman.
2001. The Endangered Species Act:
History, Conservation Biology, and Public Policy.
Supplemental:
Chapter
1 in Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The
Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society
Handbook.
Meeting
2.
Endangered species overview
Beissinger, S. R., and J. D. Perrine 2001.
Extinction, recovery, and the Endangered Species Act. In: J. F., Shogren
and J. Tschirhart (eds.). Protecting
Endangered Species in the
Meeting
3.
Species definitions & what is protected under the Act.
Primary:
Chapter
3.
Species definitions and the Endangered Species Act in: National Research
Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered
Species Act.
DeWeerdt,
S. 2002. What really is an evolutionary significant unit. Conservation in Practice 3. On-line
here.
Supplemental:
Pennock, D. S., and W. W. Dimmick.
1997. Critique of the evolutionary significant unit as a definition for
“distinct population segments” under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 11: 611-619.
Waples,
R. S. 1998. Evolutionary significant units, distinct population segments, and
the Endangered Species Act: Reply to Pennock and Dimmick. Conservation
Biology 12: 718-721.
Zink, R.
M. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian biological
diversity and misleading conservation policy. Proceedings
of the Royal Society,
Pages
31-38 in Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The
Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society
Handbook.
Meeting
4.
What gets listed?
Easter-Pilcher,
A. 1996. Implementing the
Endangered Species Act. BioScience 46:
355-363.
Wilcove, D. S., M. McMillan, and
K. C. Winston.
1993. What exactly is an endangered species?
An analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985-1991. Conservation
Biology 7: 87-93. On-line here.
Supplemental:
Pages
38-58 in Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The
Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society
Handbook.
Meeting
5.
Recovery planning.
Boersma, P. D., P. Kareiva,
W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark, and J. M. Hoekstra.
2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience
51:643-650. On-line
here.
Hoekstra, J. M., J. A. Clark, W. F. Fagan,
and P. D. Boersma.
2002. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans. Ecological
Applications 12:630–640.
Supplemental:
Pages
71-77 in Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The
Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society
Handbook.
**TWO
WEEK BREAK**
Meeting
6.
Use of population viability analysis.
Reed. J. M. , L. S. Mills, J. B.
Jr. Dunning, E. S. Menges, K. S. McKelvey,
R. Frye, S. R. Beissinger, M.-C. Anstett, and P. Miller.
2002. Emerging issues in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology
16: 7-19. On-line
here.
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.
Meeting
7.
Critical habitat.
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.
Meeting
8.
Multiple species recovery plans.
Jewell, S. D. 2000.
Multi-species recovery plans. Endangered Species Bulletin 25: 30-31.
Meeting
9.
Recovery criteria.
Doremus, H., and J. E. Pagel.
2001. Why listing may be forever: perspectives on delisting under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15: 1258-68. On-line
here.
Elphick, C. S., J. M. Reed, and J. M. Bonta. 2001.
Correlates of population recovery goals in endangered birds. Conservation
Biology 15: 1285-1291. On-line
here.
Meeting
10.
Implementing recovery.
Abbitt, R. J. F., and J. M. Scott.
2001. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species.
Conservation Biology 15: 1274-1284. On-line
here.
Lundquist, C.
J., J. M. Diehl,
Meeting
11.
Prioritization and costs.
Miller, J. K., J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller,
and L. P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars
and sense? BioScience 52:163-168. On-line here.
Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2002. Funding extinction? Biological
needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered
species recovery. BioScience 52: 169-177. On-line here.
Meeting
12.
Other endangered species protection.
Gobel,
COMPLETE LIST OF RELEVANT PAPERS (note that links to papers may
not work if you are off campus)
Abbitt, R. J. F., and J. M. Scott.
2001. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species.
Conservation Biology 15: 1274-1284. On-line here.
Beissinger, S. R., and J. D. Perrine 2001.
Extinction, recovery, and the Endangered Species Act. In: J. F., Shogren
and J. Tschirhart (eds.). Protecting
Endangered Species in the
Boersma, P. D., P. Kareiva,
W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark, and J. M. Hoekstra.
2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience
51:643-650. On-line
here.
