Can the ESA address the threats of atmospheric nitrogen deposition? insights from the case of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly

Harvard Environmental Law Review

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 433-475

  Tzankova, Zdravka ^a   Vallano, Dena ^a   Zavaleta, Erika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION; BUTTERFLY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE; EMISSION CONTROL; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; GREENHOUSE GAS; HABITAT CONSERVATION; NITROGEN; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

EUPHYDRYAS EDITHA BAYENSIS;

EID: 84864032088     PISSN: 01478257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (278)

1. See, e.g., ON THE WINGS OF CHECKERSPOTS: A MODEL SYSTEM FOR POPULATION BIOLOGY (Paul R. Ehrlich & Ilkka Hanski eds., 2004);
2. Paul R. Ehrlich & Dennis D. Murphy, Conservation Lessons from Long-Term Studies of Checkerspot Butterflies, 1 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 122 (1987);
3. Susan Harrison et al., Distribution of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis: Evidence for a Metapopulation Model, 132 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST 360 (1988). A metapopulation dynamic means that a group of spatially distinct populations occasionally exchange individuals and can occupy sites that vary from year to year.
4. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY, 5-YEAR REVIEW: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 2 (2009). Thus, presently unoccupied sites can still be part of the checkerspot habitat.
5. Determination of Threatened Status for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, 52 Fed. Reg. 35, 366, 35, 366 (Sept. 18, 1987)
6. (codified at 50 C. F. R. pt. 17);
7. See also U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 3.
8. See U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., RECOVERY PLAN FOR SERPENTINE SOIL SPECIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA II-189-91 (1998);
9. Dennis D. Murphy & Stuart B. Weiss, Ecological Studies and the Conservation of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis, 46 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 183, 188-92 (1988).
10. See, e.g., U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 17;
11. see also Saving the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, CTR. FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/invertebrates/Bay- checkerspot-butterfly/ (last visited Mar. 27, 2011).
12. See Michael J. Bean, Overcoming Unintended Consequences of Endangered Species Regulation, 38 IDAHO L. REV. 409, 410 (2002);
13. STUART B. WEISS, IMPACTS OF NITROGEN DEPOSITION ON CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY (2006) [hereinafter WEISS, IMPACTS OF NITROGEN DEPOSITION];
14. Stuart B. Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies: Nitrogen Deposition and Management of Nutrient-Poor Grasslands for a Threatened Species, 13 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 1476 (1999) [hereinafter Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies].
15. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 14-15;
16. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 3, at II-195;
17. Susan Harrison & Joshua H. Viers, Serpentine Grasslands, in CALIFORNIA GRASSLANDS: ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 145, 153-54 (Mark R. Stromberg et al., eds., 2007);
18. Laura F. Huenneke et al., Effects of Soil Resources on Plant Invasion and Community Structure in Californian Serpentine Grassland, 71 ECOLOGY 478, at 478, 488-89 (1990);
19. WEISS, IMPACTS OF NITROGEN DEPOSITION, supra note 5;
20. Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5;
21. see also Dennis D. Murphy et al., Introducing Checkerspots: Taxonomy and Ecology, in ON THE WINGS OF CHECKERSPOTS: A MODEL SYSTEM FOR POPULATION BIOLOGY, supra note 1, at 26;
22. See Mark E. Fenn et al., Ecological Effects of Nitrogen Deposition in the Western United States, 53 BIOSCIENCE 404, at 405, 417 (2003) [hereinafter Fenn et al., Ecological Effects];
23. Mark E. Fenn et al., Nitrogen Excess in North American Ecosystems: Predisposing Factors, Ecosystem Responses, and Management Strategies, 8 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 706, at 706, 721 (1998);
24. Gareth K. Phoenix et al., Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition in World Biodiversity Hotspots: The Need for a Greater Global Perspective in Assessing N Deposition Impacts, 12 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 470, at 471 (2006).
25. It can be seen in particular in those ecosystems exposed to high rates of atmospheric nitrogen deposition for several decades. See, e.g., Roland Bobbink et al., The Effects of Air-Borne Nitrogen Pollutants on Species Diversity in Natural and Semi-Natural European Vegetation, 86 J. ECOLOGY 717, 731 (1998) [hereinafter Bobbink et al., Air-Borne Nitrogen Pollutants];
26. Roland Bobbink & Leon P. M. Lamers, Effects of Increased Nitrogen Deposition, in AIR POLLUTION AND PLANT LIFE 201-05 (J. N. B. Bell & Michael Treshow, eds., 2002).
27. see also Roland Bobbink et al., Global Assessment of Nitrogen Deposition Effects on Terrestrial Plant Diversity: A Synthesis, 20 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 30, 41, 43, 51 (2010) [hereinafter Bobbink et al., Global Assessment]. The population of the threatened desert tortoise of the southwestern U. S. deserts has declined due to grazing pressure, habitat destruction, drought, disease, and a declining food base. Invasive grasses able to utilize additional nitrogen from deposition now outcompete native forbs, reducing the nutritional quality of vegetation available to the tortoise.
