Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes the role of prescriptive regulation and citizen-suit litigation (regulatory enforcement) in natural resource conservation in the USA. It first briefly explains why the judiciary is so involved in resource management and why litigation is so often used as a conservation tool. It then summarizes the extent to which regulatory enforcement is being threatened and/or undermined by Congress, the executive branch, and other interests. The analysis shows how regulatory enforcement often facilitates the use of less adversarial conservation strategies and that there are important synergies between them. Regulatory interactions with collaborative conservation, land and resource acquisitions/easements, and adaptive ecosystem management are analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This article focuses on federal public land and resources policy and management, with its customary emphasis on property, federal lands, water, and wildlife. A similar argument focused on environmental policy and management (e.g., common law roots of nuisance doctrines, pollution prevention, human health, etc.) could also be made.

  2. In corresponding order see Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (takings); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965) (standing); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (consideration of alternatives); Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F. 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (NEPA); and Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978) (ESA).

  3. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F. 2d 1109, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

  4. For judicial articulations of these standards of review see Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F. 2d 841, 850–52 (.D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43–44 (1983); Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984); and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).

  5. Most of these provisions are patterned after section 304(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act authorizing “any person” to sue the administrator of the EPA “where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator.” 42. U.S.C. §7604(a)(2).

  6. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 941 (1966).

  7. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 624 F. Supp. 1045, 1063 (D. Nev. 1985) (quoting Strickland v. Morton, 519 F. 2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1975).

  8. See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Idaho 2001) (and list of other plaintiffs suing over 2001 roadless rule), International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association v. Norton, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Wyo. 2004) (Yellowstone), American Forest and Paper Association v. Veneman, No. 1:01-cv-00871-GK (D.D.C.) (2000 forest planning regulations) (see also Flournoy et al. 2005); and Utah Shared Access Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 288 F. 3dd 1205 (10th Cir. 2002) and Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, 357 F. 3d. 1130 (10th Cir. 2004) (recent motorized access decisions).

  9. See, for e.g., symposia on the Bush Administration’s natural resource record, published by the Ecology Law Quarterly (vol. 32, 2005) and the Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum (vol. 14, 2004).

  10. These regulations were found in contravention of the APA, NEPA, and the ESA. See Citizens for Better Forestry, et al., v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al., No. C 05-1144 PJH; and Defenders of Wildlife et al., v. Johanns, et al., No. C-04-4512 PJH, (D. N. Cal., 2007).

  11. See, for e.g., Chertow and Esty 1997; Bemelmens-Videc et al. 1998; Doremus 2003; Durant et al. 2004; Farber 2000; Plater et al. 2004; Stewart 2001; Klyza and Sousa 2008.

  12. See e.g., Brick et al. 2000; Conley and Moote 2003; Brunner et al. 2002, 2005; Weber 2003, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Comer 2004; Koontz et al. 2004. The Executive’s “Cooperative Conservation” website at http://cooperativeconservation.gov/ (accessed Mar. 30, 2007); The Red Lodge Clearinghouse at http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/ (accessed Mar. 30, 2007); and the Community-Based Collaboratives Research Consortium at http://www.cbcrc.org/ (accessed Mar. 30, 2007).

  13. For conference background and documents see http://cooperativeconservation.gov/conference805home.html (accessed Apr. 1, 2007).

  14. See A University View of the Forest Service, A Select Committee of the University of Montana Presents Its Report on the Bitterroot National Forest, Congressional Record, Nov. 18, 1970. The “Bolle Report” later published as Senate Document No. 115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). Izaak Walton League of America v. Butz, 522 F. 2d. 945 (4th Cir. 1975) (the Monongahela decision).

  15. For more on the mixed role played by TMDL litigation see symposium published by Public Land & Resources Law Review, Vol. 22, 2001. In Montana, as elsewhere, TMDL litigation has proven very controversial, with “radical environmentalists” being blamed for much of the acrimony. But, this is not how at least one Judge sees it: “Some have even characterized this catastrophe as being precipitated by ‘radical environmentalists.’ In my view citizens who have watched the degradation of precious resources for 28 years are not radical in temperament or policy when they seek to make government agencies comply with the law as enacted by Congress.” Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. EPA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1209 (D. Mont. 2000).