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.
Campbell,
S. P., J. A. Clark, L. H. Crampton, A. D. Guerry, L. T. Hatch, P. R. Hosseini,
J. J. Lawler, and R. J. O'Connor. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in
endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:674–681.
Clark, J. A., J. M. Hoekstra, P. D. Boersma, and P. Kareiva.
2002. Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and
recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology,
16: 1510-1519.
Crouse, D. T., L. A. Mehrhoff,
M. J. Parkin, D. R. Elam, and L. Y. Chen.
Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Perspective. Ecological Applications 12:719–723.
DeWeerdt,
S. 2002. What really is an evolutionary significant unit. Conservation in Practice 3. On-line
here.
Doremus, H., and J. E. Pagel.
2001. Why listing may be forever: perspectives on delisting under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15: 1258-68. On-line here.
Easter-Pilcher,
A. 1996. Implementing the
Endangered Species Act. BioScience 46:
355-363.
Elphick, C. S., J. M. Reed, and J. M. Bonta. 2001.
Correlates of population recovery goals in endangered birds. Conservation
Biology 15: 1285-1291. On-line here.
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.
Gerber, L. R., and C. B. Schultz.
2001. Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species
recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15: 1308-1314.
Gobel,
Harvey, E., J. M. Hoekstra, R. J.
O'Connor, and W. F. Fagan. 2002. Recovery
plans revisions: progress or due process? Ecological Applications
12:682–689.
Hatch,
L., M. Uriarte, D. Fink, L. Aldrich-Wolfe, R. G.
Allen, C. Webb, K. Zamudio, and A. Power.
Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: the impacts of people and
property on recovery planning. Ecological Applications 12:690–700.
Hecht, A., and M. J. Parkin.
2001. Improving peer review of listings and recovery plans under the Endangered
Species Act. Conservation Biology 15: 1269-1273.
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.
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.
Jewell, S. D. 2000.
Multi-species recovery plans. Endangered Species Bulletin 25: 30-31.
Kareiva,
Peter M. 2002. Applying ecological science to recovery
planning. Ecological Applications 12:629.
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.
Lundquist, C. J., J. M. Diehl,
Martin, C. M. 1995.
Recovering endangered species and restoring ecosystems: conservation planning
for the twenty-first centuary in the
Miller, J. K., J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller,
and L. P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars
and sense? BioScience 52:163-168. On-line here.
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.
Pennock, D. S., and W. W. Dimmick.
1997. Critique of the evolutionary significant unit as a definition for
“distinct population segments” under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 11: 611-619.
Reed. J. M. , L. S. Mills, J. B.
Jr. Dunning, E. S. Menges, K. S. McKelvey,
R. Frye, S. R. Beissinger, M.-C. Anstett, and P. Miller.
2002. Emerging issues in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology
16: 7-19. On-line
here.
Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff.
2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: expenditures versus
recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15: 1292-1299.
Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2002. Funding extinction? Biological
needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered
species recovery. BioScience 52: 169-177. On-line here.
Schemske,
D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie,
I. M. Parker, J. G. Bishop, and S. R. Beissinger.
1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology
75: 584-606.
Schultz, C. B. and L. R. Gerber.
2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecological Applications
12:641–647.
Stinchcombe,
J., L. C. Moyle, B. R. Hudgens, P. L. Bloch, S. Chinnadurai, and W. F. Morris. 2002. The influence of the
academic conservation biology literature on endangered species recovery
planning. Conservation Ecology 6:
15. [online] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art15.
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.
Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1995.
Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by
data? Conservation Biology 9: 182-195.
Waples,
R. S. 1998. Evolutionary significant units, distinct population segments, and
the Endangered Species Act: Reply to Pennock and Dimmick. Conservation
Biology 12: 718-721.
Wilcove, D. S., M. McMillan, and
K. C. Winston.
1993. What exactly is an endangered species?
An analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species List: 1985-1991. Conservation
Biology 7: 87-93. On-line here.
Zink, R. M. 2004. The role of subspecies in
obscuring avian biological diversity and misleading conservation policy.
Proceedings of the Royal Society,