The meanings of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 989-1026

  Fischman, Robert L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; PROTECTED AREA; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 18144432006     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (259)

1. Exec. Order of Mar. 14, 1903, microformed on Presidential Executive Orders and Proclamations, Fiche 1903-33-1 (Cong. Info. Serv.).
2. Donald Worster, Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas 262-63 (2d ed. 1994) (noting that Merriam created the "life zones" idea and was an expert on the food habits of birds). Merriam turned the research focus of the Bureau of Biological Survey toward the geographic distribution of wildlife. Id. The Secretary of the Interior now manages the refuges through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3. Aldo Leopold, Game Management 195 (Charles Scribner's Sons 1948) (1933).
4. "An Act to Provide for the Conservation...of Native Species...Threatened with Extinction," Pub. L. No. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926.
5. A. Starker Leopold et al., The National Wildlife Refuge System: Report of the Advisory Committee an Wildlife Management, in Department of the Interior Draft Environmental Statement: Operation o the National Wildlife Refuge System W-4 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Dept. of the Interior ed., 1975). The committee report accompanying the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act endorsed the Leopold Committee report's admonition that the refuge system should "stand as a monument to the science and practice of wildlife management." H.R. Rep. No. 105-106, at 9 (1997), reprinted in 1997 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1798-5, 1798-13.
6. Exec. Order No. 12,996,61 Fed. Reg. 13,647 (Mar. 25, 1996).
7. Pub. L. No. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252, §§ 3(a)(4), 4(a)(2) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd(a), 668eee(4)) (emphasis added).
8. U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(4)(B) (2000).
9. Charles F. Wilkinson, Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the West 128 (1992) (quoting the letter to Gifford Pinchot (Pinchot Letter) from Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, Feb. 1, 1905). This letter, setting forth the mission of the Forest Service, "remains gospel" to national forest decision makers. Id.
10. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1532 (2000).
11. See id. § 668ee(4).
12. Robert L. Fischman, The National Wildlife Refuge System and the Hallmarks of Modern Organic Legislation, 29 Ecology L.Q. 457 (2002).
13. See 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(4)(B) (2000).
14. Cf. id. § 1604(g)(3)(B) (National Forest Management Act ecological mandate).
15. See William N. Eskridge, Jr., & Philip P. Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 321, 345-62 (1990).
16. Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945).
17. I b i d.
18. See Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitutional Law, in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997). Only some dictionaries, though, meet Justice Scalia's exacting standards. Cf. MCI v. AT&T, 512 U.S. 218, 228 n.3 (1994).
19. William N. Eskridge et al., Legislation and Statutory Interpretation 252 (2000);
20. see generally Ellen P. Aprill, The Law of the Word: Dictionary Shopping in the Supreme Court, 30 Ariz. ST. L.J. 275 (1998);
21. Note: Looking It Up: Dictionaries and Statutory Interpretation, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1437 (1994).
22. 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (2000).
23. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 697, 717, 719 (1995) [hereinafter Sweet Home].
24. E.g., Peter Miller & William E. Rees, Introduction, in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health 3, 10 (David Pimentel et al. eds., 2000);
25. Benjamin D. Haskell et al., What Is Ecosystem Health and Why Should We Worry About It?, in Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management 5-6 (Robert Costanza et al. eds., 1992).
26. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 1043 (3d ed. 1993) [hereinafter Webster's Dictionary]. This dictionary has a descriptive orientation and is more likely to capture how legislators thought about words rather than to serve as a prescriptive reference. Paradoxically, it is this very descriptive character of Webster's Dictionary to which Justice Scalia objects.
27. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Legislation and Statutory Interpretation 252-53 (2000).
28. Webster's Dictionary, supra note 23, at 760.
29. The policy defines environmental health as the "composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions." Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 66 Fed. Reg. 3810, 3818 (Jan. 16, 2001) (emphasis added).
30. Webster's Dictionary, supra note 23, at 218.
31. Id. at 1174.
32. Id. at 663.
33. See Fischman, supra note 12, at 511-12, 563-71 (2002).
34. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984) (courts will defer to any permissible agency definitions of statutory schemes where Congress does not directly, unambiguously provide precise meanings). See infra Part VI.
35. 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1995).