  16. The QLG sued the agency because it believes that the Sierra Nevada Framework violated the 1999 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act, among other laws. Additional background and updates, including some legal documents and decisions, available at the Quincy website at http://www.qlg.org (accessed Apr. 2, 2007) and the USFS http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/index.shtml (accessed Apr. 2, 2007). See also Pralle 2006: p. 217; and Villamana 2003.

  17. The Challenge won an Innovations in American Government Award in 2006, that is sponsored by the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. It is also showcased by the Interior Department, see http://cooperativeconservation.gov/ (accessed Apr. 1, 2007). For background and accomplishments see http://www.blackfootchallenge.org/ (accessed Apr. 1, 2007).

  18. Land exchanges are another popular tool used to consolidate public land ownership, and it is very clear that regulatory enforcement plays an important role here as well. First, regulations often provide the impetus and incentive for the negotiated exchange. Take the high profile and contentious New World Mine exchange for example. Conservationists and others were extremely concerned about the Crown Butte Mine’s plan to develop a gold mine in the New World Mining District, just outside the northeast corner of Yellowstone National Park. Based on risks posed by acid mine drainage, a Clean Water Act citizen suit was filed, and this litigation provided an impetus and incentive for the exchange to begin in earnest (See Beartooth Alliance v. Crown Butte Mines, 904 F. Supp. 1168 (D. Mont. 1995) and Feldman 1997). Litigation also plays an essential role in watch-dogging these often questionable transactions (see, for e.g., the Western Lands Project at http://www.westlx.org (accessed Apr. 6, 2007). Numerous lawsuits have exposed egregious abuses of this tool (GAO 2000), and NEPA-based litigation can also be used as a way to force agencies to consider other alternatives to exchanges, like outright acquisition deals (see e.g., Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F. 3d 900 (9th Cir., 1999).

  19. See, for e.g., Seattle Audubon Society v. Robertson, 771 F. Supp. 1081 (W.D. Wash. 1991), aff’d sub nom. Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1991).

  20. 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994), affirmed sub nom. Seattle Audubon Society v. Mosely, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996).

  21. For comprehensive analyses of ecosystem management see the University of Michigan’s Ecosystem Management Initiative at http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt//index.htm (accessed Apr. 2, 2007).

  22. See e.g., Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area at http://www.gnsa.org (accessed Apr. 11, 2007).

References

  • Austin, J. E., Carter II, J. M., Klein, B. D., & Schang, S. E. (2004). Judging NEPA: A ‘Hard Look’ at judicial decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Law Institute.

  • Babich, A. (2003/2004). The wages of sin: The violator-pays rule for environmental citizen suits. Widener Law Review, 10, 219–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, A., Chamberlain, H., Eyre, J., Gomez, B., Hofberger, J., Jones, J., Kingston, A., McBride, M., Robinson, K., Smith, D., Smith, M., Smith, M., & Ressetar, R. (2003). The role of collaborative groups in federal land and resource management: A legal analysis. Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law, 23, 67–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates Van de Wetering, S. (2006). The legal framework for cooperative conservation. University of Montana, MT: Public Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates Van de Wetering, S., & Adler, R. W. (2000). New directions in western water law: Conflict or collaboration? Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, 20, 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bear, D. (2003). Some modest suggestions for improving implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Natural Resources Journal, 43, 931–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtold, T. (1999). Listing the bull trout under the Endangered Species Act: The passive-aggressive strategy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent protecting warranted species. Public Land and Resources Law Review, 20, 99–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (Eds.). (1998). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, B. L. (2006). Unnatural bounty: Distorting the incentives of major environmental groups. PERC Policy Series, PS-37.

  • Blackfoot Challenge. (2007). Available at: http://www.blackfootchallenge.org. Accessed on April 1, 2007.

