1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
  4. Volume 39, 2008
  5. Article

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 39, 2008

The Performance of the Endangered Species Act

Abstract

Arguably the most notable success of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is that listed species improve in status through time. More species are downlisted than the converse; more species transition from stable to improving status than the converse. Although some listed species have gone extinct, this number is smaller than expected. Given modest recovery funding, the fraction of listed species responding positively is remarkable. Several factors have been linked to improving species status including recovery expenditures, critical habitat listing, and time spent under protection. The inability of government to fully empower the agencies to implement the law has been the most notable failure of the ESA. Listing of species has not matched need, recovery expenditures do not match need or agency-set priorities, and critical habitat determinations have lagged. Alternative protection strategies to listing may be having a positive effect, but are difficult to assess because of sparse data.

Keyword(s): critical habitat, expenditures, extinction, listing, recovery plan
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538
2008-12-01
2024-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ecolsys/39/1/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbitt RJF, Scott JM. 2001. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conserv. Biol. 15:1274–84 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bean MJ. 2006. The Endangered Species Act under threat. BioScience 56:98 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bean MJ, Fitzgerald SG, O'Connell MA. 1991. Reconciling Conflicts Under the Endangered Species Act: The Habitat Conservation Planning Experience Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund [Google Scholar]
  4. Bean MJ, Rowland MJ. 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law Westport, CT: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  5. Beatley T. 1992. Balancing urban-development and endangered species—the Coachella Valley habitat conservation plan. Environ. Manag. 16:7–19 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benson RD. 2004. So much conflict, yet so much in common: Considering the similarities between western water law and the Endangered Species Act. Nat. Resour. J. 44:29–76 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boersma PD, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Clark JA, Hoekstra JM. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans?. BioScience 51:643–49 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brook A, Zint M, De Young R. 2003. Landowners’ responses to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17:1638–49 [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton LH, Guerry AD, Hatch LT. et al. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecol. Appl. 12:674–81 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cent. Biol. Divers. (CBD) 2008. Center for Biological Diversity. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/index.html
  11. Clark JA, Harvey E. 2002. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecol. Appl. 12:655–62 [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark JA, Hoekstra JM, Boersma PD, Kareiva P. 2002. Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conserv. Biol. 16:1510–19 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cok M, Urban I. 2007. Distribution of income and taxes in Slovenia and Croatia. Post-Communist Econ. 19:299–316 [Google Scholar]
  14. Conley JL, Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Ruyle GB, Brunson M. 2007. Forest service grazing permittee perceptions of the Endangered Species Act in southeastern Arizona. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 60:136–45 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cronin MA. 2006. A proposal to eliminate redundant terminology for intraspecies groups. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34:237–41 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crouse DT, Mehrhoff LA, Parkin MJ, Elam DR, Chen LY. 2002. Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A US Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. Ecol. Appl. 12:719–23 [Google Scholar]
  17. Davison RP, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Scott JM. 2006. The National Wildlife Refuge System. See Goble et al. 2006 90–100
  18. Dawson D, Shogren JF. 2001. An update on priorities and expenditures under the Endangered Species Act. Land Econ. 77:527–32 [Google Scholar]
  19. DeShazo JR, Freeman J. 2006. Congressional Politics. See Goble et al. 2006 68–71
  20. Dixon PM, Cook RE. 1989. Science, planning, and the recovery of endangered plants. Endanger. Species Update 6:9–14 [Google Scholar]
  21. Doremus H, Pagel JE. 2001. Why listing may be forever: Perspectives on delisting under the US Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 15:1258–68 [Google Scholar]