28. See Kenneth A. Nagy, Brian T. Henen, & Devesh B. Vyas, Nutritional Quality of Native and Introduced Food Plants of Wild Desert Tortoises, 32 J. HERPETOLOGY 260, 262-64 (1998).
29. Johan Rockström et al., A Safe Operating Space for Humanity, 461 NATURE 472, 472 (2009);
30. Osvaldo E. Sala et al., Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100, 287 SCIENCE 1770, 1770 (2000).
31. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 14-15, 31.
32. 16 U. S. C. § 1536 (2006). The checkerspot case is further compelling as a context for examining the ability of the ESA to offer protections against nitrogen deposition because the mechanisms of nitrogen impact on the checkerspot - and the causal chain that links nitrogen emissions to the harmful impacts on remaining checkerspot populations - are likely more complex than those encountered in many other cases of nitrogen deposition damage to habitats or species. Consequently, if it can be shown that ESA protections, specifically those in section 7 and section 9, extend to the checkerspot with regard to emission-source nitrogen deposition, then the case for using the ESA to address nitrogen deposition harms on other listed species could be stronger.
33. See Michael J. Bean, The Endangered Species Act and Private Land: Four Lessons Learned from the Past Quarter Century, 28 ENVTL. L. REP. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 10, 701, 10, 705 (1998);
34. J. B. Ruhl, Climate Change and the Endangered Species Act: Building Bridges to the No-Analog Future, 88 B. U. L. REV. 1, 14-16 (2008) [hereinafter Ruhl, Climate Change].
35. See Donald C. Baur, Comment on Climate Change and the Endangered Species Act: Building Bridges to the No-Analog Future, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 10, 746, 10, 747-48 (2009);
36. J. B. Ruhl, Keeping the Endangered Species Act Relevant, 19 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 275, 275, 279-80 (2009) [hereinafter Ruhl, Endangered Species Act].
37. For discussion of GHG emissions and the ESA, see ROBERT MELTZ, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RS22906, USE OF THE POLAR BEAR LISTING TO FORCE REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS (2008), available at http://nepinstitute.org/get/CRS-Reports/CRS-Climate-and-Environment/ Other-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions/Use-of-the-Polar-Bear-listing-to-force-reduction- of-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions.pdf;
38. Matthew Gerhart, Climate Change and the Endangered Species Act: The Difficulty Of Proving Causation, 36 ECOLOGY L. Q. 167 (2009);
39. Wm. Robert Irvin, Comment on Climate Change and the Endangered Species Act: Building Bridges to the No-Analog Future, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 10, 750 (2009);
40. Sarah Jane Morath, The Endangered Species Act: A New Avenue for Climate Change Litigation, 29 PUB. LAND & RESOURCES L. REV. 24 (2008);
41. Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13;
42. Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 276-77;
43. and Ari N. Sommer, Taking the Pit Bull Off the Leash: Siccing the Endangered Species Act on Climate Change, 36 B. C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. 273 (2009).
44. James N. Galloway et al., Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future, 70 BIOGEOCHEMISTRY 153, 153-55 (2004);
45. James N. Galloway et al., Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle: Recent Trends, Questions, and Potential Solutions, 320 SCI. 889, 889-90 (2008).
46. See Peter M. Vitousek et al., Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources and Consequences, 7 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS 737, 738-39 (1997).
47. See Bobbink et al., Global Assessment, supra note 9, at 32.
48. Roland Bobbink & Jan G. M. Roelofs, Nitrogen Critical Loads for Natural and Semi-Natural Ecosystems: The Empirical Approach, 85 WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION 2413, 2415-16 (1995);
49. Peter J. Lea, Oxides of Nitrogen and Ozone: Can Our Plants Survive? 139 NEW PHYTOLOGIST 25 (1998);
50. J. Pearson & A. Soares, A Hypothesis of Plant Susceptibility to Atmospheric Pollution Based on Intrinsic Nitrogen Metabolism: Why Acidity Really Is the Problem, 85 WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION 1227, 1231-32 (1995);
51. Alan R. Wellburn, Why Are Atmospheric Oxides of Nitrogen Usually Phytotoxic and Not Alternative Fertilizers? 115 NEW PHYTOLOGIST 395, 395 (1990).
52. 2 and Carbon Sequestration in Forests, 2 FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY & THE ENV'T 315 (2004).
53. Gregory P. Asner et al., The Decoupling of Terrestrial Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles, 47 BIOSCIENCE 226 (1997);
54. Bobbink et al., Air-Borne Nitrogen Pollutants, supra note 8;
55. Frank S. Gilliam, Response of the Herbaceous Layer of Forest Ecosystems to Excess Nitrogen Deposition, 94 J. ECOLOGY 1176 (2006);
56. Charles T. Driscoll et al., Nitrogen Pollution in the Northeastern United States: Sources, Effects, and Management Options, 53 BIOSCIENCE 357 (2003).
57. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 2;
58. see also Dennis D. Murphy & Paul R. Ehrlich, Two California Checkerspot Butterfly Subspecies: One New, One on the Verge of Extinction, 34 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY 316, 316-18 (1980).
59. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 2.
60. See Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5, at 1483-85;
61. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 3, at 175-82, 193-95;
62. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 10-11, 13.
63. Mark E. Fenn et al., Nitrogen Emissions, Deposition, and Monitoring in the Western United States, 53 BIOSCIENCE 391, 395-96 (2003);
64. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, APP. E at E-1-E-3 (December 17, 2010), available at http://www.scv-habitat plan.org/www/site/ alias-default/341/public-draft-habitat-plan. aspx.
65. Kathleen M. Kay et al., Plant Speciation, in SERPENTINE: THE EVOLUTION AND ECOLOGY OF A MODEL SYSTEM 71, 73-75 (Susan Harrison & Nishanta Rajakaruna eds., 2011).
66. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 10-11;
67. WEISS, IMPACTS OF NITROGEN DEPOSITION, supra note 5, at 51;
68. Bobbink et al., Global Assessment, supra note 9, at 38.
69. Michael C. Singer, Complex Components of Habitat Suitability within a Butterfly Colony, 176 SCIENCE 75 (1972);
70. Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5, at 1478;
71. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 2.
72. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 2, 7-9.
73. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 6-9.
74. See Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5, at 1476.
75. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, at App. E, E-79-E-81.
76. EPA, INTEGRATED SCIENCE ASSESSMENT FOR OXIDES OF NITROGEN AND SULFUR - ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA, FINAL REPORT, at 2-2-2-7 (2008).
77. See, e.g., Gary A. Bishop et al., On-Road Emission Measurements of Reactive Nitrogen Compounds from Three California Cities, 44 ENVTL. SCI. TECH. 3616, 3616 (2010);
78. A. J. Kean et al., Trends in On-Road Vehicle Emissions of Ammonia, 43 ATMOSPHERIC ENV'T 1565, 1565 (2009).
79. x pollutants have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (hours to days) and are typically deposited locally near point sources of pollution, but both are also capable of being converted to longer-lived forms and transported across regional scales.
80. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, Appendix E at E-2.
81. See Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, 6476 (Feb. 9, 2010)
82. 2 NAAQS.");
83. CALIF. AIR RES. BD., CHRONOLOGY OF STATE NITROGEN DIOXIDE DESIGNATIONS (2010), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/changes/no2.pdf;
84. CALIF. AIR RES. BD., 2010 AREA DESIGNATIONS FOR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS NITROGEN DIOXIDE (2010), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/ adm/adm.htm;
85. 2 standard, in force since January 22, 2010.
86. 2 standard.
87. 16 U. S. C. § 1531 (b) (2006).
88. See Thomas A. Scott et al., Land Use Planning, in 2 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT THIRTY 206, 216-17 (J. Michael Scott et al. eds., 2006);
89. Karen Donovan, HCPs - Important Tools for Conserving Habitat and Species, in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES 319 (Donald C. Baur & Wm. Robert Irvin eds., 2002);
90. see also Stephanie Pincetl, Conservation Planning in the West, Problems, New Strategies and Entrenched Obstacles, 37 GEOFORUM 246, 250-51 (2006).
91. Burton H. Thompson Jr., Managing the Working Landscape, in 1 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT THIRTY 101, 124-25 (J. Michael Scott et al. eds., 2006).
92. See Paul R. Armsworth et al., Working Seascapes, in 2 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT THIRTY, supra note 45, at 244, 251-55.
93. The FWS and NMFS share responsibility for administering the ESA. 50 C. F. R. § 402.01 (b) (2010).
94. An endangered species is defined in the ESA as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this chapter would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. " 16 U. S. C. § 1532 (6) (2006).
95. A threatened species is defined as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U. S. C. § 1532 (20) (2006).
96. The criteria for listing species as threatened or endangered, as well as mandates for recovery planning and the designation of critical habitat for listed species are provided in section 4 of the ESA. 16 U. S. C. § 1533 (2006).
97. Section 4 also enables citizens to petition the agency for the listing or delisting of species. 16 U. S. C. § 1533 (b) (3) (A) (2006).
98. 16 U. S. C. § 1536 (a) (2) (2006).
99. 16 U. S. C. § 1536 (a) (1) (2006). For further discussion of the importance and conservation potential of these frequently overlooked section 7 (a) (1) provisions
100. see J. B. Ruhl, Section 7 (a) (1) of the "New" Endangered Species Act: Rediscovering and Redefining the Untapped Power of Federal Agencies' Duty to Conserve Species, 25 ENVTL. L. 1107 (1995).
101. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (1) (2006). Plants get much weaker protections under section 9.
102. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (2) (2006).
103. The statute defines a "take" of listed wildlife to mean harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting such wildlife - and/or attempting to engage in any such conduct. 16 U. S. C. § 1532 (19) (2006).
104. The FWS regulations interpret the term broadly, noting that "harm in the definition of 'take' in the [Endangered Species] Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering." 50 C. F. R. § 17.3 (2010).
105. 16 U. S. C. § 1539 (2006).
106. 16 U. S. C. § 1539 (a) (2006).
107. 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, 69 (2002).
108. see also Blaine I. Green, The Endangered Species Act and Fifth Amendment Takings: Constitutional Limits of Species Protection, 15 YALE J. ON REG. 329, 332-33, 367-75 (1998).
109. 16 U. S. C. 1539 (a) (2006).
110. 16 U. S. C. § 1539 (a) (2) (B) (2006)
111. See 16 U. S. C. § 1539 (a) (1) (2006). Also, take is only permitted after the FWS approves the conservation plan prepared by the permit applicant. Incidental take permits are essentially issued in exchange for preparing and funding the implementation of a conservation plan for the species affected by the proposed activity. Conservation plans must specify the likely species impact of the proposed incidental taking, the alternatives to the proposed take and reasons why the alternatives are not feasible, the steps that the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts resulting from his/her taking of listed wildlife, the funding that will be made available to take such mitigation steps, and any other measures that the FWS considers necessary.
112. 16 U. S. C. § 1539 (a) (2) (2006).
113. For details on the implementation and implications of section 10 (a) incidental take and habitat conservation planning provisions, see Karin P. Sheldon, Habitat Conservation Planning: Addressing the Achilles Heel of the Endangered Species Act, 6 N. Y. U. ENVTL. L. J. 279 (1998)
114. John F. Turner & Jason C. Rylander, Conserving Endangered Species on Private Lands, 32 LAND & WATER L. REV. 571, 577-84 (1997)
115. and Craig W. Thomas, Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity 193-226 (2003).
116. Partners include Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the cities of Gilroy, San Jose, and Morgan Hill. See Project Partners, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/site/alias-default/297/project- partners.aspx (last visited Feb. 7, 2011).
117. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, at 4-74-4-76.
118. The SCV HP recognizes that increases in vehicle trips associated with projected future development will increase nitrogen deposition, which negatively impacts covered species. The chain of connection between development, vehicle trips, nitrogen emissions, nitrogen deposition, and modification of covered species' habitats is part - though certainly not all - of the justification for imposing the development fees that are both a major component of the SCV HP and a major source of its funding. None of the discussions in the SCV HP explicitly classify the indirect effects of nitrogen deposition as a prohibited take, but the plan does seem to have been written with an awareness that nitrogen deposition associated with covered activities might prevent the success of the plan's conservation goals. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, Chapt. 4 at 4-3, 4-32, 4-63, 4-66-4-68, 4-73-4-75, 4-110 & app. E, E-1-E-3.
119. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (2006).
120. 16 U. S. C. §§ 1532 (B), 1538 (A) (2006).
121. 50 C. F. R. § 17.31 (a) (2010). NMFS, on the other hand, stipulates protections for the threatened species under its jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.
122. See 50 C. F. R. § 223. 201-11 (2010).
123. Both agencies' authority to extend further protections to threatened species stems from section 4 (d) of the ESA. 16 U. S. C. § 1533 (d) (2006). It is important to note that the "take" prohibition does not generally apply to listed plants. The ESA makes the taking of listed plants unlawful on federal lands; taking of listed plants on private land is unlawful only if it is already prohibited under state species protection laws or regulations.
124. 16 U. S. C. § 1538 (a) (2) (B) (2006). That is, section 9 of the ESA is intended to help enforce state plant protection laws, but does not itself provide equivalent protection for plants. Plants are, on the other hand, treated the same as fish and wildlife under section 7 of the ESA.
125. See 16 U. S. C. § 1536 (2006).
126. 16 U. S. C. § 1532 (19) (2006).
127. 50 C. F. R. § 17.3 (2010) (emphasis added).
128. Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5, at 1479-85;
129. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 2, 10-11, 13-15.
130. See Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5, at 1479-80;
131. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 7-9;
132. PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, app. D, at 3.
133. See U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 14-15.
134. (discussing United States v. West Coast Forest Res. Ltd. P'ship, No. 96-1575-HO, 1997 WL 33100698 (D. Or. Jul. 28, 1997)
135. and Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2000)).
136. Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 3-6;
137. Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 275;
138. See Alan M. Glen & Craig M. Douglas, Taking Species: Difficult Questions of Proximity and Degree, 16 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 65, 65-66 (2001);
139. see also Robert L. Fischman, The Divides of Environmental Law and the Problem of Harm in the Endangered Species Act, 83 IND. L. J. 661, 684-90 (2008).
140. Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 392 F. Supp. 130 (E. D. Mo. 1975)
141. aff'd, 534 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1976). In Sierra Club v. Froehlke, one of the earliest cases involving the question of harm via habitat modification, the Eighth Circuit found that the construction of a dam and reservoir, which would flood subterranean caverns inhabited by the endangered Indiana bat, was not a violation of section 9 since the dam was clearly not intended to harass or harm the bats.
142. See also Kenneth J. Plante & Andrew J. Baumann, Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon: Preserving the "Critical Link" Between Habitat Modification and the "Taking" of an Endangered Species, 20 NOVA L. REV. 748, 753-56 (1996).
143. Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Res. (Palila I), 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Haw. 1979)
144. aff'd, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981). In Palila I, the courts found that the destruction of mamane-naio forests, as caused by the grazing of feral sheep and goats, was a prohibited take of the endangered palila bird, since the already-declining palila populations relied on the mamane-naio forests for food and nesting.
145. Palila I, 471 F. Supp. at 995.
146. Commonly referred to as Palila I in the ESA literature, since an almost identical issue was re-litigated in Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Res. (Palila II) after the FWS promulgated a new definition of harm in 1981.
147. F. Supp. 1070 (D. Haw. 1986)
148. aff'd, 852 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1988).
149. 50 C. F. R. § 17.3 (2010).
150. 50 C. F. R. § 17.3 (2010) (emphasis added). Interestingly, the Palila I case was shortly re-tried under this new definition and under almost identical circumstances, except this time, it was introduced mouflon sheep (rather than the feral sheep and goats removed after Palila I) that were grazing the palila habitat into destruction and helping nudge the palila closer to extinction. The second time around, the case generated the same ruling, since the district court hearing the case saw in the new definition nothing more than a clarification/reinforcement of a proposition it considered already well-established under the old definition - namely, that habitat modification has to result in injury to protected wildlife before it becomes prohibited take.
151. Palila II, 649 F. Supp. at 1075, 1082. Notably, the Palila II court ruled that habitat modification which could result in extinction does constitute harm - and so a prohibited "take", regardless of whether such habitat modification has caused the death of individual members from the protected species - and it found that mouflon grazing was producing precisely this type of habitat modification.
152. F.2d 1106.
153. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U. S. 687 (1995).
154. A detailed discussion of the Sweet Home opinion is outside the scope of the current paper, especially since a number of thoughtful and thorough analysts have long since beaten us to the task. See, e.g., Kevin D. Batt, Above All, Do No Harm: Sweet Home and Section Nine of the Endangered Species Act, 75 B. U. L. REV. 1177 (1995);
155. Lawrence R. Liebesman & Steven G. Davison, Takings of Wildlife Under the Endangered Species Act after Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 5 U. BALT. J. ENVTL. L. 137 (1995);
156. Richard A. Epstein, Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapters of Oregon: The Law and Economics of Habitat Preservation, 5 SUP. CT. ECON. REV. 1 (1997);
157. Fiona Powell, Defining Harm Under the Endangered Species Act: Implications of Babbitt v. Sweet Home, 33 AM. BUS. L. J. 131 (1995);
158. Patrick J. Beirne, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon: The Supreme Court Places the Endangered Species Act in "Harm's" Way, 23 N. KY. L. REV. 81 (1995);
159. Steven G. Davison, The Aftermath of Sweet Home Chapter: Modification of Wildlife Habitat as a Prohibited Taking in Violation of the Endangered Species Act, 27 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 541 (2003). What our analysis aims to emphasize is the uncertainty that still remains even after Sweet Home regarding which kinds of habitat modification can be considered prohibited harm and which cannot.
160. Steven P. Quarles & Thomas R. Lundquist, When Do Land Use Activities "Take" Listed Wildlife Under ESA Section 9 and the "Harm" Regulation?, in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45, at 207;
161. see also Amy L. Stein, State Fish Stocking Programs at Risk: Takings Under the Endangered Species Act, 20 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 63 (2010).
162. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45.
163. Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U. S. Department of the Interior at the time of publication of his chapter in the ABA volume. Sean C. Skaggs, Judicial Interpretation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act Before and After Sweet Home: More of the Same, in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45, at 253.
164. Sweet Home, 515 U. S. at 704 (emphasis added).
165. Justice O'Connor's concurrence does not exclude indirect causation either - it only excludes causal arguments which fall under the categories of the unforeseeable and "the bizarre", as represented in extreme cases like Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 162 N. E. 99 (N. Y. 1928).
166. Sweet Home, 515 U. S. at 713 (emphasis added).
167. See, e.g., Robert L. Fischman, The Divides of Environmental Law and the Problem of Harm in the Endangered Species Act, 83 IND. L. J. 661, 687-92 (2008).