36. Id. at 621;
37. see Robert W. Adler, The Supreme Court and Ecosystems: Environmental Science in Environmental Law, 27 Vt. L. Rev. 249, 350 (2003).
38. Adler, supra note 32.
39. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life 393 (1992);
40. Nat'l Research Council, Perspectives on Biodiversity: Valuing Its Role in an Everchanging World 20 (1999);
41. Paul R. Erlich & Simon A. Levin, Biodiversity: What It Is and Why We Need It, in The Biodiversity Crisis: Losing What Counts 46 (Michael J. Novacek ed., 2001).
42. For an example of a narrow definition of biodiversity, see K.H. Redford & S.E. Sanderson, The Brief Barren Marriage of Biodiversity and Sustainability, 73 Bull. Ecological Soc'y Am. 36 (1992) (biodiversity as species diversity).
43. For an example of a broad definition, see Reed F. Noss, Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach, 4 Conservation Biology 356-57 (1990) (biodiversity as existing on several organizational levels from genes to whole ecosystems).
44. Noss, supra note 34, at 356-57 (biodiversity includes processes and elements over broad scales).
45. James Karr, Measuring Biological Integrity: Lessons from Streams, in Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems 83, 85 (Stephen Woodley et al. eds., 1993). This definition includes species composition, diversity, and functional organization as elements to compare with the natural habitat of a region.
46. Paul L. Angermeier & James R. Karr, Biological Integrity Versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives, 44 BioScience 690, 692 (1994).
47. The origins of this definition derive from an application by James R. Karr and Daniel R. Dudley, Ecological Perspective on Water Quality Goals, 5 Envtl. Mgmt. 55, 56 (1981),
48. of a concept proposed in D. Frey, Biological Integrity of Water: An Historical Perspective, in U.S. EPA, The Integrity of Water 127 (R.K. Ballentine & L.J. Guarraia eds., 1975).
49. Angermeier & Karr, supra note 36, at 692.
50. Peter Miller, Approaches to Ecological Integrity: Divergence, Convergence and Implementation, in Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health 57, 66-71 (P.A. Crabbé et al. eds., 2000).
51. For reviews that categorize the various definitions of integrity, see also Peter Miller & James Ehnes, Can Canadian Approaches to Sustainable Forest Management Maintain Ecological Integrity?, in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health, supra note 22, at 157, 159;
52. Stephen Woodley, Monitoring and Measuring Ecosystem Integrity in Canadian National Parks, in Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystem 155, 156-58 (Stephen Woodley et al. eds., 1993).
53. Laura Westra et al., Ecological Integrity and the Aims of the Global Integrity Project, in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment Conservation, and Health, supra note 22, at 26-29.
54. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 601 FW 3.6(B), available at http://policy.fws.gov/manual.html (last visited Dec. 3, 2004);
55. Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 66 Fed. Reg. 3810, 3818 (Jan. 16, 2001).
56. See, e.g., Edward O. Wilson, Biodiversity: Wildlife in Trouble, in The Biodiversity Crisis: Losing What Counts, supra note 34, at 18;
57. Richard O. Brooks et al., Law and Ecology: The Rise of the Ecosystem Regime 212-13 (2002);
58. Wilson, supra note 34;
59. Ehrlich & Levin, supra note 34.
60. Angermeier & Karr, supra note 36, at 692.
61. See generally Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, supra note 22;
62. Bryan G. Norton, Toward Unity Among Environmentalists (1991).
63. James R. Karr, Health, Integrity, and Biological Assessment: The Importance of Measuring Whole Things, in Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health, supra note 22, at 209, 211-12;
64. Peter Miller & Laura Westra, Introduction, in Just Ecological Integrity: The Ethics of Maintaining Planetary Life xix (Peter Miller & Laura Westra eds., 2002).
65. D.J. Rapport et al., Ecosystem Health: The Concept, the ISEH, and the Important Tasks Ahead, 5 Ecosystem Health 82, 82 (1999).
66. Benjamin D. Haskell et al., Introduction: What Is Ecosystem Health and Why Should We Worry About It?, in Ecosystem Health: New Goals or Environmental Management, supra note 22, at 9. This definition emerged from a 1990 Aspen Institute workshop.
67. Robert Costanza, Toward an Operational Definition of Ecosystem Health, in Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, supra note 22, at 239;
68. M.T. Mageau et al., The Development and Initial Testing of a Quantitative Assessment of Ecosystem Health, 1 Ecosystem Health 201 (1995).
