Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 193–198 | Cite as

A novel public–private partnership model for improving the listing of endangered species

  • Thor Hanson
  • Gary J. Wiles
  • Joseph K. Gaydos


Endangered species conservation faces well-documented funding shortfalls for recovery activities, but the listing process itself is also often hampered by limited resources at the federal, state, and provincial levels. In the United States, Canada, and other jurisdictions, the number of species proposed for listing has outpaced listing decisions, creating large backlogs of candidate species. In Washington State, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and The SeaDoc Society (SeaDoc), a nongovernmental university-based organization, entered into a unique public–private partnership to advance the state-level listing process for the tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata), a candidate species since 1998. Using privately-raised funds, SeaDoc hired a visiting scientist to co-author the status report with WDFW staff. This collaboration continued through editing, revising, peer review, and the public comment period, and resulted in the tufted puffin being listed as endangered in Washington. We discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of this joint effort, as well as the broad applicability of this model in other jurisdictions with a backlog of species awaiting endangered species listing consideration.


Collaboration Endangered species Funding Listing Policy Tufted puffin 



The authors thank P. Becker, H. Allen, and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments that improved the manuscript. SeaDoc thanks the private citizens that enabled the writing of the status review, especially K. Allen, A. Azous, G. Georges, R. and P. Henigson, K. and G. Keeler, R. Lundeen, K. and R. McDowell, and E. Snyder. WDFW funding through sales of Washington’s personalized license plates and the state’s background license plate for endangered species also contributed to this project.


  1. Conde DA, Flesness N, Colchero F, Jones OR, Scheuerlein A (2011) An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331:1390–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fox J, Nino-Murcia A (2005) Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv Biol 19:996–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. FWS (2014) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of native species that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; proposed rule. Fed Reg 79(234):72450–72497Google Scholar
  4. FWS (2015) Endangered Species Act petitions received by Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, Accessed 5 Jan 2016
  5. Gaydos J (2005) Summary meeting notes—2005 Puget Sound seabird and seaduck research meeting. The SeaDoc Society, EastsoundGoogle Scholar
  6. George S, Snape W III (2010) State endangered species acts. In: Bauer DC, Irvin WM (eds) Endangered species act: law, policy, and perspectives. American Bar Association, Chicago, pp 345–359Google Scholar
  7. Gibbs KE, Curie DJ (2012) Protecting endangered species: do the main legislative tools work? PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035730 Google Scholar
  8. Greenwald DN, Suckling KF, Taylor M (2005) The listing record. In: Goble DD, Scott JM, Davis FW (eds) The endangered species act at thirty: renewing the conservation promise. Island Press, Washington, pp 51–76Google Scholar
  9. Groves CR, Klein ML, Breden TF (1995) Natural heritage programs: public-private partnerships for biodiversity conservation. Wildlife Soc Bull 23:784–790Google Scholar
  10. Hanson T, Wiles GJ (2015) Washington state status report for the Tufted Puffin. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Kershaw JD, Hottle D, St. Martin M, Sandoval G (2015) Successful conservation partnership keeps bi-state sage-grouse off endangered species list. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA Accessed 15 Aug 2015
  12. McCarthy DP, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, Buchanan GM, Balmford A, Green JMH, Bennun LA, Burgess ND, Fishpool LDC, Garnett ST, Leonard DL, Maloney RJ, Morling P, Schaefer HM, Symes A, Wiedensfeld DA, Butchart SHM (2012) Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338:946–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller JK, Scott JM, Miller CP, Waits LP (2002) The endangered species act: dollars and sense? BioScience 52:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Otto SP (2015) Biodiversity protects; species loss endangers all of us. Altern J 41:21–25Google Scholar
  15. Scharpf C (2000) Politics, science, and the fate of the Alabama sturgeon. Am Curr 26:6–14Google Scholar
  16. Schultz CB, Gerber LR (2002) Are recovery plans improving with practice? Ecol Appl 12:641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz MW (2008) The performance of the endangered species act. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stokstad E (2005) What’s wrong with the endangered species act? Science 309:2150–2152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taylor MF, Suckling JKF, Rachlinski JJ (2005) The effectiveness of the endangered species act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience 55:360–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 232-12-297 (2015). Washington State Legislature, Olympia, WA. Accessed 15 Aug 2015
  21. Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Joseph LN, Possingham, HP (2010) Evaluating threatened species recovery planning in Australia. Prepared on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by the Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thor Hanson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gary J. Wiles
    • 2
  • Joseph K. Gaydos
    • 1
  1. 1.The SeaDoc Society, UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health CenterEastsoundUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Program, Diversity DivisionWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeOlympiaUSA
  3. 3.Friday HarborUSA

Personalised recommendations