Endangered Species Act??

Question

Identify, define and discuss the significant provisions and operations of the endangered species act. Discuss inwhat ways the endangered Species act is unique in the area of enviromental law.

Answer 1

do your own homework.

Answer 2

Answer this: Why are you trying to get someone else to do your homework for you? The Endangered Species Act helps protect animals that need time to repopulate themselves. The Alligator is a fine example of this, as is the hawk.

Answer 3

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 or ESA was the most wide-ranging of the dozens of United States environmental laws passed in the 1970s. This act was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction due to "the consequences of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation".

In 1972 President Nixon declared the current approach inadequate[citation needed] and called on Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded by creating the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It was signed into law by Nixon on December 28, 1973. 1973 also saw the creation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement restricting international commerce in plant and animal species believed to be actually or potentially harmed by trade. The U.S. CITES list includes all species protected by the ESA in addition to species which are vulnerable but not yet threatened or endangered.

The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not only to protect species, but also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." It encompasses plants and invertebrates as well as vertebrates. It does not expressly include fungi, which were widely considered to be plants in 1973.

The ESA forbids Federal Agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions which may "jeopardize the continued existence of" endangered or threatened species. It forbids any government agency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or killing) endangered animals without a permit. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA also requires that "critical habitat" be designated for that species, including areas necessary to recover the species. Federal agencies are forbidden from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action which "destroys or adversely modifies" critical habitat.

ESA is administered by two federal agencies, the FWS and NOAA Fisheries (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS). NOAA Fisheries handles marine species, and the FWS has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species. Species that occur in both habitats (e.g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon) are jointly managed.

The Act contains a citizen suit clause, (Section 11) which allows citizens to sue the government to enforce the law. The first major legal challenge was over the Tennessee Valley Authority's Tellico Dam and Tellico Reservoir, which threatened to extirpate the snail darter fish. See snail darter controversy for more information.

The ESA only protects species which are officially listed as "threatened" or "endangered". A species can be listed in two ways. The first is for the FWS or NOAA Fisheries to take the initiative and directly list the species. The second is via individual or organizational petition which prompts FWS or NMFS to conduct a scientific review. There are two categories on the list, endangered and threatened. Endangered species are closer to extinction than threatened species. A third status is that of "candidate species". Under this status, the FWS has concluded that listing is warranted but immediate listing is precluded due to other priorities (limited time, perhaps political pressure to delay listing).

The annual rate of listing (i.e. classifying species as "threatened" or "endangered") increased steadily from the Ford administration through Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, but declined under Bush II. The rate of listing is strongly correlated with citizen involvement and mandatory timelines: as agency discretion decreases and citizen involvement increases (i.e. filing of petitions and lawsuits) the rate of listing increases. The recent decline in the listing rate has likely harmed species since the longer species are listed, the more likely they are to be classified as recovering by the FWS.

Many species have become extinct while on the candidate list or otherwise under consideration for listing; very few have become extinct while listed as threatened or endangered.

Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act describes the violations and penalties that may be enforced under law. The United States Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating are the bodies of the federal government responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plays the predominant role in law enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.

Penalties: There are different degrees of violation with the law. The most punishable offense is enforced upon those who knowingly break the law through acts of importing or exporting, taking, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping—essentially trafficking endangered species without permission from the Secretary.Any act of knowingly “taking” (which includes harming, wounding, or killing) an endangered species is also subject to the same penalty. The penalties for these violations can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, may be assessed. Also note that as your violation history accumulates, you are subject to larger fines and penalties. For lists of violations and exact fines (because fines are based on the degree of the violation) there is a table availalbe through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration web-site. An important provision of this law is that no penalty may be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered species or threatened species. The law also eliminates criminal penalties for accidentally killing listed species during farming and ranching activities.

Further punishment besides fines and imprisonment can be in the form of revokation, suspension, or modification of a license, permit, or other agreement issued by a Federal Agency, that authorized a person to import or export fish, wildlife, or plants. Any federal hunting or fishing permits that were issued to a person who violates the ESA can be canceled or suspended for up to a year by the Secretary who will not be held responsible for any losses that ensue.

What the Secretary does with monies received through violations of the ESA: A reward will be paid to any person who furnishes information which leads to an arrest, conviction, or revocation of a license, so long as they are not a local, state, or federal employee in the performance of official duties. The Secretary may also provide reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the care of fish, wildlife, or plant pending the violation caused by the criminal. If the balance ever exceeds $500,000 the Secretary of the Treasury is required to deposit an amount equal to the excess into the cooperative endangered species conservation fund.

Mitigation for Endangered Species Violations: A person may apply for an HCP (Habitat Conservation Plans) if they know they want to develop an area that already has endangered species present. They are required to apply through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to the species.

Valuation of Species: In a sense, these fines reflect our society's value of endangered species. There has been a lot of interesting research done on the contingent valuation of endangered species and other cost-benefit analyses of the Endangered Species Act which attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of preserving endangered species.The extent to which our government punishes and provides funds for enforcing the laws of the ESA reflect the degree to which extinction of species is a priority to our society.

The Executive branch has successfully intervened to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Federal biologists determined that at the Klamath region in Oregon, the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: water could not be cutoff from the river because the survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake. In 2001, the vice president's office intervened on the behalf of farmers needing the irrigation water, and, according to aides, d**k Cheney set in motion a process to challenge the scientific conclusions reached by the federal scientists. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

FWS and NOAA Fisheries are required to create a Recovery Plan outlining the goals, tasks required, likely costs, and estimated timeline to recover endangered species (i.e. increase their numbers and improve their management to the point where they can be removed from the endangered list). The ESA does not specify when a recovery plan must be completed. The FWS has a policy specifying completion within three years of the species being listed, but the average time to completion is approximately six years. The annual rate of recovery plan completion increased steadily from the Ford administration through Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, but declined under Bush II.