69. Rapport et al., supra note 45, at 84.
70. The Literacy Guidelines Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology's Education Committee recently completed its outline of the central principles and concepts of conservation biology. Its framework parallels the Act's integrity-diversity-health criterion by organizing "three important aspects of life on Earth" into the categories "biological diversity," "ecological integrity," and "ecological health."
71. Stephen C. Trombulak et al., Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology, 18 Conservation Biology 1180, 1182 (2004).
72. See generally David Takacs, The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise (1996).
73. Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1995);
74. Oliver A. Houck, On the Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management , 81 Minn. L. Rev. 869, 909-15 (1997) (criticizing the Forest Service's and the court's interpretation of the NFMA diversity mandate);
75. see also Angermeier & Karr, supra note 36, at 692 (citing the example of the Apalachicola River basin where reduced freshwater flow increases species diversity at the expense of productivity and overall integrity).
76. See, e.g., Ichiro Aoki, Diversity-Productivity-Stability Relationship in Freshwater Ecosystems: Whole-systemic View of All Trophic Levels, 18 Ecological Res. 397 (2003);
77. Stuart L. Pimm, Community Stability and Structure, in Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity 309, 311-22 (Michael E. Soule ed., (1986);
78. Robert M. May, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (1973).
79. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There 224-25 (Oxford Univ. Press 1989) (1949).
80. See, e.g., Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environmental and Human Health (P. Crabbé et al. eds., 2000);
81. Just Ecological Integrity: The Ethics of Maintaining Planetary Life, supra note 44;
82. Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health, supra note 22;
83. Laura Westra, Living in Integrity: A Global Ethic to Restore a Fragmented Earth (1998).
84. Cf. The Biodiversity Crisis: Losing What Counts, supra note 34;
85. Wilson, supra note 34, at 393;
86. Biodiversity (Edward O. Wilson ed., 1988).
87. See generally Leslie Paul Thiele, Environmentalism for a New Millennium: The Challenge of Coevolution (1999).
88. E.g., Robert B. Keiter, Keeping Faith with Nature: Ecosystems, Democracy, and America's Public Lands 72 (2003) (an ecosystem management principle ensures that healthy natural resource systems and biodiversity be maintained);
89. R. Edward Grumbine, Reflections on "What Is Ecosystem Management?," 11 Conservation Biology 41, 43 (1997) (an ecosystem management theme includes sustaining ecological integrity).
90. The term "internal context" is borrowed from my colleague, Bill Popkin. William D. Popkin, Materials on Legislation: Political Language and the Political Process 198 (2d ed. 2001) (describing internal context as the text surrounding the words of which a reader is discerning meaning).
91. Even strict textualists, such as Judge Easterbrook, look to the function or purpose of a statutory provision in order to ascertain its meaning. See, e.g., In re Erickson, 815 F.2d 1090, 1094 (7th Cir. 1987).
92. William D. Popkin, Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation 151-55 (1999).
93. Sweet Home, supra note 21.
94. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 17 F.3d 1463, 1465-66 (D.C. Cir. 1994);
95. see also Sweet Home, supra note 21, at 694 (1995);
96. Eskridge et al., supra note 19, at 253-54 (2000).
97. Sweet Home, supra note 21, at 720-21 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
98. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2000).
99. Sweet Home, supra note 21, at 720 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
100. Id. at 698.
101. Eskridge et al., supra note 19, at 266-67.
102. U.S. Nat'l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993) (Souter, J., for a unanimous Court).
103. 16 U.S.C. § 668ee(4) (2000).
104. I b i d.
105. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., supra note 40, 601 FW 3;
106. Notice of Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 66 Fed. Reg. 3810 (Jan. 16, 2001).
107. United States v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 516 n.8 (1992) (quoting Justice Frankfurter).
108. Fischman, supra note 12, at 501-13 (the five hallmarks of modern organic legislation are purpose statements, designated uses, comprehensive planning, substantive management criteria, and public participation).
109. See Review of the Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System: Joint Hearing, 101st Cong. (1989);
110. U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-89-196, National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action (1989).