168. The following studies are currently in progress: Dena M. Vallano et al., Historical Reconstruction of Anthropogenic N Inputs into a Bay Area Serpentine Ecosystem Using Tree Ring a 15N Analysis (publication expected May 2011);
169. Jae Pasari et al., Understanding the Relative Importance of Changing Soil N and Other Soil Characteristics to Native and Exotic Plant Species Composition in Serpentine Grasslands (results expected 2010);
170. 3) on Plant N Status and Performance of Key Species in a Serpentine Grassland Ecosystem (publication expected May 2011).
171. Weiss, Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies, supra note 5;
172. 2, Precipitation, and N Deposition, 73 ECOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS 585, 600-01 (2003).
173. The ecological task of comparing larval mortalities in nitrogen-affected and unaffected habitats is doubly compounded by the checkerspot's rarity. Technically, there is the issue of naturally high mortality rates among larvae in the pre-dormancy stage (mortality rates upwards of 95 percent) and the difficulty of controlling for other factors if larval mortalities are compared among distant sites experiencing different nitrogen deposition. See U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 6. Practically, directly testing checkerspot population responses to a manipulated nitrogen addition would require enormous areas to be intensively fertilized to match the scale at which checkerspots move, which may further increase the risk of extinction.
174. See, e.g., PUBLIC DRAFT, SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN, supra note 25, app. D at 12. Documenting foregone oviposition and other disruptions of checkerspot reproduction would also pose significant - and potentially insurmountable - evidentiary challenges, if this is indeed the evidence required by a court in order to show that checkerspot individuals were harmed as a result of habitat modification.
175. Holly Doremus, Science and Controversy, in 2 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AT THIRTY, supra note 45, at 97, 100-03.
176. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U. S. 687, 708 (1995).
177. See F. Stuart Chapin et al., Consequences of Changing Biodiversity, 405 NATURE 234, 234 (2000);
178. John F. McLaughlin et al., Climate Change Hastens Population Extinctions, 99 PROC. NAT'L. ACAD. SCI. 6070, 6070 (2002);
179. Chris D. Thomas et al., Extinction Risk from Climate Change, 427 NATURE 145, 145 (2004);
180. David Tilman & Clarence Lehman, Human-Caused Environmental Change: Impacts on Plant Diversity and Evolution, 98 PROC. NAT'L. ACAD. SCI. 5433, 5433 (2001).
181. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range, 73 Fed. Reg. 28, 212, 28, 212 (May 15, 2008);
182. EUGENE H. BUCK ET AL., CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL 33941, POLAR BEARS: PROPOSED LISTING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 4(2007), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33941.pdf;
183. SCOTT SCHLIEBE ET AL., U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., RANGE-WIDE STATUS REVIEW OF THE POLAR BEAR (Ursus maritimus) 108-09 (2006) (discussing effect of hunting on polar bear populations);
184. Ian Stirling, Polar Bears and Oil: Ecological Perspectives, in SEA MAMMALS AND OIL: CONFRONTING THE RISKS, 223, 228-30 (Joseph R. Geraci & David J. St. Aubin, eds., 1990).
185. See ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ACIA), IMPACTS OF A WARMING CLIMATE: ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 58(2004), available at http://amap. no/acia/;
186. U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, USGS SCIENCE TO INFORM U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE DECISION MAKING ON POLAR BEARS 2(2007), available at http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar-bears/;
187. Andrew E. Derocher, Nicholas J. Lunn & Ian Stirling, Polar Bears in a Warming Climate, 44 INTEGRATIVE & COMP. BIOLOGY 163, 163 (2004).
188. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range, 73 Fed. Reg. 28, 212 (May 15, 2008).
189. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Petition to List the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as a Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act (February 16, 2005), available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/ polar-bear/pdfs/15976-7338.pdf.
190. The decision to list the bear was justified by loss of sea ice habitat, and the administration relied on scientific research pointing to climate change as the cause of sea ice loss to make this case. Ironically, the listing makes absolutely no mention of climate change as the driver of habitat loss and threats to the polar bear. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range, 73 Fed. Reg. 28, 212-28, 303;
191. Brendan R. Cummings & Kassie R. Siegel, Ursus maritimus: Polar Bears on Thin Ice, 22 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 3, 3 (2007).
192. Ian Stirling & Andrew E. Derocher, Possible Impacts of Climatic Warming on Polar Bears, 46 ARCTIC 240, 241 (1993);
193. Steven C. Amstrup, Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), in WILD MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA: BIOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, AND CONSERVATION 587, 592-96 (George A. Feldhamer et al. eds., 2003). At the same time as it impairs food access and diminishes food availability, for example, decline in sea ice habitat caused by climate change increases the bears' energy requirements, as they travel through fragmented sea ice and open water.