  22. Doremus H, Tarlock AD. 2003. Fish, farms, and the clash of cultures in the Klamath basin. Ecol. Law Q. 30:279–350 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dwyer LE, Murphy DD, Ehrlich PR. 1995. Property-rights case law and the challenge to the Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 9:725–41 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferraro PJ, McIntosh C, Ospina M. 2007. The effectiveness of the US Endangered Species Act: An econometric analysis using matching methods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 54:245–61 [Google Scholar]
  25. Foin TC, Riley SPD, Pawley AL, Ayres DR, Carlsen TM. et al. 1998. Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. BioScience 48:177–84 [Google Scholar]
  26. George AL, Mayden RL. 2005. Species concepts and the Endangered Species Act: How a valid biological definition of species enhances the legal protection of biodiversity. Nat. Resour. J. 45:369–407 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerber LR, Hatch LT. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. Ecol. Appl. 12:668–73 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gerber LR, Keller AC, DeMaster DP. 2007. Ten thousand and increasing: Is the western Arctic population of bowhead whale endangered?. Biol. Conserv. 137:577–83 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gerlak AK, Heikkila T. 2006. Comparing collaborative mechanisms in large-scale ecosystem governance. Nat. Resour. J. 46:657–707 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goble DD. 2007. Recovery in a cynical time—with apologies to Eric Arthur Blair. Wash. Law Rev. 82:581–610 [Google Scholar]
  31. Goble DD, Scott JM, Davis FW. 2006. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
  32. 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 32:426–40 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gordon RE, Lacy JK, Streeter JR. 1997. Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Environ. Int. 23:359–419 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gosnell H. 2001. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the art of compromise: The evolution of a reasonable and prudent alternative for the Animas-La Plata Project. Nat. Resour. J. 41:561–626 [Google Scholar]
  35. Greenwald ND, Suckling KF, Taylor M. 2006. The listing record. See Goble et al. 2006 51–67
  36. Hagen AN, Hodges KE. 2006. Resolving critical habitat designation failures: Reconciling law, policy, and biology. Conserv. Biol. 20:399–407 [Google Scholar]
  37. Haig SM, Beever EA, Chambers SM, Draheim HM, Dugger BD. et al. 2006. Taxonomic considerations in listing subspecies under the US Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 20:1584–94 [Google Scholar]
  38. Harding EK, Crone EE, Elderd BD, Hoekstra JM, McKerrow AJ. et al. 2001. The scientific foundations of habitat conservation plans: a quantitative assessment. Conserv. Biol. 15:488–500 [Google Scholar]
  39. Harvey E, Hoekstra JM, O'Connor RJ, Fagan WF. 2002. Recovery plan revisions: Progress or due process?. Ecol. Appl. 12:682–89 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hatch L, Uriarte M, Fink D, Aldrich-Wolfe L, Allen RG. et al. 2002. Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: The impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecol. Appl. 12:690–700 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hayward D, Shogren JF, Tschirhart J. 2001. The nature of endangered species recovery. In. Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, and Economic Choices JF Shogren, J Tschirhart 1–20 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoekstra JM, Clark JA, Fagan WF, Boersma PD. 2002a. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecol. Appl. 12:630–40 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoekstra JM, Fagan WF, Bradley JE. 2002b. A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet. Ecol. Appl. 12:701–7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Houck OA. 1993. The Endangered Species Act and its implementation by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 64:277–370 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kareiva P, Tear TT, Solie S, Brown ML, Sotomayor L, Yuan-Farrell C. 2006. Nongovernmental organizations. See Goble et al. 2006 183–94
  46. Kerkvliet J, Langpap C. 2007. Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using US Endangered Species Act recovery scores. Ecol. Econ. 63:499–510 [Google Scholar]
  47. Laband DN, Nieswiadomy M. 2006. Factors affecting species’ risk of extinction: An empirical analysis of ESA and natureserve listings. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24:160–71 [Google Scholar]
  48. Langpap C. 2004. Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: An analysis of landowner participation. Land Econ. 80:375–88 [Google Scholar]
  49. Langpap C. 2006. Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?. Ecol. Econ. 57:558–72 [Google Scholar]