111. For a review of these developments, see Fischman, supra note 12, at 493-99.
112. S. 1862, 102d Cong. § 4(a)(4)(B) (1991).
113. National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Envtl. Protection of the Senate Comm. on Env't and Public Works, 102d Cong. 12 (1992).
114. S. 1862, § 4(a)(2)(B).
115. Id. § 4(a)(2)(D).
116. See 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(1) (2000).
117. Id. § 668dd(a)(4)(C)).
118. See S. Rep. No. 103-324, at 13 (1994) (describing the loss of biodiversity and the role the refuges can play in a network of lands to conserve biodiversity).
119. H.R. 833, 103d Cong. § 4 (1993); S. 823, 103d Cong. § 5(B) (1993) (as reported in S. Rep. No. 103-324).
120. S. 823, 103d Cong. § 5(B) (1993).
121. S. Rep No. 103-324, at 15 (1994). Elsewhere, the committee report describes the bill's mission for refuges as contributing "significantly to the ecological integrity" of the ecosystems in which they occur.
122. Id. at 12.
123. The scientific literature sometimes distinguishes "ecological," which includes both biotic and abiotic aspects, from "biological," which focuses on just living aspects. James R. Karr, Beyond Definitions: Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health in National Wildlife Refuges, 44 Nat. Resources J. 1067 (2004).
124. This also explains the use of the unmodified term "diversity" rather than "biodiversity" or βiological diversity."
125. See Exec. Order No. 12,996, 61 Fed. Reg. 13,647 (Mar. 28, 1996) (mandating the "Directives of the Secretary of Interior," to include one to "ensure that the biological integrity and environmental health" of the refuges are maintained). The 1997 Improvement Act found the 1996 executive order to be "a positive step... [serving] as the foundation for the permanent statutory changes" enacted. Pub. L. No. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252, § 2(8) (1997).
126. H.R. 1675, 104th Cong. § 5(a)(4)(K) (1996).
127. H.R. 511, 105th Cong. § 5(a)(4)(K) (1997).
128. Congress largely succeeded in articulating the current thinking of conservation biology. In its new outline of the central principles and concepts of conservation biology, the Literacy Guidelines Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology's Education Committee organized "the three important aspects of life on Earth" into the categories "biological diversity," "ecological integrity," and "ecological health." Stephen C. Trombulak et al., Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology, 18 Conservation Biology 1180, 1181 (2004).
129. Stephen C. Trombulak et al., Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology, 18 Conservation Biology 1180, 1181 (2004).
130. See U.S. Nat'l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993);
131. United States v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 516 (1992).
132. See generally William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation (1994).
133. Context within the larger statutory landscape aids interpretation of legislation. See generally Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes (1982).
134. W. Va. Univ. Hosp. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 101 (1991).
135. Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 786 n.17 (2000).
136. Leopold, supra note 53.
137. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500 § 101(a), 86 Stat. 816, 816 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2000)).
138. For example, the 1978 U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement adopts for its goal the integrity language from the 1972 Clean Water Act. Robert W. Adler et al., The Clean Water Act: 20 Years Later 221 (1993).
139. See, e.g., P.F.Z. Props., Inc. v. Train, 393 F. Supp. 1370, 1381 (D.D.C. 1975) (interpreting the CWA broadly to regulate development in a mangrove swamp in part because the development would impair the biological integrity of the neighboring lagoon and ocean); United States v. Holland, 373 F. Supp. 665, 668 (M.D. Fla. 1974) (interpreting the CWA broadly for comprehensive regulation of wetlands to recapture and preserve "the biological integrity of the nation's water by creating a web of complex interrelated regulatory programs").
140. See generally Robert W. Adler, The Two Lost Books in the Water Quality Trilogy: The Elusive Objectives of Physical and Biological Integrity, 33 Envtl. L. 29 (2003).
141. Id. at 66-70.
142. Id. at 45;
143. H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, at 76-77 (1972).
144. The EPA has implemented this mandate, in part, by promulgating national program guidance for biological criteria. These criteria seek to measure directly the structure and function of resident aquatic communities to determine whether they meet the statutory standard. See Robert L. Fischman, Biological Diversity and Environmental Protection: Authorities to Reduce Risk, 22 Envtl. L. 435, 448 (1992).
145. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500 § 304(a)(2), 86 Stat. 816, 850-51 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a) (2000)).