  • Blumm, M. C. (2004). The Bush Administration’s Sweetheart Settlement Policy: A Trojan Horse Strategy for advancing commodity production on public lands. Environmental Law Reporter, 34, 10397–10420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, R. (2003). Conservancy: The land trust movement in America. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brick, P., Snow, D., & Van de Wetering, S. (Eds.). (2000). Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., Klein, R. A., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., Coe-Juell, L., Cromley, C. M., Edwards, C. M., & Tucker, D. W. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzbee, W. W., Glicksman, R. L., Shapiro, S. A., & Sokol, K. (2005). Regulatory underkill: The Bush Administration’s insidious dismantling of public health and environmental protections. Center for Progressive Regulation White Paper, No. 503.

  • Chayes, A. (1975/1976). The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Review, 89, 1281–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheever, F., & McLaughlin, N. A. (2004). Why environmental lawyers should know (and care) about land trusts and their private land conservation transactions. Environmental Law Reporter, 34, 10223–10233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chertow, M. R., & Esty, D. C. (Eds.). (1997). Thinking ecologically: The next generation of environmental policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, G. (1996). Litigating within relationships: Disputes and disturbance in the regulatory process. Law and Society Review, 30, 735–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, G. (2001/2002). Social movements, law, and society: The Institutionalization of the Environmental Movement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 85–118.

  • Comer, R. D. (2004). Cooperative conservation: The federalism underpinnings to public involvement in the management of public lands. University of Colorado Law Review, 75, 1133–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Community-Based Collaborative Research Consortium. (2007). Available at: http://www.cbcrc.org. Accessed on March 30, 2007.

  • Congressional Record. (1970). A University view of the forest service. A select committee of the University of Montana presents its report on the Bitterroot National Forest.

  • Conley, A., & Moote M. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooperative Conservation. (2007). Available at http://cooperativeconservation.gov. Accessed on March 30, 2007.

  • Cortner, H. J., & Moote, M. (1999). The politics of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council on Environmental Quality. (1997). The National Environmental Policy Act: A study of its effectiveness after twenty-five years. Washington, DC: CEQ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daggett, S. D. (2002). NGOs as lawmakers, watchdogs, whistle-blowers, and private attorneys general. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 13, 99–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, D. L. (2005). Western grazing: The capture of grass, ground, and government. Environmental Law, 35, 721–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doremus, H. (2001). Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of new age environmental protection. Washburn Law Journal, 41, 50–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duane, T. P. (1997). Community participation in ecosystem management. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 771–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D., & O’Leary, R. (Eds.). (2004). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverria, J. D. (2005). Regulating versus paying land owners to protect the environment. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, 26, 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. (2007). Endangered Environmental Laws Program: Background paper. Available at: http://www.endangeredlaws.org/index.htm. Accessed on: February 4, 2007.

  • Fairfax, S. K., Gwin, L., King, M. A., Raymond, L., & Watt, L. A. (2005). Buying nature: The limits of land acquisition as a conservation strategy, 1780–2004. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, D. A. (1999). Taking slippage seriously: Noncompliance and creative compliance in environmental law. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 23, 297–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, D. A. (2000). Triangulating the future of reinvention: Three emerging models of environmental protection. University of Illinois Law Review, 2000, 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. D. (1997). The New public land exchanges: Trading development rights in one area for public resources in another. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute 43.

  • Feller, J. M. (2004). The BLM’s proposed grazing regulations: Serving the most special interest. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, 241–248.

  • Field Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, 108th Cong. (April 23, 2004). Oversight of the Endangered Species Act.

  • Flournoy, A., Glicksman, R. L., & Clune, M. (2005). Regulations in name only: How the Bush Administration’s National Forest Planning Rule frees the forest service from mandatory standards and public accountability. A Center for Progressive Reform White Paper, No. 508.

  • Freyfogle, E. T. (2003). The land we share: Private property and the common good. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyfogle, E. T. (2007). On private property: Finding common ground on the ownership of land. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. (1992). Rangeland management: Interior’s monitoring has fallen short of agency requirements. GAO/RCED-92-51.

