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/

Canada’s Species At Risk Act (SARA):  http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

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.  John Hopkins University Press.

National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press.

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 United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices.  Cambridge University Press.

Stanford Environmental Law Society.  2001. The Endangered Species Act; A Stanford Environmental Law Society Handbook. Stanford University Press.

 

 

READINGS FOR EACH WEEK (note that links to papers may not work if you are off campus)

 

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.  John Hopkins University Press.

Supplemental:

Chapter 1 in Stanford Environmental Law Society.  2001. The Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society Handbook. Stanford University Press.

 

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 United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices.  Cambridge University Press.

 

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. National Academy Press.

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, London. B. Biological Sciences. On-line here.

Pages 31-38 in Stanford Environmental Law Society.  2001. The Endangered Species Act. A Stanford Environmental Law Society Handbook. Stanford University Press.

 

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. Stanford University Press.

 

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. Stanford University Press.

 

**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.

Taylor, M., K. Suckerling, and J. Rachlinski. 2003. Critical habitat significantly enhances endangered species recovery. Unpublished Report. On-line here. (For additional associated information, click here.)

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.

Clark, J. A. and E. Harvey. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655–662.

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, E. Harvey, and L. W. Botsford. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:713–718.

 

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, D. D., S. M. George, K. Mazaika, J. M. Scott, and J. Karl. 1999. Local and national protection of endangered species: an assessment. Environmental Science and Policy 2: 43-59.  On-line here.

 

 

 

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 United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices.  Cambridge University Press.

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. and E. Harvey. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655–662.

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, D. D., S. M. George, K. Mazaika, J. M. Scott, and J. Karl. 1999. Local and national protection of endangered species: an assessment. Environmental Science and Policy 2: 43-59.  On-line here.

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, E. Harvey, and L. W. Botsford. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:713–718.

Martin, C. M. 1995. Recovering endangered species and restoring ecosystems: conservation planning for the twenty-first centuary in the United States. Ibis 137, Suppl. 1: S198-S203.

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.

Taylor, M., K. Suckerling, and J. Rachlinski. 2003. Critical habitat significantly enhances endangered species recovery. Unpublished Report. On-line here.

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, London. B. Biological Sciences. On-line here.