194. See U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, supra note 116, at 2.
195. Polar bear injuries stemming from sea ice loss-related changes in breeding, feeding, and sheltering patterns have yet to be documented with a level of certainty that would satisfy narrow interpreters of harm via habitat modification. It is similarly difficult to conclusively attribute the observed deaths of four polar bears who drowned in trying to reach increasingly distant sea ice to the growing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. See Charles Monnett & Jeffrey S. Gleason, Observations of Mortality Associated with Extended Open-Water Swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 29 POLAR BIOLOGY 681, 681 (2006).
196. see also Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 284 n. 44.
197. Specifically, the special rule states that "[n]one of the prohibitions of § 17.31 of this part apply to any taking of polar bears that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity within the United States, except for any incidental taking caused by activities in areas⋯ within the current range of the polar bear." 50 C. F. R. § 17.40 (q) (4).
198. Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 289.
199. Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 41, 60.
200. 882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989).
201. 127 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1997).
202. See, e.g., R. W. Pinder et al., Ammonia Emission Controls as a Cost-Effective Strategy for Reducing Atmospheric Particulate Matter in the Eastern United States, 41 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 380, 384-85 (2007). The regulation of such agricultural ammonia emissions has already begun in Idaho and in some of the most heavily impacted air districts in California, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
203. See CLAUDIA COPELAND, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL 32948, AIR QUALITY ISSUES AND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE: A PRIMER 11-15(2010), available at http://www. nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32948.pdf;
204. Jeff El-Hajj, Confined Animal Feeding Operations in California: Current Regulatory Schemes and What Must Be Done to Improve Them, 15 HASTINGS W.-NW. J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 349, 362-65 (2009);
205. see also Sarah C. Wilson, Hogwash! Why Industrial Animal Agriculture is Not Beyond the Scope of Clean Air Act Regulation, 24 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 439, 459-66 (2007);
206. 2.5"), which EPA already regulates as a criteria pollutant, through the imposition of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard - a standard which many areas in the country are currently having trouble attaining.
207. For details on (1) the division of federal-state responsibilities for air quality control in general, and mobile source emissions regulation in particular, and (2) the extent of discretionary authority that EPA and CARB have over the setting of mobile source standards, see, for example, NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS 65-113 (2006).
208. NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra note 133, at 65-113;
209. John P. Dwyer, Environmental Federalism: The Practice of Federalism Under The Clean Air Act, 54 MD. L. REV. 1183 (1995);
210. Arnold W. Reitze, Jr., Air Quality Protection Using State Implementation Plans - Thirty-Seven Years of Increasing Complexity, 15 VILL. ENVTL. L. J. 209 (2004).
211. 549 U. S. 497 (2007).
212. see also Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 9-11, 45-46.
213. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U. S. 687, 713 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
214. 42 U. S. C. §§ 7409 (b), 7602 (h) (2006).
215. 16 U. S. C. § 1536 (a) (2) (2006).
216. After Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153(1978), Congress amended the ESA to allow agencies to seek exemption from the jeopardy prohibition through the Endangered Species Committee, but, in reality, appeals to the Committee for such exemptions are exceedingly rare.
217. See Patrick Parenteau, The Exemption Process and the "God Squad", in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45, at 132, 143.
218. 50 C. F. R. § 402.02 (2010).
219. See Marilyn Averill, Protecting Species Through Interagency Cooperation, in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45, at 90-91.
220. 50 C. F. R. § 402.01 (b) (2010).
221. For details on the consultation requirements and process, see U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV. & NAT'L MARINE FISHERIES SERV., ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION HANDBOOK: PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING CONSULTATION AND CONFERENCE ACTIVITIES UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (1998).
222. See, e.g., U. S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-92-131BR, Endangered Species Act: Types and Number of Implementing Actions (1992);
223. U. S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-04-93, ENDANGERED SPECIES: MORE FEDERAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE CONSULTATION PROCESS 7, 49, 50, 56-57 (2004);
224. see also Christopher E. Williams, The Cost of Continued Existence: Assessing the Impacts of Section 7 on Federal Agencies, Private Actors, and Endangered Species, in ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND PERSPECTIVES, supra note 45, at 179;
225. Oliver A. Houck, The Endangered Species Act and Its Implementation by the U. S. Departments of Interior and Commerce, 64 U. COLO. L. REV. 277, 301, 311, 317-18 (1993).
226. Laurence M. Bogert, The Endangered Species Act and Categorical Statutory Commands after National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 44 IDAHO L. REV. 543, 545 (2008)
227. (citing WILLIAM H. ROGERS JR., ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, § 9.9, at 997 (2d ed. 1994)).