146. Id. § 304(a)(2).
147. Adler, supra note 101, at 70;
148. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Basics: What are Biocriteria and Bioassessment Data?, at http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/basics/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2004);
149. Off. of Water, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Biological Assessments and Criteria: Crucial Components of Water Quality Programs (2002).
150. Adler, supra note 101, at 70-74;
151. Karr, supra note 86.
152. 33 U.S.C. § 1254(r) (2000) (research grants to colleges and universities);
153. id. § 1255(d)(3) (research and development grants);
154. id. § 1270(e)(2)(A) (goals for a Lake Champlain plan);
155. id. § 1330(b)(4) (goals for plans under the national estuary program);
156. id. § 2317(b)(2)(A) (goals for a wetlands creation project in Arkansas). The integrity aspects of these and other EPA authorities received a burst of attention in the 1990s, after the Science Advisory Board released a report recommending that the EPA "attach as much importance to reducing ecological risk as it does to reducing human health risk."
157. Fischman, supra note 104, at 439;
158. Sci. Advisory Bd., U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection 6 (1990);
159. see, e.g., Notice Requesting Applications Regarding a Project on Indicators of Ecosystem Stress, 58 Fed. Reg. 6788 (Feb. 2,1993);
160. U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Notification of Public Advisory Committee Meetings, 61 Fed. Reg. 15,481 (Apr. 8, 1996);
161. see also Fischman, supra note 104, at 439-40 (discussing the emergence of this trend).
162. Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, 39 Fed. Reg. 3366, 3369 (Jan. 25, 1974) (emphasis added).
163. The current version was repromulgated with the same phrasing at National Register of Historic Places, 46 Fed. Reg. 56,187, 56,189 (Nov. 16, 1981).
164. Act of Mar. 27,1978, Pub. L. No. 95-250, § 101(b), 92 Stat. 163,166 (1978).
165. National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-391, § § 301-303, 112 Stat. 3497, 3501 (1998).
166. Id. § 303(c)(3)(A)(i).
167. Pub. L. No. 101-229, 103 Stat. 1946 (1989) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 410r-5 (2000)).
168. Act of May 29, 1934, ch. 371, 48 Stat.816.
169. Pub. L. No. 101-229, §§ 101(b), 103(b), 103 Stat. 1946 (1989).
170. Fischman, supra note 12, at 603.
171. On the history of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, see U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Sevilletta National Wildlife Refuge, at http://southwest.fws.gov/refuges/newmex/sevilleta/history.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2004).
172. Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-399, § 1, 114 Stat. 1655, 1655 (2000). The Act also establishes the area for the purpose of, among other things, ecological health. However, because the health component is neither defined nor contained in management prescriptions in the statute, I treat this law principally as a new development concerning integrity.
173. Id. § 2(5).
174. Id. § 103, 103 Stat. at l948-49.
175. Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, § 111(b)(3).
176. Id. _St 111(c).
177. The FWS has not yet made much progress in this area. However, it has established a performance goal to develop standardized methods to measure biological diversity and environmental health on all refuges. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Annual Performance Plan FY 2001/Annual Performance Report FY 1999 42-45 (2000), available at http://planning.fws.gov/USFWFinal.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2004).
178. Public comment on the draft management plan closed on January 5, 2004. See Andrews Mgmt. Unit/Steens Mountain Coop. Mgmt. & Prot. Area, Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, at http://www.or.blm.gov/Burns/Planning/AndrewsSteensRMP/ Draft_RMP/Draft.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2004).
179. Biological diversity has also received more popular attention. Of the three terms in the 1997 mandate, only biological diversity has an entry in the general reference source, The Columbia Encyclopedia 309 (6th ed. 2000) ("number of species in a given habitat"). Note that this generalist definition is narrower (limited to species diversity) than most of the agency and scientific definitions.
180. Takacs, supra note 50, at 34-40.
181. Biodiversity, supra note 55.
182. See, e.g., Takacs, supra note 50, at 46-52 (1996);
183. Hal Salwasser, In Search of an Ecosystem Approach to Endangered Species Conservation, in Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future 247, 251-54 (Kathryn A. Kohm ed., 1991);
184. Council on Envtl. Quality, Environmental Quality: Twenty-First Annual Report 135-87 (1990);
185. Office of Tech. Assessment, U.S. Congress, Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity (1987).
186. Wild, Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, Pub. L. No. 92-195, § 1, 85 Stat. 649, 649 (1971) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000)).
