Resolving critical habitat designation failures: Reconciling law, policy, and biology

Conservation Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 399-407

  Hagen, Amy N ^a   Hodges, Karen E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada lynx; Critical habitat; Critical habitat designation; Endangered Species Act; Lynx canadensis

Indexed keywords

ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FELID; RESERVE DESIGN; SITE SELECTION; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LEGAL ASPECT; POLICY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES;

LYNX CANADENSIS;

EID: 33645099293     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00320.x     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Armstrong A. 2002 Critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act: giving meaning to the requirements for habitat protection South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 10 53 86
2. Bean M. J. 1999 Endangered species, endangered act¿ Environment 41 12 18
3. Bean M. J. 2002 Overcoming unintended consequences of endangered species legislation Idaho Law Review 38 409 420
4. Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton 2003 240 F.2d 1090, Number 01-409 (U.S. District Court)
5. Clark A. J. Hoekstra 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
6. Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt 1998 2 F. Supp. 2d 1280, Number 97-00098 (U.S. District Court)
7. Darin T. F. 2000 Designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act: habitat protection versus agency discretion Harvard Environmental Law Review 24 209 235
8. Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton 2002 239 F. Supp. 2d9, Number 00-2996 (U.S. District Court)
9. Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton 2004 89 F. App. 273 (U.S. District Court)
10. Drechsler M. and M. A. Burgman 2004 Combining population viability analysis with decision analysis Biodiversity and Conservation 13 115 139
11. Fantl N. C. 2004 Not so critical designations: the superfluous nature of critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act Arkansas Law Review 57 143 169
12. Forest Guardians v. Babbitt 1999 174 F.3d 1178, Number 97-2370 (U.S. Court of Appeals,10th Cir.)
13. Hall L. S. P. R. Krausman and M. L. Morrison 1997 The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 173 182
14. Hanski I. 1998 Metapopulation dynamics Nature 396 41 49
15. Hargrove B. T. Tear and L. Landon 2002 Geography of hope update: when and where to consider restoration in ecoregional planning The Nature Conservancy Arlington Virginia
16. Harrison S. and E. Bruna 1999 Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure¿ Ecography 22 225 232
17. Harvey E. J. M. Hoekstra R. J. O'Connor and W. F. Fagan 2002 Recovery plan revisions: progress or due process¿ Ecological Applications 12 682 689
18. Hicks E. P. 2000 Designation without conservation: the conflict between the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations Virginia Environmental Law Journal 19 491 523
19. Hoekstra J. M. W. F. Fagan and J. E. Bradley 2002 A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process¿ Not yet. Ecological Applications 12 701 707
20. Houck O. A. 1993 The Endangered Species Act and its implementation by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce University of Colorado Law Review 64 277 359
21. Kerr J. T. and J. Cihlar 2004 Patterns and causes of species endangerment in Canada Ecological Applications 14 743 753
22. Kerr J. T. and I. Deguise 2004 Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery Ecology Letters 7 1163 1169
23. Kintsch J. A. and D. L. Urban 2002 Focal species, community representation, and physical proxies as conservation strategies: a case study in the Amphibolite Mountains, North Carolina, U.S.A Conservation Biology 16 936 947
24. Kostyack J. 2003 Testimony before the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 108 Senate hearings Endangered Species Act: critical habitat issues (10 April 2003)
25. 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
26. Lundquist C. J. J. M. Diehl E. Harvey and L. W. Botsford 2002 Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans Ecological Applications 12 713 718
27. Manson C. 2003 Testimony before the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 108 Senate hearings Endangered Species Act: critical habitat issues (10 April 2003)
28. Manson C. 2004 Testimony before the House Resources Committee 108 House hearings. Regarding H.R. 2933, the critical habitat reform bill act of 2003 (28 April 2004)
29. McLaughlin J. F. J. J. Hellmann C. L. Boggs and P. R. Ehrlich 2002 Climate change hastens population extinction Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 6070 6074
30. Morrison M. L. 2001 A proposed research emphasis to overcome the limits of wildlife-habitat relationship studies Journal of Wildlife Management 65 613 623
31. Natural Resources Defense Council v. USDI 1997 113 F.3d 1121, Number 95-56075 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir.)
32. Natural Resources Defense Council v. USDI 2002 275 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (U.S. District Court)
33. New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. USFWS 2001 248 F.3d 1277 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir.)