228. See, e.g., U. S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-09-550, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE HAS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT EFFECTS ON LISTED SPECIES FROM SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS (2009);
229. Mary Jane Angelo, The Killing Fields: Reducing the Casualties in the Battle Between U. S. Species Protection Law and U. S. Pesticide Law, 32 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 95 (2008);
230. U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., supra note 1, at 13-15, 16-19, 24, 26-27.
231. Critical habitat for the checkerspot was proposed in 2000, Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, 65 Fed. Reg. 61, 218 (proposed Oct. 16, 2000), designated in 2001
232. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, 66 Fed. Reg. 21, 449 (April 30, 2001), and revised in 2008
233. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, 73 Fed. Reg. 50, 405 (Aug. 26, 2008)
234. (codified at 50 C. F. R. pt. 17). For a summary of the litigation that prompted this revision and the changes in checkerspot population between the two critical habitat designations
235. see Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, 73 Fed. Reg. 50, 405 (Aug. 26, 2008).
236. Current research on Bay Area serpentine grasslands is aimed at more
237. 42 U. S. C. § 7411 (2006).
238. 42 U. S. C. §§ 7470-7479, §§ 7501-7515 (2006);
239. see also ARNOLD W. REITZE, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 177-99 (2001);
240. Bernard F. Hawkins, Jr. & Mary Ellen Ternes, The New Source Review Program: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review, in THE CLEAN AIR ACT HANDBOOK, 131, 131-34 (Robert J. Martineau, Jr. & David P. Novello eds., 2d ed. 2001).
241. 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (a) (2) (2006).
242. 42 U. S. C. § 7543 (2006).
243. This occurred by virtue of a California pre-1967 vehicle emission regulation being grandfathered into the predecessor of the CAA of 1970, the Air Quality Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485. The waiver of federal preemption over California vehicle emission standards has essentially stayed intact since then. For further details
244. see Michael J. Horowitz, Regulation of Mobile Sources: Motor Vehicles, Nonroad Engines, and Aircraft, in THE CLEAN AIR ACT HANDBOOK, supra note 158, at 323.
245. 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (a) (2006);
246. 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (2006).
247. 40 C. F. R. § 50.4-17 (2010). Section 116 of the CAA, however, allows states to adopt more stringent air quality standards than the federal ones.
248. See 42 U. S. C. § 7416 (2006).
249. See 42 U. S. C. § 7479 (2006);
250. EPA, DRAFT NEW SOURCE REVIEW WORKSHOP MANUAL A.22-A.23 (1990).
251. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 7470-79 (2006);
252. see also U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV., BIOLOGICAL OPINION IN THE FORMAL ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION ON THE PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED METCALF ENERGY CENTER, SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1-3 (2001) [hereinafter Metcalf BO].
253. BAAQMD is authorized to make PSD permitting decisions for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay area of California pursuant to a delegation agreement with EPA Region IX. See 40 C. F. R. § 52.21 (u) (2010);
254. Fed. Reg. 4, 944 (Feb. 7, 1991);
255. see also EPA, BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AGREEMENT FOR LIMITED DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AND MODIFY PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMITS SUBJECT TO 40 C. F. R. 52.21 (2006).
256. See TONNESEN ET AL., ASSESSMENT OF NITROGEN DEPOSITION: MODELING AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT 3 (2007).
257. 42 U. S. C. § 7409 (b) (2006).
258. 42 U. S. C. §§ 7408-09 (2006);
259. see also Richard E. Ayers & Mary Rose Kornreich, Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards, in THE CLEAN AIR ACT HANDBOOK, supra note 158, at 13, 13-14.
260. 40 C. F. R. pt. 50 (2010);
261. 42 U. S. C. § 7409 (d) (2006);
262. 42 U. S. C. § 7409 (b) (1) (2006).
263. 42 U. S. C. § 7409 (b) (2) (2006).
264. 42 U. S. C. § 7602 (h) (2006).
265. Fenn et al., Ecological Effects, supra note 7, at 411-16.
266. Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010)
267. 2 concentrations.
268. As long as a SIP can ensure the attainment of the relevant NAAQS, the state agencies designing and implementing the SIP have considerable discretion as to the nature, mix, and specifics of the planning and regulatory measures that go into such a plan. See 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (2006).
269. 42 U. S. C. § 7410 (k) (2006).
270. 551 U. S. 644 (2007).
271. None of the CAA SIP requirements deals with the impact of SIP planning on ESA-listed species. 42 U. S. C. § 7410a (2) (A) - (M) (2006).
272. See Paul Boudreaux, Understanding "Take" in the Endangered Species Act, 34 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 733, 733 (2002) ("If the federal Endangered Species Act⋯ is the pit bull of the environmental statutes because of the power of its commands, then the Act's take prohibition would seem to be the dog's incisors.").
273. See, e.g., Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 275, 279-80, 289;
274. See Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 58-62;
275. Ruhl, Endangered Species Act, supra note 14, at 275, 279-80, 289;
276. see also John Kostyack & Dan Rohlf, Conserving Endangered Species in an Era of Global Warming, 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 10, 203, 10, 212 (2008) (providing a set of detailed recommendations for implementation by the ESA to address climate change effects).
277. Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 59.
278. See Ruhl, Climate Change, supra note 13, at 46-47