187. Bruce E. Coblentz, Letter to the Editor, 13 Nat. Areas J. 3 (1993).
188. I b i d.
189. See supra notes 98-109 and accompanying text.
190. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, § 304(a)(1)(c), 86 Stat. 816, 850 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(1)(c) (2000)).
191. Id. § 403(c)(1)(B) (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1343(c)(1)(B) (2000)).
192. Pub. L. No. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949 (1976).
193. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B) (2000).
194. National Forest Management Act, 47 Fed. Reg. 43,026, 43,050 (Sept. 30, 1982).
195. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(h) (2000). Unlike the NFMA, the Improvement Act requires neither notice and comment rulemaking nor an independent committee of scientists to interpret the diversity (integrity and health) mandate. A mandate to convene an outside panel of scientists to recommend implementing guidelines for the integrity-diversity-health criterion would have further strengthened the textual case for the use of science.
196. National Forest Management Act, 47 Fed. Reg. 43,026, 43,050 (Sept. 30, 1982).
197. See, e.g., Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 798 F. Supp. 1473 (W.D. Wash. 1992), aff'd Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1993) (invalidating Forest Service plans because they failed to maintain viable populations of the northern spotted owl).
198. Keiter, supra note 57, at 79-126.
199. 66 Fed. Reg. 3810, 3821 (Jan. 16, 2001);
200. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., supra note 40, 601 FW 3.14(C).
201. Smith River National Recreation Act, Pub. L. No.101-612, § 4, 104 Stat. 3209, 3210 (1990) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 460bbb-2 (2000)) (establishing the Smith River National Recreation Area for the purpose of, among other things, preserving the ecological diversity of the area);
202. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Act, Pub. L. No. 103-63, 107 Stat. 297, 297 (1993) (establishing the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area for the purpose of, among other things, preserving biological diversity).
203. Smith River National Recreation Area Act § 5 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 460bbb-3 (2000)).
204. 65 Fed. Reg. 62,484, 62,486 (Oct. 18, 2000);
205. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., supra note 40, 603 FW 2.5(A).
206. Act of Oct. 31, 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-571, § 1, 102 Stat. 2879, 2879 (codified at 16 U.S.C. 410qq (2000)) (establishing the National Park of American Samoa).
207. See supra notes 114-116 and accompanying text.
208. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 96-487, §§ 302, 303, 94 Stat. 2371, 2385-2393 (1980).
209. Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Act, Pub. L. No. 96-267, § 4, 94 Stat. 483, 484 (1980) ("to conserve an undisturbed beach-dune ecosystem which includes a diversity of fish and wildlife");
210. Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Act, Pub. L. No. 97-137, tit. II, 95 Stat. 1709, 1710 (1981) ("to protect wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity");
211. Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge Act, Pub. L. No. 97-333, § 3(a), 96 Stat. 1623, 1623 (1982) ("to provide habitat for a broad diversity of bird species");
212. Wetlands Loan Act, Extension, Pub. L. No. 98-548, § 201(b), 98 Stat. 2774, 2774 (1984) ("to encourage natural diversity of fish and wildlife species");
213. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-645, § 502, 100 Stat. 3582, 3590 ("to encourage natural diversity of fish and wildlife species");
214. Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Act, Pub. L. No. 101-593, § 107, 104 Stat. 2954, 2955 (1989) (conserving "the natural diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats");
215. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-154, § 319(d), 105 Stat. 990,1036 ("to encourage the natural diversity of plant, fish, and wildlife species");
216. Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-402, § 4(c), 106 Stat. 1961, 1965 ("to conserve and enhance the land and water of the refuge in a manner that will conserve and enhance the natural diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats");
217. Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, Pub. L. No. 102-212, § 104, 105 Stat. 1655, 1656 (1991) ("to conserve, protect, and enhance the natural diversity and abundance of plant, fish, and wildlife species").
218. During the same period, other refuges established by non-legislative sources also contained diversity purposes. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13,022, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,875, 56,875 (Oct. 31, 1996) (maintaining and restoring "natural biological diversity").
219. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 450i (2000) (agricultural research grants to determine global climate change on biological diversity);
220. 22 U.S.C. § 262m-5 (2000) (instructing U.S. directors of multi-lateral development banks to promote the establishment of environmental programs to protect biological diversity);
221. Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-529, § 302, 100 Stat. 3010, 3017 (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2151q (2000)) (Agency for International Development assistance to countries for the purpose of conserving biological diversity);
222. Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 101, 104 Stat. 3096, 3096 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2931 (2000)) (global climate change research program to help understand human-induced climate changes that could adversely affect biological diversity).
223. See supra notes 6-7 and accompanying text.
224. Exec. Order No. 13,158,65 Fed. Reg. 34,909 (May 26,2000).
225. Exec. Order No. 13,158, 65 Fed. Reg. 34,909 (May 26, 2000).
226. Rapport et al., supra note 45, at 82-83 (ecosystem health extends the concept of "health" from its traditional domains of application at the individual and population levels to that of the whole ecosystem).
227. Pub. L. No. 92-522, 86 Stat. 1027 (1972).
228. Id. § 2(6), 86 Stat. at 1028.
229. Dale D. Goble & Eric T. Freyogle, Federal Wildlife Statutes: Texts and Contexts 29 (2002).
230. Pub. L. No. 92-522, § 3, 86 Stat. at 1028 (emphasis added).
231. See Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies 23 (1990).
232. Forest Ecosystems and Atmospheric Pollution Research Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-521, 102 Stat. 2601.
233. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 404, 104 Stat. 2399, 2632 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7651 (2000)).
234. See, e.g., id. § 901(a)-(c), 104 Stat. at 2700.
235. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv) (2000).
236. Chattahoochee National Forest Protection Act of 1991, 16 U.S.C. §§ 460ggg-460ggg-3 (2000).
237. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery from the Tragedy that Occurred at Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-19 §§ 1008-2002, 109 Stat. 194, 240-247 (1995).
238. For a description of the 1995 law in the context of logging controversies in the western national forests, see Kieter, supra note 57, at 105-08.
239. Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 6501-6591 (West Supp. 2004).
240. Id. § 6501 (emphasis added).
241. Id. §§ 6511-6518.
242. Id. §§ 6514-6516.
243. See, e.g., Molly Villamana, Commercial Activities, Invasive Species Harming National Forests, New Enviro Report Says, Land Letter, June 5, 2003, at 5, 7-10, at http://www.eenews.net/Landletter/ Backissues/060503/06050305.htm (last visited Nov. 12, 2004) (quoting a Forest Service official arguing that the Black Ms National Forest is in a healthy condition even though it is not a natural forest due to intensive management, extensive use, and noxious weeds).
244. William Wallace Covington, Restoring Ecosystem Health in Frequent-Fire Forests in the American West, 21 Ecological Restoration 7 (2003).
245. Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669-669k (2000).
246. Id. § 669c(d)(1)(D).
247. Compare National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 668ee (2000), with Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act § 669a.
248. Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land 42 (1970).
249. Steven L. Yaffee, Prohibitive Policy (1982).
250. See Reed F. Noss, Some Suggestions for Keeping National Wildlife Refuges Healthy and Whole, 44 Nat. Resources J. 1093 (2004).
251. For a description of the change in the administrative interpretation of sections 9 and 10 of the ESA, see Robert L. Fischman & Jaelith Hall-Rivera, A Lesson for Conservation from Pollution Control Law: Cooperative Federalism for Recovery Under the Endangered Species Act, 27 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 45, 73-78 (2002);
252. J.B. Ruhl, Who Needs Congress? An Agenda for Administrative Reform of the Endangered Species Act, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 367, 384-85, 392-94 (1998).
253. Charles F. Wilkinson & H. Michael Anderson, Land and Resource Planning in the National Forests, 64 Or. L. Rev. 1, 296 (1985).
254. This is the "can't-do," bottom line that Oliver Houck argues is a necessary condition for effective biodiversity law. Houck, supra note 51, at 871.
255. Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 66 Fed. Reg. 3810, 3821 (2001);
256. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., supra note 40, 601 FW 3.14(C).
257. National Wildlife Refuge System: Land Usage; Compatibility Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. 62, 483, 62,486 (2000);
258. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., supra note 40, 603 FW 2.5(A).
259. This policy provision is not part of the regulation dealing with compatibility, however. FWS Land Use Management, 50 C.F.R. § 29.1 (2003).