  • General Accounting Office. (2000). BLM and the forest service: Land exchanges need to reflect appropriate value and serve the public interest. GAO/RCED-00-73.

  • Government Accountability Office. (2006). Forest Service: Use of categorical exclusions for vegetation management projects, Calender Years 2003 through 2005. GAO-07-99.

  • Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area. (2007). Available at http://www.gnsa.org. Accessed on April 11, 2007.

  • Greenwald, D. N., Suckling, K. F., & Taylor M. (2006). The listing record. In D. D. Goble, J. M. Scott, & F. W. Davis (Eds.), The Endangered Species Act at thirty (Vol. 1, pp. 51–67). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustanski, J. A., & Squires, R. H. (Eds.). (2000). Protecting the land: Conservation easements past, present, and future. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartt, L. (2002). Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. NFMS: A case study of successes and failures in challenging logging activities with adverse cumulative effects on fish and wildlife. Environmental Law, 32, 671–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. Senate, 109th Cong. (2006). Implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, July 19.

  • Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houck, O. A. (1993/1994). The secret opinions of the United States Supreme Court on leading cases in Environmental Law, never before published. University of Colorado Law Review, 65, 459–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houck, O. A. (1995/1996). The water, the trees, and the land: Three nearly forgotten cases that changed the american landscape. Tulane Law Review, 70, 2279–2310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, M. (2004). Oil and gas exploration and development on public lands. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, J. (2006). Notes from an Old Stump Jumper. Range Magazine, Fall.

  • Jones, E. S., & Taylor, C. P. (1995). Litigating agency change: The impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the forest service. Policy Studies Journal, 23, 310–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial legalism: The American way of law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2001–2002). Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity, and dynamism. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 21, 189–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2002a). Environmental lawyering in the age of collaboration. Wisconsin Law Review, 2002, 555–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2002b). Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102, 903–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2003). Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: Toward a bounded pragmatism. Minnesota Law Review, 97, 943–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, B. C. (2005). Transboundary ecosystem governance: Beyond sovereignty? Environmental Law Reporter, 35, 10094–10099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keele, D. M., Malmsheimer R. W., Floyd D. W., & Perez J. E. (2006). Forest service land management litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Forestry, 104, 196–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiter, R. B. (2002). Biodiversity conservation and the intermixed ownership problem: From nature reserves to collaborative processes. Idaho Law Review, 38, 301–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiter, R. B. (2003). Keeping faith with nature: Ecosystems, democracy, and America’s public lands. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiter, R. B. (2006). The law of fire: Reshaping public land policy in an era of ecology and litigation. Environmental Law, 36, 301–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, D., & Lord C. (1998). The takings project: A critical analysis and assessment of the progress so far. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 25, 509–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klyza, C. M., & Sousa D. (2008). American environmental policy, 1990–2006. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. W. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. J. (2004). The making of environmental law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac and sketches here and there. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (Eds.). (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, E. A. (2005). Two prongs of public interest lawyering under the Endangered Species Act: Building a cooperative strategy from litigation and collaborative efforts. Environmental Law Reporter, 35, 10690–10702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther, L. (2006). The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmsheimer, R. W., Keele, D., & Floyd, D. W. (2004). National forest litigation in the U.S. court of appeals. Journal of Forestry, 102, 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meidinger, E. E. (1997). Organizational and legal challenges for ecosystem management. In K. A. Kohm & J. F. Franklin (Eds.), Creating a forestry for the 21st century: The science of ecosystem management (pp. 361–379). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G., & Fairfax, S. K. (2004). Land trusts and conservation easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology, 18, 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrisette, P. M. (2001). Conservation easements and the public good: Preserving the environment on private lands. Natural Resources Journal, 41, 373–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • NEPA Task Force. (2003). Report to the Council on Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA implementation. Washington, DC.