  50. Langpap C, Wu JJ. 2004. Voluntary conservation of endangered species: when does no regulatory assurance mean no conservation?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47:435–57 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lawson DM, Lamar CK, Schwartz MW. 2008. Quantifying plant population persistence in human dominated landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 22:4922–28 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee KN. 1994. The Compass and the Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Policy for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Leonard P. 2003. Letter. Conserv. Biol. 17:655–56 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lundquist CJ, Diehl JM, Harvey E, Botsford LW. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecol. Appl. 12:713–18 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mace GM, Lande R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN Threatened Species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5:148–57 [Google Scholar]
  56. Male TD, Bean MJ. 2005. Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecol. Lett. 8:986–92 [Google Scholar]
  57. Male TD, Walsh S, Bean MJ. 2006. A recovery index: developing a new metric to track endangered species recovery progress. Endanger. Species Update 23:62–68 [Google Scholar]
  58. Mann CC, Plummer ML. 1995. Noahs’ Choice:The Future of Endangered Species New York: Alfred Knopf [Google Scholar]
  59. Metrick A, Weitzman ML. 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ. 72:1–16 [Google Scholar]
  60. Metrick A, Weitzman ML. 1998. Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. J. Econ. Perspect. 12:21–34 [Google Scholar]
  61. Morris WF, Bloch PL, Hudgens BR, Moyle LC, Stinchcombe JR. 2002. Population viability analysis in endangered species recovery plans: Past use and future improvements. Ecol. Appl. 12:708–12 [Google Scholar]
  62. Moser DE. 2000. Habitat conservation plans under the US endangered species act: The legal perspective. Environ. Manag. 26:S7–13 [Google Scholar]
  63. NatureServe 2008. NatureServe Explorer. NatureServe, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species
  64. Peterson MN, Allison SA, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR, Lopez RR. 2004. A tale of two species: Habitat conservation plans as bounded conflict. J. Wildl. Manag. 68:743–61 [Google Scholar]
  65. Quigley JM, Swoboda AM. 2007. The urban impacts of the Endangered Species Act: A general equilibrium analysis. J. Urban Econ. 61:299–318 [Google Scholar]
  66. Rachlinski JJ. 1997. Noah by the numbers: an empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act. Cornell Law Rev. 82:356–89 [Google Scholar]
  67. Raymond L. 2006. Cooperation without trust: Overcoming collective action barriers to endangered species protection. Policy Stud. J. 34:37–57 [Google Scholar]
  68. Reitan E. 2004. Private property rights, moral extensionism and the wise-use movement: A Rawlsian analysis. Environ. Values 13:329–47 [Google Scholar]
  69. Restani M, Marzluff JM. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conserv. Biol. 15:1292–99 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosen T. 2007. The Endangered Species Act and the distinct population segment policy. Ursus 18:109–16 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schultz CB, Gerber LR. 2002. Are recovery plans improving with practice?. Ecol. Appl. 12:641–47 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schwartz MW. 1999. Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:83–108 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schwartz MW, Jurjavcic NL, O'Brien JM. 2002. Conservation's disenfranchised urban poor. BioScience 52:601–6 [Google Scholar]
  74. Scott JM, Goble DD, Scvancara LK, Pidgorna A. 2006. By the numbers. See Goble et al. 2006 16–35
  75. 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. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:383–89 [Google Scholar]
  76. Scott JM, Wilcove DS. 1998. Improving the future for endangered species. BioScience 48:579–80 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sheridan TE. 2007. Embattled ranchers, endangered species, and urban sprawl: The political ecology of the new American West. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:121–38 [Google Scholar]
  78. Shilling F. 1997. Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species?. Science 276:1662–63 [Google Scholar]
  79. Shogren JF. 1998. Private Property and the Endangered Species Act Austin, TX: Austin Univ. Tex. Press153 pp. [Google Scholar]
  80. Shogren JF, Hayward PH. 1998. Biological effectiveness and economic impacts of the Endangered Species Act. See Shogren 1998 48–69
  81. Sinden A. 2004. The economics of endangered species: Why less is more in the economic analysis of critical habitat designations. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 28:129–214 [Google Scholar]
  82. Smallwood KS, Wilcox B, Leidy R, Yarris K. 1998. Indicators assessment for habitat conservation plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environ. Manag. 22:947–58 [Google Scholar]
  83. Steiger JW. 1994. The consultation provision of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and its application to delegable federal programs. Ecol. Law Q. 21:243–328 [Google Scholar]
  84. Stokstad E. 2005. What's wrong with the Endangered Species Act?. Science 309:2150–52 [Google Scholar]
  85. Suckling KF, Slack R, Nowicki B. Extinction and the Endangered Species Act. 2004. Tucson, AZ: Cent. Biol. Divers. [Google Scholar]