34. Noon B. R. D. D. Murphy S. R. Beissinger M. L. Shaffer and D. Dellasala 2003 Conservation planning for US national forests: conducting comprehensive biodiversity assessments BioScience 53 1217 1220
35. Norton M. R. S. J. Hannon and F. K. A. Schmiegelow 2000 Fragments are not islands: patch vs. landscape perspectives on songbird presence and abundance in a harvested boreal forest Ecography 23 209 223
36. NRC (National Research Council) 1995 Science and the Endangered Species Act National Academy Press Washington D.C
37. Patlis J. M. 2001 Paying tribute to Joseph Heller with the Endangered Species Act: when critical habitat isn't Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20 133 217
38. Rachlinski J. J. 1997 Noah by the numbers: an empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act Cornell Law Review 82 356 389
39. Rauscher H. M. 1999 Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United States: a review Forest Ecology and Management 114 173 197
40. Ricketts T. H. 2001 The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes The American Naturalist 158 87 99
41. Rohlf D. J. 2004 Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act: top ten issues for the next thirty years Environmental Law 34 483 553
42. Ruediger B. et al. 2000 Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S National Park Service Missoula Montana
43. Ruggiero L. F. K. B. Aubry S. W. Buskirk G. M. Koehler C. J. Krebs K. S. McKelvey and J. R. Squires 2000 Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States University Press of Colorado Boulder
44. Scarpello R. J. 2003 Statutory redundancy: why Congress should overhaul the Endangered Species Act to exclude critical habitat designation Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 30 399 431
45. Sidle J. G. 1987 Critical habitat designation: is it prudent¿ Environmental Management 11 429 437
46. Sierra Club v. USFWS 2001 245 F.3d 434, Number 00-30117 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Cir.)
47. Snape W. 2003 Testimony before the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 108 Senate hearings. Endangered Species Act: critical habitat issues (10 April 2003)
48. Suckling K. and M. Taylor 2005 Critical habitat and recovery: a legal, case study, and quantitative review In press in Goble D. D. Scott J. M. and Davis F. W. editors The Endangered Species Act at 30: renewing the conservation commitment Island Press Washington D.C
49. Taylor M. K. Suckling and J. Rachlinski 2005 The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis BioScience 55 360 368
50. Tutchton J. 2001 An Endangered Species Act summary. Environmental Law Clinic, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado ALI-ABA 39 131 144
51. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1998 Proposal to list the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada Lynx; proposed rule Federal Register 63 36994 37013
52. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1999 Notice of intent to clarify the role of habitat in endangered species conservation Federal Register 64 31871 31874
53. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2000a Determination of threatened status for the contiguous U. S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule Federal Register 65 16052 16086
54. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2000b Flood of court orders preclude new listings of threatened and endangered species in FY 2001 News release, 22 November 2000 USFWS Washington D.C
55. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2001a Final determination of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog Federal Register 66 14626 14758
56. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2001b Joint regulations (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce); Endangered species committee regulations, listing endangered and threatened species and designating critical habitat U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50 CFR 424.12
57. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2002 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of species that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on recycled petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions Federal Register 67 40657 40679
58. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2004 Recovery report to Congress, fiscal years 2001-2002 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington D.C.
59. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2005a Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx: proposed rule Federal Register 70 68293 68328
60. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2005b Threatened and endangered species system (TESS): summary of listed species and recovery plans USFWS Washington D.C Available from accessed April 2005
61. Van Horne B. 1983 Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality Journal of Wildlife Management 47 893 901
62. Warman L. D. D. M. Forsyth A. R. E. Sinclair K. Freemark H. D. Moore T. W. Barrett R. L. Pressey and D. White 2004 Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada Ecology Letters 7 374 379
63. Weiss S. B. 1999 Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species Conservation Biology 13 1476 1486
64. Wilcove D. S. D. Rothstein J. Dubow A. Phillips and E. Losos 1998 Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States BioScience 48 607 615
65. Wolff J. O. 1995 On the limitations of species-habitat association studies Northwest Science 69 72 76