Recovery plans benefit species as indicated by the fact that the longer species have recovery plans, the more likely they are to be classified as improving.The benefit, however, appears to be limited to single-species oriented plans; large multi-species, ecosystem-based plans are not correlated with improving status; perhaps due to their lack of specificity.

As habitat loss is the primary threat to most imperiled species, the original ESA of 1973 allowed the FWS and NOAA Fisheries to designate specific areas as protected "critical habitat" zones. In 1978, Congress amended the ESA to require designation for all threatened and endangered species except those which might by harmed by the publication of such maps. Congress indicated that the exception should rarely be invoked.

Critical habitats are required to contain "all areas essential to the conservation" of the target species. Such lands may be private or public. The ESA is mute as to whether critical habitats may encompass lands outside of U.S. jurisdiction, but the FWS has adopted a policy limiting designation to lands and waters within the U.S. The FWS and NOAA Fisheries may exclude essential areas if they determine that economic or other costs exceed the benefit. The ESA is mute about how such costs and benefits are to be determined.

Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats. While the regulatory aspect of critical habitat does not apply directly to private and other non-federal landowners, large-scale development, logging and mining projects on private and state land typically require a federal permit and thus become subject to critical habitat regulations. Outside or in parallel with regulatory processes, critical habitats also focus and encourage voluntary actions such as land purchases, grant making, restoration, and establishment of reserves.

The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated at the time of or within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list. In practice, most designations occur several years after listing. Between 1978 and 1986 the FWS regularly designated critical habitat. In 1986 the Reagan Administration issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat. As a result, few critical habitats were designated between 1986 and the late 1990s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NOAA Fisheries to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California and other western states. Midwest and Eastern states received less critical habitat, primarily on rivers and coastlines. As of December, 2006, the Reagan regulation has not yet been replaced though its use has been suspended. Nonetheless, the agencies have generally changed course and since about 2005 have tried to designate critical habitat at or near the time of listing.

Most provisions of the ESA revolve around preventing extinction. Critical habitat is one of the few that focuses on recovery. Species with critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as species without critical habitat.

Habitat Conservation Plans

In 1982, Congress amended the ESA to enhance the permitting provisions of the act, and intended, in part, to provide landowners with incentives to participate in endangered species conservation. Pursuant to these provisions, by preparing "conservation plans" that meet statutory criteria, private landowners can obtain "incidental take permits" that allow otherwise prohibited impacts to endangered, threatened and other species covered in the permitting documents. Each conservation plan must specify: the impacts to species that will occur; the steps taken to minimize and mitigate the incidental take; the funding available; alternative actions that we considered, but not taken; and other necessary and appropriate measures. After review of a proposed conservation plan, FWS or NOAA Fisheries may issue an incidental take permit upon making the statutorily required "findings," including a determination that the incidental taking "will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild." The Endangered Species Act also empowers FWS or NOAA Fisheries to include "terms and conditions" in the incidental take permits as necessary or appropriate. Among those terms and conditions are "no surprises assurances," issued in accordance with Federal regulations. These regulations allow for assurances to be given to private landowners that if "unforeseen circumstances" arise, FWS or NOAA Fisheries will not require the commitment of land, water or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the levels otherwise agreed to in the conservation plan, without the consent of the permittee. The No Surprises regulations are the subject of ongoing Federal court litigation.

As of April 3, 2007, 41 species have been delisted; sixteen due to recovery, nine due to extinction (seven of which were extinct prior to being listed), nine due to changes in taxonomic classification, five due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. Twenty-three others have been downlisted from "endangered" to "threatened" status. Some have argued that the recovery of DDT-threatened species such as the bald eagle, brown pelican and peregrine falcon should be attributed to the 1973 congressional ban on DDT rather than the Endangered Species Act, however, the listing of these species as endangered was a substantial cause of congress instituting the ban and many non-DDT oriented actions were taken on their behalf under the Endangered Species Act (i.e. captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance).

Few species have become extinct while listed under the Endangered Species Act, and 93% have had their population sizes increase or remain stable since being listed as threatened or endangered. As of April 3, 2007, there are 1,326 species on the threatened and endangered lists.

Answer 4

this asking thing on yahoo is for advice and asking questions and stuff. Not so you can get people to do your hw for you.

Answer 5

This monumental and groundbreaking legislation was signed into law by President Nixon in December of 1973. The endangered Species Act (or ESA) finally enabled federal agencies like NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce the protection of threatened species. Further, the ESA gave these bodies the power to protect vitally important habitat; develop and implement sweeping conservation programs; and carry out restoration programs.

The act also has provisions to allow citizens and NGOs the ability to seek civil litigation (or redress) to help protect the tenants of the ESA. The most infamous of these efforts was the halt of logging in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest -- to help save the spotted owl.

Additional provisions within the ESA allow for stiff fines and penalties for those found violating the act. This is what gave the ESA real teeth and the ability to be realistically enforced.

The current "administration" has repeatedly tried to undermine the ESA -- more so then any other predecessor. Fortunately a growing ground swell of support for the ESA and a renewed interest in conservation has halted the majority of their efforts.