Evaluating agency use of "best available science" under the United States Endangered Species Act

Biological Conservation

Volumn 196, Issue , 2016, Pages 53-59

  Lowell, Natalie ^a   Kelly, Ryan P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

"Best available science"; Administrative law; Agency science; Endangered species act; Science policy

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; EXTINCTION; FEDERAL SYSTEM; LITERATURE REVIEW; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; RARE SPECIES;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84958794011     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v.Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon 515 United States Reporter 687 1995.
2. Barnosky A.D., Matzke N., Tomiya S., Wogan G.O.U., Swartz B., Quental T.B., Ferrer E.A. Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?. Nature 2011, 471(7336):51-57. 10.1038/nature09678.
3. Baur D.C., Irvin W.R. Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy, and Perspectives 2010, American Bar Association.
4. Corn M.L., Alexander K., Buck E.H. The Endangered Species Act and "Sound Science" 2013, Congressional Research Service, (Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32992.pdf).
5. Doremus H. Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: why better science isn't always better policy. Wash. U. L. Q. 1997, 75:1029.
6. Doremus H. Adaptive Management, the Endangered Species Act, and the Institutional Challenges of New Age Environmental Protection. Washburn Law J. 2001, 41:50.
7. Doremus H. Purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate. Environ. Law 2004, 34:397.
8. Doremus H., Tarlock A.D. Science, judgment, and controversy in natural resource regulation. Pub. Land Resour. Law Rev. 2005, 26:1.
9. Eaton J.P., Ward J.C., Kumar A., Reingen P.H. Structural analysis of co-author relationships and author productivity in selected outlets for consumer behavior research. J. Consum. Psychol. 1999, 8(1):39-59. 10.1207/s15327663jcp0801_02.
10. Elliott E.D. Portage strategies for adapting environmental law and policy during a logjam era. N. Y. Univ. Environ. Law J. 2008, 17:24.
11. Fiorino D.J. Environmental policy as learning: a new view of an old landscape. Public Adm. Rev. 2001, 61(3):322-334. 10.1111/0033-3352.00033.
12. Freeman J., Rossi J. Agency coordination in shared regulatory space. Harv. Law Rev. 2012, 125. (Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1778363).
13. Freeman J., Rossi J. Improving interagency coordination in shared regulatory space. Adm. Regul. Law News 2013, 38(4):11-14.
14. Gehring T., Ruffing E. When arguments prevail over power: the CITES procedure for the listing of endangered species. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2008, 8(2):123-148.
15. Gerber L.R., Schultz C.B. Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15(5):1308-1314.
16. Goldfinch S., Dale T., DeRouen K. Science from the periphery: collaboration, networks and 'Periphery Effects' in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995-2000. Scientometrics 2003, 57(3):321-337.
17. Greenpeace American Oceans Campaign v.National Marine Fisheries Service 2002h. 237 Federal Supplement, 2nd Series 1181 2002, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, (December 18).
18. Hampton S.E., Parker J.N. Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 2011, 61(11):900-910. 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9.
19. Helm D. Regulatory reform, capture, and the regulatory burden. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2006, 22(2):169-185. 10.1093/oxrep/grj011.
20. Jennings E.T., Hall J.L. Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2012, 22(2):245-266. 10.1093/jopart/mur040.
21. Klyza C.M., Sousa D.J. American Environmental Policy, 1990-2006: Beyond Gridlock 2008, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, (Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10209889).
22. Lambright W.H. Government and science: a troubled, critical relationship and what can be done about it. Public Adm. Rev. 2008, 68(1):5-18.
23. Liao C.H. How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics 2011, 86(3):747-761. 10.1007/s11192-010-0309-2.
24. Marisa M.J. Interagency Administration. Arizona State Law J. 2013, 45:183.
25. McCauley D.J., Pinsky M.L., Palumbi S.R., Estes J.A., Joyce F.H., Warner R.R. Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 2015, 347(6219):1255641. 10.1126/science.1255641.
26. MMC, 2014. Strategic Plan 2015-19 2014, 16. Retrieved from http://www.mmc.gov/reports/strategic_plans/pdf/StrategicPlan_02192014.pdf.
27. Neill K.A., Morris J.C. A tangled web of principals and agents: examining the deepwater horizon oil spill through a principal-agent lens. Polit. Policy 2012, 40(4):629-656.
28. NOAA Fisheries Operating Agreement Between Regional Offices and Regional Science Centers: Guidelines 2004, Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/30/119/30-119-01.pdf.
29. NOAA Fisheries Overview of NOAA Fisheries' Budgets for Fiscal 2013 & 2014: Presentation to NOAA Fisheries' Stakeholders 2013, (April).
30. NOAA Fisheries Endangered and threatened marine species under NMFS' jurisdiction Retrieved from. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm.
31. Protect our Communities Foundation v.Ashe WestLaw 6121421 2013, United States District Court, S.D. California, (November 20, 2013).
32. Recovery Plan Data Retrieved from, (August). https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/recovery/data/data.html.
33. Stinchcombe J.R. US endangered species management: the influence of politics. Endanger Species Updat. 2000, 17(6):118-121.
34. Testa J. The Thomson Reuters journal selection process 2012, Retrieved from http://www.journal.canadae.biz/ebusiness-technology/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Template-Thomson-Selection.doc.
35. Thomson Reuters. Web of Science. Retrieved from . http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=4DcBoCYAzmbJNm5olyP&preferencesSaved=.
36. USFWS Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species: Fiscal Years 2009-2010 2012.
37. USFWS Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2012 Retrieved from. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2012.EXP.FINAL.pdf.
38. USFWS USFWS Organizational Chart 2014, Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/offices/FWS-org-chart-06-2014.pdf.
39. USFWS Delisting Report Retrieved from. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/delisting-report.
40. USFWS Summary of listed species, listed populatoins, and recovery plans as of Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:45:34 GMT Retrieved from, (July 2). https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/Boxscore.do.
41. USFWS, NOAA Fisheries Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act 1994, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, (Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-1994-07-01/94-16022, July 1).
42. USGAO Managing for results: key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms Retrieved December 7, 2015, from, (September). http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022.
43. Wagner F.H. Whatever happened to the National Biological Survey?. Bioscience 1999, 49:219-222.
44. West J.D., Bergstrom T.C., Bergstrom C.T. The eigenfactor MetricsTM: a network approach to assessing scholarly journals. Coll. Res. Libr. 2010, 71(3):236-244.