  • Nie, M. (2006a). Governing the Tongass: National forest conflict and political decision making. Environmental Law, 36, 385–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2006b). The 2005 National forest system land and resource management planning regulations: Comments and analysis. Public Land and Resources Law Review, 27, 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2008). The governance of western public lands: Mapping its present and future. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oversight Field Hearing Before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Cong. (2003). Management challenges on Montana’s National Forests, July 2.

  • Oversight Hearing (a), Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Cong. (2005). The impacts of environmental regulations on energy and mineral development: The Wildlands Project, June 16.

  • Oversight Hearing (b), Before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Cong. (2005). NEPA litigation: The causes, effects and solutions, November 10.

  • Oversight Field Hearing Before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Cong. (2005). The role of NEPA in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska, April 23.

  • Owen, D. (2002). Prescriptive laws, uncertain science, and political stories: Forest management in the Sierra Nevada. Ecology Law Quarterly, 29, 747–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, V. (1995). Natural resources management by litigation. In R. L. Knight & S. F. Bates (Eds.), A new century for natural resources management (pp. 209–220). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. D. (2006). Don’t Shoot, I’m not a lawyer!’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Montana Society of American Foresters, Missoula, MT, March 31.

  • Plater, Z. J. B., Abrams, R. H., Goldfarb, W., Graham, R. L., Heinzerling, L., & Wirth D. A. (2004). Environmental law and policy: Nature, law, and society. New York, NY: Aspen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plum Creek. (2000). Final Plum Creek Timber Company Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan.

  • Pralle, S. B. (2006). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quincy Library Group. (2007). Available at http://www.qlg.org. Accessed on April 2, 2007.

  • Rasband, J. R. (2004). Buying back the west. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, 24, 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, L., & Fairfax, S. K. (2002). The ‘Shift to Privatization’ in land conservation: A cautionary essay. Natural Resources Journal, 42, 599–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Red Lodge Clearinghouse. (2007). Available at http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org. Accessed on March 30, 2007.

  • Ring, R. (2005). Write-off on the range. High Country News, May 30.

  • Sandler, R., & Schoenbrod, D. (2003). Democracy by Decree: What happens when courts run government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. L. (1971). Defending the environment: A strategy for citizen action. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. L., & Keiter, R. B. (1987). Glacier National Park and its neighbors: A study of federal interagency relations. Ecology Law Quarterly, 14, 207–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. L., & Keiter, R. B. (2006). The realities of regional resource management: Glacier National Park and its neighbors revisited. Ecology Law Quarterly, 33, 233–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett, L. P. (2002). A new approach to conservation: The case for the four Cs. Natural Resources and Environment, 17, 73–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, M. L., Scott, J. M., & Casey, F. (2002). Noah’s options: Initial cost estimates of a national system of habitat conservation areas in the United States. BioScience, 52, 439–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher, V. M., & Hunting, C. S. (1991). Eroding the landscape, eroding the laws: Congressional exemptions from judicial review of environmental laws. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 15, 435–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sive, D. (1970). Some thoughts of an environmental lawyer in the wilderness of administrative law. Columbia Law Review, 70, 612–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sive, D. (2001/2002). The litigation process in the development of environmental law. Pace Environmental Law Review, 19, 727–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. D. (2006). Cumulative impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act: An analysis of recent case law. Environmental Practice, 8, 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snape III, W., & Carter, J. M. (2003). Weakening the National Environmental Policy Act: How the Bush Administration uses the judicial system to weaken environmental protection. Judicial Accountability Project and Defenders of Wildlife.

  • Snow, D. (2001). Coming home: An introduction to collaboration conservation. In P. Brick, D. Snow, & S. Bates Van de Wetering (Eds.), Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey, G. H., Bormann, B. T., Ryan, C., Shindler, B., Sturtevant, V., Clark, R. N., & Philpot, C. (2003). Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry, 101, 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, R. B. (2001). A new generation of environmental regulation. Capital University Law Review, 29, 21–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarlock, D. A. (2002). The future of environmental ‘Rule of Law’ litigation. Pace Environmental Law Review, 19, 575–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, J. (2003). Trying for balance at Interior Department. New York Times, June 9.

