Endangered Species Act

Introduction

The threatened Species proceed (ESA) of 1973 defends plants and animals that are recorded by the federal government as "endangered" or "threatened.” Two sections, § 7 and § 9, are central. ESA § 9 makes it unlawful for any person to "take" a recorded animal, and this encompasses considerably modifying its habitat. This concerns to private parties and private land; a landowner is not permitted to damage an threatened animal or its environment on his property.

Section 7 applies not to private parties but to federal agencies, but it covers their issuing permits for private activities, such as § 404 permits issued by the Corps of Engineers to persons who want to manage construction work in waters or wetlands. Specifically, § 7 imposes an affirmative obligation on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) are not probable to jeopardize the proceeded existence of a listed species (plant or animal) or result in the destruction or modification of critical habitat. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(a). Both § 7 and § 9 allow minor" takes, but only with a permit.

The ESA is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the nationwide Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). In the Act, "Secretary" mentions to the Secretary of Commerce, portraying through the NMFS for marine species recorded in 50 C.F.R. § 222.23(a) (endangered) and § 227.4 (threatened), or to the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other plants and animals (see 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.2(b), 402.01(b)). Also, the Secretary of Agriculture has some authority over the trading and exporting of plants.

The ESA has so much potential to affect private house that it provokes heated debate and, sometimes, alarming newspaper headlines. Three situations in particular have become famous. The first was the Tellico Dam, which was started before the ESA was enacted in 1973. The task came to a halt when the Secretary of the Interior declared a small fish called the snail darter to be endangered. Its habitat was considered to be restricted to the part of the Little Tennessee River that was to be inundated by the reservoir behind the dam. The case reached the Supreme Court, which resolved that the ESA needed it to stop construction of the dam, even though $53 million had already been spent. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill , 437 U.S. 153 (1978). Eventually Congress directed  that the Tellico Dam be accomplished, and President Carter turned down to veto the bill. Meanwhile populations of the snail darter had been transplanted to other nearby rivers, and clues of other natural populations of them had been discovered as well. The snail darter was upgraded to only "threatened" in 1984.

The second famous case was the 1990 listing of the to the north spotted owl as endangered, with the result that millions of acres of Pacific Northwest forests became defended habitat. See Robertson v. Seattle Audubon humanity , 503 U.S. 429 (1992). The timber industry was alarmed at the loss of millions ...