2622 research outputs found
Sort by
Species Conservation & Recovery Through Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms
Full text linkThe world is experiencing its sixth episode of mass extinction of life. In rhetoric typically used by bloggers rather than scientists, the National Academy of Sciences reports that this biological annihilation is more dire than previously believed,\u27 and that the decimation of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services resulting from it is nothing less than a frightening assault on the foundations of human civilization. 2
Unlike previous episodes of mass extinction, this one is caused by human overpopulation, overconsumption, and anthropogenic climate change. The United States has been a world conservation leader for over a century, but its commitment to supporting biodiversity is flagging while its contributions to the causes of extinction, including responsibility for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions,\u27 are growing. Although the United States is only one player in this crisis, its legal mandates for biodiversity protection, including those contained in the Endangered Species Act,4 have proved essential for combatting extinction when assessed in the context of both global leadership and on-the-ground impacts.
Due to its broad influence on the field of biodiversity law and its overarching goal to conserve threatened and endangered species, this article focuses on the Endangered Species Act ( ESA or Act ) and analyzes whether and when regulatory mechanisms are adequate for conservation and recovery purposes under the Act. Within the United States, identifying effective measures for the coordination of conservation efforts across federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictional boundaries is critical for the preservation of species. To date, most of the attention on the efficacy of such measures has been focused on the prelisting phase and the private-public candidate conservation agreements aimed at forestalling or preventing the listing of an imperiled species. Little attention has been paid to the post-listing phase of species recovery and the critical question of whether the continued recovery of recently delisted species would be enhanced by keeping adequate regulatory mechanisms in place after the ESA\u27s statutory protections have fallen away. Strengthening provisions for species recovery requires political connectivity and coordination. In particular, the population health of apex predators such as grizzly bears and wolves, as well as many fish and bird species, depends on cooperation between the several entities charged with conservation responsibility
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass\u27n.
Full text linkThe United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Forest Service and Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, a company who planned to construct a natural gas pipeline under a section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail within the George Washington National Forest. The legal battle sought to clarify whether the United States Forest Service had the authority to grant the pipeline builder a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail. The Court ruled that the National Park Service holds an easement for administering the Appalachian Trail, but the land over which the trail crosses remains under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Therefore, under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Forest Service had the authority to grant Atlantic Coast Pipeline a pipeline right-of-way under the Appalachian Trail
Bullock v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt.
Full text linkA Montana District Court ruled that William Perry Pendley unlawfully served as the Director of BLM for 424 days and cast doubt on the legality of many BLM decisions made during that period. The ruling took a stronger stand against the Trump administration’s liberal and brash use of acting appointees than other, similar cases have
National Wildlife Federation v. Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation
Full text linkThe Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation in considering whether the district court erred in holding that an agency took a discretionary action when it approved oil spill response plans to a pipeline under the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. It held the Department of Transportation does not need to consider the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act requirements in their response plans as long as the Clean Water Act criteria for such plans are met