Adaptive management to protect biodiversity: Best available science and the Endangered Species Act

Diversity

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 164-178

  Green, Olivia Odom ^a   Garmestani, Ahjond S ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive capacity; Adaptive management; Best available science; Biodiversity; Climate change law; Endangered species act; Environmental law; Front end policy

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY;

EID: 84876757267     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14242818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/d4020164     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Craig, R.K.; Ruhl, J.B. Governing for sustainable coasts: Complexity, climate change, and coastal ecosystem protection. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1361-1388.
2. Hassan, R.; Scholes, R.; Ash, N. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA 2005; Volume. 1.
3. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1-23.
4. Garmestani, A.S.; Allen, C.R.; Cabezas, H. Panarchy, Adaptive management and governance: Policy options for building resilience. Nebr. Law. Rev. 2009, 87, 1036-1054.
5. Benson, M.H.; Garmestani, A.S. Can we manage for resilience? The integration of resilience thinking into natural resource management in the United States. Environ. Manage. 2011, 48, 392-399.
6. Ruhl, J.B. climate change and the Endangered Species Act: Building bridges to the no-analog future. Boston U. Law Rev. 2008, 88, 1-62.
7. Allen, C.R.; Cumming, G.S.; Garmestani, A.S.; Taylor, P.D.; Walker, B.H. Managing for resilience. Wildlife Biol. 2011, 17, 337-349.
8. Benson, M.H.; Garmestani, A.S. Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act. J. Environ. Manage 2011, 92, 1420-1427.
9. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).
10. Karkkainen, B.C. Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: Toward a bounded pragmatism. Minn. Law Rev. 2003, 87, 943-998.
11. Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act. 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 4724 (7 February 1996).
12. Ruhl, J.B. Taking adaptive management seriously: A case study of the Endangered Species Act. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 2004, 52, 1249-1284.
13. Ruhl, J.B. Section 7(a)(1) of the "New" Endangered Species Act: Rediscovering and redefining the untapped power of federal agencies duty to conserve species. Environ. Law 1995, 25, 1107-1156.
14. Ruhl, J.B. Thinking of environmental law as a complex adaptive system: How to clean up the environment by making a mess of environmental law. Houst. Law Rev. 1997, 34, 933-1002.
15. Ruhl, J.B. General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems-With applications to climate change adapation. N. C. Law Rev. 2011, 89, 1373-1401.
16. Ruhl, J.B. Is the Endangered Species Act eco-pragmatic? Minn. Law Rev. 2003, 87, 885-942.
17. National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 481 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2007).
18. Doremus, H. Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: Why better science isn't always better policy. Wash. Univ. Law Quart. 1997, 75, 1029-1153.
19. Odom, O. Energy v. Water. Ecol. Law Quart. 2010, 37, 353-381.
20. Bennett V. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).
21. Ruhl, J.B. The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environ. Law 2004, 34, 555-603.
22. Doremus, H. The Purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate. Environ. Law 2004, 34, 397-450.
23. Renshaw, K. Leaving the fox to guard the henhouse: Bringing accountability to consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Columbia J. Environ. Law 2007, 32, 161-207.
24. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
25. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
26. Doremus, H. Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of "New Age" environmental protection. Washburn Law J. 2001, 41, 50-89.
27. Building Industry Association v. Norton, 247 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
28. Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1992).
29. Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).
30. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
31. Doremus, H. Adaptive management as an information problem. N.C. Law Rev. 2011, 89, 1455-1495.
32. City of Waukesha v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 320 F.3d 228, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
33. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983).
34. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009).
35. Karkkainen, B.C. Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government's environmental performance. Columbia Law Rev. 2002, 102, 903-972.
36. Allen, C.R.; Fontaine, J.J.; Pope, K.L.; Garmestani, A.S. Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J. Environ. Manage 2011, 92, 1339-1345.
37. Shapiro, S.; Glicksman, R. Improving regulation through incremental adjustment. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 2004, 52, 1179-1248.
38. Shapiro, S.; Glicksman, R. Risk Regulation at Risk: Restoring a Pragmatic Approach; Stanford Law and Politics: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2004; p. 288.
39. Ruhl, J.B.; Fischman, R.L. Adaptive management in the courts. Minn. Law Rev. 2010, 95, 424-484.
40. Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations; GAO-09-550; U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 21 May 2009.
41. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne, 506 F. Supp. 2d 322 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
42. National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008).
43. Animal Welfare Institute v. Beech Ridge Energy, WL 4884520 (D. Md. 2009).
44. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 672 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009).
45. Rudd, J. The forest service's epistemic judgments: Enhancing transparency to ensure "New Knowledge" informs agency decision-making processes. Temple Environ. Law Technol. J. 2004, 23, 145-223.
46. Southwest Center for Biodiversity v. Bartel, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2006).
47. Availability of a Final Addendum to the Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, 65 Fed. Reg. 35242-35257 (1 June 2000).
48. Doremus, H. Precaution, Science, and learning while doing in natural resource management. Wash. Law Rev. 2007, 82, 547-579.
49. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008).
50. Chevron V. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
51. Sierra Club V. Marita, 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1995).
52. Cumming, G.S. Spatial Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 254.