  • Thompson Jr., B. H. (2002). Providing biodiversity through policy diversity. Idaho Law Review, 38, 355–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, T. (1990). Wild by law: The Sierra Club legal defense fund and the places it has saved. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, T. (2002). Justice on Earth: Earth justice and the people it has served. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, T. (2004). Unsettling development. The Environmental Forum, 21, 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Michigan’s Ecosystem Management Initiative. (2007). Available at http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt//index.htm. Accessed on April 2, 2007.

  • U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (2002). The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect National Forest Management, Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1994). Conservation agreement among Plum Creek Timber Co, L.P. and Montana Department of State Lands and U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Flathead National Forest, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, February 23.

  • U.S. Forest Service. (2007). Available at USFS http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/index.shtml. Accessed on April. 2, 2007.

  • Vaughn, J., & Cortner, H. (2005). George W. Bush’s healthy forests: Reframing the environmental debate. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villamana, M. (2003). Enviros seek intervention rights in case challenging Sierra framework. Greenwire, April 24.

  • Vincent, B. (2006). Ash and smoke. Range Magazine, Fall.

  • Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology, 71, 2060–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. P. (2003). Bringing society back in: grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western Lands Project. (2007). Available at http://www.westlx.org. Accessed on April 6, 2007.

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinn, J. (2002). Land and water conservation fund: Current status and issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

Legal References

  • 66 Fed. Reg. 54,834, Oct. 30, 2001.

  • 68 Fed. Reg. 68,452, Dec. 8, 2003.

  • 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005.

  • 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, 1024, Jan. 5, 2005.

  • 71 Fed. Reg. 39,402; July 12, 2006.

  • 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, Aug. 23, 2007.

  • Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

  • American Forest and Paper Association v. Veneman, No. 1:01-cv-00871-GK (D.D.C.).

  • Beartooth Alliance v. Crown Butte Mines, 904 F. Supp. 1168 (D. Mont. 1995).

  • Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F. 2d 110 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (NEPA).

  • Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

  • Clean Air Act 42. U.S.C. §7604(a)(2).

  • Citizens for Better Forestry, et al., v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al., No. C 05-114 PJH.

  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).

  • Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, 357 F. 3d. 1130 (10th Cir. 2004).

  • Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) of 2000 (H.R. 701, 106th Cong.).

  • Defenders of Wildlife et al., v. Johanns, et al., No. C-04-4512 PJH, (D. N. Cal., 2007).

  • Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. §1531(b).

  • Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-58).

  • Equal Access to Justice Act 5. U.S.C. §504.

  • Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, H.R. 4200, 109th Cong.

  • Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. EPA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1209 (D. Mont. 2000).

  • Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F. 2d 841, 850-52 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

  • Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003) (Pub. L. No. 108-148).

  • International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association v. Norton, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Wyo. 2004).

  • Izaak Walton League of America v. Butz, 522 F. 2d. 945 (4th Cir. 1975).

  • Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Idaho 2001).

  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43-44 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F. 3d 900 (9th Cir., 1999).

  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 624 F. Supp. 1045, 1063 (D. Nev. 1985).

  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

  • Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965).

  • Seattle Audubon Society v. Robertson, 771 F. Supp. 1081 (W. D. Wash. 1991).

  • Seattle Audubon Society v. Mosely, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996).

  • Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1991).

  • Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons (1994), 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W. D. Wash. 1994).

  • Senate Document No. 115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).

  • Sierra Club v. Morton (405 U.S. 727, 1972).

  • Strickland v. Morton, 519 F. 2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1975).

  • Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978) (ESA).

  • Threatened and Endangered Species Act, H.R. 3824, 109th Cong.

  • Utah Shared Access Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 288 F. 3dd 1205 (10th Cir. 2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Holly Doremus, Christopher McGrory Klyza, Courtney Schultz, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful thoughts and suggestions. In no way are these individuals responsible for this article’s content and analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Nie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nie, M. The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation. Policy Sci 41, 139–164 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9060-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9060-4

Keywords

Navigation