  86. Suckling KF, Taylor M. 2006. Critical habitat and recovery. See Goble et al. 2006 75–89
  87. Suzuki N, Olson DH. 2007. Options for biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes of multiple ownerships in Oregon and Washington, USA. Biodivers. Conserv. 16:3895–917 [Google Scholar]
  88. Svancara LK, Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW, Brewer D. 2006. Endangered species timeline. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes JM Scott, DD Goble, FW Davis 24–35 Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Tadano NM. 2007. Piecemeal delisting: Designating distinct population segments for the purpose of delisting gray wolf populations is arbitrary and capricious. Wash. Law Rev. 82:795–823 [Google Scholar]
  90. Taylor MFJ, Suckling KF, Rachlinski JJ. 2005. The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A quantitative analysis. BioScience 55:360–67 [Google Scholar]
  91. Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B. 1993. Status and prospects for the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976–77 [Google Scholar]
  92. Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B. 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are criticisms supported by data. Conserv. Biol. 9:182–95 [Google Scholar]
  93. Thompson BH Jr. 2006. Managing the working landscape. See Goble et al. 2006 101–26
  94. U.S. Dep. Inter. (U.S.D.O.I.) 1978. Proposed Endangered and Threatened status for three Texas fishes. Fed. Regist. 43:36117–20 [Google Scholar]
  95. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. (U.S.F.W.S.) 1979. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Notice of withdrawal of five expired proposals for listing 1,876 species, and intent to revise 1975 plant notice which includes most of these species. Fed. Regist. 44:70796–97 [Google Scholar]
  96. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 1998. Recovery Plan for Oahu Plants Portland, OR: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  97. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 2006a. Federal and State Endangered Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2004 Washington, DC: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  98. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 2006b. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species Expenditures. Fiscal Year 2004 Washington, DC: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  99. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 2008a. Conservation Plans and Agreements Database Washington, DC: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  100. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 2008b. Summary Reports to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species Washington, DC: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  101. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv 2008c. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). Washington, DC: U.S.F.W.S. [Google Scholar]
  102. U.S. Gov. Account. Off 1993. Endangered Species: Factors Associated with Delayed Listing Decisions Washington, DC: U.S.G.A.O. [Google Scholar]
  103. U.S. Gov. Account. Off 2003. Endangered Species. Despite Consultation Improvement Efforts in the Pacific Northwest, Concerns Persist about the Process. GAO-03-949T Washington, DC: U.S.G.A.O. [Google Scholar]
  104. U.S. Gov. Print. Off. (USGPO) 2003. Endangered Species Act: Review of the Consultation Process Required by Section 7 WaW Hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water 121 Washington, DC: USGPO [Google Scholar]
  105. Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, Phillips MK. 2006. The normative dimension and legal meaning of endangered and recovery in the US Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 20:1383–90 [Google Scholar]
  106. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O. 2006. What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol. Ecol. 15:1419–39 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wilcove DS, Bean MJ, Long B, Snape WJ, Beehler BM, Eisenberg J. 2004. The private side of conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2:326–31 [Google Scholar]
  108. Wilcove DS, Lee J. 2004. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: Lessons learned from three new programs. Conserv. Biol. 18:639–45 [Google Scholar]
  109. Wilcove DS, Master LL. 2005. How many endangered species are there in the United States?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:414–20 [Google Scholar]
  110. Wilcove DS, McMillan M. 2006. The class of ‘67. See Goble et al. 2006 45–50
  111. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–15 [Google Scholar]
  112. Wilhere GF. 2002. Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 16:20–29 [Google Scholar]
  113. Zabel JE, Paterson RW. 2006. The effects of critical habitat designation on housing supply: An analysis of California housing construction activity. J. Reg. Sci. 46:67–95 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538
Loading
The Performance of the Endangered Species Act
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39, 279 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173538
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error